TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION B. 963 
tion of hydrogen peroxide is not improbably due to a secondary simultaneous 
change. 
Unlike a mixture of carbonic oxide and oxygen, a mixture of hydrogen and 
oxygen is violently explosive. If we assume that in both cases the reacting mole- 
cules are electrolysed by the very high E.M.F. employed, and that the atoms then 
combine, it is difficult to explain the difference in the results. Does it arise from 
the fact that hydrogen is an altogether peculiar element? Or are we to attribute 
it to an influence which water itself exercises upon the formation of water from 
hydrogen and oxygen—as in the Grove gas battery? It is noteworthy that the 
velocity of the explosive-wave in electrolytic gas, according to Berthelot 
and Vieille, is a close approximation to the mean velocity of translation of the 
molecules in the gaseous products of combustion calculated from the formula of 
Clausius (H. B. Dixon, ‘ Phil. Trans.,’ 1884, p. 636). And this is also true of mix- 
tures of carbonic oxide and oxygen, and of nitrous oxide and oxygen with hydrogen. 
May we therefore assume, as the velocity corresponds with that of the products, 
that the water exercises the important office of inducing change throughout the 
mass, and not that the hydrogen is peculiar? I am tempted here to suggest 
that perhaps the ‘induction’ observed by Bunsen and Roscoe in a mixture of 
chlorine and hydrogen is due to the occurrence of a change in which a some- 
thing is produced which then promotes reaction between the two gases. I here 
assume that there would be no action between the pure gases. 
If I have allowed myself to flounder in among these difficult questions, it is not 
because I feel that I am justified in speaking with authority, but in the hope that 
I may be the ‘ fool,’ and that the ‘angels’ who are well able to discuss them will be 
led to do so without delay: for chemists are anxiously awaiting guidance on 
matters such as I have referred to. 
Attention must, however, be directed to the study of electrical phenomena by 
the recent publications of Arrhenius and of Ostwald (‘Journal fur praktische 
‘Chemie,’ 1884, 30, 93, 225; 1885, 31, 219, 433), and especially by the statement 
put forward by the latter that the rate of change under the influence of acids (in 
hydrolytic changes) is strictly proportional to the electrical conductivities of the 
acids. There cannot be a doubt that these investigations are of the very highest 
importance. 
I trust that in the discussions which we are to have on molecular weights of 
liquids and solids, and on electrolysis, there may be a free exchange of opinion 
on some of the points here raised. My reason for selecting these subjects for dis- 
cussion in this Section will have been made sufficiently clear, I imagine. Last 
year, in the Physical Section, the idea assumed shape which had long been latent 
in the minds of many members of the Association, that it is unadvisable, asa rule, . 
to encourage the reading of abstract papers, which rarely are, or can be, discussed. 
Two important discussions were introduced by Professors Lodge and Schuster. 
We must all cordially agree with Professor Lodge’s remarks on the importance of 
discussing subjects of general interest at these meetings. It appears to me, how- 
ever, that even a more important work may often be accomplished if the discussion 
consist of a series of papers which together form a monograph of the subject. I 
have endeavoured to carry this idea into practice on the present occasion, and a 
number of friends have most kindly consented to assist. Unexpected difficulties 
have arisen, and probably we shall none of us succeed in doing all we might wish. 
I trust, however, that the Section will approve of this first attempt sufficiently to 
justify my successors in this chair in adopting a similar course. 
I much regret that is impossible for me to attempt any review of recent work 
in chemistry. Not a few really important discoveries might be chronicled, and the 
patient industry of many who have toiled long to win results apparently insignifi- 
cant should have been mentioned with high approval. A few remarks I will crave 
permission for regarding the general character of the work being done by chemists, 
and regarding that which has to be done. 
Complaints arenot unfrequently made in this country that a large proportion of the 
5 3Q2 
