|
12:08 PM (48 minutes ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Ivor,
Your summary seems to
be blank but essentially I imagine you now realise that
you have been trying to sell a junk idea to the world and that you should now
retire from such activities and allow people to get on with real productive
activities. Maybe a new career opportunity as a snake oil salesman awaits for you.
John R Dore 10
November 2015
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
“It is perhaps typical of Ivor
that his obit of Ken Johnson in Wireless World is all me me
me and says practically nothing about Ken” –
Anonymous
I have no recollection of any “obit of Ken Johnson
in Wireless World” by me. – Ivor Catt 27 March 2014
From: John
Raymond Dore
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 5:46 PM
To: ivor catt
Cc: David
Walton ; Alex
Yakovlev
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Catt Contention Collapse (Theory Catt bites
the dust)
Ivor
What has happened to you?
This from an erstwhile colleague of yours from the
Ferranti days (identity not disclosed for his protection)
Quote starts
Poor old Ivor
I watched his lecture in Newcastle. [ http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt-edited.html
] He rambled on for more than 40 minutes about cross talk and never got
anywhere. He wasn't too pleased when someone in the audience gave a perfectly
good explanation for the 'scope pictures. I tried to read one of his papers
about cross talk but I am too old to follow the maths. However there is an
extremely detailed paper about the same subject (http://cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~rbwu/course/highspeed/SI3_Crosstalk.pdf)
which does not resort to claiming that Einstein was wrong as Ivor does. I have in the past looked at Ivor's
ideas about wafer scale integration. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7JYZviFH54
] Which weren't up to much and written as though no-one else had thought about
it. He seems to have spent his life having ideas that do not lead to anything
new. Just new explanations for perfectly good existing
theories. It is perhaps typical of Ivor that
his obit of Ken Johnson in Wireless World is all me me
me and says practically nothing about Ken
[ http://www.ivorcatt.com/75.htm
] . This includes “The above is an abrupt story about two important
leads given to me by Ken. I may later recollect others than the two key leads
he gave me (above). The fact that a ten minute talk by Ken could direct my life
and work for decades, and that this happened at least twice, should be
recorded. I also
cited Ken . (Figure 1) at
the time. Ken was the most
talented design and R&D engineer in a very talented lab, Computer R&D
in Ferranti, West Gorton, Manchester, 1960 ”
But credit where it is due. His only
"respectable" paper published by the IEEE in 1966 was a very
early paper on dealing with asynchonous signals. [ http://www.async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesitates-is-Lost.pdf
]
I am recovering from Norvirus today and had nothing
better to do that follow up your email.
Quote ends
John
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: John
Raymond Dore
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:34 AM
To: ivor catt
Cc: David
Walton ; Alex
Yakovlev
Subject: Catt Contention Collapse (Theory Catt bites the
dust)
Ivor
I have performed the electrolysis test and I can
report that it does occur.
Indeed it is not insignificant so is readily
observed.
I suggest you perform such an experiment yourself or
have an associate perform such an experiment so that you will be convinced.
This along with the electric fence observation
indicates the need for a new theory.
Would it not have been a lot better to have done
this a long time ago without promulgating the myth of the death of electric
current?
Nice idea ... shame about the truth.
It is possible to determine what really happens by
a set of experiments.
Well within the capabilities of modern equipment.
No Nobel prize yet
John
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bETCusT5kNM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@’
Fortunately John went over the top, saying my 2013
Newcastle lectures were bad and that I insulted the audience or some such. This
can be checked because they are on the www. http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt-edited.html
. However, a pattern begins to appear, of a major supporter of my work turning
in this way, as Nigel Cook did, when he said I was a liar and paranoid etc.
However, Nigel Cook was attacking everyone else as well. The case of John
Dore was particularly threatening because my research has had the Politics of
Knowledge http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm
as a key element. I have gone to unprecedented lengths to ensure that
personality does not come into my being suppressed. For instance in cattq I
did not choose choose Dr. Neil McEwan
or Sir Michael Pepper and did not reply when they wrote to me. That excluded my
personality. As Oliver Lodge did to Heaviside, saying some or all of the
problem for Heaviside was that he was rude to the professors, John Dore could
say this convincingly of me until he self-destructed by going over the top. It
is obvious that my Newcastle October 2013 lectures are excellent from every
point of view. However, that has no bearing on The Politics of Knowledge, which
is about the professional survival of entrenched professors and text
book writers, not on my or Heaviside’s personality and behaviour. Probably
nearly everyone will find it impossible to accept, however great the evidence, that in future no
paradigm shifts will be allowed. The damage from a paradigm shift would be
too great.
