On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The Winchester Cathedral To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: As a regular subscriber to the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and as one who has visited Winchester cathedral and taken much interest in its architectural history, I hope I may be permitted to offer a correction of the article in your issue of May 10th. Under the title, Saving a Cathedral With a Diver,you state that Winchester cathedral was built by William of Wykeham in 1079. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the cathedral was built by Bishop Walkelin (1070-1098) and remodeled by Wykeham in 1394. This agrees with the accounts in several books on English architecture in which is described the transformation under Wykeham in 1394 of the nave from the Norman to the perpendicular style. New York. LEONARD OPDYCKE. The History of the Arch To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: A correspondent in your issue of May 24th calls attention to the history of the arch, and expresses surprise that the true arch was not employed in the pre-Hellenic Mge The following facts, current among archaeologists, may have bearing upon this question : In Babylonia, clay was the common building material from the earliest times, as stone was not easily obtainable. Clay also preceded stone in Egypt (cf. Petrie's excavation in Abydos, 1902). In the Igean, on the other hand, stone and wood were used; brick constructions are almost unknown (Troy II and III, where stone was hard to procure, and Asiatic influences predominated, do not furnish valid exceptions). Beyond question the corbeled arch was the earliest type known, and a form familiar to the most widely separated peoples. Such highly finished cupola-forms as the famous Treasury of Atreusreach the acme of development in this direction. Here, naturally, iEgean architects stopped. Their stone arches were strong and handsome; what necessity was there for change? In Babylonia (and Egypt) however, where unburned brick was used, such a structure could not have been lasting, since without adequate support the two opposite walls would soon fall in. While repairing this damage, what could be more natural for the mason than to stumble upon the idea of laying the bricks in directions converging toward the center? In this way the walls would be held apart, and a little buttressing would prevent the bulging. Indeed, the very ruins of our arch might reasonably suggest the improvement. With the burned-brick arch its evolution was complete, so far as Babylonia is concerned. A few remarks regarding chronology may be a propos here. The correspondent quotes the chronology of Petrie and Breasted in the same breath, and they differ in the period under question by a thousand years! This leads him to an unfortunate inaccuracy in stating the relative ages of certain Egyptian arches. The dates given by Breasted are based on Eduard Meyer's researches, and ale, in their broad outlines, accepted by nearly all Egyptologists. The Babylonian dates are no less than 1,500 years too high, as conclusively proved by Father Soheil's discoveries (1911-1912). Accordingly, 3000 B. C. should be read instead of 4500 B. C. Menno, So. Dak. W. F. ALBRIGHT. Suggestions on Reservoir Control of the Missouri To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: The writer studied with much interest your very forceful and unique illustration of the intricate and wonderful problem of the Missouri-Mississippi overflow conditions. The article of your chief editor is full of thought and facts. It occurs to the writer that one must live in this great basin to realize the full significance of the problem before us. It is certain that the dike or levee system is inadequate, and it is doubtful if any system will ever be devised that will entirely cure the distress, for nature is limitless; though it is the opinion of the writer that a system of head-water control, added to that of levees, can and will cure any overflow equal to that of the past. The cost of head-water control has many features of which we can take advantage. The western watershed of the twain rivers is much different from the eastern watershed; it is not nearly so abrupt, and flows across a broad plain from three to five hundred miles wide. In this plain are many natural basins, varying from a square mile to possibly fifty square miles. The comparatively level country will admit of dams costing from one hundred to the thousands, which will be sufficient to turn the channels of streams now running into the Missouri, not only stopping what the dams will hold, but a continuous stream. Again the writer differs with the editor, in that the amount of discharge necessary to control the greatest floods is given as 2,300,000 cubic feet per second, which at once gives a problem beyond even the thought of the finite mind; but when you take into consideration that the normal discharge is 610,000 cubic feet per second, and that the natural banks will permit, without levees or overflow, three times this amount, or 1,830,000 cubic feet per second, then man has only to master 470,000 cubic feet per second, and to do that he has both the levee and reservoir helps before him. It has already been demonstrated that the levees will care for practically two thirds of this flow. In my mind it is quite feasible to care for the other third by head-water control. With comparatively small cost, 300,000 square miles of the western watershed of these great rivers could be entirely cut off. This could be accomplished by the forming of a chain of artificial lakes stretching through North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. These lakes, formed by damming the tributaries crossing this country, could be connected by an artificial river, and the water in flood times turned into the natural basins or down this artificial river, and most of which would be used to irrigate these great plains. Ness City, Kan. J. C. HOPPER. The Mississippi Problem To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: For years I have been watching the floods which yearly devastate large sections of the Mississippi valley. I have also taken an interest in the plans put forth to lessen this evil, and have been greatly pleased with the stand your publication has taken in regard to this question of controlling the floods. The question is of such vast importance, and affects such a vast area, that only by the most careful and pains-taking study can a rational solution of the matter ever be reached. Many writers seem to think that it is a subject that can be handled easily if the national Government will only accept their theory and begin work. These floods are not of recent origin, but date back long before the advent of the white man in America. True, under the old conditions the waters did not reach the rivers as fast as at present, and the damage was confined to smaller areas than now. All over the Mississippi valley were formerly scattered small sloughs, swamps, and lakes which served to hold back the flood waters, but the white man has changed all this. The bottom of these low places contained the richest soil in the country, and man Is to-day looking for rich soil, and