Howie is 85.

Nobel prizewinner Brian Josephson sent me 100 emails.

Davies sent me 20,000 words in emails

Howie (see below) has photons in a charged capacitor..

Josephson talks about wasting his “valuable time”.

 What about my time, trying to advance science

 in the face of their obstruction?


Understanding Oz

"I have already experienced more than enough examples of how difficult it is to
write anything on this topic that will not be misinterpreted."  - A Howie

11 Nov. 2020

“Dear Ivor,

Yet another example that interacting with you runs the risk of
misquotation or selective quotation!

I think my earlier email about concepts that were subsequently proved to
be wrong but were nevertheless for a time useful specifically referred
to caloric rather than to phlogiston.  The caloric theory of heat
underpinned Carnot's brilliant theory of heat engines which acted like
waterwheels when the caloric fluid flowed over them from a higher level
(i.e. in temperature) to a lower level.” – Howie


Here we see the instrumentalist Howie justifying the use of outdated theories. A false theory proved useful, so  it might not always be helpful to transfer to a new theory merely because it seems to be the truth, and the reigning theory false. – Ivor Catt


Please give us one example. At the point of my misinterpretation will be a hyperlink to a page where you discuss my misinterpretation of your words. It will be very valuable for science if you point out cases where I misinterpret you. I have pointed you to my commitment on my home page;

Riposte; I make the commitment that anyone wishing to counter any assertion made on my websites will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a website of their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is made.   


Yesterday I said you would agree that it would be disreputable of you to continue these charges ("misinterpreted") and did not give a specific example of my misinterpreting you. I note that Josephson has joined you in such defamation, but Davies has not, although he might have called me "a rat"; but that could be taken as mere humour. I suspect that Josephson has confused key scientific issues with "humour". Paradoxically, I have to not find all of this "funny"

 - "a cat may look at a queen" - It means that people should not be restricted by lowly beginnings or a lack of status but should strive to achieve goals even if they seem impossible.31 Jan 2019

I would much prefer to not have to tear down the Wizard of Oz's curtain. ; ,


I very much look forward to hearing from you. It will go to this circulation.


Through this email Bcc I am asking the anonymous student just starting at university to approach you via email for advice on his situation, presented with Catt nonsense and wondering what to do. 

As you recently said about my "absurd ego trip" - Howie. 

I am sure you have a duty to warn this student to not let Catt nonsense confuse him at a critical point in his education. Actually, I agree that as he is doing his first degree, he will score worse than had he never heard of me. He needs to be inducted into "the club" without interference.




---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Prof. A Howie <>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 10:50
Subject: Re: come with me shooting the canaries
To: Ivor Catt <>

Dear Ivor,

I would be obliged if you did not provide my telephone number to people
that you are encouraging to call me up with questions about your
theories. Anyone who wants my views on the various issues can no doubt
find them in the voluminous records you have kept. Hopefully they will
find the original statements rather than your edited versions.  I have
already experienced more than enough examples of how difficult it is to
write anything on this topic that will not be misinterpreted.  It would
no doubt be far worse with recorded conversations on the telephone so I
will not take part in these.





“Physics Education” is a journal of the Institute of Physics.

Recently this journal attacked and misrepresented me, and the editor refused to publish a reply by me. . He was later overruled by the head of the IoP. I was too busy trying (and failing ) to get Tony Davies to help me to publish in the IEEE, to pursue the IoP matter immediately. Now the editor of “Physics Education” blocks my emails. It is fascinating to see that the Howie email to me (see below) says the opposite of what he thinks he says. It feeds directly into Mccutchen;

The referees repay the establishment by suppressing new discoveries. It is not necessary that either side understand the arrangement. - Dr Charles McCutchen [1]

Are professors, editors, referees and text book writers behaving unethically?

They (Howie and Davis) (think they) cover their tracks by criticising the system for blocking scientific advance which they themselves operate. I suggest they are successful, and the man on the Clapham omnibus will see nothing wrong with their behaviour. – Ivor Catt, 1.4.2019

Prof. A Howie


Fri, Mar 29, 10:08 AM (3 days ago)




to me

Dear Ivor,

Thanks for our message.  I admire your tenacity over EM theory which I'm 
sure keeps your brain firing away.  I have never met Alex Yakovlev and 
had not even heard of him until maybe 6 months ago I came across his 
Phil Trans paper with its fulsome references to the work of you and your 
colleagues.  Following our strenuous but unsuccessful efforts many years 
ago to resolve the difference between us, I am however not at all 
attracted by the idea of revisiting them!

In the past few months the "standard" EM theory that you dislike I have 
been applying to compute the energy loss experienced by a fast electron 
beam. This travels in the z direction and is highly focused to about 
0.2nm in the x-y plane, when it passes just outside a dielectric 
material.  This theory gives a very good account of many experimental 
observations. Of course by some amazing fluke it may still succeed when 
built on a foundation that you believe to be incorrect but so far I am 
not convinced.

