Being There

Always 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.

In 30 years, two people have availed themselves of this facility, which should be on every Home Page.

Both Howie and Josephson say I misrepresent what they say. "You don't play games with words." 


"As always, ambiguous language (e.g. the phrase ‘a charged capacitor’) leads to confusion." - Professor Brian D Josephson

The statement;  ‘a charged capacitor’ is as plain as a pikestaff.

There is no possibility that anyone has difficulty understanding the word "stationary".

This kind of behaviour is a disgrace.


This is the kind of gobbledeygook, or extremely destructive nonsense, by people in high places that makes it possible for teachers and nervous junior lecturers around the world to continue to teach children what is now clearly proved to be text book nonsense camouflaged by nonsensical mathematics (much of it wrong ) added to by "theoretical physicists" in CERN and elsewhere at enormous expense, at least some of whom never did an experiment in their lives. Oppo said in the lecture I heard that he did not do experiments because he tended to destroy the equipment. Howie called this article “outrageous”, but made no technical comment on it. His future comments will be added here. Please would “Theoretical Physicist” Josephson also comment?

Note that everyone under 65 keeps to the code of omerta of the academic mafia.

Ivor Catt 28.8.2020


Prof. A Howie

Thu, 27 Aug, 16:24 (18 hours ago)

to Malcolm, tonydavies, Brian, Alex, Forrest, HARRY, me, Tony, David, Ed, Steve, John, mike, michael.pepper, Phil, John, David, Greg, ekkehard, Giuseppe, Jack, philip, massimiliano.pieraccini, Monika

Dear Malcolm,

Your message, reiterating your view about the fundamental status in
electromagnetism of E x H energy flow and impedance, prompts me to ask
you you again how precisely experimental facts, particularly about the
actual amplitude of reflections at the coaxial cable terminations
support your position.

I have been thinking a bit more about what happens when a coaxial cable
of impedance Zc is simply terminated. When either a step or a pulse
arrives there, a step or pulse of say positive charge appears at the end
of the central wire with a corresponding step or pulse of negative
charge on the sheath. I am increasingly certain that this axially
symmetric dipole cannot radiate!  It then follows that the step or pulse
must be reflected back down the cable with reflection amplitude Ra = 1.
However, according to the infinite plane interface formula that you have
quoted from time to time, we should have Ra = (Z0 - Zc)/(Z0 + Zc) = 0.76
for a cable impedance Zc = 50ohm and free space Z0 = 376 ohm.  I notice
that Alex Yakovlev in his paper actually assumes Ra = 1 so perhaps he
has empirical reasons to prefer this result to the one you would deduce?
  It does not after all require a very accurate measurement to sort this

If the central wire were left protruding by a substantial distance (of
the order of the step length I suspect) radiation could occur.

Once again the situation is I think quite different for the geometry of
a capacitor with circular plates. This can I believe radiate when a step
reaches the periphery. So the reflection coefficient will be less than 1
though possibly a bit larger than (Z0 - Zc)/(Z0 +Zc). The details of the
charging or discharging sequence mediated by steps cycling to and fro
will therefore be a bit different. More seriously, the idea of long term
charge storage through step running mechanism will now be killed not
just by ohmic dissipation but by radiation losses.

Archie Howie.




Prof. A Howie

11:01 (53 minutes ago)

to Malcolm, HARRY, tonydavies, Brian, Alex, Forrest, me, Tony, David, Ed, Steve, John, mike, michael.pepper, Phil, John, David, Greg, ekkehard, Giuseppe, Jack, philip, massimiliano.pieraccini, Monika

Dear Malcolm,

I am sorry if your frequent references to the impedance Z0=376 ohms of
free space have lead me to think that you were using this value to
compute the reflection amplitude at the open end of a coaxial cable of
impedance Zc to be Ra = (Z0 - Zc)/(Z0 + Zc).  If in fact your practical
experience indicates that Ra = 1 then I am happy since this would be
consistent with the idea that a coaxial cable terminated in this way
cannot radiate.

In this respect I think that a twisted pair with an open termination
will be different since the since the dipole appearing with a plus
charge at the end of one wire and an equal minus charge at the end of
the other can radiate though maybe not very much unless the separation
of the two wires is closer to the rise distance of the EM steps
propagating in the guide.  Ra in this case would I think be a bit less
than 1.

