http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7839341

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7839349

Contradiction within the IEEE

Conflation 2

The Phys. Ed. paper ; Beware of the (irrelevant) Bull “Let us make this concept rigorous”

Another "Conflation" page

Conflation.

"Catt's Anomaly" by Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 6, December 2012, pp 240 – 241.

The authors conflated "The Catt Question" , about classical electromagnetic theory, with Catt’s own theories , with some embroidering of the latter, for instance saying “in his opinion, charge doesn’t exist!”.

Catt had published extensively in IEEE journals up to 1967. (The Italians call Catt “an engineer and amateur scientist”. Giuseppe Pelosi, Associate Editor, says Catt is “moving outside of academia and structured research”.) Then, apart from two short pieces in ProcIEEE in the 1980s, he was totally rejected for publication by all peer reviewed journals throughout the world for the next 50 years, both for his own theories and for his questions about classical theory. For more than ten years, no student in the world would take up Catt’s published offer of £500 to the first student who asked his expert lecturer to write something about “The Catt Question”. During those 50 years he was massively published in non-peer reviewed journals, for instance every month for ten years in Wireless World, circulation then 60,000 – a total of six million issues.

In the 1980s Catt accepted that his new work was unacceptable to what Bruce Charlton calls "the peer review cartel" , so he resorted to asking questions about the details of (the cartel’s) classical theory, in particular “The Catt Question”, which was discovered in 1981. The Italians purport to be writing about it, calling it “Catt’s Anomaly”. (Two decades ago, “The Catt Question” had unfortunately been called “The Catt Anomaly”, the anomaly being that accredited experts contradicted each other. There was no assertion that there was anything wrong with classical theory, only that it was not clearly defined).

The Italians describe Sir Michael Pepper FRS as “a renowned physicist”, but two paragraphs later (correctly) dismiss his (southerner) answer to “The Catt Question” as “incompatible with Gauss’s Law”. In his turn, in his letter to me, Pepper (correctly) dismisses the Italians’ (westerner) answer to “The Catt Question”, saying; 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.In contrast, the Italians write;Physically, a current follows the field traveling at the speed c, but this current is due to a great number of slowly moving electrons. . The Italians and Pepper both contradict each other, and dismiss each others’ answers. [ Morgenthaler , Fellow of the IEEE], Professor Secker and Bas Lago of the IEE/IET support Pepper .

In their article in “Physics Education”, entitled “An apparent paradox: Catt’s Anomaly”, the Italians write; “ .... it is curious and very intriguing, and able to capture the attention of students .... .... The subject is understandable at the knowledge level of secondary school students. The most advanced concept involved is Gauss’s Law.”

It is not understandable at that level. Professors and the Italians have great difficulty in grasping “The Catt Question”. This is because it is about the stark reality of the physics of a single step going down a USB transmission line, not the arcane mathematics of a sine wave. A professor with a reasonable grasp of Displacement Current might do better with The Second Catt Question.

References and an animation of “The Catt Question” are at www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieee.htm

Ivor Catt  30 October 2015

Ad Hominem

Bruce Charlton

 Selleri

Professor Pelosi , who edited the defamatory article by his colleagues, will block my reply, which the Editor, Professor Mahta Moghaddam, has put him in charge of. The authors Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri are his colleagues at Florence University.

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The butchered version, to be published in 2017?

Reasons for butchery of “Conflation”

Received from IEEE 18sep16, first read by Catt on return from abroad on 6 Oct16

Conflation

"Catt's Anomaly" by Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 6, December 2012, pp 240 – 241.

The authors conflate “The Catt Question”, about classical electromagnetic theory, with Catt’s own theories. They embroider the latter, for instance saying “in his opinion, charge doesn’t exist!”

In the 1980s Catt started asking questions about the details of classical theory, in particular “The Catt Question”, which was discovered in 1981. Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri purport to be writing about it, referring to it as the “Catt’s Anomaly”. (Two decades ago, “The Catt Question” had unfortunately been called “The Catt Anomaly”, the anomaly being that accredited experts contradicted each other. There was no assertion that there was anything wrong with classical theory, only that it was not clearly defined).

There are two contradictory answers to “The Catt  Question.”. Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri describe Sir Michael Pepper as “a renowned physicist,”, but two paragraphs later, without attributing it to him, (correctly) dismiss his answer to “The Catt Question” as “incompatible with Gauss’s Law.”. In his turn, in his letter to me, Pepper (correctly) dismisses Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri’s answer to “The Catt Question”, saying, “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.” In contrast, Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri write, “Physically, a current follows the field traveling at the speed c, but this current is due to a great number of slowly moving electrons.”. Thus, Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri contradict Sir Michael Pepper, and vice versa.  Professor Secker and Bas Lago of the IEEE/IET support Pepper.

 In their article in “Physics Education”, entitled “An apparent paradox: Catt’s Anomaly,”, the Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri write, “. . . it is curious and very intriguing, and able to capture the attention of students . . . The subject is understandable at the knowledge level of secondary school students. The most advanced concept involved is Gauss’s Law.”

