New-York tribune., 1876-07-29


views of Derham in regard to the effect OF fog
on sound, for the views Of Dcrham on this point
are questioned by Henry in the paper ot De
ccmber 1872. 1t could not be so affirmed on
tie ground that the inquiry Of Pro-. Henry was
supposed 10y DR.. Tyudall not To be Systematic ~
one because it ots the discussion of some OF the
"caus S" specified 10y Dr. D.rham; for Dr. Tynial him
self outs the full discussion OF rHd IN his inquiry ana
he assumes tbe existence OF "a blank" which could not
have existed if there had been any inquiry OF the KIND
before his own and moreover this bdh could not nave
been hlled" by his abors il in order TO do so were
necessary to determine all the alleged causes enuneF
ed hv D.rhatn and others 1t follows, therefore, that
tho. broad statement made by Dr. TyuGIl under this
head when he AYERS that scientific nycsGaiio into the
cause. affecting the intensity Of sound was - blank
from 1-9S to r date of his lab0rs {, rs ttt us
fed by the record OF scientific publication rs Oy the
actual facts of There were Systematic uyei
cations on m subject in tie United states subsequent 70
those Of Daram ard prior to those which he tDr Iyn
dD had "the honor OF conducting under the auspices
of the Trinity House.
FURTHER INACCURACY OF THE SUMMARY.
8 In disposInc OF the erroneous statement that the
paper OF Dr Dcrham marks the latest systematic inquiry
u,o the which affect be intensity Of sound ths
brief re5iew, is hoped, has also sufficiently expose the
inaccuracy OF certain other "sumuarles" with which
that statement is associated 10y DR.. Tyndaii. For III
stance he states that foe, according TO pcrlam tcrd
powerfully 20 obstruct the propagation of sound Der
ham does not make any such general and unqualified re-
mark as this. Having dropped parcnheucal remark
OF this kind in the earlier part Of his treatise" he after
ward limits and qualities the statement when ne comes
10 treat specifically of foggy weather and OF dense
fas in their relation the intensity of sound Ana he
limits the generality Of his observation with regard even
20 'dcuse fogs" by saving that under their influence
sounds to bc fOr the most part very weak ana
l. II is doubtless true that in the mind of DR. Robinson
and ot o;h"is. o"y transparency con- - n' gT,@I 80
..f VI|H - T.s
4Als ""S "i ,Hr ','s & E iig.I i H., ," - Dr. Der
Hau VI ID yTlam m l infer nom ms
thcogclc explanation Ui the action of i'E-N' VII l''
il hIVnts sounds hy tt" mieiP",'d Ntl"i- anu ''' l
tirir> which compose i-,Hti tic cCN,cr me log th'
G.i @ t i,.,ii'a h., tIrtco a obsc,y atoms
which he takes tu iutolm u~ That the clcir~t d\ ne
ever remembered &" have seen was mil"'H DS my'' luu
.,1nI fIs is fne on.y one vici he ike, by precise
I1Tu if yifi io. u.0cr 10 qun,h tc rays Of light
fLey applied standard col me ctsultWcut Wll.I b-itn
yyu the MEMORY OF his experiences on May 81 ''
would have used with greater canton. 10 Is Pa1n too"
tl,t ur TyIl, mas mn, counrl Gt indeed hr hls ever
rradi the paper OF DsrIam-cise, surely he would no.
have wasted So much strength In demonstrating what
D.riiau had >,gyrd before du-tua; 'hc optic trans
par,uc and tho acoustic transparency oi tAe atmosphere
For ano'a; instance oi erroneous statement In the
name of Dcfhim, the reader need "ut glance 40 d. ~
" Gch al,ct tc intensity of sound Ic mtr.iIcss hs
discourse under tnis mead hy s1yn- thut " li NOW.
according TO D. rhau Is Che mot serious "''.'' 'l ''
to the transmission of sound In point gi L'' i'fHt''
does not nia6 amy s'1enrnl WHchJH~''h, .n,' p ,. %
paisou After sIy.ng ,Aat " deus" l'-S ait ''f 'h'
most part powerful daupe %. sUuud, Dee pro, r' 10 Hl
&" have likewise observed Pc same c"nrc'nHE snow!
weather. SrJnhu ilrrsch'L n Is UHc ~ h!- i--N '''
sound, contributed 70 the Enc c"rrd' Mylt'toL,'i''
drop, TIE remark th1t ,' bot~m I9nnd lh'l log, ana
StTl'i Tie free NlupJttI'u %! sound, and pi t.Aoi'
it ss.nS wi~ no, W.ii 'no-h aciil'I' N.n - i' Ii y
-,lr Aud vet in processing to d 20 u'.us wll-h 10
iaus ceicbr.i.rI paper u I7J- 10 would ...u tiat
/ Dr. IyldJll u-ht 60 have itnEhi.d uiu-riI ""I U'
exact contents OF tAat cpo,u-uathih- pUJ-cdI'vd'
PROF. HLNEGS WORK.
