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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:33 AM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: classical em

--On 16 April 2012 11:08:37 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>


> However you care to think of it, current or electrons, does classical

> theory allow it to flow in both directions along a wire at the same

> time?

> Ivor Catt

Ans.: if you are thinking in terms of current, two currents can cancel

each other out. If you are thinking in terms of electrons, electrons

are flowing in both directions all the time. The current that appears

in the equations, or that is registered by an ammeter, is an average

motion, each electron in the region contributing; there is no


All that your emails demonstrate is your ignorance of basic physics:

Pepper was right in this regard.



* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk




--On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 15:38 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

> The conclusion is that Josephson also has no background in digital
> electronics, because he cannot determine correctly whether Catt or Pepper
> are discussing the TEM step in a competent way.

Not as much as you, I admit, but I am nevertheless familiar with the basics
(it may be relevant to note that Wireless World has published a
contribution from me regarding distortion in Class D amplifiers and ways to
overcome it). Some people here might argue that you are playing with words
at this point in the discussion.





“There are no priests.” I forget why and when someone said this to me.

I am occasionally allowed to dine at High Table in my college, Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton’s College, it is proud to claim to be the most scientific of all 20 Cambridge colleges. It has many Nobel Prize Winners, and the number in Cambridge, or perhaps in Trinity, I forget which, approximately equals the number in France.

Lord Rees (and previous Masters Atyah of Trinity with whom I have crossed swords) is now President of the Royal Society.

I have regarded High Table in Trinity as a centre of Establishment science. However, this last time a change came over me. I thought of them as just another group of fortunate people, but not a Centre for Knowledge Brokers. The Science Establishment has no centre. This makes it virtually invulnerable.

I have pointed out to Josephson and to John Roche that should they decide to support me, that would not help, but would damage them. By supporting me, they would immediately be excluded form the (non existent) Inner Circle, as Herbert Dingle was when he questioned Relativity. Dingle found he could no longer publish.

Josephson’s response to my question is particularly unimportant, because he is already blighted for trying to bring the paranormal into science. As I remember, his PhD students were removed from him, and he complains that he cannot publish.

The reason for addressing Josephson is that no unblighted “expert” on electromagnetic theory – professor or text book writer – will make any comment at all. By listening to Josephson, we can learn about the range of knowledge and grasp of such people, because he is similar to them. From Josephson, I have learnt a lot about the limits of knowledge and grasp of such people as Pepper, “knighted for services to physics” and editor of the top Royal Society journal. Only today, perusing the two emails at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x25w.htm , I have grasped something very important. There are two distinct electromagnetic theories. In none of my published or other writings over fifty years will you find curl or div, but Josephson employs them when he thinks he is discussing “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . He thinks frequency and other red herrings are relevant.

We know that no “expert” is familiar with the two contradictory versions of the TEM Wave, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm . The divs and curls are not benign because it draws one to “The Rolling Wave”, which makes cattq much more difficult to grasp. More generally, div and curl come form the territory where E causes H and H causes E. No “expert” knows Heaviside, who said this was not so. “For instance (ibid, art. 451, page 4), he says, “It carries all its properties with it unchanged,” which is a clear statement of the Heaviside signal. Heaviside mentions the slab elsewhere in his writings. One does not conceive of slabs rolling, or generating shear forces or stresses. Almost by definition, a slab, like a slab of heavy granite, moves forward unchanged at constant velocity.”

I suggest that even minor Catt theories, for instance the reciprocating capacitor, will be ignored for at least a century. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm

“Modern Physics” is replete with the trappings of mediaeval religion – wave-particle dualism (= Trinity), Authority, Uncertainty, and many unscientific concepts at its core. It also has “The Index” of banned books.

The way in which professional scientists are able to suppress any major scientific advance is well worth study. Brian Josephson has been a valuable help in getting me to understand a complex system. After all the enormous benefits scientific advance has given to society for perhaps two centuries, it is a major challenge and achievement to prevent further advance.



Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:36 PM

To: ; Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: Fw: reciprocationg capacitor


I think it is important that we resolve this issue. The usual mainstream response to "challenges" of orthodoxy is to ignore them. This behavior has been consistently demonstrated time and time again and most recently with respect to the NPA Twin Paradox Challenge. (See www.twinparadox.net) The conclusion that one must derive from this behavior is that in ignoring a claim that can not be refuted, mainstream thinks that this constitutes an actual refutation, when it actually implies a tacit acceptance and validation of the claim.

