applying. Subtracting 4°, however, on this account, we obtain 33553° as the quantity of heat absorbed during the electrolysis of water, which ought therefore to be equal to the quantity of heat evolved by the combustion of a gramme of hydrogen gas.

8. By the inverse method of electrical currents, then, we have found that the quantities of heat evolved by the combustion of copper, zinc and hydrogen, are respectively 594°, 1185°, and 33553°. These quantities agree so well with the results obtained by Dulong, that I think I may assume that the principles admitted in this paper are demonstrated sufficiently to justify me in making them the basis of a few concluding observations.

The fact that the heat evolved in a given time by a metallic wire is proportional to the square of the quantity of transmitted electricity, proves that the action of the current is of a strictly mechanical character; for the force exerted by a fluid impinging against a solid body obeys the same law. Now I have shown in previous papers, that when the temperature of a gramme of water is increased by 1° Centigrade, a quantity of vis viva is communicated to its particles equal to that acquired by a weight of 448 grammes after falling from the perpendicular height of one metre. Hence the mechanical force of a voltaic pile may be calculated from the heat which it evolves.

Hence also may the absolute force with which bodies enter into chemical combination be estimated by the quantity of heat evolved. Thus, from the data already given, the vis viva developed by the combustion of a gramme of copper, a gramme of zinc, and a gramme of hydrogen, will be respectively equivalent to the vis viva possessed by weights of 266112, 530880, and 15031744 grammes, after falling from the perpendicular height

of one metre.

LXX. The Bakerian Lecture.-Contributions to the Physiology of Vision.-Part the Second. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, Phanomena of Binocular Vision (continued). By CHARLES WHEATSTONE, F.R.S., Professor of Experimental Philosophy in King's College, London†.

[With a Plate.]
§ 17.

IN § 3. of the first part of my "Contributions to the Physiology of Vision," published in the Philosophical Transactions for 1838, speaking of the stereoscope, I stated, "The pictures * Philosophical Magazine, S. 3. vol. xxvii. p. 206,

From the Philosophical Transactions for 1852, part i.; having been received and read by the Royal Society January 15, 1852.

Reprinted in our April Number.-ED. Phil. Mag.

will indeed coincide when the sliding pannels are in a variety of different positions, and consequently when viewed under different inclinations of the optic axes; but there is only one position in which the binocular image will be immediately seen single, of its proper magnitude, and without fatigue to the eyes, because in this position only the ordinary relations between the magnitude of the pictures on the retina, the inclination of the optic axes, and the adaptation of the eye to distinct vision at different distances, are preserved. The alteration in the apparent magnitude of the binocular images, when these usual relations are disturbed, will be discussed in another paper of this series, with a variety of remarkable phænomena depending thereon."

In 1833, five years before the publication of the memoir just mentioned, these yet unpublished investigations were announced in the third edition of Herbert Mayo's "Outlines of Human Physiology" in the following words:-"Mr. Wheatstone has shown, in a paper he is about to publish, that if by artificial means the usual relations which subsist between the degree of inclination of the optic axes and the visual angle which the object subtends on the retina be disturbed, some extraordinary illusions may be produced. Thus, the magnitude of the image remaining constant on the retina, its apparent size may be made to vary with every alteration of the angular inclination of the optic axes."

I shall resume the consideration of the phænomena of binocular vision with this subject, because the facts I have ascertained regarding it are necessary to be understood before entering on the new experiments relating to stereoscopic appearances which I intend to bring forward on the present occasion.

Under the ordinary conditions of vision, when an object is placed at a certain distance before the eyes, several concurring circumstances remain constant, and they always vary in the same order when the distance of the object is changed. Thus, as we approach the object, or as it is brought nearer to us, the magnitude of the picture on the retina increases; the inclination of the optic axes, required to cause the pictures to fall on corresponding places of the retinæ, becomes greater; the divergence of the rays of light proceeding from each point of the object, and which determines the adaptation of the eyes to distinct vision of that point, increases; and the dissimilarity of the two pictures projected on the retina also becomes greater. It is important to ascertain in what manner our perception of the magnitude and distance of objects depends on these various circumstances, and to inquire which are the most, and which the least influential in the judgements we form. To advance this inquiry beyond the point to which it has hitherto been brought, it is not sufficient to content ourselves with drawing conclusions from observations

on the circumstances under which vision naturally occurs, as preceding writers on this subject mostly have done, but it is necessary to have more extended recourse to the methods so successfully employed in experimental philosophy, and to endeayour, wherever it be possible, not only to analyse the elements of vision, but also to recombine them in unusual manners, so that they may be associated under circumstances that never naturally

occur.

The instrument I shall proceed to describe enables these abnormal combinations to be made in a very simple and effectual manner. Its principal object is to cause the binocular pictures to coincide, with any inclination of the optic axes, while their magnitudes on the retinæ remain the same; or inversely, while the optic axes remain at the same angle, to cause the size of the pictures on the retina to vary in any manner.

Two plane mirrors inclined 90° to each other are placed together and fixed vertically upon a horizontal board. Two wooden arms move round a common centre situated on this board in the vertical plane which bisects the angle of the mirrors, and about 14 inch beyond their line of junction. Upon each of these arms is placed an upright pannel, at right angles thereto, for the purpose of receiving its appropriate picture, and each pannel is made to slide to and from the opposite mirror. The eyes being placed before the mirrors, the right eye to the right mirror and the left eye to the left mirror, and the pannels being adjusted to the same distances, however the arms be moved round their centre, the distance of the reflected image of each picture from the eye will remain exactly the same, and consequently its retinal magnitude will be unchanged. But as the two reflected images do not occupy the same place when the pictures are in different positions, to cause the former to coincide the optic axes must converge differently. When the arms are in the same straight line, the images coincide while the optic axes are parallel; and as they form a less angle with each other, the optic axes converge more to occasion the coincidence. When the arms remain in the same positions, while the pannels slide towards or from the mirrors, the convergence of the optic axes remains the same, but the magnitude of the pictures on the retinæ increases as the distance decreases. By the arrangement described, and which is represented by figs. 1 and 2, Plate XII., the reflected pictures are always perpendicular to the optic axes, and the corresponding points of the pictures, when they are exactly similar, fall upon corresponding points of the retina. The instrument has an adjustment for otherwise inclining them if it be required.

Let us now attend to the effects produced. The pictures being fixed at the same distance from the mirrors, there is a cer

tain adjustment of the arms at which the binocular image will appear of its natural size, that is, the size we judge the picture itself to be when we look at it directly; in this case the magnitude of the pictures on the retina and the inclination of the optic axes preserve their usual relation to each other. If now the arms be moved back, so as to cause a less convergence of the axes, the image will appear to increase in magnitude until the arms are in a straight line and the optic axes are parallel; and, on the other hand, if the arms be moved forwards, so as to form a less angle, the optic axes will converge more, and the image will appear gradually smaller. In this manner, while the retinal magnitude remains the same, the perceived magnitude of the binocular object varies through a very considerable range.

The instrument being again adjusted so that the image shall be seen of its natural size; on sliding the pictures nearer the mirrors its perceived magnitude will be augmented, and on sliding them from the mirrors it will appear diminished in size. During these variations of magnitude the inclination of the optic axes remains the same.

The perceived magnitude of an object, therefore, diminishes as the inclination of the axes becomes greater, while the distance remains the same; and it increases, when the inclination of the axes remains the same, while the distance diminishes. When both these conditions vary inversely, as they do in ordinary vision when the distance of an object changes, the perceived magnitude remains the same*.

Before I proceed further it will be proper to explain the meaning of some of the terms I employ. I call the magnitude of the object itself, the real or objective magnitude; the magnitude of the picture on the retina, the retinal magnitude; and the magnitude we estimate the object to be from its retinal magnitude and the inclination of the optic axes conjointly, I name the perceived magnitude. I do not use the term apparent magnitude, because, according to its ordinary acceptation, it sometimes means what I call retinal, and at other times what I name perceived magnitude.

We have seen in what manner our perception of magnitude is modified by the new associations which this instrument enables us to form; let us now examine how our perception of distance

* Several cases of the alteration of the perceived magnitude of objects are mentioned by Dr. R. Smith (Complete System of Optics, 1738, vol. ii, p. 388, and rem. 526 and 532); and Dr. R. Darwin (Philosophical Transactions, vol. lxxvi. p. 313) observed that when an ocular spectrum was impressed on both eyes it appeared magnified when they were directed to a wall at a considerable distance. The facts noticed by these authors are satisfactorily explained by the above considerations.

is affected by them. If we continue to observe the binocular picture whilst it apparently increases or decreases, in consequence of the inclination of the optic axes varying while the magnitude of the impressions on the retinæ remains the same, it does not appear either to approach or to recede; and yet if we attentively regard it in any fixed position, it is perceived to be at a different distance. On the other hand, if we continue to regard the binocular picture, enlarging and diminishing in consequence of the change of retinal magnitude while the convergence of the axes remains the same, we perceive it to approach or recede in the most evident manner; but on fixing the attention to it, when it is stationary, at any instant, it appears to be at the same distance at one time as it is at another.

Convergence of the optic axes therefore suggests fixed distance to the mind; variation of retinal magnitude suggests change of distance. We may, as I have above shown, perceive an object approach or recede without appearing to change its distance, and an object to be at a different distance, without appearing to approach or recede; these paradoxical effects render it difficult, until the phænomena are well apprehended, to know, or to express, what we actually do perceive.

It is the prevalent opinion that the sensation which accompanies the inclination of the optic axes immediately suggests distance, and that the perceived magnitude of an object is a judgement arising from our consciousness of its distance and of the magnitude of its picture on the retina. From the experiments I have brought forward, it rather appears to me that what the sensation which is connected with the convergence of the axes immediately suggests is a correction of the retinal magnitude to make it agree with the real magnitude of the object; and that distance, instead of being a simple perception, is a judgement arising from a comparison of the retinal and perceived magnitudes. However this may be, unless other signs accompany this sensation the notion of distance we thence derive is uncertain and obscure, whereas the perception of the change of magnitude it occasions is obvious and unmistakeable.

To see, in their full extent, the variations of magnitude exhibited by the instrument I have described, it is necessary to attend to the following observations.

As the inclination of the optic axes corresponding to a different distance is habitually, under ordinary circumstances, accompanied with the particular adaptation of the eyes required for distinct vision at that distance, it is difficult to disassociate these two conditions so as to see with equal distinctness the binocular picture when the optic axes are parallel, and when they converge greatly, although the pictures remain, in both cases, at