http://www.wiki-rath.org/thesorosconnection.html
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x88pwik.htm
The
Wikipedia Thought Police.
Some time ago, the Wik Thought Police removed all information on Catts
Electromagnetic Theory from the home page. You can still see very lengthy
echoes of his work in the Talk section, which they did not remove. They also removed the suggestion I first
mooted, that anyone with a Wik piece on himself could
have a hyperlink to his comments. They added it for a while, but have now removed
it. You are not allowed to comment on what is said about you on Wik. Ivor Catt,
2.5.2021
Wikipedia cannot decide whether Heaviside is linked
with Energy Current or not. The Thought Police need to sort this out, and
make the Wik Bible consistent.
Editing of the Wikipedia article Ivor Catt seems to
be monitored weekly. Extraordinarily, consider the Politically Correct
statement that Catt promotes Energy Current rather than Electric Current.
This was followed by citation needed. I added a hyperlink to the chapter in
my Macmillan book entitled Energy Current, Heavisides idea. http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp65.htm
;
Also see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_current
It was originally postulated by Oliver
Heaviside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations The vector calculus formalism
below, due to Oliver Heaviside,[4][5] has become
standard.
On Catt, Wik
says; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt As opposed to
normal electric current (flow of charge), Catt
uses energy current to describe most effects.[9]
If these claims are true they put
Catt in opposition to electrical science based on James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory
from the 19th century,[10] which uses
electric current as a fundamental physical quantity and has given rise to an
industry which has changed civilisation by creating worldwide electric power
for most of the human race as well as the communications industries, medical
electronics and computing.
The Macmillan hyperlink was twice removed within a
week. Now the phrase citation needed has been removed. Presumably it is
better to not have a citation which takes the idea Energy Current back to
Heaviside. The point made is that Catt is a crank, but Heaviside is not. They
need to be kept separate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_current
I quote Wikipedia on Catt; If these claims are true they put Catt
in opposition to electrical science based on James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory from the 19th
century,[10] which
uses electric current as a fundamental physical quantity
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside Oliver Heaviside FRS[1] (/ˈhɛvisaɪd/;
18 May 1850 3 February 1925) was an English self-taught electrical engineer, mathematician,
and physicist who
adapted complex numbers to the study of electrical circuits, invented mathematical
techniques for the solution of differential equations (equivalent
to Laplace transforms), reformulated Maxwell's field equations in terms
of electric and magnetic forces and energy flux, and
independently co-formulated vector analysis.
Although at odds with the scientific establishment for most of his life,
Heaviside changed the face of telecommunications, mathematics, and science for
years to come.[2]
Heaviside could not have been involved in such a
ridiculous idea as Energy Current. Neither could Macmillan publish such
stuff. (The Poynting vector?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
Ivor Catt 25.8.2018
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Join the Thought Police!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historikeren
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration
Committee election. The Arbitration
Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting
the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to
enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to
serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This
includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans,
editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing
environment. The arbitration policy describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to
participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and
submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election
committee, MediaWiki
message delivery
(talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Experiment. 12/8/2018. 6am
Wilipedia on Ivor
Catt
Some time ago, Ivor Catt proposed
that in Wikipedia, the subject of a page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
should be guaranteed a hyperlink at the top of the page to a page where the
subject could comment on the Wikipedia page on him.
Presumably as
a compromise, the Wikipedia Thought Police put such a hyperlink in small print
towards the bottom. This is it.
ท
Ivor Catt's latest website, with 1970s books and articles
ท
Ivor Catt comments on this Wikipedia article
The
experiment was editing the page on Ivor Catt. I chose the most innocuous
change. Where it said energy current followed by citation needed, As opposed to normal electric
current (flow of
charge), Catt uses energy
current to describe
most effects.[citation
needed] I added a hyperlink to the chapter of my
Macmillan book entitled Energy current.
http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp65.htm
That was
rapidly removed, but citation needed remained. I then put a hyperlink to an
article by me entitled Oliver Heavisides Energy Current http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x542.htm which was rapidly removed.
I have now
again added a hyperlink to the chapter in my book published by Macmillan
entitled Energy Current. We wait to see how rapidly it is removed. [4pm. 13.8.18 Still there!
36 hours. 24.8.18 Gone, and citation needed gone too.]
Since they
act so swiftly, I suggest the Wikipedia Thought Police have software which
scans through Wikipedia pages to look for changes, and removes the changes
rapidly. I am saving the versions before and after changes. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x88b2.html 6.50am
12/8/2018
Ivor Catt. 6.30am 12/8/2018
22/8/2018.
The Wikipedia Thought Police did not remove my hyperlinks in the first two
days, but now, ten days later, they have been removed. Perhaps the Thought
Police check websites weekly. Where there is mention of Energy Current, it is
extraordinary that the hyperlink to the chapter in my Macmillan book entitled
Energy Current was removed. I shall try putting it back again. These Thought
Police are truly bizarre. Ivor
Catt http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp65.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2017/06/censorship-suppression-the-shining-light-of-wikipedia-and-other-disappointments/
Problems for
electricity, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x87tned.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x87vdc.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311.htm Ivor Catts work on electromagnetic
theory. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm IC 8.4.2018
20 October
1017. The Catt Question http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm is one
of Catts major contributions to science. Perhaps The Catt Question, https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Catt_Question
, will be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Even though now peer reviewed,
will it still be banned by the Thought Police? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311a.htm .
Jimmy Wales said he wanted peer reviewed material. It is now peer reviewed.
Found it!
Hidden away at the bottom. Will anyone else find this item, which is central to
my 50 years of work?
29 August
2016.
I assumed
that the Wikipedia Thought Police would never leave
my proposal that a www item on a person should give the person the chance to
comment. I said it should be at the top of a wik
page, but the Thought Police have put this at the bottom of Wiks
entry for ivor catt,
which is far better than nothing. Now that it has stayed there for two years,
it is well worth putting in some effort on this page.
First, go to
Talk, and see the furious exchanges there. None of the people involved (some
of whom were then banned from wik) ever approached me, but discussed between
themselves what were my theories, or rather what they thought were my theories.
ivorcatt@gmail.com
The most
interesting thing about Catt is that he was published extensively in peer
reviewed journals until 1967, and then was rejected by all peer reviewed
journals in the world for fifty years, while at the same time being published extensively in non peer reviewed
journals. Then suddenly, recently, three Italian professors published
falsification and defamation of Catt in peer reviewed journals. Peer review
being intended to block error and defamation, they showed that, provided it was
extreme enough, it would permit the opposite.
For the
moment I will just add a hyperlink to a novel written by one of them. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
The founder
of wik said he wanted peer reviewed material. This
must mean either (1) truth and no defamation, or (2) untruth combined with
extreme defamation.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x21n.htm
Ivor Catt 29 August 2016
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Catts earlier and unclear comment on Wikipedia on Ivor
Catt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
Guide to Ivor Catt's websites
Latest. 15 May 2014. When first inserted in
Article, it was removed within 24 hours.
When I re-inserted it, it was again removed within 24
hours.
At present, it
has remained for a few hours in the Talk page.
November 2014. The hyperlink from Wik
on Catt is still there!
Ivor Catt comments on the Wikipedia piece on Ivor
Catt.
Wikipedia on
Ivor Catt Talk illustrates the extreme difficulty anyone will have when
trying to understand Catt theory. The index of Catts work is here . I hope those who comment in Talk
do a lot of reading.
It will be
very interesting to see if those who decry Catt remove this sentence at the top
of Wikipedia about "Ivor Catt" .
Behind this
detail concerning Ivor Catt is something much more important.
It is only
yesterday (12.7.2014) that, re-reading extraordinary statements about Ivor
Catt, I realised that every Wikipedia page about an individual should have at
the top an unremovable sentence on the lines of Ivor Catt comments followed
by a hyperlink to his site.
Now, April 2016, we have it! Catt comments on this Wikipedia
article
!, but at the bottom, not the top. [18.4.2020
It has now been removed. Again, I am not allowed to comment on what is said
about me. Ivor Catt]
I
was already moving in that direction nearly 20 years ago when I put Riposte
on my websites, as follows;
In 20 years, only two people have availed
themselves of my offer, and the idea has been totally ignored throughout the world.
The
world has failed to appreciate that the www is different from all previous
media in a very important way. Whereas all previous media used monologue,
the www is able to use, and should use, dialogue.
Websites
which do not offer Riposte will be held in ill repute, and regarded as
probably less truthful that dialogue websites. The prize will be
when government websites are shamed into allowing [R], which will greatly
enhance the democratic process.
Ivor
Catt 13/5/2014
Comments
n Wikipedia on Ivor Catt will be added here later.
Misrepresentations.
There
was a long drawn out battle between three parties, one of whom (Nigel Cook)
wrote a very very long piece on Catt, which was erased by another. This battle
is what probably led to one of them being banned from Wikipedia for a time.
The
assertion that Catts views are controversial is wrong, because no accredited
professor or text book writer in the world will comment on Catts work, as
summarised at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm . For
practical purposes, Catts work does not exist.
Catts
theory (Theory C) is confused with Heavisides theory (Theory H).
The
assertion that nobody has heard of Catt, and that he only self promotes, has
some validity. However, he has published in peer reviewed journals, but the
content is ignored. The key technical articles, all ignored (and unknown), are
at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm and http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf .
There is also the book published by Macmillan, at http://www.ivorcatt.org/digital-hardware-design.htm
.
Catts
comments are in red.
