8 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



I Jan, 



them to the support of the profession wliich they represent. But 

 diss itisfiietion at the acts of the collective body is not inconsistent 

 with a most ample acknowledgment of the talents of the individual 



members. 



Considering that the leading architectural doctrine of this Journal 

 is the dependanci" of decoration on construction, it is natural enough 

 that when the Institute applaud structures in which this great princi- 

 ple is grossly violated, we at least should examine the grounils of 

 their judgment. How has it been arrived at? Certainly not in igno- 

 rance of the principle of architectural truth. Neither, we suppose, 

 in defiance of it, for this— to put the question on its lowest basis- 

 would indicate opposition to the doctrines advocated by the most 

 learned architectural writers of our own day, and exemplified by the 

 noblest monuments of ancient architecture. No other supposition 

 remains but that the Institute recognise the principle, but are literally 

 afraid of its consequences. Much opposition, doubtless, must be 

 overcome before what may be called nomensie architecture is consigned 

 to its deserved destiny, but the Institute carry their complaisance 

 and caution too far when, to avoid offending individual prejudices, 

 they advocate an irrational system which is fast growing obsolete. It 

 lies in their power to contribute most effectually to the emancipation 

 of art from the artifice and conventionalism which have too long en- 

 thralled it. They may direct the reform, and beneficially modify its 

 operations; but it is beyond their power to restrain its progress. 



Every paper read before this learned body, or sanctioned by it, is 

 retrospective— none prospective. The progression, the improvement 

 of art is scarely ever heard of. The past— the past only, claims all 

 attention; and this among those who are b^'st qualified to make pro- 

 vision for the future. The Institute owe it to themselves, and owe it 

 to the public, to take a far more elevated and independent position 

 than they have yet assumed : when they have shown their determina- 

 tion to lead the public taste, instead of following it, we doubt not that 

 their title to do so will be universally recognised. 



A statement has been made that Mr. Weale oft"ered to the Institute 

 to publish illustrations of the works of the members, and that his offer 

 WM rejected. We are in no way concerned in this statement, and 

 know nothing whatever of it but that it appears in the IVestminster 

 Reviem, and has been contradicted at a meeting of the Institute. But 

 the very existence of the rumour, and the earnestness of the denial, 

 indicate its importance. The difficulties of procuring information re - 

 specting the progress of architecture are, as we know by experience , 

 almost insuperable. Have we not a right to complain that this informa- 

 tion is not voluntarily offered? Our applications to individual archi- 

 tects have been met with uniform courtesy and liberality. But we 

 still feel that the greatest ponsible benefit which the Institute could 

 confer on their art would be by calling on the members to detail, from 

 time to time, the progress of their works*— not to read dissert.itions 

 on Roman remains in London, or the ecamiUi impares of Vitruvius. 

 We are also perfectly certain that this feeling is strongly participated 

 in by the architectural profession at large and the whole body of the 

 lovers of architecture. Surely an opinion so universal ouglit to claim 

 some respect from the Institute. 



To the remarks made at the meeting just referred to respecting 

 the impropriety of authors reviewing their own writings, we fuly 

 assent. All public confidence in reviews must cease when the slight- 

 est objection or even suspicion of partiality attaches to them. It lias 

 been an invariable rule of this Journal tliat every paper should be 

 rejected, whatever might be the subject of it, if it seemed written 

 with a covert purpose of furthering individual interests. We are 

 quite willing, or rather, we are most solicitous, that if cases should 

 occur in which our subscribers think that this rule has not been applied 

 with sutficient stringency, tlie particulars should be publicly commu- 

 nicated in our own pages. These observations have somewhat of 

 personal interest; but the occasion seemed to demand them. 



« As at the Institution of Civil Engineers. 



ON THE INFLUENCE OF HEAT UPON THE COHESION OK 

 LIQUIDS. 



Bv C. Brcmner, Jln. 



(^Translated in an abridged form by M.Rosenthal, M.D.) 



Laplace and Poisson have established it as a law, that at various tem- 

 peratures the height of the capillary column is in a direct ratio with its 

 density. In asserting this, however, they were solely guided by theoreti- 

 cal vievvs on the " force moleculaire." Guy-Lussac's experiments bearing 

 on the above are too insuflicient in number to settle the question; and, 

 notwithstarnling many valuable publications being since communicated by 

 several authors, Brumner deemed it worlhy his consideration to undertake 

 a fresh investigation of the mailer. M. Hagen having lately slated that 

 in the case of water, a change of temperature, amounting to a certain 

 number of degrees, has no influence on the phenomena of its capillarity, 

 the author was the more attentive to this point in his researches. M. 

 Hagen in his experiments employed brass plates, brought together in a 

 parallel direction, but Brumner operated with capillary tubes. 



These experiments were conducted la the following manner: — The 

 liquid to be examined was introduced into a cylindrical jar, and the latter 

 put in an oil bath ; care being taken that the portion of liquid contained 

 in the capillary tube should be of the same temperature as that observed 

 in the external liquid. To measure the height of the liquid column raised, 

 a glass mass was first immersed in the external liquid, in order to raise 

 the liquid surface until it reached the point of a steel needle fixed for 

 this purpose. The observer, by means of a cathetometer, having noticed 

 the uppermost point of the liquid column raised in the capillary tube, re- 

 moved again the glass mass immersed as above ; the water Ihus lowered 

 ceased to touch the steel point, and the cathetometer was directed towards 

 the steel point. 



The distance between the highest point of the capillary column and the 

 steel point, obtained by means of the cathetometer, indicated the amount of 

 elevation occurring in the capillary tube above the natural level. 



These experiments were made with water, ether, and olive oil. In all 

 these liquids, it appeared, the height of the capillary column was con- 

 siderably diminished by an increase of temperature, in a ratio far greater 

 than would answer to Laplace or Poissou's law relative to the propor- 

 tionality of density ; water, for instance, its temperature being raised from 

 32^ to 158° P., had its density lowered by 5^, whereas its capillary 

 height decreased to almost^. It seems in general that the diminution of 

 the capillary height, caused by elevation of temperature, is not propnrtional 

 to density, but that it is rather corresponding with the increase of tem- 

 perature. 



Founded on this assertion, Brumner calculated his experiments agreeably 

 to the method of the " least squares." In this manner he had this law 

 fully confirmed ; and tlie height (A) at which a column of liquid in a ca- 

 pillary tube of one milimeter radius, at a given temperature, is raised, 

 may be determined by means of the following most simple formulae : — 

 For water, A = 15-53215 — 0028639 J. 

 For ether, A= 5 3530 — 02S0I2 <. 

 For olive oil, A =: 7-4640 — 0010480 «. 

 In these formulae, t expresses the temperature in degrees of the cen- 

 tigrade scale. 



The law, that capillarity is not a direct ratio with density, but that 

 it is inversely proportional to the elevation of temperature, becomes 

 most evidently corroborated by observations made with water at low tem- 

 peratures. About 200 experiments, insliluled with water at temperatures 

 varying from 0° to 8° centigrade, or 3'.:° to 46'4° Fahr., showed that the 

 well known anomaly occurring in the density of water, from 32° to 

 39'2'^ F., had no influence whatever on its cohesion ; and starting from 

 32° F. cohesion, diminished in a ratio proportional to the increase of tem- 

 perature. 



We may, therefore, consider it as eslablished that heat has another in- 

 fluence on cohesion than that caused by mere change of density. 



