If a 40 degree cellar could be found and be filled with potatoes, the temperature would at once begin to rise, and the later in the season, the faster it would go up. I repeat that a cellar filled with potatoes will have a much higher temperature than the same cellar would have if empty. This I have learned as Nimbus learned tobacco growing—"by 'sposure." I hope I won't be asked "why." I don't know. The reason is unimportant. The remedy is the thing. The only help for it that I know of is to give the cellar plenty of ventilation, put the potatoes in as clean as possible, and then shovel them over every month or two. This will keep the sprouting tendency in check very largely; but it won't make it practicable to begin storing potatoes in July or cause them to keep in good flavor till June.

Several years ago I placed some barrels of early Ohio potatoes in the Kansas City cold storage warehouses from March till July. They were kept in a temperature of 38 degrees, and came out crisp and very little sprouted. The plan of this structure was very simple: a three-story brick building so lined with matched lumber and tarred paper as to make three air-spaces around the wall. In the top story was a great bulk of ice, which was freely accessible to the air that, when cooled, passed through ducts to the different "cool rooms." The results were satisfactory, but the system seemed too expensive for potatoes. I have wondered whether it was necessary for potatoes to be kept as cold as 38 degrees. Would not a current of air passing through pipes showered with well water keep them cold enough? Wine vaults, I believe, are sometimes cooled by air currents forced through a cold water spray. If the air blast of well water temperature would be sufficient, the apparatus for producing it would be comparatively inexpensive—or at least much cheaper than those plans of cold storage where ice is stored in quantity over the cool room. However, any process that could be devised would probably be unprofitable to the small cropper, and the larger the business done, the less the cost per bushel. If it should be found that individual operators could not reach such an improvement on a profitable scale, why could not several of them pool their issues sufficiently to build, jointly, a potato elevator? There are at least 50,000 bushels of potatoes held in store by farmers within three miles of where I live. It seems to me there would be many advantages and economies in having that large stock under one roof, one insurance, one management; on a side track where they could be loaded in any weather or state of the roads, besides the great item that the temperature could be controlled, by artificial means, in one large building much cheaper than in several small ones. EDWIN TAYLOR. Edwardsville, Kans.

* * * * *

[KNOWLEDGE.]



A FIVEFOLD COMET.

The figure illustrating this article is taken from L'Astronomie, and represents the remarkable southern comet of January, 1887, as drawn on successive days by Mr. Finlay, of Cape Town.

The comet was first seen by a farmer and a fisherman of Blauwberg, near Cape Town, on the night of January 18-19. The same night it was seen at the Cordoba Observatory by M. Thome. On the next Mr. Todd discovered it independently at the Adelaide Observatory, and watched it till the 27th. On the 22d Mr. Finlay detected the comet, and was able to watch it till the 29th. At Rio de Janeiro M. Cruls observed it from the 23d to the 25th; and at Windsor, New South Wales, Mr. Tebbutt observed the comet on the 28th and 30th. Moonlight interfered with further observations.

The comet's appearance was remarkable. Its tail, long and straight, extended over an arc of 30 degrees, but there was no appreciable condensation which could be called the comet's head. The long train of light, described as nearly equal in brightness to the Magellanic clouds, seemed to be simply cut off at that end where in most comets a nucleus and coma are shown.

This comet has helped to throw light on one of the most perplexing puzzles which those most perplexing of all the heavenly bodies, comets, have presented to astronomers.

In the year 1668 a comet was seen in the southern skies which attracted very little notice at the time, and would probably have been little thought of since had not attention been directed to it by the appearance and behavior of certain comets seen during the last half century. Visible for about three weeks, and discovered after it had already passed the point of its nearest approach to the sun, the comet of 1668 was not observed so satisfactorily that its orbit could be precisely determined. In fact, two entirely different orbits would satisfy the observations fairly, though one only could be regarded as satisfying them well.

This orbit, however, was so remarkable that astronomers were led to prefer the other, less satisfactory though it was, in explaining the observed motions of the comet. For the orbit which best explained the comet's movements carried the comet so close to the sun as actually to graze his visible surface.

Moreover, there was this remarkable, and, indeed, absolutely unique peculiarity about the orbit thus assigned: the comet (whose period of revolution was to be measured by hundreds of years) actually passed through the whole of that part of its course during which it was north of our earth's orbit plane in less than two hours and a half! though this part of its course is a half circuit around the sun, so far as direction (not distance of travel) is concerned. That comet, when at its nearest to the sun, was traveling at the rate of about 330 miles per second. It passed through regions near the sun's surface commonly supposed to be occupied by atmospheric matter.