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Article
on 13 May 2014
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ivor
Catt (born 1935) is a British electronics engineer known principally for his
alternative theories of electromagnetism. He received a B.A.
degree from Cambridge University, and has won two
major product awards for his innovative computer chip designs, including the Electronic Design magazine's
"best product of the year" award on 26 October 1989, after ฃ16
million funding.
Ivor
Catt was born in England and grew up on an RAF airbase in Singapore.[1] He left the country, along with
his mother and sister, just before the Japanese invasion in 1942. He did his
National Service stationed in Germany. He won a State Scholarship in
mathematics and then studied engineering at Trinity College, Cambridge.
Ivor
Catt comments; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x46.htm
This
sentence Ivor Catt comments; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x46.htm was
added by Ivor Catt on 14/5/14. Next day it had been removed. I put it back that
day
Catt
developed and patented some ideas on Wafer scale integration (WSI) in 1972,
and published his work in Wireless World in 1981, after his
articles on the topic were rejected by academic journals.[2] The technique, christened Catt
Spiral, was designed to enable the use of partially faulty integrated chips (called partials),
which were otherwise discarded by manufacturers.[3][4]
In
mid-1980s, a British company Anamartic, funded by Tandem Computers and Sir Clive Sinclair among others, announced
plans to manufacture microchips ("superchips") based on Catt's
technology.[3][5] The approach was reported to be
revolutionary at the time, with predictions that it would enable construction
of powerful super-computers from cheap, mass-produced components, and cheaper
and faster replacements for magnetic disk memories.[3][6] Anamartic introduced a solid-state
memory, called the Wafer Stack, based on the technology in 1989 and the device
won Electronic Product's Product of the Year Award.[4] However the company could not ensure
a large enough supply of silicon wafers, which were crucial for its chip
manufacturing, and folded in 1992.[7]
Catt
argues that much of mainstream electromagnetism is wrong: Catt does not
entertain the existence of electric charge as a fundamental entity
and he claims that all charge is composed of trapped Heaviside energy current. He argues that capacitance and inductance are fictional, being artifacts
of the transmission-line nature of the devices; that displacement current is not needed to
explain capacitor operation. As opposed to normal electric current (flow of charge), Catt
uses energy current to describe most effects.
Catt
illustrates this with the "Catt anomaly". [ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
]. This is more properly called The Catt Question. It
is a question, not a theory. It has nothing to do with any Catt theory. When
a step electromagnetic wave travels from
left to right in a parallel twin-conductor transmission line, he asks,
"Where does the charge on the bottom (return) conductor come from?"
He does not answer that question himself, but uses conflicts in others'
responses to conclude that conventional electrodynamics must be false. [ Classical theory is not false. Until there is a clear
statement as to where the charge comes from, or a clear statement that this is
in dispute, classical electromagnetism is not right or wrong. It does not
exist. For a theory to exist, it has to be clearly stated. Where the charge
comes from on the bottom conductor is not a detail, it would be central to
classical electromagnetism, if classical electromagnetism existed. ] The
subtext of his argument here seems to be that charge from the conductors is not
necessary for the transmission of EM waves in transmission lines. The electric field carrying the energy
precedes and causes subsequent electron drift current, but the field is not
itself charge, but rather Heaviside "energy current", light speed
electromagnetic energy.
[
The electric field carrying the energy
precedes and causes subsequent electron drift current . This is not Catts theory, it is Heavisides, Theory H.
Catts theory is Theory C. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/63lem2.htm
]
Catt
has published new experimental evidence (The Wakefield Experiment http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm
) in the April 2013 issue of Electronics World [1] concerning the theories he has
questioned, so his ideas must not be regarded as speculative only. However, the
theoretical interpretation of the experimental data remains controversial. [It is not controversial, because no professor or text book
writer in the world will deliver any written comment on The Wakefield
Experiment, or on The Catt Question http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm
. There is no controversy. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf
. Nigel Cook cannot create a controversy with himself. He is a rogue
supporter, who spent decades heavily promoting Catts work. When Catt then
failed to welcome Cooks enhancements, or corrections of Catts work, Cook
changed to saying; Catt is certainly paranoid and ignorant- NC. Also he
wrote; Catt lies and his theories are wrong. Cook was banned from
Wikipedia, but seems to be back. I am pretty certain that Cook never graduated,
but in the end perhaps he did, from Cheltenham University. Now, instead of
promoting Ivor Catt, Nigel Cook always promotes himself and perhaps Yang-Mills
Equations. As to Yang-Mills, Catt does not censor this out; he has never
heard of Yang-Mills. Catts work develops from Oliver Heaviside, 1890, and has
nothing to do with 20th century Modern Physics, which ignores
Heaviside, for instance ignoring his concept of Energy Current http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp65.htm
.] For example, Nigel Cook, who authored the January 2003 Electronics World article about Catt's
wafer scale integration work [2], as well as the August 2002 and April
2003 articles on Catt's theory [3], argues that while Maxwell's equations
have been used for obfuscation as Catt claims, the problems go much deeper [4], and the Yang-Mills SU(2) equations
are the underlying basis for electromagnetism, explaining and resolving the
anomalies in the Standard Model [5]. The only difference between the
Yang-Mills equations and Maxwell's equations is the quadratic term for net
charge transfer (i.e. a non-equilibrium in the exchange of force field
mediating bosons), which is possible for massive weak field quanta (the Z and W
bosons), but is impossible for massless electromagnetic bosons. Magnetic
self-inductance therefore prevents any net (one-way) flow of charged
electromagnetic SU(2) field bosons, which can thus only flow in two-way
transfers that maintain equilibrium and thereby cancel out the magnetic field
curls (eliminating self-inductance). This physical mechanism, whereby massless
charged bosons are prohibited from propagation along a path without two-way
equilibrium, cancels the Yang-Mills charge transfer term, hence reducing the
unobserved Yang-Mills SU(2) equations to the observed Maxwell equations.
Although suggested by Catt's own work on transmission line energy currents
(composed of electromagnetic field bosons), Catt censors this out, apparently
for precisely the reasons mainstream science censors him out.
Catt
spent six years in the 1960s working in five different electronic companies in
the USA. He was very disillusioned by his experience and wrote a harsh critique
of American management practices in his book, The Catt Concept: The New
Industrial Darwinism. Catt was critical of the hire and fire culture, which he labeled
the New Social Darwinism, and accused American employers of stifling
their workers' creativity.[8] The book got largely negative
reviews, with Kirkus Reviews describing it as a
contrived and often muddled work that rested on "one man's bitter and
limited experience."[9] Published in six languages.
In
Catt's view the English justice system is heading to a collapse. He assigns the
blame to Lord Denning, who according to Catt
replaced the rule of law by desire for equity, ethics and righteousness. Catt
also accuses radical feminists and anti-social women of
causing the disintegration of the justice system and reducing divorced fathers
to helots, through their control of the media
and the courts.[10][11][12] Catt discusses his views on the
issue in his self-published book, The Hook and the Sting: The Legal Mafia.
Catt's
paper 'Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems,' in IEEE
Trans. on Elect. Comp., vol. EC-16 (December 1967) pp. 74958 [6] has so far received 44 scholarly
citations [7], http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm
, while two other popular papers written by Ivor Catt received 88 [8] and 28 [9] scholarly citations, respectively.
Catt
also claimed disastrous consequences of what he calls censorship (by which he
means, scientific journals declining to publish his papers) in an article in Electronics
World September 2003 issue, 'EMC - A Fatally Flawed Discipline' pages
4452:
... during
the Falklands War, the British warship HMS Sheffield had to switch off its radar
looking for incoming missiles ... This is why it did not see incoming Exocet
missiles, and you know the rest. How was it that after decades of pouring money
into the EMC community, this could happen ... that community has gone into
limbo, sucking in money but evading the real problems, like watching for
missiles while you talk to HQ.
His
work has received coverage and debate in the magazines Wireless World
and Electronics World from December 1978 to September 1988, also see [10]. The New Scientist on 19
February 1989 stated that Catt proposed an electronic internet to share ideas
and circumvent bigoted censorship [11]:
Catt
argues that as bodies of knowledge grow, they become stronger in keeping out
any new items of knowledge that appear to question the fundamental base of the
established knowledge and its practitioners. To assist the propagation of new
ideas, he proposes the creation of an electronic information-sharing network. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0605.htm
- Electromagnetic
Theory, C.A.M. Pub., 1983, ISBN 0-906340-03-9
- Death
of Electric Current: Wireless World Articles and Letters, C.A.M. Pub., 1987, ISBN 0-906340-06-3
- The
Catt Anomaly: Science Beyond the Crossroads,
Westfields, 2001, ISBN 0-906340-15-2
- The
Hook and the Sting: The Legal Mafia,
Westfields, 1996, 1996, ISBN 0-906340-09-8
- Lynch,
Arnold and Ivor Catt, "A Difficulty in Electromagnetic Theory,"
presented to and published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers,
Professional Group D7 (History of Technology), 26th Weekend Meeting, 1012
July 1998, University of East Anglia, publication HEE/26 [12]
- Catt,
I. The Two T.E.M. Signals, IEEE Computer Society, 1978, OCLC
35349268
- Catt,
I. "The Rise and Fall of Bodies of Knowledge", The
Information Scientist, 12 (4) December 1978, pp. 137144 [13]
- Catt,
I., Davidson, M., Walton, D.S.,"The history of displacement
current," Wireless World, March 1979
- Catt,
I., Davidson, M., Walton, D.S., "Displacement current", Wireless
World, December 1978
- Catt,
I., 'Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital
Systems,' IEEE Trans. on Elect. Comp., vol. EC-16 (December 1967)
pp. 74958 [14]. [15]
- Catt,
I. 'Death of Electric Current,' Wireless World, December 1980 [16]
- Catt,
I. 'The End of the Road,' Electronics World, April 2013 [17]
- Cook,
Nigel, "Air traffic control: how many more air disasters?", Electronics
World, January 2003, pp. 1217 [18] [19] [20]
- Cook,
Nigel, "An Electronic Universe", Electronics World, Part
1: August 2002 (4 pages), Part 2: April 2003 (6 pages) [21] [22]
- "Depending
on who[m] you talk to in the generally conservative semiconductor
industry, Catt is either a crank or a visionary. For 20 years, he has been
refining the theoretical foundations for a revolution in the semiconductor
industry ...." - "On the importance of being creative; Innovative
thinkers should be allowed to come to the fore", New Scientist,
12june86, p35
- Sinclair,
Sir Clive, "Sir Clive Sinclair talks on wafer-scale integration
1987", YouTube [23]
- "....
