148 



NATURE 



[September 29, 1921 



The Norman Lockyer Observatory. 



By Prof. H, H. Turner, F.R.S. 



CAN an observatory be run on the co-operative 

 principle or as a joint stock company? The 

 idea is a novel one, but it is the function of science 

 to make experiments, and the tentative beginnings 

 of the experiments in this directon are not un- 

 promising. 



The reasons for establishing an observatory at 

 Salcombe Regis in the first instance need not, 

 perhaps, at the present moment be recalled. 

 Suffice it to recognise that the observatory exists, 

 is well equipped with instruments and an excellent 

 climate, and has an efficient, though small, work- 

 ing staff; it has, moreover, the advantage of asso- 

 ciation with a great name, the brightness of which 

 promises to shine out more clearly as the dust of 



In the two years which have elapsed since that 

 meeting events have moved quickly, at any rate 

 in some ways. First, there has been at least 

 one other visit of importance — Mr, and Mrs. 

 Evershed were able to spend sufficient time at 

 Salcombe Regis to report very favourably as to its 

 observing climate. Their experience in judging 

 climate is well known ; we need only recall the 

 expedition to Nelson (New Zealand) in connection 

 with the offer of Mr. Cawthron to found a solar 

 observatory, and the several expeditions to 

 Kashmir with their varying fortunes. From these 

 adventures has emerged the conviction that a moist 

 climate is preferable to a dry — a conviction which, 

 although at variance with some conclusions 



Fig. I. — Norman Lockyer Observatory. The Frank McClean dome on the right and the Kensington dome on the left. 



View looking south-west. 



controversy is swept away by the fresh breezes 

 of modern research. 



Years before anyone else, Norman Lockyer sug- 

 gested that there was an ascending and descend- 

 ing scale for stellar temperatures, which is now 

 the orthodox modern view. It is true that the 

 modern recognition of this characteristic of stellar 

 evolution is based on grounds differing from those 

 chosen by Lockyer for the erection of his theory, 

 and the difference might have been vital. We owe 

 Prof. Eddington a debt of gratitude for stating 

 fearlessly that the difference is small compared 

 with the sameness, and it is matter for congratu- 

 lation that this recognition was forthcoming, if 

 not actually in the presence of Sir Norman 

 Lockyer, at any rate in the presence of his family, 

 who were able to carry the account of it to him 

 almost immediately. None of those who were 

 present at the little gathering at Sidmouth which 

 followed the meeting of the British Association 

 at Bournemouth in 1919 are likely to forget it. 

 NO. 2709, VOL. 108] 



adopted in recent years, returns to the views of 

 Sir William Herschel, who has recorded the mag- 

 nificence of a night for observing when the dew 

 had been so heavy that those who slept while he 

 was at work could not believe on waking that 

 there had not been heavy rain. The satisfaction 

 of Mr. and Mrs. Evershed with Salcombe Regis 

 is, therefore, in keeping with their previous con- 

 clusions ; it seems even possible that when they 

 leave Kodaikanal and return to England presently 

 (an event which we shall regard with mixed feel- 

 ings) they may even select Salcombe Regis for 

 their next place of work ; but that, of course, is 

 still to be decided. 



Another visit to England, though not actually 

 to the observatory itself, has been also attended 

 with happy results. Mr. W. S. Adams, of Mount 

 Wilson, was in England in 1919 on his way to and 

 from the Brussels Conference ; it was natural to 

 consult him about the work of the Norman 

 Lockyer Observatory, which at that time was 