Ivor Catt 14 February 2014
From: John
Raymond Dore
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:55 AM
To: ivor catt
Cc: Alex
Yakovlev ; David Walton
Subject: Unjustified attack on a very helpful professor
Ivor
It is monstorous that you
would choose to mount an attack behind the back of a professor who has tried to
help you on account what you now recognise may be your own incompetence and
lack of patience and computer skills in downloading from the university
website.
You are incorrigible!
What about concentrating on the electric fence
issue which probably completely destroys Theory C (Theory Catt) and seek to
work with academics rather than feel you live on an elevated plane (which you
do not!).
Indeed what work have you done which was other than
fairly obvious?
Perhaps it will be to show that the contents of a
capacitor are dynamic!
Have fun and think before you attack.
Indeed you have sought to rubbish me on the www
against an agreement that you would not put my name on the www.
Am I surprised? Not really as you have a long
history of upsetting all who deal with you both workwise
and family wise.
Growing old but never growing up!
Have fun
John
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: John
Raymond Dore
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:46 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: HARRY RICKER
; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; rmlaf@comcast.net ; the.volks@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kiehns answer as of
Feb 22
Ivor,
The key issue is what is the positive result of your
insight.
Engineers have been designing both analog and digital
systems which work satisfactorily for over 50 years.
When I joined you on 10th July 1961 for the first 6 months of my career
I considered then and now that I was very fortunate. It gave me a great start.
It would be useful if you could give an uncluttered youtube
presentation or equivalent of your insight uncluttered by ideas of suppression,
non understanding by professors, resistance to paradigm change and all the
other clutter which is absolutely nothing to do with a clear presentation of
your case in a form which I can recommend to professors I know.
30 minutes maximum would be good. No questions just a well thought out
non hesitant flow to make clear those points you wish to make.
I think you revel in not making progress and blaming this on all who do
not accept or else question your ideas.
I have told you many times that your approach to eminent people is rude.
For all their suggested shortcomings (viz not
recognising the genius of Catt) many of these people have achieved a great deal
more in life than you have.
I am seeking to obtain a paper written in the 1960s on pulse
transmission in the Ferranti computer labs which may provide some independent
observations.
I have just contacted the author but I do not know if a copy still exists
... I recall the work but never had my own copy to examine.
Thus the ball is in your court if you wish to make positive progress.
I am continuing my work in computational electromagnetics
and wish to avoid following you around your circles ... when did you last make
a positive move forward?
I reiterate my thanks for your great help in introducing me to computers
in 1961.
Incidentally I have contact with a number of people at Ferrantis from that era in the early 1960s and none wish to
have contact with you so you certainly made a lasting impression.
It is further disappointing that you do not respect private
conversations.
Bon voyage,
John
On 27 February 2012 20:15, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
I made a big impression on John when he came to work for me (the only
one I was put in charge of in a 40 years career). He is very positive indeed
about my work, and also has major hangups.
He fails to distinguish between search for truth and whether untruth has
been successful in practice. He has no time for the problem of “the truth that
there are no truths” which controls science of the 20th century – called
Instrumentalism by Karl Popper (“Conjectures and Refutations” p100.) He
persistently asks if discussion towards establishing the truth has practical
value. Search for truth has no connection with the practical value of truth –
whether resulting artefacts work or not. He just fails to make the distinction.
He also privately introduces the idea of Catt being rude or unclear,
claiming that his assertions will never become public knowledge. His rejection
of the subject of censorship means he cannot cope, for instance, with the
epigram “Anything said or done in defence of the established paradigm is by
definition ethical. Anything said which threatens the established paradigm is
by definition unethical. Ethics is part of the defence mechanism of the
Establishment.” This has no meaning for him. He does not understand, or care about,
the epigram; “It is important for an established expert to not understand
something which it is in his interest to not understand.” He takes at face
value the professor’s assertion that he (the professor) does not understand
Catt’s writings, and concludes that Catt’s writing is unclear, which it is not.
