Forbes to Sherrington - 26 May 1916 (I-2-93 (v))- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From: Alexander ForbesSent To (Definite): Sir Charles Scott SherringtonDate: 26 May 1916
- Current Holder(s)
-
encourages C.S.S. to publish notes on factory work, thanks for appreciation of work with Gregg, originality of 'gradation by virtue of frequency idea', correction re: C.S.S.'s interpretation of paper (mechanical v's electrical response), Garten v's Du Bois Raymond, taking up experiment suggested by C.S.S., repeat of report of self-experimentation (previous) - significance of results, rationale for wireless war research and collaboration with Harvard physics department, Chaffee's work there and collaboration wioth Cambridge, potential relevance to physiological research, enrolment on Naval training, coming military parade,
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
-
-
Related toEdgar Douglas Adrian
Description:'I wonder if you received a letter I sent during the winter enclosing prints from my records showing the effect of chilling the whole forearm in ice water upon the electromyogram taken from a muscle in the hand. We found this local change of temperature produced a marked slowing of rhythm, thus supporting Miss Buchanan's findings in the frog, and proving, I think, that Piper's 50 per sec rhythm is not that of central discharge along the motor nerve. Furthermore, why should a nerve fibre have a refractory period of about 10[?] if it is only called on in the performance of its normal function to transmit an impulse once every 200 or so? As soon as I can find time to write it I mean to publish this observation together with a discussion answering Piper's objection to Miss Buchanan's view, by making use of some of Adrian's and Lucas's principles.'
-
Related toFlorence Buchanan
Description:'I wonder if you received a letter I sent during the winter enclosing prints from my records showing the effect of chilling the whole forearm in ice water upon the electromyogram taken from a muscle in the hand. We found this local change of temperature produced a marked slowing of rhythm, thus supporting Miss Buchanan's findings in the frog, and proving, I think, that Piper's 50 per sec rhythm is not that of central discharge along the motor nerve. Furthermore, why should a nerve fibre have a refractory period of about 10[?] if it is only called on in the performance of its normal function to transmit an impulse once every 200 or so? As soon as I can find time to write it I mean to publish this observation together with a discussion answering Piper's objection to Miss Buchanan's view, by making use of some of Adrian's and Lucas's principles.'
-
-
-
-
-
-
Related toKeith Lucas
Description:'I wonder if you received a letter I sent during the winter enclosing prints from my records showing the effect of chilling the whole forearm in ice water upon the electromyogram taken from a muscle in the hand. We found this local change of temperature produced a marked slowing of rhythm, thus supporting Miss Buchanan's findings in the frog, and proving, I think, that Piper's 50 per sec rhythm is not that of central discharge along the motor nerve. Furthermore, why should a nerve fibre have a refractory period of about 10[?] if it is only called on in the performance of its normal function to transmit an impulse once every 200 or so? As soon as I can find time to write it I mean to publish this observation together with a discussion answering Piper's objection to Miss Buchanan's view, by making use of some of Adrian's and Lucas's principles.'
-
Related toHans Piper
Description:'I wonder if you received a letter I sent during the winter enclosing prints from my records showing the effect of chilling the whole forearm in ice water upon the electromyogram taken from a muscle in the hand. We found this local change of temperature produced a marked slowing of rhythm, thus supporting Miss Buchanan's findings in the frog, and proving, I think, that Piper's 50 per sec rhythm is not that of central discharge along the motor nerve. Furthermore, why should a nerve fibre have a refractory period of about 10[?] if it is only called on in the performance of its normal function to transmit an impulse once every 200 or so? As soon as I can find time to write it I mean to publish this observation together with a discussion answering Piper's objection to Miss Buchanan's view, by making use of some of Adrian's and Lucas's principles.'
-
-
-
