|
About classical electrodynamics
The
109 Experiment
This article develops from my 1967 article
"Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital
Systems"
where you also get access to the articles cited in
2011
.
Behaviour
of Editors of key relevant refereed journals.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0113.htm
An earlier analysis
"Nature"
Reaching out to Calder in 2013
Summary.
Jim Calder, Editor of Proc.IEEE (2), could neither accept nor reject the
paper. When he first said (July 16, 2010) he would get back to me next week, I immediately told my partner Liba and also John Dore FIEE that he would not get back
to me. (1 Feb 2011, He still has not got back to me.) This contrasts with
Lombardi (1), who did not even reply to my submission, as he admitted four
months later. Helen Dyball, Editor at the IEE/IET
(3), saying that my article was too short, told me
to go to another journal which could publish longer articles, but would not
tell me which one.
These are all subterfuges.
The truth is that an editor would not survive if he published an article
suggesting paradigm
shift .
1
Feb 2011. Email to
hdyball@theiet.org ; j.calder@ieee.org
; lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU
Dear
Helen Dyball, Jim Calder, Prof.
Fabrizio Lombardi,
I
need to add your comments to the analysis of your behaviour at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm
Ivor
Catt
Analysis.
1 , 2 , 3 , 4
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Lombardi
did not reply to my first email of Saturday,
March 20, 2010, so his excuse that my later emails became odder is beside
the point. Was my first email odd?
1 IEEE Transactions
on Computers.
From: Ivor Catt
To: Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
Sent: Saturday, March
20, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: For publication
in IEEE Transactions on Computers
To
the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,
Fabrizio Lombardi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115 phone: +1 617.373.4159
Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
For
publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Comment
in 2013
Even and Odd
Modes
My
paper;
Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk
(Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput.,
vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained
an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was
based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the
two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.
The error is fully
discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .
Ivor Catt
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ivor Catt is at
+44 (0)1727 864257
121 Westfields,
St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England
www.ivorcatt.co.uk
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prof. Fabrizio
Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
To: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>
Cc: <j.calder@ieee.org>;
"Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on
Computers
>
>
> Hi
>
> over the past months I have received few emails from you, quite
frankly I
> am to say the least puzzled by your requests as with time, they are
> getting from unusual to just odd.
>
> I thought that my silence would be better understood by you;
unfortunately
> it seems that we are going nowhere. So, in plain terms let me state
that
> this is my only and last reply to you: your concerns/items do not fall
> within my duties as EIC of Tc and/or they are not in compliance with
IEEE
> CS regulations. So please stop sending me emails.
>
> fl
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Lombardi knows that his
behaviour, of failing to reply to an author when the author wants to have
publication of a brief statement that there is an error in his previously
published article, is ethical because;
Ethics is part of the defence mechanism of an
entrenched Establishment. Anything done in defence of an entrenched Science
Establishment is by definition ethical. Anything attempted which threatens
an entrenched Science Establishment
(like pointing to a fundamental error in a published refereed
journal, and thus a flaw in classical theory)
is by definition unethical.
The reason why my 75 word
statement must be suppressed is that underlying it is a fatal flaw in
established scientific dogma. Lombardi took decisive action by not
admitting receipt. As pointed out above, this was not unethical, under the
new code of ethics.
http://www.computer.org/web/pressroom/lombardi
http://www.computer.org/web/volunteers/fabrizio-lombardi
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1717382
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
https://www.computer.org/web/pressroom/lombardi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prof. Fabrizio
Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
To: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>
Cc: <j.calder@ieee.org>;
"Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on
Computers or Pric. IEEE
>
> Dr Catt,
>
>
> If you wish for your work to be considered for publication in IEEE TC
you
> need to submit your manuscript electronically through Manuscript
Central
> (please refer to www.computer.org
for further information as well as
> proper format).
>
> However be advised that over the years TC has changed technical focus,
it
> now deals only with computer design (hardware and software) not
> electromagnetics as in its early years (please refer to the scope of
TC
> and related answers to common questions by visiting
> http://www.computer.org/portal/web/tc/author).
>
> If you elect to submit your manuscript, the recommendation of further
> reviewing it will be made by an associate editor. As Editor in Chief I
am
> the contact person for communication between authors and associate
> editors.
>
> Sincerely
>
> F Lombardi
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Ivor Catt wrote:
>
>> Dear Sirs,
>>
>> I would like to offer the article "The end of electric charge
and
>> electric current as we know them." http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0739.pdf
>> for publication in Proc. IEEE or IEEE Transactions on Computers.
