HERE IS AN ODD little problem which turns upon a point of natural philosophy and common sense mechanical laws, with which every one is supposed to be familiar. There is no catch about it, nor any necessity for putting salt on the bird's tail that I am aware of, and I do not know that I am better qualified to answer the question than any one else. It came to me from Princeton College with the simple query: “Supposing that a bird weighing one ounce flies into a box with only one small opening, and without resting continues to fly round and round in the box, would it increase or lessen the weight of the box?”
I give it as pertaining to a class of instructive questions which 1 think should be propounded and answered by all who are interested in natural and mechanical science. I will cheerfully give my own views on any proposition fired at me, and stand, like the rest of the class, liable to be caught on the wrong side of the argument.
The question as to whether a bird flying round in a closed box would increase or lessen the weight of the box has been discussed pro and con, by some of our correspondents, but the preponderance of opinion is so overwhelmingly in favor of the weight of the bird being added to that of the box, that it would be difficult to present reasonable argument for the other side, despite of the popular belief that such would be the case. The propounder of the question cited the familiar problem of the fish in a vase of water, but there are two versions to that problem; the one which asks why a fish put into a tank of water does not increase its weight is a silly joke, as it does increase the weight, unless the tank being full to the brim and enough water overflows to equalize matters. The problem of the fish is not the same, as the weight of the fish is the same as the water and the fish floats. The bird is heavier than the air and supports itself by striking down upon the air and the power of such strokes would undoubtedly show on the dial the difference in weight between the bird and its displacement of air.
2. A Rebus by Cauning
There is a noun of plural number.
Foe to peace am i tranquil slumber
But add to it the letter s,
And ”won'drous metamorphosis -
Plural is plural now no more,
And sweet what bitter was before ’
Cares - Caress.
3.
Perhaps the clever ones will explain a mystery which turns upon a concealed locality. I never could understand just why or where the Italians get the bears and monkeys which they bring over as a fitting part and parcel of their itinerant musical caravansaries, for, so far as I am aware, there is neither a bear nor a monkey to be found in the whole of Italy, outside of one or two meagre zoological gardens, and yet there exists in the heart of every Italian peasant a deep-rooted hope that he will some time or other be able to buy a bear and a monkey, which will enable him to see America.
One follow told me of a brother who had met with great success in conducting a show somewhere in the South. He had forgotten the name, so I just make a sketch of that Italian conducting his show, and ask our young puzzlists to discover the location of that wandering brother, in the description of the picture.
The man with the monkey was in Cuba.
[Page 137]