The Optical Magic Lantern Journal (October 1899)

The Optical Magic Lantern Journal and Photographic Enlarger. same, awaits him. It is only the travelling lecturer who appreciates the meaning of this. DancerR.—The possible danger from the use of the lantern proceeds from the necessary use of an illuminant. Wherever there is a light there is a possible danger of fire ; we do not, on that account, banish artificial light from our dwellings. It may be said there is no more danger of fire from the lantern than from a kitchen grate or a bedroom candle. The danger proceeds from improper uge. There are three principal illuminants used in lanterns—oil, gas, compressed: gases and lime—these are placed in their relative illuminating power. Oilis sufficient when no larger picture than one 9 feet in diameter is required. The lantern referred to above as costing £4 10s. is fitted with a most excellent oil lamp, and is extremely simple in operation ; only the best oil must be used, and varieties of oils should never be mixed in the reservoir. Gases compressed in cylinders, or combined with ether saturators, produce the well-known limelight suitable for and, indeed, necessary in large rooms, and of course superior to oil, in that the light produced is not only more powerful, but is white instead of yellow. There is no inherent danger in cylinders of compressed gas; they are safer than oil cans. Limelight, however, requires very careful manipulation, and is not only unnecessary in the majority of country parishes, but is more costly than oil, and the necessary fittings add about 30s. to the cost of the lantern. Carriage of gas cylinders is also a heavy item of expenditure. Gas (not compressed) a new illuminant of great power, giving a white light and costing about 4d. per hour, is now at the command of everyone. Acetylene is far superior to oil, and in many ways far more convenient than limelight. It is generated on the spot where wanted in a special apparatus, and is not dangerous, and when properly handled does not smell. A portable apparatus for use in country schoolrooms costs £2, and the materials used in manufacture—water and calcium carbide—are cheap, costing, as stated above, about 4d. per hour for a light much superior to oil, and giving a picture up to 12 or 14 feet in diameter instead of 8 or 9 feet. Let it be stated again that all lighting apparatus should be thoroughly understood; the theory that anyone can turn a tap and light a lamp will not do with lantern lamps; the operator must know his machine and | should let no one else meddle with it. (To be continued.) 133 Dreyfusonia Unscreened. A WARNING. By WILLIAM PAVITT. Nhe : es ated N a shop window near Dalston JuncBAY | tion, at the time of writing, is to be seen a bill worded, ‘‘ Scenes at Rennes.” On inspecting the window, the public are invited inside free of charge. When inside we find the place lined around with ‘‘ mutoscopes’’ perhaps 12 to 16 instruments in all. By dropping a penny into any one of them, are to be seen an amusing farce, or a bit of comedy, or a boxing match, a duel scene between women, from a well known play, and many others, and among the many others are “Scenes at Rennes.” Readers need not be reminded that the mutoscepe is an instrument full of amusement and one does not easily tire in looking into it. There is one fault, a fault common with all living picture machines ; whilst you are laughing at your very best—bang! it’s finished. The pull up is too sudden, and like Sam Weller’s love letter, you wish there was more. But this is not so with ‘Scenes at Rennes.” They are just long enough, no more, no less, and what | would advise is that they be kept as mutoscopic subjects. This means that lanternists leave all pictures alone that have a trace of Dreyfus about them. But why! ‘A rumour ran round on the ninth of the ninth of ninety-nine simultaneously with the verdict on that most wretched trial that history has ever recorded that we are likely to have thrust upon us a lantern lecture with slides, depicting of course scenes and incidents of Dreyfusonia.” All lecturers that I have come in contact with, and they are many, have without exception had some good object to the front when thinking out, writing, or arranging their evening bill, but where may be asked will the subjects mentioned above fit in. Where will come the good of going over ground, ground that is full of dirt, ground that is full of scoundrelism, forgery, conspiracy, flagrant bias, lies and hypocrisy. Can anyone show what good can be done by talking of the morality of a Mercier, a Henry, a Du Paty de Clam, a Bertillon, a Roget, and the whole accusing military gang. No lecturer surely would care to have his oration subjected to the hisses and groans ' that undoubtedly would accompany it.