Royal Society;

 I would not join any club which would have someone like me as a member. – Groucho Marx



This is





Bell  Oppoland

Dunkley, scientist or community builder?


First read Dunkley

Then continue.

‘If you have got anything new … you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner even though he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do that … . But when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!’ – Oliver Heaviside, 10 March 1893.

Preece had just stated in his 1893 IEE Presidential address: ‘I took the opportunity to formulate the theoretical views of electricity that I had acquired at the feet of Faraday.’


Preece, head of Post Office Research, went to the editor of the relevant journal and prevailed on him to stop publishing Heaviside. Later the IEE just had to recognise Heaviside, and instituted the “Faraday Medal”. A later IEE President Highfield  told Heaviside that this medal had been instituted primarily to give the first medal, 1922, to Heaviside, in order to cover up for their gaffe of blocking the leading scientist. Heaviside refused to come up to London to receive the medal, because the IEE refused to say which part of his work warranted the medal (which most important part is still today banned , because outside the IEE/IET canon). The same problem occurred with the Royal Society when Heaviside refused to let them honour him. I have the relevant letters. ;


It is amusing that recently the IEE gave the 2013 Faraday Medal to shyster Pepper,  , , who wrote nonsense about cattq,  and then was incommunicado for 25 years while he was “knighted for services to physics”. ; ;

Like Catt after 1967  when he then went too far ahead, Heaviside remains outside the IEEE/IEE canon. For a recent attempt to sanitise Heaviside and bring him within today’s ruling canon, see “The Spargo Memorial Project” . Missing are Heaviside’s greatest (heretical) contributions, “We reverse this …. ” , “Energy Current” and "By the way .... "




You can read about Ivor Catt being shocked by Dunkley, and remaining shocked for many decades. The reason is Catt thought in terms of the IEE or the IEEE being a coming together of scientists (or technocrats). ; As a result, a different calibre of person is attracted to the large knowledge,

 lacking the ability to understand and defend a body of knowledge with many levels of meaning.

Looking at the structure of the IEEE, that is obviously not true. When a member joins the IEEE, and pays his annual dues, he has already been heavily indoctrinated in the canon, and passed examinations in the canon which he has learned assiduously for decades. He now pays the IEEE to protect, and even promote the canon, the basis of his employability and reputation.

The canon is what holds together the community of “scientists”, and must be preserved apart from the addition of very small decorations. Together they can unite to design and build socially valuable things like aeroplanes and computers. This requires cooperation. In their education, they were encouraged to work together as a team, and passed examinations in what was already known. Even “a capacitor does not have a self resonant frequency” would be going too far,  and must be suppressed, as with the unrefereed cattq. A few decades after cattq appeared it may have become dangerous enough to the “science” community to have to be misrepresented and ridiculed, kept outside the canon. We are prevented from understanding the behaviour of the IEEE because of the lingering idea that it is a community of scientists. We have to agree that it is a community of careerists. From that starting point, we can successfully analyse and understand the consistent behaviour of the institution and its members. We all know that a community of cooperating individuals can achieve what isolated individuals cannot. An individual, or even many individuals, will not do a good job of designing and building an aeroplane or a computer. Hence the need to build up teams, which begins with the team building in our schools and continues in institutions like the IEEE.

Careers, salaries, reputations are secure if the knowledge base is static, or only gradually changing at a rate that every member of the team can cope with. That is what Dunkley is saying, , and it is not shocking. Teamwork could even be the most efficient if the framework is reasonably static. The saying attributed to Thomas Gold is; “Scientists travel in tight formation”.

