"There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is trying to deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself. --Kirk


22 March 2012

Dear Professor McDonald,

I am perfectly happy to approach you direct.

Ivor Catt

Dear Brian Josephson,

I note that you muddied the issue recently by wrongly asserting that today's "Catt Question" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm  was different from the Question posed to Pepper and McEwan in 1993, reproduced in my book published in 1996. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm  pp3 and 4, which was in your College library in 1996 and remains there today. It was first published in Wireless World in August 1981 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j86.pdf pp95-96 and August 1982.http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j100.pdf pp103-105 .Professor McDonald is bringing in the same misinformation.

It would be helpful if you corrected Professor McDonald, and say you now accept that "The Catt Question" has remained unchanged for more than 30 years.

Ivor Catt

To recap. My work on high speed digital electronics was published in the IEEE in 1967 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm  , and some in ProcIEEE 1983 and 1987 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf . However, even before 1983 essentially 100% recommendation of peer review rejection ruled in all my work in all refereed journals in the world. That led me to abandon promotion of my own work, and reverting to trying to get information as to the detail of classical theory, which runs into fatal flaws when a TEM step is delivered guided by two conductors, so thaqt fundamental questions about classical theory are unanswerable. (For instance, recently Brian Josephson refuses to answer whether the displacement current dD/dt on the front face of a TEM step causes magnetic field.) This led to "The Catt Question" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , which all experts refused to answer, except Pepper and McEwan, who were chosen by their superiors and instructed to write to me. I was careful to not initially choose them, approach them or to reply to them. They wrote once, and then went incommunicado for some decades. When they were told by third parties that they contradicted each other, they refused to communicate with other to resolve their differences. Their superiors refused to do anything about it.

Some time later Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson entered the fray. He has played a peripheral role, being himself suppressed, about which he complains bitterly in New Scientist and his website, because he tangles with the paranormal, which is not kosher science. However, he is out in the cold for other reasons than I am.

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

From: Kirk T McDonald

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:31 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Cc: Kirk McDonald

Subject: Re: a reply of sorts


If I follow your comments below, you acknowledge that the letter of Pepper

that you post is irrelevant to the "Catt anomaly" (despite your web page

appearing to imply that Pepper's letter does address that "anomaly", and is

evidence of "confusion" among those who consider this "anomaly").

Do you then acknowledge that the communication from Josephson correctly

resolves this (trivial) anomaly?

If so, there is no more "anomaly" in a technical sense, just misleading web

pages about it.


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

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:56 PM

To: kc3mx@yahoo.com ; kirkmcd@Princeton.EDU

Subject: Fw: a reply of sorts

I am now sending this to Harry, copy to the Professor.

The behaviour of Professor Kirk T McDonald <kirkmcd@princeton.edu> is

disgraceful, and I look forward to an apology from him.

Ivor Catt

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

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:46 PM

To: Forrest Bishop ; sirius184@hotmail.com ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: Re: a reply of sorts

Dear All,

Coming home from abroad, I find this isolated email. It is extraordinary.

I don't think http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm  should be

called an "explanation", of Cattq or of anything else..

However, leaving that aside, the next section is bizarre.

"> But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first presenting a link to an


> to a different question.

> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm " - Prof. Kirk

But 2812 is the answer Pepper gave to cattq.

See http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm  , pages 3 and 4, published in the


Interestingly, Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson

bdj10@cam.ac.uk<bdj10@cam.ac.uk> recently said in an email that cattq now is

different from the cattq delivered to Pepper in the 1990s. I reacted very

strongly to this. The version Pepper replied to in 1993 is in the book in

his college library published shortly afterwards, now on the www at

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm  , and is identical with the version

today, at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm  . Not a word has changed in 30

years. It is not my fault that Pepper's reply to the one and only question

he ever received is incompetent and irrelevant. It is a pity that seeing its

irrelevance, Kirk assumed that it was an answer to a different question.

This habit of entrenched professors to confuse the issue and falsify history

is really extraordinary. I feel they should take their profession and

discipline more seriously and deal with it in a disciplined way. This

delivery of misinformation is very irresponsible.

Please would Forrest and David circulate this email to those who have been

misled by Kirk, below. I was not on the circulation.

Ivor Catt

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

From: Forrest Bishop

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:34 AM

To: ivor catt

Subject: a reply of sorts

On 16 March 2012 20:56, Kirk T McDonald <kirkmcd@princeton.edu> wrote:

> Folks,


> The "Catt Anomaly" is displayed on a web page

> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/cattq.htm

> that also has a link to its explanation.

> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm


> But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first presenting a link to an

> answer

> to a different question.

> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm

> Catt then implies that because the different question has a different

> answer

> there is an "anomaly".


> There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is trying to

> deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself.


> --Kirk


> PS ?Michael Pepper states "If I understand the position correctly, your

> question concerns the source of the charge at a metal surface which by

> responding to the presence of the EM wave ensures that the reflectivity of

> the metal surface is virtually unity."


> Pepper believes he was asked to discuss the character of charges on/near the surface of a "mirror".

[ This was the Question Pepper received in 1993 from the Master of Trinity.  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm. Sept 2013. ]

> Catt claims he asked Pepper a different question, about charges on wires

> of

> a transmission line, but does not show us what Pepper was actually asked.

> This is probably because it appears that Catt never directly asked Pepper

> anything, but first asked something of someone else, who then asked Pepper

> something.


> The Catt/Pepper story is a sorry one of miscommunication, not of

> "anomalous"

> physics.


> PPS ? ?Dear List,


> Please feel free to contact me directly about this at

> kirkmcd@princeton.edu






On 16 March 2012 20:56, Kirk T McDonald <kirkmcd@princeton.edu> wrote:



 The "Catt Anomaly" is displayed on a web page

 http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/cattq.htm  that also has a link to its explanation.  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm



But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first presenting a link to an answer to a different question. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm Catt then implies that because the different question has a different answer there is an "anomaly".


There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is trying to deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself.


[ For more than 30 years there was a single question, which remained unchanged. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm Sept 2013 ]



PPS ? ?Dear List,


 Please feel free to contact me directly about this at




The rest of this document is from the book “The Catt Anomaly” published 1996 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm  . It is in the library of Sir Michael Pepper’s College (at the time), Trinity College Cambridge. The question remained unchanged for thirty years, and is now unchanged at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . There has always been only one Question


  The Question

Traditionally. when a TEM step (i.e. logic transition from low to high) travels through a vacuum from left to right, guided by two conductors (the signal line and the 0v line), there are four factors which make up the wave;

- electric current in the conductors

- magnetic field, or flux, surrounding the conductors

- electric charge on the surface of the conductors

- electric field, or flux, in the vacuum terminating on the charge.

The key to grasping the anomaly is to concentrate on the electric charge on the bottom conductor. During the next 1 nanosecond, the step advances one foot to the right. During this time, extra negative charge appears on the surface of the bottom conductor in the next one foot length, to terminate the lines (tubes) of electric flux which now exist between the top (signal) conductor and the bottom conductor.

Where does this new charge come from? Not from the upper conductor, because by definition, displacement current is not the flow of real charge. Not from somewhere to the left, because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. (This last sentence is what those "disciplined in the art" cannot grasp, although paradoxically it is obvious to the untutored mind.) A central feature of conventional theory is that the drift velocity of electric current is slower than the speed of light. [Published in Electronics & Wireless World sep84, reprinted sep87. For further information on the Catt Anomaly, see letters in the following issues of Wireless World; aug82, dec82, aug83, oct83, dec83, nov84, dec84, jan85, feb85, may85, june85, jul85, aug85.]




Trinity College, Cambridge, wrote to past members of the college including myself asking for money to finance their expansion programme. They argued that Trinity had been in the forefront of academic advance, and my money would help to keep them there.

I replied that Trinity and Cambridge had for twenty-five years refused to comment in any way on Catt's theories on electromagnetism, and for ten years on the Catt Anomaly, a problem in classical electromagnetism, of which I enclosed a copy (above). I suggested to Atiyah, Master of Trinity, a mathematician, that he cause his leading expert to comment. The result was the following letter from Pepper. I also include a part of his later letter to my colleague Raeto West, which clarifies his position;









From: Professor M. Pepper, FRS               June 21, 1993

Ivor Catt, Esq.,

121 Westfields,

St Albans


Dear Mr Catt,

As a Trinity physicist the Master suggested that I might provide some comments on the questions raised in your recent letter to him on aspects of electromagnetic theory.

If I understand the position correctly, your question concerns the source of the charge at a metal surface which by responding to the presence of the EM wave ensures that the reflectivity of the metal surface is virtually unity, hence providing waveguide action and related applications.

