No. 6. 



Lightning Rods. 



199 



For the Farmers' Cabinet. 



OBSERVER — No. 23. 

 Lightning Rods« 



We have all experienced the terrors of a 

 thunder-storm, and there is no doubt that we 

 would all be willing to avail ourselves of 

 some security against its dangers, if we only 

 knew how and where it could be found. Save 

 the miraculous interposition* of an over- 

 ruling Providence, there is no satisty in those 

 perilous seasons, but that which the jEgis 

 of Science — i\ie LIGHTNING ROD — af- 

 fords. But how can we expect those who are 

 unacquainted with electrical science to re- 

 pose confidence in the rod / How can they 

 feel an assurance that it can operate their 

 safety 1 " Or, — how shall we expect those 

 mechanics who put up lightning rods, to fulfil 

 all the requisitions of science, without know- 

 ing what those requisitions are 1 If they 

 seek for practical directions, they are mostly 

 ambiguous and altogether unsatisfactory, and 

 often lead into the grossest errors. Under 

 these circumstances, it is not too much to say 

 that very few conductors are properly con- 

 structed. 



The foregoing remarks were elicited by 

 reading the account given by N. J. Sharpless 

 (p. 105), and the extraordinary commentary 

 upon it by C. J. (p. 124.) 



C. J. very properly observes that " the in- 

 teresting account is highly deserving of the 

 serious consideration and e.xamination of your 

 scientific readers." It is so. But he must 

 allow me to loose the hand of fellowship 

 when he adds, " here is a conductor perfect 

 in all its parts, and erected with the most 

 scrupulous care and attention." 



The " interesting account" of N. J. Sharp- 

 less seems not to have been quite so " perfect 

 in all its parts" as his lightning rod, in the 

 estimation of C. J. ; for he has found it ne- 

 cessary to amplify considerably, by inserting 

 particulars in his commentary, which are not 

 found in the text. Thus — 



N. J. Sharpless. 

 " It is not quite elear to 

 me that the electric fluid 

 passeil to the cows at all. 

 Possibly they were killed 

 by the shock only, for I be- 

 lieve that such instances 

 have been known ; and 

 yet, from the appearance 

 of the wall, the electric 

 fluid must have passed 

 through it, in the direction 

 of the cows, although no 

 traces of it could be found 

 on their dead bodies." 



C.J. 



" While one portion en- 

 ters the ground, another 

 penetrates a two-foot- 

 thick stone wall, sepa- 

 rates again at the ottier 

 side, and traversing the 

 building in a zigzag direc- 

 tion, kills two cows which 

 lie at a considerable dis- 

 tance, and at right angles 

 one from the other and 

 from the point where the 

 liuid entered the build- 

 ing." 



* Electrical phenomena are subject to fixed laws, the 

 regular operation of which can only be suspended or 

 changed by the Power which established them. Such 

 an event would therefore be as much of a miracle as 

 Uiat of the sun standing still for Joshua, or its shadow 

 going ten degrees backward on the dial of Aiiaz. 



I have no means of knowing whether C. J. 

 had other sources of information (if so, he 

 ought to have stated them) — or whether he 

 only used strong language inadvertently 

 while making out a case to sustain a certain 

 position. What his position is, will appear 

 from the following remark: "Now it has 

 been said that an instance such as the above 

 has never occurred — that it cannot occur if 

 the rod be perfect in all its parts." But C. J. 

 has already told us that Sharpless's rod was 

 " perfect in all its parts." The conclusion, 

 therefore, which we must draw — which he 

 obviously intended we should draw — is that 

 the assertion is untrue. 



In the Cabinet, Vol. 3, p. 74, the following 

 sentence occurs, which I here repeat : " So 

 far is the rod from presenting a point for the 

 lightning to strike to, that I believe it impos- 

 sible for it to do so when the rod is properly 

 constructed in every particular. This is un- 

 doubtedly true under all ordinary circum- 

 stances." 



Now as this is the passage to which C. J. 

 appears to have allusion, and as its correct- 

 ness is completely disproved by his ipse dixit, 

 it behooves me to enter into a " serious con- 

 sideration and examination" of the facts of 

 the case. 



The lightning rod of N. J. Sharpless ap- 

 pears to have been constructed with com- 

 mendable care — much greater than is usual 

 in such cases; yet the account will by no 

 means justify the assertion that it was " per- 

 fect in all its parts." 



1. The point of the rod was found to be 

 wanting after the explosion, and there is no 

 evidence to show that it was certainly in 

 place at the time of the accident. It might 

 have been displaced by some other casualty 

 than a stroke of lightning. 



2. We are uninformed how the rod was 

 joined together, and by what means it was 

 attached to the building. 



3. Was the rod overtopped by trees or 

 other contiguous objects 1 



4. Was the ground naturally dry or moist T 

 — pervious or impervious to water 1 Did the 

 accident occur in a season of drought ? In 

 short, what was the actual condition of the 

 earth about the rod at the time 1 



It is necessary to possess correct information 

 on all of these points before we can deter- 

 mine that the rod was " perfect in all its 

 parts, and erected with the most scrupulous 

 care and attention." 



Happily, however, the information before 

 the public is amply sufficient for my present 

 purpose. The rod was not " perfect in all its 

 parts" — because 



1. It was too short at its upper end. Five 

 feet is by no means a sufficient elevation 

 above so wide an expanse of roof. " The 