This community, with its institutions, may have been functioning reasonably well until the shock of Hitler at Calais. Team members then broke rank, fearing Hitler more than fearing betraying the electromagnetic theory community’s canon. Some of them moved out of academia (Cambridge), and in non-academic Bletchley advanced theoretically and practically in the way necessary to defeat Hitler, for instance by indulging in pulses, which was not part of the canon of the academic team in Cambridge, which was restricted to sine waves. (The extraordinary idea that the simplest solution to Maxwell’s Equations is the sine wave. (  last line of page 3.) Having contributed a great deal to winning the war, they decamped back to Cambridge. What they learned, and had to learn, to help win the war was forgotten and all the equipment in Bletchley destroyed. Ricker says Catt is rediscovering what was discovered and used in Bletchley, and then forgotten. The new realisation here is that it had to be forgotten. The discoveries undermined the academic canon for electromagnetic theory. This had developed around Marconi’s work, later including radar, which related to signals travelling through space without the need for wires, blessed on their way with complex mathematics. This was obviously more sophisticated than Heaviside’s (and later Catt’s) work around the same time as Marconi, with signals requiring wires. Heaviside was disappeared (as was Catt). While head of the Cavendish, Howie told me that “Physical reality is composed of sine waves.” The Heaviside-Catt work indicates that, rather, physical reality is composed of the ExH Heaviside Vector, or Poynting Vector, “energy current”, which is not amenable to much mathematics.  My co-author the late Dr. Arnold Lynch did some of the work for Bletchley. . ,  - “then we see how ugly it gets.” If an IEEE or IET member acts as a scientist, betraying the community, the community’s response is brutal, even if he helped to win the war.

Fifteen years later a new threat to the canon, the digital computer, appeared. The travelling pulses involved undermined classical electromagnetism only when high speed (1nsec) logic came into use. As with that learned during the war and forgotten, classical electromagnetic theory (academic theory) could not be modified to accommodate the new findings. All new insights gained into electromagnetic theory were blocked, kept out of university courses and text books, for the next fifty years. , . Later the computer became so small that the interconnections inside more or less disappeared, and so it was not necessary to exploit these insights, or even to know them. If the distance between one logic gate and the next was very small, what happened in between did not need to be understood. The window of opportunity to introduce an improved electromagnetic theory closed, leaving people like Ivor Catt high and dry, yesterday’s men. The case for the instrumentalists became all powerful – that the value of a theory is only in its practical use. Also, the Truth that there are no truths.

The limits of what can be accommodated within a community is remarkably small. The IEEE and IET have blocked “A capacitor is a transmission line” for 40 years. Some decades ago I told May Chiao, Editor of Nature Physics (not of IEE or IEEE) that she would lose her job if she published an article which contained; “A capacitor is a transmission line.”  ; , published 40 years ago.   The same applies to IEEE and IET editors.


Ivor Catt  6 May 2018

When the soviet empire collapsed, Professor Tony Davies did very good work for the IEEE by bringing in new members from beyond the iron curtain, from another community, to join our IEEE community. He was not bringing together scientists, as Dunkley tries to make clear,  . All that has nothing to do with a scientist like Catt. Major scientific advance destroys communities, separating one scientist from another.

Only a few days ago, I stumbled on the fatal flaw in John Dore FIEE’s instrumentalist stance, that a new theory, including any from Ivor, is valueless if it does not indicate an advantage in practical results – aeroplanes and computers. I pointed out that for all students in the world from age 14 up to PhD to be taught and to believe what is false, for instance that a capacitor has a stationary electric field, is a tremendous waste of money and time. It delays the date before the student starts to design better aeroplanes or computers. Teaching untruths is expensive. Teaching untruths is harder and more time consuming than teaching truths. I myself was Principal Lecturer in a college, and was willing to teach untruths in order to hold onto my job. My co-author Dr. David Walton told me that was immoral, and apparently broke rank while a schoolteacher and taught the unfashionable truth. I found it fascinating taking a full classroom past a fatal flaw in what I was teaching them so that they would pass the examination. Whether his students pass exams is the measure of a lecturer’s competence. I had not been secure enough in my job to teach the truth, and had a wife and four children to support. Anyway, my Head of Department, John Lythgoe, was trying to fire me (but failed, even though he had my book ; ). I told the lecturers in my charge that they were paid to teach the syllabus, not to teach the truth. David probably took his stance because he had previously been a clergyman, and the effect lingered. His students had to pay the price in reduced exam success. Anyway, students are not interested in the truth, only in passing exams. No student has ever responded to .      7 May




 Someone who publishes more than 100 papers must be publishing trivia, possibly 100% trivia.

