I frequently wrote to Ching-Wen Hsue, and he never replied. He is now a Professor in Taiwan. In 2012 I took the charge against him of plagiarism to the IEEE. Their relevant committee unanimously decided that there had been no plagiarism by Ching-Wen Hsue.

http://www.secretariat-e.ntust.edu.tw/front/bin/ptdetail,EPR059,r,1.phtml   Ivor Catt, 30 January 2013


From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:04 AM

To: secretary@mail.ntust.edu.tw

Subject: plagiarism

Dear Professor Ching-Wen Hsue,

The results of the “Wakefield” experiment, which prove that a charged capacitor

does not have a stationary electric field, will be published this week.


Ivor Catt

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,

England tel 01727 864257

7feb95          second copy sent 26june95.

Further copy sent 31.1.99

Ching-Wen Hsue,

AT&T Bell Laboratories,

P.O. Box 900,

Princeton, N.J. 08540,     USA

Dear Mr. Hsue,

The contrapuntal model for the charged capacitor.

Mike Gibson sent me a copy of your IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letter, vol. 3, no. 3, mar93, p82-4, in which you say in the abstract;

A static dc voltage can be treated as two traveling waves propagating in opposite directions of a lossless, nonuniform transmission line.

I would point out two things;

You echo Copernicus' restrained use of the earth moving as an instrument, not as a fact to be believed. Further, Copernicus delayed publishing even this restrained suggestion until after his death. Galileo was subjected to house arrest because he insisted on saying, not only that a moving earth was a useful conceptual instrument for calculation, but that he believed that the earth moved. [However, to go deeper, read G de Santillana, "The Crime of Galileo", Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955.] You probably do not know that the so-called dc voltage is two contrapuntal waves, [not merely 'can be treated as two travelling waves',] so, like Copernicus, you do not risk excommunication. [That is, the notion of a steady state charged capacitor with electric charge loafing on the under-side of each plate is a myth.] Once the energy has been delivered at the speed of light, which is the only speed at which it can be delivered[It is not possible for energy current to travel down a transmission slower than the speed of light, 1/√µƐ . You can reach this conclusion by playing with Maxwell's equations, see Appendix 1 of my 1967 IEEE paper; IEEE Trans. Elect. Comp. vol EC-16 no. 6, dec 1967, p 761. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3213.pdf ]. There is no mechanism for it to slow down.

2. You are wrong to limit the case to the lossless line, see last col. of p46 of my sep84 article in Electronics and Wireless World. Losses cannot slow this stuff down, because of the way losses cancel out or otherwise remove themselves from the matter. The stationary model is completely untenable because unapproachable. Energy current cannot slow down. We have to be burned at the stake.

Mike Gibson and I develop these ideas further in Proc. IEEE june83 and june87. Try to work out the much simpler solution for the june87 case. Or beg me for it. Too simple to publish, it would be dismissed as banal. Only the tortuous apporoach is publishable!

[nov98. This was a game, where in june87 Gibson and I published only a subset of an important discovery, replete with fancy maths. There is a much simpler mathematical treatment which I still withold. Had I submitted it in the first case with the simpler maths, the whole thing would have been rejected for publication as trivial, which it is not. By 1987 I had developed total contempt for all learned journals and their refereeing style, regarding them as merely creatures of the career paths of editors, referees and authors; and in no way as useful as a source of information and instruction for IEE and IEEE members. So to me, their greatest use is as test beds for research into suppression.]

My most recent book, Electromagnetism 1, pub. Westfields Press, England, nov94, p5, (obtainable from me), argues that once the contrapuntal model for the charged capacitor is propounded, Ockham's Razor tells us that we have to discard the traditional, stationary model for the charged capacitor.

Yours sincerely,                                                                                                     Ivor Catt

cc Mike Gibson



Whereas Copernicus retreated from asserting that the earth moved, and used the idea merely as a conjecture, or instrument, for calculation of the heavenly bodies, Galileo was subjected to house arrest because he asserted that he believed that the earth moved; that it was true that the earth moved. (This is the superficial Galileo story, not that of Santillana.) The parallel with the question of whether there is movement in a charged capacitor is closer than I thought when I wrote my letter to the Ching-Wen Hsue, see enclosed. Ching-Wen Hsue, like Copernicus, is in the end publishable besause he proposes movement in a charged capacitor only as an instrument for the calculation of the movement of electrical energy elsewhere. Catt has been totally totally ignored for 20 years[[ added 24june95] This is an error. The suppression runs to 35 years. See Electronics and Wireless World, May95, 435. The biggest name in the world in e-m theory (Catt) cannot be published on e-m in any learned journal.], and kept out of all learned journals, because he asserted such movement as the true theory. We live in medaeval times.       - Ivor Catt, 14feb95         This copy printed 15/11/98        cc Lenore Simon, I.E.E., Savoy Place, Central London

Lenore, I understand that the President of the IEE, whom I approached, made no effort to get my latest (nov94) book reviewed by an IEE journal, so Ivor Catt's theories still continue to not exist among learned circles. Note the gradual infiltration of the Catt, or Contrapuntal, model for a charged capacitor (see Wireless World dec1980) as a conjecture, or instrument, into the more prestigious New York IEEE journal. Perhaps the London IEE will feel it safe to follow behind after a suitable delay of 5 or 10 years, but only under the name of a foreigner, I suppose, to minimise the political implications!

[nov98. The contrapuntal model still cannot be communicated to IEE members, but at least the Catt Anomaly was finally allowed to reach the ears of an inappropriate section (History of Electrical Engineering, 10June98 Norwich S7 meeting) of the IEE this year. However, I do not believe that the lesser time prediction, five years, giving the date, 2000, will be when IEE members will be allowed to hear of the contrapuntal model for a charged capacitor. I now think that that information will be witheld from members, if anything, for longer than the higher figure of 10 years from 1995 suggested in this letter.]

cc The President, IEE,

Savoy Place, Strand, Central London.

[nov98. CWH did not reply, and so kept faith with the forces of darkness.]