The Apelet

“Professor M. Pepper FRS and his boss Professor A. Howie FRS, head of the Cavendish, disagree with each other as to where the negative charge comes from in the Catt Anomaly, EW+WW sep87 They refuse to discuss it with us or with each other, or to say that the matter is of no importance. Not only are new theories ignored and suppressed. We also find that the Establishment is nonchalant about its contradictory versions of old theory.” – see below

----- Original Message -----

From: "Leslie Green" <logbook@lineone.net>

To: <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:17 AM

Subject: Catt's Problem

Sir,
        I have a habit of writing to authors if I spot errors in their
textbooks or websites. This is not a compulsive obsession or any such thing,
it just seems polite to point out errors that I come across. In the case of
websites in particular, the material has been presented for free and so some
corrections to the work might also be considered as an exchange for the
information freely presented.
    In the case of textbooks there is obviously a duty to correct them for
the sake of future generations (noblesse oblige). As a case in point I
recently wrote to Professor Balanis about his 2nd edition textbook on
Antenna Theory, where he writes that radiation is produced when a (DC)
current goes around a bend. I also posted this on the IEE website and there
was no-one interested in discussing this obviously erroneous statement by
Prof. Balanis.
    However, I digress. I can certainly understand why experts have not been
forthcoming in correcting you in your confusion about the "Catt Anomaly". In
the first place the responses you have had to your problem seem to have been
coerced rather than volunteered. [Reply] In the second place your treatment of these
answers is at best rude, and perhaps more libellous than anything else. This
is hardly the way to "make friends and influence people".
    I think the answers from Prof Pepper and Dr McEwan were quite
understandable and well presented. You must understand that it takes time to
give a good explanation of these phenomena and for busy people time is a
rare commodity. Obviously text book writers set aside time to handle these
sorts of issues, whereas "ordinary people" just wouldn't give that sort of
question sufficient time and effort, simply because they couldn't get the
time to do so.
    In regards to your queries of the IEE and the IEEE I think you have the
wrong idea about these societies. There is not and cannot be a "head of
electromagnetics" who is qualified to answer any question. We have to work
as individuals to set standards and to argue out the merits of ideas. This
has been the way it has been for centuries. A theory is presented and it is
attacked mercilessly to find its weaknesses, if any. The body of engineers
as a whole then decides to accept or reject the new ideas, possibly over a
period of decades.
    Thus, for example, when a theory is presented which breaks the
reciprocity theorem, without acknowledging that this has occurred, any
reviewer would be remiss if he/she failed to think that the author was
technically illiterate. I feel that you have done yourself an extreme
disservice by your disrespectful attitude to the responses you have received
and indeed for publishing the letters, presumably without permission. Who
then would be willing to help you?
    It is in any case difficult for a "commercial author" to get assistance
from academics who, after all, are not getting paid for giving out free
advice and training to the commercial author. Commercial authors are, after
all, getting paid for their writings.

Now back to the problem. Prof Pepper seems to be describing RF shielding
of electromagnetic waves. This is a question of viewpoint. I know that
physicists like to look at current flow as being caused by the field. Dr
McEwan's answer looks pretty good. This is mirrored in Prof Glenn Smith's
book, "An Introduction to Classical Electromagnetic Radiation" (page 552)
where he shows that the charge "... appears to move at the speed of
light...".
    In many respects you will find that the most expert experts in this
field would consider the problem trivial and not interesting enough to
comment on, particularly since you have apparently found the easier
explanations so difficult to understand. Ideas like the plasma frequency of
the electrons are not complicated to physicists.
    On the other hand there is a body of thought (Feynman Lectures Vol I,
38-8) that one should not make theories out of unobservable quantities. Thus
whilst the skin effect is a measurable and quantifiable phenomenon the
spatial arrangement of electrons is somewhat difficult to separate from the
field. And frankly the whole debate of whether the field causes the charge
to move or vice versa is probably an oversimplified model for the benefit of
those of us with limited intellects.
    I think you are thinking that an electron has to physically hit another
electron in order to produce a force on it. Of course it does not. The
interaction is electromagnetic. If a plane of additional electrons appears
at the input to a coaxial cable, the field intensity at this point will have
a very strong and speed of light influence on the nearby free electrons.
This "plane" of electrons does not have to move any specific distance to
produce the fast moving wavefront.

    I hope you do not feel too insulted and that you will consider revising
your website to make it less offensive. You might also like to consider
writing letters of apology to the professionals you have insulted. Remember
that professionals earn a living from their profession, but need not always
be 100% correct. If wrong they can be quietly and courteously corrected.
After all, nobody got killed did they?

Regards,
             Leslie Green CEng MIEE
... but not representing the IEE in any capacity :-)
>

X

 In regards to your queries of the IEE and the IEEE I think you have the
wrong idea about these societies. There is not and cannot be a "head of
electromagnetics" who is qualified to answer any question. We have to work
as individuals to set standards and to argue out the merits of ideas. This
has been the way it has been for centuries. A theory is presented and it is
attacked mercilessly to find its weaknesses, if any. The body of engineers
as a whole then decides to accept or reject the new ideas, possibly over a
period of decades. - Leslie Green
...

