Codex @codex  0

The main distinction is between metallic iron, iron(II) preparations, iron(III) preparations, and mixed iron oxides. The old prefixes “proto-” and “per-” ordinarily distinguish the lower and higher oxidation states here. “Peroxide of iron” means the historical iron(III) oxide preparation, not a modern peroxide containing an oxygen–oxygen bond.

The principal medicinal preparations can be grouped by the chemical form supplied:

These identifications follow the historical monographs, rather than the names of present commercial supplements.^[ref] A green iron(II) sulfate solution gives the characteristic blue reaction with potassium ferricyanide, whereas the higher iron solutions give blue with potassium ferrocyanide. Those diagnostic reactions explain why the official tests distinguish the two oxidation states; the historical colour test alone does not establish every detail of a complex preparation's composition.

The nineteenth-century phrase “impure air” mixed several different mechanisms. Irritant smoke and dust can damage the respiratory system; toxic gases can poison without causing an infection; crowded, poorly ventilated rooms can increase exposure to infectious material. The historical miasma theory treated foul emanations much more broadly as generators of disease. In particular, the smell of sewage does not itself establish the cause of typhoid fever, cholera or malaria.

For the first part, important real consequences include the following:

For the second part, ordinary outdoor air already contains nitrogen, oxygen, a small amount of carbon dioxide, and variable water vapour. Their presence alone is not evidence of pollution. In a smoky industrial town, soot, mineral dust, products of fuel combustion and sulfur dioxide would be particularly relevant. In occupied rooms, expired carbon dioxide, water vapour and suspended biological material increase unless removed. Decomposing wastes may contribute Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other volatile products. The actual mixture depends on sources, ventilation and weather.

For the third part, begin with a defined sampling site and time, record occupancy or industrial activity, and compare with a suitable reference. A volume of air, not simply an unrecorded sniff or a discoloured paper, is the basis of quantitative comparison. Methods available by 1867 include:

The chemical equations underlying two of these qualitative tests areHere the precipitates are barium carbonate and lead sulfide. For the baryta absorption method, in an ideal, fully captured sample with no interfering acid gases, the difference between blank and sample acid requirements satisfieswhere $c_{{\mathrm{H}}^{+}}$ is the amount concentration of titratable acid equivalents and the volumes refer to titration of the entire corresponding absorbent portions; any aliquot requires its scale factor. The factor two follows from the two acid equivalents neutralized per mole of barium hydroxide. This calculation assumes that the barium carbonate precipitate is excluded from the residual-base determination; dissolving it again with the titrant would invalidate the inference.

Odour, visible smoke and room stuffiness are useful prompts to investigate, but no single smell, carbon dioxide value, microscopic field or chemical colour test establishes that air is free of harmful impurities. Specify which material was measured and which uncertainty remains.

A workable scheme has to deal with both transport and final disposal. At the house, collect excreta in suitably flushed closets; use sound, impermeable drains with sufficient fall and provision for inspection and cleaning. Traps interrupt communication between house air and sewer air, while appropriate sewer ventilation prevents the system from discharging its atmosphere into dwellings. Keep the drinking supply physically protected from drains and leakage. A sewer that carries filth away from a courtyard but releases it beside a downstream drinking intake has merely moved the danger.

Convey sewage promptly to a controlled outfall or disposal site, with pumping where the terrain requires it. One contemporary proposal was application to land by sewage irrigation, using land and drainage arranged to receive the flow rather than allowing stagnant pools. A period report on sewage irrigation at the Cumberland Asylum appeared in January 1866, establishing that this was an available contemporary option, not a later technology projected into the examination.^[ref]

The word “best” needs conditions. Water-carriage sewerage requires a dependable supply, engineering maintenance and an acceptable destination for the effluent. Where these cannot be provided, watertight removable receptacles with organized frequent collection can be preferable to an unreliable water system. Dry-earth sanitation was another period alternative, useful where systematic collection and suitable dry material could be assured. Neither an overflowing cesspool nor occasional removal after a nuisance has developed is a satisfactory urban service. Contemporary proposals competed over these very questions; there was no demonstrated single apparatus suitable for every town.^[ref]

Other waste organic matter requires a parallel service: covered receptacles, frequent collection of kitchen refuse and animal waste, cleaning of markets and slaughtering places, and controlled treatment or disposal away from dwellings and drinking supplies. Bulky refuse should not be pushed into house drains and allowed to obstruct them. The practical objective is continuous removal from contact with people, rather than accumulation followed by attempts to suppress the smell.

The present public health qualification is crucial: sanitation includes safe containment, emptying or conveyance, treatment and final disposal or controlled reuse. Neither chemical deodorization nor the apparently clear appearance of an effluent establishes removal of pathogens. Land application of untreated sewage must therefore not be presented as automatically safe for workers, crops or downstream users. Modern evaluation follows the whole service chain and its exposure routes.^[ref]

For an answer situated in 1867, the important established observations were the association of outbreaks with polluted drinking supplies, the spread from particular cases, and the infectious importance of intestinal discharges. A leaking privy or cesspool near a well, contamination of a stream used for drinking, and household transfer from soiled material to food offered intelligible chains of transmission. Merely saying “defective drainage” names a circumstance; the explanation must show how material from an infected person reaches someone else.