It is not understandable at that level. Professors have great difficulty in grasping “The Catt Question”. This is because it is about the stark reality of the physics of a single step going down a USB transmission line, not the arcane mathematics of a sine wave. A professor with a reasonable grasp of Displacement Current might do better with The Second Catt Question.

References and an animation of “The Catt Question” are at www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieee.htm .

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Brian Josephson 

from Brian Josephson [Nobel prize winner]
Mind-Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory
Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
-------------------
On 20 Jun 2016, at 23:52, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once bitten twice shy
Yes. Beware of the Catt, one might put it.
Brian J.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 13 October 2016

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.

My paper will not mention the Italians' papers , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf ,   http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59v.pdf , which comprehensively defamed me and misrepresented my work. My reply, "Conflation", http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm , will also 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

 

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

7 October 2016

 

Mahta Moghaddam

2:34 PM (2 hours ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

to me, Christina, Giuseppe, stefano.selleri, massimiliano.p., Anthony, Alex, Forrest, Brian, Bruce, Christopher, Christopher, Benedict, Malcolm, David, David, David, David, erin.pizzey, foggitt, Gary, HARRY, Hock, Jennifer, harold.hillman

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

Dr. Catt,

 

You have done it once again: you are dragging someone who is in no way party to your old disputes (first me, and now, Ms. Tang-Bernas, the excellent AP Magazine Editorial Assistant), into this. You have emailed a confidential set of correspondences to a group of 40 recipients most of whom are unknown to me and to Ms. Tang-Bernas, and you have misrepresented the situation by calling the correctly edited version of your article - which you yourself have **APPROVED** yesterday- a “butchered” version. I find all of the above appalling. 

 

Let me repeat that you have already approved the version that Ms. Tang-Bernas sent to you on my behalf, and despite all of your distasteful actions and words, we still plan to publish it in the next available issue of the AP Magazine (February 2017, since you missed our clearly stated deadline). If you have changed your mind and do not want the article to be published, just say the word and I will be happy to hold its publication. In either case, I ask you once again to stop the abusive hampering, and please do NOT repeat to me what you have already said numerous times about the 2012 APM article.

 

Respectfully,

Mahta Moghaddam

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Caught in the headlights

 

Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>

Oct 10 (4 days ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

to Mahta, me, Christina, Giuseppe, stefano.selleri, massimiliano.p., Anthony, Alex, Brian, Bruce, Christopher, Christopher, Benedict, Malcolm, David, David, David, David, erin.pizzey, foggitt, Gary, HARRY, Hock, Jennifer, harold.hillman

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

Ms. Moghaddam,

What is the basis of your claim that "Ms. Tang-Bernas, the excellent AP Magazine Editorial Assistant"? What do you mean by "excellent"?

Has Ivor Catt breached a Confidentiality Agreement between himself and yourself and/or your affiliated Parties? If so, we can certainly prosecute this breach under US law.

 

[No “Confidentiality Agreement”. This game is usually played. Note “Confidential” and “Not confidential” in  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf    Ivor Catt]


In what regard has Ivor Catt misrepresented the situation by describing the edited article as "butchery"? What precisely do you mean by your use of the phrase "correctly edited"?

Respectfully,

Forrest Bishop

 

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

"we still plan to publish it in the next available issue of the AP Magazine " - Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Editor.

I have pointed out the relevant part of the IEEE Code of Ethics to Professor Pelosi. See Clause 7. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64q.htm . "to acknowledge and correct errors"   If you do not publish, you will breach your IEEE code of ethics.

There is a clear error in the original Pieraccini article, which calls Pepper "a renowned scientist" but then falsely states that he is a "Westerner", supporting Pieraccini [Note 1]. Pieraccini has read the letter Pepper's wrote to me; Pieraccini writes; "In his own [Catt's] book [4], he cites several personal communications. One is a 1993 letter by Sir Michael Pepper (born August 10, 1942), a renowned physicist active in semicon ductors." - Pieraccini, In Pepper's letter he clearly states that he is a Southerner. Pepper says that charge coming from the west would have to travel at the speed of light, which is impossible. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm  "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. " - Pepper

Note 1. The Westerner case; ".... 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"  - Pieraccini

There are other ways in which the IEEE Code of Ethics are breached by the original Pieraccini article, for example the repeated use of defamation. These breaches are covered by the Code's clauses 2 and 9. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cz2.htm

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@

This is no laughing matter.

In Umberto Eco’s novel “The Name of the Rose”, the problem was to suppress the fact that “Jesus laughed”, which was thought to undermine Christianity, and had to be suppressed.

It would have been more impressive if in his novel the mere Question, “Did Jesus laugh?” had to be suppressed.

