5 ^^45 ) 
TiieCaufeof this lubricity of the M^gnetifni, t ^"magined 
might be, becaufe the fides or edges of the Wire had re* 
ceived contrary Poles by Splitting : And cpnCequently 
were turned topfy-turvy, that" what was the N. might 
then be the S. edge of the Half. But I could never difco- 
ver, but that the fides of each end, or of any other part, 
were the fame^ when I held the Loadftone to one or the 
^ther fide. vWiich indeed I always did in every Experi- 
ment for greater certainty fake. 
My Hand being thus in, I was minded to repeat thf old 
Experiment of Touching Wires, bj rubbing them backwards 
mid pnvards with ouQ of the Poles of the Loadftone, be- 
caufe it might probably give fome Light into the afore- 
mentioned ftrange Ph£nomena> 
Mx Barlow was I think the firft (at leaft he fajth he 
was) that difcovered the error of this way of Touching, 
viz* That it weakeneth or much hiirteth the Touch, 
^his I tryed, and found what is faid, not only to be true, 
but alfo that the Reafon thereof is, Becaufe the Poles ofths 
Wire, or Needle, fo touched, are not at the E?fds, but in, or 
near the Middle of the Wire or Needle. Sometimes one is 
near the Center, the other at one or both Ends. For in 
fome Wires fo touched, both the Ends of the Wire would 
be Attrafted by one Pole of the Loadftone, and Repelled by 
the other. And in fuch cafe the Repelling Pole always found 
a Sympathetick part near the Center of the Wire. In others 
(efpecially where a Verticity fucceeded, as foinetimes it 
will do, and that pretty llrongly too, in fuch a cafe ) the 
Verticity wouid be inverted, and the Ends of the Wire be 
attrafted and repelled in a dired' contrary manner to the 
Natural Form. And the Reafon of all this will be mani- 
ieft from thefe following Experiments. 
I torched a Vv^'re from end to end with only one Pole 
*of the Magner.' This gave fo vigorous a Touch, that I am 
almoft of "opinion, h k the bejt way of Touching. The 
Confequcnce was. The End where I began always turned 
Ddddddddddddd 2 coa 
