JB/119/072/002

Click Here To Edit

To what circumstance did his observation objection point?
To the want of a thorough draught? that want
is perfectly supplied by the annular well. to To this purpose What
comparison is there between the insertion of opposite
windows and the taking away laying
one whole side of a room open to a space an area of
eleven foot which unless when covered on purpose
has nothing over it but the sky.

I say eleven foot: but the truth is that to the
mere purpose of ventilation were it narrower it would rather
be better than worse: for here as in a chimney, the
narrower the funnel the stronger the draught.
But be it narrower or wider, while there is the
smallest difference of temperature between the air within and
the air without, how is it possible for the air
in the room cells to stagnate?

Did the little height consideration given to the ceiling
of the Cells (8 foot and no more it must be confessed)
contribute any thing to the force of the
objection? Under Upon the first plan it perhaps had
some foundation. Had the height of each story any of a pair of Cells been more than
8 foot it might have been better: and though
the lowest in each pair would by means of the
intermediate

Identifier: | JB/119/072/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 119.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	119	Main Headings	panopticon
Folio number	072	Info in main headings field
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d1 / / d3 / d4
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::floyd & co [britannia with shield emblem]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer	arthur young
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	39583
Box Contents