Now, had the comet been so far checked in its swift rush through those regions as to lose one thousandth part of its velocity, it would have returned in less than a year. But the way in which the comet retreated showed that nothing of this sort was to be expected. I am not aware, indeed, that any anticipations were ever suggested in regard to the return of the comet of 1668 to our neighborhood. It was not till the time of Halley's comet, 1682, that modern astronomy began to consider the question of the possibly periodic character of cometic motions with attention. (For my own part, I reject as altogether improbable the statement of Seneca that the ancient Chaldean astronomers could calculate the return of comets.) The comet of 1680, called Newton's, was the very first whose orbital motions were dealt with on the principles of Newtonian astronomy, and Halley's was the first whose periodic character was recognized.

In 1843 another comet came up from the south, and presently returned thither. It was, indeed, only seen during its return, having, like the comet of 1668, been only discovered a day or two after perihelion passage. Astronomers soon began to notice a curious resemblance between the orbits of the two comets. Remembering the comparative roughness of the observations made in 1668, it may be said that the two comets moved in the same orbit, so far as could be judged from observation. The comet of 1843 came along a path inclined at apparently the same angle to the earth's orbit plane, crossed that plane ascendingly at appreciably the same point, swept round in about two hours and a half that part of its angular circuit which lay north of the earth's orbit plane, and, crossing that plane descendingly at the same point as the comet of 1668, passed along appreciably the same course toward the southern stellar regions! The close resemblance of two paths, each so strikingly remarkable in itself, could not well be regarded as a mere accidental coincidence.



However, at that time no very special attention was directed to the resemblance between the paths of the comets of 1843 and 1668. It was not regarded as anything very new or striking that a comet should return after making a wide excursion round the sun; and those who noticed that the two comets really had traversed appreciably the same path around the immediate neighborhood of the sun, simply concluded that the comet of 1668 had come back in 1843, after 175 years, and not necessarily for the first time.

It must be noticed, however, before leaving this part of the record, that the comet of 1843 was suspected of behaving in a rather strange way when near the sun. For the first observation, made rather roughly, indeed, with a sextant, by a man who had no idea of the interest his observation might afterward have, could not be reconciled by mathematicians (including the well-known mathematician, Benjamin Pierce) with the movement of the comet as subsequently observed. It seemed as though when in the sun's neighborhood the comet had undergone some disturbance, possibly internal, which had in slight degree affected its subsequent career.

According to some calculations, the comet of 1843 seemed to have a period of about thirty-five years, which accorded well with the idea that it was the comet of 1668, returned after five circuits. Nor was it deemed at all surprising that the comet, conspicuous though it is, had not been detected in 1713, 1748, 1783, and 1818, for its path would carry it where it would be very apt to escape notice except in the southern hemisphere, and even there it might quite readily be missed. The appearance of the comet of 1668 corresponded well with that of the comet of 1843. Each was remarkable for its extremely long tail and for the comparative insignificance of its head. In the northern skies, indeed, the comet of 1843 showed a very straight tail, and it is usually depicted in that way, whereas the comet of 1668 had a tail showing curvature. But pictures of the comet of 1843, as seen in the southern hemisphere, show it with a curved tail, and also the tail appeared forked toward the end during that part of the comet's career.

However, the best observations, and the calculations based on them, seemed to show that the period of the comet of 1843 could not be less than 500 years.

Astronomers were rather startled, therefore, when, in 1880, a comet appeared in the southern skies which traversed appreciably the same course as the comets of 1668 and 1843. When I was in Australia, in 1880, a few months after the great comet had passed out of view, I met several persons who had seen both the comet of that year and the comet of 1843. They all agreed in saying that the resemblance between the two comets was very close. Like the comet of 1843, that of 1880 had a singularly long tail, and both comets were remarkable for the smallness and dimness of their heads. One observer told me that at times the head of the comet of 1880 could barely be discerned.