It is
>> an orphan, and confidential for the time being. Ivor Catt +44
(0)1727
>> 864257
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Second
copy sent by email and by airmail on 27 June 2010. Web address altered from
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm
-----
Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
To: Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
Sent: Saturday, March
20, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: For publication
in IEEE Transactions on Computers
To
the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,
Fabrizio Lombardi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115 phone: +1 617.373.4159
Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
For
publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.
@@@@@@@@@@
Even and Odd
Modes
My
paper;
Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk
(Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput.,
vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained
an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was
based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the
two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.
The error is fully
discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .
Ivor Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@
Ivor Catt is at
+44 (0)1727 864257
121 Westfields,
St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England
www.ivorcatt.co.uk
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>
To: <j.calder@ieee.org>;
<lombardi@ece.neu.edu>;
etc.
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Nuke revisionism
> "Peer review is supposed to bring excellence
of work, where team-players get
> their work assessed by their peers. But the negative side is-- once a
> mistake has passed peer review, peer pressure is then to conform to
that
> mistake." - Roger Anderton.
>
> My recent, extraordinary discovery is that if one of the "team
players" -
> which I was, more or less, in 1967, steps out of line and says he made
a
> mistake in his own peer reviewed article, not only is he not allowed
to
> announce his mistake in the journal; he does not even get a reply from
the
> editor, as the editor Lombardi admitted four months later.
Extraordinary.
>
> I asked J Calder, another IEEE editor for advice about how to present
the
> results of a forthcoming important experiment.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm
(On their website, the IEEE say they like
> to give such advice to authors.) Calder rejected the article even
before the
> experiment has been conducted! The expected result of the experiment,
> proving that a so-called steady charged capacitor not steady, but
contains
> energy travelling at the speed of light, is truly revolutionary.
Result
> already rejected by Calder, Editor of Proc. IEEE!
>
> Ivor Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
2 Proc. IEEE
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0739.pdf was version submitted.
Jim Calder, Editor of Proc.IEEE (2), could neither accept nor reject the paper.
When he first said he would get back to me next week, I immediately told my
partner Liba and also John Dore FIEE that he
would not get back to me. 1 Feb 2011, He still has not got back to me. This
contrasts with Llombardi (1), who did not even
reply to my submission, as he admitted four months later. Helen Dyball, Editor at the IEE/IET (3), told me to go to
another journal which could publish longer articles, but would not tell me
which one.
These are all
subterfuges. The truth is that an editor would not survive if he published
an article suggesting paradigm change.
Dear
Jim Calder,
" .... and we will
get back to
you next week. .... " Jim Calder, Friday,
July 16, 2010
I look forward to hearing
from you re http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0742.pdf .
Ivor Catt
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
13 August 2010
Dear Jim Calder,
I
would like to offer the article "The end of electric charge and
electric current as we know them." http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0742.pdf
for publication in Proc. IEEE. It is an orphan,
and confidential for the time being.
Ivor Catt
+44 (0)1727 864257
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
To: j.calder@ieee.org
Sent: Saturday, August
07, 2010 11:54 AM
Subject: For publication
in Proc. IEEE
" .... and we will
get back to
you next week. .... " Jim Calder, Friday,
July 16, 2010
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ivor Catt
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.htm
-----
Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
To: j.calder@ieee.org
Sent: Friday, July 30,
2010 9:39 PM
Subject: For publication
in Proc. IEEE
" .... and we will
get back to
you next week. .... " Jim Calder, Friday,
July 16, 2010
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ivor Catt
----- Original Message -----
From: j.calder@ieee.org
To: Ivor Catt
Sent: Friday, July 16,
2010 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: For
publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers or Pric.
IEEE
Dear Ivor:
Thanks for
your message and the paper suggestion.
We will
carefully review this submission and we will
get back to
you next week.
Have a Nice
Weekend!
Jim Calder
***************************************************************
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Jim Calder
Managing Editor
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331
USA
732 562 5478 Fax:
732 562 5456
j.calder@ieee.org or proceedings@ieee.org
IDEAS FOR PAPERS AND SPECIAL ISSUES ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED!
All new Regular Paper Manuscripts Should be Submitted to Manuscript Central
at URL:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pieee
********************************************************************
|
From:
|
"Ivor
Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>
|
|
To:
|
"Prof.
Fabrizio Lombardi"
<lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>, <j.calder@ieee.org>
|
|
Date:
|
07/16/2010
12:56 PM
|
|
Subject:
|
For
publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers or Pric.
IEEE
|
Dear Sirs,
I would like to offer the
article "The end of electric charge and electric current as we know
them." http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0739.pdf for publication in Proc. IEEE or IEEE
Transactions on Computers. It is an orphan, and
confidential for the time being.
