[6may00. Over dinner tonight at Trinity College High Table and in the upper room sanctum afterwards, Emeritus Master of Trinity Sir Andrew Huxley expressed interest to Catt, on his left as the Port, Madeira and wine went round, in Catt's problems with Pepper FRS of Trinity (whom he knew), McEwan and Secker. He said he would go to Trinity library and read the book "The Catt Anomaly". During conversation, I emphasised that Trinity could only sustain further and further damage over the Catt Anomaly until something was done. He recounted many instances of suppression in his own field, including Mendel. I think he thought (as I do) that some of the suppressed advances disappear for ever. Copy of this website item sent to Sir Andrew Huxley via Trinity College. (Through this copy I would mention to him that the book "The Catt Anomaly" is also on my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ ) - Ivor Catt, 6may00]

Here you can read the Editor of NS writing "I see no ships", and my response. The NS Editor has failed to communicate with me thereafter. He doggedly keeps faith with his coterie PD, JG, H, P, and their travesty of science, which is a branch of religion.

 

 

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR, England

(01727 864257

9june97

[Updated 15june97. This copy printed 11/11/98]

Nigel Cook, 129 School Lane,

Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 1TF

Dear Nigel Cook,

Thank you so much for the original of the 2june97 letter from Anderson [copy below], the editor of NEW SCIENTIST.

First to deal with your 5june97 letter to me, there are incomplete parallels with page 106 of my book COMPUTER WORSHIP, pub. Pitman 1973.

Returning to Anderson's letter. It can be worked on in the same way as the letters to you from chairmen of Open University courses can be worked on. [Athough he is its editor,] Anderson does not know that I have a long and illustrious career in NEW SCIENTIST. It starts with my article "Dinosaur among the data?", New Scientist, 6mar1969. (Admittedly published only because the deputy editor thought it discussed the then fashionable question "Can computers think?" Ten years later, when it was more timely, the IEE gave its major prize to A.N. Other for (re)propounding the main thrust of my '69 article, which broached the 'von Neumann bottleneck'. Professor F Heath of the IEE told me I should have received the prize for my much earlier disclosure, in New Scientist.) Since then there have been numerous comments on various aspects of my work in NEW SCIENTIST, every single one of them highly favourable. They include;

"Depending on who[m] you talk to in the generally conservative semiconductor industry, Catt is either a crank or a visionary. For 20 years, he has been refining the theoretical foundations for a revolution in the semiconductor industry ...." - "On the importance of being creative; Innovative thinkers should be allowed to come to the fore", New Scientist, 12june86, p35;

".... Ivor Catt, an innovative thinker whose own immense ability in electronics has all too often been too far ahead of conventional ideas to be appreciated: significantly, Catt is beginning to get some high-level backing from companies who see the possibility of major breakthroughs from his work ('Wafers herald new era in computing', New Scientist, 25 February 1989)." - New Scientist, 25nov89, p75. [In the end, the backing ran to 16 millions of foreign and British Government money. The resulting product came to market and was "best product of the year" for two US electronics journals - ELECTRONIC DESIGN 26oct89 and another. See WSI on this website.]

However, Old Scientist has always been careful to be a decade too late to influence events. No British referees ever recommended publication of my ideas on Wafer Scale Integration, although once it was in full swing, British journals including New Scientist commented extensively and very positively. Note that Anderson hides behind prior publication of my e-m theory by British learned journals.

Now, to refer to Anderson's demand that my e-m theory get past "an appropriate journal with a good reputation", he could look into my 20page seminal article on e-m theory in IEEE Trans. vol EC-16, no. 6, dec67. Also Proc. IEEE June 83 and June87. Also the book "Digital Hardware Design" by Catt et. al., pub. Macmillan 79.

The above is a tiny example of the heavy coverage on Catt's work in numerous fields including e-m, in New Scientist and elsewhere, which might reassure a chicken Anderson.

My message to my colleague Heinz Lipschutz is that however great his fame might be in the future from the building (perhaps by the Chinese) of his revolutionary U-plane (The Independent, 29may91, p2; not yet passé enough to get into Old Scientist), this will not help him to get past any editor when trying to publish on another subject, his other subject being the plight of young men and its social consequences. Heaviside disappeared from the record on e-m theory (to be rediscovered by me, see Wireless World July79), although his operational calculus remained well known. Thus are major contributors partitioned by editors, and Anderson will do the same, treating me separately on my e-m, my sociology, and my WSI. He will also separate by extensive e-m theory in Trans IEEE dec67 etc. from my newer work on e-m. Even my e-m will be subdivided, to ensure that New Scientist stays out of date.

