What we witness is truly awesome. Motorola made the fastest logic, the 1 nsec ECL logic gate 1 . Since in a printed circuit board a signal travels only 6 inches in a nsec, there was a risk that we would confront much more crosstalk between logic signals. This was why in 1964 I was hired into Phoenix to look into the feared problem. In reaction to the Sputnik Crisis, there were ample funds for me to buy the most expensive instruments for my work. Not surprisingly, I made major advances over an electromagnetic theory which had for fifty years been dominated by sinusoidal radio.

In 1976 this culminated in my truly massive breakthrough, Theory C “. That was a third of a century ago.

Today, no relevant professor or text book writer will admit that he knows about “Theory C”.

Since “Theory C” is an advance on the same scale as the elimination of phlogiston or caloric in around 1825, we can gain insight into why their removal took so long, as the removal of electricity is doing today.

Thirty years ago I gave up trying to promote a modified electromagnetic theory which reflected my work in high speed logic, and resorted to asking elementary questions about classical theory. No accredited expert –professor or text book writer – would answer my questions. Still today, the only “experts” who have put anything in writing are the four who were selected by their bosses and instructed to write to me. They are Pepper , Neil McEwan , Secker and Mink. They totally contradict each other on elementary aspects of classical (their) theory.


A recent (end 2012) strange exception is here , on "The Catt Question" . This “answer” was given to me via his good friend, Dr. John Roche , an Oxford University lecturer on history of science and electromagnetism, who says the anonymous writer is at the Clarendon, and an expert on electromagnetic theory. I followed this answer up by asking the anonymous expert, via his friend, to comment on The Second Catt Question . Before Christmas 2012 he replied that he had an answer in mind and would deliver after Christmas. I then predicted that he would not deliver. He has since then made no comment on The Second Catt Question , as I predicted after he said he would comment. I have asked Forrest Bishop to write an analysis of the anonymous expert’s first and only comment, on "The Catt Question"

If the state of science were healthy, we would not have the shenanigans outlined in the last paragraph. Note that after “Anonymous” said he would write a comment on The Second Catt Question , I correctly predicted that he would not. This correlates with my prediction, when Jim Calder, Editor of the Proceedings of the IEEE , their top journal, said he would comment on my proffered article “next week”, I correctly predicted that he would not. It was published six months later in the unrefereed journal “Electronics World” with the comment “Explosive” on the journal’s cover.

In both cases they knew that the material represented was too major an advance. They knew that advances of such magnitude did not occur any more in science, so there must be something wrong – what was wrong they were not sure. Better keep silent, and hope it would go away.

Ivor Catt    16 December 2012/13 February 2013