366 Mr. W. S. B. Woolhouse on the Enharmonic Organ } 



No. II. — Same day. Temp. 49°. 



1 13° — Pale penumbra above. 



115 — Very little penumbra, 

 fl 17 — As one wire, but blacker and thicker. 

 I 120 — As one black wire, 

 j 122*5 — As one thin wire. (Best coincidence.) 

 LI 25 — Very faint penumbra. 



127*5 — Penumbra, but might pass. 



132* — Not quite separate, but would not pass. 



135 — Distinctly separate. 



No. III. — February 9, J 835. Temp. 49°. Inclination varied. 

 124° — Faintly separate. 

 126 — Penumbra above. 

 128 —Pale ditto. 

 f~130 — Black, and rather thicker than one wire. 

 ; 132 —Ditto. 



I 135 — As one thin wire. (Best coincidence.) 

 L138 — Black, as one wire, but rather thicker. 

 139*5 — Faint penumbra. 

 142*5 — Just separate. 

 From the above experiments it would appear that the wires 

 might be considered coincident through a variation of inclina- 

 tion equal to 7" or 8". 



September 30, 1835. John NlXON. 



XLV. On the Enharmonic Organ ; in Reply to an Article in 

 the Westminster Review. By Mr. W. S. B. Woolhouse. 



To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 



Gentlemen, 

 TN the Westminster Review just published an article ap- 

 ■**■ pears in reference to my essay on Musical Intervals, &c, 

 in which the writer has thought proper to pass off some very 

 liberal expressions in condemnation of my notice of the en- 

 harmonic organ lately constructed by Messrs. Robson and 

 Son. As the motive of the reviewer — who, it will appear, has 

 not so much as digested even a moderate portion of the essay, 

 — seems to have been merely the opportunity of giving supre- 

 macy to his own ideas on the construction and capabilities of 

 the organ in question, and as I conceive he has, in no small 

 degree, misrepresented my observations, incidentally made, on 

 that subject, I hope you will so far support the fairness and 

 freedom of reply as to give a place to the following remarks in 

 your valuable Magazine. 



The principal objection is opposed to my statement, that in 