Archie Howie.



Prof. A Howie

11:52 (9 minutes ago)

to HARRY, Malcolm, tonydavies, Brian, Alex, Forrest, me, Tony, David, Ed, Steve, John, mike, michael.pepper, Phil, John, David, Greg, ekkehard, Giuseppe, Jack, philip, massimiliano.pieraccini, Monika

Dear Harry Ricker,

Yes. I agree with you because the cylindricaly symmetric EM wave (or
step) that can propagate in the cable because of the presence of the
central wire, cannot propagate beyond the end of the cable into free
space.  It may well be different for a twisted pair with a sufficient
lateral distance between the end points of the two wires and different
also for a capacitor with parallel circular plates.

Maybe however you have a different reason for your one sentence

Archie Howie.



Intellectual incompetence or fear.

This excellent piece by Harry Ricker illustrates, or rather proves, the intellectual incompetence, or fear of stepping outside the canon, of all those who were “being there” in high places in the world of “science” during more than the last century.

They dare not investigate their shibboleth Maxwell.

2pm BST  28.8.2020

Re: answering Tony Davies Re: philosophy





13:53 (4 hours ago)

to Alex, me, Malcolm,, Brian, Forrest, Tony, A, David, Ed, Steve, John, mike,, Phil, John, David, Greg,, Giuseppe, Jack, philip,, Monika



You are to be congratulated for bringing to my attention the confusion of the rolling wave in physics.  Before that I had accepted the rolling wave as discussed in physics textbooks, but I had not thought much about it until I read your paper.


The claim of the mainstream textbooks is that Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism via the Maxwell equations. This claim can be verified by entering, "unification of electricity with magnetism" and searching using that phrase. This produces the following results:  (PDF) The Unification of Electricity and Magnetism  This paper by David Tombe says that the unification is brought about by Maxwell's invention of displacement current, which Catt et. al. effectively proved is a bogus concept in the Wireless World article of 1978. 


Another search result is this paper, which purports to explain how the unification is accomplished by Maxwell's equations. Maxwell’s Equations-Unification of Electricity & Magnetism: Demystified – Abdul Haque Mohammed

Unfortunately, this paper doesn't really explain how the unification is proved. It does make this rather famous statement:" However, if the fields are changing it is impossible for either to exist separately; a changing electric field will produce a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field produces an electric field. From this it is clear that electricity and magnetism essentially are two different aspects of same thing." This statement is falsified by the simple example of the EM wave as shown in any textbook. Those drawings show the E and H fields in phase and contradict the curl equations presented in the textbooks. Hence the unification of electricity with magnetism as claimed in the textbooks must be considered as unproven and the so called proofs must be false. What that means is that there needs to be some additional assumption about the nature of the unification of electricity with magnetism needed to accomplish the unification. That is because none of the claimed unification arguments presented in the textbooks is correct, and that means there is no established proof of the unification. 


Malcolm has suggested in his paper that the additional assumption needed (he calls it a primitive, but means a postulate or assumption regarding the unification principle) is the Heaviside energy current postulate of S=ExH

He additionally states that: "We know that space is a resistive medium which has the ability to accommodate energy, with Zo being 376 ohms."  This last statement seems to be what is confusing A. Howie who misunderstands it. 


I can certainly understand why B. Josephson A. Howie and others reject these advancements that Catt et al have proposed over 40 years ago. They are under the mistaken assumption that the textbooks are correct in the statements they make regarding the unification of electricity and magnetism. Unfortunately a close examination of the arguments presented doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, and so a new approach is needed. The resistance to the proposed Catt et al method of unification of electricity with magnetism is impeding a very important scientific advance. It is unfortunate that this fact is not appreciated by the mainstream physics community.





From: Ivor Catt <>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 4:48 PM
To: Alex Yakovlev <>
Cc: Malcolm Davidson <>
Subject: ideas


External sender. Take care when opening links or attachments. Do not provide your login details.  

I think Koestler said the tribe Bulgarian had a habit. If one of their tribe came up with an original idea, they would hang him from the nearest tree pour encourager les autres. I suppose they prized tribal solidarity above all.

