August 4, 1898] 



NATURE 



319 



LETTERS ^ TO THE EDITOR 



[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to retwn, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.^ 



Metargon and the Interplanetary Medium. 



TuEdetection of metargon, and the statement ihatits spectrum, 

 at all events, closely agrees with the Swan-spectrum, seems to 

 possess a very great interest for the physics of our solar system. 

 It gives a new and expected support to the assumption of an 

 interplanetary atmosphere, which, as I shortly hope to show, 

 will enable us to indicate the solution of most problems relating 

 to the comets, and probably, also, to the sun. 



This medium, which gives the acetylene-bands together 

 with the cyan-bands, is already known through different 

 observations : — 



(i) In the absorption spectrum of the sun. 



(2) In the emission spectrum of the highest beams of the 

 corona (Tacchini). 



(3) In the spectra of all comets, tra%'ersing all parts of the 

 interplanetarian space. 



(4) In the occluded gases of meteorites. 



(5) Now, at last, as a constituent of the atmosphere of the 

 earth. 



The last observation completes the foregoiiig series, so that 

 we can say that this medium now is found everywhere ; as we 

 should expect to find it, if it really forms a common atmosphere 

 to our planetary system. J. R. Rydberg. 



Lund, July 21. 



Metargon. 



Prof. Schuster in his last communication on "The Spec- 

 trum of Metargon " says, " taking the spectroscopic evidence by 

 itself, it points in the direction that the gas under examination 

 is a compound of carbon either with argon or M'ith a so far 

 unknown body." 



This observation has reference to the gas obtained by the 

 volatilisation of a "white solid," amounting to about i per 

 cent , which separates during the liquefaction of argon, as 

 slated by Prof. Ramsay and Mr. Travers in their Royal Society 

 [>apers on the " Companions of Argon." " The argon separated 

 is a liquid, but at the same lime a considerable quantity of solid 

 was observed to separate partially round the sides of the tube, 

 and partially below the surface of the liquid." Further, 

 " inasmuch as the gas differs very markedly from argon in its 

 spectrum and in its behaviour at low temperatures, it must be 

 regarded as a distinct elementary substance, and we therefore 

 propose for it the name ' metargon ' It would appear to hold 

 the position towards argon that nickel does to cobalt, having 

 approximately the same atomic weight yet different properties." 

 Now, a year ago Lord Rayleigh was kind enough to allow me 

 the use of a sample of pure argon for the purposes of liquefac- 

 tion. The gas, amounting to about 250 cc, was enclosed in a 

 sealed bulb to which was attached a narrow quill tube for easy 

 condensation in liquid air. I have repeatedly liquefied this 

 sample, and have always obtained a perfectly clear fluid argon 

 free from turbidity, opalescence, or any solid matter. In pre- 

 vious papers I have shown that a very small fraction of a per 

 cent of gaseous impurity, which separates as a solid in the 

 presence of a liquid, can be delected in this way. Thus 004 

 per cent, of carbonic acid in dry air gives an opalescent liquid 

 when similarly treated, and the same thing occurs with oxygen 

 containing less than o"l per cent, of chlorine. It would, indeed, 

 be strange if anything like i per cent, of a gas giving a white 

 solid at the temperature of liquid air could under similar circum- 

 stances escape detection if present in Lord Rayleigh's sample 

 of argon. The question, then, is. Where can the metargon of 

 I'rol. Ramsay and Mr. Travers be? James Dewar. 



Royal Institution, August i. 



Liquid Hydrogen, 



In a previous letter I said Mr. Hampson's " attempt to justify 



-oing behind my back in his relations with a member of the staff 



f the Royal Institution is a too transparent subterfuge to require 



::irther comment" and if I had not reason to feel the necessity 



NO. I 50 1, VOL. 58] 



of the use of cautious language when using your columns, I 

 should have employed even stronger condemnatory terms. 



