Compare and contrast Pieraccini with Pieraccini.
Di Trocchio 1997 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x68z4.htm ”I'm probably the most famous person who works in the field, but none of the competent never will admit that he had heard or read something of my theories, I will want to expose themselves to commentaries favorably or unfavorably. In particular, no one will admit that he had heard of '' anomaly Catt, "which I made in 1987, and on which the bottom of my arguments.”
The smoking gun. 1 and 2
Only discovered by Ivor Catt on 27 August 2016. Why?
1 Pieraccini 2012 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf “The academic world did not take Catt seriously much. This was not only because most of Catt’s publications were often in technical and not scientific journals.”
2 Pieraccini 2011 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
In his novel "L'anomalia" , Massimo, who my translator says represents its author Massimiliano Pieraccini, says;
“M «Are you kidding?» “Nobody with an ounce of common sense would risk their career and scientific reputation to study the Catt anomaly” Massimo thought, “and even if they were spending time on this, they wouldn’t be telling people about it”.”
Real Science is not like religion. As to religion, it may be damaging for a priest to ask questions, for instance; “What is the role of a Trinity in a monotheistic religion?”
As to statements, can the following statement(s) be published in any peer reviewed journal in the world? - "A capacitor is a transmission line" or i=qc , or A capacitor does not have a self resonant frequency . Can a statement that one of these statements is wrong, be published?
We find that the Italian professors Pelosi, Pieraccini, Selleri, have severally perhaps 100 peer reviewed articles to their names. Publication of peer reviewed articles is linked with promotion, "research" funding , and reputation. Peer review was instituted to block error and defamation. They pioneered getting past (unpaid) peer review by turning peer review on its head. They found that if there was enough falsification and defamation early in an article, an article would get past (unpaid) peer review. If very early in their article the peer reviewer was reassured that the article did not threaten established dogma, the peer reviewer need read no further. So their latest article reassured the reviewer by their title, which was altered from "Catt's Anomaly" to An apparent paradox; "Catt's anomaly" . Thus, the later article threw no doubt on dogma by its title, whereas the (unpaid) peer reviewer had to read beyond the title of the previous article, until he reached “amateurs and bizarre men away from academia,” in the first paragraph.
Ivor Catt 27 August 2016
14 December 2015
The paper that was published was a defamation. That particular defamation is only one of the issues. It is certainly correct that the editor of this journal ought to retract those offensive statements. The Italians have also put themselves on the wrong side of science history. Lets hope that Mahta doesn't want to be there as well. But we have to give her a break. Poor Mahta! You have her between a rock and a hard place. It is unfortunate for her that science history is going to look back on her participation with an entirely negative light, because the experimental facts are against the position that she appears to be defending. I would certainly hope that she is not acting is a biased manner and that she will not wind up in science history in the role of the bad guy standing against scientific progress. On the other hand she cannot publish what Catt says because the entire scientific establishment of her peers is against changing the electron current paradigm of electricity. That is unfortunate because that paradigm is obviously not consistent with the experimental facts.
This is not a new dilemma for people tied to the science establishment in order to keep their jobs. Being forced to choose between defending the establishment or standing in the way blocking the progress of a new paradigm is a difficult choice for the editors of science journals. So we need to give her a break in this controversy. She doesn't understand the new paradigm that is forcing the issue regarding the Catt Question, and probably never will. History has put her in a tight spot. Lets credit her as having some integrity and lay off. It is not her fault that she doesn't understand the new paradigm and why it is needed to reform the teaching and practice of electromagnetic theory.
PS Here is how science history views that famous sienticulist Preece. I hope poor Mahta doesnt end up looking like him. https://books.google.com/books?id=e9wEntQmA0IC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=%E2%80%98scienticulist%E2%80%99&source=bl&ots=f2lPosvOVs&sig=E5-h7E2hWey1VytNnlHR96e2kaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnn6fnz9vJAhUFeT4KHcUtA6wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%98scienticulist%E2%80%99&f=false