Martin Eccles; The End Game As Editor of Wireless
World, Martin Eccles delayed forward movement in electromagnetic theory for
seven years. Bizarre, inexplicable behaviour is more destructive than malicious behaviour, because the latter has a purpose, however malign. Ivor Catt 23sep02 |
|
Eccles, WW editor
(circa)1994 to 2002, shut me out of WW, and now claims he did not. Phil Reed is Editor,
Wireless World, 2002 onwards. Nigel Cook had a long
article on Catt's ideas in WW (Now called Electronics World), aug2002. Cook
says it was botched (his opinion) because of the changeover in
editorship. Ivor 24aug02
----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt Cc: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:58 AM Subject: Eccles "Have you mentioned to Ivor that I might be getting involved? He sincerely believes that I had it in for him as editor of EW, but nothing was further from the truth. I was longing for him to send me something that would fit into EW’s framework, but, he never did. I’ll bet he was surprised to see that your article appeared in EW. He’ll never believe that I prepared it for publication before I left to make sure that it would get published. " - Eccles to Cook, 11aug02
I have now looked through my 1995 correspondence with Martin Eccles, and find that his behaviour was much worse than I remembered, although my general summary of the sense of it to Phil Reed when Phil and I had lunch was accurate. His behaviour seemed so irrational and destructive that one would not know when he might put the boot in again in future. It will be helpful if Nigel tries to get an explanation from Eccles as to what Eccles thought he was up to in 1995, after Nigel sees my hard copy. If we could make sense of his behaviour, it would be helpful.
My 4oct95 letter to Eccles ends; "One problem we are heading for is the appearance that, once Catt gains acceptance, he drops his old ally - Wireless World. .... creates personal problems for me if I cannot get my material past the editor. Wireless World is what made me. I have to make it clear that the dropping does not come from my side." [Eccles forced me into appearing, once I made headway, to have gone up market. I found myself in the situation where now the IEE published me, WW refused to. (The context is that for ten years, '78-88, WW had mention of my ideas in every issue except two, at a time when Catt was otherwise totally suppressed wordwide. Ultimate publication by the IEE ten years later would have validated WW's extreme loyalty to Catt for WW readers.) This went to the extreme of WW refusing even to mention that the IEE was now publishing me http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm. This was damaging to WW, and potentially very damaging to me.]
I shall send hard copy of the key items to Phil Reed and to Nigel Coo [See below]
Ivor Catt. 23aug02 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Ivor Catt, 121
Westfields, St. Albans
AL3 4JR (01727
864257 1mar97 cc Peter
Thornton G6NGR Oldham,
Lancashire Electronics
World + Wireless
World, July 1995, p594 M G T Hewlett, Midhurst, W Sussex Dear Mr.
Hewlett, Irate
communication over cable. EWW apr97, p315 I notice
your mention of the Catt Anomaly as being part of the halcyon days of yore in
Wireless World. In previous
decades, Eccles had always talked with me on the 'phone with enthusiasm, and
was very positive about my ideas. When Eccles took over as editor, I arranged
to go to meet him, and he received me with courtesy. He presented me to his
newly arrived deputy editor, and they seemed to want to spend any amount of
time with me. Eccles also expressed considerable interest in my proposals for
copy for EWW, including the deconstruction of the EMC lobby [finally
published in march03 after Eccles
went http://www.ivorcatt.com/2.htm . Delayed
for seven years by Eccles. – IC]. (This is a
pressing issue, since nonsensical EMC regs. are destroying the British
electronics industry, what little is left of it. It is obviously prime
Wireless World territory, and I have the technical credentials to comment on
it. I was resident EMC guru on Stingray at GEC Stanmore, for instance.
However, my offerings to EWW on it have been ignored wihout even a rejection
slip.) Eccles did
publish a letter by me, may95. However, since then there is a total embargo
on anything written by me [lifted when Eccles went in mid 2002;
see aug02, jan03, mar03, apr03]. He seemed
concerned when I told him there was brief mention of me in passing in EWW
(similar to yours in apr97). It is
clear that EWW policy is to distance itself from me, as the Sunday
Times now distances itself from Neville Hodgkinson on AIDS. This creates
problems for me, for instance in that I cannot respond to Thornton, EWW july95
(see overleaf). The total embargo on comment on my new books, including THE
CATT ANOMALY, creates problems for me. I try to give credit to the major role
played by WW in the saga of my e-m theory, but am not allowed to do so. In
that book I say; "Its present editor Eccles has since turned chicken and
will not publish anyhthing more by Catt." I can
publish in EWW under an alias, for instance EWW Jan97 Penelope Lyon p84.