Like the comets of 1668 and 1843, the comet of 1880 grazed close past the sun's surface. Like them, it was but about two hours and a half north of the earth's orbit place. Had it only resembled the other two in these remarkable characteristics, the coincidence would have been remarkable. But of course the real evidence by which the association between the comets was shown was of a more decisive kind. It was not in general character only, but in details, that the path of the comet of 1880 resembled those on which the other two comets had traveled. Its path had almost exactly the same slant to the earth's orbit plane as theirs, crossed that plane ascendingly and descendingly at almost exactly the same points, and made its nearest approach to the sun at very nearly the same place. To the astronomer such evidence is decisive. Mr. Hind, the superintendent of the "Nautical Almanac," and as sound and cautious a student of cometic astronomy as any man living, remarked, so soon as the resemblance of these comets' paths had been ascertained, that if it were merely accidental, the case was most unusual; nay, it might be described as unique. And, be it noticed, he was referring only to the resemblance between the comets of 1880 and 1843. Had he recalled at the time the comet of 1668, and its closely similar orbit, he would have admitted that the double coincidence could not possibly be merely casual.

But this was by no means the end of the matter. Indeed, thus far, although the circumstances were striking, there was nothing to prevent astronomers from interpreting them as other cases of coincident, or nearly coincident, cometic paths had been interpreted. Hind and others, myself included, inferred that the comets of 1880, 1843, and 1668 were simply one and the same comet, whose return in 1880 probably followed the return in 1843 after a single revolution.

In 1882, however, two years and a half after the appearance of the comet of 1880, another comet came up from the south, which followed in the sun's neighborhood almost the same course as the comets of 1668, 1843, and 1880. The path it followed was not quite so close to those followed by the other three as these had been to each other, but yet was far too close to indicate possibly a mere casual resemblance; on the contrary, the resemblance in regard to shape, slope, and those peculiarities which render this family of comets unique in the cometary system, was of the closest and most striking kind.

Many will remember the startling ideas which were suggested, by Professor Piazzi Smyth respecting the portentous significance of the comet of 1882. He regarded it as confirming the great pyramid's teaching (according to the views of orthodox pyramidalists) respecting the approaching end of the Christian dispensation. It was seen under very remarkable circumstances, blazing close by the sun, within a fortnight or three weeks of the precise date which had been announced as marking that critical epoch in the history of the earth.

Moreover, even viewing the matter from a scientific standpoint, Professor Smyth (who, outside his pyramidal paradoxes, is an astronomer of well deserved repute) could recognize sufficient reason for regarding the comet as portentous.

Many others, indeed, both in America and in Europe, shared his opinion in this respect. A very slight retardation of the course of the comet of 1880, during its passage close by the surface of the sun, would have sufficed to alter its period of revolution from the thirty-seven years assigned on the supposition of its identity with the comet of 1843 to the two and a half years indicated by its apparent return in 1882, and if this had occurred in 1880, a similar interruption in 1832 would have caused its return in less than two and a half years.

Thus, circling in an ever narrowing (or rather shortening) orbit, it would presently, within a quarter of a century or so perhaps, have become so far entangled among the atmospheric matter around the sun that it would have been unable to resist absolute absorption. What the consequences to the solar system might have been, none ventured to suggest. Newton had expressed his belief that the effects of such absorption would be disastrous, but the physicists of the nineteenth century, better acquainted with the laws associating heat and motion, were not so despondent. Only Professor Smyth seems to have felt assured (not being despondent, but confident) that the comet portended, in a very decisive way, the beginning of the end.

However, we were all mistaken. The comet of 1882 retreated on such a course, and with such variation of velocity, as to show that its real period must be measured, not by months, as had been supposed, nor even by years, but by centuries. Probably it will not return till 600 or 700 years have passed. Had this not been proved, we might have been not a little perplexed by the return of apparently the same comet in this present year. A comet was discovered in the south early in January, whose course, dealt with by Professor Kruger, one of the most zealous of our comet calculators, is found to be partially identical with that of the four remarkable comets we have been considering. Astronomers have not been moved by this new visitant on the well-worn track as we were by the arrival of the comet of 1882, or as we should have been if either the comet of 1882 had never been seen or its path had not been shown to be so wide ranging. Whatever the comet of the present year may be, it was not the comet of 1882 returned. No one even supposes that it was the comet of 1880, or 1843, or 1668. Nevertheless, rightly apprehended, the appearance of a comet traveling on appreciably the same track as those four other comets is of extreme interest, and indeed practically decisive as to the interpretation we must place on these repeated coincidences.

Observe, we are absolutely certain that the five comets are associated together in some way; but we are as absolutely certain that they are not one and the same comet which had traveled along the same track and returned after a certain number of circuits. We need not trouble ourselves with the question whether two or more of the comets may not have been in reality one and the same body at different returns. It suffices that they all five were not one; since we deduce precisely the same conclusion whether we regard the five as in reality but four or three or two. But it may be mentioned in passing as appearing altogether more probable, when all the evidence is considered, that there were no fewer than five distinct comets, all traveling on what was practically the selfsame track when in the neighborhood of the sun.

