The trouble with this persistent fabrication by John Dore is that, having known me for so long, he is in pole position to falsify the historical record. I see as central for scientific advance the inquest which should take place in around 2040 into why science ground to a halt. They need clear information as to what was happening in 1980 and 2010. Like me, my predecessor, Heaviside, the greatest contributor to electromagnetic theory, was suppressed. Apologists for what happened will clutch at the straw that his friend Oliver Lodge told him he must stop being rude to the Great and the Good, like Preece.

This is the context for John Dore’s fabricating the charge that I always alienate those around me. In 2040 that will muddy the water. The truth is, as Malcolm Davidson, my co-author has recently written, it mattered not how Ivor Catt approached the entrenched professors and editors. The result, censorship and suppression, was inevitable because of content, not behaviour. Peer review outlaws paradigm shift. Although he said he tries, John Dore has never succeeded in gaining attention for my work, although he thinks it should be very widely recognised. However, he goes so far as to say I want to be suppressed. If I send a short email to a professor, he says that is rude. If I sent a long one, which I think is rude, he would say that was rude.

[It is the message, not the messenger, that is rude. It is rude to try to communicate a major scientific advance, because of the damage it would do to entrenched professors (careerists). – IC 21.5.2022]

All this is of course beside the point, except for those who like Oliver Lodge might think that science is, or should be, a gentlemen’s club. The truth is that scientists will continue to use Newton’s Laws of Motion whether or not it is true that Newton was not a nice man, or was rude.

Ivor Catt 20 December 2013.

From: Emory Garth

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:46 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; foggitt@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: catt behaviour

Hi Ivor,

For the record, I am not an expert on much of what you have been doing battle with your "experts" of varying prestige. I can say that the work that you and I (especially your contributions) did during our time together at Motorola in Phoenix was very significant. I had the great opportunity when I subsequently joined Texas Instruments in 1966 to utilize that work to design the Advanced Scientific Computer's (ASC) packaging and interconnect system that gave me significant favorable recognition. It consisted of an all transmission line interconnect and power distribution design. I did the heat transfer work also. The ASC was a direct competitor with the Cray and CDC large scale computers of that era. Of course, what we achieved at that time dwarfed preceding designs because of the semiconductor technology ECL) that was pioneered at Motorola. But, we have more compute capability in any desk top computer today, not to mention what is in our telephones.

To comment on your reason for this contact, there is no doubt that you were a different personality than the majority at Motorola. Having said that I had absolutely no reason to complain and thoroughly enjoyed our time together. I always felt you were one of the top technical people in my life which has been a rather long one at 83 years of age. I have relayed our story many times to others in the field.

I have no knowledge of your issues with John Dore.

I hope your health improves and allows you to keep "doing battle".

With best regards,

Emory Garth

PS - What is this 2040 inquest you refer to?

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
To: foggitt@hotmail.com; Emory Garth <emorygarth@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:37 PM
Subject: catt behaviour

Dear Emory, John,

As you know, I am trying to deal with the assertion by John Dore that I always alienate almost everyone I come in touch with. You two worked with me for three years, as did John Dore.

Already, Tony Wakefield has written, in response to my request, that he did not find Ivor behaved as John Dore asserts.

I have my mind on the historical record, when at the inquest as to what happened to science in 2040, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3cj.htm , a reason will be sought for the suppression of Heaviside and Catt. In the case of Heaviside, Oliver Lodge provided the indictment, as John does in the case of Catt. Your non-response will mean that you agree with John Dore, and those conducting the inquest will be presented with the “fact” that the reason for suppression in science was the misbehaviour of those who could have advanced it.

If that is really your opinion, then you are welcome to not respond. However, it would be easier in 2040 is they had clear statements from you that a good reason why Catt was suppressed was that he alienated everyone, rather than merely that you madenocomment.

John Dore goes further, arguing that I behave the way he says I do because I want to be suppressed. However, whether your views are so extreme is unimportant.

Ivor

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

From: Tony Wakefield

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:22 PM

To: 'Ivor Catt'

Cc: johnrdore@googlemail.com

Subject: RE: dore Requested Statement

“Did I alienate nearly everyone in our company Computer Technology Ltd?” ---Catt

Not to my knowledge Ivor. Certainly not on the technical side. CTL was a very smart company with most of the staff of high intelligence and very bright, young (early 20’s ) and not set in their ways.

Ivor, I made a point of following you over many years this was unknown to you until the last couple of years when I made direct contact with you showing my interest in what we now call the Wakefield Experiment.

