One hour after writing the article below and sending it to him, I realised that Professor Pelosi, “Full Professor of Electromagnetic Fields”, broke the mould, or evolved behavioural rules, for “accredited experts”. However, the maximum number of rule breakers during the last 30 years is less than ten, most of them having been instructed to write to me. Pepper, McEwan, Mink, Secker, Lago, Pelosi, Pieraccini, Selleri, Palmer. The preferred behaviour during the last fifty years by an accredited expert in electromagnetic theory (or “Defender of the Faith”} is to not have heard of Ivor Catt. If that fails, then to have never read anything by Catt. After that, it is safest to ridicule Catt, but that carries serious risks. The cognoscenti could suddenly transfer Catt from the “ridiculous” category to the opposite, leaving the ridiculer high and dry. This is already indicated in Safer to have never heard of Catt, or at least to have never read anything by him. Certainly, never comment on Catt’s work. That would carry serious professional risks, see , which cannot have helped Pepper’s notwithstanding successful career . Pepper has since received a knighthood “for services to physics” and the Guthrie Prize, Mott Prize, Hughes Medal, Europhysics Prize, Royal Medal. After being instructed to write to me, which he did only once, he successfully covered his tracks by going incommunicado for 30 years. He will not confirm Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson’s assertion that Pepper now no longer believes what he wrote to me in 1993; .

Thirty years of obfuscation.

Ivor Catt  3 September 2015

No professor or text book writer can risk involvement in the fundamentals of Electromagnetic Theory. Any Editor of a peer reviewed journal, or any accredited expert who published an article which contained the statement; “A capacitor is a transmission line”, would thereby end their career. “A capacitor is a transmission line” may not be published, and no professional can risk being associated with such a remark. The reason is that the way a transmission line is dealt with in classical theory is incompatible with the way a capacitor is dealt with. Curiously, the reverse statement, “A transmission line is a capacitor” may be published. . May Chiao, Senior Editor for Nature Physics, replying to me at dinner when I said the above to her, said; “But a transmission line is a capacitor”. This is publishable, because it can be safely interpreted as “A transmission line has capacitance”, which is a kosher statement, and will not challenge established theory and so risk the writer’s or speaker’s job.

The displacement current in a capacitor was invented by Maxwell to cause magnetic field. However, the displacement current in the front face of a TEM step in a transmission line must not cause magnetic field. .

Professors and text book writers manage to not notice this contradiction at the centre of the theory they are teaching by only considering sine waves, and not ever thinking of a TEM step. . The displacement current in a sine wave in a transmission line is too complicated for anyone to think about. Oliver Heaviside might have noticed this contradiction a century ago when he sent voltage (TEM) steps, but he was involved in other battles, trying to get loading coils into transmission lines, , and fighting a battle with his cousin Miss Way downstairs. Oliver lived upstairs.

Every professor or text book writer must avoid commenting on the three Questions and the experimental result in This is because they challenge the dogma he is teaching, which he is paid to teach. When compelled to comment, the First Question, “The Catt Question” , was answered in contradictory ways by accredited experts when told my their bosses to writer to me. . They and their two groups of followers then refused to discuss their contradiction with each other.

There was a temporary opening up of a challenge to classical theory in 2012, , but nothing happened in the next three years.


The last time the IEEE published something by/on me was in 1987, 30 years ago. However, that was very brief.

The last substantial (20pp) article was 50 years ago. . Both have been ignored.

Apart from that, everything by me has been rejected by all peer reviewed journals worldwide.

Now we have an IEEE article and a novel (in Italian and Polish, but not in English). All say my ideas are "intriguing". But no one was intrigued for a third of a century, certainly no peer reviewers.