Epitaph on an Editor


Martin Eccles; The End Game


As Editor of Wireless World, Martin Eccles delayed forward movement in electromagnetic theory for seven years.


Bizarre, inexplicable behaviour is more destructive than malicious behaviour, because the latter has a purpose, however malign.

Ivor Catt  23sep02


Eccles, WW editor (circa)1994 to 2002, shut me out of WW, and now claims he did not.

Phil Reed is Editor, Wireless World, 2002 onwards.

Nigel Cook had a long article on Catt's ideas in WW (Now called Electronics World), aug2002. Cook says it was botched (his opinion) because of the changeover in editorship.

Ivor       24aug02


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


From: Ivor Catt

To: PhilReed2@aol.com

Cc: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:58 AM

Subject: Eccles


"Have you mentioned to Ivor that I might be getting involved? He sincerely believes that I had it in for him as editor of EW, but nothing was further from the truth. I was longing for him to send me something that would fit into EW’s framework, but, he never did. I’ll bet he was surprised to see that your article appeared in EW. He’ll never believe that I prepared it for publication before I left to make sure that it would get published. " - Eccles to Cook, 11aug02



I have now looked through my 1995 correspondence with Martin Eccles, and find that his behaviour was much worse than I remembered, although my general summary of the sense of it to Phil Reed when Phil and I had lunch was accurate. His behaviour seemed so irrational and destructive that one would not know when he might put the boot in again in future. It will be helpful if Nigel tries to get an explanation from Eccles as to what Eccles thought he was up to in 1995, after Nigel sees my hard copy. If we could make sense of his behaviour, it would be helpful.


My 4oct95 letter to Eccles ends; "One problem we are heading for is the appearance that, once Catt gains acceptance, he drops his old ally - Wireless World. .... creates personal problems for me if I cannot get my material past the editor. Wireless World is what made me. I have to make it clear that the dropping does not come from my side." [Eccles forced me into appearing, once I made headway, to have gone up market. I found myself in the situation where now the IEE published me, WW refused to. (The context is that for ten years, '78-88, WW had mention of my ideas in every issue except two, at a time when Catt was otherwise totally suppressed wordwide. Ultimate publication by the IEE ten years later would have validated WW's extreme loyalty to Catt for WW readers.) This went to the extreme of WW refusing even to mention that the IEE was now publishing me http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm. This was damaging to WW, and potentially very damaging to me.]


I shall send hard copy of the key items to Phil Reed and to Nigel Coo [See below]


Ivor Catt.   23aug02





Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR

(01727 864257


cc Peter Thornton G6NGR

Oldham, Lancashire

Electronics World +

Wireless World, July 1995, p594


M G T Hewlett,


W Sussex


Dear Mr. Hewlett,


Irate communication over cable. EWW apr97, p315


I notice your mention of the Catt Anomaly as being part of the halcyon days of yore in Wireless World.

In previous decades, Eccles had always talked with me on the 'phone with enthusiasm, and was very positive about my ideas. When Eccles took over as editor, I arranged to go to meet him, and he received me with courtesy. He presented me to his newly arrived deputy editor, and they seemed to want to spend any amount of time with me. Eccles also expressed considerable interest in my proposals for copy for EWW, including the deconstruction of the EMC lobby [finally published in march03  after Eccles went http://www.ivorcatt.com/2.htm  . Delayed for seven years by Eccles. – IC]. (This is a pressing issue, since nonsensical EMC regs. are destroying the British electronics industry, what little is left of it. It is obviously prime Wireless World territory, and I have the technical credentials to comment on it. I was resident EMC guru on Stingray at GEC Stanmore, for instance. However, my offerings to EWW on it have been ignored wihout even a rejection slip.)

Eccles did publish a letter by me, may95. However, since then there is a total embargo on anything written by me [lifted when Eccles went in mid 2002; see aug02, jan03, mar03, apr03]. He seemed concerned when I told him there was brief mention of me in passing in EWW (similar to yours in apr97). It is  clear that EWW policy is to distance itself from me, as the Sunday Times now distances itself from Neville Hodgkinson on AIDS. This creates problems for me, for instance in that I cannot respond to Thornton, EWW july95 (see overleaf). The total embargo on comment on my new books, including THE CATT ANOMALY, creates problems for me. I try to give credit to the major role played by WW in the saga of my e-m theory, but am not allowed to do so. In that book I say; "Its present editor Eccles has since turned chicken and will not publish anyhthing more by Catt."

I can publish in EWW under an alias, for instance EWW Jan97 Penelope Lyon p84. However, publishing under an alias creates further problems.

On the phone yesterday from New York my co-author Malcolm Davidson, whom I respect, said that although the article criticised by Penelope is nonsense, there is a kernel of sense in all the hook-up cable talk. Against this, Lipschutz under pressure from me on the phone admitted that he spent zero time choosing hookup cable.

One possibility is that Eccles has been gagged, and given a blacklist of writers. The source, should that be true, would presumably be the publisher, so in a month's time I shall send a copy of this letter to Mick Elliott, Publisher.

Tom Ivall, the WW editor who gave me my breakthrough when he published my first article in dec78, is now of the opinion that my Catt Anomaly stuff is nonsense [ http://www.ivorcatt.com/3634.htm ] . Perhaps he is the Wise Old Man who has warned Eccles off. I am on very good terms with Tom, so I shall send a copy of this letter to him.

The tragedy is that I have 'establishment science' on the run re the Catt Anomaly, as you will see in my 1996 book with that title. Wireless World is doggedly evading the credit for its second great success - being the channel for publication of Catt's theories - which ranks with the stationary satellite of circa 1945. It is also ironic that today, the IEE publishes material on Catt, by reviewing my 1994 book ELECTROMAGNETISM 1, while EWW embargoes it and the rest of Catt. The IEE was the worst of a bad lot of institutions in my case, and remains so except for EWW. Today's EWW now has to take its place as a worse suppressor than the IEE. At the same time, EWW can publish any insufferable nonsense about hookup wiring, see for instance dec96 p937.


Yours sincerely,

                                                                                      Ivor Catt

cc Tom Ivall, 20 Penton Rd., Staines, Middx   TW18 2JY


[Phoenix. Editorials by the new Editor Phil Reed; mar03,“Mr. Catt returns ….”; apr03, “Catt’s whiskers …. Other projects in the pipeline from this esteemed author ….”. IC 28mar03]




The Catt Anomaly


Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR, England

7sep95         (01727 864257

slightly amended 24sep95, 1oct95

The Catt Anomaly was first partially stated in Wireless World (WW), aug81. It was restated in WW aug82, republished on the last twelve lines of p104 of the book DEATH OF ELECTRIC CURRENT (DEC), 1987, by I. Catt. There is an important restatement of it on p903 of Electronics and Wireless World (EWW) sep87.      [WW became EWW]

Until about 1985, the only publicly stated possible sources for the charge in question were the west and the north. These are the possibilities stated in aug82, and the discussion was within that context for years thereafter. Brown and Robinson wrote within the context of those two possibilities in WW oct82.

In WW oct82, republished in DEC p107, Robinson and Brown explain that the charge can come from the west without having to travel at the speed of light. Brown's last sentence makes this point clearly.

FNH Robinson, Fellow of St. Catherine's College, of the Clarendon, published a textbook on electromangetism which is still in print, on sale in Dillon's. However, Brown is more significant.

Professor J. Brown was Professor of Electrical Engineering, Head of Department at Imperial College, London, and President of the IEE a little before the time he published his letter in WW oct82. He was at that time regarded as a leading expert in electromagnetic theory (but is now contradicted by Secker's IEE).

In 1995, Professor P E Secker says that "The general view of the experts within the IEE is that .... The favoured explanation aligns with the statement .... attributed to Professor Pepper, namely [that there is] a transitory current flow at right angles to the direction of wave propagation."

The following is the line-up today, giving the dates of their writing..


From the west


Dr. J. Brown, President of the IEE, [in WWoct82]

Professor of Electrical Engineering and Head of      Department, Imperial College, London


F.N.H. Robinson, Fellow, at Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford,

[in WW       oct82]          Published a book on electromagnetism


Professor A. Howie FRS, Fellow of Churchill College; at Cavendish Laboratory. [Private letter to I. Catt oct83] Later Head of the Cavendish.


Neil McEwan (Dr.), Reader in Electromagnetics, Bradford University [in letter apr95]      Writing under direction from the Professor of Electrical Engineering, Bradford University



From the south


Professor Philip E Secker, Deputy Secretary IEE [letter sep95] Writing under direction from the Secretary of the IEE, giving the "general view of the experts within the IEE"



Professor M. Pepper FRS, Fellow of Trinity College; at CavendishLaboratory [in letter june93] Writing under direction from the Master of  Trinity   College, Cambridge





Notice that;

          [No one has asserted that the charge comes from the east or  from the north.]

          The President of the IEE contradicts the "general view of the experts within the IEE."