I have found you pushy with your ideas but never rude just a bit excitable. I have no issue working with someone like you and have done so with others like you many times in my career. The real issue is that you want to drive at 100 mph whereas most others can only cope with 30 mph and when they can’t keep up or understand what is going on resort to being rude or talking down to you. If they cannot ask and say, ‘can you slow down and explain in a more clearer way’, it’s there loss.

I would further say you are ‘Assertive’ another skill that many others lack if people cannot stand up to you in a constructive and assertive way without resorting to muck throwing then maybe they need to be dismissed or ignored.

I think everyone should study the PAC man Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis then the discussion that go on may proceed in a more friendly manner achieving more in the longer term.

My Quote “Do not tell the designer what is wrong but guide this person so that they find what is wrong”

Regards Tony Wakefield.

From: Ivor Catt [mailto:icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013 2:08 AM
To: Tony Wakefield
Cc: johnrdore@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: dore Requested Statement

I wish the others I worked with would reply in a couple of sentences.

Tony,

Thank you very much. However, the key point is not my effect on you, partly because John Dore says the same thing about my effect on him. The key issue is whether I alienated all those around me, which John Dore says I did in Ferranti, which is untrue.

If I had a good effect on one or more individuals, this seems to be compatible, according to John Dore, with my alienating everyone else, which explains why my work is suppressed, according to John Dore.

Did I alienate nearly everyone in our company Computer Technology Ltd?

Oliver Lodge says one or the main reason why Heaviside was suppressed was his rudeness to key people. Will the same thing be thought about Ivor Catt during the inquest in 2040 because John Dore says he always alienated everyone? Or can that lie be dealt with by statements by others who worked with me?

If it is true that Ivor Catt really did alienate everyone, then those who carry out the inquest on science in 2040 need to be told that, but only if it is true.

Ivor Catt

From: Tony Wakefield

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:26 PM

To: 'Ivor Catt'

Subject: RE: dore Requested Statement

Statement from Tony Wakefield.

I have know Ivor Catt since 1968 we both worked together for around 3 years in the design department of a new British Computer company ‘CTL’. Ivor was a very inspiring person with his lateral thinking. We were working on very high speed ECL logic for the day. I never had any reason to dismiss his ideas and we discussed many. He discussed his idea of ‘WSI” wafer scale integration with me, I could see its merits however the fabrication techniques of the day meant he had to wait a number of years before his idea was taken up by Sir Clive Sinclair. I would say that Ivor taught me many useful things as a rather young computer hardware engineer that put me in good stead throughout my 40+ years in industry. I will always respect, listen, question and think about his ideas.

Tony Wakefield http://au.linkedin.com/pub/tony-wakefield/3/72/402/

From: Ivor Catt [mailto:icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 5:18 AM
To: foggitt@hotmail.com; Anthony Wakefield; malcolmd3111@hotmail.com
Cc: johnrdore@gmail.com
Subject: dore

Dear John Foggitt (and Tony and Malcolm),

Today on the phone I discussed with you and with John Dore the fact that John Dore is set to falsify the historical record unless action is taken.

As background, Heaviside’s friend Oliver Lodge told him that one or even the only reason why he was suppressed was that he was rude to such as Preece, Head of Post Office Research. (Preece got the key editor to stop publishing Heaviside, and Heaviside was unmentioned in any text book for more than 50 years.) In 2040, when an inquest is held into why major scientific advance (paradigm shift) ended on some date like 1950 or 2000, the assertion that Heaviside and Catt were rude will be welcomed by the majority, who will be desperate to believe that there was no fundamental problem which had evolved to block major scientific advance. The fundamental problem is centred on the epigram; “Peer review outlaws paradigm change”. In the long run, scientific research is only viable by amateurs, not by professionals, who suffer too much from paradigm shift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift . (John has a contempt for the work of Kuhn and Polanyi.)

John has just said that he will not bother to get all those who are allegedly alienated from me because of my behaviour for three years working with them in Ferranti, so the historical record will only contain the Dore assertion. He wrongly says that if he has said I am rude and I said I am not, I will be believed, not him. This is of course wrong. If Oliver Lodge said Heaviside was rude and Heaviside said he was not, the one who would be believed is Oliver Lodge.

I need a short statement from the three colleagues above who have all worked with me for three years in companies. It need only be a sentence or two. The statement will say whether or not I persistently alienated all those I worked with. I will then put it on the www. I think that will save my research for the 2040 inquest.

