Summary of "Nutter"
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
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?
Catt is certainly paranoid and ignorant
Ivor is completely ignorant of modern physics
I agree that most of Catt's drivel is worthless,
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.
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
he chooses to be pseudo-scientific like this, and tries to shoot the messenger, a policy tried by Stalin with Trotsky.
the articles are wrong in almost every detail and it is vital that this should be clearly demonstrated before undue damage is done.
this reviewer, after lengthy and careful consideration, can find virtually nothing of value in this book. – IEE review of Catt’s book.
mainstream physicists view Catt's ideas, to the extent that they have heard of them, as pseudophysics.
All that your emails demonstrate is your ignorance of basic physics:
Pepper was right in this regard. – by a Nobel Prize winner.
The consistency of IvorCatt’s misrepresentation of Maxwell’s laws is remarkable
I do not give him any credibility about fundamental physics: he has shown that he does not understand electromagnetism
There are many other crackpots, so is he more funny than his
competitors? – Jos
Just to let any academics here know that Ivor Catt has managed to
republish his misunderstandings out EM theory in Electronics and
Wireless world and it would be nice if you could publish a letter in
the next issue explaining to him and the reader why they're wrong.
I agree that most of Catt's drivel is worthless
Catt got the "Catt anomaly" wrong by relying on a book published in 1893
Ivor’s diagram is a red-herring. Yet Ivor responds by ignoring this, instead of correcting it.
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. – By a Fellow of the IEE/IET
Catt is trying to deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself. –Kirk – by a Professor
I warned you to not send crap e-mail to me.
He has been considered a crank by a large part of the science and electrical engineering community.
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.
can't tell if he's a genius or a nutter.
I enjoyed myself thanks to the presence of C.Bron, S.D.Swierstra (who moderated the panel discussion) and B.Waumans, people I know for years but whom I encounter only rarely. The highlight, however, was being introduced to Mr. Ivor Catt, whom I had never met in person, though I knew very well who he was.
Ivor Catt, an innovative thinker whose own immense ability in electronics has all too often been too far ahead of conventional ideas
Catt has now taken out patents which extends this wafer-scale technology to produce an “smart” wafer
Ivor Catt is one of the most brilliant minds in electronic engineering.
Ivor Catt: A genius of physics doomed to ostracism by maintream swine
> 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
Professor Jonathan Post