I have only to say that the facts are precisely what they are here stated to be. Previous to writing the remarks in question, I looked to the Errata, but not it seems with sufficient attention, for Professor Thomson’s correction escaped me. Not only do our results agree in principle, but the same substance and form of substance which Professor Thomson had referred to in illustration of his theory was unwittingly examined by me in Berlin, and the exact result which he had theoretically predicted arrived at by way of experiment.
Quoted in the editor’s note to William Thomson, ‘Magnecrystallic Property of Calcareous Spar’ (letter to editors), Phil. Mag., 2:14 (December 1851), pp. 574–75.
[22]: this note, an addendum to a letter by Thomson, was the last paragraph of a letter Tyndall had written on or shortly before 15 November (see letter 0567). Francis suggested (letter missing, but Tyndall agreed in letter 0569) that it would be sufficient to publish the last paragraph. Thus, although the letter was written earlier, its published form was decided only on 22 November.
Thomson’s longer letter was an explanation of how an error of transcription in his published paper had led to apparent disagreement between his and Tyndall’s results. The published letter from Thomson was longer and clearer than his original letter to Tyndall (letter 0560) although it is also dated 7 November, thus Thomson wrote his explanation to the Phil. Mag. on the same day that he wrote to Tyndall.
Please cite as “Tyndall0570,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on 28 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/tyndall/letters/Tyndall0570