Letter | Published:

Floating Radiometers

Nature volume 13, page 511 | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

IN Mr. Crookes' paper reported in NATURE, vol. xiii. p. 489, occur the following words: “The envelope turned very slowly a few degrees in one direction, then stopped and turned a few degrees the opposite way.” Assuming that this is rightly reported, it is inexplicable to me how Mr. Crookes could have written it. For, as the lawyers say, it is “void from ambiguity.” The whole question between Mr. Crookes and Dr. Schuster appears to me to turn on the one point ignored by the former. When the rotation of the envelope began, in which direction was the first oscillation? To say that the envelope first turned in one direction and then in the other is simply to say that it oscillated, which, while it is a shorter mode of expressing the same thing, is an equally useless expression. The very nerve of the problem lies in the point omitted. If the first oscillation of the envelope was in the direction opposite to that of the mill, it is surely incontestable that the kick, which caused it, could not be the effect of any external force acting on the discs only.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Valentines, Ilford

    • C. M. INGLEBY

Authors

  1. Search for C. M. INGLEBY in:

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/013511a0

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.