This discovery of mine has no value for him. He will never understand that
someone who threatens the established paradigm is by definition unclear, rude,
paranoid, presumptuous etc. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x21n.htm
. For some reason he wants to establish that Catt is his own enemy, and he
frequently says Catt wants to be censored. Extraordinary.
He persistently refuses to state the practical value of putting the sun
at the centre rather than the earth. I have to conclude that in his view, the
commotion around Galileo served no purpose. It cdertainly
served no purpose for cdentures, and I claim serves no
purpose today. It was a storm in a teacup.
Presumably John does not understand the importance of the concept “this
process that he is saying made him see the world differently.” - HR
Ivor
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 12:53 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; John
Raymond Dore
Cc: forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; rmlaf@comcast.net
; the.volks@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kiehns answer as of
Feb 22
|
John, I am not sure of your point. I think that what Ivor
is saying is something different from what you understand. His claim is
actually not extensive enough in that it is not digital electronics but the
entire world of electricity and electronics that is involved. What Ivor is saying is that there was a
particular need for a change in the thinking of the digital design community
to a new paradigm and that the new approach facilitated the further
development of digital electronics. That was by introducing the use of
transmission line theory. This theory had already been in use for many years
by the radio engineering community and the electric power community and was
not new to them. I think that what struck Ivor was that in
the transition from the old to new viewpoint he had to relearn old ideas and
it is this process that he is saying made him see the world differently. It is odd that radio engineers still cling to the old viewpoint, when
they use the new viewpoint constantly in everything that they do. Here we
have a curious question. Why don't radio engineers see the textbooks as
teaching wrong things. I think it is because they
compartmentalize their thinking. Ivor didn't do
that and so he argues for a different theory of electromagnetism. Harry
Ivor Note that the digital electronics works without the need for Catt's
insight into how it might work. 50+ years of successful application. This may be extraordinary in Catt terms but in fact it is now
ordinary. While it is nice to fully understand how things operate it is not
essential in producing functional products. Pulses can be viewed in the time domain (FDTD, TDR) without the need
to translate to the frequency domain. This was taught in my mathematics course at University in 1959 to a
class of 120 engineers. John On 27 February 2012 10:08, Ivor Catt
<wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
wrote: I favor Neil McEwan's points http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2813.htm
(in his letter to Catt), on displacement currents, [The only McEwan letter is not about displacement current] but I am not an expert in antenna or wave guide design. – Kiehn. It is extraordinary that Professor Kiehn
thinks cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
is about antennas or waveguides. He is not alone. The whole of academia (and
university text books) seem to have failed to notice that the old electronics
has been overwhelmed by digital electronics. They type into their computers,
and do not realise what is in front of them. Not sine
waves, but pulses. Ivor Catt From: wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=Toptorsion@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 4:06 AM To: wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=kc3mx@yahoo.com ; wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk Cc: wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=rmlaf@comcast.net ; wlmailhtml:/mc/compose?to=the.volks@comcast.net Subject: Kiehns
answer as of Feb 22 Kiehn says First, I repeat my email of Feb 22
directed to Ricker and Catt, and add a comment update here and there. Dear Sirs there is no way in which you and I can come to a reasonable understanding. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 28 Feb 2012-02-28 Ivor That
you have not heard of solitons is unsurprising as
you choose not to keep up to date. They
are very important in fibre optics in that the necessity for repeaters is
obviated. Yet
again you delight in exposing your lack of technical awareness and current
applications! This is
a great shame as it lowers your credibility. John @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From: John
Raymond Dore Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:08
PM To: ivor catt Cc: Forrest Bishop Subject: Observation vs
pontification Ivor shows the capability of modern equipment. It
is thus possible to determine what happens at the terminals of a battery when
it initially supplies power. No need to bother battery manufacturers who
clearly have no need to be interested. It
is possible to exactly determine what happens at different points on the edge
of a large square, rectangular or irregular parallel plate capacitor. We
will then know what happens in the real world. You
can then fit your theories to the observations with any modifications that
are found to be necessary. The onus is on you to investigate not on the
professors of the world to dance to your tune. Again clearly there will be
explanations and thus theories will have to be developed to accord with the
observations in the real world. I
suggest that the reason people do not respond to you are at least twofold: 1.