There can be but one interpretation of this remarkable fact—a fact really proved, be it noticed (as I and others have maintained since the retreat of the comet of 1882), independently of the evidence supplied by the great southern comet of the present year. These comets must all originally have been one comet, though now they are distinct bodies. For there is no reasonable way (indeed, no possible way) of imagining the separate formation of two or more comets at different times which should thereafter travel in the same path.

No theory of the origin of comets ever suggested, none even which can be imagined, could account for such a peculiarity. Whereas, on the other hand, we have direct evidence showing how a comet, originally single, may be transformed into two or more comets traveling on the same, or nearly the same, track.

The comet called Biela's, which had circuited as a single comet up to the year 1846 (during a period of unknown duration in the past—probably during millions of years), divided then into two, and has since broken up into so many parts that each cometic fragment is separately undiscernible. The two comets into which Biela's divided, in 1846, were watched long enough to show that had their separate existence continued (visibly), they would have been found, in the fullness of time, traveling at distances very far apart, though on nearly the same orbit. The distance between them, which in 1846 had increased only to about a quarter of a million of miles, had in 1852 increased to five times that space.

Probably a few thousands of years would have sufficed to set these comets so far apart (owing to some slight difference of velocity, initiated at the moment of their separation) that when one would have been at its nearest to the sun, the other would have been at its farthest from him. If we could now discern the separate fragments of the comet, we should doubtless recognize a process in progress by which, in the course of many centuries, the separate cometic bodies will be disseminated all round the common orbit. We know, further, that already such a process has been at work on portions removed from the comet many centuries ago, for as our earth passes through the track of this comet she encounters millions of meteoric bodies which are traveling in the comet's orbit, and once formed part of the substance of a comet doubtless much more distinguished in appearance than Biela's.

There can be little doubt that this is the true explanation of the origin of that family of comets, five of whose members returned to the neighborhood of the sun (possibly their parent) in the years 1668, 1843, 1880, 1882, and 1887.[1]

[Footnote 1: It may be interesting to compare the orbital elements of the five comets above dealt with. They may be presented as follows; but it should be noticed that the determinations must be regarded as rough in the case of Comets I. and V., as the observations were insufficient for exact determination of the elements:

+ -+ + + + - I. II. III. IV. V. + -+ + + + - 1668. 1843. 1880. 1882. 1887. Perih. Passage. Feb. 29 Feb. 27 Jan. 27 Sep. 17 Jan. 11 Log. Per. Dist. 7.6721 7.8395 7.7714 7.8895 8.1644 Long. Per. 80 deg. 15' 73 deg. 30' 46" 74 deg. 11' 13" 55 deg. 37' 29" 89 deg. 41' Long. Node. 357 deg. 17' 355 deg. 46' 48" 356 deg. 17' 4" 346 deg. 1' 27" 359 deg. 41' Inclination. 125 deg. 58' 143 deg. 1' 31" 143 deg. 7' 31" 141 deg. 59' 40" 141 deg. 16' Eccentricity. 0.9999 0.9991 0.9995 0.999 ...... Calculator. Henderson Plantamour Meyer Kreutz Finlay + -+ + + + - ]

But it is not merely as thus explaining what had been a most perplexing problem that I have dealt with the evidence supplied by the practical identity of these five comets' orbits. When once we recognize that this, and this only, can be the explanation of the associated group of five comets, we perceive that very interesting and important light has been thrown on the subject of comets generally. To begin with: what an amazing comet that must have been from which these five, and we know not how many more, were formed by disaggregative processes—probably by the divellent action of repulsive forces exerted by the sun! Those who remember the comets of 1843 and 1882 as they appeared when at their full splendor will be able to imagine how noble an appearance a comet would present which was formed of these combined together in one. But the comet of 1880 was described by all who saw it in the southern hemisphere as most remarkable in appearance, despite the faintness of its head. The great southern comet of the present year was a striking object in the skies, though it showed the same weakness about the head. That of 1668 was probably as remarkable in appearance as even the comet of 1882. A comet formed by combining all these together would certainly surpass in magnificence all the comets ever observed by astronomers.

