To Dr.Calder, Editor, ProcIEEE

Editor Dunkley – of the top UK journal.

Where are they?

Dear Dr. Calder,

A couple of years ago you said you would carefully study a paper submitted by me, and get back to me next week. (The paper is now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.htm ) . I predicted that you would not get back to me, and was correct in this prediction. You finally sent me an email perhaps a year later. This is discussed here; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm

I published a paper in an IEEE journal in 1966. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97sglit5.htm . Later Professor Kinniment said that no one else could publish on the subject for a further 7 years – the subject was suppressed. http://www.async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesitates-is-Lost.pdf . I alone succeeded in passing peer review by giving my paper a misleading title.

I did publish a major paper in an IEEE journal, 20 pages, in 1967. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm

I also published two short papers in the journal you edit, ProcIEEE, in the 1980s. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf

For the next 30 years there has been a total embargo on my work.

The paper you refused to either accept or reject is now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.htm

I gave up trying to publish my work, and instead looked into the classical theory. The difficulties for classical electromagnetic theory have recently mounted up. “The Catt Question”, an elementary question in classical electromagnetism, was never answered properly. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Two further questions have recently arisen which put further pressure on classical electrodynamics. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37c.htm . They point to further obvious flaws in classical theory.

Finally, we have “The Wakefield Experiment”, published April 2013, where experimental results undermine a key element in classical electrodynamics, that a charged capacitor has a stationary electric field. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf

After 30 years of rejection, I have given up on the peer review process, although I suspect that when I submitted my 2011 paper http://www.ivorcatt.org/x111.pdf you did not even send it to referees.

Perhaps you can resolve this impasse. One idea would be to allow me a very short note in ProcIEEE containing a www address, which would be a route to my 50 years of work for readers of ProcIEEE, which you edit.

[September 2016. No reply yet from Calder.]

Another idea is that you submit “The Catt Questions” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37c.htm or “The Wakefield Experiment” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf to the experts you use for peer review on electromagnetic theory, and judge their replies. I predict that they will not reply. (I would of course love to see any replies. { The Clarendon reply })

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf

Ivor Catt 12 July 2013