* i > e 
Second Letter pas Dr. Hare to Prof. Faraday. 138 
important as respects a correct idea of the direction, as dha length 
has been shown by Wheatstone, to be incompetent to produce 
any perceptible delay. 
The dissipation of conductors being one of the most prominent 
among electrical phenomena, it appears to me to be an objection 
to your theory, if, while it fails to-suggest any process by which 
this phenomenon is produced, it assumes premises which seem to 
be incompatible with the generation of any explosive power. I 
discharge only involves the restoration of polarized ponderable 
particles to their natural state, the potency of the discharge must 
be proportionable to the intensity of the antecedent polarity ; yet 
it is through conductors, liable, as you allege, to polarization of 
comparatively low intensity, (xxxi,) that discharge takes place 
with the highest degree of explosive violence. 
Having inquired how your allegation could be true, that dis- 
charge brings bodies to their natural state and yet causes con- 
ductors to be dissipated, you reply (xxxiv,) that different effects 
may result from the same cause acting with different degrees of 
intensity ; as when by one degree of heat ice is converted into 
water, by another into steam. But it may be urged, that althoug] 
in the case thus cited, different effects are produced, yet | ; 
of hydrogen which pe se constiontal the solid called ice, should 
by one degree of calorific repulsion have the cohesion of its par- 
ticles so counteracted as to be productive of fusion; and yet that 
a higher degree of the same power should impart to them the re- 
pulsive quality requisite to the aériform state. In order to found 
upon the influence of variations of temperature, a good objection 
to my argument, it should be shown, that while a certain reduc- 
tion of temperature enables aqueous particles to indulge their 
innate propensity to consolidation, a still further reduction will 
cause them, in direct opposition to that propensity, to repel each 
other so as to form steam. 
In your concluding paragraph you allege, “that when pon- 
derable particles intervene, during the process of dynamic in- 
duction, the currents resulting from this source do require these 
particles.” TI presume this allegation is to be explained by the 
conjecture made by you (1729) that since certain bodies when 
interposed did not interfere with dynamic induction, therefore 
a. 
