Camouflage the Truth
|
22 Sep 2019, 18:52 (11 days ago) |
|
||
|
||||
There seems to be a Malcolm
muddle here.
This is not about an inductor. I
did a Google search for , "Capacitors With Fast Current Switching
Require Distributed Models" and found the right article, but did not read
beyond the first part of the abstract.
What Alex
needs to see is that the truth can get past peer review, but only if it is
camouflaged with confusion. Alex broke the rules by clearly stating "that a capacitor is a transmission line (TL) [8]
" which is
why his royalsoc article will disappear. He stated
the truth too clearly. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/64maychiao.htm
"At Trinity High Table a year or two ago, I told May Chiao, deputy editor of "Nature Physics", that if
she published an article which contained the information; "A capacitor is
a transmission line," that would be the end of her editorial career -
certainly if the article also mentioned Displacement Current. I told her she
could however publish "A transmission line is a capacitor."
Five minutes later she said; "But a transmission line is a
capacitor!"
The May Chiao experience has to be
considered alongside the statement by Nobel Prizewinner Josephson,
above; " .... it is unfortunate if
a paper pointing this out http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm was not accepted for
publication anywhere other than Wireless World" - Brian Josephson,
28sept08..
Ivor Catt
Instrumentalists
like Tony and John have to have pointed out to them that if, as they say, the
only value of a new theory is if it produces results of practical value,
then why does
"that a capacitor is a transmission line (TL) [8] " have to be introduced in
what Heaviside called "a somewhat sneaky manner"? Instrumentalists
control all the institutions, schools, colleges, text books. How do they
think "that a capacitor is a transmission line (TL) [8] " should be introduced, if at all? What is its practical value? Of
course, they and their likes should be congratulated for having blocked the
distribution of this very important information for half a century since
Malcolm and I stumbled on it. Why should the IEEE publish it now, (without
citing Catt et al, of course)? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x323.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x857.htm ; ‘If you have got anything new … "
Ivor Catt