I see that you referenced a paper An apparent paradox: Catt's anomaly M Pieraccini and S Selleri published in physics education. I sure would like to see that paper and determine whether it is just a rehash of the IEEE paper. The IEEE paper is poorly written and doesn't really help the reader to determine whether the issue is resolved. The IEEE paper declares the issue to be a non problem , and then after saying that there is no anomaly and no problem to be solved, tries to answer the question. But the answer to the question, that is not supposed to be a legitimate question or anomaly, is so poorly stated and obscure that it merely demonstrates that the question can not be answered. I was somewhat surprised that this paper was actually published by the IEEE or any other peer reviewed journal, because it doesn't provide an answer. As an editor I certainly would never have allowed such a poorly written paper to appear in any journal I was in charge of. My conclusion is that the editors do not understand the papers that they are publishing and that the allegation that the Catt Question is not a legitimate question is an absurd and unsupported claim. The writers Pieraccini and Selleri end with an absurd conclusion that answers nothing, and just perpetuates the confusion. 


PS I note that the UTUBE video that claims to discuss the Catts Question does the same thing. The creator says the question is not a legitimate question and then provides an answer that is a contradiction of the answer given in the IEEE paper. But, in both cases the answers make no sense at all. 

 Harry Ricker.    17 oct 2015

I now find that the editor Pelosi, who handled the paper, and the authors are Florence University colleagues, and also elsewhere they are three co-authors. An inside job.

  Ivor Catt  16 Nov 2017