And then, what enormous periods of time must have been required to distribute the fragments of a single comet so widely that one would be found returning to its perihelion more than two centuries after another! When I spoke of one member of the Biela group being in aphelion when another would be in perihelion, I was speaking of a difference of only three and one-third years in time; and even that would require thousands of years. But the scattered cometic bodies which returned to the sun's neighborhood in 1668 and 1887 speak probably of millions of years which have passed since first this comet was formed. It would be a matter of curious inquiry to determine what may have been the condition of our sun, what even his volume, at that remote epoch in history.

* * * * *



THE ISOLATION OF FLUORINE.

The element fluorine has at last been successfully isolated, and its chief chemical and physical properties determined. Many chemists, notably Faraday, Gore, Pflaunder, and Brauner, have endeavored to prepare this element in the free state, but all attempts have hitherto proved futile. M. Moissau, after a long series of researches with the fluorides of phosphorus, and the highly poisonous arsenic trifluoride, has finally been able to liberate fluorine in the gaseous state from anhydrous hydrofluoric acid by electrolysis. This acid in the pure state is not an electrolyte, but when potassium fluoride is dissolved in it, a current from ninety Bunsen elements decomposes it, evolving hydrogen from the negative and fluoride from the positive electrode.

[Illustration:

(+) (-) _/_ _\_A _/_ _\_A _ _ _ _ __ __ / - // F == == == == H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \__/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - // \_____/

]

The apparatus employed in this process is constructed of platinum, and is made in the form of a U tube, as shown in the accompanying illustration, with fluorspar stoppers, through which the battery terminals, made of platinum iridium alloy, are led. The gas is liberated at about the rate of two liters per hour, and has very powerful chemical properties. It smells somewhat like hypochlorous acid, etches dry glass, and decomposes water, liberating ozone, and forming hydrofluoric acid. The non-metallic elements, with the exception of chlorine, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon, combine directly with it, evolving in most cases both light and heat. It combines with hydrogen, even in the dark, without the addition of any external energy, and converts most metals into their fluorides. Gold and platinum are not attacked in the cold, but when gently heated are easily corroded. Mercury readily dissolves the gas, forming the protochloride; iron wire also completely absorbs the gas, while powdered antimony and lead take fire in it. It is necessary in the electrolysis of the liquid hydrofluoric acid to cool the electrolytic cell by means of methyl chloride to -50 deg. C. Fluorine appears to thus fully confirm the predictions which have been made by chemists concerning its properties. It is by far the, most energetic of all the known elements, and its position in the halogen series is established by its property of not liberating iodine from the iodides of potassium, mercury, and lead, and also of setting free chlorine from potassium chloride. With iodine it appears to form a fluoride. No compound with oxygen has yet been obtained.—Industries.

* * * * *



AN APPARATUS FOR PREPARING SULPHUROUS, CARBONIC, AND PHOSPHORIC ANHYDRIDES.

BY H.N. WARREN, RESEARCH ANALYST.

Having had occasion to prepare a quantity of sulphurous anhydride, for the purpose of reducing chromates previous to their analysis, I made use of the following apparatus, as represented in the accompanying figure. It consists of a glass vessel, A, provided with three tubulars, otherwise resembling a large Wolff bottle, the large tube, B, being provided with a stopper for the purpose of introducing pieces of sulphur from time to time into the small dish, C, intended for its reception, and fed with air by means of the delivery tube, D, thus allowing the stream of gas caused by the consumption of the sulphur to escape by means of the exit tube, E, to the vessel desired to receive it.



In using the apparatus the sulphur is first kindled by introducing a red hot wire through the tube, B, and replacing the stopper that has been momentarily removed for the introduction of the same. A slight blast is now maintained from the bellows that are in connection with the pipe, D, until the whole of the sulphur is thoroughly kindled, when a somewhat more powerful blast may be applied. When the apparatus above described is in full working order, from 2 to 3 lb. of sodium carbonate may be converted into sodium sulphite in less than half an hour, or several gallons of water saturated. I have also on connecting the apparatus with a powerful refrigerator obtained in a short time a large quantity of liquid SO2. It will be found advantageous, however, during the preparation of sulphurous anhydride, to employ a layer of water covering the bottom of the vessel to about 1 inch in depth. Carbonic anhydride and phosphoric anhydride may also be readily obtained in any desired quantity by slight alteration; but in case of phosphorus the air must be allowed to enter only gently, since a rapid current would at all times determine the fracture of the vessel.—Chem. News.

* * * * *



THE ARRANGEMENT OF ATOMS IN SPACE IN ORGANIC MOLECULES.[1]

[Footnote 1: Ueber die raumliche Anordnung der Atome in organischen Molekulen, and ihre Bestimmung in geometrisch-isomeren ungesattigten Verbindungen. Von Johannes Wislicenus.—Abhandlungen der mathemalisch-physischen Klasse der Konigl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenechaften. Band XIV., No. 1.]