Ivor Catt, an innovative thinker whose own immense ability in electronics
has all too often been too far ahead of conventional ideas to be
appreciated: significantly, Catt is beginning to get some high-level
backing from companies who see the possibility of major breakthroughs from
his work ('Wafers herald new era in computing', New Scientist, 25 February
1989)." - New Scientist, 25nov89, p75.
1.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2951.htm ,
accessed 1 August 2007
2.
Schofield,
Jack (16 February 1989). "Computer Guardian (Microfile): Catt's
back". The Guardian.
3.
Matthews,
Robert (9 August 1988). "Breakthrough for British microchip; Anamartic;
Wafer scale integration". The Times (London).
4.
Cook,
Nigel (January 2003). "Air Traffic Control: How many more air
disasters?". Electronics World. Retrieved 4 April 2008.
5.
BBC Micro Live News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 1985. Retrieved 4 April 2008.
6. Matthews,
Robert (9 February 1989). "A first for UK; Supercomputers;
Technology". The Times (London).
7.
Morgan,
Oliver; Day, Timon and Grant, Richard (8 October 1995). "Chip wars - Rival
British world-beaters in battle for supremacy". Mail on Sunday, London.
8.
Catt,
Ivor (1971). The Catt Concept: The New Industrial Darwinism. Putnam Publ.
9.
"Review
- The Catt Concept: The New Industrial Darwinism". Kirkus Reviews. 1 October 1971.
10.
Catt,
Ivor (1996). The Hook and the Sting: The Legal Mafia.
Westfields. ISBN 0-906340-09-8.
11. Catt,
Ivor (3 July 1994). "Bashing but no blood (letter to the editor)". The Sunday Times.
12.
Catt,
Ivor (30 August 2004). "Popular justice (letter to the editor)". The Times.
Categories:
Edit links
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Talk
on 13 May 2014
Contents
Sir
Clive Sinclair's filmed interview about Ivor Catt's invention of practical WSI
Sir
Clive Sinclair: "Sir Clive Sinclair talks on wafer-scale integration
1987", YouTube [1]. Does anyone have the exact date of
transmission of this film? 82.21.58.162 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7JYZviFH54
Health
scare
I
have just been notified by a kind email from Liba (Ivor's partner) that Ivor is
in Watford general hospital. She did not give details, but it is a serious
problem, so if anyone wants to send a "get well soon" card, that
would be a nice idea. I will hopefully be able to visit Ivor later today (will
not get into physics arguments!). - Nigel Cook, 14 Nov. 07 172.143.140.135 11:30, 14 November 2007
(UTC)
Update:
I took time off and visited at the hospital from 3-4.15 pm today, although I
had to wait until 3.30pm to see Ivor Catt. Liba was there and gave some
details. Ivor was admitted as an emergency case on 6 October and has been in
intensive care at the hospital for about 6 weeks. He was in a coma for the
first 3 days after breathing difficulties. He suffered pneumonia and has had a
tracheometry so he cannot speak; he is currently on a ventilator and being fed
fluids via intravenous drip. Apart from that, and some other infections he has
picked up in hospital (which seems inevitable these days), he seemed fine,
although was clearly in some discomfort from the need for the ventilator. He
slept but had brief conscious spells with eyes open and alert. Liba told me
that Ivor is more fully awake in the evenings. The staff at the intensive care
unit were excellent, although apparently they cannot make a full diagnosis or
give a prognosis yet (despite the 6 weeks of tests so far). Liba said that Ivor
seems to have improved slightly, and so hopefully he will make a full recovery
although at the present time his condition is still extremely serious although
stable. From these few details it looks to me as if a full recovery will
probably take several months, not just a few more weeks. - Nigel Cook 172.201.255.208 19:19, 14 November 2007
(UTC)
Vandalism
Bm
gub: You have vandalised the page by replacing facts from peer-reviewed
publications with half-baked opinions, which don't reflect the facts. For
example, you have falsely asserted that Ivor Catt grew in in Singapore, when he
actually moved around the world as his father was transferred between RAF
airbases, and this falsehood has been inserted because you haven't even
bothered to check the facts.
Everything
you write is ignorant lies or "errors". You're not revising the
article, you're deleting all the referenced facts and replacing them with false
drivel and personal insults, which are banned under Wiki rules anyway. Any
changes you insert need references, and if you aren't expert in the subject of
Catt (sadly cross-talk stuff is probably a long way from your PhD in electronic
circuits), it isn't a good idea to delete the material you haven't heard of and
replace it with personal insults and sneers about the person.
All
the insults in your comment after the revert of your vandalism ignore the facts
there on the page which you tried to delete. For example, key ideas you
criticise were actually developed by Dr David Walton and Malcolm Davidson, and
Catt was the activist trying to get discussion going inside the IEE and IEEE.
Sometimes one of the censors of Catt pops up writing a letter to Electronics
World or here on this Wiki page about Catt, claims he or she is a PhD expert or
whatever, and then insists that Catt is self-praising himself and an egotist.
That's no admissible really, it's contentless drivel which can claimed about
many people. This is why the facts are more important than such opinions and
insults, such as the fact that a lot of the work is not Catt's, and that his
successful inventions built on the discoveries of others such as Heaviside, Dr
Walton, Davidson, Mike S. Gibson, and several others. [ Catts inventions had nothing to do with these other people. ]
The
Wiki page is about the facts concerning Ivor Catt, not about your personal
opinions or the fact - stressed in the original article - that his work is not
mainstream. Your attacks on his work as being self publication are false since
the science is actually the work of many others. If you have opinions, you are
welcome to try to publish them somewhere more appropriate, such as in a journal
if you can survive peer-rview. Then we can cite your wisdom here on Wikipedia!
Photocopier
Photocopier 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Photocopier,
your comments above are objectively in violation of WP:CIVIL. Please read Behavior that is unacceptable carefully
and please pay particular attention to No personal attacks. Also, please
carefully read What vandalism is not. Regards: Alfred Centauri 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Alfred:
I'm making a response to vandalism, not an attack: many people's editing and
referenced, carefully researched and checked information was deleted and
replaced with some ill-informed opinions and insulting claims (with no
supporting evidence whatsoever) about a "mainstream consensus" of
authorities on Catt, which doesn't exist. There is no consensus because the
only people in authority who comment on Catt make contradictory remarks: this
is the opposite of a consensus. I was perfectly civil, I didn't call anybody a
liar for making what are evidently hostile, personally insulting, misleading
and possibly libellous false claims and unfounded assertions. However, the
scale of the vandalism of the article was such that a civil, yet unequivocally
worded, response seemed needed on this discussion page to explain that simply
deleting a whole article and replacing it with some obvious fantasy based
entirely on misunderstandings and complete ignorance (if not deliberate
vandalism), was somewhat unhelpful. Photocopier 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow.
Photocopier, no offense meant. I thought the Singapore thing was implied in the
previous version, and I meant to just reword it into standard encyclopedia bio
style ("John Doe was born in X on Jan 1 1901, and grew up in Y"
rather than launching straight into childhood anecdotes. Thank you for
correcting the facts. How is "Ivor Catt was born in XXX but grew up on RAF airbases around the world; he and his
mother narrowly escaped the invasion of Singapore in 1942."? Please reword
it to your satisfaction rather than reverting and accusing me of bad faith.
Next,
after taking a deep breath: I know that the following is not your preferred
version of the article, but please tell me which point is factually
wrong in this shortened account:
Catt's
views on electromagnetism
Catt
argues that much of mainstream electromagnetism is wrong: Catt does not admit
the existence of electric charge as a fundamental entity and he claims that all
charge is composed of trapped Heaviside energy current. He argues that
capacitance and inductance are fictional, being artifacts of transmission-line
effects in the devices; that displacement current is not needed to explain
capacitor operation. As opposed to normal current (flow of charge), Catt uses
energy current to describe most effects. Catt illustrates this with the Catt
anomaly. When a step electromagnetic wave travels from left to right in a
parallel twin-conductor transmission line, he asks, "Where does the charge
on the bottom (return) conductor come from?" He does not answer that
question, but states that simply asking the question proves that conventional
electrodynamics must be false. [Conventional
electrodynamics is not false, it is missing. We dont know where the charge
comes from, and nobody will tell us.] The subtext of his argument here
seems to be that charge from the conductors is not necessary for the
transmission of EM waves in transmission lines. The electric field carrying the
energy precedes and causes subsequent electron drift current, but the field is
not itself charge, but rather Heaviside "energy current", light speed
electromagnetic energy.
