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.
Thunder at Sea To the Editor of the Scientific American : I have read your recent article concerning “Thunder at Sea” and wish to relate a personal experience I have had. In June, 1907, I left port Talbot, England, on a sail-ing vessel bound for Taltal, Chile. While crossing the line (equator) about three hundred miles off the coast of South America we had a very severe thunderstorm, thunder, lightning, rain in torrents, from 8 P. M. until about 4 A. M. the next morning, continuously. I wish to mention, though, that this is the only time that I remember thunder at sea, and I remember this only on account of its violence; in fact, it was the most violent I ever encountered in any part of the world. We were told to keep our eyes closed and our ears protected with cotton. But the lightning did not strike the ship, al-though it was above our heads all of the time. Pensacola, Fla. Hermann T. Michelsen. Cipher Codes To the Editor of the Scientific American : I have been seeing for some tlme in your paper dif-ferent methods for secret codes in transmitting messages in war time. I thought maybe the following would be of some in-terest to your readers because of its simplicity and being impossible to decipher unless the code is known. Suppose this message was to be sent: "The enemy are in full retreat. Strike now.” And suppose we take this for our code, “87921." Taking the letter “t,” we count eight letters from same, for instance, uvwxyzab. When we get to the end of the alphabet we start over again with “a." Therefore our first letter in our code is “b.” Like-wise seven letters after “h” is “o,” and “o” is our next letter in the code. Continuing thus, we have the fol-lowing message: "Bongomthcsmpwhvtsaguzljvtbyrmfvvf." As will be noticed, all the words are run together. Now, of course when you get to “1” in our code we start again with 87921879 and so forth. Poe's method of deciphering would be worthless here since no letter is the same throughout the message. “E” in “the” is “N” and “E” in “enemy” is both “G” and “M." Since any numbers can be used and changed at a moment's notice and no preliminary preparation to make for deciphering message (which is done by count-ing backward), this code seems to be very simple yet quite impossible to decipher without having code num-bers. There are over a million different combinations that can be used. H. A. Darnell. Memphis, Tenn. [The system described is one rather widely used. It is decipherable. See Gross's “Handbuch fuel' Untersuchungsrichter/' in whlch this and other cipher codes are discussed.—Editor.] Color Music in Australia To the Editor of the Scientific American : In the issue of the Scientific American dated April 10th I have read with great interest the article on “Color Music; a New Art Created with the Aid of Science,” by Mr. Harry Chapin Plummer, and the admir-able details which you give lend additional interest to me, as a student of color music. As your admirable journal has such a widespread circulation throughout the world, this article should have a very material effect in stimulating interest in this new art. There is one point, however, that I would ask you, in fairness to me, to correct, and that is in the last Paragraph of the article in question, where you mention that “this is the first time that color music has been demonstrated on a large scale to the public." In this connection I would mention that we had a color music concert in the Sydney Town Hall on De-cember 21st, 1912. We had a most interested audience of from two to three thousand and the concert attracted a very great deal of attention in musical circles. Prior to that, in November, 1912, a demonstration was given in _ Paling's Music Rooms to a crowded audience; and still earlier, in June of the same year, a demonstration was given in Greenwich, also to a crowded audience. Since then I have progressed very considerably in de-veloping the idea. and a little over a year ago, when visiting England, I had the privilege of a long interview with Prof. Rimington, when he expressed pleasure at our being able to compare notes. As this matter is a hobby of intense interest to me, I may mention that I have had built a miniature theater to ('nable me to give private demonstrations of color music, and the new instrument which I am at present working on is almost completed. Sydney, Australia. Alec B. Hector. The Small Inventor and the Inventors' Board To the Editor of the Scientific American : Without attempting to discount in any way or degree the tremendous importance to the nation of the pro-posed advisory board of celebrated inventors whose splendid collaboration cannot help but prove of enor-mous benefit to the country, I want to remind you of the large army of humble inventors of no national re-nown whose contributions to the fund of useful knowledge have not brought them any great reputation, although they may be of much practical importance. One of the Lincoln stories makes him say that “The Lord must have loved the common people because he made so many of them,” so we may deduce the love of Deity for the common ordinary inventor. Emerson in his poetical colloquy between the mountain anü the squirrel makes the squirrel respond to the boast of the mountain in this wise: "Talents differ: all is well and wisely put. If I cannot carry forests on my back, Neither can you crack a nut.” Manifestly the inventive talents also differ, and our hopes from the inventive quarters need not be confined to those whose successes have made them pre-eminent in their chosen fields, for while they may carry the “forests” of offensive and defensive development on their backs, there will be many nuts to be cracked by the horde, the multitude of less prominent inventors whose contributions will doubtless be of much advantage to the nation. Possibly the inventive contributions may be in the way of accouterments, ordnance, the solving of transportation problems, or in some other of the many dlrections in which slight or revolutionary improve-ments may benefit the military and naval service. A Constant Reader. Fifteen-inch Versus Fourteen-inch Naval Guns To the Editor of the Scientific American : In one of the daily papers there appears a statement that eight 16-inch, instead of twelve 14-inch guns, may be mounted on the battleships “Pennsylvanla” and “Oklahoma.” As far as I am aware, the Scientific American has not as yet committed itself on this question, and as a layman, greatly interested in naval construction, I wish to suggest that it may be able to do the country great service by favoring the substitution. If it is true, as Admiral Fletcher claims, that the present American Navy is equal to that of Germany, this equality must be credited to the past policy of American naval designers, in mounting guns at least equal in callber to those of other navies at the time; whereas all the German pre-dreadnoughts are equipped with guns of inferior caliber. Let us not abandon this policy now. Germany and Great Britain are equipping their latest dreadnoughts with 15-inch guns. There can be little question but that the 15-inch gun is to be-come the standard, as the 12-inch gun was the standard for so long in practically all the navies of the world. Similarly, it. is fair to presume that its powder charge and range will grow until another increase in caliber is necessary. Whatever apparent immediate advantage there may be in a smaller caliber gun with flatter tra-jectory and greater rapidity of fire, will soon disappear, and we will find ourselves in the present position of Germany—our older ships unable to take the first line, because in the race of naval development our designers have been at a disadvantage on account of our com-mitment to a gun of inferior caliber. A battleshlp's usefulness is as a member of a fleet throughout a period of fifteen or twenty years. If it is effective only in a class by itself or against ships of a certain date, its main usefulness is lost. When we design a battleship, we should look at the period during which it is to be in commission, and the gradually changing fleet which it must help to compose. The “Pennsylvania” and the “Oklahoma” should be deslgned as much to fight against in opposing fleet mainly of 15-inch-gun super-dreadnoughts in the year 1920, as against a mongrel fleet of 12- and 13lh-inch dreadnoughts in 1916. When a growth in the range and power of guns is certain, we may properly exaggerate gun power beyond what is needed to cope with ships now in commission. If this is considered extra vagant to-day, in that a greater number of more rapid-fire guns sufficiently powerful for the present could be obtained for less money, it will prove economical to-morrow, when we find our older ships still useful in the first line. Heretofore we have pursued what has proved to be an exceptionally wise policy. At present the reasons for it are more potent than ever, and we should not abandon it now. If our Ordnance Department is able to design a satisfactory 16-inch naval gun, by all means let it be mounted on th° “Pennsylvania” and the “Oklahoma.” Sydney Lombard Sayre. Chicago, Ill,