You all know that I take my research into the Scientific Reception System very seriously, and have published a great deal on it. Unless it is sabotaged, my work on the subject will be invaluable at the inquest in 2040. I will very much value your assistance.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w99anbk6.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/th26hcat.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.com/zc048c.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

From: Tony Wakefield

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:39 PM

To: 'John Raymond Dore' ; 'Ivor Catt'

Subject: RE: dore Requested Statement

Hi John & Ivor,

I can see where John is coming from unfortunately most people will not tell you what John is saying so you go on through life wondering why and get frustrated. I suppose I am lucky that I can work with people where others find it difficult and of course after 70 years its difficult to change. So I do not see you as an issue because if I have to I will try to give feedback and will not take offense (well just a little maybe).

Take the case of WSI you obviously convinced Sir Clive Sinclair so you cannot be that bad at negotiations, probably because he was just as excited as you about the technology.

Best Regards Tony

From: John Raymond Dore [mailto:johnrdore@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013 3:22 AM
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: Tony Wakefield
Subject: Re: dore Requested Statement

Ivor

Your venom is not unleashed until someone has the occasion to disagree with you.

It is no surprise that a young engineer will be impressed by you as was Tony Wakefield.

I was certainly an admirer in 1961 and appreciated your guidance and encouragement as I entered industry.

You attacked CDMarsh (Chief Engineer) in 1961 re requiring you to have a consultant visit from Woods Fans re cooling the Sirius computer and got fired from George Harrison's project in 1962 because you were unmanageable.

You lack interpersonal skills and appear not to recognize your limitations.

When you returned to England from the USA you felt impelled to go to Vietnam as you considered you were the only person who could write meaningfully about the war which caused your mother-in-law as well as Freda to get very excited and thankfully were persuaded against that idea.

Another silliness is your reluctance to describe things in the shorthand of science viz mathematics

Wake up to what you are really like and not indulge in the fiction of what you imagine you are like!

Watch your video presentation at Newcastle University because that is the here and now.

Try to see yourself as others see you.

Maybe you can then become a better person.

With every best wish for a successful outcome

John

On 17 December 2013 15:07, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

I wish the others I worked with would reply in a couple of sentences.

Tony,

Did I alienate nearly everyone in our company Computer Technology Ltd?

If it is true that Ivor Catt really did alienate everyone, then those who carry out the inquest on science in 2040 need to be told that, but only if it is true.

Ivor Catt

From: Tony Wakefield

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:26 PM

To: 'Ivor Catt'

Subject: RE: dore Requested Statement

Statement from Tony Wakefield.

I have known Ivor Catt since 1968 we both worked together for around 3 years in the design department of a new British Computer company ‘CTL’. Ivor was a very inspiring person with his lateral thinking. We were working on very high speed ECL logic for the day. I never had any reason to dismiss his ideas and we discussed many. He discussed his idea of ‘WSI” wafer scale integration with me, I could see its merits however the fabrication techniques of the day meant he had to wait a number of years before his idea was taken up by Sir Clive Sinclair. I would say that Ivor taught me many useful things as a rather young computer hardware engineer that put me in good stead throughout my 40+ years in industry. I will always respect, listen, question and think about his ideas.

Tony Wakefield http://au.linkedin.com/pub/tony-wakefield/3/72/402/

Dear John Foggitt (and Tony and Malcolm),

Today on the phone I discussed with you and with John Dore the fact that John Dore is set to falsify the historical record unless action is taken.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w99anbk6.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/th26hcat.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.com/zc048c.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

John,

It is good that you cited the Newcastle seminar, which is on the www. http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html

I note your introduction of the idea that perhaps I was only rude in certain phases of my career. This brings us to the private seminars we ran for ten years, when a large number of companies sent their staff to more than one of our seminars, as you see on this www page http://www.ivorcatt.com/433.htm . We got all 100 attenders, who paid a hefty sum to attend, to write comment afterwards, and all but one wrote very positively. One engineer attended the same seminar three times. Presumably he was a masochist who liked to receive insult. There was no hint of what you allege in any written comments, and the single adverse comment did not make your allegations. Presumably that was a phase in my career when I was not alienating everyone. It was unwise for you to migrate from your idea that I alienate co-workers to the idea that I alienate whose who hear my seminars. Now anyone can check your new allegation by watching the Newcastle seminar.

At every phase of my career, my electromagnetic theory has been suppressed. This has gone on for 40 years. The seminars were held because we were suppressed. The suppression continued, and continues today. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x344.htm

“Look at your 'Try again' comment to Rosenstark. That is rude!” – John Dore.