However, publishing under an alias creates further problems. On the
phone yesterday from New York my co-author Malcolm Davidson, whom I respect,
said that although the article criticised by Penelope is nonsense, there is a
kernel of sense in all the hook-up cable talk. Against this, Lipschutz under
pressure from me on the phone admitted that he spent zero time choosing
hookup cable. One
possibility is that Eccles has been gagged, and given a blacklist of writers.
The source, should that be true, would presumably be the publisher, so in a
month's time I shall send a copy of this letter to Mick Elliott, Publisher. Tom Ivall,
the WW editor who gave me my breakthrough when he published my first article
in dec78, is now of the opinion that my Catt Anomaly stuff is nonsense [ http://www.ivorcatt.com/3634.htm ]
. Perhaps he is the Wise Old Man who has warned Eccles off. I am
on very good terms with Tom, so I shall send a copy of this letter to him. The
tragedy is that I have 'establishment science' on the run re the Catt
Anomaly, as you will see in my 1996 book with that title. Wireless World is
doggedly evading the credit for its second great success - being the channel
for publication of Catt's theories - which ranks with the stationary
satellite of circa 1945. It is also ironic that today, the IEE publishes
material on Catt, by reviewing my 1994 book ELECTROMAGNETISM 1, while EWW embargoes
it and the rest of Catt. The IEE was the worst of a bad lot of institutions
in my case, and remains so except for EWW. Today's EWW now has to take its
place as a worse suppressor than the IEE. At the same time, EWW can publish
any insufferable nonsense about hookup wiring, see for instance dec96 p937. Yours
sincerely, Ivor
Catt cc Tom
Ivall, 20 Penton Rd., Staines, Middx
TW18 2JY [Phoenix.
Editorials by the new Editor Phil Reed; mar03,“Mr. Catt returns ….”; apr03,
“Catt’s whiskers …. Other projects in the pipeline from this esteemed author
….”. IC 28mar03] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The Catt
Anomaly Ivor Catt,
121 Westfields, St. Albans
AL3 4JR, England 7sep95 (01727 864257 slightly
amended 24sep95, 1oct95 The Catt
Anomaly was first partially stated in Wireless World (WW), aug81. It was
restated in WW aug82, republished on the last twelve lines of p104 of the
book DEATH OF ELECTRIC CURRENT (DEC), 1987, by I. Catt. There is an important
restatement of it on p903 of Electronics and Wireless World (EWW) sep87. [WW became EWW] Until
about 1985, the only publicly stated possible sources for the charge in
question were the west and the north. These are the possibilities stated in
aug82, and the discussion was within that context for years thereafter. Brown
and Robinson wrote within the context of those two possibilities in WW oct82. In WW
oct82, republished in DEC p107, Robinson and Brown explain that the charge
can come from the west without having to travel at the speed of light.
Brown's last sentence makes this point clearly. FNH
Robinson, Fellow of St. Catherine's College, of the Clarendon, published a
textbook on electromangetism which is still in print, on sale in Dillon's.
However, Brown is more significant. Professor
J. Brown was Professor of Electrical Engineering, Head of Department at
Imperial College, London, and President of the IEE a little before the time
he published his letter in WW oct82. He was at that time regarded as a
leading expert in electromagnetic theory (but is now contradicted by Secker's
IEE). In 1995,
Professor P E Secker says that "The general view of the experts within
the IEE is that .... The favoured explanation aligns with the statement ....
attributed to Professor Pepper, namely [that there is] a transitory current
flow at right angles to the direction of wave propagation." The
following is the line-up today, giving the dates of their writing.. From the west Dr.
J. Brown, President of the IEE,
[in WWoct82] Professor
of Electrical Engineering and Head of Department,
Imperial College, London F.N.H.
Robinson, Fellow, at Clarendon
Laboratory, Oxford, [in
WW oct82] Published a book on electromagnetism Professor
A. Howie FRS, Fellow of Churchill
College; at Cavendish Laboratory. [Private letter to I. Catt oct83] Later
Head of the Cavendish. Neil
McEwan (Dr.), Reader in Electromagnetics, Bradford University [in letter
apr95] Writing under direction from
the Professor of Electrical Engineering, Bradford University From the south Professor
Philip E Secker, Deputy Secretary IEE [letter
sep95] Writing under direction from the Secretary of the IEE, giving the
"general view of the experts within the IEE" Professor
M. Pepper FRS, Fellow of Trinity College;
at CavendishLaboratory [in letter june93] Writing
under direction from the Master of
Trinity College, Cambridge Notice
that; [No one has asserted that the charge
comes from the east or from the
north.] The President of the IEE contradicts
the "general view of the experts within the IEE." Professor Howie FRS and Professor
Pepper FRS, both at the Cavendish, contradict each other. McEwan and Pepper, both writing
under direction as the accredited experts, contradict each other. McEwan is a Westerner,
Pepper a Southerner. McEwan says it does not
have to travel at the speed of light; Pepper says it would have to. McEwan says that "The 'anomaly'
is very instructive educationally ....". The 'proper', politic view is to say that the charge comes from
the west, and to fudge the issue of speed. The idea of coming from the south,
promulgated by Pepper, is quite mad. The fact that it is now "The
general view of the experts within the IEE" does not make it less mad.
