To prevent the suspicion of vainly dwelling upon assertion, I think it necessary to remark upon what foundation I build this theory; I have found that bodies which should heat in ratio of their diameters, could be only those which were perfectly permeable to heat, and would heat or cool in the same time; hence, I concluded that fluids, whose parts are only held together by a slight connection, might approach nearer to this perfect permeability than solids, whose parts have more cohesion. In consequence of this, I made experiments, by which I found, that with the same heat all fluids, however dense they might be, heat and cool more readily than any solids, however light, so that mercury, for example, heats much more readily than wood, although it be fifteen or sixteen times more dense. This made me perceive that the progress of heat in bodies cannot, in any case, be made relatively to their density; and I have found by experience, that this progress, as well in solids as fluids, is made rather by reason of their fluidity, or in an inverse ratio of their solidity. I mean by _solidity_ the quality opposite to fluidity; and I say, that it is in an inverse ratio of this quality that the progress of heat is made in both bodies; and that they heat or cool so much the faster as they are the more fluid, and so much the slower as they are more solid, every other circumstance being equal. To prove that solidity, taken in this sense, is perfectly independent of density, I have found, by experience, that the most or least dense matters, heat or cool more readily than other more or less dense matters, for example, gold or lead, which are much more dense than iron and copper, heat and cool much quicker; while tin and marble, which are not so dense, heat and cool much faster than iron and copper; and there are likewise many other matters which come under the same description; so that density is in no manner relative to the scale of the progress of heat in solid bodies.