Dwnload Full Experience Music 4th Edition Charlton Solutions Manual PDF
Dwnload Full Experience Music 4th Edition Charlton Solutions Manual PDF
Dwnload Full Experience Music 4th Edition Charlton Solutions Manual PDF
https://testbankfan.com/download/experience-music-4th-edition-charlton-solutions-ma
nual/
No Sample Available
Fig. 51.
A very remarkable illusion, affecting the apparent position of the
drawings of geometrical solids, was first observed by the late
Professor Neckar, of Geneva, who communicated it to me personally
in 1832.[73] “The rhomboid ax,” (Fig. 51,) he says, “is drawn so that
the solid angle a should be seen nearest to the spectator, and the
solid angle x the farthest from him, and that the face acbd should be
the foremost, while the face xdc is behind. But in looking repeatedly
at the same figure, you will perceive that at times the apparent
position of the rhomboid is so changed that the solid angle x will
appear the nearest, and the solid angle a the farthest, and that the
face acdb will recede behind the face xdc, which will come forward,
—which effect gives to the whole solid a quite contrary apparent
inclination.” Professor Neckar observed this change “as well with one
as with both eyes,” and he considered it as owing “to an involuntary
change in the adjustment of the eye for obtaining distinct vision. And
that whenever the point of distinct vision on the retina was directed
to the angle a for instance, this angle, seen more distinctly than the
other, was naturally supposed to be nearer and foremost, while the
other angles, seen indistinctly, were supposed to be farther away
and behind. The reverse took place when the point of distinct vision
was brought to bear upon the angle x. What I have said of the solid
angles (a and x) is equally true of the edges, those edges upon
which the axis of the eye, or the central hole of the retina, are
directed, will always appear forward; so that now it seems to me
certain that this little, at first so puzzling, phenomenon depends upon
the law of distinct vision.”
In consequence of completely misunderstanding Mr. Neckar’s
explanation of this illusion, Mr. Wheatstone has pronounced it to be
erroneous, but there can be no doubt of its correctness; and there
are various experiments by which the principle may be illustrated. By
hiding with the finger one of the solid angles, or making it indistinct,
by a piece of dimmed glass, or throwing a slight shadow over it, the
other will appear foremost till the obscuring cause is removed. The
experiment may be still more satisfactorily made by holding above
the rhomboid a piece of finely ground-glass, the ground side being
farthest from the eye, and bringing one edge of it gradually down till
it touches the point a, the other edge being kept at a distance from
the paper. In this way all the lines diverging from a will become
dimmer as they recede from a, and consequently a will appear the
most forward point. A similar result will be obtained by putting a
black spot upon a, which will have the effect of drawing our attention
to a rather than to x.
From these experiments and observations, it will be seen that the
conversion of form, excepting in the normal case, depends upon
various causes, which are influential only under particular conditions,
such as the depth of the hollow or the height of the relief, the
distance of the object, the sharpness of vision, the use of one or both
eyes, the inversion of the shadow, the nature of the object, and the
means used by the mind itself to produce the illusion. In the normal
case, where the cavity or convexity is shadowless, and upon an
extended surface, and where inverted vision is used, the conversion
depends solely on the illusion, which it is impossible to resist, that
the side of the cavity or elevation next the eye is actually farthest
from it, an illusion not produced by inversion, but by a false judgment
respecting the position of the surface in which the cavity is made, or
upon which it rests.
CHAPTER XVII.
ON CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED
IN THE USE OF THE STEREOSCOPE.
EDINBURGH: T. CONSTABLE,
PRINTER TO HER MAJESTY.
Footnotes:
[1] Edit. of Pena, pp. 17, 18, Paris, 1577; or Opera, by Gregory,
pp. 619, 620. Oxon. 1703.
[2] De Usu Partium Corporis Humani, edit. Lugduni, 1550, p. 593.
[3] Joan. Baptistæ Portæ Neap., De Refractione Optices parte,
lib. v. p. 132, and lib. vi. pp. 143-5. Neap. 1593.
[4] Trattata della Pictura, Scultura, ed Architettura. Milan, 1584.
[5] Dr. Smith’s Compleat System of Opticks, vol. ii., Remarks, pp.
41 and 244.
[6] Opticorum Libri Sex Philosophis juxta ac Mathematicis utiles.
