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Not recommended for publication in Philosophical Transactions and feels some difficulty in expressing an opinion as to the value of the paper. The time is almost past in this branch of metallurgy for a paper so vague as this in its aims, results, and use of known theory. Regards this as a preliminary paper for the 'Proceedings', it has some value.

Discusses some points that should be attended to before publication. Explains why the upper curve of diagram one should not be called a 'cooling curve'. For the lower curve he can find no account in the paper of the values of the experiments by which this curve was determined and no clear explanation of the meaning of the curve. Seeks clarification on a point on page four regarding whether it is the aluminium rich part of the alloy which is attacked and destroyed. Asks if at the bottom of page five Neville and Heycock mean 'saturated liquid solution'. The authors leave many of their photographs without any reference or description. Neville thinks photographs without careful explanation and discussion are useless. Thinks photographs two and six, which appear to indicate a recrystallisation of the solid chilled alloy during annealing, might be described and published, as well as numbers nine, twelve and fourteen which show another kind of recrystallisation. Figures fifteen to eighteen do not give any information of value. Presumes the Society would leave it to the authors to select the photographs, provided only one plate was needed.

Thinks the authors are very far from having proved the results of what they say on the last page of their paper, but have obtained results which give the hope that this group of alloys, when more minutely studied, will be brought into line with others that are already understood.

[Published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1903].

Endorsed on verso as received 2 July 1903.

Reference number
RR/16/2
Earliest possible date
01 July 1903
Physical description
Letter on paper
Page extent
4 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

Francis Henry Neville

View page for Francis Henry Neville

Use this record

Citation

Francis Henry Neville, Referee's report by Francis Henry Neville, on a paper 'The properties of Aluminium-Tin alloys' by W Carrick Anderson and George Lean, 01 July 1903, RR/16/2, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_16_2/referees-report-by-francis-henry-neville-on-a-paper-the-properties-of-aluminium-tin-alloys-by-w-carrick-anderson-and-george-lean, accessed on 27 May 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_16_2/referees-report-by-francis-henry-neville-on-a-paper-the-properties-of-aluminium-tin-alloys-by-w-carrick-anderson-and-george-lean" title="Referee's report by Francis Henry Neville, on a paper 'The properties of Aluminium-Tin alloys' by W Carrick Anderson and George Lean" 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