•with reference to the Whirlwind Theory of Storms. 365 



Dr. Hare thinks it singular, that I should have declined 

 noticing the "insuperable difficulties" of the hypothesis of "a 

 central and non-whirling course in the wind of the tornado," 

 to which I have alluded in bringing forward facts and induc- 

 tions which seem to contravene this hypothesis. He states, 

 also, that " the advocates of the disputed hypothesis are not 

 aware of any such difficulties," and intimates the propriety 

 of the allusion " without naming the facts and arguments " 

 which justify it. (27.) 



I consider it more proper, however, to rely solely on the 

 survey and inductions which I then presented ; as these ap- 

 pear sufficient to set aside, not only the hypothesis itself, but 

 also some of the chief deductions from the phsenomena of this 

 tornado which have been put forth and relied on by Mr. Espy 

 and Dr. Hare*. Besides, I had no wish to assume a contro- 

 versial attitude, in assailing by argument an hypothesis which 

 virtually discards the observations of mankind in all past ages 

 down to the year 1835. The testimonials of these observa- 

 tions appear in the names and terms applied by all people in 

 all languages to this small but violent class of storms. " The 

 facts" demanded, I had supposed, were furnished on that oc- 

 casion in sufficient numbers. 



Dr. Hare next adduces " the statement of a most respecta- 

 ble witness, that while the tornado at Providence was crossing 

 the river, the water, which had risen up as if boiling within a 

 circle of about three hundred feet, subsided as often as a flash 

 of lightning took place ;" which he alleges to be a " fact which 

 is utterly irreconcilable with Mr. Redfield's 'rotary theory.' " 

 He adds, " Now supposing the water to have risen by a de- 

 ficit of pressure resulting from the centrifugal force of a whirl, 

 how could an electric discharge cause it to subside ?" (27.) 



For the supposition here made, as well as for " the water 

 which had risen up," Dr. Hare seems alone accountable; as 

 his witness, Mr. Allen, speaks only of " the effervescence pro- 

 duced by the tornado in the water" having "perceptibly 

 abated." The water he states to have been " in commotion 

 like that in a huge boiling cauldron ;" but that which rose up 

 from the surface he describes as " misty vapours resembling 

 steam," which " after the flash seemed sensibly to diminish 

 for a momentf." I cannot perceive that the fact thus alleged 

 has the least unfavourable bearing upon my views of rotative 

 action. Therefore, without considering the optical effect 



* See Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. xx. new series, 1837, 

 p. 56-61 ; also vol. ii. third series, 1841, p. 356-359. 



t See Silliman's Journal, vol. xxxviii. p. 76 j also Mr, Allen's letter in 

 this Journal for December 1841, p. 430. 



