Arnold Lynch (3 June 1914 – 13 November 2004)
IEE History of Technology Newsletter - December 2005
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieee17.pdf
Matters arising From the Keele meeting.
During the meeting there were expressions of surprise/sorrow/anger that
the death had occurred of Dr Arnold Lynch and that his passing had not been
marked by the IEE. The Chairman was instructed to write to our CEO, which he
did in October.
….
Arnold made
an enormous contribution to the Institution and to our group, particularly in
the PG S7 days.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
There
was no IEE obituary on Dr. Arnold Lynch when he died, but obituaries in The
Times and the New York IEEE, then we see how ugly it gets.
It
all hinges on “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
When
he retired, Lynch spent his next 25 years working unpaid for institutions,
particularly for the IEE.
Here
are the Lynch obituaries. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5bu.htm
. The IEEE one is close to saying he set up the new “History of Electrical
Engineering” section of the London IEE.
Lynch
decided that Catt had been unfairly treated by the IEE. High ups in the IEE
told him they were very anxious to publish something by Catt. They said that if a submission was rejected,
reasons for rejection would be given. Lynch proposed a joint Lynch-Catt paper,
to which Catt agreed. Lynch wrote the paper, on “The Catt Question”. It was
rejected, and no reasons given for the rejection.
Lynch
had set up the IEE “History of Electrical Engineering” section, and his friend
was chairman. He agreed to the paper being part of the annual meeting of the
section. Catt was careful to make sure that Lynch wrote every word of the
paper. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
. Not being peer reviewed, it could be safely ignored for the next 20
years, and is still ignored by the IEE/IET.
However,
not knowing that Catt was co-author with Lynch, the man who helped to shorten
the war via Bletchley, two Italians published two peer reviewed articles saying
“The Catt Question” was a non-problem and Catt was ridiculous.
In
spite of all his unpaid work for the London IEE, there was no IEE obituary on
him, presumably because he published on “The Catt Question”, which is taboo.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
29 November 2015
|
11:59
AM (5 hours ago)
|
|
||
David did not tell me what he meant by "The EM wave equation"
This is strange. I should know what you are taking
about, because the late Dr., Arnold Lynch came to see me because he was
researching into what he called something like "The EM wave equation".
He later became my co-author. He gave the key evening
lecture at the IEE to celebrate the centenary of the discovery of the electron,
"because J J Thomson told me [him] about
it." https://en.wikipedia.org/
Presumably because later he got involved with me,
there was no IEE obituary on him when he died, although there were obituaries
in the Times and the IEEE. http://www.electromagnetism.
"No one with a modicum of common sense would
risk career and reputation for scientific study anomaly Catt" I think Max,
"and even if we devoted the same time, certainly would not say
around."
in Pieraccini's
novel. http://www.ivorcatt.co.
Harry is calling E/H=377 "the wave
equation". Perhaps you are discussing sq.rt [(L+something)/(C+something)], the
somethings being losses. That is what Lynch was addressing.