Someone with something important to say would not camouflage it with a smokescreen of trivial articles under his name.


The people who defamed me and misrepresented my work in peer reviewed journals are Dr. Ross Stone, Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Professors Pelosi, Pieraccini, Selleri

I noticed that all the people who were publishing attacks on me in peer reviewed journals had published more than 100 peer reviewed articles. I totally failed to realise the obvious, that they (professors all) all must fall into the "publish or perish" category. This is an obvious case of Gresham's Law, and I should have noticed decades ago.


I am sure the scientists I know do not count up the number of articles, or even books, they have published. How do I know those who attacked me have 100 articles to their name? Because they counted them. Why did they count them, and then why did they tell us?


We all know there is today a tsunami of publications.


The issue is between quality and quantity.


When MV pointed out to me that some CERN published articles had 5,000 authors, and the authors paid a fee ($2,000), the penny still did not drop. I must have known that "publish or perish" articles in such quantity could not have significant content, but failed to link this to the fact that they must not have content, or they would not be published. As I told the late Professor Kinniment, my article on “The Glitch” had a misleading title in order to get past peer review. As he says, I was the only man who succeeded in getting past the “Peer Review Mafia” for many years, as the statistical risk of the third world war increased. The misleading title made it look trivial, publishable. The peer reviewers would think it was harmless trivia, and so accepted it. . I had to get it published “peer reviewed” and people would then take it seriously when I gave them a copy to read. Chris Penfold got excited about it, and decades later, when in charge of the TV series “Midsomer Murders”, he managed to get it on TV and on a DVD. . I suspect it is still taboo, not taught in any university except Newcastle and perhaps Caltech.   Perhaps the risk of malfunction in our nuclear missile submarines caused by the Glitch has subsided. ; . 50 years later see Pieraccini rubbishing Catt;

“The academic word did not take Catt seriously much. This was not only because most of Catt’s publications were often in technical and not scientific journals.” – Pieraccini.


If someone like Chris Spargo thinks there are no barriers to publishing, it may be because he has only ever published trivia, being in the "academics" camp, where publishing is necessary for promotion. Presumably he also will have a large number of articles to his name.


Now, for some reason, he has condescended to repeat the taboo "Wakefield 3" experiment "and put it on line". . I was puzzled when Stephen pointed out that he would be unable to publish the results. Then after 10 or 20 hours the penny dropped. Throughout my 60 year career, I have never attempted to publish trivia. Trivia do not threaten the IEEE community, so can be published, and are published. I have only ever attempted to publish when what I had to say was very important, and since 1967 I was always blocked. Long before Spargo, Dr Arnold Lynch was heavily entrenched in the IEE and could not publish when it came to cattq

He is a prototype for when Spargo tries to publish non-trivial Wakefield 3.


It was ridiculous that I thought Spargo had some sort of influence (sitting on IEE committees and getting IEE prizes) which would enable him to publish Wakefield 3. Before Tony Wakefield did the Wakefield 1 experiment, I warned Tony that he would be unable to publish in a peer reviewed journal, and this turned out to be true.


1Professor Tony Davies was on the Board of Directors of the IEEE, perhaps for a long time. His emails to me show that he is very conscious that there is a serious problem. Now he makes no attempt to help me to get 50 (very important) words published in an IEEE journal, and does not even say that he is unable to do so, or send me to current members of the board. That means that loyalty to community extends way past retirement. Will he say that this is a trivial matter? See IEEE “Code of Ethics”. Item 7.

The 50 words; Even and Odd Modes

2 My paper; Ivor Catt"Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at , contained an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.

The error is fully discussed at .

