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

Not recommended for publication in the Philosophical Transactions. Thinks the paper is more suitable for 'Electrical Engineers'. It illustrates with a great wealth of detail, well known precautions required in ballistic testing of iron. There do not appear to be any new theoretical points of importance.

[Not published]

Endorsed on verso as received 12 January 1904.

Reference number
RR/16/107
Earliest possible date
January 1904
Physical description
Standardised form (type A)
Page extent
2 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

Hugh Longbourne Callendar

View page for Hugh Longbourne Callendar

Use this record

Citation

Hugh Longbourne Callendar, Referee's report by Hugh Longbourne Callendar, on a paper 'Studies in magnetic testing' by George Frederick Charles Searle, January 1904, RR/16/107, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_16_107/referees-report-by-hugh-longbourne-callendar-on-a-paper-studies-in-magnetic-testing-by-george-frederick-charles-searle, accessed on 08 February 2025

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_16_107/referees-report-by-hugh-longbourne-callendar-on-a-paper-studies-in-magnetic-testing-by-george-frederick-charles-searle" title="Referee's report by Hugh Longbourne Callendar, on a paper 'Studies in magnetic testing' by George Frederick Charles Searle" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1954

    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