TORBANE-HILL COAL.
The coal of Torbane Hill, Scotland, is so highly inflammable, that it has been disputed at law whether it be true coal, or only asphaltum, or bitumen. Dr. Redfern describes it as laminated, splitting with great ease horizontally, like many cannel coals, and like them it may be lighted at a candle. In all parts of the bed stigmaria and other fossil plants occur in greater numbers than in most other coals; their distinct vascular tissue may be easily recognised by a common pocket lens, and 65½ of the mass consists of carbon.
Dr. Redfern considers that all our coals may be arranged in a scale having the Torbane-Hill coal at the top and anthracite at the bottom. Anthracite is almost pure carbon; Torbane Hill contains less fixed carbon than most other cannels: anthracite is very difficult to ignite, and gives out scarcely any gas; Torbane-Hill burns like a candle, and yields 3000 cubic feet of gas per ton, more than any other known coal, its gas being also of greatly superior illuminating power to any other. The only differences which the Torbane-Hill coal presents from others are differences of degree, not of kind. It differs from other coals in being the best gas-coal, and from other cannels in being the best cannel.
HOW MALACHITE IS FORMED.
The rich copper-ore of the Ural, which occurs in veins or masses, amid metamorphic strata associated with igneous rocks, and even in the hollows between the eruptive rocks, is worked in shafts. At the bottom of one of these, 280 feet deep, has been found an enormous irregularly-shaped botryoidal mass of Malachite (Greek malache, mountain-green), sending off strings of green copper-ore. The upper surface of it is about 18 feet long and 9 wide; and it was estimated to contain 15,000 poods, or half a million pounds, of pure and compact malachite. Sir Roderick Murchison is of opinion that this wonderful subterraneous incrustation has been produced in the stalagmitic form, during a series of ages, by copper solutions emanating from the surrounding loose and sporous mass, and trickling through it to the lowest cavity upon the subjacent solid rock. Malachite is brought chiefly from one mine in Siberia; its value as raw material is nearly one-fourth that of the same weight of pure silver, or in a manufactured state three guineas per pound avoirdupois.[33]
LUMPS OF GOLD IN SIBERIA.
The gold mines south of Miask are chiefly remarkable for the large lumps or pepites of gold which are found around the Zavod of Zarevo-Alexandroisk. Previous to 1841 were discovered here lumps of native gold; in that year a lump of twenty-four pounds was met with; and in 1843 a lump weighing about seventy-eight pounds English was found, and is now deposited with others in the Museum of the Imperial School of Mines at St. Petersburg.
SIR ISAAC NEWTON UPON BURNET’S THEORY OF THE EARTH.
In 1668, Dr. Thomas Burnet printed his Theoria Telluris Sacra, “an eloquent physico-theological romance,” says Sir David Brewster, “which was to a certain extent adopted even by Newton, Burnet’s friend. Abandoning, as some of the fathers had done, the hexaëmeron, or six days of Moses, as a physical reality, and having no knowledge of geological phenomena, he gives loose reins to his imagination, combining passages of Scripture with those of ancient authors, and presumptuously describing the future catastrophes to which the earth is to be exposed.” Previous to its publication, Burnet presented a copy of his book to Newton, and requested his opinion of the theory which it propounded. Newton took “exceptions to particular passages,” and a correspondence ensued. In one of Newton’s letters he treats of the formation of the earth, and the other planets, out of a general chaos of the figure assumed by the earth,—of the length of the primitive days,—of the formation of hills and seas, and of the creation of the two ruling lights as the result of the clearing up of the atmosphere. He considers the account of the creation in Genesis as adapted to the judgment of the vulgar. “Had Moses,” he says, “described the processes of creation as distinctly as they were in themselves, he would have made the narrative tedious and confused amongst the vulgar, and become a philosopher more than a prophet.” After referring to several “causes of meteors, such as the breaking out of vapours from below, before the earth was well hardened, the settling and shrinking of the whole globe after the upper regions or surface began to be hard,” Newton closes his letter with an apology for being tedious, which, he says, “he has the more reason to do, as he has not set down any thing he has well considered, or will undertake to defend.”—See the Letter in the Appendix to Sir D. Brewster’s Life of Newton, vol. ii.
The primitive condition of the earth, and its preparation for man, was a subject of general speculation at the close of the seventeenth century. Leibnitz, like his great rival (Newton), attempted to explain the formation of the earth, and of the different substances which composed it; and he had the advantage of possessing some knowledge of geological phenomena: the earth he regarded as having been originally a burning mass, whose temperature gradually diminished till the vapours were condensed into a universal ocean, which covered the highest mountains, and gradually flowed into vacuities and subterranean cavities produced by the consolidation of the earth’s crust. He regarded fossils as the real remains of plants and animals which had been buried in the strata; and, in speculating on the formation of mineral substances, he speaks of crystals as the geometry of inanimate nature.—Brewster’s Life of Newton, vol. ii. p. 100, note. (See also “The Age of the Globe,” in Things not generally Known, p. 13.)