You may recall that long ago I encouraged you to get your ideas 
published in Physics Education in the guise of a challenge to the 
teaching of EM.
I shared some of your disappointment and frustration [as any crocodile would - IC] 
after accepting it, they pulled out from publication.  At least 
Yakovlev has now managed to get some account of your theory published in 
the scientific literature and we can await reactions.  I am not too 
confident that much will emerge however since the serious readership of 
most published papers is now close to zero. Most papers or now read by 
bots as I discovered when a paper I recently submitted to 
Ultramicroscopy was accepted.  Within a few hours (while it was still 
listed as an on-line paper in the publication pipeline) I got first an 
email from some organisation telling me that a number of people had 
already consulted my paper and that I could find out who they were by 
signing up with them. Hard on he heels of this came a second message 
offering for sale a mug on which the first page of my paper would be 

Best wishes,


“…. after accepting it, they pulled out from publication.”

…. Later published in Wireless World, and ignored.

During the next 40 years, Howie, high up in the IoP, did nothing about it. “He has served as a member of the IOP Council”






Prof. A Howie

Apr 13, 2019, 5:30 PM (18 hours ago)

to me, Christopher, John

Dear Ivor,

Thanks for sharing your message with me.  At least it reminds me that 
anything I send you runs the risk of being widely circulated accompanied 
by what I think are misleading comments of yours. It should be clear I 
think that I never accepted your contention that standard EM theory is 
wrong but gave up many years ago the idea that I could ever persuade you 
of that.  The suggestion that you might be able to get some of it 
published in the guise of a teaching of physics problem may have come 
from me but I saw it simply as a trick for you to get something into 
press.  When the editor of Physics Education was alerted to the trick 
and pulled your paper after it had been accepted I was indeed 
disappointed that the trick had been spotted.  This editorial decision 
did not however in my view come within a hundred miles of suppressing 
some valuable revolutionary new idea in basic physics.  The idea that I 
ought to have raised it at the IOP Council never, and I would claim 
rightly, crossed my mind.

Best wishes,




 It should be clear I think that I never accepted your contention that standard EM theory is wrong “ – Howie

My “contention” cattq was not a contention, it was a question. Your reply, and the reply by Pepper, who worked for you, were contradictory. You refuse to discuss your contradiction with Pepper. This refusal and misrepresentation has now continued for 25 years.

Ivor Catt  24.6.2019




      On 2019-03-28 21:11, Ivor Catt wrote:
> Dear Archie,
> I would greatly value your comment on
> Ivor

> Links:
> ------
> [1]





Tony Wakefield

7:38 AM (1 hour ago)

to me, Stephen, Malcolm, Monika

Could not resist this one. I followed your link Ivor and out of interest I had a look at publications of 2018 ‘What is photonics?’


1st Para of Introduction “What is photonics?” page 8.

 “Photonics is the physics and technology of light. The applications of this field of knowledge are diverse and far reaching: from technologies that engage our fundamental sense of sight - such as displays and lighting systems, to less conspicuous technologies which harness light’s exceptional capacity to work instantaneously and at a distance, such as sensors and lasers.”


I see we have a new group that think light can travel faster than light. In context I know what they mean if talking to general public but in a scientific publication.


PS yes I know it’s April Fool’s Day but this was published in May 2018



 “Take the Catt Anomaly. …. Faced with evidence of a problem, a group of idiots have a choice between ignoring it, which is a short-term option only, or trying to discredit it by foul means. The idea of a third choice, of proper discussion, or fear-of-all-fears, of actually making progress in science by bringing clarity to bear on an important problem, would be admitting ignorance. Hence, every point raised is seen to be such a danger to a fragile subject that it must be guarded against the slightest inspection. An anomaly must be ignored or ridiculed. Progress would be a threat to the authority of those who fear revolutionary progress. So they would prefer to shoot themselves in the foot in the long-term …. They can still hope that the short-term cover-up will sweep away a problem for long enough for it to literally die. ….” – Editorial, Electronics World, August 2003, p3.



'It is one of the contradictions of our time that science, which is the source of power, and more particularly of governmental power, depends for its advancement upon an essentially anarchic state of mind in the investigator. The scientific state of mind is neither sceptical nor dogmatic. The sceptic holds that truth is undiscoverable, while the dogmatist holds that it is already discovered. ... Absence of finality is of the essence of the scientific spirit. The beliefs of the man of science are therefore tentative and undogmatic. But in so far as they result from his own researches, they are personal, not social. ... This conflict between the scientific spirit and the governmental use of science is likely ultimately to bring scientific progress to a standstill, since scientific technique will be increasingly used to instil orthodoxy and credulity.'
– Bertrand Russell c. 1930

'It would carry us too far afield here to discuss how far the consciences of men of science may be able to get the upper hand of a trained and experienced governing class so as to insist upon such collective ideals as they are able to formulate, and how far a trained and experienced governing class may manoeuvre this medley of distressed and protesting intelligences into the position of a roster of mere "experts" available if called upon by the authorities, and otherwise out of consideration. The odds seem to me to be in favour of the latter possibility.'
– H G Wells c. 1940

'There is a widespread belief that medical and biological research is very successful ... [M]any new drugs have been discovered and developed empirically, intensive care units...have been set up, new antibiotics have been found empirically and modified, transplantation...has become routine, cardiac surgery has become a major speciality, steroids have been used... [but] all these have been highly successful applications of simple technologies. ... [W]hat has been discovered about the genesis of cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia[?] ... remarkably little ... a large amount is known about what they do, but remarkably little about how they act ... [B]asic medical, biological and pharmacological research has not been successful because it has not addressed the fundamental problems and assumptions inherent in most of the techniques.'
– Harold Hillman c. 1995