Catt's
views on digital logic
Catt
has a long-standing dispute about "exclusive-or" in Boolean algebra.
He has noted that "and", "or", "exclusive-or"
(and their inverses) are the six functions out of the 16 possible functions of
two Boolean inputs for which A op B is the same as B op A. Catt calls this
"symmetric", and complains that Boolean algebra deals with
"and" and "or" and ignores "ex-or". He appears to
have been arguing this since his IC design days, when he apparently failed to
convince his boss of the business case for having an EXOR function in the
product range. (De Morgan's Laws state that a "positive-logic AND" is
a "negative-logic OR" and vice versa.)
Seriously,
what part of this is misrepresenting Catt's views? Most of it is verbatim from
your preferred edit. Next, for the criticism section, please give some detail
on my revision:
Current
status of Catt's ideas
The
view of Catt's ideas by mainstream physicists is that his earlier work on
digital logic circuits is of value, but his later ideas about electromagnetism
are incorrect.
Because
Catt's views have been expressed mainly in popular-press articles,
self-published books, and on informal Internet forums, mainstream physicists
view Catt's ideas, to the extent that they have heard of them, as
pseudophysics. In particular, the fact that Catt's views are not expressed in
compact mathematical form (Catt's view is that the use of mathematics in physics
is "skillful manipulation of meaningless symbols") means that, in the
conventional view, his work is out of the scope of conventional physics and
cannot make reliable predictions to compare to experiments.
Catt
claims that there are some workers who are beginning to re-evaluate his ideas
on the transmission-line representation of the capacitor in order to achieve
better modelling of these components. [ When did Catt
make this claim? ]
That
looks pretty reality-based to me, Photocopier. It is a fact that Catt's views
are expressed mainly on his webpages; that Electronics World and Wireless World were both an edited
popular-electronics magazines, not peer-reviewed journals. It is a fact that
Catt's views on the nature of electromagnetism are mostly ignored and
rejected by the mainstream; Catt himself seems to complain about this, which
seems to confirm it as a fact (even if it's a fact he doesn't like ... but
"facts you don't like" are not to be excluded from Wikipedia;
wikipedia is not advertising, is not a personal homepage.) Note, also, that the
paragraph above does not disparage anything Catt may or may not say about
circuit design, practical aspects of crosstalk, etc.. It simply reports the
plain and simple fact that Catt is an outsider and that essentially all
mainstream physicists disagree with him. Bm gub 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
Bm gub: you say "please tell me which point is factually wrong in
this shortened account: ... Catt does not admit the existence of electric
charge as a fundamental entity and he claims that all charge is composed of
trapped Heaviside energy current. He argues that capacitance and inductance are
fictional, being artifacts of transmission-line effects in the devices; that
displacement current is not needed to explain capacitor operation. As opposed
to normal current (flow of charge), Catt uses energy current to describe most
effects. Catt illustrates this with the Catt anomaly. When a step
electromagnetic wave travels from left to right in a parallel twin-conductor
transmission line, he asks, "Where does the charge on the bottom (return)
conductor come from?" He does not answer that question, but states that
simply asking the question proves that conventional electrodynamics must be
false. The subtext of his argument here seems to be that charge from the
conductors is not necessary for the transmission of EM waves in transmission
lines. The electric field carrying the energy precedes and causes subsequent
electron drift current, but the field is not itself charge, but rather
Heaviside "energy current", light speed electromagnetic energy."
It's
completely unsubstantiated opinion, similar to your false deduction that
because Catt was in Singapore when the Japanese invaded, he must have been
brought up in Singapore.
Sorry
about the Singapore thing. That's the most easily fixed error in the world.
Thank you for fixing it. Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You
take lots of little bits out of context to make up a personal insult by
misrepresenting the facts. First, look at Catt's page (taken from his major
1994 book, http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_3.htm and you
will see the section "the electron" at the end concerning Catt's
construction of an electron from energy current. Your claim that "Catt
does not admit the existence of electric charge as a fundamental entity and he
claims that all charge is composed of trapped Heaviside energy current" is
false since charge is a property measurable only as fields. Nobody has collided
electrons harder than 90 GeV or so, nobody knows what "charge" is
(Planck scale string or whatever), except for it's definition which is a
"static electric field". Catt shows how a static electric field
arises from energy current, and on the same page (higher up), he explains:
"a)
Energy current can only enter a capacitor at the speed of light. b) Once
inside, there is no mechanism for the energy current to slow down below the
speed of light. c) The steady electrostatically charged capacitor is
indistinguishable from the reciprocating, dynamic model. d) The dynamic model
is necessary to explain the new feature to be explained, the charging and
discharging of a capacitor, and serves all the purposes previously served by
the steady, static model."
"All
charge is composed of trapped Heaviside " etc. is in the version you just
reverted to. I didn't write it. Look. Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You
then say "He argues that capacitance and inductance are fictional, being
artifacts..." which is another nonsensical contradiction, because
artifacts are real, they are not fictional! Catt shows that a mechanism exists
for charge, for capacitance and inductance. He doesn't show these things are
"fictional".
That's
a semantic dispute. It's perfectly valid to say "Lomonsov showed that
phlogiston was fictional, being an artifact of the exchange of mass with the
atmosphere during burning" or "the pentaquark turned out to be
fictional; the observed bump was an artifact introduced during data
analysis." OK, reword it however you like. At some point he has to be
saying that some mainstream concept isn't really there, but is thought to be
there due to the misintepretation of Catt's real concepts. Which concept is
this? Charge current? Can we say, "catt argues that charge-current is
fictional, and that the mainstream belief in is is due to XXXX"? Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Next,
you claim that Catt shows "that displacement current is not needed to
explain capacitor operation". Again, this is not a contradiction of
mainstream theoretical physics, where Maxwell's physical displacement current
went out with the aether and in its place there is a mathematical law
associated with the Yang-Mills theory whereby all operations in spacetime in
fields that are too weak to cause pair-production (below Schwinger's E=10^18
v/m threshold for pair production) involve gauge bosons exchange, not an
aetherial "displacement current". Since Catt's replacement for
aetherial "displacement current" is light speed radiation, it's
consistent with quantum field theory, unlike the old nonsense of
"displacement current".
So
why is it such an exciting claim? Catt's claim to fame is that he doesn't
disagree with the mainstream model of current, charge, and energy stored in
the static field? Delete as non-notable, then. You may notice that this claim
wasn't put there by me but by previous editors; I just shortened it. You may
notice that my longer version of the "criticism" section---the one
you initially reacted to---said basically what you are saying now:
"displacement current isn't real and everyone knows this; it is not clear
why Catt labels this as an important claim." You deleted this bit with
extreme prejudice, but now you're restating it. (I stand by my version:
displacement current is a silly artifact which arises when you want to use
Kirchoff's Laws instead of Maxwell's Equations. The correct description
can come straight from Maxwell without invoking quantum field theory. But this
is beside the point.)Bm
gub
17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Then
you claim: "As opposed to normal current (flow of charge), Catt uses
energy current to describe most effects. Catt illustrates this with the Catt
anomaly." This is completely false, because flow of charge has never been
equivalent to flow of energy: they are two different things because charge
carries negligible kinetic energy, and the energy is carried by gauge bosons
(as I've just explained, the gauge bosons are same thing as the TEM wave or
Heaviside energy current, they mediate the field). Consider the mass of the
conduction in typical transmission lines, they are on the order of about 1 part
in 2000 of the mass, and their drift velocity even in a 1 amp current is
typically on the order 1 mm/s. So the energy carried and delivered (1/2)mv^2 is
trivial. This has nothing to do with electron current. You are confusing the
two things, and then claiming that Catt is replacing electric current with
energy current. Catt has electrons in his theory, and obviously they will be
moved where there is a gradient in the electric potential, so you're making up
nonsense.
Dude,
I left that line in 'verbatim' from the previous version of the page.
You reverted to this version yourself. If you like I can accuse you of
vandalism for saying such utter nonsense .... just kidding. :) If this is
wrong, it was wrong in your long version and wrong in my short version. What's
right? Why don't you put that into the article? Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally,
you say: "He does not answer that question, but states that simply asking
the question proves that conventional electrodynamics must be false. The
subtext of his argument here seems to be that ..."
Catt
doesn't state that "asking the question proves that conventional
electrodynamics must be false", the question is an assessment of the
degree of consensus and scientific discussion possible in electromagnetism
between experts, and it is the answer he gets from experts which decides
whether or not conventional ideology is helpful to a student who asks questions
and hopes to get a similar answer from each expert. Professors asked by Catt,
who he names and publishes, give different answers.
"The
subtext of his argument here seems to be that ..."
You
write this after making a false summary of Catt's question. So you make your
own false conclusion, and then you write about the "subtext" to your
own false conclusion. You are writing about your own personal ideas. This is
your own opinion, which must be published in a peer reviewed journal before it
can be mentioned here in a Wiki article about a living person. Thank you.
Again,
that's all verbatim from the 'previous version' that 'you have
reverted to twice'. You're quoting yourself and arguing with it. Please
read the old edit (the one before I ever showed up) more carefully. Figure out
who wrote that and go yell at them instead of at me. Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Further
on, after more of this sort of personal insulting drivel based on your own
opinions rather than on referenced facts, you write:
"Most
of it is verbatim from your preferred edit. Next, for the criticism section,
please give some detail on my revision: Current status of Catt's ideas. The
view of Catt's ideas by mainstream physicists ..."
