Professor Hare 0}i the Electric Fluid. S 



escaping, by its insulating power, and that when it is removed, 

 electi'ometrical leaves cannot be sustained in a state of excite- 

 ment much higher than the rare medium about them. Thus 

 situated, it may be alleged that repulsion can no more act be- 

 tween them to produce separation, than it does without them 

 to keep them together. But this reasoning would apply 

 equally, whether they be in a large or a small receiver; and, 

 of course, does not account for the influence which the size of 

 the receiver has on the divergency. 



I will now adduce some additional facts and arguments, in 

 opposition to the doctrine of two fluids. 



According to Franklin, positive and negative, as applied to 

 electricity, merely designate relative states of the same fluid. 

 If, of three bodies, the first have more electricity than the se- 

 cond, and less than the third, it will be positive with respect 

 to the second, and negative with respect to the third. Ac- 

 cording to Du Faye, there is a radical difference between vi- 

 treous and resinous electricity ; and though separately exer- 

 cising intense action, they neutralize each other by imion. It 

 is universally admitted, that the fluid evolved by the prime 

 conductor of a glass cylinder machine, and that evolved by the 

 cushion, are of different kinds or states. According to the 

 American theory, the first is positive, the last negative. Ac- 

 cording to the French theory, the first is vitreous, the last re- 

 sinous. 



Let there be two machines. No. 1 and No. 2, so arranged* 

 that the positive or viti'eous conductor of one may communi- 

 cate with the negative or resinous conductor of the other. In 

 this case, the conductors, thus associated, form effectively but 

 one conducting mass; and one body, with a cushion on one 

 side, and collecting points on the other, might be substituted 

 for both. When this compound apparatus is put into action, 

 it will be found that the intermediate conductor, tested by the 

 resinous conductor of No. 1, is vitreous; but that it is I'esinous, 

 when tested by the prime or vitreous conductor of No. 2. This 

 result agrees with Franklin's doctrine, as above stated ; but 

 how can it be reconciled with the idea that the electricities are 

 radically different, that the same state of excitement may be 

 confounded with either? It may, indeed, be alleged, that the 

 fluid is never completely vitreous, or resinous, or neutral ; that 

 although the proportion of either fluid be great, it may still 

 be increased : that one conductor may be more vitreous than 

 a second, but less so than a third — or more resinous than a 

 second, but less so than a third ; and hence, in either case, 



# See Plate I. fiff. 2. 