Ivor Catt


3 Dear Ivor,




Peer-Review and the blocking of new concepts

There is no doubt that the peer review process (and the behaviour of some journal editors) makes it very difficult to get publications on novel topics which ‘disagree with’ or undermine the theory and practice in fields in which the ‘experts’ have built their reputations.  I have talked about this with several people recently and there is agreement that this is true and is a problem.   
It is easy to explain, of course.   For an early career person to make mistakes is generally acceptable.   In fact some say that if you make no mistakes you will never learn anything new.  So an early career researcher can get away with publishing something with flaws in it, which need not damage his career.  For an ‘expert’ who has reached the stage of being an authority on some topic to be found to have made errors over some fundamental aspect is an ‘unwelcome’ situation and the expert is naturally liable to try to suppress awareness and publication of anything which hints that his expertise is deficient. 

Additionally, there are those who might hope to ‘steal’ the new idea and claim it for themselves, and use the suppression of the publications of the real discoverer as a dishonest means to this end.  I am sure that there are intermediate cases quite often where tricks are used to delay a publication while reviewers make some similar advances themselves to catch up and gain credit.



Tony Davies

2017 April 4th

 Ivor Catt   8 May 2018


The threat of a third world war arising due to the suppression of “the glitch” for decades  could recur in hitec. That is, the hijacking of hitec by careerists and instrumentalists is a threat to world peace. War becomes more and more technical, and there is always the possibility that further technical hazards similar to the Glitch might occur in an industry developing more and more sophisticated weapons while suppressing the relevant scientific advances. I suppose the John Dore mantra, that all must be well because with faulty theory we have successfully developed good aeroplanes and computers, and a new theory must show practical benefits (like avoiding world war) should not be extrapolated into the future, where the instrumentalist or careerist keeps saying suppression does not matter until the moment when the nuclear bombs start to explode. They, even careerists in the IEEE and instrumentalists will come to agree that we should have allowed soundly based technical advance to underpin weapon development, having properly addressed cattq and the rest. I personally feel the glitch is unique, but maybe not. Only now I remember the US technician I once worked with previously in a company involved in launching the President’s first nuclear bomb. There were two push buttons a long distance away from each other, to stop a Dr. Strangelove from launching us into nuclear war. As a joke, just before the Pentagon came for an inspection of a demonstration of the system, he stuck down one push button with chewing gum. He was fired. A qualified IEEE member would have known that you do not use chewing gum in hitec.

We can keep to our nonsensical theories because they have not yet caused the third world war.

Ivor Catt   8 May 2018


Extraordinarily, this email arrived half an hour ago, 11am, 8 May 2018. I was about to add concerns about the third world war resulting from the slovenly approach by academia, the IEEE and IEE/IET to “The Glitch”. – I Catt


Robert Neil Boyd Ph D

7:50 AM (3 hours ago)

to ROGER, me, Chan, Volodymyr, Alejandro, Al, Bialek, Bill, Byoung, Cameron, Chris, Cynthia, David, Dee, dgsasso,, dihua,, Dionysios, Doug, Bernardo, James, Neal, Peter, Sergey, Stoyan, Edward

That is because many of the actual empirical facts and discoveries are not being allowed into the public eye due to the global genocide agenda which started in 1974. True advances, in all the sciences, have been suppressed since that time, as part of the agenda. 

Since then all the sciences have become Disneyland fantasy productions resembling "Fantasia" with rampant fraud in every direction and in every discipline, with the "rope fantasy" being an example of "scientific" misinformation and disinformation that intentionally harms All Life. You are giving the appearance that you accept such genocidal fantasy-based academic leanings. I do not.

I am an academician, as well, by the way. But I am an experimentalist, not a theoretician. My reality is based on reproducibly observable facts and direct evidence. I am an empiricist. 

Mainstream "academia", as expressed in so many of their strongly publicized delusional fantasies, puts fraud-based personal "advantages" before facts, human lives, and the well-being All Life on the planet. Political control agendas have been taking priority over any kind of real and highly publicized scientific progress. That will change.



