|Title||Second referee's report by Harold Bailey Dixon, on a paper 'Chemical dynamics and statics in light' by Meyer Wilderman|
|Date||19 April 1902|
|Description||Sectional Committee: not stated.|
His opinion is not altered that there is some good work in the paper but that it is very difficult to follow, and there are many points where it could be improved. Without the original paper Dixon fears he cannot go into detail again. He will just refer to two of the 'answers' given by the author. Regarding page 72, his criticism was meant to refer to the assumption that light chemically alters chlorine when it is not mixed with CO or H2. Hedid not mean to affirm that light is not absorbed by chlorine. The point is whether any proof has been adduced that it is altered chemically. This has been a classical dispute with Draper affirming and Roscoe and Bunsen denying. He has not the least doubt that the chemical potential of Oxygen is altered by heating it by one degree but they do not normally say that Oxygen is 'chemically' altered by this process. In several cases hr thinks the author argues in a circle. He suggests that the author should give an analysis of the gases employed in his experiments. Wilderman replied that the regularity of his curves proves that the gases must be pure; that is he argues back from his result before he has proved it.
Concludes by noting that he does not wish to have any personal communication with Wilderman as he has previously done so and found him very 'difficile'.
[Published in Philosophical Transactions A, 1902].
Endorsed on recto as received 21 April 1902.
|Physical description||Letter on paper|
|Related material||DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1902.0017|
|Related records in the catalogue||RR/15/398|
Fellows associated with this archive
|NA8203||Dixon; Harold Baily (1852 - 1930)||1852 - 1930|