You hit them out of the blue eg Dr Rene Marklein when you just sent him some pencil diagrams via
email with no introductory remarks and 2.
Interconnections are no longer the prime concern as they can be made
sufficiently small on chip by multiple buffering where the greatest concern
for speed arises. USB3
(remember it is no good plugging in a USB3 peripheral if the whole on
computer chain is not USB3 capable) provides a perfectly adequate interface
for eg external disk drives. It
would be refreshing if you could adapt to a positive engaging approach but I
guess you have experienced so much rejection in life that may now not be
possible. In
1961 you were outstandingly helpful in introducing me to industrial life. I
am looking forward to the meeting with Alex on Wednesday 9th Sept 2013. Incidentally
he,I and another professor
will be dining that evening when I can perhaps address the politics of
suppression. Basically
many people need to be suppressed. Those
who make a good case can rise above the parapet. Those
who do not have not yet made a sufficiently good case. How
else do you get rid of all the dross? Engineering
is all about being ingenious. What
is needed is the ability to produce reliable products at the state of the art
when the design is sent for manufacture consistent with being cost effective. Engineering
is doing for £1 what anyone can do for £10 At
least you ought to enjoy your remaining years John @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From: Malcolm Davidson Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 5:09 PM To: John
Raymond Dore ; Ivor Catt
Cc: Forrest Bishop ; Dave Walton ; Mike Gibson Subject: RE: paradigm Hello
John, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:14:33 +0100 Ivor Amen John On
19 September 2013 15:53, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote: You
persist in personalising a situation which is not personal. The research was
done by a team, and attempts to promote the results were made by each
individual in the team, to which can now be recently added Forrest Bishop, to
which your strictures “We live in an exciting information age so you should
harness these capabilities and stop blaming everyone else for your very
personal failings.” will have to apply most heavily, the others having given
up after decades of trying, but Forrest only trying in the “new communication
age” that you describe. I
wish I had realised many years ago that your personal attacks are obviously nonsense,
since a number of individuals, not I alone, have worked very hard over
decades to break through the communication barrier. It is obvious that any
peculiarities in Ivor have nothing to do with the
problem. Your harassment threatens to damage the research I am doing into the
status quo as an aid to those who conduct an inquest in 2040 into what went
wrong with science. They need good analysis of what happened in the present
time unsullied by your attempts to confuse the historical record. Dr.
Harold Hillman has made major advances in his field. He has always behaved in
a totally gentlemanly way. He has met with identical barriers for many
decades. http://harold-hillman.com/
; “Unfortunately, it is my experience that they favour interaction with
their colleagues as long as it does not threaten the value of their own
research” http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/th26hcat.htm Perhaps
you would deny that Theory C and the rest pose a great threat to careers and
reputations. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0410.htm Ivor Catt From: John Raymond
Dore Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:11
AM To: Ivor Catt
Cc: Forrest Bishop ; Malcolm Davidson ; David Walton ; mikegi@comcast.net ; John Raymond Dore Subject: Re: paradigm Ivor, I
can understand why people get irritated with you when you seek to ascribe to them
thoughts and words which they have not expressed. My
issue is with you. You
are not a 'people person'. You
have not changed since the Ferranti days. I
believe that your work is ignored because it does not offer an immediate
payoff and that equipment can currently be engineered to perform without
knowledge of your insights. I
have said this so many times before. I
appreciate it has been a source of frustration for you. Now
there are far more ways to communicate than there used to be. You
have the internet on which to publish. You
are not therefore suppressed in the current environment. It
is just that there is so much out there that you have to stand head and
shoulders above the rest to be noticed. You
thus fail in your marketing skills. You
persistently fail, for example, to make a convincing video on youtube ... a fact I have often mentioned to you. We
live in an exciting information age so you should harness these capabilities
and stop blaming everyone else for your very personal failings. There
is always a problem trying to make a change but the avenues are now legion by
which you can seek to do this. I
do not expect you to alter because you are old, set in your ways and unable
to relate to modern methods. Moan
about me if you must. It
is a sad end for you. You
have only yourself to blame. John Re: 1
The work is ignored. 2
A number of people have attempted to draw attention to it. 3
Either they all adopted wrong approaches, or there is a very deep problem
over trying to communicate paradigm shift. On
18 September 2013 22:59, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote: John, You
