206 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Sept. 28, 1883. 



Oitorinl (Soetsip. 



The British Association meeting makes large claims 

 upon our space this week, and will do so for the next two 

 or three weeks. We propose, when the rest of Professor 

 Cayley's address has appeared, with its amusing references 

 to non-Euclidian space and fourth, fifth, and yet higher 

 dimensions in space, to comment on these conceptions, 

 which certain non-mathematical writers, in their amaze- 

 ment at such profundities, have described in the daily 

 press in terms which would be scarcely justified if applied 

 to Newton's greatest discovery. 



In writing my " Gossip " for last week I referred to that 

 part of Sir George Airy's library which he assigned to 

 paradoxists, — Reddie, Parallax, Hampden, et hoc genus 

 omne. I was in doubt as to the actual title that he gave 

 to this part of his library, and having written " My Lunatic 

 Asylum," changed the title into " My Asylum for Lunatics," 

 but suppose I failed to delete the first " Lunatic," for the 

 rather tautological title "My Lunatic Asylum for Lunatics " 

 appeared instead of what I intended. 



Truth gives me comfort. Several reviewers found my 

 article on Poker Principles in Longman's Magazine too 

 abstruse. Truth says it only shows that two and two 

 make four. Yet Truth condescends to borrow my table of 

 poker hands as " curious." As a considerable part of the 

 article is occupied with the reasoning by which the table 

 was established, this is rather incongruous on Mr. Labou- 

 chere's part. Perhaps he oTijected to some remarks of 

 mine on the Bishop-Labouchere row, — in which, however, 

 I take no manner of interest personally. I only objected 

 to a writer, whose authority on actors and princes and 

 dukes and actresses and circuses may very likely be high, 

 undertaking to define the limits of mental influence, where 

 men like Dr. Carpenter and Professor Barrett have been 

 unable to formulate an opinion. 



Hk goes on to ridicule my remark that "bluffing" at 

 Poker is not desirable, — he makes me say " immoral " 

 which is unnecessary, — because " the gain which can be 

 made by skill in lying is more than matched by the loss 

 which reputation for such skill is sure to bring." "This is 

 about as ridiculous," he says, " as [it would be] to suggest 

 that whist should be played without even finessing because 

 it is a deception practised upon the adversary." My critic 

 appears to confound "finessing" with "underplay," — a 

 very diflerent thing. For in the great majority of cases, 

 "finessing" is not adeception practised upon the adversary; 

 " underplay " is. However, his argument is not afiected 

 by his blunder. But no one would think of regarding 

 " undei-play " as wrong, any more than he would regard 

 feints in fencing or single-stick as immoral. Blufiing 

 which is lying for money is a difl^erent kind of trick alto- 

 gether ; yet not immoral if gross and greedy gambling" is 

 not immoral. But my point was the inexpediency of 

 frequent bluffing, regarded with direct reference to the 

 game itself. To be effective, bluffing should only be re- 

 sorted to occasionally. As to the expediency of "under- 

 play," Clay has spoken pretty stronglj', objecting to it for 

 the very reason indicated by myself in regard to bluffing, 

 that in the long run it does not pay. Probably Clay 

 knew as much about whist as Mr. Labouchere : at any 

 rate I do not find that Clay ever confounded " finessing" 

 with " underplay " (excepting in reference to those special 

 cases where a finesse involves underplay). 



" Let Knowledge grow from more to more." — Alfred Tennyson. 



Only a small proportion of Letters received can possibly he in- 

 serted. Correspoiidents must not be offended, there/ore, should their 

 letters not appear. 



All Editorial communications should be addressed to the Editob of 

 Knowledge; all Business commmiications to the Publishers, at the 

 Office, 74, Oreat Queen-street, W.C. If this is not attended to 



DELAYS ARISE FOR WHICH THE EDITOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. 



All Remittances, Cheques, and Post Office Orders should be made 

 payable to Messrs. Wtman & Sons. 



The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of correspondents. 



No COMMUNICATIONS are answered by POST, EVEN THOUGH STAMPEr 

 AND DIRECTED ENVELOPE BE ENCLOSED. 



HIGH WHEELED TRICYCLES r. LOW WHEELS. 



[938] — In spite of what Mr. Browning says further in last week's 

 Knowledge upon this question, I still hold the conviction that high 

 wheels, i.e., wheels of 50 in. diameter, and when geared up ranging 

 down to say 46 in. with ordinary machines must, and do, give better 

 results as regards general ease of propulsion, and easily acquired 

 and maintained speed, than wheels of the diminutive size he 

 advocates. 



It must he remembered that Mr. Browning says he now rides a 

 38-in. wheeled tricycle, and proposes to have a 36-in. wheel next 

 year. 



There are, I venture to say, very few practical riders of any 

 powers that will not agree with me that so small a wheel is a 

 mistake. 



In the first place the pedalling must be very rapid to get up any 

 speed at all, and there is a limit to gearing up. 



Mr. Browning quotes Mr. Nixon as one of his supporters, but I 

 believe I am right in stating that Mr. Nixon rides machines of 

 48-in. wheels. 



At any rate, I should be very glad to "take him on " if he wiU 

 ride a machine with 36-in., or even 38-in. wheels of any ordinary 

 pattern. I should then prefer to have a muddy or rough Macadam 

 road, and although Mr. Nixon is undoubtedly a more highly-trained 

 rider than I should ever take the trouble to be, I have very little 

 fear of the result. I should ride my 50-in. Imperial Club light 

 roadster that I have now ridden over 3,000 miles, geared up to 

 60 inches. 



I should bar the '' Humber," which is for some reason an excep- 

 tion, but even the "Humber" will, not, I imagine, produce such 

 good results if the wheels fall below, say, 42 in. 



Mr. Marriott, who is a remarkable rider, is said to have ridden a 

 40-in. in the recent tifty miles championship. He did not, however, 

 make such fast time as Lowndes did last year with 48-in. wheels. 



At hill-riding, I am satisfied that small wheels are at a decided 

 disadvantage, and as I live at the foot of Muswell-hill, I am in a 

 good position to speak from practical experience. I have ridden 

 this hill from bottom to top without stopping, in all over 50 times, 

 and always with a 50-in. or 52-in. wheeled machine. I once tried 

 hard witli a 44-in. machine, but could not get up, but directly after- 

 wards I mounted the hill with a machine of exactly the same make 

 — a Cheylesmore — weighing about the same, with 52-in. wheels. I 

 believe the reason for this is that the small wheels have to go round 

 so much more frequently that the influence of the dead point comes 

 in so often as to im])ede progression. 



I have now in my stable a Sociable with 40-in. wheels, and the 

 riding of this machine, although it is geared up to 47 in., is torture 

 as compared with my 50-in. geared up to 60 in. It is harder work, 

 even with a strong rider in company, and to get up a pace equal to 

 that I can keep up without effort on the 50-in., the pedalling has to 

 be so fast as soon to become fatiguing. It is only by dint of very 

 rapid pedalling that a speed of some eight miles an hour can be 

 attained, while with the 50-in., very slow, easy pedalling will 

 achieve this very moderate pace. 



I have recently been riding an "Otto" with 56-in. wheels, and 

 the roll of these big wheels was truly delightful, carrying one over 

 the rough roads without noticing the loose places. An " Otto " with 

 60-in. wheels, geared level, was ridden up Muswell Hill the other 



