The herald., 1896-03-11


layer of the dry plate; however. films are
Just as sensitive to the ''X' rays as dry
plates are.
was unable for the present to prove in
an experiment al way that M rays have
also heat effect: however, one could ac-
cept this as a fact after it is proven that
through the fiuorescence the possibility OF
changing "Xh rays has been demonstrated
and it is certain not all developed IN"
rays leave the body as such.
The retina of the eye is not sensitive
to our rays. The eye held close to the APP
paratus notices nothing of such a ray,
although the experiences we have had go
to show that the nedien of the eye are GER
tainly Offering no resistance to the passage
of the rays.
After I had found the percolation of diff
ferent substances of relative thickness l
fastened to find how "X' rays act, while
passing through prism; if prisms divert
them or not. Experiments with water and
carbon sulphide in glimmer prisms of 30
degrees angle, did not show any diversion,
either on the fiuorescent screen nor on the
dry plate. In order to make good compar-
sons, observed under like conditions, the
diversion of light and TX" rays. 1 found
the diverted pictures of light rays 10 to 20
millimeter distant, from the undiverted
ones Of "X" rays. With a hard rubber ana
an aluminium prism of also about 80 de-
grees angle, succeeded to make pictures
on the dry plate on which possible diver
son might be discovered. however, this ls
80 uncertain, and the diversion is. if at all
present, so small, that the diverting en-
ponent of the "X'' rays is at the utmost
LOO in the mentioned substances.
Experiments with prisms of denser met
ais furnish no definite results SO far, owing
to their inferior percolation and small in
density of the percoiated rays. Owing to
these circumstances and the importance of
ha hot ha
fracted, while passing from one medium to
another, it is with pleasure to state, that
this question can be examined into in an
other manner, than by the use of prisms.
Fine pulverized substances of certain pro-
portions, allow incident light to penetrate
in consequence of refraction and
reflection. If therefore, the same
Pulverized substances prove themselves
just as precolating for XXI rays as solid SUBJ
stances of same quantities. Itwould go to
show that there neither exists refraction,
nor a regular reflection of any remarkable
degree. These experiments were con-
Quoted with fine pulverized rock salt, with
fine silver powder and also with zinc dust.
which is used very frequently for chemical
examinations. In every and all cases
there was no difference in the percolation
of these powders or their solids, neither on
the fluorescent screen, or on the dry plate.
sible to concentrate the "X'' rays. A large,
hard rubber lens as we'll as glass lens
proved themselves just as Intellectual. The
shadow of a round rod is darker in the
center than at the edge, that of n tube,
which is filled with some substance which
is more percolating. than the material of
the tube, is lighter in the center than on
the edge.
The question of the reflection of "X"
rays must be considered as settled by the
experiments of the preceding paragraph,
however. IN this sense, that visible regu-
lar reflection of the rays does not occur on
any of the examined substances. Other
experiments which will pass here led to
the same results. However. one observa-
ton should be especially mentioned which
at first glance would seem to prove the
contrary. exposed dry plate to the ap-
paratus, perfectly protected from light
rays by black paper cover with the glass
side facing the tube: the sensitive layer
was partly covered in. star shape
zinc and aluminium. The developed mega
tive showed plainly that the blackened
parts underneath the platinum, the lead,
and especially the zinc, are much stronger
there than on other parts. The aluminium
had no effect at all. This would show that
tho,e three metals here mentioned would
reflect the rays; however, there might have
been other causes that could have pro-
duced the deeper black parts in the mega
tive. and in order to prove this to a GER
tainty placed at the second experiment
between the metal plates and the dry plate
a thin piece of sheet aluminium, which is
opaque to ultraviolet rays, but very perco-
lating for TX" rays. l received with this
change the same results again. and it is
therefore proved that the above men,
toned metals reflect the az" rays.
Considering this fact, with the fact that
ing as solid substances; that furthermore,
substances of rough surface show the
same results as such with polished sur
face, l came to the conclusion that a regu-
lar reflection does not occur as stated; that,
however, those substances stand in tho
same relation to the M rays as cloudy or
dull mediums to the light. Since further
more could not find any refraction of ''X'
rays while passing them from one medium
to another, it appears that TX" rays move
in all substances with the same velocity,
and, indeed in a medium which is present
everywhere, and in which the molecules
are imbedded. These last ones form a
check to the spreading of the ''N" rays and
in general a gre Ater one, the denser the re-
spective substance is.
According to this paragraph it should be
presumed that the arrangements of the
molecules would exert an influence IN the
percolation Of a substance For instance,
u piece Oh CyStdllILeu CARBONATE OF ltm0 OF
equal density might transmit the Y rays
differently if they passed parallel with it's
axis or perpendicular 10 it. Experiments
in this direction have, however, given neg
alive results. 1t is u well-known fact that
Professor Leonard of Vienna, at his beau.
tiful experiments about Hittorf's cathode
rays, in passing them through thin alu-
minum sheet, concluded that those rays
are processes of ether and that they ex-
ist diffuse in all bodies. We can main
tain the same of our rays. have found,
furthermore, after three successful CORE
spending experiments, that the atmos-
phere absorbs much less of the rays than
of the cathode rays. This result is in &C.
cordance with the above maintained OBJ
servation, that the fluorescence is yet visi-
BILE two meters distant from the discharge
apparatus.
Other substances stand in similar rela-
ton to the y rays as air does. \ rays per-
colate them better than catholic rays. An
other remarkable difference between ca
thodic rays and \ rays IL the fact could not
succeed, Notwithstanding the many efforts
which made, to divert the y rays by
magnet in very strong magnetic field.
The diversion of cathode rays by a mag
net 10 an accepted, well known and strong
characteristic sign of the same. j found
through special experiments made for the
purpose of locating the main source of the
y rays that part of the wall of the dis.
charge apparatus, which is tho most bril-
liantly iluorescent, to be the main source
OF the y rays, which spread in all direc-
tons. The rays therefore are emitted
from that point where according to various
investigations Of cathode rays they strike