Prof. Olmsted’s Reply to Dr. Hare. 359 
ART. XXV. —Remarks on Dr. Harx’s Essay on the ques- 
tion, Whether Heat can be ascribed to motion? By Den. 
-tson OtmstTeED, Professor of Mathematics and Natural 
Philosophy in Yale College. 
Tr will probably be recollected by the readers of this Jour- 
nal, that in the 4th volume, published in the year 1822, Dr. 
Hare.communicated to the public an essay on heat, aiming to 
prove that caloric, or the cause of heat, isa iaeaial fluid. 
The substance of his views on the same subjeet, is also stated 
in his notes to Ure’s Dictionary under the article caloric. In 
the ‘* sketch” which I had undertaken to give of recent chan- 
ges and improvements in the science af chemistry, the publi- 
cation of which was commenced in the 11th volume of this 
work, it fellin my way to take aoaise of this essay of Dr. 
are; but as the concise manner. in which, from the nature 
of my undertaking, I was compelled to remark upon it, ap- 
pears to have been unsatisfactory to the author,* 1 feel bound 
to recur to the subject, and propose in this paper to consider 
the merits of his essay more at lar, 
I trust it will be apparent from what is said of Dr. H.. in 
the course of my remarks, (Vol. XI. p. 357, and XII. pp. 
11 and 12) that I am not wanting in that respect and defer- 
ence which his great experience, his able speculations, and 
his brilliant inventions in the department of chemistry, so 
justly entitle him to claim, especially from his younger breth- 
ren; but still I am sorppelic’ to think that the arguments 
which he has adduced to prove the materiality of heat are 
not conclusive ;—that he has derived consequences from Sir 
‘Humphrey Davy’s hypothesis which do not legitimately fol- 
low from it, and has alleged direct ct arguments to support his 
own, which are not altogether satisfactory. 
Since, in the * Reply,” the autos has expressed himself 
somewhat more concisely than in the original essay, and has 
no doubt exhibited those arguments upon which he. principal- 
ly relies, it will be proper to take these as constituting the 
sum of his theory, and to remark upon them accordingly. 
« We concur yay Dr. H.) in disapproving of the hypothesis of 
Sir Humphrey Davy, but because I have met it, with arguments 
upon its own basis, instead of briefly seer it, Prof. Olm- 
* See Dr. Hare’s “ Reply,” in the last number of this Journal. aad 