when a ditch, long or short, big or little, will uncover thousands of acres of land, he is going to dig that ditch, and the result is that in Iowa alone over four hundred millions are being spent in tiling and ditching, and the water which was formerly weeks in reaching the river now gets there in a few days, and what is more, untold thousands of gallons which formerly was held back until it evaporated, is now rushed to the big rivers at once. To-day there are not ponds and lakes enough in Iowa to hold back the water which falls in an hour. This talk of building reservoirs, it seems to me, is the most ill-timed and weak of any proposition that could be advanced. To build reservoirs you must have deep valleys and high hills. In a large part of this country we have no place where a reservoir could be constructed. All the lakes and depressions in Iowa and Minnesota together would not hold the water of the Mississippi for one day when at flood. What is more, it takes more land to hold water impounded than when running off, and it would take five times the land to hold back the water that is flooded when the water is running away as fast as possible. Those who advocate diverting the waters by digging canals have not seriously considered the size of the canal which would be necessary to give any appreciable help to such a river as ours when at flood. If all the machinery of the Panama Canal was to be brought here and set at work, it could not in one hundred years cut a channel large enough to relieve the conditions which have come up during the past two years. Much can, no doubt, be done to clear our rivers from obstruction, but it is so much easier and cheaper to build an embankment three feet high than it is to excavate three feet from the river bed, that the two propositions need only to be compared to convince the most stubborn. It is possible we have started to build our levees too close to the river, not allowing room for the water to spread out over enough ground. If so, we must back up and begin over. If we build levees the material is always at hand, and all the dirt put into the levees can be taken from the river side and thus help to enlarge the stream. The history of drainage is the history of pouring the water from the upper land onto the lower. It has been going on since the country was first settled, and it will never be reversed. The upper land should and must help pay the expense of protecting the lower land, but they will never be able to send it up hill or hold the water back on the higher land. Such floods as recently devastated Ohio and adjoining states cannot be entirely prevented. They will come like great fires and tornadoes, but much can be done to lessen the loss and relieve the suffering. Where possible the Government should construct reservoirs, not so much to prevent floods as to hold back the water for power. Where practical, rivers should be straightened, but for protection we must depend upon dikes, and we must therefore make them high enough and strong enough to do their work. Manson, Iowa. T. D. LONG. The Moffat Tunnel To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: On page 509 of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, published on June 7th last, there appears an interesting story, entitled The Moffat Tunnel Through the Continental Divide. I quote part of it, as follows: It will reduce the route from Denver to Salt Lake City to 68 miles, as against 187 miles by the Denver &Rio Grande route, which is at present the shortest. Our Book Club is a regular subscriber to your magazine and I read it with great interest; but in order that those who do not know that Western country may not gain a wrong impression from the above statement, I would respectfully suggest that it be revised and notice made of it in some future issue. Having lived in Colorado for about four years, I presume that what the writer meant to say was that by driving this tunnel through the Continental Divide, the new route from Denver to Salt Lake would be materially shortened by going under the mountains rather than by climbing over them. The actual distance from Denver to Salt Lake by the Denver &Rio Grande is 741.1 miles, so that from this you can readily see the inaccuracy of the above statement. I make this suggestion in all friendliness and wish you continued success. Boston, Mass. CHARLES A. BARRY. [The note should have read : It will reduce the present shortest route from Denver to Salt Lake City by 68 miles, and the Denver &Rio Grande route by 187 miles.-- EDITOR.] Pennsylvania Forestry Exhibition To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: During the week of May 19th to 24th, a most interesting exhibition was held under the auspices of the Pennsylvania Forestry Association at the Horticultural Hall in Philadelphia. The exhibition was free to the public, except on Monday, when a reception was held by the Association. In the' afternoons and evenings illustrated lectures were delivered by men prominent in matters of forestry throughout the country. Among the exhibitors were included the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry, the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, Pennsylvania State College, Pennsylvania State Museum, Harrisburg, Pa., American Forestry Association, Washington, D. C, the United States Forest Service, Washington, the United States Reclamation Service, Washington, besides many other institutions, societies, and business corporations. The exhibition was primarily planned to arouse public interest in the conservation and re-establishment of the forest wealth of the State. Through the lectures it was of remarkable educational value, and judging from the attendance, was far reaching in its effect. The fact that certain important bills for the protection of forests in Pennsylvania were at the time pending before the State Legislature, added to the value of the exhibition. The lectures covered a wide range of subjects related to forestry and the conservation of our lumber supply. Among them may be mentioned The National Forests,by Prof. Henry S. Graves, U. S. Forester; Forestry and the Lumber Industry,by S. B. Elliott, Pennsylvania Forestry Reservation Commission; Diseases of Our Forest Trees with Special Reference to the Chestnut Blight,by Irwin C. Williams, Deputy Commissioner of Forestry; and What Forestry Can Accomplish,by Prof. J. A. Ferguson, Dean of the Department of Forestry, Pennsylvania State College. If similar exhibitions could be held in all our lumber-bearing States, they would undoubtedly lead to the stimulation of public interest in the great economic question of saving what is left of our forests, and to the encouragement of legislation tending to help the replanting of devastated areas. E. J. D. COXE. Philadelphia, Pa. A Kocher Anniversary.--The University of Berne recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of Prof. Th. Kocher's teaching at that institution, this eminent surgeon having received the Nobel prize in 1909. On the present occasion Prof. Kocher made a donation of 40,000 to the university, which with the interests, is to form the basis of a fund of 100,000, this to be used for founding a biological institute in connection with the university.
