312 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



vapor and atmospheric air in the can, at a distance of six feet 

 from the stove, the only som'ce of fire in the room. 



" 2. How an explosion could occur by which burning-fluid 

 should be thrown on the outside and corresponding inside of 

 the water-pail nearest the can, and not on the shelf or the 

 boards in the corner. 



" 3. How this could take place (if produced by the explosion) 

 with no opening on the side of the can nearest the water-pail. 



" 4. How, fire having been communicated to the contents 

 of the can in its proper place, explosion should not have thrown 

 at least the empty pail from the shelf. 



" 5. And how, since the pails were neither of them moved 

 by the shock, an explosion could cause the can to leap over 

 the pails and fall, not back into its place, but upon the floor, 

 some four or five feet distant. 



" These are among the apparently contradictory phenomena 

 which any attempt at an explanation must reconcile. 



" The communication of fire has seemed to be the principal 

 difiiculty in the case. It has been suggested that the rag 

 stopper, saturated with the burning fluid, might have taken 

 fire, as cotton-waste (cotton more or less saturated with oil) 

 has been known to take fire. This explanation cannot be 

 sound. Burning-fluid vaporizes at a low temperature. In 

 vaporizing it absorbs heat. The purer varieties absorb so 

 much heat, that a low wick is but slightly charred after an 

 evening's burning. It is quite obvious, therefore, that heat 

 enough to inflame a body so volatile could not be derived 

 from the spontaneous oxidation of the body itself. Neverthe- 

 less, I made several experiments upon the fluid, thinking that 

 exposure might, by oxidation, produce so much resin in the 

 burning-fluid, and the rapidity of volatilization be thereby so 

 much reduced, that the conditions of the rag stopper and waste 

 cotton would more nearly approximate, and spontaneous igni- 

 tion occur. The result, however, has been a negative one. It 

 could not have been otherwise. With the reduced volatility 

 came diminished oxidation, so that what was gained by the 

 process in one way was lost in another. 



