“The Catt Question”, misrepresented by the three Italians, who also comprehensively
defamed Catt in two articles in an IEEE peer reviewed journal, pointed to serious
problems for Classical Electromagnetism. These 50 words further illustrate the problems.
Ivor Catt 13 August 2017.
I'm (Catt) probably the most famous person who works in the field, but none of the competent never will admit that he had heard or read something of my theories, - Free translation of Professor di Trocchio 1 quoting Catt. 2
“amateurs and bizarre men away from academia …. …. Ivor Catt is probably one of these , an engineer and amateur scientist.” - Pieraccini
Before 2060 The Decline of Science will be obvious, and there will be an inquest. They will need information to ensure it does not happen again.
Your emails to me and our discussions have convinced me that you gave priority to (1) scientific advance over (2) career and reputation, even when they were incompatible.
For the first time for decades, I have been re-reading my book “Computer Worship”, published 1972. I find a great deal of discussion of problems within the IEE and IEEE. This means that these problems have continued for more than fifty years, and remain the same.
(This covers the full period when Tony Davies was on the Board of Directors of the IEEE.)
A number of coincidences, which should have occurred earlier during the last 30 years or so, have combined to put you in a key position in the history of science, along (to a lesser degree) with Professor Alex Yakovlev.
I shall be unable to properly put together the structure that I wanted to present to you for a couple of months, because I am going abroad. I have decided to immediately give you an outline of what is coming, below.
The 50 words; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x06101.htm
The key question is, whether you will do one of the following;
May 2018. He did nothing, not even replying. IC
1 Say that the 50 words I want in an IEEE journal are of no significance.
2 Say that you will try to get them published.
3 Say that a past member of the Board of Directors of the IEEE (you) is unable to get 50 words published in an IEEE journal, but you will put me in contact with current well meaning members, who give priority to scientific advance.
You had never met John Dore FIEE, and on meeting him a couple of months ago he said he could introduce you the “the great Ivor Catt”. You replied that you knew a great deal about Ivor Catt, and recounted some of what you knew. John Dore then warned you; “Whatever you say may end up on the www,” to which you replied “I don’t mind.”
You gave me your card. Within hours of our meeting, I sent you a long email. You replied with a long email. This led to ourselves and partner/wife having lunch together.
The activity (emails) was a “Field of the Cloth of Gold” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_the_Cloth_of_Gold , the two parties exchanging many long emails to demonstrate expertise. Davies spent an estimated 15 hours writing emails to Catt. However, whenever Catt mentioned electromagnetic theory, there was no response from Davies.
From the start, Catt’s objective was to see whether Davies could, or would, get 50 words into an IEEE journal. Or would he say he was unable to do so?
It becomes clear that “The Catt Question”, and Ivor Catt, are central to the future of science.
Is the “Peer Review Mafia” out of control, or do the Board of Directors have control over them? Going upmarket, if the Pope had allied with Galileo, would the earth moving have been properly handled? My colleagues’ view is that the top management of the IEEE and IEE do not control the bureaucracies below them.
The reason why I present such an ill constructed thesis here is that I am aged 81 and Tony 80, so time is of the essence in such an important matter.
Peer-Review and the blocking of new concepts
There is no doubt that the peer review process (and the behaviour
of some journal editors) makes it very difficult to get publications on novel
topics which ‘disagree with’ or undermine the theory and practice in fields in
which the ‘experts’ have built their reputations. I have talked about this with several people
recently and there is agreement that this is true and is a problem.
It is easy to explain, of course. For an early career person to make mistakes is generally acceptable. In fact some say that if you make no mistakes you will never learn anything new. So an early career researcher can get away with publishing something with flaws in it, which need not damage his career. For an ‘expert’ who has reached the stage of being an authority on some topic to be found to have made errors over some fundamental aspect is an ‘unwelcome’ situation and the expert is naturally liable to try to suppress awareness and publication of anything which hints that his expertise is deficient.
Additionally, there are those who might hope to ‘steal’ the new idea and claim it for themselves, and use the suppression of the publications of the real discoverer as a dishonest means to this end. I am sure that there are intermediate cases quite often where tricks are used to delay a publication while reviewers make some similar advances themselves to catch up and gain credit.
2017 April 4th
Professor Federico di Trocchio is the icing on the cake. This is the final piece in the jigsaw leading to a fascinating book which I just have to write.
· The great fraud, fraud, and falsification in science . Campus, Frankfurt am Main 1994 (original title: Le bugie della scienza , Mondadori, Milano 1993, translated by Andreas Simon), ISBN 3-593-35116-1 ; Paperback: rororo 60809, Rowohlt, Reinbek near Hamburg 1999, ISBN 3-499-60809-X (The German edition was abridged in agreement with the author).
· Newton's suitcase, ingenious outsiders who blamed the science . Campus, Frankfurt am Main 2001 (original title: Il genio incompreso , Mondadori, Milano 1997, translated by Andreas Simon), ISBN 3-593-35976-6 ;Paperback edition: rororo 60830, Rowohlt, Reinbek near Hamburg 2001, ISBN 3-499-60820-0 .
A very extensive discussion of Catt and “The Catt Question”. Here we have one eminent Italian professor talking up Catt, only for Catt to be scoffed at a few decades later by three Florence professors, including an incompetent “answer” to “The Catt Question” by Pieraccini published by the IEEE, which has blocked Catt for 50 years. Catt’s reply to the Italians was butchered before being published.
Di Triocchio writes about Catt’s major contributions, including “Catt Spiral”, also blocked by the IEE and IEEE. He does not mention government funded research projects into “Catt Spiral” at three universities. Decades later, three Italian professors publish in the IEEE that Catt is “outside of academia and structured research”. (Sir Clive Sinclair set up a company to develop “Catt Spiral”, and it came to market with acclaim.)
In June 1993 a provoking notice by Ivor Catt appeared in Electronics World and Wireless World headed "The Catt's Challenge". There was to read: " It needed a new initiative to get out of stagnation in which it is today electromagnetism. I'm probably the most famous person who works in the field, but none of the competent never will admit that he had heard or read something of my theories, I will want to expose themselves to commentaries unfavourably. In particular, no one will admit that he had heard of '' anomaly Catt, "which I made in 1987, and on which the bottom of my arguments. Consequently it cannot even be raised whether the textbooks and university degree courses should be changed or not.
“M «Are you kidding?» “Nobody with an ounce of common sense would risk their career and scientific reputation to study the Catt anomaly” Massimo thought, “and even if they were spending time on this, they wouldn’t be telling people about it”.”
I have been re-reading my book “Computer Worship”, pub. Pitman 1972 (also published in Japan), after a gap of decades. I find a great deal of discussion of problems within the IEE and IEEE. This means the same problems have existed for more than half a century, covering the whole period when Tony Davies was on the Board of Directors of the IEEE and a senior member of the IEE.
Tony has a simple choice; either to stand behind the behaviour of his institutions for the last half century, or to cooperate with me in researching them and developing the behavioural model for such institutions, which model extends throughout science; the hijacking of science by careerists using peer review censorship. The rabble censor, because a major scientific advance is very damaging to their careers and reputations.