Ivor Catt
+44 (0)1727 864257
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3009 - Release Date: 07/16/10
07:35:00
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@’
3 IEE/IET Electronics Letters
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0747.pdf
was the version submitted.
-----
Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
To: Dyball,Helen
Sent: Saturday,
October 09, 2010 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: End of electric
charge
"we frequently have to advise
authors to expand their work into a full length paper and submit to a
different journal. I would advise you to do the same" - Dr Helen Dyball
I shall be grateful if
you recommend the different journal.
Ivor Catt
No reply received from
Dyball.
----- Original
Message -----
From: Dyball,Helen
To: 'Ivor Catt'
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: End of electric charge
Dear
Ivor Catt,
I have
received the response from our independent expert and I am afraid that they
confirmed that the paper as it stands is too speculative to be published in
Electronics Letters. To convince the reviewers/readers of the scientific
advance, you will need to include much more supporting information,
evidence and discussion, which will require more space than is available in
the short letter format of Electronics Letters. Not all work is suitable to
be published as a short letter, and we frequently have to advise authors to
expand their work into a full length paper and submit to a different
journal. I would advise you to do the same so that you can fully do your
work justice.
Thank
you for your interest in Electronics Letters.
Yours
sincerely,
Helen Dyball
Dr Helen Dyball
Managing Editor
The IET
www.theiet.org
T:
+44 (0)1438 765520
F: +44 (0) 1438 767317
The Institution of
Engineering and Technology, Michael Faraday House, Six
Hills Way, Stevenage, SG1 2AY, United
Kingdom
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@’
-----
Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
To: Dyball,Helen
Cc: John
Raymond Dore
Sent: Thursday,
September 23, 2010 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Ivor Catt
Dear
Dr. Helen Dyball,
I
was very pleased with your email dated 16 September re http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0747.pdf .
I am anxious to fall in with your requrements.
"The submission that I have consists of one page of text
and 9 figures. It also refers to Appendices I and II that are not
attached." resulted from ambiguiry which I will put right. Appendices I and II are
part of the 1967 paper cited immediately before.
"the submission should be self-contained" I am
not sure what to do about this.
"It needs to include a definite abstract" This
is the first sentence. I shall make this clearer.
"introduction (to put the work in context and explain the novelty of
the advance)," The problem is that
the paper points to a major problem with classical theory. Explanation
threatens to lead to the whole article exceeding the limits on
size set by "Electronics Letters". However,
"Electronics Letters" is the ideal journal for this article.The problem for electric current and charge
trying to do its job was already flagged up in 1982 - http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm -
in an IEE paper by Lynch and Catt - http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm -
which was shoved under the carpet. The present paper is a much clearer
illustration of the problem for conventional charge and current..
"References should also be included to put the advance in
context with the state-of-the-art." This is the article cited at the
end. There has been no advance in the treatment of the TEM Wave during the
last forty years.
"so any necessary supporting
material must be contained within the body of the letter, or in an
accessible reference." This material can be reached at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0710.htm ,
cited at the end of the article. I shall expand http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0710.htm to
give access to further relevant material.
I
am very pleased that you wrote; "If you would
like to submit again to Electronics Letters, please send your manuscript
directly to me first at hdyball@theiet.org ", and I
shall do so when I have attempted to carry iout
your instructions.
Yours
sincerely,
Ivor
Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I
emailed 30 Professors of Electronics (and of Electronic Engineering) asking
for comment on the article.
One
(retired) asked for £5,000 per day consultancy fee. Another said she was
too busy. The others did not reply to two emails separated by one month.
This
behaviour of professors could be predicted by editors of refereed learned
journals. However, this prediction does not justify the behaviour of the
three editors. Assuming we are dealing with science in its assumed form,
the three editors should have given a proper rejection for publication of
the article, which none of them did. (The third editor did not
recommend a journal which could publish a longer article, but said that it
was too long for her journal. She did not then recommend another journal. The
fact is that, reading the mission statement of her journal, it is exactly
the one to publish this article in the reduced form submitted.)
The
problem for all of these people – editors, professors, is that it is claimed
that the community most desires scientific advance. However, they all have
a vested interest in stability.
The
seriousness of the present crisis was discussed in my article
30 years ago;
“By the time fundamental change is needed,
we have seen that there are good reasons why the calibre of the 'guardians
of the faith', the high priests, will have sunk to an all-time low,
becoming worried, inadequate functionaries holding in reverence their predecessors
who engineered the era of fast growth and progress. As the need for
fundamental change increases, their blocking of communication of new ideas
will become more complete and the established institutions more closed and
rigid.”
