62 Prof. Faraday's Answer to Dr. Hare's Letter 



state is reduced by any means, and it is found in its first in- 

 different condition. The word is then used simply to express 

 the state of the apparatus ; and so I have used it in the ex- 

 pressions criticised in paragraph 21, already referred to. 

 The process of discharge, or the mode by which the jar is 

 brought into the discharged state, may be subdivided, as of 

 various kinds; and I have spoken of conductive (1320.), elec- 

 trolytic (1343.), disruptive (1359.), and convective (1562.) dis- 

 charge, any one of which may cause the discharge of the jar, 

 or the discharge of the inductive arrangements described in 

 this letter (xxx.), the action of the particles in any one of 

 these cases being entirely different from the mere return 

 action of the polarized particles of the glass of the jar, or 

 the polarized globe B (v.), to their first state. My view of 

 the relation of insulators and conductors, as bodies of one class, 

 is given at 1320. 1675. &c. of the Researches; but I do not 

 think the particles of the good conductors acquire an intensity of 

 polarization anything like that of the particles of bad conduct- 

 ors; on the contrary, I conceive that the contiguous polarized 

 particles (1670.) of good conductors discharge to each other 

 when their polarity is at a very low degree of intensity (1326. 

 1338. 1675.). The question of why are the metallic particles 

 dissipated when the charge is sufficiently powerful, is one that 

 my theory is not called upon at present to answer, since it 

 will be acknowledged by all, that the dissipation is not neces- 

 sary to discharge. That different effects ensue upon the 

 subjection of bodies to different degrees of the same power, 

 is common enough in experimental philosophy: thus, one 

 degree of heat will merely make water hot, whilst a higher 

 degree will dissipate it as steam, and a lower will convert it 

 into ice. 



xxxii. The next most important point, as it appears to me, 

 is that contained in paragraphs 16 and 17. I have said 

 (1330.), "what then is to separate the principle of these 

 two extremes, perfect conduction and perfect insulation, from 

 each other, since the moment we leave in the smallest de- 

 gree perfection at either extremity we involve the element 

 of perfection at the opposite end?" and upon this you say, 

 might not this query be made with as much reason in the 

 case of motion and rest? and in any case of the intermix- 

 ture of opposite qualities, may it not be said, the moment we 

 leave the element of perfection at one end, we involve the 

 element of perfection at the opposite? may it not be said of 

 light and darkness, or of opakeness and translucency ? and so 

 forth. 



xxxiii, I admit that these questions are very properly put; 



