Notable most remarkable ascensions on record, so far as relates to the altitude attained by the balloon, were those made, respectively, by the French savant Gay-Lussac, September 16, when lie reached a height of over 23,000 feet, and of the Eng,lish meteorologist James Glaisher, on September 5, 1862, when, in company with Mr. Cox well—an experienced aeronaut—he made a voyage from Wolverhampton, England, and ascended to an immense height. The exact altitude reached will never be known. The last observation of the adventurous voyager showed a height of 29,000 feet, and the balloon at that moment was rising at the rate of moo feet per minute; and at the next moment Mr. Glaisher became insensible, and so remained for several minutes. There is good reason to believe that on this remarkable voyage the balloon reached the altogether unprecedented height of 37,000 feet (seven miles). It is of in terest to notice in connection with the foregoing remarkable experiences that both were undertaken in the interests of science, and that a number of important data were ascertained. .Ainerica also has contributed some noteworthy ascensions, and the late Mr. John Wise, a noted aeronaut who made an immense number of ascensions, deserves special mention for the substantial aid which his observations have rendered to meteorological science.
by the inspiring spectacle of the flight of birds, it is not to be wondered at that the problem of constructing a flying_ machine—that is, a machine that should be self-raising and self-propelling —should have taken a strong hold upon the imaginations of ingenious men. Indeed, the efforts to solve the problem preceded by many centu ries the invention of the balloon, by which alone thus far the art of aerial navigation is practicable; and, like the pursuit of that other /kids Pietus, perpetual motion, the search for the solution of the flying-machine problem has been barren of results. Figure to (pl. 6o) represents the appearance of one of the numberless extravagant and grotesque designs that have been prepared to solve the difficult problem of a flying-machine.
A volume might be written descriptive of the multitude of devices that have been proposed to accomplish this object, but the only thought they would awaken in the mind of the man of science would be one of regret at the exhibition of an amazing amount of ingenuity expended uselessly. We may, therefore, conclude this subject by summarizing the views of a recent writer, Professor Joseph le Conte, who has given the subject of the flying-machine a masterly review. This author, after pointing out the ad mirable adaptation of the structure of the bird—which has made this ani mal the incomparable model of a " flying-machine "—argues from the fact that since the animal body, considered as a machine, is twice as effective as the best Cornish engine, we cannot hope to devise a piece of mechanism which for the same weight of machine, fuel, and directing brain will be half as effective as that of the bird. Le Conte lays special stress on the fact that in perfecting her flying-machine (the bird) Nature has taught us that there is a low limit of weight (about fifty pounds) beyond which it is impossible for an animal to f13,—a limit which Nature with her utmost effort has failed to pass. A prodigious advantage which the natural has over the artificial machine, as he ingeniously points out, is this: " The flying- animal is its own engineer; the flying-machine must carry its engi neer. The directing- engineer (the brain) in the former is perhaps an ounce; in the latter it is a hundred and fifty pounds. The smallest possible weight of a flying-machine, with its necessary fuel and engineer, even without freight and passengers, could not be less than three hundred or four hun dred pounds." From these considerations, which appear to be reasonable and sound, Le Conte concludes that a true flying-machine, self-raising, self sustaining, and self-propelling, is physically impossible.