Should the IEEE be associated with the CERN scam?       Ivor Catt   8 May 2018

Stephen Crothers

4:50 PM (18 minutes ago)

to Christopher, me, Anthony, Alex, John, gian-luca

Dear Ivor,


"CERN papers have hundreds of authors, (who pay a fee.)" Catt


Yes, but understated. Many CERN papers have literally thousands of authors (quite comical).

 The Romanian Government, some years ago, was paying CERN bean counters, US$2000.00 per person to add to CERN papers as authors, people who did not contribute anything. In this way many Romanian 'scientists' each managed to 'publish' more than 200 papers per annum! I know this because four years ago I gave a lecture at the Atomic Energy Research Institute outside Bucharest, and was told by a senior professor there, who also asked me to tell everybody I could. Furthermore, at the time of my visit, the French were building, under contract to the Romanian Government, the world's most powerful laser, also outside Bucharest. But all the physicists I spoke to at the Atomic Energy Institute told me that nobody knew what it was to be used for, other than pretense to world science and Romanian internal political propaganda. To date this laser has not featured in any science. 


Steve Crothers




Wakefield `1 experiment.

Feynman ;

This would present no problem to instrumentalist Tony Davies.

 For him, one useful “model” is the rolling wave,

 the other the Heaviside Signal. Horses for courses.

For the instrumentalist, there is no “truth”.



Stinking fish

This is the "stinking fish" quote in the New Scientist. The IEE President, Brown, in the pay of Weinstock's GEC, sabotaged the IEE's attempt to set up some sort of "chartered engineer" status so that Weinstock could no longer fill the empty slots of engineers (because engineers would not  work for GEC) with milkmen. I knew they were actually milkmen, because I was "employed" by GEC, and they told me they were milkmen.


Later I ran into the Brown business when I was invited to lecture to the GEC engineers in Lincoln, and found that when it all blew up around Brown and the IEE, his loyal Weinstock put him on charge of GEC Lincoln. The engineers were hostile to him.


Stinking fish


When I was "employed" at GEC Portsmouth, the GEC technical director called together all the engineers and announced "good news" - "We have doubled our spend capability". This was an MOD funded “weapon” project; cost plus 14% - or 28%? The weapon was the Tigerfish torpedo.


Weinstock was careful to put in ex cabinet ministers as Chief Executive of GEC. One was Denis Prior. On retirement, MOD men, previously funding taxpayers’ money to GEC, would join GEC.



No corruption was involved, because Weinstock was in one of the horse drawn carriages in the Mall with the Queen, and in the other carriage were the Duke of Edinburgh and Weinstock's wife..

Ivor Catt   26 May 2018





15 May 18

Brian Josephson

May 15 (11 days ago)

to me, Alex, Anthony, Stephen, Forrest, Giuseppe, Mahta, Christopher, Tony

On 15/05/2018 13:37, Ivor Catt wrote:

The muddle arises if you try to "derive" experimental results, rather than just look at them.

You are seriously muddled, Ivor, take my word for it.  So muddled that it would take a lot more time than I have at my disposal to sort thing out.



The argument of this book in a single paragraph

Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must beassumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.



The peer review cartel

The modern scientist is supposed to be a docile and obedient bureaucrat and is trained and selected for that purpose – cheerfully switching ‘interests’ and tasks as required by the changing (or unchanging) imperatives of funding, the fashions of research and the orders of his master. 


While writing x857, I came to realise that the forces now instituted (after 1960) to block further scientific advance are multifarious. The greatest attack is by careerists, who now control all the commanding heights of what used to be science. Two of them, the sine wave and mathematics, are closely linked.


They are, in descending order,






EMC incubus

A primary research area will be to determine the relationship between these blocking mechanisms. For instance, are all careerists instrumentalists?


It was inevitable that scientists would lose control of science. The mechanism is discussed in the Bruce Charlton book. Science never had a chance.

Ivor Catt   16.7.2018




Alex Yakovlev <>

Sat, Mar 17, 9:08 PM

to me

Dear Ivor,


Isn't it already evident that we are living in the Year of Energy Current, predicted in my Christmas greetings to you? The discussions we are having online now demonstrate that.