ignore the key point I made; “I
will repeat. If my rudeness or lack of strategy is why this work is ignored,
then you must be saying the same about Malcolm Davidson, Dr. David Walton and
Mike Gibson. They have tried very hard. According to you, they must all have
botched it.” 1
The work is ignored. 2
A number of people have attempted to draw attention to it. 3
Either they all adopted wrong approaches, or there is a very deep problem
over trying to communicate paradigm shift. Is
“Theory C” a paradigm shift? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift Please
give an example of attempted paradigm shift during the last century which was
addressed by the Science Establishment, and not ignored/suppressed. Ivor Catt From: John Raymond
Dore Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:55
PM To: Ivor Catt
Cc: Forrest Bishop ; Malcolm Davidson ; David Walton ; mikegi@comcast.net Subject: Re: Observation vs
pontification Ivor The
comment about rising above the parapet was engendered by the way ICI
(Imperial Chemical Industries) allocated projects. All
the divisional directors had there accounts
prepared in an identical format. There
were more projects than money to fund them. The
most persuasive divisional directors won the bidding. A
derivative of this could determine publication rather than peer review. I am not interested in the politics
of science but rather just addressing the problem of the threshold at which
papers and projects should be suppressed. Suppression is surely needed to
separate the wheat from the chaff. Anyway
you now have a platform at Newcastle University to make a case. If
people there do not agree with you then I guess they will be pilloried in the
unending observations which you spew out on the internet. I am very pleased that you are
attending the seminar so that you will be unable distance yourself from the
outcome. My criticisms are solely directed at
you as you must realize. Every best wish for a successful and
challenging future. Whatever
the future holds it must be computable otherwise people will stick with the current
situation. You
need to demonstrate the advantage of change. John On
18 September 2013 21:13, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote: “Many people think
you are out of control”
– JD When
in a hole, stop digging. “Is
there something better than peer review? If
so you should propose that as a replacement.” – JD This
is bizarre since you persist in saying that by studying the sociology of
science I damage the possibility of my electromagnetic theory gaining
attention. You also claim you have no interest in the sociology of science. We
have reached a very important stage in the history of science, and you seek
to muddy the record by bringing my personality into it. The decline of
science is not caused by my behaviour. I
will repeat. If my rudeness or lack of strategy is why this work is ignored,
then you must be saying the same about Malcolm Davidson, Dr. David Walton and
Mike Gibson. They have tried very hard. According to you, they must all have
botched it. “There
is a need for suppression of some papers. Is
there something better than peer review?” – JD You
really should have read my key papers. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm “However, across this vista, like a blaze of light, comes the dictum
of Dr A. W. Holt, 'Without barriers to communication there can be no
communication'. This is one of the great profound truths which often appear
facile at first sight.” This collides with my recent epigram; “http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x11u.htm” “Peer
review outlaws paradigm change” Such
developing insights are very important for the future of science, including
electromagnetic theory, and you spurn them. Ivor Catt From: John Raymond
Dore Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:38
PM To: Ivor Catt
Cc: Forrest Bishop ; Malcolm Davidson ; David Walton ; mikegi@comcast.net ; John Raymond Dore Subject: Re: Observation vs
pontification Ivor You
have truly lost your sense of reason You
are not reading what I wrote. Your
imagination is running riot. My
point was that there needs to be suppression. It
was not that you need to be suppressed. The
question is how does someone algorithmically distinguish
between dross and good. Do
you now understand? There
is a need for suppression of some papers. Is
there something better than peer review? If
so you should propose that as a replacement. Please
behave in an adult way and carefully read what I have said rather than what
you think I have said. Many
people think you are out of control and you make a persuasive case John On
18 September 2013 20:18, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote: “I do not want to
see the whole exercise hi-jacked by Ivor bemoaning
his suppression and discussing the politics of science.” – JD “It
would be refreshing if you could adapt to a positive engaging approach but I
guess you have experienced so much rejection in life that may now not be
possible.” – JD “Basically
many people need to be suppressed. Those
who make a good case can rise above the parapet. How
else do you get rid of all the dross?” I
have put samples of your stuff above. I have only just realised that your
criticisms must also be addressed to Malcolm Davidson, Dr. David Walton and
Mike Gibson. They have all put a lot of effort into promoting this material.
