252 STATE BOAED OF AGKICULTURE. 



President Hill, mider date of Feb. 14, says: "I think there is no doubt 

 that your carefully worded questions are all to be answered in the affirmative," 



Prof. Silliman says: '"Electricity resides only on the outer surfaces of 

 excited bodies." And after describing several experiments which he deems 

 conclusive, he says: "It is thus proved that all the electricity with which a 

 conducting body is charged is disposed on its surface." 



I have now produced authority sufficient to convince any thinking man of the 

 doctor's error. He is doubtless more familiar with some other subjects than 

 that of lightning rods ; at least, it is to be hoped that such is the case. He 

 certainly cannot consistently question authority which he has pronounced the 

 best in this country. 



To his allusion to the use of wires fused into eudiometer tubes, it is only 

 necessary to reply that he is speaking of galvanic electricity and not of atmos- 

 pheric electricity, or that of great repulsive power. 



A word in reply to the doctor's display of wit and I have done. He asks, 

 " Has not General Science been captured by Captain Ignorance?" This style 

 of argument is the more noticeable, as it is seldom assumed by scientific men. 

 But I leave the answer to his question to the public, hoping for the credit of 

 our state institutions that Captain Ignorance will not be found to have carried 

 his conquests within the sacred precincts of the State Agricultural College. 



A. T. Lanphere. 

 Coldwater, Feb. 21, 1876. 



REPLY BY DR. KEDZIE. 

 To the Editoi- of tlie Lansing Republican. 



In Mr. Lanphere's first article he stated that I "advanced one theory at least 

 that cannot be sustained by any authority outside of the doctor's pronounced 

 statement, viz. : that the extent of surface in a rod has no connection with its 

 conducting power." When I produced quotations from Faraday, ]\Iiller, De- 

 schanel, and De la Pave that fully sustained my position, I suj^posed the discus- 

 sion was closed. But in his second article he attemjDts to evade the force of 

 these quotations by saying they are gjoeaking of galvanic electricity. In this, 

 Mr. Lanphere exhibits either ignorance or dishonesty, for Miller and Descha- 

 nel are speaking of frictional electricity and not of galvanic electricity. He 

 makes a further exhibition of ignorance when he says: "To his allusion to 

 the use of wires fused into eudiometer tubes it is only necessary to rei^ly that he 

 is speaking of galvanic electricity, and not of atmospheric electricity, or that of 

 great repulsive power." Ordinary galvanic electricity cannot be used for 

 exploding gases in eudiometer tubes, as every intelligent electrician knows ; but 

 electricity of high tension must be employed. 



In his first article Mr. L. quotes: "The thickness of the metal has nothing 

 to do with its conducting power. — [Memoirs d' Academic. " 



In my rej)ly I asked, if this relates to electrical conduction from place to 

 place, how can we explain the fact that a broad surface of gold leaf can be 

 dissipated in impalpable dust by a powerful electrical current. Mr. L. replies : 

 "The doctor's question with regard to the effect of electricity upon gold leaf 

 loses much of its force when we consider that instances have been known where 

 strips of copjier two inches in width and one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness 

 have been similarly affected by a stroke of atmospheric electricity. Indeed, it 

 is not claimed by any that surface, without substance, is sufficient." Here Mr. 

 L. confesses that it is not true that "the thickness of the metal has noth- 



