{ 
134 Remarks on Dr. Enfield’s Institutes 
evidence of a repulsive power in bodies, that they are mere 
examples of cohesion, modified by circumstances. we 
suppose the force of aggregation between the particles of 
mercury tobe more than twice their force of cohesion to 
iron and to glass,* it appears from the investigations of 
Clairaut, that a depression ought to be the consequence.— 
The suspension of a small needle on water is owing to a 
certain degree of viscidity in this fluid,—in consequence of 
which the Dasha of the uppermost stratum. present more 
to separation than can be overcome by the down- 
d “pressure e of the needle. Those who are hanaiiinted 
vith the extended researches of Count Rumford on this sub- 
ject, will find no more reason for ascribing the support of a 
needle on water to a positive repellency, than the support of 
acannon ball on ice. Both are alike owing to the cohe- 
sion of: the upper surface. The poly :d differences is, that as 
cohe ; the 
Ww Mor the su ted body must be ‘proportional less e 
vig ; ey the surface it expose # 
Bo k HL Prop. oe ‘This proposition, Gide that. the 
,) is out of place; as the 
chapter is confined by. its title to the comparison of uniform 
It ought to have been deferred to ch. v 
pos Se rop. . Cor. 1. is evidently erroneous. ‘A sending: 
« Cor. 1.” is inserted under this pewpensam, which belongs 
to — preceding one ; for it is. true only of non-elastic bod- 
pees 30. The demonstrations of i Jans of oblique re 
scent saa ang saan ‘ies, are rendered unnecessarily 
obscur by changing the d of the entire forte: of 
the ost {oO alii the not notations of the different authors 
from whom he borrowed, to_ no ard. 
- Prop. 37. The domoumieaions is i ray ee not being 
: extended, as it easily might. be, to the supposition that-mo- 
haps it. “gee rather i o be said. —to « the ie 0 getiues which is 
pd od iy mach to the surlage of glass,” See H aii te de Physique, 