The IEE opted for the Pepper credentials rather than for common sense.
However, Pepper himself created the disaster by saying that "As the wave travels at light
velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel
at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible", which was
correct but impolitic. The IEE and the rest should have then dumped Pepper
(the Southerner) and stuck together, keeping to the Westerner party line.
They failed to do so because they were dazzled by the aura of Cambridge as
opposed to Bradford. (Could anything good come out of Bethlehem?) Also, they
did not know that Howie of Cambridge contradicts Pepper of Cambridge anyway,
so the Pepper credentials are weaker than they appeared to be. They could not
have conceived of the great Cambridge contradicting itself, because Cambridge
knows about these things. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Ivor Catt,
121 Westfields, St. Albans
AL3 4JR, England. 01727
864257 11sep95 Second
copy sent 20sep95 Third copy
sent 2oct95 The
Editor, Electronics World + Wireless World, Quadrant
House, The Quadrant, Sutton,
Surrey, SM2 5AS Dear
Martin Eccles, The Catt
Anomaly. The Catt
Anomaly, which has figured so greatly in Wireless World over more than a
decade, now becomes a major scoop for Wireless World because of the 4sep95
letter from the IEE. See the analysis overleaf, dated 7sep95, which shows
that the Establishment is divided down the middle, between Westerners and
Southerners. Please
conform that you want to publish the analysis on the lines of that overleaf, plus
the verbatim accounts of the Catt Anomaly by each of the actors in the piece
- Brown, Robinson, Howie, McEwan, Secker, Pepper. This will
clearly demonstrate that Wireless World is ahead of the IEE, the InstPhys,
and the universities in high science. This really is the jackpot, which
Wireless World thoroughly deserves. The whole thing will take two or three
pages, making for an historic edition of Wireless World. Yours
sincerely, Ivor I would be
very grateful for an early reply. [However,
see http://www.ivorcatt.com/3634.htm ] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Ivor Catt,
121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England. 01727
864257 4oct95 The
Editor, Electronics World + Wireless World, Quadrant
House, The Quadrant, Sutton,
Surrey, SM2 5AS Dear
Martin Eccles, The Catt
Anomaly. Thank you
for your letter dated 2oct95, as follows; Dear
Ivor Thank
you for sending me your article entitled "The Catt Anomaly". I
have now considered your article and have regretfully decided that I cannot
fit it into our publication schedule. Thank
you very much for your interest in the journal. Please do not let this deter
you from submitting further articles. Yours
sincerely [signed] Martin Eccles
EDITOR (EW+WW) 2oct95 It may
contain a misunderstanding. I did not send an article, but a proposal. Perhaps
you feel unable to give the amount of space I asked for, which was around
three pages. How much
space do you think you should give to the present dénouement? It would be
very odd if, after staying with Catt theories and in particular the Catt
Anomaly for decades, and giving them so much space, Wireless World dropped
out at this stage, when there is everything to gain. Wireless World risked
being associated with something absurd, viz, the Catt Anomaly. Now, when we
see the Establishment hopelessly split down the middle in so many ways, (see
enclosed 7sep95 analysis), Wireless World is proved right all along. At that
moment, does Wireless World decline to claim the credit? What about
a letter from me, and if so, how long? I could shrink it right down if you
wanted me to, but to publish nothing at all would be very odd. As to your
last sentence, "Please do not let this deter you from submitting further
articles", I feel I would need an explanation of your position if you
really do dissociate Wireless World from the Catt Anomaly at this momentous
juncture. I would not know what your intentions were with regard to what I
might have to offer further. I have worked towards the present position for
decades, and it now centres on the Catt Anomaly. The IEE, after refusing for
35 years the acknowledge the existence of Catt (in electromagnetism), the
Catt Anomaly, or any Catt theories, now will publish a review of my latest
book - which I asked you to review, but you failed to review - and will
comment on the Catt Anomaly in that review. It will be strange indeed if we
move to a situation where the IEE publishes my material while Wireless World
refuses to. Why stop backing a horse when it finally wins, after supporting
it for years in the doldrums? One
problem we are heading for is the appearance that, once Catt gains
acceptance, he drops his old ally - Wireless World. The letter you published
in July by Thornton, saying ".... He is, of course, right: as he always
was. .... Ivor, for god's sake, start writing letters to EW + WW again; I
miss your openness and frankness.", and much more besides, creates
personal problems for me if I cannot get my material past the editor.
