Among others, Prof. Colombo read a paper during the course of the National Exhibition at Turin, the subject being the system of Gaulard and Gibbs. While doing sufficient justice to the good points of the system, he also said that although it solved the problem of carrying the electric current to great distances, it was in no way what it was represented to be, and what it should be: a system of distribution allowing the electric current from a distant central station to be led to meet the demands of any kind of consumer without any one of these interfering with the supply of current to any other. He characterised these drawbacks sharply, and very suitably, by the remark, that in the Gaulard and Gibbs system, each consumer drew properly his supply of current from his transformer, and not from a common network of leads always self-regulating, as is the case in every large installation with continuous currents. Prof. Colombo satisfied himself with this reference to its disadvantages, mentioning also what should be striven after to make the system a perfect one, saying that the ideal electric lead system was one combining the advantages of the Edison central-station with that of Gaulard and Gibbs. Prof. Colombo confined himself to these hints, and he must acknowledge that the means leading to the attainment of this purpose remained still to be found out. The reproduction of this lecture by Prof. Colombo is placed before an article by Depréz in “La Lumière électrique,”[8] in which latter the system of Gaulard and Gibbs is strongly criticised. Depréz showed that that system can have no claim to be new. He points also to the wants of the system, especially that of self-regulation, stating that the means remain still to be discovered, which would make possible the self-regulation of a system of distribution with transformers. He also says that Gaulard’s system of distribution had not solved this problem, and therefore could not be held to be practically useful. We find the same view represented in an article by H. Roux,[9] where he points to the enormous fluctuations which take place when the resistance in the secondary circuit is altered. Some of the figures vouching for his opinion we shall now reproduce. They were taken by M. Pietro Uzel, in Turin, in an observational way.[10] The observations are only quoted so far that the Watts Δ I at the secondary terminals are still increasing; were they continued further the damning fact would reveal itself that as the power put in increased, the power given out would approach zero.