The expression "chemical structure," as commonly used by chemists, has, as is well known, nothing to do with the arrangement of atoms in space. The structural formula does not profess to represent spatial relations, but simply the connections which, after a careful study of the transformations and modes of formation of the compound represented, are believed to exist between the atoms. Nevertheless, although we do not commonly consider the question of space relations, it is clear that atoms must have some definite positions in space in the molecules, and the only reason why we do not represent these positions is because we know practically nothing about them. The most definite suggestion concerning space relations of atoms which has been made is that of Le Bel and Van't Hoff. The well known hypothesis of these authors was put forward to account for a certain kind of so-called physical isomerism which shows itself in the action of substances upon polarized light. Since this hypothesis was proposed, the number of cases of "abnormal isomerism," that is to say, of cases of isomerism which cannot be accounted for by the commonly accepted method of explaining structure, has increased to a considerable extent, and the necessity for some new hypothesis, or for some modification of the old ones, has come to be pretty generally recognized. Among the cases of isomerism which it is at least difficult to explain by the aid of the prevailing views are those of maleic and fumaric acids; citraconic and mesaconic acids; certain halogen derivatives of crotonic acid and of cinnamic acid; and coumaric and coumarinic acids.

More than one hypothesis has been proposed to account for these cases of isomerism, but no one has shown itself to be entirely satisfactory. Quite recently Johannes Wislicenus, Professor of Chemistry in the University of Liepsic, has made what has the appearance of being an important contribution toward the solution of the problem referred to. The author shows that many of the facts known in regard to the relations between maleic and fumaric acids, and the other substances which furnish examples of "abnormal isomerism," may be explained by the aid of an extension of the Le Bel-Van't Hoff hypothesis. It is difficult without the aid of models to give a clear idea concerning the hypothesis of Wislicenus, but some idea of it may be gained from the following. If we suppose a carbon atom to exert its affinities in the directions of the solid angles of a tetrahedron, as is done in the Le Bel-Van't Hoff hypothesis, then, when two carbon atoms unite, as in ethane, the union will be between two solid angles of two tetrahedrons. If the two carbon atoms unite by the ethylene kind of union, the union will be along a line corresponding to one of the edges of each tetrahedron. In the former case, in which single union exists, the two parts of the molecule represented by the two tetrahedrons can be supposed to be capable of revolving around an axis either in the same direction or in opposite directions. This axis corresponds to the straight line joining the two carbon atoms. In the case in which double union exists no such revolution is possible. Again, if, by addition to an unsaturated compound like ethylene, a saturated compound is formed, the kind of union between the carbon atoms is changed, and the possibility of revolution of the two parts of the compound is given. Whether such revolution take place or not will be determined largely by the structure of the compound. The tendency will be for those parts of the molecule which have the greatest specific affinity for one another to take those positions in which they are nearest to one another. Thus, suppose that chlorine is added to ethylene. By following the change on the model, it is seen that in the resulting figure the two chlorine atoms in ethylene chloride are situated at angles of the two tetrahedrons which are nearest each other. But chlorine has a stronger affinity for hydrogen than it has for chlorine, and therefore each chlorine atom would tend to get as near a hydrogen atom as possible. This involves a partial revolution of the two tetrahedrons in opposite directions around their common axis. So also hydrogen would tend to take a position as near as possible to hydroxyl and to carboxyl, while hydroxyl would avoid hydroxyl, and carboxyl would avoid carboxyl. These views are suggested as a result of a careful application of the original Le Bel-Van't Hoff hypothesis, and are, of course, of little value unless they can be shown to be in accordance with the facts.

