To K.E. 12may02
I have today by slomail sent you much material, which bears on your proposals of yesterday.
By 1986 I knew that learned scientific journals throughout the world were not publishing scientific advance. They were only publishing the trivial, some containing a lot of fancy maths. They were also publishing material from the right university or from relatives of the editor.
I set out to investigate the Scientific Reception System. Clearly my team C D W had an important advance in the transmission line model for the RC (Wireless World dec78) and for the LC (Proc.IEEE june83).
I had grappled with the problem of the two turn inductor, and finally Mike Gibson helped me to solve it. It was published in Proc.IEEE june87. However, at the same time, the single turn transformer was submitted to the London IEE, and rejected. It did not cross-refer to the ProcIEEE two inductor, which had not been published at the time the IEE rejected the transformer.
My programme for the future was as follows.
Wait ten years, and then submit the one turn transformer to ProcIEEE under another name.
If accepted and published, then wait five years, and then
Submit the massive simplification of the one turn transformer, as outlined in my ?nov86? letter to Gibson, to another institution (not IEEE) under yet another name, not referring to the IEEE article on the transformer. See if (as I expected) a simplification would be rejected for publication, on the basis that only the obscure and complicated approach to a problem could be published in today’s scientific media.
Another possible route is to now submit a massively simpler version of my june87 ProcIEEE paper on the two turn inductor. Under this simplification, more or less all the maths would disappear. I would expect to have it rejected because too simple.
What the above shows is that your present proposals for your own work have caused you to stumble on a very interesting pre-planned programme of work and research.
Ivor Catt 12may02