Line of Position
(See page 574, May, 1927, Proceedings)
E. B. Collins, Nautical Expert, Hydrographic Office.—Lieutenant Commander Weems, in his most interesting and able article, lias acquainted many with a somewhat different method and means of fast position finding, one worthy of the thoughtful consideration of all progressive navigators. The process involves the solution of the astronomical triangle for altitude and azimuth. This necessitates the adoption of the St. Hilaire form, no doubt the most popular one among seafaring men, because of the same solution for all cases and applicable to every condition of the celestial body without limitation. Here we have a choice either by logarithms, or the inspection and interpolation methods of Aquino, Ball, Davis, British Sine Method Tables and others. These books are in most cases bulky or offer certain other disadvantages. Lieutenant Commander Weems submits a table of probably the fewest possible pages, in which the declination of every celestial body in the firmament may be utilized. This table is not only accurate in theory, but the process of application is made with minimum mental effort and slight chance of committing bungling errors. He has given an excellent original explanation of the theory upon which it is constructed, but it might be mentioned here in passing that as long ago as the year 1850 William Chauvenet, the first professor of navigation and mathematics at the Naval Academy, pointed out a formula, in the general case, for the derivation of values obtained in these tables. The result of his teaching of this particular process seems to have fallen in non-productive channels in this country for practical application in the form of a table was not accomplished until a few years ago by Ogura of Japan. In his Astronomy, Page 32, and the same principle in his Spherical Trigonometry, Page 218, after deriving this general equation of the astronomical triangle
Sin h = sin d sin L -f- cos d cos L cos t and adopting this to logarithmic form by letting
M sin K = sin L, or M = sin L cosec K. M cos K = cos L cos t, or M = cos L cos t sec K.
dividing: M sin K / M cos K = sin L /cos L cos t
there is obtained tan K = tan L sec t. Substituting in the general equation Sin h = sin d M sin K cos d M cos K, wc obtain sin h = M cos (d-K) or as used in these tables the reciprocal becomes
1/Sin h = 1/ M cos (d-K)
or
cosec h = 1/M — sec (d-K)
It has been a real pleasure for me to work many sights with the aid of this small table, not only of observations near the meridian but under all conditions. I believe this compact, comprehensive edition will prove a helpful aid in the solution of all sights with simplicity and speed.
Why This Chaos in China?
(Sec page 421, April, 1927, Proceedings)
Captain H. P. Perrill, U. S. N.—In Captain Hutchins’ article, “Why this Chaos in China?” the members of the Institute have a most informing exposition of the present situation, backed by knowledge gained by a very extensive experience in that troubled land. While my own opportunity for gaining first-hand information on the subject is neither so extensive nor so recent, I think that it is substantial enough to justify my disagreement with certain assertions made by Captain Hutchins, and, for the sake of clarifying the understanding of readers who must depend upon such articles for their knowledge of the subject, to present such disagreement to the Institute.
On Page 422, Captain Hutchins says: “At the very outset, one significant characteristic of the Chinese character must be understood and accepted as correct; namely, that the only situation which commands respect from a Chinese is one that is controlled by force. A Chinaman respects force— nothing else; similar to the child that behaves in preference to punishment for his misdeeds.” This characteristic is by no means unique to the Chinese. History is filled with instances in which other peoples have recognized force as such and yielded to it; British, French, German, yea, even Americans, have yielded to a display of force and occasionally under circumstances that reflect no credit to themselves. Nor should it be accepted as true that the exercise of force is the only situation that Chinese will respect. There are too many instances arising from individual contacts of foreigners with Chinese to justify the elimination of the probability that kindliness and fair dealing will carry just as much persuasion with the Chinese as they are known to do with any other human beings.
It must be remembered that the present chaos in China is the work of mobs, made up of individuals who have been aroused to an insane frenzy by the play of agitators upon their feelings. Reason has no more to do with it than it has in the formation of any other mob. The factors made use of by the agitators in arousing the passion of these mobs are innumerable, but the use of force in the past by foreigners in their dealings with the Chinese is one cause that is far from negligible. Of course, it requires force to handle a mob, but that is true, no more and no less, of a Chinese mob in Hankow or Shanghai, than of a lynching" mob in Georgia.
To me, the most remarkable aspect of the present chaos in China is that the Chinese (even in mobs) have mustered up sufficient courage to wreak the damage and slaughter they have done. For we all know that courage is one quality the Chinese do not have. That is the main reason why heretofore the foreigners have made use of force with impunity. Of course, they do not like what the Chinese are now doing. Whenever did any bully enjoy a dose of his own medicine?
On Page 424, Captain Hutchins says: “The Christian general, whose troops loot and maltreat the natives to the hymn of ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ (taught them by American missionaries), is at present in Northwestern China…”
I very seriously doubt whether many of General Feng’s soldiers have come directly in contact with missionaries. There are so many Chinese in comparison with the number of missionaries that the chances are very great that most of the Chinese soldiers learned “Onward Christian Soldiers” from other Chinese. It is commonly reported that General Feng imposes a sort of religious service as a part of his military discipline. The measure of “Onward Christian Soldiers” is such that it lends itself very well to the rhythm of a setting-up drill.
It is not an unfair charge against the quoted language to say that it implies that American missionaries have taught Feng’s soldiers to loot and maltreat the natives. But this is an interpretation so abhorrent that I am sure Captain Hutchins did not mean that and would not have his readers believe it.
The insinuations carried in the quoted paragraph arc on all fours with a type of thinly veiled criticisms frequently made against missionaries as a class by naval officers, criticisms which, in my opinion, have no reasonable justification. They are largely based on ignorance and prejudice, and, like most things so based, untrue. What these critics fail to recognize is that the missionaries who are in China are there in pursuit of an ideal, an ideal which, applied elsewhere in the world, has' wrought an infinite amount of good to mankind generally, despite the fact that most of mankind will turn their backs upon the teachings of that ideal, whenever it suits their selfish purposes so to act. Most missionaries in China are pursuing the teachings of that ideal with a degree of courage and sincerity that fully merits the approval of all fairminded men. That they live differently from and better than the people among whom they work is wholly beside the point.
There are plenty of missionaries in China who live just as the Chinese do, but no one can claim that it adds to their efficiency in their chosen endeavors, other than that it makes them less conspicuous as targets for native antipathy. When a missionary lives in the same manner as his own people, he is doing nothing at all discreditable. No missionary is in the business for money, for if that is what he wants lie very speedily gives up the missionary calling and enters business. Of course, it is true that there are misfits among missionaries, but I doubt if the proportion is very much greater than in the Navy.
What the average naval officer does not realize is the measure of support given by our own fellow citizens to tbc missionaries in China (and elsewhere). The money so expended is voluntarily given in small sums by vast multitudes of citizens of our land from one coast to the other. The number of donors is not limited to our church membership by any means. The important thing to remember is that all these donations furnish a motive that creates a very lively interest in the work of the missionaries and in the people among whom they work. So vast is this body of donors that it constitutes a source of public opinion, almost unanimous in its beliefs, so vast that no administration would dare ignore it in its decisions. To this body of public opinion the doctrine of force is not and never will be acceptable.
The other side of the picture might be interesting to naval officers. What do missionaries think of officers and men in the Navy? There was, when I had a chance to find out, a very common belief that we were a lot of ungodly loafers, given to profanity, obscenity, intemperance and licentiousness. They looked upon us with misgiving and distrust, and wished to have nothing to do with 11s. The picture is not pleasant to look upon. But it is no more true than the converse, and, like it, based equally upon ignorance and prejudice.
When I succeeded in breaking down their reserve and really got acquainted with them, I found the missionaries a most interesting body of people, fairly liberal minded, for the most part well trained for the work, industriously and sincerely engaged in bringing to a benighted people what they believed would be most helpful and useful to those people. And this work, though rarely carrying with it physical deprivations, was being pursued in the midst of an isolation that involved spiritual and mental hardship to a degree that we in the Navy cannot conceive. I shall never forget the homesick bride I visited in Icbang. A visit from the Angel Gabriel could not have given her greater pleasure than the hour we sat in her house and conversed in English!