I documented a letter from Louis Essen in which he commented that his criticisms of the Hafele-Keating experiment were ignored despite the fact that he had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else. (See: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/879 ) Clearly when the inventor of a measurement technology is ignored, as Essen was, it indicates that the claimed experimental result is false. However, the primary tactic of mainstream science in cases where they are found to be demonstrably wrong in their theoretical or experimental claims is to simply ignore the criticism or the contrary experimental evidence. This is unacceptable, and indicates that they can not find a real criticism or valid refutation.

In the Twin Paradox Project we point out that a failure to positively respond indicates that the claim being made is correct. So if Brian Josephson does not respond to your request, it is clear evidence that your experimental proof in support of your theory is correct, and that there is no criticism or refutation that can be validly made against your assertion.

Hence a failure to respond to your challenge should be seen as a clear validation of your theory.


--- On Sat, 5/19/12, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
Subject: Fw: reciprocationg capacitor
To: kc3mx@yahoo.com, anthony.wakefield@bigpond.com
Date: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 7:44 PM

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:13 AM

To: .... ....

Cc: .... ....

Subject: reciprocationg capacitor


Dear Professor Brian Josephson,

You have written that classical theory predicts the waveforms that I predicted in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg when an infinitely long coaxial cable is connected to a piece of charged coax.

It would be very helpful if you repeated your prediction, even better with the addition of explanation, now that my predictions have been confirmed by experiment.

The journal “Electronics World” is planning to publish the experimental results with the claim that this revolutionises theory. Since you are a Nobel Prizewinner, you could save the journal from committing a gaffe by publishing such claims.

The editor of “Electronics World” is Svetlana Josifovska.

Ivor Catt


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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:37 AM

To: Ivor Catt

On 20 May 2012, at 00:13, Ivor Catt wrote:

> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg


> Dear Professor Brian Josephson,

> You have written that classical theory predicts the waveforms that I predicted in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg when an infinitely long coaxial cable is connected to a piece of charged coax.

> It would be very helpful if you repeated your prediction, even better with the addition of explanation, now that my predictions have been confirmed by experiment.


This is just a quick analysis -- let me know if you see any difficulties with it. Your plots appear to show a step function propagating at a certain velocity, which is what you expect for systems obeying the wave equation (which has a general solution of the form f(x-vt), with arbitrary f). The only complication is that I also see the step function being reflected from the left hand end. This one treats by putting in the boundary condition -- no current if it is open circuit, zero voltage if it is shorted. You can satisfy that boundary condition by superposing two waves travelling in opposite directions with the appropriate phase relationship between them.



Brian D. Josephson

Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge




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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:11 AM

To: Ivor Catt


Subject: Re: reciprocating capacitor

On 23 May 2012, at 23:19, Ivor Catt wrote:

> Dear Professor Josephson,

> "Am I missing something?" - BDJ

> Yes.

> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg predicts what would happen if the charge was not stationary before the switch was closed. The predictions were made on the revolutionary assumption that the charge, or rather energy, was reciprocating at the speed of light before the switch was closed, half in each direction. In contrast, you say "The charge is stationary until you close the switch," The predicted waveforms are drawn for every 10 nsec. Initially, only half the energy to the right comes out. What exactly is happening, if as you state the charge was stationary before the switch was closed?

> What waveforms within the capacitor after the switch closed does your theory predict? Surely not the waveforms predicted in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg ?

Resonances are to be expected in such a system. If you want to assert that the standard theory does not predict your observations, it is up to you to 'do the math' to prove it -- I have neither the desire nor the time to undertake this myself.



Brian D. Josephson

Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge




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

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:17 PM

To: Forrest Bishop

Cc: Brian Josephson ;

Subject: reciprocationg capacitor

Professor Brian Josephson fails to come to terms with the imperatives of

Maxwell's Equations.

From http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm , the attachment goes through the


We deliver energy from battery into a transmission line.

It is proved that this energy has a certain voltage/current ration Zo and a

certain velocity c.

We switch the battery off, and then trap the energy in one section of the

transmission line. Professor Brian Josephson says that when trapped, this

energy will stop travelling and be stationary. He is defying Maxwell's

Equations, which, as proven, only permit this energy to continue to travel

at c, the velocity of light for the dielectric.

If we obey Maxwell, we have to accept the Reciprocating Capacitor.

Ibvor Catt




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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:16 PM

To: Ivor Catt


Subject: Re: reciprocating capacitor

On 30 May 2012, at 19:59, Ivor Catt wrote:

> Maxwell's Equations will not allow this energy to slow down at all, let alone become stationary, as you wrongly said it did in your email of 23 May, see below.


> Dear Ivor,



> The charge is stationary until you close the switch, and of course after

> you close the switch there is change, so it is not stationary, as the

> capacitor discharges. Am I missing something?

This is getting extremely tedious. I visibly did not say the _energy_ was stationary above -- if you read the above as such, you need to look more carefully or else get glasses.

