ef 
Mr. Redfield’s Reply to Dr. Hare. 315 
yields to its influence. But in the cause assigned for this force, 
as well as in the specific directions of the movements produced, 
we differ essentially. So far from ascribing this quickened gyra- 
tion to the “suction” alleged by Dr. Hare, 1 know of no such 
power in the uninclosed atmosphere; conceiving, that neither 
rarefaction nor any other known cause can here occasion “ suc- 
tion,” according to the common use of this term. Air, whether 
rarefied or not, can never ascend but in obedience to a pressure 
or force, suflicient to exceed both its own weight and that of all 
the atmiosphere which lies immediately above it, or in the imme- 
diate direction or locality of its motion. This erroneous hypoth- 
esis of “suction,” in some form or other, appears to lie at the 
bottom of the various speculations and inductions of my oppo- 
nents. 
In noticing the nisiliy involute and quickening motion which 
I allege as observable in ‘all narrow and violent vortices,’ Dr. H. 
gives an erroneous reference for his quotation; and the latter seems 
also to be somewhat inaccurate. Ido not see that his specu- 
lations on this quickened motion ‘towards the center or axis of 
the whirl,’ can affect either my views, or the disputed fact of gy- 
ration ; and they are sufficiently answered by observations pub- 
are in my first paper,* as as well as by the remarks made above 
on centripetal force. : 
Dr. Hare thinks that so fat as my observations show the quick- 
ening of the whirling motion towards the center of the tornado, 
they tend to confirm the views of my opponents and to refute 
“those which I uphold. To. me it appears that this is an entire 
abandonment of his ground. It is the general fact of gyration 
Which lam chiefly concerned to uphold, and which has been 
combated by him and his predecessor in this controversy. I dis- 
pute with no one as to how it may be produced. Should better 
explanations of this fact than mine be offered, they will be cheer- 
fully adopted. In the meantime, I shall adhere to my observa- 
tions and opinions, rather than to the hypotheses and speculations 
of my opponents. 
Dr. Hare thinks, “ <ht any theory of storms which overlooks 
the part performed by electricity, must be extremely defective.” 
I do not perceive that the part performed by electricity in a gale 
* See this Journal, Vol. xx, p. 45-46. 
