3 SET 86 OXFORD ON THE INAPPLICABILITY OF ADOPTED THEORIES ON METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA. In various papers in support of my claim for an investigation of the theory I have so long endeavoured to advance, I have especially dwelt on its ready application on all points, and asserted the inapplicability and insufficiency of every other known theory on these subjects. This broad assertion has doubtless been set down as egotistic folly; and, as it would have been useless to refer to anonymous works on Meteorology, I have been compelled to an unpleasant and invidious course to prove my case. About twelve months since, I ventured to show the insufficiency of the theory on the formation of clouds, &c., as given in Professor Tyndall's "Forms of Water in Clouds and Rivers, Ice and Glaciers." I will now call attention to a little work published since that__time," Physical Geography," by Professor Geikie, (one of the Science Primers in course of publication from time to time by Macmillan and Co.) It is true that this work is only intended for young beginners in science, but on that account the theory adopted should be given in the plainest and most unmistakable manner; and, as it is one of a series connected with the names of Professors Huxley, Roscoe, and Balfour Stewart, it may be fairly considered as showing the opinions of the author and those of his class,—or, in other words, the opinion of leaders in science at the present time,—on the subject to which the work relates. In paragraph 77, the question as to the cause of evaporation is easily got over on the theory that the air drinks the water up. This seems a revival of, or at least in accordance with, the theory which was old even in the early part of the present century; this was, that the air takes up water just as water will dissolve and take up sugar or salt. But it may be borne in mind that the specific gravity of these three articles differs but little, whereas water is about 860 times heavier than the air at the sea level; the theory is directly opposed to the fact, that evaporation is the most rapid from water when the air is removed from its surface by the help of an air-pump; and I hold that the theory is altogether inapplicable to meteorological phenomena in general. In the 73rd and other paragraphs, it is distinctly asserted that invisible vapour and visible vapour differ materially; that in the latter form the particles are water, but in the former aqueous vapour (a term I cannot understand), which on condensation becomes water and thus visible. Now I hold this to be an assertion without proof, and that the visibility or invisibility of vapour arises from the approximation or diffusion of the particles; or, if otherwise, under what condition and temperature does the formation and condensation of invisible vapour take place? The freezing of water is from its losing a certain amount of heat when at the freezing temperature, and the melting of ice arises from the reverse of these conditions; but, as regards this theory on vapour, we have the strange anomaly that invisible evaporation will go on from ice below the freezing temperature, and condensation, in the formation of clouds, during very hot weather and under the direct effects of summer sunshine. Again, in the discharge of steam from a locomotive engine we see the formation of a dense cloud; this is visible vapour, which soon becomes invisible. How are we to account for this? Is it from the particles being annihilated ? Are they rendered invisible from a more complete condensation? or is it, as I hold, from the diffusion of the particles? As regards the cause of Rain and allied phenomena, this theory of the drinking up of water into the air affords no explanation, and I take the following as an example:-In hot and dry seasons, enormous clouds will at times pass without the fall of a drop of rain. This surely cannot be accounted for in accordance with the theory. There is the water, tons and tons of it, each particle being from 900 to 1000 times heavier than the medium it is floating in; and yet the passing of such a cloud does not increase the barometric pressure. Can this be explained in accordance with this theory of the absorbing or drinking up of water into the atmosphere? or does it not show that each particle of this water (visible vapour) must be buoyed up by some agency with which it occupies a space equal to its own weight? The fact, that such a cloud could hardly pass over without rain, except with a dry and non-conducting condition of the atmosphere, whereas at times, with a wet state of the air, almost every filmlike cloud will pour down rain,--seems to show, that, in accordance with my own views, electricity is the great agent in the support of vapour. I trust I may not be considered presumptuous in what I herein advance. My only object has been to show the insufficiency of an existing theory, which I believe has been adopted from past times without consideration of its merits; and I have only acted on the principle of doing as I would be done by; as a like but full examination of the theory I advance, is all I ask or have asked for. Oxford, Jan. 22nd, 1877. G. A. ROWELL. AN ENDEAVOUR TO SHOW THE GENERAL AGENCY OF ELECTRICITY IN THE CAUSE OF RAIN AND ITS ALLIED PHENOMENA WITH AN APPEAL FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE THEORY ADVANCED. BY G. A. ROWELL, Honorary Member of the Ashmolean Society; Assistant in the Oxford University Museum ; Author of 'An Essay on the Beneficent Distribution of the Sense of Pain,' &c. TO THE READER. FOR reasons alluded to in the first two paragraphs of the following paper it was intended in this pamphlet to show the bearing of my meteorological theory on all points and subjects to which it relates; but from the task being heavier than anticipated, and to avoid delay, I have restricted it to the cause of rain and allied phenomena, and as such I respectfully submit it for consideration. Still I hope to do the like as regards the cause of storms, the Aurora Polaris, and some points of Terrestrial Magnetism; but for the present I can only refer to some of my papers on these subjects. See the Appendix. As my object in this publication is to court discussion on the merits of the theory, I shall be thankful for remarks upon it either adverse or otherwise, as, quoting from an earlier paper, 'I am anxious that the theory should be tested while I still live. Then if it fails there will be an end to it, and it must follow the many which have preceded it. If it is deficient, I may amend it. But if it will bear the test of investigation, I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the study of my life has not been altogether in vain, and that I have added my mite to the general stock of human knowledge.' Dec. 1880. G. A. ROWELL. PAGE 5 oererer 5-9. Necessity for showing the insufficiency of previous theories Visibility and invisibility of vapour, simply the effects of approxi- mation or diffusion of particles. No change in molecules of water from heat, except in the increase of their coatings of Positive and Negative electricities, simply Plus and Minus General diffusion of electricity. Evaporation from the surface of Electricity occupies space Electricity coats the surface of bodies and renders them buoyant 19-28. Superheated metals do not burn from a like cause Enormous proportion of surface to bulk in small bodies as com- Charging a body with electricity increases evaporation Electricity goes off with vapour in evaporation 33-38. Discovery of the electricity of steam, and experiments in con- Friction assigned as the cause of the electricity of steam The author's views on the subject. Electricity the expansive force The author's theory, i. e. that the minute particles of water, as vapour, are buoyed up into the air by the electric coatings which they take up in accordance with their temperature Properties of electricity which support that view. Dr. Wells's theory on the deposit of dew 22-23 61-63. Phenomena of boiling water. Temperature of boiling water |