Arnold Lynch (3 June 1914 – 13 November 2004)


IEE History of Technology Newsletter - December 2005

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”.

When he retired, Lynch spent his next 25 years working unpaid for institutions, particularly for the IEE.

Here are the Lynch obituaries. . 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. . 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

Ivor Catt 

11:59 AM (5 hours ago)




to Christopher, HARRY, David, David, Malcolm, Stephen, Forrest


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." 

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.

"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.  Our article was rejected for publication by the IEE, but then his friend, the chairman of the section of the IEE that Lynch himself had set up, "History of Electrical Engineering", allowed it to be presented at their AGM.  For clarity in the historical record, since I was always rejected for publication by the IEE, I made sure Lynch wrote every word of our rejected article. So the rejected article was by a doyen of the IEE.

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.