          Professor Howie FRS and Professor Pepper FRS, both at the Cavendish, contradict each other.

          McEwan and Pepper, both writing under direction as the accredited experts, contradict each other.

                   McEwan is a Westerner, Pepper a Southerner.

                   McEwan says it does not have to travel at the speed of light; Pepper says it would have to.

          McEwan says that "The 'anomaly' is very instructive educationally ....".


The 'proper', politic view is to say that the charge comes from the west, and to fudge the issue of speed. The idea of coming from the south, promulgated by Pepper, is quite mad. The fact that it is now "The general view of the experts within the IEE" does not make it less mad. The IEE opted for the Pepper credentials rather than for common sense. However, Pepper himself created the disaster by saying that  "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", which was correct but impolitic. The IEE and the rest should have then dumped Pepper (the Southerner) and stuck together, keeping to the Westerner party line. They failed to do so because they were dazzled by the aura of Cambridge as opposed to Bradford. (Could anything good come out of Bethlehem?) Also, they did not know that Howie of Cambridge contradicts Pepper of Cambridge anyway, so the Pepper credentials are weaker than they appeared to be. They could not have conceived of the great Cambridge contradicting itself, because Cambridge knows about these things.




Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,       England.

01727 864257


Second copy sent 20sep95

Third copy sent 2oct95


The Editor, Electronics World + Wireless World,

Quadrant House, The Quadrant,

Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5AS


Dear Martin Eccles,


The Catt Anomaly.


The Catt Anomaly, which has figured so greatly in Wireless World over more than a decade, now becomes a major scoop for Wireless World because of the 4sep95 letter from the IEE. See the analysis overleaf, dated 7sep95, which shows that the Establishment is divided down the middle, between Westerners and Southerners.

Please conform that you want to publish the analysis on the lines of that overleaf, plus the verbatim accounts of the Catt Anomaly by each of the actors in the piece - Brown, Robinson, Howie, McEwan, Secker, Pepper.

This will clearly demonstrate that Wireless World is ahead of the IEE, the InstPhys, and the universities in high science. This really is the jackpot, which Wireless World thoroughly deserves. The whole thing will take two or three pages, making for an historic edition of Wireless World.

Yours sincerely,



I would be very grateful for an early reply.


[However, see  http://www.ivorcatt.com/3634.htm  ]




Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields,

St. Albans

AL3 4JR, England.

01727 864257



The Editor, Electronics World + Wireless World,

Quadrant House, The Quadrant,

Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5AS


Dear Martin Eccles,


The Catt Anomaly.


Thank you for your letter dated 2oct95, as follows;


Dear Ivor

Thank you for sending me your article entitled "The Catt Anomaly".

I have now considered your article and have regretfully decided that I cannot fit it into our publication schedule.

Thank you very much for your interest in the journal. Please do not let this deter you from submitting further articles.

Yours sincerely      [signed] Martin Eccles EDITOR (EW+WW) 2oct95


It may contain a misunderstanding. I did not send an article, but a proposal. Perhaps you feel unable to give the amount of space I asked for, which was around three pages.

How much space do you think you should give to the present dénouement? It would be very odd if, after staying with Catt theories and in particular the Catt Anomaly for decades, and giving them so much space, Wireless World dropped out at this stage, when there is everything to gain. Wireless World risked being associated with something absurd, viz, the Catt Anomaly. Now, when we see the Establishment hopelessly split down the middle in so many ways, (see enclosed 7sep95 analysis), Wireless World is proved right all along. At that moment, does Wireless World decline to claim the credit?

What about a letter from me, and if so, how long? I could shrink it right down if you wanted me to, but to publish nothing at all would be very odd.

As to your last sentence, "Please do not let this deter you from submitting further articles", I feel I would need an explanation of your position if you really do dissociate Wireless World from the Catt Anomaly at this momentous juncture. I would not know what your intentions were with regard to what I might have to offer further. I have worked towards the present position for decades, and it now centres on the Catt Anomaly. The IEE, after refusing for 35 years the acknowledge the existence of Catt (in electromagnetism), the Catt Anomaly, or any Catt theories, now will publish a review of my latest book - which I asked you to review, but you failed to review - and will comment on the Catt Anomaly in that review. It will be strange indeed if we move to a situation where the IEE publishes my material while Wireless World refuses to. Why stop backing a horse when it finally wins, after supporting it for years in the doldrums?

