The Royal Society | Burlington House, London. W. | 13th Jan[uar]ry 1865
My dear Tyndall,
I have put on your short paper1 for Thursday.
It would of course be extremely interesting to see the experiment at the evening meeting,2 but we must consult your convenience about that. Perhaps you could show it when you present your paper.
I am glad you have changed the term, which I don’t think was quite correct. For if
Calorescence = - Fluorescence3
we ought to have
- Calorescence4 = Fluorescence
Now I have little doubt that a miraculous concentration of blue rays would heat a solid till it became red hot. But this which would be strictly negative calorescence is not a little different from fluorescence, where blue rays of very moderate concentration cause a cold body, suppose an alcoholic solution of chlorophyll, to give out red light.
Yours very truly | G. G. Stokes
RI MS JT/1/S/239
RI MS JT/1/TYP/4/1398
your short paper: This is most likely a reference to J. Tyndall, ‘Note on the Invisible Radiation of the Electric Light’, Roy. Soc. Proc., 14 (1865). pp. 33–5, which was received on 13 January 1865. It was presumably read/demonstrated at the RS on 19 January, a Thursday. See Ascent of John Tyndall, p. 185–6.
It would of course… at the evening meeting: Tyndall did demonstrate this experiment. See the introductory essay to this volume; and Ascent of John Tyndall, pp. 185–6.
- Fluorescence: negative fluorescence.
- Calorescence: negative calorescence.
Please cite as “Tyndall2215,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on