I^o4^ Thoughts on the Analyzat'wti of Li /fir ^ ^r. 26 f 



having weighed the ftone to be examined, put it into the acid, 

 and, immediately when the cfFervefcence ceafes, replace the 

 cork, and again weigh the whole. The lofs of weight is here 

 to be attributed folely to the expulfion of the carbonic acid ; and 

 the greater the lofs, we may pretty fafely allure ourfclves, the 

 purer will the limedone be. As the muriatic acid is fomewliat 

 volatile, a fmall allowance may be made on this account, in pro- 

 portion to the extent of furface expofed. And I may here cau- 

 tion thofe who try this method, againfl filling the bottle too 

 full, as, during the extrication of the gas, fome acid may fpat- 

 ter over. 



A. S. may (wy that the lofs of weight can be better afcertained 

 by burning, at lealt with lefs trouble* I Ihall only mention one 

 circumftance ; that if any inflammable matter happens to be 

 prefent, its lofs, by being burnt olF, will make the limeftone ap- 

 pear better than it really is. A limeftone is mentioned by A. S* 

 as contaiuin-g (^i^\ per cent, of carbonate of lime. It would have 

 been fatisfactory if he had told us what the remaining half per 

 i€Tit. confilled of. In taking my leave of A. S., I cannot help 

 remarking, with regret, that fo many of your correfpondents do 

 not choofe their names to be publiihed. There can be no other 

 apology for them, than that they are afraid of attack. I would 

 only aflc, need a man be afhamed of being told that any opinioii 

 he may have advanced is ill founded ? Thofe who write for a 

 periodical publication fuch as yours, do fo as much for the fake 

 of receiving as of giving information. There is no danger of 

 your admitting into the Farmer's Magazine any thing like abufe, 

 or ufelefs fcverity. I do not fcruple to fay that A. S. was ra- 

 ther rafli in fending you the letter under review ; and, from 

 what is therein difplayed, it appears probable, that, had he 

 been in the cuftom of figning his real name, he would never 

 have fcnt you the faid letter. I am led to fvippofe this, becaufe 

 very fuperhcial inquiry at the fource from whence he has de- 

 rived his technical terms, would have convinced him of the in- 

 fufficiency of the teft he propofes for afcertaining the quality of 

 llmellone, and would not have permitted him to offer his af- 

 fiftance to the purchafers of lime, with fo much apparent con- 

 fidence. I am not againll your admitting ufeful and important 

 information without fignature ; but I certainly could not ap- 

 prove of any attack being admitted into the Farmer's Magazine, 

 when one of the parties at leall is unknown. 



Your own note on another letter from A. S., is, I apprehend, 

 fufticient to fatisfy the defire exprcffed at the end of \\\& letter, 

 concerning the fmut of wheat. I do not find that the opinion 

 of a gentleman, whofe chara(fler and talents entitle him to the 



VOL. V. NO. 19. S greateft 



