360 Prof. Olmsted’s Reply to Dr. Hare. 
sted accuses me, no less than the illustrious author, of polluting 
chemical science with mechanical reasonings.’ eply, p. 51. 
« Besides erroneously holding me up as the friend of a method 
of — of which J am really the antagomist,”’ &e. 
m the manner in which I have spoken of Dr. H. no 
reader ‘will, I think, understand me as accusing him of pollut- 
ing chemical science, or even of being the friend of employ- 
ing oe reasonings in the explanation of chemical 
pheno Yet I cannot but think that he has, in ths in- 
stance, oil an oversight, both in making Davy’s hy- 
‘pothesis wear 4 much more mechanical aspect than it did ori- 
ginally, and in applying to it mechanical principles which 
have no bearing on it whatever. For 
1. In the hypothesis, the motions supposed are those which 
occur between particles of matter, and at insensible distances. 
In the refutation, the principles applied are such as belong to 
_ SS. nts occur between masses of matter and at 
nsible dista 
sditioiie contemplated by the hypothesis are either 
rotatory or vibratory : those supposed in the refutation are 
rectilinear, and in one continued direction,—for to no other 
does the law of percussion adduced apply. 
3. The ieee takes it for granted that all the particles 
sity come into collision each upon each ; whereas t 
hypothesis dots not warrant the supposition that any fos par- 
ticles ever strike against each other at all. For it is plain 
that the revolutions of particles round their own axes, do not 
bring them into collision with each other; nor do the vibra- 
tions of the particles make it necessary to suppose that they 
ever hit each other; for if there be space enough between the 
particles to permit them to vibrate at all, it is clear that they 
may vibrate without coming into collision. Finally, if sad 
did impinge against one another, it must be remembered th 
the motion is backwards and forwards, and, therefore, this is 
not a case to which the law of percussion, as adduced by Dr. 
Hare, applies. 
I cannot but think, therefore, that Dr. Hare has refuted a 
a al not of Sir Humphrey Davy’s, but of his own 
: Doctor proceeds : 3 
> criticism of Prof. Olmsted would convey to any person 
who had not -my essay, an impression, that { aa been so dull 
as to cutee a disproval of the Expothcaie: of Sir H. Davy, as es- 
