To The Editor of Electrical Review:
Permit me to say that I was slightly disappointed to note in your issue of March 11 the prominence you have deemed to accord to my youth and talent, while the ribs and other particulars of Fig. 1, which, with reference to the print accompanying my communication, I described as clearly visible, were kept modestly in the background. I also regretted to observe an error in one of the captions, the more so, as I must ascribe it to my own text. I namely stated on page 135, third column, seventh line: “A similar impression was obtained through the body of the experimenter, etc., through a distance of four feet.” The impression here referred to was a similar one to that shown in Fig. 2, whereas the shadow in Fig. 1 was taken through a distance of 18 inches. I state this merely for the sake of correctness of my communication, but, as far as the general truth of the fact of taking such a shadow at the distance given is concerned, your caption might as well stand, for I am producing strong shadows at distances of 40 feet. I repeat, 40 feet and even more. Nor is this all. So strong are the actions on the film that provisions must be made to guard the plates in my photographic department, located on the floor above, a distance of fully 60 feet, from being spoiled by long exposure to the stray rays. Though during my investigations I have performed many experiments which seemed extraordinary, I am deeply astonished observing these unexpected manifestations, and still more so, as even now I see before me the possibility, not to say certitude, of augmenting the effects with my apparatus at least tenfold! What may we then expect? We have to deal here, evidently, with a radiation of astonishing power, and the inquiry into its nature becomes more and more interesting and important. Here is an unlooked-for result of an action which, though wonderful in itself, seemed feeble and entirely incapable of such expansion, and affords a good example of the fruitfulness of original discovery. These effects upon the sensitive plate at so great a distance I attribute to the employment of a bulb with a single terminal, which permits the use of practically any desired potential and the attainment of extraordinary speeds of the projected particles. With such a bulb it is also evident that the action upon a fluorescent screen is proportionately greater than when the usual kind of tube is employed, and I have already observed enough to feel sure that great developments are to be looked for in this direction. I consider Roentgen’s discovery, of enabling us to see, by the use of a fluorescent screen, through an opaque substance, even a more beautiful one than the recording upon the plate.
Since my previous communication to you I have made considerable progress, and can presently announce one more result of importance. I have lately obtained shadows by reflected rays only, thus demonstrating beyond doubt that the Roentgen rays possess this property. One of the experiments may be cited here. A thick copper tube, about a foot long, was taken and one of its ends tightly closed by the plate-holder containing a sensitive plate, protected by a fiber cover as usual. Near the open end of the copper tube was placed a thick plate of glass at an angle of 45 degrees to the axis of the tube. A single-terminal bulb was then suspended above the glass plate at a distance of about eight inches, so that the bundle of rays fell upon the latter at an angle of 45 degrees, and the supposedly reflected rays passed along the axis of the copper tube. An exposure of 45 minutes gave a clear and sharp shadow of a metallic object. This shadow was produced by the reflected rays, as the direct action was absolutely excluded, it having been demonstrated that even under the severest tests with much stronger actions no impression whatever could be produced upon the film through a thickness of copper equal to that of the tube. Concluding from the intensity of the action by comparison with an equivalent effect due to the direct rays, I find that approximately two per cent of the latter were were reflected from the glass plate in this experiment. I hope to be able to report shortly and more fully on this and other subjects.
In my attempts to contribute my humble share to the knowledge of the Roentgen phenomena, I am finding more and more evidence in support of the theory of moving material particles. It is not my intention, however, to advance at present any view as to the bearing of such a fact upon the present theory of light, but I merely seek to establish the fact of the existence of such material streams in so far as these isolated effects are concerned. I have already a great many indications of a bombardment occurring outside of the bulb, and I am arranging some crucial tests which, I hope, will be successful. The calculated velocities fully account for actions at distances of as much as 100 feet from the bulb, and that the projection through the glass takes place seems evident from the process of exhaustion, which I have described in my previous communication. An experiment which is illustrative in this respect, and which I intended to mention, is the following; If we attach a fairly exhausted bulb containing an electrode to the terminal of a disruptive coil, we observe small streamers breaking through the side of the glass. Usually such a streamer will break through the seal and crack the bulb, whereupon the vacuum is impaired; but, if the seal is placed above the terminal, or if some other provision is made to prevent the streamer from passing through the glass at that point, it often occurs that the stream breaks out through the side of the bulb, producing a fine hole. Now, the extraordinary thing is that, in spite of the connection to the outer atmosphere, the air can not rush into the bulb as long as the hole is very small. The glass at the place where the rupture has occurred may grow very hot — to such a degree as to soften; but it will not collapse, but rather bulge out, showing that a pressure from the inside greater than that of the atmosphere exists. On frequent occasions I have observed that the glass bulges out and the hole, through which the streamer rushes out, becomes so large as to be perfectly discernible to the eye. As the matter is expelled from the bulb the rarefaction increases and the streamer becomes less and less intense, whereupon the glass closes again, hermetically sealing the opening. The process of rarefaction, nevertheless, continues, streamers being still visible on the heated place until the highest degree of exhaustion is reached, whereupon they may disappear. Here, then, we have a positive evidence that matter is being expelled through the walls of the glass.
When working with highly strained bulbs I frequently experience a sudden, and sometimes even painful, shock in the eye. Such shocks may occur so often that the eye gets inflamed, and one can not be considered over-cautious if he abstains from watching the bulb too closely. I see in these shocks a further evidence of larger particles being thrown off from the bulb.
New York, March 14