Peer reviewed journals and "The Catt Question" .
Comments on the peer reviewed article;
Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri (P&S)
Department of Electronics and Telecommunications
University of Florence
Via S. Marta 3, Florence, Italy
E-mail: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 6, December 2012
The authors cite my 1995 book, which makes clear that the problem, or anomaly, is the contradictory statements by accredited experts as to what the details of classical electromagnetism are. In spite of reading my book, they seem to think that what they call “Catt’s Anomaly” is a claim that there are fundamental errors in classical electromagnetism, and also that under the title “The Catt Anomaly”, or “The Catt Question”, I am promoting my own theories, which I am not.
Imagine someone trying to get clarification of details in Phlogiston Theory, asking a question about it, and finding the response being the introduction, and ridiculing of, oxidation theory. This is what the authors of "Catt's Anomaly" , Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri [P&S] , do in the case of a question about classical electromagnetism when they introduce Catt theories. The same sort of confusion results as it would if phlogiston and oxidation were mixed up together. It is of course most unfortunate that "The Catt Question" was initially called “The Catt Anomaly”, which name opened up the opportunity to wrongly think "The Catt Question" alleged that something was wrong with classical electromagnetism. It did not. It merely asked for clarification of classical electromagnetism, and did not involve theories by Catt, which Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri have wrongly introduced into what they call "Catt's Anomaly" . They cite my book "The Catt Anomaly", in which, on page 1, it this made clear that the anomaly is the contradiction between accredited experts, and their refusal to address their contradictions, and has nothing to do with any theories of my own. In 1996 I was already regretting misnaming “The Catt Question” as “The Catt Anomaly”, as we see in my book "The Catt Anomaly" , page 1.
Perhaps more properly called 'The E-M Question', the Catt Anomaly is an elementary question about classical electromagnetism which experts refuse to answer in writing. We will first consider the contradiction between Pepper and McEwan, and the response of London's Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) to the problem created by this contradiction.
Here is a 2003 Editorial, which makes the same point;
“The point about the Catt Anomaly has, says Ivor, nothing to do with his theory. It is an anomaly between rival textbooks and professors [Pepper and McEwan]. They will answer his polite query in their condescending authoritative manner until they are told that their ‘explanation’ is the exact opposite of that taken by other authors and professors . Then they cannot be induced to communicate with one another to resolve the problem.” – Editorial, Electronics World, August 2003, p3.
In the first peer reviewed article, after 30 years, which they call "Catt's Anomaly" , the authors hopelessly confuse “The Catt Question” with theories of my own. My theories culminate in “Theory C”; 1 , 2 . It is not clear whether this obfuscation is intentional. It is very effective. Once we decide Catt’s own theories are ridiculous, we can ignore his question about classical electromagnetism, which has already been ignored for 30 years. That is, we can ignore the fact that what the present authors call renowned experts disagree in their answers to the Question, and refuse to discuss their disagreement. So we will continue to not have a Classical Electromagnetism, because in order for it to exist, it has to be stated. Still, there are contradictory answers to the Question as to where, in Classical Electromagnetism, the electric charge comes from on the bottom conductor.
Ivor Catt, 12 April 2015.
It is extraordinary that in the above comment last month I missed the key point, which was the subterfuge of the IEEE authors separating (1) saying that Pepper was a renowned physicist from (2) Pepper’s reply to “The Catt Question”, which the authors dismiss as contravening Gauss’s Law; “Besides some wrong explanations incompatible with Gauss’ Law”. Also of course, Pepper dismisses the authors’ “Westerner” comment on “The Catt Question” as impossible. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm ; Pepper; “As the wave travels at light velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible.”
The authors P&S separate Pepper’s “renown” from his answer to Cattq, which they dismiss in a later paragraph. Further, Pepper dismisses their own P&S answer. Both parties dismiss the answer of the other party.
P&S; One is a 1993 letter by Sir Michael
Pepper (born August 10, 1942), a renowned physicist active in
P&S; Besides some wrong explanations incompatible with
Gauss’ Law, most of the answers agreed in considering the
problem not to be an anomaly at all. They explained the
phenomenon by resorting to the very high number of electrons
in the metal, which can follow the TEM wave at a speed of c,
generating an appropriate current, even if each single electron
moved at a drift velocity much smaller than c. Indeed, what the
theory requires is an appropriate current. However, current is
the product of charge density and speed: where there is a high
charge density, the speed could also be very slow. Physically, a
current follows the field traveling at the speed c, but this current
is due to a great number of slowly moving electrons.
Ivor Catt 5 March 2015
11 October 2016
5:59 PM (17 hours ago)
Dear Professor Mahta Moghaddam,
I am not happy with this mess, which damages me and damages the IEEE.
You did not answer me when I proposed that you solve the problem by inviting me to write a paper on electromagnetic theory, to be edited only by you.
I will further clarify my proposal, but first point out that going through the submission steeplechase and then through peer review is a waste of time. Peer review and IEEE and other editors worldwide have almost unanimously blocked me from publishing for fifty years.
My proposal is that you invite me to write a paper and send it to you, and it be only edited by you.
You will specify maximum length of my paper, which could be as short as fifty words, but of course I would prefer more. It will be published as an invited paper.
I look forward to your response.