McEwan grovels to Sir Michael Pepper FRS

Pepper on The Catt Question

The Railon.

Accountability in Science ; Letter to the Master of Trinity, 2006

Shortened version is below. Click for complete version, but still excluding McEwan's personal problems

McEwan to Catt, 18jan00

Dear Mr Catt,

I am offering a reply to your recent correspondence. I do hope you will
accept that this is entirely friendly and disinterested, and that I have
honestly tried to explain the problem.

I'd just like to first make a few personal comments about myself.

[There follows about 600 oh-so-secret words.]

But then what about the following;

[Along with much else, I promised to publish everything that I receive by way of reply. Should I break that promise? Until dec99, I never wrote to McEwan, and he never wrote to me except for his first 20apr95 letter, which he was instructed to write by his boss. He ignored later instructions from his boss to write again.]

The Dean of Engineering, 10sep96

Bradford University BD7 1DP 01274 733466

Dear Professor John Gardiner,

I enclose a copy of "The Catt Anomaly", pub. Westfields Press, 1996.

Please instruct Neil McEwan, HoD Electronic and Electrical Engineering, your Reader in Electromagnetics, to advise as to whether he finds contradiction between his explanation of the Catt Anomaly, p6, and that of Professor M. Pepper FRS, Trinity College and The Cavendish, p4. I promise that his response, and any further comments by him, will appear in future issues of the book, along with this letter.

Yours sincerely, Ivor Catt.

[Second copy of 10sep96 letter sent recorded delivery to Gardiner on 1oct96, requesting acknowledgement]

..

From Prof. Gardiner 1oct96

Dear Mr. Catt,

Thank you for your letter, received today by recorded delivery, regarding the copy of 'The Catt Anomaly', which you sent to me in September. I can confirm that this has now been forwarded to Dr. Neil McEwan for his comments. I will get in touch with Dr. McEwan and request that he contacts you direct regarding his response. [My italics; instruction ignored by McEwan. - IC, 23jan00]

Yours sincerely, Professor J.G. Gardiner

To Professor Gardiner From Ivor Catt 1nov96. [1nov96 letter repeated 16nov96, 23dec96, 20jan97]

I have not heard from McEwan.

Yours, Ivor Catt

There was no response from G or McE.

I hope you will understand therefore that I simply can't afford to get
involved in a lot more correspondence on this issue, but I offer below some
thoughts which I hope will help.

I must say that I don't think you are doing anything useful by stirring up
issues of north versus south, east etc. .

.

I will trust to your integrity to treat my above comments, especially about my own circumstances, as totally confidential.

Now let me make a few comments for public consumption:

*********************************************************

"I previously offered to Mr Catt a simple explanation of how the charge is
conveyed along the transmission line. I used an uniform array of N
electrons and N positive ions spaced out along a section of line of length
L. I then pointed out that if we push in one extra electron at the left of
[Here his long piece continues, see main text. It includes grovels to Pepper FRS of the Cavendish;]

[Next follows the first admission by McEwan that his own view differs from that of exalted Pepper FRS. It has taken from sep96 until now, jan00 - 3 years - to make that advance. That is why we have to conclude that at least the latter part of the twentieth century was a time when it was impossible to communicate on scientific matters; the salaries, prestige and professional and scientific incompetence were of too high an order. {McEwan still does not know that Pepper's boss Howie agrees with McEwan! None of these shysters can communicate with each other. The stakes are too high!}]

I am prepared to take slight issue with Prof Pepper - again in a completely
friendly way I hope - about the main component of the velocity of the
charges. My recollection is that he agreed with me that the required
charges are already in the section of line to start with, but I think he
implied that the charges move laterally outward to generate the surface
charge as the wave moves over them. I would assert that the main component
of particle velocity is longitudinal.
.

I am sure Prof Pepper will not be in the least offended by my raising this
contention, and anyway I am quite prepared to be shot down about it if I
myself am wrong.

. .

I would like to think that I have cleared up the point about the
longitudinal and transverse particle motions, so I would suggest now that
you let the other parties see my comments and see if there are interesting
reactions. Maybe they will now feel that we have reached a concensus. But please do ask yourself most searchingly whether you can still pin down any genuine contradiction in it.

Very best wishes,

Neil McEwan