AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
393 
70. Hydrogen is about 14i times lighter 
than the air. If we weigh the air in a bottle 
holding 100 cubic inches—that is, one con¬ 
taining a little less than two quarts—we 
shall find the air to weigh about 31 grains 
(31.011). But the same bulk (100 cubic 
inches) of hydrogen will only weigh about 
21 grains (2.14). It is this lightness which 
fits hydrogen for filling balloons to rise in 
the air. An iron vessel filled with light wood 
will rise up in the water, because the whole 
mass of iron and wood, taken together, is 
lighter than the same bulk of water. So a 
silk bag or balloon filled with hydrogen is, 
taken together, lighter than the same bulk of 
air, and will rise up through it. By hav¬ 
ing a large bulk of this gas, the whole be¬ 
comes so much lighter than the air, that we 
can put some additional weight upon the 
outer silk case. If the case, or balloon, con¬ 
tains as much hydrogen as a room 20 feet 
square and 20 feet high, the hydrogen would 
weigh about 42 pounds, while the same bulk 
of air would weigh 612 pounds. Now if 
the balloon weighs only 100 pounds, we could 
add to it a boat weighing 160 pounds and 
two men, each weighing 150 pounds, and the 
whole weight of men, boat, balloon, and hy¬ 
drogen, would still be 10 pounds less than 
the same bulk of air, and we should see the 
balloon rise up. The atoms of hydrogen are 
so small that they easily pass through the 
oiled silk used in making balloons, and on 
this account another gas, lighter than air, 
but heavier than hydrogen, and having larger 
atoms, is now generally used for filling bal¬ 
loons. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
SUBSCRIBERS—CONTRIBUTORS—EDITORS, &c. 
I had anticipated your duplicate of De¬ 
cember 27th, knowing that I could replace 
those of my own, presented to some of my 
old fogy neighbors ; but it would seem as 
though our club includes all those in this lo¬ 
cality who take any interest in agricultural 
literature. One contents himself with having 
taken the Agriculturist some years ago; 
another, who raises a flock of “ scraggy ” 
little sheep that would disgrace the Chevott 
hills, when I called to know the result of a 
copy I left him, containing an article on sheep, 
admired the paper, thought it a good one, 
will think of it and see me the same time 
that Felix called for Paul. A third, who, by 
the way, reads and practices some of the 
dictates of the American Farm Book, gives 
as a reason what I consider a very strong 
argument in favor of your paper, that he 
“ would take it, but he’d be sure to read it in 
the summer when he should be doing some¬ 
thing else.” Now, I look upon this as a tes¬ 
timony worth the opinions of half a dozen 
“ cotemporaries,” inasmuch as the “ genus 
Editorial ” may or might be construed as in 
their turn having an ax to grind. 
While on the subject of ax-grinding, I 
would enter my protest against the pro¬ 
scripts, (if I may be allowed the expression) 
“ your valuable paper,” your inestimable 
journal, &c., &c., I would say that instead of 
boring you and your readers thus, let those 
laudaminous contributors confine their praises 
to those who are not subscribers, with more 
success, I hope, than your present corre¬ 
spondent. 
Before concluding this communication of 
my ill-success this year in canvassing “our 
neighborhood,” I would be allowed to say 
that I feel more deeply interested in the Ag¬ 
riculturist since reading the publisher’s “Few 
plain words,” on page 264, January 3d, in 
which we, as subscribers, are appealed to not 
merely as such, but as agents, by whom a 
vast amount of good may be done in our 
respective spheres, by recommending to 
those who do not subscribe, the advantages 
of a journal devoted to the best interests of 
the farming community. Now, there is 
another way in which a good many of your 
subscribers may shoulder forward the wheel, 
suggested by the latter part of the “ plain 
words,” that is, by contributing matter for 
the pages of the Agriculturist, and thereby 
lightening the office-labors of the staff - edito¬ 
rial, and enabling them to devote more atten¬ 
tion to the formation of district societies, or 
assisting those forming or formed by counsel 
and direction—to visit the farms of the best 
and worst agriculturists in the country, re¬ 
ceiving statistical and other information 
from the one and communicating it to the 
other. By such means the desired nucleus 
would be formed around the Agriculturist, 
the rays of which would penetrate the thick 
darkness which overhangs some, (if not 
many) parts of our land. 