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
My college, Trinity College,
Cambridge, says it is the most scientific college in Cambridge. The Master Atiyah instructed his Fellow (now) Sir Michael Pepper
to comment on "The Catt
Question" . He did so
in 1993, but contradicted the answer of a Reader in Electromagnetics.
Pepper then went incommunicado for thirty years, and proceeded to be
awarded numerous prizes (including a knighthood) “for services to Physics”.
He now edits the top journal in the Royal Society. Now at UCL, I have asked
him to comment on this jan/feb
2011 article. Don’t hold your breath!
From the TV programme on power
in England. Ch4 programme at
7.30pm on Sunday 11apr99
"The Establishment"
with Nick Danziger
Trinity, One of the most successful and enduring
pillars of the Establishment.
"The
Masters of Trinity, one of the most prestigious academic positions.
"Trinity
is the largest, richest and most powerful college in Oxbridge. It is the
role of the Master to keep the college running smoothly, but also to
maintain its status and position in the world."
Interviewer;
"…. A little change is good. No change is better."
Atiyah,
Master; "Yes. Colleges like this are essentially conservative
institutions. When I was a young man I was very enthusiastic for rapid
change. I still am to some extent. But if you make very rapid change you
make mistakes. Institutions have a lot of built in resistance to change. ….
…. …. A network of contacts ….".
Atiyah is a scientist.
This is a rare admission by the
Establishment of the situation confronted by my January/Feb 2011 article.
Analysis
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Ivor
Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
To: Stephen
Crothers <thenarmis@yahoo.com>
Cc: "mahta@usc.edu"
<mahta@usc.edu>, "apm-eic@ieee.org"
<apm-eic@ieee.org>, "giuseppe.pelosi@unifi.it" <giuseppe.pelosi@unifi.it>,
"g.pelosi@ieee.org" <g.pelosi@ieee.org>,
"j.calder@ieee.org" <j.calder@ieee.org>,
"Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk"
<Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>, "christopher.spargo@gmail.com"
<christopher.spargo@gmail.com>, "iet.eee@newcastle.ac.uk"
<iet.eee@newcastle.ac.uk>, "students@theiet.org"
<students@theiet.org>, "lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU"
<lombardi@ece.neu.edu>, stefano.selleri@unifi.it
Date: Thu,
28 Jul 2016 09:44:18 +0100
Subject: Re:
Letter to The Editor
Mahta Moghaddam joins other IEEE editors who were presented
with an impossible situation.
The behaviour of other IEEE
editors is given here;
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.htm
The extreme was Lombardi.
When I wrote 50 words saying there was an error in my 1967 20pp article in
the journal he edited, he did not reply.
Obviously what I wrote was
nonsense, as he later said, because there are no errors in peer reviewed
journals. If an author tries to point out an error in his own peer reviewed
article, he must be wrong. The peers were right and the author was wrong.
Pieraccini
was very helpful when he pioneered the passage of lies through the
"Peer Review Cartel". He exploited the inevitable weaknesses of
unpaid peer review by peers who had to keep to and defend the ruling
paradigm (which they little understood anyway), or risk career and
reputation, as Pieraccini himself has said. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
It is possible that, thanks
to Pieraccini's exposure of the fatal flaws in
"The Peer Review Cartel" system (by getting lies and defamation of
Catt through the system), we will retrieve science many decades before we
would have done without his help. Professor Bruce Charlton says we have to
rebuild science from the ground up, in his book entitled "Not Even
Trying".
Ivor Catt
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at
4:47 AM, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@yahoo.com> wrote:
Professor
Mahta Moghaddam,
Editor-In-Chief, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,
Professor
Giuseppe Pelosi, Associate Editor, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,
Dear
Professors,
You
have failed to reply to my request for your intention on publication of my
Letter to The Editor, titled ‘Catt’s Anomaly?’
I
revised and shortened my Letter according to your request and thereby expect
it to be published in the next issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Magazine. The revision was posted to your IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Magazine online submissions facility and sent to both of you directly. My
revised Letter is attached once again, and my responses to Professor
Pelosi’s comments on my original Letter as well, since Professor Moghaddam requested me to address them. Both of you
received my responses previously.
I
request you once again to tell me what you are going to do about this.
If, despite my comprehensive revision, you intend not to publish my Letter,
I request that you provide me with a right and proper Letter of Rejection,
detailing why, in terms of the specific content of my Letter to The Editor.
Stephen
J. Crothers
28
July 2016
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cw.htm
https://archive.org/stream/Crosstalk/CattQuestion2016PaperByCrothers_djvu.txt
http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/PiP-2016-01.pdf
- Search for “Crothers”
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/12/10/the-catt-anomaly-confusion/
|