I would estimate that Old Scientist, a journal of record, as described by its editor Anderson on 2june97, will comment extremely favourably on my theories of electromagnetism in around the year 2015, when Anderson's career is either secure or over.

To end, I wish I could find the article in the Guardian (13mar95) where the science correspondent wrote his regret that "we didn't have the bottle to write about Catt" much earlier than they did. [6aug01. Found! ". The Sinclair team has developed the ideas of a British inventor, Ivor Catt, who tried to get British firms to listen to him. On that point this newspaper must admit to the British disease - we didn't have the bottle to write about Catt then, in part because the technological establishment dismissed his notions. On the risk front, Sinclair has tackled, via Catt, the fundamental breakthrough of the microchip business. . A whole new range of opportunities for computer use come forward. - Notebook, Edited by Hamish McRae, The Guardian, 13mar85, p23"]

[By the way, I sent a review copy of my 1996 book "The Catt Anomaly" to the editor of New Scientist. It was ignored. Anderson could now climb out of his comfy hole by reviewing the book. This book is very appropriate for Old Scientist, and follows from Charles McCutchen, "An evolved conspiracy" in New Scientist, 29 April 1976, p225, and other articles in New Scientist. "The Catt Anomaly" is much more comprehensive than anything in the past. It is very appropriate for an NS review. My book "Electromagnetism 1", reviewed by IEE Electronics and Communication Journal, oct95, p218, is not.]

Yours sincerely, Ivor Catt

cc Editor, New Scientist.; also to Lipschutz, and to Luca Turin

 

 

[From New Scientist.] Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your letter of 30 May.

I've looked through the files and can assure you that we have no wish to suppress the discoveries of Ivor Catt nor do we publish only articles from famous people.

You should understand that New Scientist is not a primary journal and does not publish the first accounts of new experiments and original theories. These are better submitted to an academic journal where they can be subject to the usual scientific review.

New Scientist does not maintain the large panel of scientific referees necessary for this review process. I'm sure you understand that science is now a gigantic enterprise and a small number of scientifically-trained journalists are not the right people to decide which experiments and theories are correct. My advice would be to select an appropriate journal with a good reputation and send Mr Catt's work there.

Should Mr Catt's theories be accepted and published, I don't doubt that he will gain recognition and that we will be interested in writing about him.

I wish Mr Catt the best of luck with his research.

Thank you for your interest in New Scientist.

Yours sincerely,

[signed] Alun M Anderson PhD, EDITOR, New Scientist, 2 June 1997

King's Reach Tower,

Stamford St.,

London SE1 9LS

 

Further notes to NC, not sent to ed. NS.

In your message on my answer phone you regretted my giving no characteristics to space. You had space moving around.

This idea contradicts your enthusiasm for my concept of a single-velocity space; a space which supports only one velocity. Such a concept has meaning only in my kind of space; totally static and absolute space. You cannot have it both ways.

Some years ago I said that I did not comprehend the concept of the particle, so as a true scientist I could not introduce it into my theories. Those in discussion with me have always accepted that I may not be expected to build theories using concepts that I did not comprehend.

Yesterday I first thought that 'space' was in the same category; that I did not comprehend the concept of space moving around. However, before and after discussion with my co-author Dave Walton yesterday, I now assert that it is the other persons who lack comprehension of space. For me, space is in a sub-class of its own, and by definition lacks characteristics of things not in its class (of one). Conservation of energy requires that energy reside in a fixed location. The concept of a single velocity for TEM waves requires a static, fully defined space to contain this single velocity. For me, one who wants to give attributes to space other than Zo and c (actually Zo and t) does not comprehend the concept of space, and lumps it with other totally different concepts. This is much like classing a suitcase as in the same class as the contents of the suitcase. In certain essential ways, the suitcase is different from its contents. Similarly, the book is in a different class from the stories that books contain. The brain is in a different class from thoughts. Attempts to confuse these other distinctions create similar problems to attempts to treat space like electromagnetism, or like hydrogen. It was an error some centuries ago which was put right, but then Einstein reintroduced confusion which does not involve me. As this paper and ink is not my present message to you, but merely contains my message, so space merely contains TEM waves, energy etc. A container has characteristics, but these (e.g. ink and paper) are not in the same class as the ideas, grammatical and other characteristics of my message to you. A reductionist philosophy which demands that message and messenger have the same attributes would go nowhere. Similarly with space and energy. Similarly, a message with no messenger goes nowhere. Energy requires to be housed in space, which space is not in any way like energy. IC 9.6.97