Here,
you are giving your views and claiming to be giving a consensus by
"mainstream physicists". You don't quite seem to be aware that
mainstream physicists have contradictory views. If you read Catt's book
"Catt Question", you will notice that there are two different views
on a simple question. There is no consensus whatsoever. So all your writing on
this page is insulting self-opinions, unsubstantiated by even a grain of
evidence. It's rubbish, it's offensive, ... Photocopier 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Photocopier
said:
"Further
on, after more of this sort of personal insulting drivel based on your own
opinions rather than on referenced facts..."
"So
all your writing on this page is insulting self-opinions, unsubstantiated by
even a grain of evidence. It's rubbish, it's offensive..."
Photocopier,
your comments to User:Bm gub (a sample of which are quoted
above) are objectively not civil. This is your 2nd warning. Alfred Centauri 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
First
of all: legal threats are inappropriate per WP:NLT; please read the policy page on this issue. Seriously. I'm
more amused than annoyed by your personal insults, but legal threats will be
reported to the admins.
Mainstream
physicists have contradictory views about many things, but whether or not a
charge-current flows in a DC transmission line is not one of them. Show me one
refereed publication where a mainstream physicist 'uses' Catt's ideas
about the electron, current, etc. (Again: I'm not saying a word against
wafer-scale integration, etc.) Show me where these "different views"
are being debated in the literature. They're not; they controversy consists of
"Catt emailed so-and-so and he disagreed", and "there are two
blog commenters arguing about Y". That's not my opinion, that is a fact.
(Citebase hits for Catt: zero. ArXiv hits for Catt: zero. Scholar.google.com
hits for Catt: several, almost all on wafer-scale integration. His book on
electromagnetism has been cited by one book and one article.) I can open up
every E&M book on my shelf and show you where it explains current as the ordinary
flow of charge ... shall I begin? Liboff, chapter 8.4, 11.14, and 12.9. Pantell
& Puthoff, chapter 8. Callister, Materials science, chapter 19. Eisberg
& Resnick, ch 13. Halliday, Resnick & Walker, ch 26 and ch 42-5.
Griffiths E&M, the whole book; J. D. Jackson ditto. Sorry, Photocopier,
Catt and his ideas are not in there. Is it in Horowitz and Hill? Do I
have to hit the library?
In
any case: in science and engineering, last I heard, saying that someone's ideas
are incorrect is not "insulting". It's how you separate right ideas
from wrong ideas. I did not say "Catt is an X" nor "Only a great
fool could possibly think Y", I said, "Catt says X, but most
physicists disagree with him." Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Alfred
Centauri: Bm gub ignores the facts and writes rpeatedly things which are
untrue. I've explained this twice and it is ignored. See also the discussion
and edits of the Jeremy Webb page for vandalism by Bm gub who is a sock puppet
for New Scientist, who has been sending out abusive insults (lacking science
and ignoring the facts entirely!) about Ivor Catt for years [[2]].
Also
notice the highlighted banner at the very top of this page which states:
"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly
sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Photocopier 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Bm
gub: you say "in science and engineering, last I heard, saying that
someone's ideas are incorrect is not "insulting"." I've
explained to you repeatedly why you have written falsehoods and you claim that
this is an insult. You keep writing contradictions. Look up the definition of
the word rubbish before you take it to be an insult, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank
you very much for doing me this little favor!!!!!!!!!
Please
also note that everything you claim about me making "threats" about
legal action is PERSONALLY INSULTING TO ME, IT IS ALSO RUBBISH, AND IT IS A
LIE: see the banner at the top of this page: "Controversial material about
living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,
especially if potentially libelous."
Your
vandalism of other pages like the Jeremy Webb page is similar in the sense that
your claims for doing so are false, as can easily be seen by anyone who checks
what you are doing. For example, you claim to remove references to three
comments, when they are to published articles and blog posts by a professor in
mathematical physics (John Baez), which has numerous comments below it. You are
doing all the insulting, not me. I'm pointing out the precise reasons why
everything you are writing is personally insulting rubbish and the fact you ignore
the disproof show that you did not make a mere mistake or error, but that you
are deliberately inserting falsehoods. This is defined as telling lies, which
is a fact, not me insulting you. If anyone is insulting, it is you. Photocopier 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Photocopier,
you seem not to appreciate that my edit, though shorter, consisted almost
entirely of verbatim extracts from your preferred edit. Please rethink your
position in light of this. I am not a sock puppet for New Scientist, I am a WP
editor of some standing whose main focuses are contemporary sculpture,
experimental particle physics, and pseudoscience; I followed your edit
history back to Jeremy Webb; my corrections there are in
the same spirit as those here; my edit history will attest that I'd never
touched Webb, New Scientist, etc. prior to this. Also,
please address the very serious issue, which I raise above, that Catt's ideas
do not appear anywhere in a dozen major textbooks' treatments of electric
current. Bm gub 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Bm
gug, I fear that you're wasting your time arguing with Photocopier. If you've
not already noticed, while your statement that Catt "grew up in
Singapore" is an overstatement (given that Catt was barely 7 years old
when he was evacuated ahead of the Japanese invasion), Photocopier's assertion
that Catt "travelled the world" with his father's postings is
distinctly wrong, as the Singapore posting was the only time Sidney
Catt's family accompanied him abroad, and his post-war service was at RAF
Valley in Anglesey (North Wales).
Between
you, you are drifting off into irrelevancies, which has been the trouble with
the debate on Catt's ideas ever since the beginning. The problem is really in
Photocopier's reference to "peer-reviewed publications" because (with
the possible exception of the "inductor-as-transmission-line" IEEE
article) Catt's writing is not peer-reviewed. In fact, understanding why
he can't get his papers into peer-reviewed journals goes a long way to
explaining what is wrong with Catt's theories.
Consider
his December 1978 Wireless World article ("Displacement Current",)
which repackages the analysis of a voltage step in a transmission line, and
demonstrates that it behaves like a capacitor. The analysis is perfectly sound;
however, it is also perfectly consistent with the "mainstream
consensus" based on the concept of charge. Where Catt's theory diverges is
the penultimate sentence that states "This model does not require use of
the concept of charge." This, from the point of view of the
"mainstream", is sheer nonsense. Catt's analysis is expressed in
terms of voltage and impedance. Even if the relationship between voltage,
charge and capacitance is ignored, impedance is, by definition, an extension of
the the concept of resistance, and is therefore an expression of the
relationship between voltage and current, and thus is fundamentally dependent
on the concept of charge! In order to eliminate the concept of charge, Catt
would need to find a new way of defining impedance. This he has not done, and
in consequence the whole of his theorising is entirely invalid.
The
Catt Question, yet again
I,
Ivor Catt, here point out that the versions of "The Catt Question"
which Pepper and McEwan replied to were identical. - Ivor Catt, 23 October 2009
Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.106.70 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I
see that Photocopier has brought us back to the Catt Question/Anomaly, and the
supposed disagreement between Professor Pepper of Cambridge and Doctor McEwen
of Bradford. If you look at it properly, the answers they provided to Catt's
Question are very clearly not in conflict with each other. What the two
academics do not agree on is what the question meant. And the reason for
that is entirely due to Catt's Question in the first place.
The
Question starts
.... when a TEM step ....
(see
The Catt Anomaly) Two paragraphs before
this, Catt presents a paraphrase of the question
When a battery is connected to a
resistor ....
[This is not a paraphrase of The Question]
Now
the whole point is that Catt thinks that a flow of current is a TEM
something. In this he is in disagreement with mainstream physics on two counts.
Catt thinks that there is no flow of charge distinct from the flow of energy;
physicists (including Heaviside) think that there is a flow of charge and
a flow of current. Secondly, Catt uses "TEM" to refer to anything
where the electric and magnetic fields and the motion are mutually
perpendicular; physicists use the phrase "transverse electromagnetic
wave" specifically to refer to a transverse wave (ie a wave that is
oscillating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion) where the
thing that is oscillating is a combination of the electromagnetic field.
The
upshot of this is that whereas Catt thinks that the two versions of his
question have the same meaning, they are entirely distinct questions when read
by a physicist who applies the consensual meanings of the terminology.
the two versions of his question [ There is only one
version, which has remained unaltered since 1982. ]
Once
you realise that there is a serious ambiguity in Catt's Question, it is
perfectly clear that Prof Pepper (who was unaware of Catt's non-standard
position) was trying to answer ".... when a TEM step ....", while Dr
McEwen (undoubtedly a Wireless World reader) was answering "When a battery
is connected to a resistor ....".
This
is not a problem with the physics, but rather with Catt's Question. See Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Majikthise_and_Vroomfondel
Vroomfondel and Forty-two. -- Kevin Brunt 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Kevin,
Catt asks "where does the charge come from?" If those experts did not
understand what this question means, they could have asked for confirmation
from Catt. Neither did so. Hence they were both confused by the question, which
resulted in their differing answers to it. Your claim that the answers were not
in conflict because the answers were answers to different interpretations of
the question "where does the charge come from?" is really in
self-contradiction. If two kids are asked what is 2 + 2, and one gives the
answer 3 while the other gives the answer 6, it might well be the case that
they both misunderstood the question (poor hearing, frequency distortion,
causes misunderstandings). But that doesn't disprove the fact that the answers
are different, and if you have different answers, then the answers are in
disagreement, regardless of the cause. You seem to be assuming that because the
experts possibly didn't understand the simple written question, their differing
answers are not evidence of a conflict. However, the answers are in conflict,
regardless of the underlying cause behind the differences of opinion they
express concerning where the charge comes from. The fact remains, the responses
are different by 90 degrees. That's a contradiction, whatever is the cause.
