204 M. E. Edlund on the Nature of Galvanic Resistance. 



wire in which the section is n times as much, there come in the 

 thicker wire, at every cross section, n times as many molecules 

 of sether into motion ; for it is inconceivable that in the thicker 

 wire any more aether remains at rest than the inconsiderable 

 portion which appears as electroscopic tension. Yet, because 

 the strength of the current is the same in both wires, the velo- 

 city in the thicker one must be only one nth. part of that in the 

 thinner wire. Then each molecule of aether in the thinner wire 

 goes in the unit of time n times as far as those in the thicker. 

 We cannot, therefore, hold it an impossibility that the resistance 

 is greater in the former case than in the latter, because the re- 

 sistance may be dependent on the velocity. How it is wiih it 

 in reality is decided by experiment, which teaches that the 

 resistance is inversely proportional to the transverse section of 

 the conductor. 



We will imagine a single conducting wire f } of cross section I, 

 and also other wires f ,/",/'", &c. of the same material, cross 

 section, and length as the first mentioned, laid close beside one 

 another, and that one and the same current S runs through the 

 wire /and then simultaneously through the n laterally combined 

 wires/ 7 , f',f", &c. Then through each of the latter a current 



of the strength — must pass. But we know from experiment 



that the resistance which the current has to overcome in order 



to pass simultaneously through / ; , /", /"', &c. amounts to - of 



the resistance which must be overcome when the current passes 

 through /. According to the foregoing representation, the 

 counterpressure on the unit of surface of the cross section in the 

 n wires must also amount to one nth. of that in the single wire 

 f, because the resistance is determined exclusively by the quan- 

 tity of the counterpressure on the unit of surface of the cross 

 section. From this it follows that in each of the n wires/'; /", 



/ ;/ ', &c. the resistance must amount to - of that of the single 



n . 



wire /. Now in each of these n wires the intensity of the cur- 

 rent is - of what it is in the wire f. We thus arrive at the un- 

 n J 



expected result that the resistance is proportional to the intensity. 

 This result contradicts the, until now, universally received 

 view, according to which the resistance should be independent 

 of the intensity. But if any one will maintain this view, he 

 must also, for the reasons before given, assume that for the fluid 

 which we call electricity the laws of motion are altogether dif- 

 ferent from those which hold for other fluids with which we are 



