Marburg Wednesday
Dear Sir
Instead of the term ‘anchor’ or ‘Keeper’ I propose the term Submagnet. It would be first introduced at A page 1952 in the following manner.
‘The apparatus used by Dub3 was a steel yard from one end of which a bar of soft iron (Submagnet*) was suspended vertically, a weight being moved &c’.
Referring to the new term the following note might be introduced.
* This term, expressive of the mass of iron which is attracted by the magnet, and which, in its turn, attracts the magnet, is introduced here for the first time. The word ‘Keeper’ suggests an idea which has no reference to the present case. The word ‘anchor’, used in Germany, is also inapplicable. As the mass of soft iron, when induced, is itself a magnet, the term introduced above seems to be appropriate. It suggests, not only the attractive property of the induced mass, but also its relation to the exciting magnet.
J.T.
The term lifting power is perhaps better than carrying power – at all events it is better known. Though it suggests the idea of the magnet pulling something upwards – on the whole I think ‘lifting power’ may be used with advantage.4
The term will have to be altered in my memoir5 also.
To avoid the repetition of the term submagnet I have in many cases used the word bar, which I imagine is perfectly admissible. In every case where either term is to be used I have written it over the word anchor in the accompanying sheets.
Where the width of the line does not permit of the full word it may be contracted to Submag. or simply to Subm.
In Page 197 opposite a. the word one may be introduced instead of the words ‘an anchor’ – opposite b. the word ‘anchor’ may be entirely expunged – this will allow room for the term submagnet at C –6
If a better term strike you you will of course make use of it.
Many thanks for the trouble you have taken regarding my question – I will consider the observation you have made as regards the British association7 – It would indeed be a great privilege.
I am quite content with your arrangement8 as regards the memoir – indeed prefer it – the ‘Report’ and it, in the same number, would be too much of a good thing – it would pall the scientific appetite as both are on the same subject.
I will abide by your instructions as regards the translations, and all else that you have suggested shall be strictly attended to.
Accept my best thanks for your proposals as to letter of introduction. If I find them necessary I will at once write to you. I have been introduced to some of them already and Knoblauch will be with me for 5 weeks in Berlin and will break the ice in all quarters for me.
A fair Hessian9 will pass through Marburg next Sunday on her way to England to unite her fortunes to those of Frankland. in other words Frankland will marry in a few days, Fraulein Sophie Fick, daughter of Oberbau Rath Fick, Cassel.
The heading of the ‘Reports’ is as good as possible.10
I have not yet read the papers on the electricity of steam11 but [have] nevertheless some ground for assuming that the doubt12 you express is not ill founded. this however is but hearsay – I will read and judge for myself and report to you accordingly.
I have Schlagintweit’s paper13 nearly ready and will forward it tomorrow or next day to himself14 with a request to attach the French names to the places of observations & send the thing forward to you – these will be more intelligible in England than the German names.
your letter reached me two or 3 hours ago. I will not delay the reply a single post.15
most sincerely yours | John Tyndall
StBPL T&F, Authors’ letters
[19 February 1851]: problems with dating this letter have led us to query the ODNB date for Frankland’s marriage (7 February 1851). Notices in contemporary newspapers agree in giving Frankland’s wedding date as 27 February 1851 (for example, Lancaster Gazette, Saturday, 1 March 1851, p. 8). The ‘next Sunday’ when Sophie Fick (n. 10 below) passed through Marburg was probably 23 February and the Wednesday of writing 19 February. This date (rather than any other Wednesday) is consistent with the references in n. 7 below.
page 195: the page numbers throughout this letter are those of Tyndall’s ‘Reports on . . . Recent Researches on Electro-magnetism’, sent to Francis with letter 0459, which Tyndall is here proof reading. Tyndall had previously raised questions about magnetic terminology in relation to translations (letter 0461, esp. n. 5) but without reference to Dub or his Report. At that stage he favoured ‘anchor’ and had not yet come up with ‘submagnet’. The suggestions made here were followed, and the word ‘anchor’ not used in the published text.
Dub: article cited in letter 0457, n. 9.
The term lifting power … with advantage: both ‘lifting power’ and ‘carrying power’ appeared in the published article.
term … my memoir: his published memoir on magnetism (cited letter 0464, n. 2) mostly used ‘lifting power’ (‘carrying power’ only once).
In Page 197 … at C: these suggestions were followed.
my question … British association: In response to Tyndall’s proposal to lecture in London during the Great Exhibition (letter 0464), Francis suggested that Tyndall give an evening lecture at the British Association meeting in Ipswich in July. Francis’s letter has not been found but Tyndall recorded its arrival and its contents in his Journal (JT/2/13b/522 entry for 23 February covering 17–23 February); the earliest date of this reply is therefore 17 February. The possibility of such a lecture is later mentioned in letter 0485, Journal entry for 25 May, and letter 0491.
content with your arrangement: here Tyndall seemed to agree to his memoir on magnetism being published after his ‘Report’ on electromagnetism (letter 0459, n. 1).
fair Hessian: Sophie Fick.
heading: Tyndall and Francis had previously discussed subtitles (letters 0460 and 0470) for his ‘Reports on the Progress of Physics’.
electricities of steam: probably Reuben Phillips, ‘On the Electricities of Steam’, Phil. Mag., 36:246 (suppl., 1850), pp. 50311 and ‘On the Magnetism of Steam’, Phil. Mag., 37:250 (October 1850), pp. 283–8. See letter 0474.
doubt: this, along with other phrases (‘your instructions’, ‘your proposals’,) all refer to a letter or letters from Francis which have not been found, very likely to the recent letter identified in n. 7.
Schlagintweit’s paper: Tyndall received a ‘long memoir’ on the ‘Optical Phenomena of the Atmosphere of the Alps’ (extracted from Hermann Schlagintweit and Adolph Schlagintweit, Untersuchungen über die physicalische Geographie der Alpen (Leipzig, 1850)) from Hermann Schlagintweit on 8 February 1851 and was translating it as requested by Francis (JT/2/13b/522). It was not published until 1852 (see letter 0589). See also n. 14 below.
himself: Hermann Schlagintweit (1826–82). Along with his brother Adolph (1829–57), he made his reputation from scientific studies in the European Alps in the late 1840s. Joined by their younger brother Robert (1833–85), they were commissioned by the East India Company to undertake scientific studies in central Asia from 1854–7, where Adolph was beheaded on suspicion of being a Chinese spy. See also letter 0474, n. 5 and 0498, n. 5.
your letter . . . not delay a single post: Francis’s letter is missing. Tyndall’s letter could not be delayed if he was to meet the publication deadline for the March issue of Phil. Mag.
Please cite as “Tyndall0470,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on 28 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/tyndall/letters/Tyndall0470