In recent years, the only professor who has written to me on em theory, including twice after my “Try again”, is Rosenstark. His later emails, after “Try again”, entailed his having to do considerable work, as he said. He must be a masochist, according to you. In the end he did a good job trying to explain his Problem P2.13 on page 51 of his book “Transmission Lines in Computer Engineering”, and so to make the Wakefield experiment. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm compatible with classical theory. To get this out of him, I tried “Try again”, and it worked. It is most important to research into whether the refusal of all accredited experts in electrmagnetic theory to communicate at all on fundamentals will prevail however they are approached.

“I wonder if you paid him $200 as promised.” – John Dore

As would be expected, Rosenstark blocked my off my £200 by not giving me his address, which I had asked him for. However, he did put in the necessary work.

Ivor Catt 20 December 2013

From: John Raymond Dore

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 11:19 AM

To: ivor catt

Subject: Theories wrt Catt rudeness

Ivor
You only have to disprove a theory once for it to fail.

Look at your filmed recent address at Newcastle University.

It is all on video so can be analysed in 2040 as you can archive a copy.

You have chosen support from what we might call more positive periods of your life.

Why not spend time encouraging an experiment on a large square capacitor?

I have given instances of alienation in CDMarsh and George Harrison.

You then recognised that you had no future at Ferranti and left for the USA.

I was elevated to senior staff at age 27 at Ferranti at West Gorton

I think you probably failed to mount that threshold at Ferranti and adjudged that your prospects were limited

Do look at the video of your presentation at Newcastle University and see how you fail to identify with your audience in order to carry them with you and when you finish by pointing out the damage to them allied to a paradigm change.

Look at your 'Try again' comment to Rosenstark. That is rude!

I wonder if you paid him $200 as promised. If not that is another form of rudeness and also a lack of integrity which I would find disappointing.

John

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x412.htm

“You never expressed any dissatisfaction until now.” – JD

That was very good of me.

“The coax cable was unused. I travelled from Wales to Coventry to collect it.” – JD

The coax cable was a red herring. Tony used a 70 ohm resistor, which looks just like an infinitely long coax cable. Nobody except you made the false assumption that in order to deliver into an infinitely long cable, you actually needed to have an infinitely long cable. In England, the resister to use instead is 50 ohms, weighing less than 100g and costing 20p, instead of your enormous length of cable. All Tony needed to do the expt was 18 metres of thin 70 ohm cable and a 70 ohm resistor. Your unnecessary cable weighed perhaps 50kg and cost perhaps £50, for which I paid, because for me electromagnetic theory is not about money, as you repeatedly insinuate. If you did something silly like travel 50 miles and pay £50 for unnecessary equipment, I would not dream of complaining, but would pay you for it if you asked me to, so I did pay you.

“Indeed I pointed out the transformers were set for USA input voltage. We decided not to alter the soldered contacts to the transformer but rather that you would provide the voltage via a variac.” – JD

I bought all that myself. I then failed to do the experiment, (which you had failed to attempt for three years,) because your two Tek 109 pulse generators did not work. Tony, in Australia, saved the day.

Your snide remarks about money are offensive. First, would I give you £600, or perhaps £1,000? Did I care enough? Now would I give Rosenstark $200? You said I was rude to offer him money. Actually, £500 or perhaps £2,000 remains waiting for any student who dares to ask his professor or text book writer to write anything about “The Catt Question”. I do this kind of thing because otherwise such as you would say that students and professors ran away from the fundamentals of electromagnetism because there was nothing in it for them. This is not why no professor or text book writer will comment on cattq or Wakefield. Because you have known me so long, you had, until now, the power to corrupt, or falsify, the historical record so carefully developed by me over decades, which shows that no paradigm shifts will be possible in future. This is the biggest Catt achievement, not something merely about electromagnetic theory. You are incapable of grasping this extraordinary discovery; “Peer review outlaws paradigm shift”. Even if Rosenstark began to support me, Theory C still could not be published in any peer reviewed journal, the same as for “A capacitor is a transmission line”.

You thought it was a safe bet to make another charge beyond the one that I alienate those I work with. This recent charge looked safe, to say I alienated the audience in my 3 hour Newcastle lecture, knowing full well that no one would listen for three hours to find evidence of bad behaviour by the lecturer, me. You forgot my documented track record on seminars, when for ten years people paid big money to listen to me, and came back again and again. http://www.ivorcatt.com/433.htm Thus, it can be proved now that like Nigel Cook, who similarly put enormous effort into promoting Catt theory and then turned on me calling me a liar, paranoid and wrong, but could not damage me because he was attacking everyone else, in your case, you became harmless when you migrated from saying I alienated co-workers to saying I alienated the audience when I lectured.