[This is an important point. It is remarkable that so
many commentators think that The Catt Question is somehow a statement of Catt
theory; also that the Question is wrong. A Question cannot be wrong.
Further, the assertion that The Question is unclear is absurd. It is
obviously very clear.]
You
claim: "Catt thinks that there is no flow of charge distinct from the flow
of energy; physicists (including Heaviside) think that there is a flow of
charge and a flow of current." This claim by you is your assertion of
Catt's thoughts. You start by ignoring Catt's discussion of the electron, which
moves in response to the field. You then claim that because Catt's model is
such and such, he thinks there is no flow of charge. Catt actually deals with
facts, and you are muddling up models and claiming they are someone else's
thought processes, which is insulting and in error. The fact which Catt makes
clear is that the field causes effects like electron drift. Catt doesn't in any
place ever disprove electrons or electron drift, he simply deals with the TEM
wave, the field. Please see [[3]].
172.143.107.132 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The
experts are in perfect agreement about where the charge comes from - it is
already in the conductor. It has been known since the start of the 20th Century
that an "uncharged" mass actually contains vast (but equal)
quantities of positive and negative charge, in the form of sub-atomic
particles, and that the phenomenon of "charge" in the 19th Century
sense is a statistical statement about the displacement of the particles from
their equilibrium state.
In
the absence of any additional context, Catt's Question appears to be about an
electromagentic wave impinging on a conductor, which is quite clearly what
Pepper's answer is about. McEwen, on the other hand, has not tried to answer
the Question (and it is perfectly clear from what he wrote that it was not his
intention to answer the Question.) Instead, (being very obviously aware of
Catt's theories) McEwen has set out to explain how the "mainstream"
consensus can accommodate the idea of near-light-speed propagation of a
wavefront in a conductor with the millimetre-per-second drift velocity of the
electron mass. Your "2 + 2" example is not helpful, or
representative. A better one might be "What is the difference between an
Apricot and a Tangerine?" which has different answers depending on whether
you are referring to fruit or to obsolete British microcomputers.
RE:
energy current... Let's start by noting that you mentioned the electron first.
It is the discovery of the electron in 1897 and the evolution of the Drude
model of conduction (and its quantum mechanical successors) that solves the
dicotomy between "charge current" and "energy current".
Catt's theories derive from Heaviside's 1888 publication (ie before the
electron!) and it is clear that Catt does not really want to extend his
theorising. Note particularly that Catt's Question only tangentially approaches
the concept of the electron with the mention of the "drift velocity of the
electric current". [ Where does Catt mention the drift velocity of the
electric current ? ]
I
hold by my statement as to Catt's position, for which see The Death of Electric Current. Catt
distinguished between "Theory N" - flow of charge + flow of energy
(no attempt to explain why); "Theory H" (Heaviside) flow of charge +
flow of energy (defined by Poynting Vector E x H) and "Theory
C" (Catt) flow of energy.
Theories
N, H and C appeared originally in Digital Hardware Design Chapter 10 and it
is clear exactly where Catt's theories diverge from Heaviside's conception. At
the bottom of page 65 (first page of the chapter) appears the quote from
Heaviside that ends "We reverse this....." Now what Heaviside is
reversing is not, as the following text would suggest, Theory N, but rather a
suggestion by Maxwell that the flow of energy is the sum of the energies held
in the electric and magnetic fields as they are carried through the conductor
by the flow of charge. Maxwell is thus suggesting that there is no flow of
energy distinct from the flow of charge.
[ Wrong. What Heaviside discusses is whether current
causes field or field causes current. He is not discussing energy. ]
In
Heaviside's magnificent, regal statement, "We reverse this." In his Electrical
Papers, vol. 1, 1892, page 438, Heaviside wrote;
Now,
in Maxwell's theory there is the potential energy of the displacement produced
in the dielectric parts by the electric force, and there is the kinetic or
magnetic energy of the magnetic force in all parts of the field, including the
conducting parts. They are supposed to be set up by the current in the wire
[Theory N]. We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy
transmitted through the medium around it [Theory H]
. 1 , 2
Heaviside's
"reversal" is a repudiation of Maxwell's suggestion. Heaviside
requires both a flow of energy and a flow of charge. By invoking the
Poynting Vector Heaviside automatically gets the magnitude of the flow of
energy to be related to the vector product of the electric and magnetic fields,
and thus proportional to the product of the voltage and current (which
Maxwell's sum of energies simply cannot be made to do.)
When
you look at Catt's detailed working of his theory, in Electromagnetism 1, chapter 1, you see
that his energy current, like Maxwell's, is the sum of the separate energies
held in the electric and magnetic fields. Catt's conception is the counterpart
of Maxwell's; where Maxwell's energy flow is "in phase" with the
current, Catt's energy flow is in phase with the voltage. Catt's version has
the same problems as Maxwell's, and Heaviside would have dismissed as comprehensively.
-- Kevin Brunt 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hello,
I stumbled across this page. Having never heard of Ivor Catt, I have done a bit
of reading and I'm inclined to make a major revision. Seeing that he has some
fans here I would like to preempt an edit war. My credentials, in case they
matter, are as a physics postdoc with experience with circuits, electron beams,
ion beams, electron traps, etc. Here goes:
- What's
the point of Catt's argument that "displacement current" doesn't
exist? Of course it doesn't "exist". It's an artifact which
shows up if you try (incorrectly) to use Kirchoff's current law in a circuit
where there is a variable charge density. It's convenient in circuit
design when you want to write equations strictly in terms of I and V,
without having also a Q term. But of course it's not a real thing; the
real things are electrons and electromagnetic fields. If you work through
the behavior of a capacitor using charge currents, charge densities, and
fields, it gives you an exact physical description---including the
electric fields in the capacitor gap, the attraction/repulsion of
electrons on the other side of the gap, and the appearance of a current on
the other side. If you work through a capacitor using Kirchoff's Law, you
have to invent the "displacement current" to rescue the
conservation law when you analyze the gap itself. Does Catt's entire
argument spring from "There is no displacement current; therefore the
mainstream professors, who taught me that there is, are wrong"?
- Does
Catt have a theory of electrostatic force? Isn't that an important
detail---more important than some disagreement between Spice and reality
in some random transient circuit---of the claim that electrons do not
carry charge? (Do protons and nuclei carry charge, then?)
- Almost
all of the "physics" references are to Ivor Catt's own articles
and Web pages. By Wikipedia's NOR standards, this is unacceptable; if Catt
can write "copper is an dielectric with blah blah", put it on
his Web page, and point Wikipedia to it, than any crackpot can come along
and do the same with their pet theory of how the ether is made up of
leprechauns. This whole page reads like the front page of Catt's personal
website.
- Catt
is thoroughly outside of the mainstream of E&M theory. This needs to
be made absolutely clear on every point of disagreement. I know that Catt wants
to be in the mainstream, and has been arguing for his theories for a long
time, but the fact remains (and Catt surely knows it) that he's not
there yet. Wikipedia is a terrible place to try to jump-start or
popularize his theories; that's the strategy of crackpots. Popularize
elsewhere, report the popularity here.
- I
see that the talk page below is going back and forth about the details of
E&M and QED's validity. This is interesting and should continue,
but---well, I haven't read the talk archives, but I hope you're aware that
anything you logically hash-out on this page is not relevant to the
validity of statements on the article. If you think that you've found a
flaw in QED, take it over to the Quantum Electrodynamics talk
page---if that flaw isn't borne out by the mainstream QED literature, it's
not a valid basis for this article, except to say that "Catt believes
he has found flaws in QED" or whatever. Is this approach hidebound
and anti-progress? Well, Wikipedia talk pages are a bad place to make
scientific progress. If your arguments actually do turn up a flaw in QED,
take it to Phys Rev Letters and come back to WP to report the contents of
your article.
- Things
I want to delete: about 2/3rds of "Catt's Views on
Electromagnetism", which, at the level they're supported elsewhere,
merit about two paragraphs. Public Arguments, Support From ... , War of
Words, Quotes On, Associates/Supporters: these should be deleted entirely.
It reads like a blogger summing up his favorite flamewars. Unlike Galileo,
Catt has not won this fight, making the details are pretty non-notable.
(If he wins and is vindicated in a big way, come back and write
about his struggles on the way up.) All of the non-bibliography quality
references should go, along with about half of the external links. Bm gub 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"Hello,
I stumbled across this page. Having never heard of Ivor Catt, I have done a bit
of reading and I'm inclined to make a major revision." - Bm gub.
Welcome
to the fray
Hi.
It's nice to have someone else here!
I've
archived all the old discussion here as it really was irrelevant! To make sense
of it you need to know that (towards the end at least) there were 3
participants in the discussion:
I
doubt that I'm in serious disagreement with you about the overall value of
Catt's writing. However, given that Catt's choice of venues for presenting his
argument have largely prevented an accurate rebuttal being presented, there is
a case for doing that here. The issue with the page as it currently stands is
that it could do with vigorous sub-editing. There is excessive repetition and
it does not adequately distance itself from Catt's POV. I would have said that
the "Original Research" issue is something of a red herring, as the
page is presenting Catt's opinions and conclusions; where it fails is in
pointing out where Catt's opinions diverge from observed fact!