. n II was incumbent on DR. Tynlll 20 DO familiar
enough with Derharn'- paper know zee, cIa.""i .r,
its historic uacc, and when was mis- uo'"t ly llrf-'e.
or others. it cGuty incumbent ON him 10 have "n-
tanned sufficient information about the course OF scrh-
title inquiry In this cOIUty 10 know THAT thc opinions
which Le a~crlbcs DcrI3m m gari tp the daGen'us
power Of foe on sound had not been transmitted uu-
questioned nom generation 10 generation ~ sci.nha
| men" at least IN the United ~tIf-s. 1ucy had been
questioned here and tho observed f'- ON tine basis Uf
which they questioned hgi been Vi. tu,tiy stated
by Prof Henry u the paper which va- read before br.
Tyudll on the llth ol blacm5sr, l-72 Though Prof
Hcnly's researches under Jni, head were then iH a1
unfinished state (Is iuI "a they s' 100 thr oi
that careful and conscientious ob-usrcl, yc' b" rN-
pressed tine opinion MOI THAT io- was powerful dawpcr
Of sound" III "optic OPACITY" was amy measure or
]
auaog between Sire penetration Of sound aut the propu-
CATION oi sit through iog " does not mold r"Hd ,\i
~ 80 small degree as 90 b- Of no practical uroiau'..
or in her words the existence of t"s i- rur, buI, 49,"
think an insufficient elise Of elimination oi sound "hr.i
mails are he nd du ing dense fog "h,u therefore D,
IyudlIl aidrms iloi the views ',N'r"f,o '"I ~ti'-
by HIM 10 have u,cu cuurciatcd hy d. DcI'm 300 lto-.
~, t r ,i I,'r, gri.;i, lion, ,u IN, I. ,,.
ventures tiaom.D Dr. which stands u ~uc. contradiction
] e'n ."t- H., VI IL h. Ii.,ir ~ r,s4 a. f',u, o. ..s..
%. 4. H... .f
In view OF these representations IL respectfully sur
cnl accuracy aud scientific generosity ry entirely I'-
Nr,t,pg t1. "-,,u,uary of c.fHiu1 knowledge with
" sound" 10 IFS mte-t eel U0u. IIIi summary
swarm, with errors In almost every paragraph dnd can
be- made consistent win tie rcuiiru ut- oI ui .rorIr
truth aud of scientific Ju,'ic" on'y bj b"ing 'nrr'
Trnd,I Will H.. gI,vi ling to make atapcmrut Iur the
Injustice hc De. done 10 tine isror- ~ Oh" Washington
LgutAoueo Board by entirely ignoring their existence
| il is {" reconcile Tue statements 81 u,at summary win
s'~q ssSee "''''''e' "''' IN the history "' America"
Ihc scope Of tais communication bas been limited 30 q
simple exposition of few OF Dr. T,ndoirs supposed
/ SHORTCOMINGS in undertaking 10 define the .ttc OF
| knowledge wheE he began The work oi systematic
inquiry in0 the causes which anr,i the intensity oi
sound. tJis. have made DO siciruty plain bY citing
the exact laugIt-" OF Daru in l1U- aud by roupIru.
10 WIN tn" aneg" oi Henry lu l-t2 that ~" paper o
the former doc not mark the latest sjsi"maac en-
2l% bc Gn IAs rs ipia,' ,, iGH ,a , , m . M % m
the Summer 10 "as not quite SO whc and !agge a.
I Lcslas proclaimed.
HUMBoLDI's PLACE IL THIS ISQUIRY.
The boundaries OF his blank" must Do restricted bv
allowing the tDor of Prof Henry their due aij trr
icuOus place in the history Of scientific .uyc.tga
tion upon this question. And the boundaries must De
thrown still further back Dy assigning u.s. proper hstoI-
cal place and value % the remarkable paper read by
Alexander ycn Humboldt on the 13th Of March, 1870,
before the Academy Of Sciences n Paris on the cause,
which affect thc intensity Of sound, especially ~ tho
night as observed By him in South America particularly
on The plain Of Aturcs the Fag ~ the OrnocD Dr.
Tynda can, least Of all men, afford 70 ignore the h.tor-