a raving bugshit lunatic site such as Ivor Catt's website - Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka

Ivor Catt's not-so-vague attacks are the pseudo-scientific garbage. I explained why I do not give him any credibility about fundamental physics: he has shown that he does not understand electromagnetism

Mr. Ivor Catt is a nutter. If the section on his views on digital logic doesn't make any sense, right, so? There's no reason to think that his views make any sense either. Did you read his quote about radar and the Sheffield? -- Kevin Brunt (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC) – Kevin Brunt

Catt is certainly paranoid and ignorant, - Nigel Cook

Nigel Cook on "The Catt Question"

Ivor is completely ignorant of modern physics, - Nigel Cook

Note from Nigel Cook:

.... .... I agree that most of Catt's drivel is worthless, but that does not mean his early work is crazy. Nigel 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Real Catt Anomaly

The diagrams in that article you quote, ignores radio emission occurring at the front of a logic step! Catt got the "Catt anomaly" wrong by relying on a book published in 1893 which ignored the step effects at the front of the TEM wave. Asserting ignorance is wrong. At the front of a logic step, current rises (in accepted picture) and this results in radio emission. Since each conductor is oppositely charged and carries an opposite current, the radio emission from each conductor (acting as aerials) is exactly out of phase with the other and so completely cancels that from the other as seen at a large distance. – Nigel

But he is proud of everything he writes on the subject, regardless of how wrong it is, and tells me he doesn't find it helpful of me to point out errors he has made – Nigel

Ivor’s diagram is a red-herring. Yet Ivor responds by ignoring this, instead of correcting it. Ivor claims to be progressive, but actually ties his theory to Heaviside’s errors. It’s extremely disappointing that he chooses to be pseudo-scientific like this, and tries to shoot the messenger, a policy tried by Stalin with Trotsky. Ivor should ideally keep to the empirically defensible facts, not horses**t theories by Heaviside. – Nigel .... the articles are wrong in almost every detail and it is vital that this should be clearly demonstrated before undue damage is done. .... ; Catt's belief in his own work is clearly sincere, but this reviewer, after lengthy and careful consideration, can find virtually nothing of value in this book. - B. LAGO