NOVEMBEB 1, 1899.] 



KNOWLEDGE. 



2-1-7 



electricians, added to which, the calculations of mechanical 

 stresses and strains, steam pressures, and the heat to be 

 got from any particular fuel, are not yet quite so nicely 

 calculable as we may expect to see them in the future. 



In this connection I would turn aside for a moment, 

 and endeavour to make clear a point which I attempted 

 to bring out in the first chapter of this series. I stated 

 there (p. 2it, bottom right) that " Electrical science owes 

 its present position to the facts, and distortions of fact, 

 propounded by the ancients." This statement has since 

 been called into question more than once, and I have been 

 blamed for asserting that any science could be indebted 

 (in any circumstances) to a distortion of fact. Doubtless 

 I did not express myself well there. What I meant to 

 imply was that a deliberate untruth which savours of the 

 marvellous will often draw attention to the subject con- 

 cerning which it has been told, and so, investigation in a 

 thoroughly honest spirit will frequently ensue. 



And, since " There must be no finality " — I forget from 

 whom I am quoting, but remember that the remark was 

 made some time since with reference to electrical research 

 — shall I be transgressing if I venture to point out that 

 scientific workers everywhere are constantly having a 

 " full stop ■' put to their undertakings by a most vexatious 

 system which unfortunately prevails among us ? 



As we approach the dawn of the twentieth century it is 

 depressing to find that, while the Institution of Electrical 

 Engineers has taken great pains to formulate a series 

 of rules for the wiring of houses, yet that body has 

 absolutely no power to enforce the adoption of such 

 rules. 



In this connection many other instances of something 

 like grave (if not culpable) stupidity on the part of some 

 person, or persons, could be cited. Anyone who has 

 carefully studied several reports of the proceedings of 

 Royal Commissions, or of Board of Trade enquiries, will in 

 all probahility see quite clearly what I mean. 



But, the disease having been alluded to, what is the 

 remedy V 



Expert evidence is almost invariably discounted, and as 

 a rule to no small extent, simply because the legal mind 

 (having devoted very much the greater part of its energy 

 to the study of " the Law ") has neither the time nor the 

 capacity to understand nice points of technical difficulty. 

 This being the case, why should not recognised scientific 

 bodies become, to a much greater extent, a law unto their 

 several members ? Must the settlement of some intricate 

 point connected with polyphase distribution be discussed, 

 argued, and finally decided upon, by men who are 

 uncertain yet as to whether it is or is not possible to find 

 a spot on earth which cannot be regarded as a place '? 



What is to be done '.' As time goes on the " infant " 

 will some day attain its majority, and demand its 

 inheritance. What then will be the position of its 

 guardians for the time being if they have to answer that 

 the heritage referred to is in Chancery, or has been 

 " fisked " by some constituted authority '? 



But it is by no means only electrical science which is 

 like to be kept out of its own — at least for a longer period 

 than is right. Every other useful science is " put upon " 

 in the same manner. 



And the one hope seems to rest upon the chance that 

 some day all scientific bodies will develop a far better 

 feeling of public spiritedness and, in consequence, will 

 unite, so strengthening the position for themselves in the 

 first place, then, following up this action, will make a dis- 

 passionate appeal to a right-minded government, asking 

 only that something may be done to remove this stumbling 

 block. 



I am suggesting no Utopia, but venture to urge that at 

 least one step be taken in the direction I have ventured 



to indicate. 



♦ 



UPS AND DOWNS IN OUR DAILY WEIGHT. 



By W. W. Wagstaffe, e.a., f.k.c.s. 



THESE are days of "penny in the slot," and possibly 

 everyone weighs very frequently for his own 

 amusement. Even if the machines are not very 

 accurate, the probability is, that if you weigh 

 regularly on the same machine, you can see cor- 

 rectly whether you increase or diminish in weight. 



We are not concerned here with the steady increase or 

 diminution in weight at various times of the year, or before 

 and after an illness ; but I want to draw attention to the 

 fact that in health we vary in weight from hour to hour, 

 and that this does not seem to be recognized. 



It is strange to see what absurd fallacies occupy the 

 popular mind. A propos of the subject of this paper, it 

 has been seriously asserted by many people that you are 

 naturally lighter "after a meal, and they have even gone 

 the length of explaining this by the amount of gas that 

 is developed from the food. These people must be very 

 uncomfortable after meals ! It reminds one rather of the 

 famous fallacy said, to have been submitted to the Eoyal 

 Society, asking why a fish could be put into a basin 

 brimful of water without making it run over. When it 

 was tried at someone's suggestion the water, of course, did 

 run over. 



Supposing we want to find whether we do really vary in 

 weight or not, there are two ways to set about the enquiry. 

 We can either sit in a weighing machine and live there — 

 which does not commend itself to most of us — or we ca« 

 weigh ourselves at regular times during the day, which is 

 more feasible. Now common sense points out that we 

 must vary in weight according to the amount of food we 

 take in, and the amount of material that we lose. 



In the following chart the observations are arranged in 

 such a way as, I think, will make them clear. Statistics 

 are always painful, unless the writer has the wonderful 

 power of Mr. Schooling, who certainly can make statistics 

 attractive. But, perhaps, the most convenient method is 

 to look at the summary diagram first, and this shows what 

 can be represented in figures without much difliculty. 



Average. lbs. ozs. lbs. ozs. 



9 a.m.— Before breakfast 155 8 (losing 3 ti) during uight. 



10 a.m.— After „ 157 4 (gaining 1 12) 



12 noon.— Before lunch 156 6 (losing U 14) 



1 p.m.— After ., 157 6 (gaining 1 0) 



5 p.m.— Before dinner 156 12 (losint; 10) 



6i p.m.— After „ 15S 14 (gaining 2 2) 



By these it will be seen that we lose three pounds six 

 ounces between night and morning ; that we gain one 

 pound twelve ounces by breakfast. That we again lose 

 about fourteen ounces before lunch ; that lunch puts on an 

 average of one pound ; that we again lose during the 

 afternoon an average of ten ounces ; but that an ordinary 

 dinner to healthy persons adds two pounds two ounces to 

 their weight. What would be the result of a big dinner ? 

 It is easier to imagine than to describe. And yet on more 

 than one day there was a difference of two pounds eight 

 ounces ; but this is not very excessive considering that a 

 pint of fluid weighs about a pound. 



Now what are the greatest difl'erences here recorded ? 



The greatest difference was between the night and 

 morning of three pounds twelve ounces, and this may be 

 accounted for by the natural loss of weight, partly by the 

 perspiration at night, which is variously estimated by dif- 