When the parrot is trained to speak, and examined as to its p to prowess, it is also taught what not to speak, and examined for that.

Perhaps the parrot who is rewarded with the most seed is the one who has proven he is the best for not understanding certain speech, rather than what he does successfully speak.

It is not his fault that Josephson was granted a Nobel Prize very young. It is not his fault that Archie rose to the top of the Cavendish, or Tony Davies was voted onto the Board of Directors of the IEEE, or Palmer got prizes for being the bestest mostest lecturer in Oxford University. They all rose on the back of brilliance in a very narrow branch of knowledge (perhaps mathematical gobbledeygook?). Nobody told Rees, another parrot, that he was not permitted to reply, when Catt asked him, as an administrator, Master of Trinity and President of the Royal Society, to deal with the fact that Josephson and Pepper, members of his staff, contradicted each other on the fundamentals of their craft, cattq , that it was not permissible for him to say he first had to master cattq himself, before doing anything about it as an administrator. (Actually the Master and President of the Royal Society did nothing for the next 27 years.) Once they rose to fame, they themselves and everyone else attributed to them skill in a much broader range. Everyone assumes they went on to broaden their expertise, finding out about essential peripheral subjects; history of science, philosophy of science, sociology of science. Today, have they ever heard of Koestler, Kuhn, Polanyi, Popper? Who told them to read them, and when?

5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

Were I in their position, I would be arrogant, and afraid.

I would probably cling to the religion called "Instrumentalism" to hide my possible weakness.

Ivor Catt 






Discussion of logic gates AND, OR, XOR is innocent. Similarly discussion of FSRs (Feedback Shift Registers) where the exclusive OR at the end is added at the front.

1111. 0111, 0011, 0001, 1000, 0100, 0010, 1001, 1100, 0110, 1011, 0101, 1010, 1101, 1110, 1111. A sequence of n bits usually repeats at 2 to the power n minus 1; in this case 15. Research into when a series does not extend to the full 2 to the power n minus 1 does not threaten careers. (All zeros is always missing.)


Although this subject (chain codes, feedback shift registers FSRs) has probably not developed within the canon - subjects a careerist like Tony Davies knows (in his 20,000 words of emails to me which probably discussed at length)  he can safely discuss without offending his fellow-members in "the club", instrumentalists who control "the club" and membership of which means receiving accolades, career promotion and medals, and passage through peer (consensus) review towards publishing. Similarly, discussion of XOR, and my experience that when designing a system I used an equal amount of NOR, NAND and XOR (in defiance of Boole), although such a scientific advance did not threaten the canon, or threaten all the careers and prestige under the canon. However, when Tony Davies told a fellow member of the club that Catt said a capacitor did not have a self resonant frequency, his club fellow member reacted with horror and ran away.

That is, what Howie now calls "senior scientists" instinctively know what threatens the canon, and may not be discussed or even thought about, or understood.


Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225


‘If you have got anything new … you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner even though he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do that … . But when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!’ – Oliver Heaviside, 10 March 1893.


Davies says he knew about Energy Current when he was a little boy.  


I feel MICE instinctively know what may, and what may not, be thought about. What may, or may not, be understood. cattq must not be understood. Howie pretends it is a disagreement between him and me, not a Question.

The Italians claim it is an assertion that there is a flaw in classical electromagnetism, calling it "Catt's Anomaly".. They have to not understand that it is merely a Question, or their careers and reputations are at risk.


This evolved attitude is the opposite of the scientist of the past's avowed ambition - the discovery of new insights into nature, whether or not leading to benefit to the public, benefit for self (but only preferably of benefit). We have to ask whether instrumentalists think they are of social value. I suppose they do think they are, because their "instruments" help in the design of user-friendly things like aircraft or computers or drugs. Their hidden agenda is to block scientific advance; scientific revolution like Theory D would impede their careers. Thay have to be cleared out of the stables, with their oxymoronic "truth that there exists not one truth".

I must add this to my website, at

During the last 20 years, only two people have taken advantage of my commitment

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.  

The www should have been understood as being a revolutionary medium for dialogue, not the monologue of all earlier communication media. Every website home page should have [R], a hyperlink to the set of disagreements to that web page. Why does the rest of the world insist on not understanding my proposal of 20 years ago? 

Ivor Catt