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: massimiliano.pieraccini@unifi.it;
stefano.selleri@unifi.it
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
semicon ductors.
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.
The
paper will not mention the Italians' papers , 2 ,
which comprehensively defamed me and falsified my work, and this will be
forgotten. My response, "Conflation" , will be forgotten.
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.
Ivor Catt
Index to Ivor Catt's work on
electromagnetic theory