The chief merit of the work of Wislicenus consists in the fact that he has shown that a large number of phenomena which have been observed in the study of such cases of isomerism as were mentioned above find a ready explanation in terms of the new hypothesis, whereas for most of these phenomena no explanation whatever has thus far been presented. The most marked case presented is that of maleic and fumaric acids. One by one, the author discusses the transformations of these acids and their substitution products, and becomes to this conclusion: "There is not to my knowledge a single fact known in regard to the relations between fumaric and maleic acids which is not explained by the aid of the above geometrical considerations, not one which does not clearly support the new hypothesis." Among the facts which he discusses in the light of the hypothesis are these: The formation of fumaric and maleic acids from malic acid; the quantitative transformation of maleic into fumaric acid by contact with strong acids; the transformation of the ethereal salts of maleic acid into those of fumaric acid by the action of a minute quantity of free iodine; the formation of brommaleic acid and hydrobromic acid from the dibromsuccinic acid formed by the addition of two bromine atoms to fumaric acid; the formation of dibromsuccinic acid from brommaleic acid and of isodibromsuccinic acid from bromfumaric acid by the action of fuming hydrobromic acid; the conversion of brommaleic acid into fumaric and then into succinic acid by the action of sodium amalgam; the formation of one and the same tribromsuccinic acid by the action of bromine on brommaleic and on bromfumaric acid; and finally, the conversion of maleic into inactive tartaric acid, and of fumaric into racemic acid by potassium permanganate. All these facts are shown to find a ready explanation by the aid of the new hypothesis. Further, it is shown that the decompositions of the salts of certain halogen derivatives of organic acids, which give up halogen salt and carbon dioxide, as well as the formation of lactones and of anhydrides of dibasic acids, are in perfect harmony with the hypothesis. But the only way to get a clear conception in regard to the mass of material which the author has brought together and which he has shown to support his hypothesis is by a careful study of the original paper, and the object of this notice is mainly to call the attention of American chemists to it.

As to the question what value to attach to the speculations which Wislicenus has brought to our notice, it is difficult to give any but a general answer. No one can well have a greater fear of mere speculation, which is indulged in independently of the facts, than the writer of this notice. Great harm has been done chemistry, and probably every other branch of knowledge, by unwarranted speculation, and every one who has looked into the matter knows how extremely difficult it is to emancipate one's self from the influence of a plausible hypothesis, even when it can be shown that it is not in accordance with the facts. It behooves every one, therefore, before accepting a new hypothesis, no matter how fascinating it may appear at first sight, to look carefully into the facts, and to endeavor to determine independently whether it is well founded or not. On the other hand, there is some danger to be apprehended from a tendency, sometimes observed, to denounce everything speculative, no matter how broad the basis of facts upon which it rests may be. Without legitimate speculation, it is clear that there could be no great progress in any subject. As far as the hypothesis under consideration is concerned, the writer is firmly of the opinion that it is likely to prove of great value in dealing with a large number of chemical facts, and that, as it suggests many lines of research, it will undoubtedly in the course of a few years exert a profound influence on chemistry. Whether the evidence which will be accumulated will or will not confirm the view that the tetrahedron form is characteristic of the simplest molecules of carbon compounds is not the most important question to be asked under the circumstances. We should rather ask whether the testing of the hypothesis is or is not likely to bring us nearer to the truth. It is a proposition that admits of no denial that a hypothesis which can be tested by experiment, and which suggests lines of work and stimulates workers to follow them, is a gain to science, no matter what the ultimate fate of the hypothesis may be.—Amer. Chem. Jour.

* * * * *



GREAT WARMTH IN PAPER.

It should be thoroughly understood by all that any common paper, coarse wrapping paper, new or old newspapers, etc., are admirable to keep out cold or keep in warmth. The blood of all domestic animals, as well as of human beings, must be always kept very near 98 degrees, just as much in winter as in summer. And this heat always comes from within the body, whenever the atmosphere is not above 98 degrees temperature. So long as the air is cooler than this, the heat produced inside the body is escaping. Heat seeks a level. If there is more in one of two bodies or substances side by side, the heat will pass from the warmer into the colder, until they are both of the same temperature.

Moving air carries away vastly more heat than still air. The thin film of air next to the body soon gets warm from it. But if that air is moved along, slowly or swiftly, by a breeze, be it ever so gentle, new cooler air takes its place, and abstracts more heat from the body. Anything that keeps the air next to the bodies of men and of animals from moving, checks the escape of heat.

The thinnest paper serves to keep the air quiet. A newspaper laid on a bed acts much as a coverlid to keep a film or layer of air quiet, and thus less heat escapes from the bodies of the sleepers. If paper is pasted up over the cracks of a house, or of a barn or stable, or under the joists of a house floor, it has just the same effect. Every person who keeps animals will find it a wonderful and paying protection to them, to put against the walls one, two, three, or more layers of newspapers during cold weather. If a person in riding finds his garments too cool, a newspaper placed under the coat or vest, or under or over the trousers, even if only on the side next the wind, will do a great deal to check the outflow of heat, and keep him warm. Two or three thicknesses of newspaper crumpled a little, and put under the coat or overcoat, are almost as effective in keeping in warmth as an extra garment. A slight crumpling keeps them a little separate, and makes additional thin layers of air.

