Abstract
IF Mr. T. W. Backhouse (NATURE, vol. xiv., p. 474) is right in interpreting the phenomenon of radiance described by Mr. A. Mallock, as due (in Mr. Mallock's case) to under-refraction of rays (as in my case it certainly is due to over-refraction), his own experience furnishes a good connecting-link between the “two different, though allied, phenomena.” It would be well, however, in order to avoid all uncertainty, that we should know the result, in Mr. Mallock's case, of experiments with an obstacle advanced in front of the eye from a given direction. The experiment with concave or convex spectacles is not quite satisfactory, because it involves a breach of continuity in the observation of the phenomenon.
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
AIRY, H. Visual Phenomena. Nature 14, 525–526 (1876). https://doi.org/10.1038/014525c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/014525c0
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.