I can not conclude this article, though 
long it be, without adverting to “ Chemistry 
for Boys and Girls,” which is in high favor 
here by all with whom I have conversed on 
the subject. To the writer I say, go on, you 
will immortalize yourself. The millions of 
earth would never have known Dr. Isaac 
Watts through his “ Logic on the Right Use 
of Reason,” his “ Essay on the Mind,” and 
other works, good of their kind ; but who 
has not lisped his “ Hymns for Children,” 
and children of larger growth have sat at the 
feet of this Gamaliel of baby literature. 
WHISTLER AT THE PLOW. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
RECIPE BOOKS. 
A few years since distinguished house¬ 
keepers spoke of recipe books with contempt. 
They were something new under the sun, 
and their success and usefulness was yet to 
be proved. It was believed then that expe¬ 
rience was the only safe guide and teacher, 
and that every young housekeeper must 
learn for herself, by years of toil and trial 
and anxiety, in her own kitchen, the myste¬ 
ries of the all-important art of cooking. Not 
only printed, but even written recipes were 
lightly spoken of. To ask how this or that 
was made, was sure to be answered in an 
indefinite, indifferent manner: 
“ O, it is very easily made. I put in this, 
that, and the other, and cook it until it is 
done. It’s very easy.” 
And one was regarded as deplorably and 
almost unpardonably ignorant and stupid that 
she did not know without asking. 
Oh! the sinking of heart, the trembling, 
and suffering and fear of the young house. 
keeper, as she commenced her new domes¬ 
tic life without knowledge, and without guide 
or chart. But thanks to several ladies of 
our country, a better day has dawned upon 
the homes, and a brighter light is given to 
cheer the path of the young adventurer. 
The good, the literary, the intelligent women 
of our land have compiled and published 
many recipe books, which are indeed a bles¬ 
sing to all housekeepers, young and old. 
Mrs. Child, Mr. Cornelius, Mrs. Hale, Miss 
Leslie, Miss Beecher, and a number of oth¬ 
ers, have done much to improve housekeep¬ 
ing, and to lighten the burden of many a 
young and weary wife. It is true she does 
not know how to perforin the duties, but it 
is equally true that she is anxious to learn, 
and in these books she will find much to re¬ 
lieve, instruct and enlighten her. 
To be sure, nothing can entirely supply 
the place of personal experience, but recipe 
books are invaluable as books of reference 
in times of doubt and perplexity. 
I have known young housekeepers to spend 
much time in reading and studying recipe 
books, and I have no doubt the results proved 
that the time had been wisely and profitably 
spent. I would advise all young girls to 
learn as much as possible of the culinary art 
in their mother's kitchens, and to have reci¬ 
pe books of their own in which they can 
write the results of their first experiments. 
Newspapers, too, have come to our relief, 
and now one can scarcely take up a paper, 
which does not contain a variety of useful 
recipes. Sometimes, however, there seems 
to have been a little carelessness in the pre¬ 
paration of these recipes. I will copy one 
which I cut from a newspaper a few days 
since. 
“PieCrust. —A good pie crust can be 
made by taking two-thirds wheat flour, rub 
in well a sufficient quantity of shortening, 
and wet with cold water, to a paste stiff 
enough to roll out conveniently.” 
There seems to be some deficiency in the 
mathematical principles of this recipe, and, 
as a whole it is too indefinite to be useful to 
an inexperienced cook. 
I propose, Messrs. Editors, to give you 
some recipes which have long been used by 
a successful New-England housekeeper : 
CUP CAKE. 
One cup of butter, 2 cups of sugar, rub 
them together, add 1 cup of milk, 4 eggs, 4 
cups of flour ; stir in the flour and eggs alter¬ 
nately, without previously beating the eggs, 
and just as it goes into the oven, 2 teaspoon- 
fulls cream tartar and 1 of soda, dissolved in 
a little milk. 
ROSE DROPS. 
One pound of flour, 10 oz. white sugar, 8 
oz. butter, 5 eggs, beat yolks and whites 
separately, 3 table-spoonfullsof sweet cream, 
2 table-spoonfulls of rose-water, 1 tea-spoon- 
full of cream tartar, ^ tea-spoonful of soda, 
drop on tins, and sift sugar over them before 
baking. 
WASHINGTON CAKE. 
One cup of butter, 3 of sugar, 4 of flour, 5 
eggs, the yolks and whites to be beaten sep¬ 
arately, 1 cup of sweet milk, 1 tea-spoonfull 
of soda> 2 of cream tartar. M. H. 