Half the engineers Ampex shipped over to Los Angeles became millionaires, because it was the third California Gold Rush. I opted for electromagnetic theory, although there would obviously be no money in it. And with my record over money, you insinuated that I thought money when it came to electromagnetic theory. I did become a half millionaire in spite of my em, but that was for something else.

It has been a long term nightmare, these charges from you, but now it is over. You threatened very serious damage to my research results. It was over once you said I alienated the audience when I lectured.

The idea that a very strong supporter of my work for decades (for decades you persisted in saying I should get a Nobel Prize) then turns on me and attacks, is very interesting. However, since there are only two cases, Nigel Cook and you, there is not enough evidence to incorporate this into a general theory on the blocking of major scientific advance, that “supporters” lose patience in getting no results, and attack the messenger. The case of Nigel Cook is in any case different, because he developed alleged flaws in my theory which he could put right, and I refused to cooperate. (If he persisted in saying I was the Cat’s Pyjamas, it was surely only fair that i should promote his theories.) Thus, I was only John the Baptist, and Nigel Cook was the real Jesus Christ. Such a sequence does not apply to you. You have not really meddled with my theories, but only attacked, or falsified, my behaviour. Nigel Cook did not criticise my behaviour in the way you do.

Ivor Catt 21 Devember 2013

From: John Raymond Dore

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:45 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Cc: David Walton ; Malcolm Davidson

Subject: Re: Theories wrt Catt rudeness

Ivor,

Have you put the whole series of correspondence with Rosenstark on your website?

If so please let me have the references as I am very interested.

The tek109 units from ebay clearly needed recommissioning as can perhaps be expected.

You knew the source and the age of the equipment.

I never powered them up.

Indeed I pointed out the transformers were set for USA input voltage.

We decided not to alter the soldered contacts to the transformer but rather that you would provide the voltage via a variac.

I had purchased a large soldering iron for the task had we decided to alter the connections.

The coax cable was unused. I travelled from Wales to Coventry to collect it.

I also transferred an FET scope probe.

I travelled from Wales to deliver all these items in person to you at Watford station.

You never expressed any dissatisfaction until now.

I also found you a supplier of compatible reed relays.

The drive circuitry is fairly simple so should not have posed a problem

It was to my regret that I did not have the time to do the experiment as I had a lot of other activities.

It is good news that your medical problems may be alleviated.

You need to drive this em issue to its conclusion.

Have a merry Xmas

John

On 20 December 2013 14:33, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

Dear John,

I did not notice your money jibe. I don’t know why you can be so destructive as to imply that when it comes to electromagnetic theory I am financially motivated (and I did not remember the previous case), or that Rosenstark would be. Of course, if I did not offer money, you would be in a position to say, and you would; “Why should he spend time on you for no apparent reason?”

Research into the crisis in science should use all techniques available. When one retired professor asked for $1,000 per day consultancy fee before he would comment on the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory, should I have agreed?

This is a suitable point to mention for the first time that we have been here before. When you were going to do the Wakefield Experiment, and then failed to do it for some years, you were then willing to give me the equipment you had assembled in return for either £600 or £1,000. I know it was one or the other. I suspect that you will be very able to remember which. You said; “Let’s see how much you value the work”, or some such. Because money should not have been relevant, I did not tell you later that the bulk of what you gave me (or actually sold to me) was unusable for more than one reason.

For examples of the work I have done to exclude the financial element in the fact that paradigm shift is no longer possible, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/442.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/wxyz.pdf . The problem goes much deeper. You are trampling on the research which has unearthed very interesting results. However, by diversifying from saying I insult my working colleagues to now saying I insult the audience in seminars, you have stumbled into solid contrary documentary evidence, and so you no longer present a threat to the historical record. Similarly, when Nigel Cook said I lied and was paranoid, he was unable to do significant damage to me because he was attacking everyone else as well. Attempts to wreck the image to an individual have to be done more carefully, particularly when addressing someone who published a book in six languages; “ .... .... How to hang on to your job when all around you are losing theirs.” I was struck when John Lythgoe said he would have to fire me and I saw my book in his cupboard. The year long battle which followed was very one sided. I felt sorry for him.

I think that all the enormous amount of work I have been put into dealing with your charges was worth it. The historical record is very important to me.

Ivor Catt

From: John Raymond Dore

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:39 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Cc: David Walton ; Malcolm Davidson ; Anthony Wakefield ; Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz

Subject: Re: Theories wrt Catt rudeness

Ivor
You can send payment to Rosenstark c/o his university NJIT address on www with his phone and room number

John