﻿[ 268 j 



XXXI V. I 1 he Dielectric Strain along the Lines of Force. 



lo the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine. 

 Gentlemen, 



IT has naturally pleased me to have the support of Messrs. 

 Wullner and Wien in regard to my views on electro- 

 striction, especially as there is still considerable opposition 

 to my conclusion, that aether stresses are not communicated 

 to nonconductors when electrified. But their letter in the 

 April number o£ the Philosophical Magazine seems to me to 

 require an answer, and I should be much obliged i£ you would 

 publish this letter. 



As regards my criticisms o£ the methods employed by 

 Messrs. Wullner and Wien, I came to the opinion expressed 

 in my paper only after much hesitation and thought, and I 

 -do not feel justified in changing it. Where I misunderstood 

 them, I am glad to be corrected, and also to express my regret 

 that I overlooked their second paper. Criticism of methods 

 of experimentation is a minor matter ; and the important thing 

 to me is, that our results are in agreement. 



Their manner of stating this agreement I must refer to. 

 They say: " We are glad to see that in the principal points 

 Mr. More agrees totally with our views, viz., that there exist 

 no other real forces in electrostriction than the pressure of 

 the armatures. But we think we have done a little more 

 than he."" Xow, I published my first paper on this subject 

 in the Philosophical Magazine in 1900, and stated then, in 

 spite of the conclusions of many investigators to the contrary, 

 that there was no expansion in glass when electrified. Since 

 then I have published papers frequently, all supporting this 

 view, varying methods and working with glass, paraffin, 

 ebonite, and a shellac mixture, both for transverse and longi- 

 tudinal effects. When, also, it is remembered that they 

 published their first article two years later, acknowledging 

 then that they undertook the work because of my disagree- 

 ment with Quincke and Cantone, it seems to me it would 

 be propei* to give me what credit the discovery may be worth 

 and to say, that they are glad to agree totally with my view. 

 I should naturally have supposed that their form of statement 

 was due to the letter being written in a foreign language, if 

 I had not previously received a letter from them, in German, 

 expressing the same idea, — that I had now been convinced of 

 my errors and had adopted their views. Whether they or I 

 have done the major part of the work will have to be decided 

 by others, and it is rather futile for us to discuss it. 

 I remain, Gentlemen, 



Very faithfully vours, 

 Cincinnati, 26 April, 1906. LOUIS T. MORE. 