“The Catt Question” was not an assertion that there was anything wrong with Received Electromagnetic Theory, which is called “Classical Electrodynamics”. It was merely an appeal for clarification of “Classical Electrodynamics”;

It is a pity that Eco did not think up the idea that the book which had to be destroyed merely asked whether Jesus laughed. The Eco book went further, and said that Jesus laughed.

In the case of electrodynamics, even requests for clarification of the dogma have to be suppressed, as was “The Catt Question” for thirty or fifty years. The Italians broke the rules, and in pursuit of “Publish or Perish” published defamatory ridicule of “The Catt Question” which misrepresents the Question. Nobody can foresee what will happen next. Probably nothing.

 Jackson “Classical Electrodynamics”; 

Description

A revision of the defining book covering the physics and classical mathematics necessary to understand electromagnetic fields in materials and at surfaces and interfaces. The third edition has been revised to address the changes in emphasis and applications that have occurred in the past twenty years.

 

An editor who publishes an article which contains the statement “A capacitor is a Transmission Line” thereby ends his editorial career; certainly if the article mentions Displacement Current.

 

Will Mahta Moghaddam please undertake to publish this statement? It is crucial.

 

Perhaps we should merely ask her to take the lesser risk of publishing the Question; “Is a capacitor a transmission line?” I suggest that even that would lose her her job as editor.

 

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b2.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf

 

Ivor Catt

 

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0113.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/64maychiao.htm

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

1 November 2016

Ivor Catt 

10:27 PM (12 hours ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

to Mahta, Giuseppe, stefano.selleri, massimiliano.p., Christina, bcc: Stephen, bcc: Forrest, bcc: Christopher, bcc: Christopher, bcc: Malcolm, bcc: John, bcc: David, bcc: David, bcc: Tony, bcc: John, bcc: Greg, bcc: Gary, bcc: HARRY, bcc: Hock, bcc: jack.dinsdale, bcc: John, bcc: Krystof, bcc: Lukas, bcc: Monika, bcc: Monica

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

Dear Editors, Professors Mahta Moghaddam and Giuseppe Pelosi,

I recall that you said (3) the Pieraccini/Stefano reply to (2) my answer entitled "Conflation" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm  to (1) their original article is confidential, so I just give the beginning and end of it below so as to identify it.

Their "reply" (identified below) to "Conflation" is idiotic, and I strongly recommend that you two give them the chance to try again. I note that you have delayed publishing it until next year.

Ivor Catt

 

(3) We confirm our explanations of “The Catt Question” published in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 242-244, December 2012) and Physical Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013). There may be differing or opposing opinions; .... .... .... as the last five centuries of scientific achievements have largely demonstrated.

M. Pieraccini and S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence, Italy 20 May 2015

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

December 2016  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6c4.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

For some reason “Response to Dr. Catt” is confidential until February 2017.

*Response to Dr. Catt***************

 We confirm our explanations of “The Catt Question” published in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 242-244, December 2012) and Physical Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013). .... .... Practice of Science is not based on the principle of authority, but on plausibility of argumentations, experimental evidence, and on the consensus of the scientific community expressed by the peer-review process .... ....

M. Pieraccini and S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence, Italy 20 May 2015

This is their reply to the original (unbutchered) version of “Conflation”, above.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

*Response to Dr. Catt***************

 We confirm our explanations of “The Catt Question” published in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 242-244, December 2012) and Physical Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013). There may be differing or opposing opinions; we do not see a problem if such differences exist as long as they are backed by scientific justification. Practice of Science is not based on the principle of authority, but on plausibility of argumentations, experimental evidence, and on the consensus of the scientific community expressed by the peer-review process. Dr. Catt disputes the mathematical explanation we provided, naming it “arcane” and asking to focus on the “stark reality,” but quantitative analyses, based on experimentally verified and generally accepted mathematical theories, is indeed the main tool we have to understand reality, as the last five centuries of scientific achievements have largely demonstrated.

M. Pieraccini and S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence, Italy 20 May 2015

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ivor Catt   7 January 2017

Note the mention of “peer-review”.

The Peer Review Cartel

Why did Pieraccini break rank? He said Catt should continue to not exist, yet he published on Catt.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf   The academic word did not take Catt seriously much. This was not only because most of Catt’s publications were often in technical and not scientific journals.

So Establishment “scientists” can dismiss Catt because (allegedly) he did not get past peer review. However, the outsider Catt was not permitted to make the same point. Part of the butchering of Catt’s “Conflation” (above) was to prevent Catt from saying he was blocked by peer review; “ .... apart from two short pieces in ProcIEEE in the 1980s, he was totally rejected for publication by all peer reviewed journals throughout the world for the next 50 years, both for his own theories and for his questions about classical theory.” The behaviour of the "Peer Review Cartel" is extraordinary. It was not the same man who did the two things – saying that Catt could not get past peer review, but did not allow Catt himself to say so. However, the two sources, Pieraccini and Pelosi, are in the same Department in Florence University, and Associate Editor Pelosi promoted Pieraccini’s novel.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x723.htm