To Leslie Green;

[from http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbbanbk1.htm ]

Dear Mr Catt

Thank you for your letter of 18 August, to which the Secretary, Dr Williams, has asked me to respond.

Firstly, I should mention that we have had your book reviewed and that the resulting report will be published in the Electronics and Communication Engineering Journal - either in the October or December issue. [Actually oct95.]

The Institution has a responsibility to 'promote the general advancement of electrical science and engineering and their applications and to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas on these subjects to the members of the Institution'. The general view of the experts within the IEE is that the so-called 'Catt anomaly' is not an anomaly at all, and does not, therefore, require discussion or exposition. The favoured explanation aligns with the statement to which you refer, attributed to Professor Pepper, namely that as a TEM wave advances, so charge separation occurs close to the conductor surface effectively giving a transitory current flow at right angles to the direction of wave propagation.

Yours sincerely [signed] Professor Philip E Secker Deputy Secretary IEE 4sep95

[from   http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbdanbk3.htm ]    Much activity followed during the next few weeks, but first we should jump to two further comments by Secker, to give a brief taste of what followed. Whereas above, on 4sep95, Secker wrote "....The favoured explanation aligns with the statement to which you refer, attributed to Professor Pepper, ....", seven weeks later, on 25oct95, he wrote; "Dr. McEwan really has the answer; ....". Thus, he was backing both the views whose contradiction was the cause of Catt writing to Secker's boss in the first place, and his boss instructing Secker to reply! Further, although on 4sep95 Top Dog in the IEE chose him as the appropriate expert to reply, after seven weeks of repeated pontification and obfuscation, Secker wrote on 26oct95; "I should explain that I am no expert in the area to which the 'Catt Anomaly' refers....". He repeated this claim on 19dec95. This earned the riposte on 15nov95 from Luca Turin, lecturer in biophysics in London University; "To claim, as Professor Secker does, that this is a problem requiring unusual erudition and expertise is disingenuous. It belongs in chapter One of all the textbooks."

[from   http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wb1anbk7.htm ]    In a letter in Wireless World, January 1983, I wrote that during 25 years of work, I have never succeeded in publishing any of my work on e-m theory in any British learned journal. This ban now extends to 35 years. However, Davis should particularly think about the refusal of the Establishment, when approached, to clarify the classical theory they are defending. Professor M. Pepper FRS and his boss Professor A. Howie FRS, head of the Cavendish, disagree with each other as to where the negative charge comes from in the Catt Anomaly, EW+WW sep87 They refuse to discuss it with us or with each other, or to say that the matter is of no importance. Not only are new theories ignored and suppressed. We also find that the Establishment is nonchalant about its contradictory versions of old theory. See also the co-existing, hopelessly contradictory, versions of a TEM wave pointed out in 'The Heaviside Signal', WW july79, which has been totally ignored.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm     IEE paper. There has been no response. There is £100 for you, Leslie Green, if you get a recognised luminary to comment in writing on The Catt Anomaly.   John Doner FIEE and Simmonds FIEE have for years been very frustrated that the IEE will not deal with this matter in a responsible manner. Tell them that the IEE is fine, and that Ivor is the problem. Dr. Arnold Lynch, one of the biggest names in the IEE and my co-author in  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm , has for years been trying to get the IEE to behave properly in the matter of the Catt Anomaly. (Arnold Lynch gave the keynote speech at the IEE centenary celebration of the discovery of the electron, because the discoverer told him about it! JJ Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron. On April 30, 1897. Arnold is an old man.) The truth I have found is, that there is no competence in the IEE over electromagnetic theory, which fact is being desperately covered up. (They do not need to cover up. They do not need technical competence. All they need do is convene a conference, and report the results. That is their duty. See Hockenjos, p55 in my book “The Catt Anomaly”.) Further, competence has been lost throughout the world, partly because of the silly behaviour of people like you, who should be checking on whether professors know the subject they were hired to teach. It is shocking and surprising to find out what we now know as a result of my work, that (for instance) comprehension of the TEM Wave has been lost by professors and text book writers worldwide. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/20136.htm http://www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/tem_argument.html come from the first ten hits on Google for "TEM Wave". You can stand smugly by with the IEE and the IEEE, but the world is moving on.  Also see Google for "Transverse Electromagnetic Wave"; http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm . Compared with Arnold Lynch 01707 653822, who at 84 was brave to hazard his excellent reputation, your behaviour is totally destructive. We are in crisis, and your attitude is a very minor part of the crisis.

Ivor Catt  15july02

The 2001 edition of my book "The Catt Anomaly", p56, contains a copy of the letter I sent to all the irresponsible luminaries, more than four years after the only time any of them condescended to comment on The Catt Anomaly. See http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zc048.htm It points out that I had never before corresponded with them directly, so your idea that they were being caused to respond under duress is false. The letter includes the questions; "Should Ivor Catt have approached the matter differently, and if so, how? How should he approach the matter now?" There was no response to these questions. They all know they have been caught with their pants down, shown up for not having a grasp of the subject that has earned their salaries for decades. I suggest that you apologise for that insinuation, that these shysters were under duress. Incidentally, your attempt at a technical comment on The Catt Anomaly above ("Now back to the problem.") is juvenile, but perhaps passable for an MIEE.

Ivor Catt   15july02