3 5 4 D O C U M E N T 3 5 6 N O V E M B E R 1 9 2 4
on the Santis
(Conrad[9])
.....................................................................
3.10–7
in a balloon according to Wigand &
Koppe[10]
at 1,15 km height.........4. ″
″ ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ 1,82 ″ ″ 0,3.″
″ ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ 2,96 ″ ″ 0,5.″
″ ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ 3,43 ″ ″ 2. ″
in the aircraft″ ″ ″ ″ ″ 5,20 ″ ″ 2. ″
Consequently, at higher altitudes this density of volume charge (E+–E–) is up to
1,000 times greater than the one calculated according to the Poisson equation.
3) Density of volume charge measured directly by collector in a wire cage, hence
also including the large ions:
many measurements on the ground and on the Eiffel Tower yield the order of
magnitude
+4.10–7
electrostat. un. in a
cm3,
thus in good agreement with the order
of magnitude of (E+–E–). This latter is, therefore, already 4 times as large as the
value from the Poisson equation.
With respectful greetings, yours very sincerely,
Wigand.
Postscript:
The listed figures are naturally not yet suitable for exact proof of a theoretical
relation, as they have not been measured simultaneously at the same altitudes and
for the same masses of air. This can easily be done inside the aircraft, particularly
with the new radio-thor collector that I developed for these purposes and also tested
in the American airship during trial
flights.[11]
Such strictly simultaneous measure-
ments of volume charge and potential gradient in air layers not disturbed by
charged clouds and masses of vapor are already on my agenda for aircraft experi-
ments. Albeit, at the moment, unfortunately, certain constraints on the continuation
of this research exist that probably cannot be eliminated before next spring.
W.
356. To Satyendra Nath Bose
Berlin, 3 November 1924
Dear Colleague,
Thank you kindly for your letter of 26
October.[1]
I look forward to soon having
the opportunity to make your personal acquaintance. Your papers already appeared
a long while
ago;[2]
unfortunately, the offprints were forwarded to me instead of to
you. You may avail yourself of them anytime. I do not agree with your elementary
law of the probability of interaction between radiation and matter, and set forth the