Letter | Published:

The Viscous Motion of Ice

Nature volume 49, page 173 | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Is not Sir H. Howorth wrong in assuming that there is no transmission of hydrostatic pressure in ice? Certainly Forbes was of opinion that such transmission existed, and was necessary to explain the remarkable parallelism between the motion of ice and of viscous fluids. It is a question of scale. Even a cup of treacle will not flatten out indefinitely; still less will a barrel of pitch; but I have no doubt a cubic mile of ice would flatten out, but to what extent is a question for calculation, not for dogmatic assertion. Unfortunately the first requisite of such calculations is wanting, as no determination of the coefficient of viscosity exists. Canon Moseley's experiments are clearly out of court, and in the interesting experiments of Mr. Coutts Trotter in 1883, the length of the portion of ice which took part in the shearing motion is not given.

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. 19 The Boltons, S.W. December 12.

    • JOHN TENNANT

Authors

  1. Search for JOHN TENNANT in:

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/049173b0

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.