Showing 21–40 of 54 items
The Sir John Herschel Collection
The preparation of the print Calendar of the Correspondence of Sir John Herschel (Michael J. Crowe ed., David R. Dyck and James J. Kevin assoc. eds, Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, viii + 828 pp) which was funded by the National Science Foundation, took ten years. It was accomplished by a team of seventeen professors, visiting scholars, graduate students, advanced undergraduates, and staff working at the University of Notre Dame.
The first online version of Calendar was created in 2009 by Dr Marvin Bolt and Steven Lucy, working at the Webster Institute of the Adler Planetarium, and it is that data that has now been reformatted for incorporation into Ɛpsilon.
Further information about Herschel, his correspondence, and the editorial method is available online here: http://historydb.adlerplanetarium.org/herschel/?p=intro
No texts of Herschel’s letters are currently available through Ɛpsilon.
Wishes to communicate to J. B. Biot, and so to Academie des sciences, JH's two 'beautiful' fixing methods, by hyposulfite and ferrocyanate.
Questions JH's intent to display 'photogenic drawings' to R.S.L.
Considerable comment on procedure for submitting paper to R.S.L. Urges WT to mention JH's method of washing with hyposulfite. Comments on some photographic experiments of WT.
Enlarges upon his method of using salt as photographic fixer; then asks JH to explain the chemistry thereof. Has tried Louis Daguerre's fixing process without success.
Further chemicals used for fixing, including bromide potash.
Comments on Louis Daguerre's use of muriatic ether, and encloses a photograph of hand writing.
Comments on a number of chemicals used in photography, as well as referring to JH's process of making 'enlargements.'
Consists mostly of a transcription of two short notes from J. B. Biot to JH by way of WT.
Sends a sample picture fixed by use of iodine [potash].
More photography comments. Problems with use of hyposulfite fixer. Superiority of English over Daguerreotype in being able to make copies.
Confused by an 'unfixed' photo from JH in which the image shows different effects from different colors of the spectrum. Also other comments on photography.
Sends JH a positive copy and a transparency. Remarks on JH's use of muriate of lead and asks JH to explain chemistry of it.
Advises JH not to publish any new processes in photography as there are patent problems. Comments on the Daguerreotype, and on the difficulty of preserving images in some circumstances.
Sends some samples of photography made with a solar microscope, and comments briefly on the Daguerreotype.
Thanks for specimen of light sensitive paper. Provides hint on the chemical process that Louis Daguerre may have used in his photographic work. Sends specimens of JH's own work.
Describes method of varying the size of photographic images. Praises Talbot's light sensitive paper and suggests improvements regarding it. Complains about persons too ready to seek a patent.
Sending WT some seeds. Had hoped to send some bulbs.
Is sending WT some botanical specimens through Andrew Smith, whose scientific abilities JH praises. Asks WT to assist Smith in England. Encourages WT's work in mathematics and in 'photology.' Reports on JH's astronomical observations and theorizes about sunspots.
Says that for the next four to five months will be in residence at 10 Hanover Crescent, Regent's Park. Offers various botanical specimens to WT, including a Satyrium named after JH. Mentions Eta Argus. Believes the 'Southern Sky has been pretty well rummaged.'
[Responding to WT's 1839-1-25], JH reports that he cannot come to London to see WT's 'curious process of fixing the image formed by a Camera obscura.' Invites WT to come to Slough.