New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-23
IDENTITY OF THE X RAYS.
DIR. EMMENs WRITES OF EXPERIMENTS
HE HAS MADE.


HE HAS MADE
n,rr1crLrY OF DETERMINING WHICH ARE TRUE
AND WHICH ARE FALSE RAYs-THE
ALUMINIUM AND REFLECTION
TESTS NOT ABSOLUTE
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Cir. 7 have read with much interest the article
Won nublish in your issue Of this date on True and
False Rays" which Is characterized by the regard
for accuracy and philosophc caution that always
d,cnguishes The Tribune's records of the scienthc
world As however the article in question does
not TO profess to be OF completely, exhaustive ana
final character and as Its subjec: is one that may
uscfuIIy receive some further consideration. trust
YOU Will allow me space In your columns Tor the
following supplementary remarks:
think I am stating the views held by seller
tlsts generally when | say that we are no. ye'
agreed upor what particular form OF energy meant
when we use the term TX rays" Some authorities
hold that the X rays ether!c waves caused by
and nroaeeding from the glass wall OF a vacuum
tube when such wall Is moleculariy disturbed by
radiant energy emitted from a Highly excited IN
ternal cathode plate. Some authorities hold tha'
the rays are etheric waves proceeding direct from
the cathode through the wall OF the tube. ard tha;
there Is no real distinction between the cathode
ravs'' and the "X rays" Some authorities maintain
tina, the source OF the rays In question Is to be foud
at the anode. rather than the cathode Other au-
thorities Including the famous Tesla suggest that
the eo-called rays are not rays a. e. etherc waves
AZ ALL but are streams Of particles Of ordinary mat
fer shot FORTH as 1t we're (or repeed) from the
cathode surface and traversng the wall OF the tube
and other sold bodies with ease and afiaence
as De Quincy would have said.
CHARACTERISTICS NOT AGREED ON.
9, think I am stating the Views held by scientists
generally when I say that are not yet agreed
upon even the physical characteristics OF the n
ravs Take for example. the question or rehectoi' IL
the recently published reports o, MT OsteToure ''
ure be correct It would seem that the ceserveay
eminent authorities OF Columbia University, OF THIS
civ pronounce the impoesbiity OF reflection to be
ga rd,nal feature Of their rays. Yet Mr.. Tesla mas
succeeded in rejecting his rays at right angie
and even Professor R0ntgen observed that the paeh
NJ nuorescent light the front OF the screen ala not
quite correspond In position with the hH'resceht
substance at the back. tads showing '"a' 'e"" "'
had taken pace.
2 II ,hen we be not yet agreed upon either the
generic features OF rays or their Observable phy-
scal characteristics II would seem premature io'
any Of us al the presen. time 10 pronounce oracuar
IL upon what are true" and what are raise y
avs And II Is ,ortiori evident that II. at this
s,aoe o.. partial knowledge, sravey declare that
Tho Y raw form OF energy cannot proceed from any
sourro otter thaa an electrified vacuum-tube terminal
we are acting with unphilosophic haste Ihe'e Is Oh
course a good deal Of human nature even III ths
scientific b,con and 1t may well he that many Il
lat,er-dav Pope uhe church Of philosophy oeins not
We, one and indIvlsble) is DESTROYS OF Launching
hull OF accommodation against any y ray tha'
nrov.s hereti-al enough 70 insist upon being porn
from 30 common and vulgar an origin as the sum-
instead OF coming into existence by 'he ala oi
esoteric apparatus and professional midwifery hu'
this very natural Instinct is hardly a sa'e suue
l, was perhaps rude ard irrcverent on the part OF
c,ll.o 10 contradict the scientists OF MS day' Out
,yhue they racked him the earth still moved The
A.,r r,ck FOR the punishment OF scientific heresy
IL alscourse ex catheira furnished TO the news
naner pre.s Yet It Is probable mat the FORM OF
energy represented by talk. even when uttered
| ,hrouxh tiara viii IN nowise modify the nature
Of sunbeam
SOME CRITERION NEEDED.
4rfx ray. DO really exist in radatons from the
sun from lamps and from all sources o. RADIANT
| energy instead OF being limited to emissions rom
] electrified vacuum tubes the sooner we estaoIsh
-, r.coy,,zs ,hs fact the better for science at
io,ss But, IN order 10 DO this. We must he apie
70 recognize the rays when they are met "i''-
". need some tests some critera some sA'o''e''''
All such means or determination as we az present
no.se.s are somewhn. vague. and We nnh oursfi's %
,,nab. 20 positively distinguish between several OBJ
served instances OF radiant energy ana 70 say Win
.,,.n,v thar one 1. composed OF true and another
| OF "faHe' rays. Take for example PROFESSOR IT,
J. Hous,on's dctum quoted IN your aruc'e' inst the
Acknowledging feature % the y rays Is their capa-
bllry OF revealing the unseen. . & differences III
the interior structure OF an object " We Apply
this test 10 lie Bons peiroeum-lamp photograph OF
a skate IN which az your article saws the skee
| -, was as beautifully defined as II a vacuum tune
had been rsed." must admit that y rays 90 pro
| coed from lighted oil lamps. A. another example
take your statement; 1T would seem tnen; rhf,
! printers ink. which II a. transparent as paP'l ~
the genuine ray, IL OPAQUE TO w u ., nd
| have taken sunlight shadow pictures" N which
| prlntcrs ink has proved not on.y AS trahs phreh'
! fhen n The test YOU give he valid. We have demon
s,rated the existence Of rays in sunbeam
ther nnaar :" ne accepted hy the Columbia TINT
versity and other leading authorities as concluSive
mum, II being held that this power Is possessed ny
the rays alone This test has been applied by
nay from sOn an" he n nn We have exposed
closed with Aluminium slides. TO sunshine ana ,, nay
| slowing both sides Of such objects. owing TO me
prevalence Of cold winds ihere was no nd hcp
fore no mere thermographic effects were possibIe lr
addition to which argument an Inspection obo OF rni
mere heat did not produce the observed res result
Of ordinary light. while tho pictures themselves
| gave all the usual indications OF being produced
ny Hu% Sr side Mene II the Columbia unversy
| terion DO accepted, the experiments eonouctea oy
s sy :on IN sum to an spprscaO pracsa,
| in his lecture previously alluded 10. says that no
pictures have been obtained at Columbia University
| Nv the exposure to sunshine OF plate-holders WITH
| Aluminium slides: but then. 1t would seem. from ths
| report OF the lecture. that the experiments were
| conducted under a preconcelved impression or the
| impossiblity of rejecting rays. The sunbeam:
| were caused to strike the aluminium slide at al
| acute angie This according to observations frs
| published by myself and subs equenty confirmed by
Experiments reported In letter published by Mr.
| X rays no opportunity OF passing through Tho
| aluminium and. therefore the absence OF pictures
| beams.
| TX" RAYS ARE NOT EXCEPTIONAL
| G. Economy OF hypothesis have always under
| stood 10 be a leading Of scientific work