Before you bring this point up, I have said the electrons are moving and also that the charge is stationary. There is no contradiction here as these are two different levels of description: microscopic and bulk.

Finish! (an word known to all foreigners, used as a command). This exchange is hereby deemed pointless.



Brian D. Josephson

Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge




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

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:24 AM

To: Brian Josephson

Cc: mikegi ; 'Anthony Wakefield' ; brian@coeffic.demon.co.uk ; 'Cameron Mercer' ; charles.coultas@o2.co.uk ; dswalton@plus44.net ; 'Emory Garth' ; foggitt@hotmail.com ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; hock@blueyonder.co.uk ; jack.dinsdale@tinyworld.co.uk ; jvospost3@gmail.com ; krystof.nemec@gmail.com ; Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz ; malcolm_davidson@thewisdomwheel.com ; nemecuf@gmail.com ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: reciprocating capacitor

"But what happens when you come to the beginning again?' Ivor ventured to


`Suppose we change the subject,' Brian Josephson interrupted, yawning. `I'm

getting tired of this. I vote the young lady tells us a story.' " - with

apologies to Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland"


Ivor Catt




Forrest Bishop replies with, among other things: Only one sentence in Pepper relates to The Catt Question: "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."-MP, June 21, 1993



From: malcolmd3111@hotmail.com
To: forrestb@ix.netcom.com; icatt@btinternet.com; dswalton@plus44.net; mikegi@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Pepper on
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:41:25 -0400

Hello Ivor and Forrest,


I have just read or rather reread the Pepper paragraph. "Pepper's words are an assault on the subject", sorry I couldn't resist. Now I realize why I never made comment. (And) that is because he writes piffle. His following sentence;


"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."


I don't understand this sentence, however he says "by responding to the presence of the EM wave", which means that he believes that EM energy is the primary source. Thus current i does not cause H.


By bringing frequency into the discussion he immediately negates any comments he may have. As has been mentioned on these threads many times, frequency is ultimately an observed phenomenon and has no place with this initial step.


His only comment which pertains to the Catt question is; "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." However he does not answer the actual question.






The important thing about this comment from Malcolm Davidson is that Brian Josephson says the Pepper comment on  "The Catt Question" is sensible, which it is obviously not. This means that neither of them have significant grasp of a TEM step travelling down a transmission line. They carry too much irrelevant baggage;

Maxwell, and today’s electronic engineers, do not introduce the electron into the argument, as Josephson does. Electronic engineers can grasp the situation, since they limit it to electric charge, electric current, electric field, magnetic field.

Pepper and Josephson cannot “see!” a step, but rather, through Fourier, see an array of sine waves, and so get lost in detail.

They also have wave-particle duality.

Both bring in plasma.

Ivor Catt, 1 June 2012.




Here, Josephson brings in frequency when discussing “The Catt Question”



---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
Komu: Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz
Datum: 20. 10. 2014 10:05:11
Předmět: Re: The letter from Liba Mikova-Mika , to hear scientific work of Ivor Catt


On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:09, <Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz> <Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz> wrote:

> He would like know clear picture of the state of science in 2014 for those who in 2040 or 2050. He asked the question himself and to the scholars,academia, students, peers review, history of science..,why the further progress was no longer possible

Dear Libuse,

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, and therefore am unable to respond. If the issue is why Ivor’s work is not generally recognised by scientists, the general view in these parts, including my own, is that he has not convincingly demonstrated anything new on the scientific front. He makes much of the fact that Pepper and I gave different answers to a question he raises, The CattQuestion , but the fact of the matter is that since every answer to a complicated question is likely to be a simplification, more than one answer may be possible. [Josephson calls Cattq “complicated!] One illustration of this is the capacitor. The simple formula for the behaviour of a capacitor is valid only if the frequencies are not too high, and at very high frequencies needs to be corrected for transmission-line type effects as Ivor points out. But this is nothing new. In most situations the corrections are small and can be neglected, but I’m sure designers of very high frequencies know about this problem and take them into account as may be necessary. I am sorry if this is a disappointing response.

Regards, Brian Josephson

Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254


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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 10:56 AM

To: ivor catt

Subject: Re: "Complicated" Catt Question



On 8 Nov 2014, at 10:45, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:


> Dear Brian Josephson,


> It would be difficult to come up with a “Question” simpler than “The Catt Question”. However, probably you and Pepper find it complicated because you impose “frequency” onto a Question involving a single step. Frequency is not involved in “The Catt Question.”



Sorry, Ivor, that was loose wording on my part.  It is the answer that is complicated, not the question.  Glad to see you are up and (metaphorically) running again.


Best wishes, Brian J.