Nutter.
http://www.wbabin.net/uploads/journal_reprints/respondents/journal_reprints_respondents_science_journal_26.pdfThe
consistency of Ivor Catt’s misreprentation
of Maxwell#s laws is remarkable. – Dermod O’Reilley.
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/anyone-heard-of-ivor-catt/
Used to get a lot of column inches in Wireless World letters pages
- can't tell if he's a genius or a nutter.
« Reply
#10 on: Yesterday
at 11:18:12 AM » The line between genius and madness is of nano
scale proportions.
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/capacitors.htm
Ivor is considered eccentric to many in the
electrical/electronics fields (some may say that is
an excessively generous description), but his data cannot be dismissed out of
hand.
Ivor Catt: A genius of physics doomed to ostracism by maintrean swine
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/awful-link-944.php
a raving bugshit lunatic site such as Ivor Catt's website - Rich
"Lowtax" Kyanka
Ivor Catt's not-so-vague attacks are the pseudo-scientific
garbage. I explained why I do not give him any credibility about fundamental
physics: he has shown that he does not understand electromagnetism
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.net/definitions/Ivor
Ivor Catt is a British electronics
engineer known principally for his controversial ideas on electromagnetism. His
most recent challenge to the status quo in electromagnetism is called "The
Catt Anomaly". He has been considered a crank by a large part of the
science and electrical engineering community.
http://www.usenetmessages.com/view.php?c=science&g=2468&id=487241&p=0
|
Jos Bergervoet
|
|
Jan 22, 2011 - 06:28:13 am EST |
|
There are many other crackpots, so is he more funny
than his |
|
Blackhead |
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:45:28 -0800 (PST) |
|
Just to let any academics here know that Ivor
Catt has managed to |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivor_Catt#Edit_War.3F
Mr. Ivor Catt is a nutter.
If the section on his views on digital logic doesn't make any sense, right, so?
There's no reason to think that his views make any sense either. Did you read
his quote about radar and the Sheffield? -- Kevin
Brunt (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC) – Kevin Brunt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvor_Catt/archive4
Catt is
certainly paranoid and ignorant, - Nigel
Cook
http://nige.wordpress.com/failed-sciences/
Ivor is completely
ignorant of modern physics, - Nigel Cook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvor_Catt/archive4
Note from Nigel Cook:
.... .... I agree that most of Catt's drivel is worthless, but that does
not mean his early work is crazy. Nigel
172.201.155.21
22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvor_Catt/archive6
The diagrams in that article
you quote, ignores radio emission occurring at the
front of a logic step! Catt got the "Catt anomaly" wrong by relying
on a book published in 1893 which ignored the step effects at the front of the
TEM wave. Asserting ignorance is wrong. At the front of a logic step, current
rises (in accepted picture) and this results in radio
emission. Since each conductor is oppositely charged and carries an opposite
current, the radio emission from each conductor (acting as aerials) is exactly
out of phase with the other and so completely cancels that from the other as
seen at a large distance. – Nigel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvor_Catt/archive7
But he is proud of
everything he writes on the subject, regardless of how wrong it is, and tells
me he doesn't find it helpful of me to point out errors he has made – Nigel
http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/7.jpg
Ivor’s diagram is a red-herring. Yet Ivor responds by ignoring this, instead of correcting it. Ivor claims to be progressive, but actually ties his theory
to Heaviside’s errors. It’s extremely disappointing that he chooses to be
pseudo-scientific like this, and tries to shoot the messenger, a policy tried
by Stalin with Trotsky. Ivor should ideally keep to
the empirically defensible facts, not horses**t theories by Heaviside. – Nigel
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2629.htm
.... the
articles are wrong in almost every detail and it is vital that this should be
clearly demonstrated before undue damage is done. .... ;
Catt's belief in his own work is clearly sincere, but this reviewer, after
lengthy and careful consideration, can find virtually nothing of value in this
book. - B. LAGO