[Ivor
Catt, 23 October 2009. Note the remark which occurs throughout my websites;
"Riposte I make the commitment that anyone wishing to counter any
assertion made on this site will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a website of
their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is made." - IC] Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.106.70 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem really starts in his book "Digital Hardware Design",
where the "stepwise" charging of a capacitor is first presented. This
is done using the concepts of the characteristic impedance of a transmission
line, and the velocity of propagation along it. There is no problem with the
analysis; rather it is in the presentation of the formulae deployed as being
somehow "fundamental", rather than deriving from the solution of the
Telegrapher's Equations for an applied step waveform. Indeed, on page 14 of the
book, Catt (et al) deny the derivation of the Tel. Eqns as the application of
calculus to the delta V and delta I of the series L/shunt C representation of a
finite length of a TL.
In
fact, Catt argues that because he shows that "a capacitor is a
transmission line", that it is "absurd" to assert the converse,
that "a transmission line is a capacitor". I think that this is at
the heart of the whole thing. Catt elsewhere talks about "causality".
He appears to want to read the equation "A = B" as "A is caused
by B", rather than the more neutral "where there is B there must also
be A". Consequentally, by arguing that the current is "caused"
by the magnetic field, he thinks that he is disproving the Ampere-Maxwell
equation. -- Kevin Brunt 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[Ivor
Catt. 23 October 2009. See above, Kevin Brunt; "In fact, Catt argues that
because he shows that "a capacitor is a transmission line", that it
is "absurd" to assert the converse, that "a transmission line is
a capacitor"." Catt never argued this, and in fact thinks the
statement "a transmission line is a capacitor" is an equally valid
statement. In fact, I told MayChiao, who said she was editor of Nature Physics,
that the latter statement could be published, but the former could not. - IC]
Question
#2
OK,
there's the rewrite. Here's question number 2: if Catt is notable in the
Wikipedia sense, why can I find no information about him other than his
own Web pages? A Google search for "Ivor Catt" turns up page after
page of links to ivorcatt.com and www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk, but virtually
nothing---not even Usenet arguments---beyond that. Rather than saying Catt is
"well known for his controversial approach", perhaps the article
should say, in its entirety, "Catt was a circuit engineer of some repute
in the 1970s. Today, he has a voluminous output of alternative electromagnetic
theories, published via his own Web pages, where he reports on his arguments
with mainstream engineers and physicists. " I see no evidence that he's
even famous by crank standards in the manner of Tom Bearden, nor controversial by the
standards of ... oh, I dunno, process physics. Can anyone turn up an
article somewhere (other than crank.net or keelynet) actually about Ivor
Catt, even for the purpose of saying "I got into an argument with
Catt"? If not, I'm in favor of nominating this for deletion. Bm gub 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit
War?
There
seems to be a reversion war going on between Photocopier and Bm gub.
Photocopier
had reverted Bm gub's edits because Photocopier claimed they were
"vandalism". This statement is incorrect; although Bm gub did rewrite
the article, the rewriting is not explicit vandalism.
Here
is Wikipedia's definition of vandalism (from Wikipedia:Vandalism): "Vandalism is
any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to
compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.... Any good-faith effort to improve the
encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The
edits that Bm gub made, as far as I could tell, were good-faith edits.
Therefore, I reverted to Bm gub's text, since Photocopier's rationale for
making reversion was incorrect.
Photocopier
claims that "Vandalism included the false unreferenced claim Catt grew up
in Singapore". It's hard to see how this statement can be called
"vandalism", however, I added a fact tag to this statement.
Photocopier claims that bm gub removed "factual referenced material".
The references for this material is primarily Catt's various websites and
Catt's writings about his many theories; it is not material for an encyclopedia,
and it's available in the external links for those interested. Finally,
Photocopier claims "addition of insults contrary to Wiki rules".
These putative insults appear to be the statement "mainstream physicists
view Catt's ideas, to the extent that they have heard of them, as
pseudophysics." This statement is correct, and in fact Catt quotes many
times the fact that mainstream physicists dismiss his ideas.
Overall,
Bm gub's rewrite makes the article concise; this seem to be the preferred text
to me over the previous version, which had been an unsorted collection of
unrelated claims Geoffrey.landis 14:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for injecting some sense here, though I doubt it will last....
Frankly,
the issue about Catt growing up in Singapore is irrelevant. The accurate
statement, based on Catt's father's autobiography is that Catt
was born in England in December 1935, and travelled to Singapore (where his
father - an RAF wireless technician - has been posted) before the outbreak of
war in September 1939 (there does not appear to be a precise date in the
source). Bm gub's elision, although inaccurate, is trivial - about on the same
level as the statement in the very first paragraph that Catt has a "B.Eng".
Cambridge did not, (and does not,) award such a new-fangled thing - Catt got a
BA (in Engineering), which he (like all Cambridge graduates) upgraded to an MA
by filling the appropriate form about 3 years after graduating. -- Kevin Brunt 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK,
I made the change to state that Catt was born in England, citing the source you
note, and made the change of B.Eng. to BA. per your comment. Geoffrey.landis 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
March
08 revisions
Hello
anon@92.2.217.251,
Please
keep in mind, when editing the article:
1)
Catt himself may not be the most reliable source about his own accomplishments.
Please find reliable independent sources. New Scientist is more or less
OK; ivorcatt.com is not. Please read WP:RS.
2)
"Wireless World" and "Electronics World" are not
peer-reviewed journals; they are popular-press magazines.
3)
Catt's ideas about electromagnetism are fringe ideas and were never
accepted by the mainstream. Catt himself would presumably admit this (though
complaining about it). Indeed, I can find very little evidence that Catt's
ideas were even widely noticed by someone other than himself. Please read WP:FRINGE which is a guideline for how to
include such material in the article. My rule of thumb is: it doesn't matter
how important the author thinks his work is, or how widely known he/she thinks
it should be; all authors think their work is important. It matters how widely
known, discussed, or applied their work actually is.
I understand that there is a dearth of reliable sources: see, for example, [4] a google search which excludes all of
Catt's personal web pages. It gets us to an extremely slim set of hits, ranging
from parenting-forum posts to spam, with a bare smattering of comments from his
supporters.
I
am reverting your last slate of edits; please consider WP:RS and WP:FRINGE before restoring any of this
material. Cheers, Bm gub (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Views
on digital logic
I
have come to the article from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I am going to
take as neutral a stand as I possibly can in relation to Catt's theories, which
I don't understand anyway, not having sufficient scientific knowledge. I have a
question about the Views on digital logic section, though, arising from my
high-school level of maths. How can Boolean Algebra "ignore" XOR,
when it is Boolean algebra that defines this operation? Isn't it like saying
that Arithmetic ignores division? Perhaps schoolteachers do not pay enough
attention to teaching division, but that is a very different statement. Stating
that systems engineers do not use XOR gates when they would be useful is a very
different kind of statement from saying that Boolean Algebra ignores XOR. I am
not sure which kind of statement Catt is making in the source that I found, as
he assumes familiarity on the part of his readers. Could someone clarify?
Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The
section doesn't make any sense to me too and the cited source doesn't seem to
support its content either. So for now I am moving it here, till we can
appropriately phrase and reference it. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Catt's
views on digital logic
Catt
has a long-standing dispute about "exclusive or" in Boolean algebra. He has noted that
"and", "or", "exclusive-or" (and their inverses)
are the six functions out of the 16 possible functions of two Boolean inputs
for which A op B is the same as B op A. Catt calls this "symmetric",
and complains that Boolean algebra deals with "and" and
"or" and ignores "ex-or". He appears to have been arguing
this since his IC design days, when he apparently failed to convince his boss
of the business case for having an XOR function in the product range. (De Morgan's laws state that a
"positive-logic AND" is a "negative-logic OR" and vice
versa.)[1]
[1]
Unpublished letter to Electronics World, available on Catt's website [5]
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?
Hi.
The section on "Catt's view on digital logic" is, technically, my
text. Light current lifted it from the discussion pages and dumped it onto the
article. The main sources for it are his 1968 article in (IIRC) "Computer
Design" (which was at www.ivorcatt.org, which seems to be offline) and his
2004 article "Boolean Castles in the Air" in Electronics World.
Basically, in 1964 Catt lost the argument about adding an XOR IC to the
Motorola ECL product line. This appears to have rankled and since then Catt has
tried to prove his point. Put simply, although he claims to be a "logic
designer" he seems not to understand the use of De Morgan's laws to
"optimise" the equations that describe a combinatorial logic circuit.
In particular, he seems not to understand that in order to apply the princples
of optimisation, XORs have to be expanded into their AND-OR-NOT equivalent, as
otherwise they become irreducible "knots" in the arrangement.
[ Optimisation is the opposite of expansion. I wonder
what an irreducible knot is in logic design. ]
The
final irony is that complex logic implementations are nowadays done in
"programmable logic devices" which implement the AND-OR-NOT networks
that Catt decries. To cap it all, the PLDs typically use an XOR gate at the
"tail" of the network as a way of providing a programmable NOT.... --
Kevin Brunt (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
for that background. The problem I have with the text above is that it contains
many gross technical errors, for example:
ท
AND,
OR, XOR, NAND, NOR, XNOR, are 6 out of 8 (rather than 16)
symmetric Boolean functions of two variables.
ท
"Boolean
algebra deals with "and" and "or" and ignores
"ex-or". is simply nonsensical. On the other hand the proposal to use
XOR gates as a basic unit in an IC, may turn out to be inadvisable (in terms of
the number of transistors, required silcon area, or other design constraints),
but is not inherently absurd.