Considering Mr. Hampson was not seeking from the Royal 

 Institution some general scientific information, but experimental 

 help to improve upon methods of research in which I was 

 actually engaged, and to which my assistant must necessarily be 

 privy, his proceedings were utterly indefensible. 



Now Mr. Hampson tries on a further justification by pointing 

 to the position of the person who introduced him to the 

 " member of the staff." When Mr. Hampson gives the name 

 of the "senior partner," I will be in a position to judge 

 whether that gentleman's acquaintance with me was such as 

 to fairly warrant him in transferring the introduction to the 

 professor. 



In the meantime the question remains, Why did Mr. Hamp- 

 son, like other persons of University standing desirous of 

 special knowledge or help in the possession of the Royal Insti- 

 tution Chemical Department, not address me in a manly wav 

 and request an interview ? If he could not write, then why did 

 he not call and send up his card ? Why this pretended necessity 

 for an introduction from a superior person of " familiar acquaint- 

 ance" as a preliminary to a " confident hope of gaining" my 

 " attention directly" ? Yet this punctilious gentleman suggests 

 in extenuation that he entertained the possibility of a " chance 

 meeting''' with me here. How considerate of my position ! 

 The course of action Mr. Hampson succeeded in carrying out 

 was admirably adapted to create antagonism between the 

 professor and his assistant. 



Mr. Hampson now says : " It is strange Prof. Dewar, having 

 himself published his belief that his assistant is capable of 

 being ' got at ' by a complete stranger, should in the very next 

 line attach some importance to that gentleman's account of the 

 transaction." This is, in other words, a covert suggestion 

 that my assistant's veracity is not comparable with his own. 

 Had my assistant ever dreamt that what I regard as a far too 

 precipitate kindness to a " complete stranger " would ultimately 

 be used as material to support an attack upon the character of 

 the professor and the credit of this Institution, I do not doubt 

 for a moment he would have acted with more dignified reserve 

 and cautious consideration ; in spite of Mr. Hampson's per- 

 suasive influence and the tempting allurement of the intro- 

 duction from the " senior partner of a large chemical firm in 

 London of the highest standing." 



Verily no man can serve two masters at any time, far less 

 when both are engaged on the same research. If conduct like 

 this, which Mr. Hampson has the boldness to characterise as 

 ".simple and straightforward," is to he tolerated, the inviolate 

 relations between professor and assistant are ruined, and there 

 is, indeed, an end to any combination of science and morals. 



Royal Institution, July 31. James Dewar. 



The Medusa of Lake Urumiah. 



I have received to-day a telegram from my son, Mr. R. T. 

 Gunther, posted this morning at Tauris, in which he states that 

 the "Medusa" reported by travellers to inhabit in immense 

 numbers Lake Urumiah, proves to be a species of Branchipus. 



Kew, July 27. Albert Gunther. 



Distillery Pollution. 

 The disposal of the effluents from distilleries and other works 

 is a matter of first interest not only to the proprietors of the 

 works, but also to the riparian owners on the banks of streams 

 on which such works are usually situated, and a few remarks on 

 the possibility of avoiding the Law Courts in matters of 

 pollution of rivers may be of interest, especially to the owners 

 of distilleries. In the Spey district of Scotland, for instance, 

 the great increase of distilleries, both in number and in malting 

 capacity, has in recent years so increased the effluent that 

 although any one distillery may not in itself seriously pollute so 

 large a body of water as the Spey, yet their joint effluent is so 

 great, it is alleged, that the pollution is serious, prejudicially 

 affecting fish life, spawning and the taking of the fly by salmon, 

 and rendering the river otherwise unfit for primary uses. Be 

 these allegations true or false, the fact remains that at the pre- 

 sent moment interdict hangs over one distillery — the Macallan 

 Glenlivet Distillery — and if no method is found of avoiding the 

 discharge and consequent fungoid growth, &c., there is no say- 

 ing what may be the issue and ultimate result to what is now a 



