Reed this paper for publication in Philosophical Transactions. Miller called it
Reed this paper for publication in Philosophical Transactions. Miller called it `a large and essential addition for the LED209 chemical information understanding of diamagnetism’. Thomson was not so convinced, writing: …there is certainly so much of vital and curious experimental investigation in it…as to completely entitle to a location within the Transactions… Nonetheless I feel that…Mr Tyndall is often contending against an imaginary adversary…Feilitsch (sic) “theory” is founded on a mistake…all Mr Tyndall’s experiments and views are in ideal accordance with those indicated by Faraday in the beginning and advocated by252 253Tyndall, Journal, 3 October 854. See also note 388. Tyndall, Journal, 2 November 854. The manuscript has modest textual variations towards the published paper and stops abruptly close to the end of p6 `…to the line which united them. The magnet getting…’, RS PT50. 255 Faraday to Tyndall, November 854 (Letter 292 in F. A. J. L. James (note 56)). 256 Tyndall, Journal, 2 December 854. 257 Tyndall, Journal, December 854. 258 Tyndall, Journal, 20 December 854. 259 J. Tyndall, `On the Nature in the Force by Which Bodies Are Repelled in the Poles of a Magnet; to That is Prefixed, an Account of Some Experiments on Molecular Influences’, Philosophical Transactions in the Royal Society of London (855), 45, . See also RI MS JT 457. 260 Tyndall, Journal, 25 January 855. 26 Tyndall to Hirst, 29 January 855, RI MS JTT592. 262 Miller, six April 855, RS RR2252. 263 Thomson to Stokes, undated, RS RR2253.John Tyndall plus the Early History of Diamagnetismmyself as early as 846…The genuine query is “are the phenomena presented by diamagnetics to be explained by a contrary magnetic action to that of soft iron, or by a less magnetization that that on the medium (air or luminiferous ether) surrounding them”. Thomson wrote that he would wish for some modification to be produced `in the controversial component on the communication’ but `should Mr Tyndall be disposed to make no alter, I should really advise its publication because it stands’. Within this paper, published as the `Fourth Memoir’ in Researches on Diamagnetism and Magnecrystallic Action, Tyndall set out his view with the value of structure, `Indeed it may be safely asserted that every single force which makes matter its automobile of transmission have to be influenced by the manner in which the particles are grouped together…regardless of whether we take the old hypothesis of imponderables or PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9727088 the new, and much more philosophic one, of modes of motion’, and described inside the first element in the paper his experiments around the influence of the molecular structure of wood upon its magnetic deportment. His view on polarity can also be stated `The magnetic 
force, we know, embraces both attraction and repulsion, thus exhibiting that fantastic dual action which we are accustomed to denote by the term polarity’. Detailed experiments are reported around the movement of bars and spheres of distinctive substances, diamagnetic and paramagnetic, when placed involving pointed poles, either straight in line involving the poles or above or beneath them, exploring no matter whether the bars or the crystallographic axes (or axes of compression) of spheres set axially or equatorially. The clear conclusion is the fact that the position taken up by spheres depends upon molecular structure, although a further action comes into play with elongated bars, as a result of magnetic force, or couple, around the finish with the bar, which can overcome the effect of structure. In all circumstances diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances behave as complet.
