Marlboro House1 | 17th Nov/54
My dear Sir
The Revd Mr Thomson,2 a Scotch clergyman, will deliver to you this note.
He is about to take out a patent for certain appliances of a law depending upon the elasticity of fluids in pipes, and he is desirous to ascertain from you as a matter of professional advice whether his views are scientifically correct or whether there lurks some fallacy in them which would vitiate his applications as well the presumed Scientific result which he hopes to have attained.
Not possessing that knowledge of physics which would entitle me to express an opinion on his views, I have recommended him to endeavour to obtain your consideration of the subject, although I am not aware whether you do give professional opinions.
Mr Thompson is a most worthy member of the free Church of Scotland & a man of Scientific acquirements, and as his presumed discovery if Established will lead to very important practical results, it would be a great kindness to him & a favour to me, if you were to give this subject a professional consideration, if your time at all Enables you to do so.
Yours truly | Lyon Playfair
Dr Tyndall FRS. | Royal Institution
RI MS JT/1/P/114
RI MS JT/1/TYP3/979
Marlboro House: Marlborough House (see letter 0784, n. 12).
Revd Mr Thomson: not identified. Tyndall noted meeting the clergyman after being introduced by Playfair in his journal entry of 23 November 1854; he noted that they discussed Thomson’s ideas on perpetual motion, but that after meeting with him for one hour and a half, ‘He gave up perpetual motion but holds to another consequence equally absurd’ (Journal, JT/2/13b/699).
Please cite as “Tyndall1004,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on