Folio. Antverpiæ, 1613.
[7] In Fig. 1, ahf is the optical pyramid seen by the eye a, and
bge the optical pyramid seen by the eye b.
[8] These angles are equal in this diagram and in the vision of a
sphere, but they are inequal in other bodies.
[9] Aguilonius, Opticorum, lib. ii. book xxxviii. pp. 140, 141.
[10] It is obvious that a complete hemisphere is not seen with
both eyes.
[11] Aguilonius, Opticorum, lib. iv. pp. 306, 307.
[12] In the last of these theorems Aguilonius describes and
explains, we believe for the first time, the conversion of relief in
the vision of convex and concave surfaces. See Prop. xciv. p.
312.
[13] Id., p. 313.
[14] Opera, tom. ii. p. 394. Lugduni, 1658.
[15] Opera Mathematica Optica, tribus libris exposita, p. 136.
[16] Opticks, vol. ii., Remarks, pp. 41 and 245.
[17] Id., vol. i. p. 48, Fig. 196.
[18] Treatise on Optics, p. 171; see also sect. 64, p. 113.
[19] Treatise on the Eye, vol i. p. 412, Plate 5, Fig. 37.
[20] As Mr. Wheatstone himself describes the dissimilar pictures
or drawings as “two different projections of the same object seen
from two points of sight, the distance between which is equal to
the interval between the eyes of the observer,” it is inconceivable
on what ground he could imagine himself to be the discoverer of
so palpable and notorious a fact as that the pictures of a body
seen by two eyes—two points of sight, must be dissimilar.
[21] Phil. Trans., 1838, pp. 371-394.
[22] Phil. Trans., 1838, pp. 391, 392.
[23] December 28, 1550.
[24] “Le fait est,” says the Abbé Moigno, “que le stéréoscope par
réflexion était presque complètement oublié, lorsque Sir David
Brewster construisit son stéréoscope par refraction que nous
allons décrire.”—Cosmos, vol. i. p. 4, 1852.
[25] Phil. Trans., 1852, p. 6.
[26] Ibid., pp. 9, 10.
[27] Vol. v. livre viii. p. 241.
[28] Mr. Andrew Ross, the celebrated optician!
[29] The Abbé gave an abstract of this paper in the French journal
La Presse, December 28, 1850.
[30] No. 54, Cheapside, and 313, Oxford Street. The prize of
twenty guineas which they offered for the best short popular
treatise on the Stereoscope, has been adjudged to Mr. Lonie,
Teacher of Mathematics in the Madras Institution, St. Andrews.
The second prize was given to the Rev. R. Graham, Abernyte,
Perthshire.
[31] Edinburgh Transactions, vol. xv. p. 349, 1843; or
Philosophical Magazine, vol. xxv. pp. 356, 439, May and June
1844.
[32] Smith’s Opticks, vol. ii., Remarks, p. 107. Harris makes the
difference ¹/₁₀th or ¹/₁₁th; Optics, p. 117.
[33] This variation of the pupil is mentioned by Bacon.
[34] Mr. Wheatstone himself says, “that it is somewhat difficult to
render the two Daguerreotypes equally visible.”—Phil. Trans.,
1852, p. 6.
[35] A sheet of Queen’s heads may be advantageously used to
accustom the eyes to the union of similar figures.
[36] See Edin. Transactions, 1846, vol. xv. p. 663, and Phil. Mag.,
May 1847, vol. xxx. p. 305.
[37] Bibl. Universelle, October 1855, p. 136.
[38] Smith’s Opticks, vol. ii. p. 388, § 977.
[39] Essay on Single Vision, &c., p. 44.
[40] We may use also the lens prism, which I proposed many
years ago in the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal.
[41] See Chap. i. pp. 33-36.
[42] For 1852, vol. xvii. p. 200.
[43] These solid telescopes may be made achromatic by
cementing concave lenses of flint glass upon each end, or of
crown glass if they are made of flint glass.
[44] Phil. Mag., Jan. 1852, vol. iii. p. 19.
[45] American Journal of Science, 1852, vol. xv. p. 68.
[46] See my Treatise on Optics, 2d edit., chap. vii. p. 65.
[47] See Cosmos, vol. ii. pp. 622, 624.
[48] Id. vol. vii. p. 494.