There is one serious charge that can be laid against the work of the missionaries. They have been partially instrumental in bringing to the Chinese sonic slight realization of the unbelievable hardships which fairly submerge most Chinese in eking out their miserable existence, and to that extent have aroused discontent with their lot. That discontent is now expressing itself in part in the present chaos in China. How heinous the sin of the missionary in this result is a measure that I must leave to the reader.
The Institute will be well advised if it can find means of publishing the lecture delivered at the Naval War College on November 26, 1926, by Mr. Henry Kittridge Norton, on “China as an International Problem.” That will give to the readers of the Proceedings another view of the chaos in China quite as illuminating as Captain Hutchins’ article. The lecture is worthy of far wider distribution than it has so far received. (Since this was written, a book on China, by Mr. Norton, has been published.)
Concerning the "Hall Effect” Principle as applied to Radio
by Dr. Craig
(See page 482, April, 1927, Proceedings)
Lieutenant Harry F. Breckel, U.S.N.R.—In the interest of the service the writer wishes to offer the below mentioned comment on the practical value of the Hall Effect Theory as applied to rectification and radio usage by Dr. Palmer H. Craig who conceived the modern application of a long discarded principle. Not wishing to deprecate in any way the work of Dr. Craig in applying the principle to modern radio uses, nor wishing to discourage those working on it in the future, yet the writer wishes to state that experiments conducted do not bear out the claims as regards the displacement of vacuum tubes by the device nor the elimination of the usual current supply devices for the modern radio receptor.
In his capacity as consultant in the commercial field of radio, the writer had occasion to thoroughly investigate the merits of the device and the claims of Dr. Craig in his own laboratory at Macon, Georgia, and also in the laboratory of a large commercial concern, the experiments being under supervision of the inventor, and being conducted with a view of purchase of the rights under his pending patents, if the device proved of merit.
The experiments conducted decisively proved that, insofar as the present conception of the device utilizing the Hall Effect Principle was concerned, the apparent rectifying effect produced in connection with an alternating current was that brought about by purely thermal junction effects caused by lead and copper being in contact with the bismuth films, and which when heated slightly by the current flowing through them had the effect of producing a uni-directional transverse current. This current, however, was very small, being of the order of a few millivolts, efficiency of the device being very low when output was checked against input. The effect was not true Hall Effect, in which application, the currents and voltages are of very small values, in fact to quote a professor of physics of a certain university, “the limitations of the Hall Effect Theory as applied practically make virtually impossible the obtaining of any currents of sufficient amplitude to be of any value.”
It was further found that the current and voltage values obtained during the conducting of the experiments were also largely due to inductive effects due to wires leading to the meters being in the strong magnetic field in which the bismuth plates were placed to secure the “Hall Effect” action. It was found that the meters themselves were influenced by close proximity to the field. These current readings could be obtained without the use of the bismuth plates, but when the meters were removed to a distance which precluded their being acted on inductively, the readings fell to absolute zero. Thus this definitely disproved the claim to rectification by the device. Insofar as the application to radio reception was concerned, the results were zero, it being considered that such effects as were obtained were due purely to capacity effects, the plates as assembled being nothing more than a condenser and “feeding through” the initial antenna current through this action to the ordinary vacuum tubes of the receiver. It is significant that the device was never utilized alone, but was always used in connection with vacuum tubes of conventional design which really did the work.
By and large therefore, the Hall Effect Theory as applied practically to radio usage is considered to be entirely without merit at this time, although, of course, it may be that the far distant future may see it made useful in this direction. The inventor is still working hard on the device with the usual optimism and persistency of the researcher, and it is sincerely hoped that Dr. Craig, who is a good friend of the writer, will ultimately achieve a very much deserved success, although as mentioned, the practical merits of the Hall Effect Principle would seem to place an insurmountable bar- ier in his path.