﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://catalogues.royalsociety.org:443/CalmView/record/catalog/RR/44/25" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <dc:title>Second referee's report by Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, on a paper 'The resistivity of polycrystalline wires in relation to plastic deformation, and the mechanism of plastic flow' by Edward Neville Da Costa Andrade and Bruce Chalmers</dc:title>
  <dc:description>Sectional committee: Physics

If he misunderstood the last paper, he is misunderstanding the reply too. Their reply is directed to criticisms that he did not make. Their explanations may be correct as a qualitatively, but their attempt to put it into a quantitative form is 'so unsound as to be of very little value'. 

[Published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 1932].

Endorsed on verso as received 2 April 1932.</dc:description>
  <dc:date>April 1932</dc:date>
</rdf:Description>