The Crosstalk Photographs for Laymen.


Version in Electronics World 2011

The end of electric charge and current as we know them.

“It doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with real-life results, it is wrong. That's all there is to it." Richard Feynman -Nobel Prize winner


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


“ .... scientists tend not to ask themselves questions until they see the rudiments of an answer in their minds. Embarrassing questions tend to remain unasked or, if asked, to be answered rudely.” – P B Medawar, “The Future of Man” [BBC Reith Lectures 1959], pub. Basic Books Inc., N.Y., 1960, p62

Ivor Catt. 25 June 2010

 This document is also here

Some of the research into censorship by the IEEE

This follows "an attempt to introduce the layman to the developments over the last three weeks" . Since I wrote it, the situation has clarified significantly. The article is based on my 1967 paper .


Under Faraday’s Law, v = -d(phi)/dt , which forbids superposition but whose mathematics permits it, we end up with two electric currents travelling in opposite directions down the same conductor.



About classical electrodynamics

The 109 Experiment


I used Faraday's Law  of induction, that changing magnetic flux through a surface causes a voltage around the periphery of the surface. I placed an observer half way down two parallel conductors, Figure 36 . He used Faraday’s Law and mathematics to prove that a step (or any signal) travelling down a coaxial cable or twisted pair must have only one velocity c, and one voltage/current ratio Zo. I then applied the same mathematics to a system of four symmetrical coductors, Figure 37 . I placed an observer half way down a symmetrical array of four conductors, Figure 38 . Again starting with Faraday’s Law, the observer proved that only two possible patterns of voltage and current could travel down the set of four wires. All of this is dealt with at the following point in my 1995 book .


At this point it needs to be agreed that theory, photographs and physical reality apply equally to the case of Figure 37  ( here ) , or two wires and a voltage plane .


The key error is in the last paragraph of that section of my 1995 book . There, I say;

Our initial assumption was that a stable waveform passed the observer; that is, a TEM wave which was in equilibrium[3]. Following that assumption, we concluded from our calculations that no other waveform may pass the observer. However, superposed combinations of EM and OM [modes] are permissible, as are seen in photographs in the literature[4]. For instance, a step travelling between AA' and BB' with no voltage visible between P and Q must be a combination of equal amplitudes of EM and OM, which cancel at P (for instance if P has been shorted to ground). As another example, if P is open circuit so that no electric current enters P, then the sum of currents in the EM and OM must be zero.


The cited photographs in the literature are at 1 and 2 .


Here we have to distinguish between time-hallowed scientific theory, or laws, and physical fact. In 1995 I continued to have confidence in Faraday’s Law, one of the primary laws which underpin established electromagnetic theory. Using Faraday, I proved the two modes were the only permissible modes. The photographs showed that in the real world they could be superposed. I failed to notice that under Faraday’s Law superposition was illegal, as it created a third, illegal mode ( Figures 7 and 8 ).


However, superposed combinations of EM and OM [modes] are permissible, as are seen in photographs in the literature[4].”


The superposed combinations are permissible (because they occur) in fact, as the photographs show us, but impermissible under Faraday’s theory. Seeing the facts, I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that the theory permitted superposition. There it remained for the next 43 years.


Perhaps the best example to start with is the photographs, Figures 35 and 36

, when a very narrow spike is introduced into the top left hand (active) line A

with the passive line P shorted to ground, or the passive lines P and Q (Figure 37)  ( here on the right ) shorted together. This short ensures zero voltage at the start of the passive line P. The signal can only proceed in a balanced mode, so its initial short ensures that it must contain even and odd modes of equal voltage amplitude. However, in conductors on the surface of a printed circuit board, these two (approximately TEM) signals travel at different velocities, and so separate out, as we see in the later second and first traces in Figures 35 and 36

. After separating out, the slower, even mode has electric current travelling in the forward direction in the right hand passive line , but before it, the odd mode signal had electric current travelling backwards, out of the paper. In the third trace, therefore, before the signals separated out, there were two equal and opposite electric currents in the passive line, each correlating with (Biot-Savart might say causing) its own magnetic field, as drawn in the diagrams . (Also, slightly to the left of the right hand passive line, in the green square, the two fields locally are upside down to each other, with voltage in the odd mode left to right and voltage in the even mode from right to left.) Further, in the case of  conductors buried between voltage planes inside a printed circuit board , the two modes travel at the same velocity and do not separate out. Thus, in Figures 7 and 8 , the signal continues for ever in an unbalanced third mode, with electric currents in both directions in the passive line. This idea, of two equal and opposite electric currents travelling through each other in a conductor is revolutionary, and undermines the conventional view of the nature of electric current. Also, the surface of the passive line has equal and opposite charges, each terminating its own electric field (even and odd mode). This undermines the conventional view of electric charge.


Now conventional electromagnetic theory is dualistic, with electric current and charge in/on conductors and electric field in non-conductors. The two aspects of the theory correlate, with formulae giving the correlation. Here we see a breakdown, not of the whole of traditional theory, but of the charge/current element. The electric currents and charge required to correlate with the fields which we see in the photographs are incompatible with the requirement, for instance, that only one electric current exist at one point. Heaviside’s forgotten “We reverse this .... “ that field caused charge and current rather than the opposite, is beside the point. Either way, the electric currents which we know must match up to the fields which are clearly demonstrated by our photographs are impossible.


The dilemma is resolved by moving from both conventional theory (Theory N), that electric current and charge cause fields, and also from Heaviside (Theory H), that field causes current and charge, to Theory C, discovered by Catt in 1976, that electric charge and current do not exist. See 1 , 2 , 3 . In the same way as the slope of a hill does not exist, having no materiality, although the hill itself exists, being made up of physical material, so electric charge and electric current become merely the results of mathematical manipulation of the edge of a field (or more accurately of an ExH Energy Current). Also see from "The Death of Electric Current" , page 2 , “Although a cloud cannot exist without edges, the edges of a cloud do not exist. They have no width, volume or materiality. However, the edges of a cloud can be drawn. Their shapes can be manipulated graphically and mathematically. The same is true of the so-called ‘electric current.’”


Electric current and charge were already shown to be not fit for purpose by "The Catt Question" in 1982, thirty years ago. Also, Faraday's Law breaks down when we introduce a TEM Wave entering one side of a transformer at the speed of light.




My point of view, that of a single velocity universe, that everything can only travel at the speed of light, that only electromagnetic field exists, not isolated electric or magnetic field, that when a battery lights a lamp electric current and charge are not involved (Theory C), is very far removed from the Conventional Wisdom, or Establishment Physics.  Ivor Catt    25 June 2010




The rest of this document is on The Politics of Knowledge

Later analysis in August 2010

The Rise and Fall of Bodies of Knowledge

The Clever take the Brilliant

The Scientific Referee System



To Jim Calder, Managing Editor, Proc. IEEE

Dear Mr. Calder,

I have not received a reply to my 20th March email and letter to the Editor of "IEEE Transactions on Computers".

Ivor Catt   27 June 2010


Second copy sent by email and by airmail to Lombardi on 27 June 2010. Web address altered from to


----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt


Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM

Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers


To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,

Fabrizio Lombardi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA  02115  phone: +1 617.373.4159



For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.




Even and Odd Modes


My paper; Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at , contained an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.

The error is fully discussed at .

Ivor Catt


 Ivor Catt is at

+44 (0)1727 864257

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,






Dear J. Calder, Fabrizio Lombardi,

Editors of Proc. IEEE and Transactions on Digital Computers.


I refer to , which is a major disclosure. At present it is a confidential orphan, and so is available for you to provisionally accept for publication. However, should you accept, I will have to restructure it away from , which is appropriate when disclosed on the www, not in a learned journal. Note that the IEEE welcomes request from authors for advice on how to best produce their writing. In this case, you would say it was acceptable if restructured to publish in a journal.


The reason why I approach you this way is that I have a very extensive record over decades of having all papers rejected by learned journals worldwide, and have lectured and published on censorship. In the present case, the significance of the disclosure in is so major that it is important to establish that it was rejected for publication by refereed learned journals. I think that you will have little difficulty in rejecting, just by reading the title of the article. You will know that neither you nor your referees would risk advising publication of material with such major claims. Polanyi and Kuhn would say that you could not possibly accept. Your names will be in the historical record of what happened to this major scientific advance.


My close colleagues agree that it is futile to attempt to get a scientific advance of the magnitude of published in a refereed learned journal. However, I want to complete the historical record. It will be valuable for future researchers to learn about the response of learned journal editors.


Your past records are as follows. Calder rejected an important paper in the usual manner. However, he rejected another important paper which will disclose the results of a crucial experiment, before the experiment has even been conducted. In the case of Lombardi, he does not reply to my approaches by email and letter. These cases give interesting new instances of the procedure of censorship for the student of censorship which go far beyond the traditional, assumed procedure. The traditional, assumed procedure is immediate rejection or the sending out of the paper to referees, followed by acceptance or rejection based on the referees' reports.


Ivor Catt          6 July 2010

+44 (0)1727 864257