324 



by the use of two prisms, as one would think that a large amount of 

 ordinary light would be mixed with it ? 



Mr. Michael could not say if this was so, but should have thought that 

 the polarizing effects would have been less vivid if the light had been so 

 mixed. 



Mr. Goodwin enquired if there was any difference in the intensity of the 

 polarization at different angles ? 



Mr. Michael said that as long as the quantity of light was the same the 

 effects appeared to be the same also. 



Dr. Matthews said he saw the effects described by Mr. Michael for the 

 first time on the previous evening, and could testify to the complete success 

 of the experiment. He has since that time consulted a number of authori- 

 ties upon the subject, but could not find out that any of them had men- 

 tioned having noticed anything of the kind. He thought the discovery was 

 one well worthy of attention. 



Mr. Ingpen asked if part of the effect might not be due to the mirror 

 being concave instead of flat ? 



Mr. Michael thought it could not be due either to flatness or concavity 

 because light reflected from a flat plate or a concave saucer appeared to 

 answer equally well ; in fact, a sheet of glazed paper did the same, only 

 there was less light reflected from it. 



Mr. Stewart thought it was probably a question of surface reflection, and 

 not from the interior. 



Mr. Ingpen said if it was a question of glass surface reflection then 

 angle would be of importance. 



Mr. Buffham thought the probability was that it was in the nature of the 

 reflecting substance that it could not be figured and polished so accurately 

 as ordinary glass, and that the effects produced were purely due to surface 

 action. They might thus get a figure which, though apparently regular, 

 really was not so, but exhibited thousands of little facets lying at all possible 

 angles, numbers of which would be sure to lie at the polarizing angle. He 

 was not aware that there was any special polarizing power in the material 

 employed, but his idea was certainly that the effects could be accounted for 

 solely in the way he had suggested. 



Mr. Hardy enquired if the glass reflector was opal throughout, or only 

 on the surface ? 



Mr. Michael said it was opal all through. 



The thanks of the meeting were voted to Mr. Michael for bringing 

 forward this interesting and practical subject. 



Mr* E. M. Nelson said that there had no doubt been a great many 

 improvements made of late years in the microscope, and there had been 

 some very extraordinary things produced. As regarded lenses, he believed 

 the move had been in the right direction, but as to some other things, what 

 With arcs, and joints, and verniers, and goodness knew what, was it a move 

 in the right direction at all ? For his own part, he inclined to think that 

 the instrument had retrograded in consequence of the effusiveness of 

 energy displayed in these directions. All these swinging substages, and 



