Nobellist to approvingly says;

“There is no truth.”

at 27 or 29 minutes; “Once it enters the high school text books, it’s there to stay.”


A more junior John Dore B/Sc., FIEE, not among the Exalted ranks of HJDPP, did enormous damage by reiterating over the years that I made no progress because I was rude to what he called something like “distinguished physicists” (HJDPP). He threatened to falsify the record, as did JJ Thomson when he told Heaviside to be more polite. (Heaviside called Preece “a scienticulist”.) Today, we only remember Preece for blocking Heaviside. Reaching age 85, I decided to use the big stick. All the canaries except Pepper then dropped their omerta, and sang loud and clear.

Ivor Catt 24.1 2021


Ivor Catt <>

10:50 (18 minutes ago)

to Anthony, Brian, Archie, michael.pepper, bcc: Malcolm, bcc: Alex, bcc: HARRY, bcc: Dan, bcc: Dana, bcc: Libuse, bcc: Forrest, bcc: Anthony, bcc: mike, bcc: John, bcc: Steve, bcc: Ben, bcc: John, bcc: David, bcc: Monika, bcc: Svetlana, bcc: peter

"Should you knowingly lie to students in order to help an electrician to wire up a house?"  

Davies "replied" with more than 700 words. . That was what we electronic engineers call "noise".

24.1.2021 Afterthought. I now realise that we could further modify the knowingly question. A long time ago it was alleged that cattq was a “wrong question”. I think we can dismiss that option. However, we could add a fourth comment to the possible replies to the knowingly   question; “Yes”, “No”, “refusal to reply”  , “misleading question” I suggest this as a good, fourth option for a beleaguered instrumentalist – Howie, Josephson, Davies, Palmer, Pepper.




It is obviously unfair for Catt to select DHJPP to represent the academic mafia. They are all on this circulation.

I would ask them to get together with a joint statement on something like the following lines;


"Catt is on a destructive ego trip."

Catt's "Theory C" is not a significant contribution to electromagnetic theory."

I promise to upload it at 



Consensus among the academic establishment would clarify the situation.


The above two lines would probably suffice. However, more could be added.

"Catt is not expert in electromagnetic theory. Silencing Catt via peer review for 50 years was justified."

(I am fascinated to find my name among accredited IEEE peer reviewers. The IEEE has silenced me for 50 years.) 


Ivor Catt


Dear John,

I am concerned that I almost overlooked the above email from you about instrumentalism. I thought that, having plucked the nettle of Opus Dei, you failed to do the same over science. 

Re cattq, you passed me off to (originally anonymous) instrumentalist Palmer because (presumably) you saw him as more expert than you in electromagnetism. He then wrote rubbish about cattq  and later I found out who he was.

Recently he played the typical game an instrumentalist does, saying that the idea of energy reciprocating in a long capacitor is merely another "description" of a charged capacitor, to add to the conventional "description" that a charged capacitor has a stationary electric field. Why bother with a second "description", when we already have one. There is no truth anyway. ;


Anyway, the new model would rock the "displacement current" boat! We can't have that!