Abstract
PROF. ANDERSON'S letter in NATURE of December 4 raises a point well worthy of consideration—that is, the possibility of abnormal refraction due to the lowering of temperature in the air by the passage of the shadow cone. I do not, however, think that more than a very small portion of the effect noted at Sobral could be explained in this way. The shadow ellipse was 194 miles long (direction of motion) and 137 miles broad. I have drawn a section in the former direction to scale, taking the height as 20 miles. It is certainly unnecessary to take it higher, as the temperature of the upper air is unaffected by the passage of the shadow.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CROMMELIN, A. [Letters to Editor]. Nature 104, 372–373 (1919). https://doi.org/10.1038/104372d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/104372d0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.