Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Sectional committee: Physics and chemistry

Recommended for publication in Philosophical Transactions but it is much too long in its present form. The first 31 pages might be omitted with advantage with the exceptions of page six and 24-28, also from the last paragraph of page 40 to the top of page 42. Pages 44 to 53 are largely taken up with descriptions of methods that were superseded by others and might be much shorter. The elaborate tables of numerical results might be replaced with average results with specimens of the direct experimental readings sufficient to show the exact nature of the observations made. Figures one to three belong to the part of the paper that he thinks should be omitted. Figures four and five do not require engraving but could be reproduced with brass-rules and braces. Does not think the following figures are needed; seven, nine, 12, 13, 16, 17 or 18. Figures 11 and 14 are not needed. The curves expressing the experimental results should be given but 'No. IX' is very long and might be compressed. The paper embodies much well-directed labour and he regards it as a valuable contribution to the knowledge of its subject, but it is written too elaborately and over loaded with detail. The style of composition and illustrations would be more in place in the 'Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers'. Provides a list of grammatical and punctuation errors with page references.
Does not think the paper can be re-edited by scissions alone. The author probably attaches importance to the professed proof on page seven, that the idea of a negative resistance is not unreasonable. The proof rests on an imaginary experimental result and therefore this part of the paper is not essential.

[Published in Philosophical Transactions A, 1904].

Endorsed on verso as received 15 August 1901.

Reference number
RR/15/178
Earliest possible date
12 August 1901
Physical description
Standardised form (type A)
Page extent
4 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

George Carey Foster

View page for George Carey Foster

Use this record

Citation

George Carey Foster, Referee's report by George Carey Foster, on a paper 'The resistive and electromotive forces of the electric arc' by William Duddell, 12 August 1901, RR/15/178, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_15_178/referees-report-by-george-carey-foster-on-a-paper-the-resistive-and-electromotive-forces-of-the-electric-arc-by-william-duddell, accessed on 16 April 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_15_178/referees-report-by-george-carey-foster-on-a-paper-the-resistive-and-electromotive-forces-of-the-electric-arc-by-william-duddell" title="Referee's report by George Carey Foster, on a paper 'The resistive and electromotive forces of the electric arc' by William Duddell" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Publications

Related Fellows

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1949

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection