1901-2.] Mr J. Fraser on Constitution of Matter and Ether. 57 
as itself, and at most it could only have a valency of one. Now, 
let us suppose an increase of speed to be given to the particles ; 
this would have the effect of opening them out, making the atom 
less rigid ; it could now he compressed to a certain extent, and we 
may now regard it as having a valency of one. Imagine the speed 
to he further increased, this would have the effect of opening out 
the particles still further, and making it still more compressible, 
and giving, say, a valency of two. In this way, by increasing the 
speed we might give it a valency of three, four, five, or six, pro- 
vided that there were a sufficiency of particles; or, in other words, 
provided the atomic weight were great enough. But does the 
reader suppose this process could go on indefinitely — that by 
continually increasing the speed we could increase the valency? 
No ; a point would at last be reached, sooner or later, according as 
the atomic weight were small or great, when a further enlargement 
would decrease the valency ; simply because the excessive speed of 
the particles by their centrifugal tendencies would prevent com- 
pression beyond a certain point by the force available for that 
purpose. It is not that continued expansion would make it less 
compressible, it would make it absolutely more compressible ; hut 
the force required to compress it would be enormously greater than 
when in the middle stage of the expansive process. 
Such an atom, when in this last stage of expansion, instead of 
being sought out for union by an easier compressible one, would 
seek it out, and attach itself to it, because it would find a better 
hold on it than on its own kind. The easier compressible kind, or, 
in other words, those of great valency, do not seek union with 
those of less valency, but are sought out by the latter, which 
attach themselves to them like parasites, and so crowd out their 
legitimate companions. Why, though, it may be asked, does not a 
dyad atom, say, content itself with the company of only one 
monad instead of two ? There would surely be a better hold for 
one than for two? Yes; but it takes the strength of the two 
monads to divorce a dyad from its legitimate partner, and it takes 
the strength of three monads to divorce a triad, and so on. In 
other words, the hold or grip which a monad would take of a dyad 
would only be a little more than half of that of its own partner, 
and it would require two monads to attack it to divorce them, and 
the attack of three monads to divorce a triad molecule, and so on. 
