Ty on 26 January, and he showed some experiments afterwards within the
Ty on 26 January, and he showed some experiments afterwards within the library, commenting `They all seemed amused in the manner in which I have “demolished Forbes” as they express it. It is actually just what he would like to do himself!’ (Tyndall, Journal, 26 January 854). The paper for Philosophical Transactions was refereed by Wheatstone (C. Wheatstone, 9 February 854, RR2250) and Grove (C. Grove, 5 February 854, RR225). Wheatstone noted `Dr Tyndall’s memoir derives its entire value from its refutation of a theory subsequently advanced by Prof. James Forbes…’. Grove, perhaps presciently for some of Tyndall’s later altercations, such as with Forbes, remarked that `some inconvenience may well result from the introduction in to the Phil Trans of a paper of a controversial character…Dr Tyndall’s objects…equally nicely effected by communicating the experiments towards the Phil Magazine or perhaps a related journal of 
science’.Roland JacksonTyndall now had access to Faraday’s big electromagnet, and on eight October he located perplexing final results which nevertheless `will throw some light upon the relation of magnetism and diamagnetism’.22 The following day he noted that in gypsum the line which set from pole to pole could be the line of quickest transmission of heat, which contradicted his conclusion deduced from diamagnetism experiments that the line of greatest density would be the line of greatest heat conductibility, so `in the case of gypsum the line of least density would be the line of finest conductibility or my statements concerning magnetic action usually are not universally true’, but `It does not seem improbable that using a pretty bad conductor the line of closest proximity may well be that of worst conduction’.23 This would `open entirely new views around the nature of conduction, and it will at the very same time corroborate all I have heretofore stated of magnetic action’. He talked with Faraday about diamagnetic polarity on 30 November, even though the substance with the is just not recorded.24 On 4 November Tyndall heard from Bence Jones that he was the elected candidate for any Royal Medal, against Hofmann,25 Frankland, Cayley26 and Sylvester, as well as heard of the political dealing which had resulted within this ZL006 manufacturer outcome; J P Gassiot27 having proposed him and Charles Brooke seconded, `for his paper `On Diamagnetism and Magnecrystallic Action’, published within the Philosophical Magazine for 85′.28 A letter from Gassiot on 9 November indicated that Gassiot had proposed him to get a discovery which he thought of would assistance solve `the accurate cause of the variation with the magnetic needle’.29 But matters became complicated, as Gassiot, immediately after speaking with Faraday, told Tyndall that there have been objections; individuals `say that my investigations had been partly conducted in conjunction with Knoblauch and partly inside the private cabinet of Prof. Magnus in Berlin, and add anything relating to Pl ker’s priority PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20118028 which I usually do not understand’.220 Tyndall, soon after consultation with Faraday and Gassiot, determined not to accept this singular honour, the only time in its history in which a medal has been awarded and not presented.five. Tyndall’s second phase of work Faraday gave a Friday Evening Discourse on 9 June 854 `On Magnetic Hypotheses’,222 in which he especially took problem with atomic and molecular theories22Tyndall, Journal, eight October 853. Tyndall, Journal, 9 October 853. 24 Tyndall, Journal, 30 November 853. 25 August Wilhelm von Hofmann (88892) studied with Liebig in Giessen, and became professor and director with the Royal College of Chemistry on its establi.