According to you, they all had the wrong approach throughout their decades of
trying. As
I have told you in the past, because Oliver Heaviside was subjected to the kind
of treatment you give to me (above) by his friend Oliver Lodge, I went to
greater extremes than any one in history to ensure that such charges could
not justifiably be made against me. I did not want the historical record to
be smeared as it gas been over Heaviside. That is
why I did not choose McEwan, Pepper, Mink or
Secker, did not approach them, and did not reply to them when they wrote to
me. This extreme care to remove personalities has never been practised in
history before me. I went to this extreme because of what Heaviside’s friend
Oliver Lodge did to him. Ivor Catt From: John Raymond
Dore Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:08
PM To: ivor catt Cc: Forrest Bishop Subject: Observation vs
pontification Ivor shows the capability of modern equipment. It
is thus possible to determine what happens at the terminals of a battery when
it initially supplies power. No need to bother battery manufacturers who
clearly have no need to be interested. It
is possible to exactly determine what happens at different points on the edge
of a large square, rectangular or irregular parallel plate capacitor. We
will then know what happens in the real world. You
can then fit your theories to the observations with any modifications that
are found to be necessary. The onus is on you to investigate not on the
professors of the world to dance to your tune. Again clearly there will be
explanations and thus theories will have to be developed to accord with the
observations in the real world. I
suggest that the reason people do not respond to you are at least twofold: 1.
You hit them out of the blue eg Dr Rene Marklein when you just sent him some pencil diagrams via
email with no introductory remarks and 2.
Interconnections are no longer the prime concern as they can be made
sufficiently small on chip by multiple buffering where the greatest concern
for speed arises. USB3
(remember it is no good plugging in a USB3 peripheral if the whole on
computer chain is not USB3 capable) provides a perfectly adequate interface
for eg external disk drives. It
would be refreshing if you could adapt to a positive engaging approach but I
guess you have experienced so much rejection in life that may now not be
possible. In
1961 you were outstandingly helpful in introducing me to industrial life. I
am looking forward to the meeting with Alex on Wednesday 9th Sept 2013. Incidentally
he,I and another professor
will be dining that evening when I can perhaps address the politics of
suppression. Basically
many people need to be suppressed. Those
who make a good case can rise above the parapet. Those
who do not have not yet made a sufficiently good case. How
else do you get rid of all the dross? Engineering
is all about being ingenious. What
is needed is the ability to produce reliable products at the state of the art
when the design is sent for manufacture consistent with being cost effective. Engineering
is doing for £1 what anyone can do for £10 At
least you ought to enjoy your remaining years John @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@’ From: Stephen
Crothers Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:07 PM To: Ivor Catt
Cc: mpepper@ee.ucl.ac.uk
; David Walton ; Forrest Bishop ; Malcolm Davidson Subject: Re: Fw:
rudeness Dear Ivor, I‘ve always thought Heaviside a very nice bloke as well as a great
scientist. He had a good sense of humour too. Preece
was indeed a scienticulist, who perhaps would have
done better by delivering the post. There is an overabundance of scienticulists masquerading as scientists nowadays.
Heaviside simply wouldn’t tolerate nonsense from fuddy-duddy physics
professors and bureaucratic engineers with their pretentious affectations and
pompous etiquette, nor those ‘woodenheaded’ mathematicians who didn’t like him
constructing transforms without their permission. And why should have he? That Pepper has joined the Round Table with the likes of Sir Cumference and Sir Rhosis is
surely a sign of gentrification and ladder climbing. One can’t expect science
from such people in any event; they have too many soirees and shoulder
rubbing to occupy their time. And wasn’t it Voltaire who laughed at the
divine rights of kings? But what do I know; a far flung uncouth working class
colonial whose ancestors were transported from the Olde
Country for pinching bread and pocket picking at the races and in the streets
of London. Kind regards, Steve Crothers On
Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote:
|