[49] Id. vol. iii. p. 658.
[50] Phil. Trans., 1852, p. 7.
[51] Mr. Wheatstone’s paper was published before I had pointed
out the deformities produced by large lenses. See p. 130.
[52] The Eye in Health and Disease, by Alfred Smee, 2d edit.
1854, pp. 85-95.
[53] This expression has a different meaning in perspective. We
understand it to mean here the point of the sitter or object, which
is to be the centre of the picture.
[54] Cosmos, Feb. 29, 1856, vol. viii. p. 202.
[55] It is only in a horizontal direction that we can see 180° of the
hemisphere. We would require a circle of eyes 2½ inches distant
to see a complete hemisphere.
[56] See Chapters X. and XI.
[57] When any external light falls upon the eye, its picture is
reflected back from the metallic surface of the Daguerreotype,
and a negative picture of the part of the Daguerreotype opposite
each eye is mixed with the positive picture of the same part.
[58] Modern Painters, vol. iii., Preface, pp. 11, 12.
[59] Sir Francis Chantrey, the celebrated sculptor, shewed me,
many years ago, a Sketch-Book, containing numerous drawings
which he had made with the Camera Lucida, while travelling from
London to Edinburgh by the Lakes. He pointed out to me the
flatness, or rather lowness, of hills, which to his own eye
appeared much higher, but which, notwithstanding, gave to him
the idea of a greater elevation. In order to put this opinion to the
test of experiment, I had drawings made by a skilful artist of the
three Eildon hills opposite my residence on the Tweed, and was
surprised to obtain, by comparing them with their true perspective
outlines, a striking confirmation of the observation made by Sir
Francis Chantrey.
[60] By using large lenses, we may obtain the picture of an object
within the picture of an opaque one in front of it; and with a
telescope, we may see through opaque objects of a certain size.
Many singular experiments may be made by taking photographs
of solid objects, simple or compound, with lenses larger than the
objects themselves.
[61] In a landscape by Mr. Waller Paton, called the “Highland
Stream,” now in the Edinburgh Exhibition, the foreground consists
principally of a bed of water-worn stones, on the margin of a pool
at the bottom of a waterfall. The stones are so exquisitely painted,
that nature only could have furnished the originals. We may
examine them at a few inches’ distance, and recognise forms and
structures with which we have been long familiar. A water-ousel,
peculiar to Scottish brooks and rivers, perched upon one of them,
looks as anxiously around as if a schoolboy were about to avail
himself of the missiles at his feet.
[62] These views are well illustrated by the remarkable
photographs of the Crimean war.
[63] A French sculptor has actually modelled a statue from the
stereoscopic relief of binocular pictures.
[64] See my Treatise on the Kaleidoscope, second edition, just
published.
[65] “The importance of establishing a permanent Museum of
Education in this country, with the view of introducing
improvements in the existing methods of instruction, and specially
directing public attention in a practical manner to the question of
National Education, has been of late generally recognised.”—
Third Report of the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851,
presented to both Houses of Parliament, p. 37. Lond., 1856.
[66] This fine invention we owe to Mr. Paul Pretsch, late director
of the Imperial Printing Office at Vienna. It is secured by patent,
and is now in practical operation in Holloway Place, Islington.
[67] An accomplished traveller, the Rev. Mr. Bridges, who
ascended Mount Etna for the purpose of taking Talbotype
drawings of its scenery, placed his camera on the edge of the
crater to obtain a representation of it. No sooner was the camera
fixed and the sensitive paper introduced, than an eruption took
place, which forced Mr. Bridges to quit his camera in order to
save his life. When the eruption closed, he returned to collect the
fragments of his instrument, when, to his great surprise and
delight, he found that his camera was not only uninjured, but
contained a picture of the crater and its eruption.
[68] A binocular slide, copied from the one originally designed by
myself, forms No. 27 of the Series of white-lined diagrams upon a
black ground executed in Paris. The drawings, however, are too
large for the common stereoscope.
[69] See Chap. i. p. 15.
[70] Phil. Trans. 1744.
[71] Letter v. pp. 98-107. See also the Edinburgh Journal of
Science, Jan. 1826, vol. iv. p. 99.
[72] Journal, 1839, p, 189.
[73] See Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, November 1832, vol. i.
p. 334.
Transcriber’s Notes: