( 861 ) 



They have been made for two parts of the canal each 200 M. in 

 length and separated by only 4.9 K.M. One part was included in 

 that division of the canal which at that time had been widened to 

 a bottomwidth of 37 M. while the other, having a bottomwidth of 

 only 22 M., was situated a little beyond the point of transition to 

 the not yet widened canal. As a consequence the motion of the 

 water on the whole of this part of the canal, 4.9 K.M. in length, 

 cannot have been uniform *). 



Moreover these observations are only relative to the velocities in 

 the middle of the current, observed by means of floats down to a 

 depth of 6 M. below the surface, whereas the velocity given by 

 the formula represents the average velocity for the whole of the 

 wet section. Meanwhile a comparison of these observations with the 

 results obtained by the formula might still give some idea about the 

 reliability of the formula. 



The comparison of the observations referred to above with the 

 results yielded by the formula, putting the coefficient at 56.86, lead 

 to the following results : 



OBSERVATIONS ON THE SUEZ-CANAL IN 1892. 



Day and hour of 

 the observation 



Direc- 

 tion of 

 the 

 rent. 



cur- 



Distance' Mean dif - f 



t b h e e tW o e fa n '^SfW 



ces P of tweenthe 



obferva- 1 P'^ 

 tin „ i obser- 



tlon - vation. 



Observed velocities. 



Averages during an 



hour in the 



widened 

 part 



unwide- 

 ned part 



Computed 

 mean velo- 

 city for the 

 widened 

 part. 2 ) 



23 July 11—12 a.m. 



„ „ 5-6 p.m. 



8 Aug. 11— 12 a.m. 



„ „ 5—6 p.m. 



22 „ 6—7 a.m. 



„ „ 12-1 p.m. 



6 Sept. 11— 12 a.m. 



„ „ 5—6 p.m. 



M. 

 + 0.12 



— 0.14 

 + 0.09 



— 0.11 



— 0.16 



M. 

 -f 0.75 

 — 0.84 



M. 

 + 0.97 

 — 1.11 



+ 0.69 | + 0.87 

 _ 0.80 — 0.93 



M. 

 + 64 



— 0.58 

 -f 0.47 



— 0.57 



— 0.88 — 1.05 I — 0.68 



+ 0.07 j + 0.66 



+ 0.07 

 — 0.10 



+ 66 



-f 0.82 



+ 89 



_ 0.85 — 0.98 



+ 0.46 

 -f 0.47 

 — 0.53 



l ) The first part was the widened part of the canal between K.M. 149 and 

 149.2; the other the not widened part between K.M. 144.1 and 144.3. The tran- 

 sition of the widened to the not widened part was situated at KM. 144.4. 



~) As the part of the canal from K.M. 149 to 144.4 had been widened the 

 observed difference of level is relative to the widened part. 