One problem we are heading for is the appearance that, once Catt gains acceptance, he drops his old ally - Wireless World. The letter you published in July by Thornton, saying ".... He is, of course, right: as he always was. .... Ivor, for god's sake, start writing letters to EW + WW again; I miss your openness and frankness.", and much more besides, creates personal problems for me if I cannot get my material past the editor. Wireless World is what made me. I have to make it clear that the dropping does not come from my side.


Yours sincerely,


encl.   7sep95 analysis, amended 1oct95


cc      Tom Ivall, 20 Penton Rd.,

 Staines, Middx   TW18 2JY


cc Luca Turin, Dept of Anatomy,

Unversity College London,

 Gower St., WC1,


[No reply received. Ivor Catt 23sep02]




Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR

01727 864257


John Simmonds,

Walkwood Lodge,


Bucks.         HP9 1PR

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter dated 18may96 in which you suggested that we fund a research student, possibly under Howie, and you would contribute money.


First to recap. You are very unhappy about the behaviour of the IEE, but I do not recollect your own theoretical position and would have to search my files to find out. However, the principle that the IEE needs to clarify the situation stands above individual theoretical positions.

Tom Ivall, ex editor of Wireless World, although very helpful, is worried because he sees no anomaly and also feels very old and tired. (This business has being going on for decades!) That kind of attitude goes for many people, and one must distinguish between those who regret the misconduct of IEE, Howie and the rest, on the one hand, and on the other, those who believe there truly is an anomaly.


Since Langman has links with Secker/IEE, I recommend a link-up between you and him. Surely a dual thrust at the IEE, with Catt uninvolved, would be worth trying.


David Langman,

6 Gainbsborough Road,

          Stratford-on-Avon, Warwicks.CV37 9FA     01789 414898


I strongly recommend the two letters reprinted overleaf, on what is called p3 - Langman-Secker 20 4 96 and Langman - Catt 29.4.96. In those letters we see the division between secretariat and membership appearing in the IEE. (Langman will be smarting from the bizarre Catt - Langman 1may96 letter.) For instance, note the bizarre idea that we should welcome two views of the Catt Anomaly - shades of wave-particle duality! Once modern physics had got away with wave-particle duality, uncertainty and its other unscientific idiocies, it could get away with anything!


Returning to funding a research student under Howie or other to look into "mechanism of transmission of electrical energy when guided by conductors".


1 Funding.   The insertion of significant non-Catt money into the Catt Anomaly warrants considerable thought and discussion.


2 The Howie student report. I feel the resulting report by the research student would not be worth the paper it was written on. I can cite precedents for this. Lipschutz has promoted his revolutionary submarine, the U-plane, for fifty years. Southampton Univ. has got its second research student to work on it and he has reported.  However favourable these reports, they will make no impact at all - Southampton Univ. will be regarded as a little odd if the reports are too positive. (For this reason, like the proposed Howie report, they will have been toned down - obfuscated. Southampton Univ. has to protect its future sources of research funding!)  By definition, if the Howie student reported too favorably and/or too clearly on the Catt Anomaly, he and Howie would cease to be part of the Establishment. Check this with Luca Turin, who is very pro Catt theories and comes from a good stable. (He is the prototype of your student.)

Luca Turin, Dept of Anatomy, Unversity College London, Gower St., WC1


1 Funding. I feel that the proper use of any available funding is to have "prizes" which increase every year, for those in the Establishment who finally succumb and comment in writing on the Catt Anomaly. I feel that the increasing pressure on a professor via his wife to take the money in a rising fund and deliver written comment, would be fascinating. This would be far cheaper than funding a research student, and generate much more interest in the media. I started such a scheme in Wireless World, but the current editor Eccles is now running scared and would sabotage it. It has to go into the general press, and I could organise that once the fund reached (say) £300. I already commit £100 to the project. The money has to go into a dedicated account (although the banks now act up on that matter). Do you want to pursue that line with Langman, to start with? It would be a long term project, reaching fruition in some five years from now.

I strongly feel that you should get rid of any hopes that the research student would find out anything new. Luca Turin went through that whole process without funding, and he is well inside the academic community. The "student" (Turin) you think of has already done it all, and will tell you that he would report his research results if he felt anyone would read it.

Yours sincerely                                                                                   Ivor



To Phil Reed, Nigel Cook, 23aug02


This is the smoking gun. I had forgotten that I have written evidence of Ivall wobbling over the Catt Anomaly. All we need to do is find out whether Ivall voiced his uncertainty to (diffident) Eccles. [We never found out. Ivor Catt 11may03.]        IC   23aug02


Ivall wobbles;  http://www.ivorcatt.com/3634.htm