The
problem is that without a specific citation, it is difficult to decide whether
the above errors were made by Catt himeslf, or somehow we have mistranslated
his views. It would be really helpful if we could locate the exact reference
for publications in which Catt talks about this, and hopefully also find some
articles where others have commented on his work/errors. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally,
Catt's page seems to have moved to this new website. Kevin, can you please
check if the references you mentioned are available on this website ?
Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Catt's
webpages are somewhat entangled. ivorcatt.org had a selection of Catt's
articles, which do not appear to be on the other websites. I suspect that with
Catt's illness, the registration of his domain has lapsed.
On
the subject of the Boolean functions. There are 16 possible truth tables for
f(A,B). Of the 16, two are constants and four are the single variable functions
A, NOT A, B, NOT B. Of the remaining 10, 6 are the functions that Catt labels
as 'symmetric' (and which mathematicians would call "commutative".)
The symmetry in question is a line of symmetry along the diagonal A=B. What
Catt ignores is that the remaining four "unsymmetric" functions have
a line of symmetry along the opposing diagonal (A<>B) and that
significantly the exclusive-OR pair are in fact symmetric along both
lines. In addition, the four "unsymmetic" functions are mirror images
of the AND/OR/NAND/NOR group.
This
is an important point, which appears to have completely passed Catt by. Inverting
one of the inputs to the function forms the mirror image of the truth table.
Inverting both inputs is effectively two reflections "at right
angles", which is a 180 degree rotation. If Catt had pursued this, he
would have found a way to visualise De Morgan's laws. However, it would also
have exposed the weakness of his main argument, as it would show that starting
from AND (or OR if it comes to that) and inverting any or all of the two inputs
and the output, you end up with a set of 8 distinct functions. Doing the same
to EX-OR yields only two distinct truth tables for the 8 possibilities - a
direct result of the additional symmetry of the EX-OR truth table. Because
EX-OR has two lines of symmetry it also has an axis of rotational symmetry, so
inverting one input yields an EX-NOR truth table; inverting both inputs
effectively does nothing. -- Kevin Brunt (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I
agree with your analysis of cummutative boolean functions; I reach the same end
result based on a counting argument (it would be a surprise if we didn't
reach the same conclusions!).
What
we need though, is a specific reference for Catt's version of the
analysis. Did he ever publish it in some magazine article, or in one of the
many letters-to-the-editor that he seems to have written ? Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Y'know,
if the only reference for "Catt's important digital logic debate" is
an unpublished letter-to-the editor, then Catt's digital logic debate is not
important. Google for "ivor catt xor" gets seven hits:
ivorcatt.com (1), wikipedia and its mirrors (4), and what appears to be a
random-link generator at CERN (2). Zero hits on Google Books or Google Scholar.
Bm gub (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've
found www.ivorcatt.org on the "Wayback Machine" at www.ivorcatt.org at the Wayback The main
"logic" article is Computer Design Feb 1968 It basically
purports to show thar Ex-OR is one of the "three primary logic
functions." Catt obviously didn't think that "NOT" was a
function...
The
other related article is the much more recent "Boolean Castles in the
Air" Electronics World July 2004, which takes
the claim of the earlier article as definitive "truth", and proceeds
to castigate the academic teaching of Logic. It is ironic that he does so
partly by quoting an example from an introductory Logic text (to do with purple
oranges) as he clearly hadn't read the associated text. The "absurd"
example is, in fact, an illustration of the "excluded middle" fallacy
- the irony is that Catt's 1968 article constructs the syllogism
All
primary Boolean functions are symmetric
Exclusive-OR
is symmetric
Therefore
Exclusive-OR is a primary Boolean function
which
is, of course, an excluded middle argument! -- Kevin Brunt (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
<deindent>
Thanks for the links, Kevin! My 2 cents on the two pieces
Although
one unbalanced function plus the Inverter make up a complete set, a Balanced
function (Exclusive OR) plus the Inverter do not. That is, some logic functions
cannot be implemented using only Exclusive OR's and Inverters. So if a family
of logic elements is being designed using only one type, then the NOR or the
NAND, which em-braces both the unbalanced function and the Inverter, is the
proper choice to make, and the Balanced function (Exclusive-OR) rightly will
not appear in the family. If a family of logic elements is being designed using
more than one type, it looks as though the Balanced function (Exclusive-OR), as
one of the three primary logic functions, has a strong claim to be included.
While
one may find this argument for introducing (say) a Quad XOR chip (which indeed
the 7400 and 4000 families lack) unconvincing, the
argument is not fundamentally flawed.
While
these opinions are now verifiable, I am not sure if they are really notable (in
the sense, that nobody has even bothered to notice or rebut them) or worth
discussing in the wikipedia article. What do others think ? Abecedare (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The
chip on Catt's shoulder relates specifically to the Motorola Emitter Coupled
Logic range. Catt worked on it, and his Ex-OR writings relate to an episode
where he lost an argument about adapting an existing bistable chip design
(changing one of the fabrication steps would have produced an Ex-OR gate.) It
would appear that a point made against Catt was that the formal design methods
(based on the work of Claude_Shannon) don't tend produce designs
which use many Ex-OR gates; rather they produce AND-OR-INVERT networks.
This
is hinted at in the '68 article in the very first paragraph.
It
was probably difficult to implement the Exclusive-OR with relays.
This
statement is wrong. The relay Ex-OR isn't difficult; in fact it is closely
related to the wiring arrangement that allows the light on a staircase be
controlled from both landings. What, however, is clear is that while the relay
"AND" is implemented by connecting subcircuits in series and
"OR" by a corresponding parallel arrangement (and are therefore
primitive,) the relay "Ex-OR" is a composite series-parallel
arrangement, and therefore cannot be regarded in the same way as AND and OR.
Catt's
quarrel is really with Shannon, who made the equivalence between Boolean
algebra and relay control circuits, not with Boole directly. It is notable that
Catt doesn't even mention Shannon.
Catt's
further quarrel with Turing relates to Catt's ideas on computer design, and
particularly on memory technology. (These relate to the two articles with
"Dinosaur" in the title on the www.ivorcatt.org page.) (Though I
won't argue against part of Catt's animosity to Turing being a product of
Catt's total lack of recognition.) The problems with Catt's computer ideas are
One
of the main planks of his "thesis" is that mainstream computing
design has completely ignored the concept of Content_addressable_memory. If he'd done
his research, he would have found that even at the time of the his 1969 article
that CAM was already in use, notably in the CDC_6600, which used a CAM in its
"instruction stack", which was an early form of cache memory. -- Kevin Brunt (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Books
I
moved the four books that were self-published by Catt to a separate subheading,
in that Wikipedia:Fringe theories suggests that
self-published works should be given somewhat lesser consideration. Can anybody
find a reference to the work by Catt, listed as "The Two T.E.M.
Signals", IEEE Computer Society, 1978, OCLC 35349268 ? I couldn't
find any good reference to this, and the library search page of the IEEE Computer Society
didn't have any listing for it. I moved it to the "articles" section,
but I'm not sure whether it actually exists at all. 99.161.135.173 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
World
Cat has a listing for the, TEM book but no details, and apparently no
US library even holds it. Don't know if that helps. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's
not held by any British university libraries, either: http://copac.ac.uk/
Actually, I only see three or four cases of *any* Catt book being held by a
non-national-repository library. Bm gub (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm
not at all surprised at the absence of Catt's books from libraries; they simply
were not very good. The real question about "The Two T.E.M. Signals"
is why it was published by the IEEE Computer Society, since the subject of the
book is only tangentially relevant to computers. What I have found is that a
search for the book title throws up an article in IEEE Computer Transactions,
November 1978, with the title 'Correction of "Maxwell's Displacement
Current"'. I suspect that the article is largely based on text from the
book (much of Catt's writing repeats earlier text) and that the later book is
referenced as to be published. I would not be at all surprised if what happened
was that when the article appeared somebody sufficiently senior in the IEEE
(and sufficiently competent to understand where Catt was wrong) started asking
awkward questions, with the result that the book was never actually published.
Equally, Catt may have signed a contract to write the book, but it was spiked
when the editors actually got to see the completed text.) -- Kevin Brunt (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If
the book hasn't actually been published, it shouldn't be in the references at
all: is there any way to find out whether it was ever published? It's
hard to see why it wouldn't be found on the search page of the IEEE Computer
Society, if the IEEE Computer society did publish it. In any case, however, it
doesn't make sense for it to be listed under "articles". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps
there should be a section for "unobserved articles". (It would go
well with Catt's science, most of which is based on unobserved factoids....)
The Wireless World March 1979 article "The History of Displacement
Current" would sort of belong here - it was originally going to appear in
the Institute of Physics' periodical "Physics Education", and is so
referenced in the preceeding December 1978 article. However, although Catt
obviously thought that the IoP had accepted the article, they undoubtedly were
of the view that they had agreed the article title. When Catt came to submit
the paper, it was so bad that it was rejected outright. (And bad it was
- there was no way that the IoP were going to publish, in a journal aimed at
physics teachers, an article purporting to review the history of displacement
current that does not even mention the connection with the electric field.)
Somewhere
on Catt's websites he tells how (in 1969) he "tricked" New Scientist
into accepting an article about his ideas on computer memory, by misleading
them as to the content of the article and springing it on them close to
deadline. (Exactly how much NS were deceived is unclear, but Catt clearly
thought that he got one over on them.) I suspect that Catt tried to pull the
same trick on Physics Education, and found that serious academic publications
have different priorities to the more "populist" science journalism.
-- Kevin Brunt (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
Navigation
menu
Interaction
Tools
Print/export
Languages