If I may restate the basis of your question, what is the maximum frequency of radiation which is reflected? It is this parameter rather than light velocity which is important. The solution lies in the maximum frequency response of the electron gas, which is the plasmon frequency w p and is calculated in a straightforward way. If light frequency is greater than w p then the electron gas in the metal can no longer respond and the reflectivity tends to zero. The problem you are posing is that if the wave is guided by the metal then this implies that the charge resides on the metal surface. As the wave travels at light velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible.

The answer is found by considering the nature of conduction in metals. Here we have a lattice of positively charged atoms surrounded by a sea of free electrons which can move in response to an electric field. This response can be very rapid and results in a polarisation of charge at the surface and through the metal. At frequencies greater than w p the electron gas cannot respond which is the reason for the transparency of metals to ultra-violet radiation. However for frequencies used in communications the electron gas can easily respond to the radiation and reflectivity is unity.

If a poor conductor is used instead of a metal, i.e. there are no freely conducting electrons, then there is no polarisation, and as you point out charge cannot enter the system, and there can be no surface field. Consequently reflection of the radiation will not occur at these low frequencies and there is no waveguide action.

I hope that these comments provide a satisfactory explanation.

Yours sincerely,

[signed] M Pepper

cc:     Sir Michael Atiyah - Trinity College [Master]

          Mr. A Weir           - Trinity College

Telephone:  0223 337330


August 23, 1993  Dear Raeto West, I write with reference to your letter of August 19. Your description of the process is correct; as a TEM wave advances so charge within the conductor is polarised and the disturbance propagates at right angles to the direction of propagation of the wave .... ....              Yours sincerely, M Pepper


The portions of Pepper's letter which strike you as either too erudite for your comprehension or else as drivel, are drivel. Generally, he has copied out irrelevant slabs of material from text books.





From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:59 PM

To: forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; kirkmcd@princeton.edu

Subject: Fw: defamation

Dear Professor Kirk T McDonald ,m

The attached comment [AAAA] is a clear case of defamation.

I note that Forrest Bishop pointed out to you that “The Catt Question” was the only Question, and it had not changed. You then repeated your defamation, again saying that there was more than one Question, and that I tried to deceive.

Please supply an apology.

It is curious that very recently Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson bdj10@cam.ac.uk also wrongly said that the Catt Question had changed over time. However, this did not rate as defamation, as your case does. He did not say I was trying to deceive. We all make mistakes, but we do not indulge in persistent defamation.

Ivor Catt

cc Office of the President
Shirley M. Tilghman, President,

[ There was never any action from Shirley M. Tilghman, President, Princeton University. Sept 2013 ]

1 Nassau Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544


A number of interesting insights arise from the next item.

1.       Someone who was “knighted for services to physics” would not write drivel.

2.       Although Nigel Cook, under my web page “Nutter”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x21n.htm , Catt managed to forget that McD libelled Catt to a circulation of 100.





From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:18 AM

To: Forrest Bishop ; Jonathan Post

Subject: Re: Does this tiptoe towards Theory C without knowing it?



I stumbled on an exchange between Tombe and McDonald. In it McD said Tombe did not understand anything. Tombe kept asking McD to comment on “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Having completely forgotten that McD libelled me in the past and the head of Princeton did nothing about my complaint, I approached McD and asked him to comment on Cattq, sending a copy to Forrest. Forrest then told me that there had been dialogue between me and McD in the past.

Given our relationship and Forrest’s comments about Facebook, I don’t think I need to get his permission before putting his comments below on my website.

McD fell into a trap. Since the comments by Sir Michael Pepper, knighted for services to physics, were drivel except for one sentence, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm , McD very reasonably assumed Pepper was commenting on another Question, not Cattq, and so said Catt was attempting to deceive, (“Knighted for services to Physics” would not write irrelevant drivel,) sending the charge to a circulation of 100. Once he was disabused by me, he should have done something – for instance sent a correction to the same circulation, but instead I believe he got more ugly, the details of which I don’t recollect.

Ivor Catt


From: Forrest Bishop

Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 4:41 AM

To: Jonathan Post

Cc: ivor catt

Subject: Re: Does this tiptoe towards Theory C without knowing it?


Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for that. Is she anyone who matters?

I can you tell exactly what the connection is, and why it reminded you of Ivor Catt: the author, Hans G. Schantz, got the idea for his paper from me!
Ivor Catt and myself were discussing a related matter- Princeton physics Prof. Kirk T McDonald- just this morning.