Further: Heat does not pass through films of still air. Fibrous woolens, furs, loosely woven cotton, down, and the like, contain a great deal of air confined in the meshes, and are therefore excellent conservers of heat. Double walls of stone, brick, or wood, or even of wall or roofing paper, double glass, double layers of anything that will have thin layers of still air between them, prevent the escape of heat greatly.

* * * * *

THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS EDITION.

$2.50 A Year. Single Copies, 25 Cts.

This is a Special Edition of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, issued monthly—on the first day of the month. Each number contains about forty large quarto pages, equal to about two hundred ordinary book pages, forming, practically, a large and splendid MAGAZINE OF ARCHITECTURE, richly adorned with elegant plates in colors and with fine engravings, illustrating the most interesting examples of modern Architectural Construction and allied subjects.

A special feature is the presentation in each number of a variety of the latest and best plans for private residences, city and country, including those of very moderate cost as well as the more expensive. Drawings in perspective and in color are given, together with full Plans, Specifications, Costs, Bills of Estimate, and Sheets of Details.

No other building paper contains so many plans, details, and specifications regularly presented as the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Hundreds of dwellings have already been erected on the various plans we have issued during the past year, and many others are in process of construction.

Architects, Builders, and Owners will find this work valuable in furnishing fresh and useful suggestions. All who contemplate building or improving homes, or erecting structures of any kind, have before them in this work an almost endless series of the latest and best examples from which to make selections, thus saving time and money.

Many other subjects, including Sewerage, Piping, Lighting, Warming, Ventilating, Decorating, Laying out of Grounds, etc., are illustrated. An extensive Compendium of Manufacturers' Announcements is also given, in which the most reliable and approved Building Materials, Goods, Machines, Tools, and Appliances are described and illustrated, with addresses of the makers, etc.

The fullness, richness, cheapness, and convenience of this work have won for it the LARGEST CIRCULATION of any Architectural publication in the world.

MUNN & CO., PUBLISHERS, 361 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.

A Catalogue of valuable books on Architecture, Building, Carpentry, Masonry, Heating, Warming, Lighting, Ventilation, and all branches of industry pertaining to the art of Building, is supplied free of charge, sent to any address.

* * * * *

BUILDING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

In connection with the publication of the BUILDING EDITION of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Messrs. Munn & Co. furnish plans and specifications for buildings of every kind, including Churches, Schools, Stores, Dwellings, Carriage Houses, Barns, etc.

In this work they are assisted by able and experienced architects. Full plans, details, and specifications for the various buildings illustrated in this paper can be supplied.

Those who contemplate building, or who wish to alter, improve, extend, or add to existing buildings, whether wings, porches, bay windows, or attic rooms, are invited to communicate with the undersigned. Our work extends to all parts of the country. Estimates, plans, and drawings promptly prepared. Terms moderate. Address

MUNN & CO., 361 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.

* * * * *

THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT.

PUBLISHED WEEKLY.

Terms of Subscription, $5 a year.

Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to subscribers in any part of the United States or Canada. Six dollars a year, sent, prepaid, to any foreign country.

All the back numbers of THE SUPPLEMENT, from the commencement, January 1, 1876, can be had. Price, 10 cents each.

All the back volumes of THE SUPPLEMENT can likewise be supplied. Two volumes are issued yearly. Price of each volume, $2.50 stitched in paper, or $3.50 bound in stiff covers.

COMBINED RATES.—One copy of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and one copy of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT, one year, postpaid, $7.00.

A liberal discount to booksellers, news agents, and canvassers.

MUNN & CO., PUBLISHERS, 361 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N.Y.

* * * * *

PATENTS.

In connection with the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Messrs. MUNN & CO. are solicitors of American and Foreign Patents, have had 42 years' experience, and now have the largest establishment in the world. Patents are obtained on the best terms.

A special notice is made in the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of all inventions patented through this Agency, with the name and residence of the Patentee. By the immense circulation thus given, public attention is directed to the merits of the new patent, and sales or introduction often easily effected.

Any person who has made a new discovery or invention can ascertain, free of charge, whether a patent can probably be obtained, by writing to MUNN & CO.

We also send free our Hand Book about the Patent Laws, Patents, Caveats, Trade Marks, their costs, and how procured. Address

MUNN & CO., 361 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. BRANCH OFFICE, 622 AND 624 F ST., WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE END