http://www.async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesitates-is-Lost.pdf
Ivor took his family to the U.S.A., departing for Los Angeles and his new job, in Ampex, with high expectations, but found that there, and subsequently at Motorola Phoenix Arizona in 1964, no one seemed to be interested in the problem interrupt circuits. They did not believe a problem existed, and if it did, they didn’t want to know. Nevertheless, he wrote a short note about it and got it published in an IEEE journal in 1966. The note is written rather obscurely, and has errors in it, but the drift is clear, there’s a problem. A year later, he was at a conference and exhibition in Chicago demonstrating a product about which he knew little, and cared less, when Tom Chaney and Warren Littlefield walked by. It soon became apparent that they were working on synchronization, and had also noticed that the circuit used to synchronize outside events with the central clock sometimes had a problem. Clearly it was the same problem as Catt’s and they were annoyed that Catt had succeeded in publishing in a recognised journal first – even before they had produced their own internal document. Their work ‘beware the synchronizer’ did not in fact appear until 1973, because Chaney and Littlefield had had considerable difficulty persuading the reviewers to accept their paper, referees would say things like “if this was a problem, I would have heard about it. I haven’t so I don’t think it exists”. It was only after a special Workshop on Synchronizer failures was held by Charles Molnar, Director of the Computer Systems Laboratory of Washington University, St Louis to publicise the work that there was any acceptance of the existence of the problem in the US.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The Kinniment book tells you to
communicate, not with him, but with Alex Yakovlev, not saying who Alex was. I
wrote to Alex to tell him that the reason I was the only one who could publish
on “The Glitch” was that I gave my paper a misleading title, hiding the fact
that the matter was very serious. Alex always says the late Kinniment
was his mentor.
Every peer reviewer knew that the dogma was that computers did not fail, only those who programmed them caused failure. “The
Glitch” threatened the party line. My aim on publishing was, not to
communicate, but to be able to hand out an IEEE article rather than have to
incessantly talk about it. Today, 50 years later, it is probably still taught
in very few universities. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5a6.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Nov 9, 2018, 5:01 PM
|
|
||
|
||||
I am unsure what
all the fuss is about! If you follow publication procedures, are fair in
attitude and write in an appropriate manner, this issue proves that publication
in classical electromagnetism is certainly within grasp!
Notice in my
article I reproduce Heaviside's own diagram regarding the propagation of energy
current. I am sure Ivor will confirm that he would have thought this
impossible!
Chris
Chris Spargo does not
realise that his (Figure 2, Heaviside) diagram does not properly define “Theory
D”, or even “Theory C”, in which electric current remains alongside energy
current.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x242.htm
> I stand by my claim that Ivor Catt
is a genius. And
> that he has been extraordinarily censored.
> I've met several people considered to be "smartest man
> in the world" -- including my mentor Richard
Feynman, …. ….
> Murray Gell-Mann, Herman Kahn, Stephen Hawking, and Ed
> Witten. Catt has done more than anyone in decades to
> shake up my beliefs and make me re-assess things that
> I thought I knew, but about which now have reasonable doubt.
- Professor Jonathan Post
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Nov 9, 2018, 5:01 PM
|
|
||
|
||||
I am unsure what
all the fuss is about! If you follow publication procedures, are fair in
attitude and write in an appropriate manner, this issue proves that publication
in classical electromagnetism is certainly within grasp!
Notice in my
article I reproduce Heaviside's own diagram regarding the propagation of energy
current. I am sure Ivor will confirm that he would have thought this
impossible!
Chris
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018,
14:22 Alex Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk wrote:
All,
After discovering an error in Fig. 6
of my R Soc article (resulting from a Powerpoint glitch during editing), I have now managed to
get a corrigendum to appear in one of the following issues. Here it is.
Alex
From: Alex Yakovlev
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 11:46:35 AM
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: David Walton; Malcolm Davidson; Christopher Spargo;
David Walton; Bruce Charlton
Subject: Re: Your Paper
Dear Ivor
Whether political or scientific it is,
but I felt a strong drive to write this article. If it helps politics to help
science, I will be satisfied!
Thanks again,
Alex
PS. My wife and I are really puzzled
how you’d have known about today!?
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Nov 2018, at 08:34, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex,
The
missing dimension.
Six months ago, when I told you you needed protection, you replied that you were a
scientist and not a politician.
I replied that that was the classic
technique of a politician.
(It will not help if I now add the
forensic proof of political, rather than scientific, behaviour.)
40 years ago I published a book in six
languages about the politics I found in industry, not a million miles from the
politics in so-called "science" which we are now addressing.
Tragically, I only stumbled on the key phrase a few days ago; "Academic omerta". Now I find that already, in around 1965, de Gracia was talking about the "academic mafia."
More details later.
Your Newcastle colleague Brice Charlton
puts the date when science came to an end at around 1965.
The closing of ranks against any
further advances in science came shortly before the catastrophe of digital electronics,
high speed logic, which arrived in 1965. It undermined classical
electromagnetism, as your R Soc article indicates. 50
years later the ranks are holding, and no advance in electromagnetic theory
made since 1965 has gained entry into any university course or text book. More
and more bizarre, wrong mathematics is dumped on electromagnetic theory to
frighten off the horses (including you).
One Italian professor, di Trocchio, published on this in his book; called
"Misunderstood genius", about the plight of people like Catt. Then
decades later three Italian professors, in IEEE journals (you are FIEEE),
danced on the grave of the Digital Electronics man, Catt, misrepresenting and
defaming Catt, breaching the IEEE Codes of Ethics and Rules of Conduct with
impunity.
Note that in all the above there is no
science, only politics.
Your R Soc
article is a political, not a scientific, article. You are
a much more sophisticated politician than I am. The prize is the saving,
or rebuilding, of science. Charlton says we have to start from scratch.
Knowing where the leadership has to
come from, I am in your hands.
What are the many next steps?
Congratulations.
Ivor
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:53 PM Alex
Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear All,
The original idea of a special issue of
the Royal Society Transactions dedicated to the 125th anniversary of
Heaviside’s EM Theory belongs to Chris much as the composition of the invited
articles. I was extremely happy to join.
We should all send our special
congratulations to Chris!
2018 is becoming a year of Energy
Current!
Alex
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Nov 2018, at 13:48, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:
For the
record.
Early this year, Alex started out on
the tightrope, by correctly predicting the results of Wakefield 3. I
congratulated him immediately. But around that time I told him he needed
protection. About that time Alex said he was a scientist, not a politician.
I replied that that was what
politicians in our field do say.
Alex's handling of the Royal Society
was extremely sophisticated.
How best to exploit the new situation
Alex has created in the interest of science is very difficult to work out.
There are opportunities in all directions, and we all have a duty to work out
strategy in the interest of scientific advance.
For example, Alex FIET, FIEEE has
outflanked the IET and IEEE by going upmarket to the Royal Society. For the
last fifty years, none of the content of his Royal Soc article could be published in those
institutions, IET, IEEE, who now lose control of electromagnetic theory.
Will Tony Davies tell them to catch up?
Our opponents, careerists and
instrumentalists, are powerful, entrenched and
determined to continue to block scientific advance, which is very destructive
of career and reputation. There is an enormous amount at stake.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8b8yak4.htm
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM Alex
Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
Many thanks Dave.
As I wrote to Ivor and told you and Malcolm, and as
I wrote in this paper, the day of 9th October 2013 was the turning
point in my understanding of the world. Energy Current came into it!
And then our regular meetings with Chris have been
and helping to light up my way!
Best regards
Alex
From: David Walton [mailto:dsw@plus44.net]
Sent: 08 November 2018 12:13
To: Alex Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>; Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>; Christopher Spargo <christopher.spargo@gmail.com>; Dave Walton <dswalton@plus44.net>
Subject: Re: Your Paper
Yes indeed Alex, I totally agree with
Malcolm. Like him I have only been able to skim it quickly, but on my
view, it represents a significant achievement.
Congratulations ...... Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Nov 2018, at 11:42, Alex Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
Hello Malcolm
Many thanks! Yes, I am very happy about the paper
being out now, and the whole Special Heaviside Issue we edited with Chris.
I hope this volume will be a good promoter to
Oliver Heaviside’s legacy and my paper will help promote Ivor’s, Dave’s and
your ideas to the community.
I’ll look forward to hearing from you any comments
you may have on this paper.
I hope the Russian winter is not there yet!
Kind regards,
Alex
From: Malcolm Davidson [mailto:malcolmd3111@hotmail.com]
Sent: 08 November 2018 11:37
To: Alex Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>; Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>; Christopher Spargo <christopher.spargo@gmail.com>; Dave Walton <dswalton@plus44.net>
Subject: Your Paper
Hello Alex,
I thought I'd sent out an email to you
earlier today? It seems to have got lost in the ether? Congratulations on your
paper in the Royal Society Journal. I quickly perused it as I am at work in
Russia at the moment. I will get some time this weekend, so will be sure to
read it thoroughly and get back to you. You must be thrilled?
I'll be in touch soon.
Best Regards,
Malcolm
<ieeetonycard.pdf>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will do. Agreed! Many thanks. ReplyReply allForward |