Timeline from memory (I have the exact sequence and dates, along with more details, documented elsewhere):

1.  I was invited to contribute to a venerable old ham radio forum back in about 2010 (?), called AntennaX, by an admirer of Catt. (David Tombe was also brought in at some point but I forget the details right now.)

2.  I put up a couple posts that the members found interesting.

3.  Turns out one Prof. K. T. McDonald of Princeton is the resident alleged-physics guru at AntennaX. The others are mostly ham operators who appear to take McDonald's word as reliable.

4.  McDonald libels Catt (and Tombe, and myself by proxy) several times (this is what Ivor and I were talking about today), calling him a liar in effect. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

  I bring up what I call "The Two Pulses Conundrums", saying that this case is not explained by mainstream physics for several reasons.

6.  McDonald provides a farcical explanation, while his tone continues to get nastier- so foul and libelous that I was appalled that Princeton would have anything to do with him.

7.  He gets so nasty that the forum starts losing long-time subscribers in droves, turned off by this development.

8. Tombe and myself get kicked off the forum. We were claimed to be the cause of the problem (!).

9.  The forum owner splits AntennaX into two parts- one for ham radio, and another for sequestering Prof. McDonald and his followers (several of whom also libeled Catt and myself.)

I0.  I wrote a paper for the NPA,
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf , and put McDonald's "Two Pulses" explanation in it, right after my discussion on Superposition..

From the paper you alerted us to I can reconstruct the following:

11.   McDonald chewed on the Two Pulses problem for awhile and then wrote his "destructive" paper http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/destructive.pdf in 2013-4, failing to cite Catt, myself, or the literature on it that I had aready found and cited (!) in my paper.

12.   McDonald is a colleague or acquaintance of Hans G. Schantz. He passed off his theory to Schantz, who then produced his "puzzling" paper:
"ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The author gratefully acknowledges helpful discussions with Travis Norton, Kirk T. McDonald..."

The reason the Facebook lady is puzzled is because the paper, based on McDonald's incoherent "theory", is logically inconsistent and proposing unknown physics together with unheard of "observations".

And that's how Catt gets "marketed", as you put it.

Feel free to post this entire exchange on Facebook.


--Forrest Bishop

Bishop Cubes (R)
Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering
Electrodynamics of Theory C

On 7/9/2014 7:12 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:

Someone on Facebook said that she was puzzled by the paper.


She showed me the link.


I saw the possible connection, but did not tell you, as I don't want to interfere with the way that you two (Ivor and Forrest) are handling the marketing of your breakthrough ideas.


On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Dear Jonathan,

My, my what a tangled web they weave. How did you happen to come across this article?
How did you happen to know how exacting your timing would be in sending it to us?

There is much more to this story...


On 7/9/2014 5:11 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:





“These apparent paradoxes are resolved upon examination

of the larger context as illustrated in Figure 1. Two

electromagnetic waves propagating in opposing directions

with aligned electric fields will have opposed magnetic fields.

Thus a constructive interference of the electric component of

the waves requires a destructive interference of the magnetic

component and vice versa. The electric energy in a

constructive interference is indeed twice the electric energy of

the original waves, because all the original magnetic field

energy transforms to electric energy. Similarly, the electric

energy vanishes in a destructive interference because all the

electric energy has become magnetic energy. By this simple

yet elegant interaction between electric and magnetic energy,

nature allows both superposition and conservation of energy

to be upheld. A similar interplay between electric and

magnetic energy occurs in the superposition of voltage and

current waves on a transmission line, as depicted in Figure 1.”


The above is buried in the Schantz article http://www.e-fermat.org/files/articles/153b46caff3555.pdf

None of them can even consider the possibility that two electromagnetic energies can exist at the same point. Since the idea that one point has only one voltage gradient and one pagnetic gradient has held to fore for a century and more, they cannot even consider the idea that two electromagnetic waves travel through each other at a point. For them, there has to be some sort of instantaneous transformation. The problem goes deep, because there really is interaction between two electromagnetic waves travelling through each other, but not of the kind they have in mind. When two pulses travel through eachother in opposite directions in a transmission line, there is a sudden physical force between the guiding conductors. They don’t realise this, I I did not for the first few decades of my work. This fact points us towards the unification of electromagnetism and gravity.


They all have “The Rolling Wave” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm , http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm , that changing E causes H and changing H causes E. None of them have noticed that that breaks down for white light, and only “works” for monochromatic light! The errors, oversights and omissions in today’s “Modern Physics~ are at a juvenile level.


Ivor Catt