Wireless World is what made me. I have to make it clear that the dropping
does not come from my side. Yours
sincerely, Ivor encl. 7sep95 analysis, amended 1oct95 cc Tom Ivall, 20 Penton Rd., Staines, Middx TW18 2JY cc Luca
Turin, Dept of Anatomy, Unversity
College London, Gower St., WC1, [No reply
received. Ivor Catt 23sep02] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Ivor Catt, 121
Westfields, St. Albans
AL3 4JR 01727
864257 20may96 John
Simmonds, Walkwood
Lodge, Beaconsfield, Bucks. HP9 1PR Dear John, Thank you for
your letter dated 18may96 in which you suggested that we fund a research
student, possibly under Howie, and you would contribute money. First to
recap. You are very unhappy about the behaviour of the IEE, but I do not
recollect your own theoretical position and would have to search my files to
find out. However, the principle that the IEE needs to clarify the situation
stands above individual theoretical positions. Tom Ivall,
ex editor of Wireless World, although very helpful, is worried because he sees
no anomaly and also feels very old and tired. (This business has being going
on for decades!) That kind of attitude goes for many people, and one must
distinguish between those who regret the misconduct of IEE, Howie and the
rest, on the one hand, and on the other, those who believe there truly is an
anomaly. Since
Langman has links with Secker/IEE, I recommend a link-up between you and him.
Surely a dual thrust at the IEE, with Catt uninvolved, would be worth trying. David
Langman, 6
Gainbsborough Road, Stratford-on-Avon, Warwicks.CV37 9FA 01789 414898 I strongly
recommend the two letters reprinted overleaf, on what is called p3 -
Langman-Secker 20 4 96 and Langman - Catt 29.4.96. In those letters we see
the division between secretariat and membership appearing in the IEE.
(Langman will be smarting from the bizarre Catt - Langman 1may96 letter.) For
instance, note the bizarre idea that we should welcome two views of the Catt
Anomaly - shades of wave-particle duality! Once modern physics had got away with
wave-particle duality, uncertainty and its other unscientific idiocies, it
could get away with anything! Returning
to funding a research student under Howie or other to look into
"mechanism of transmission of electrical energy when guided by
conductors". 1 Funding. The insertion of significant non-Catt money
into the Catt Anomaly warrants considerable thought and discussion. 2 The
Howie student report. I feel the resulting report by the research student
would not be worth the paper it was written on. I can cite precedents for
this. Lipschutz has promoted his revolutionary submarine, the U-plane, for
fifty years. Southampton Univ. has got its second research student to work on
it and he has reported. However favourable
these reports, they will make no impact at all - Southampton Univ. will be
regarded as a little odd if the reports are too positive. (For this reason,
like the proposed Howie report, they will have been toned down - obfuscated.
Southampton Univ. has to protect its future sources of research
funding!) By definition, if the Howie
student reported too favorably and/or too clearly on the Catt Anomaly, he and
Howie would cease to be part of the Establishment. Check this with Luca
Turin, who is very pro Catt theories and comes from a good stable. (He is the
prototype of your student.) Luca
Turin, Dept of Anatomy, Unversity College London, Gower St., WC1 1 Funding.
I feel that the proper use of any available funding is to have
"prizes" which increase every year, for those in the Establishment who
finally succumb and comment in writing on the Catt Anomaly. I feel that the
increasing pressure on a professor via his wife to take the money in a rising
fund and deliver written comment, would be fascinating. This would be far
cheaper than funding a research student, and generate much more interest in
the media. I started such a scheme in Wireless World, but the current editor
Eccles is now running scared and would sabotage it. It has to go into the
general press, and I could organise that once the fund reached (say) £300. I
already commit £100 to the project. The money has to go into a dedicated
account (although the banks now act up on that matter). Do you want to pursue
that line with Langman, to start with? It would be a long term project,
reaching fruition in some five years from now. I strongly
feel that you should get rid of any hopes that the research student would
find out anything new. Luca Turin went through that whole process without
funding, and he is well inside the academic community. The "student"
(Turin) you think of has already done it all, and will tell you that he would
report his research results if he felt anyone would read it. Yours
sincerely Ivor To Phil
Reed, Nigel Cook, 23aug02 This is
the smoking gun. I had forgotten that I have written evidence of Ivall
wobbling over the Catt Anomaly. All we need to do is find out whether Ivall
voiced his uncertainty to (diffident) Eccles. [We never
found out. Ivor Catt 11may03.] IC
23aug02 Ivall wobbles; http://www.ivorcatt.com/3634.htm |
|
x |