William Budd had already published a particularly clear argument in 1861: the intestinal discharges of sufferers conveyed the specific infectious material, and sewers propagated the disease because they received those discharges. He rejected the claim that inability to trace a previous case established spontaneous generation from putrefaction. This is a contemporary argument that an informed 1867 candidate could have used; it does not require importing a discovery made decades afterwards.^[ref]

The distinction between observation and interpretation matters. Some contemporary writers treated decomposing excreta or “sewer air” as a direct fever-producing agent, under the historical pythogenic theory of typhoid. The observed association of typhoid fever with foul drains did not prove that theory: the same drain could contaminate water, hands or food. Nor should typhoid fever be conflated with typhus, despite the similar names.

In present terms, the causal organism is Salmonella Typhi, a human-associated bacterium. People ill with typhoid fever and people who continue carrying the bacterium after recovery can contaminate food or water. Faecal–oral transmission explains why someone need never enter a sickroom to become infected. The contaminated material may pass through a drinking supply, food handling, or hands rather than by direct contact with the original sufferer.^[ref]

To investigate an outbreak, construct a dated list of cases, compare drinking and food exposures among affected and unaffected households, trace wells and pipes relative to drains, and ask whether cases follow distribution of a common supply. A supply-specific pattern supports a transmission hypothesis more strongly than a general complaint that a neighbourhood smells bad. Modern bacterial culture and organism comparison can supplement this epidemiology, but a modern laboratory identification must not be represented as an accomplished experiment in the 1867 paper.

English law in 1867 fixed no maximum period of proved non-intercourse compatible with legitimacy; an exceptional interval had to be assessed on the evidence of possible gestation in the particular case. The relevant interval runs from the last possible intercourse between the spouses to the child's birth. Proof of subsequent non-intercourse establishes that interval; it does not itself establish how long pregnancy could have lasted.

The contemporary eighth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1853–1860, expressly distinguished the English position from numerical limits in continental codes. Its article on forensic medicine states: “The law of England at present has no definite limit”; it then says that a case beyond the usual term would go to a jury. This directly answers the legal question: there was no prescribed number of days that resolved every case. Medical evidence about the credibility of the claimed gestation informed the tribunal's decision about the child's status.^[ref]

To see what “consistent” means, distinguish the ordinary duration of pregnancy, the range alleged in exceptional medical reports, and a legal decision about a particular child. An accepted exceptional interval would show that the ordinary duration was not an inflexible rule; it would not establish a maximum for every subsequent case. For illustration, the later historical account in Legal medicine by Charles Meymott Tidy (volume 3) reports an English decision, dated there to 1834, allowing legitimacy after about 42 weeks, or 294 days, from last intercourse. This is a retrospective textbook report, not independent verification of the original judgment or proof of a longest accepted interval. The legal answer rests on the contemporary statement of the English rule, rather than on that numerical example.^[ref]

The medical evidence also requires care over the starting event. A period counted from the last menstruation is not the same measurement as a period counted from intercourse, and neither directly observes the instant of fertilization. Modern gestational age conventionally counts from the first day of the last menstrual period; early ultrasonography provides a more accurate check than menstrual recall alone. It would be misleading to combine historical figures with these different starting points into a single supposedly proved maximum.^[ref]

The absence of a predetermined English maximum did not make every length of separation legally acceptable or biologically possible. A claimed prolonged pregnancy still required credible evidence, and a nineteenth-century finding about legitimacy does not validate an extraordinary pregnancy length as a modern scientific observation. In historical legitimacy and prolonged gestation, the legal rule, the determination in an individual case, and the observed biological interval must be kept distinct. Establishing a unique longest reported case is a separate historical inquiry; it is not necessary to answer that English law prescribed no fixed maximum.

Strychnine poisoning characteristically produces rapidly recurring, intensely painful generalized muscle spasms, precipitated by slight sensory stimuli, with consciousness initially preserved. “Strychnia” is the historical name for strychnine.

Following ingestion, manifestations commonly begin within roughly 15–60 minutes, although exposure route and amount alter the time course. Early features include apprehension, restlessness, heightened sensitivity and stiffness or twitching of the muscles, especially about the neck and back. The patient can then develop violent, generalized muscle spasms with rigid limbs and backward arching of the trunk, termed opisthotonus. Jaw closure and contraction of the facial muscles can produce trismus and risus sardonicus. The respiratory muscles may become fixed, causing difficulty breathing and cyanosis.^[ref]

Attacks may be triggered by touch, a noise, light or attempts to move the patient. During the intervals the muscles may relax substantially, and the patient may remain lucid and fearful of the next attack. Repeated contractions cause exhaustion, sweating and hyperthermia; severe cases develop acidosis, rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury. Death can result from respiratory failure. Consciousness can be lost late through hypoxia, so preserved awareness is a characteristic early clue, not an invariable requirement.^[ref]

This pattern helps distinguish the condition from many epileptic seizures, in which impaired awareness and a postictal state are common, and from tetanus, whose evolution is usually slower and whose rigidity tends to persist between attacks. The distinction is not absolute and symptoms alone do not prove the particular poison. A convincing forensic diagnosis combines the clinical sequence and exposure history with toxicological analysis.

The modern explanation is blockade of inhibitory glycine receptors in the spinal cord and brainstem, leaving reflex motor activity excessively excitable. This explains why trivial stimulation can cause a massive contraction. The receptor explanation is a later interpretation of the recognizable nineteenth-century syndrome.^[ref]

Examine the whole body before disturbing the wound, recording its situation, dimensions, margins and relation to damaged blood vessels. Then expose the wound track by careful dissection. An injury received while the blood circulation was active may show substantial hemorrhage, blood infiltrating the surrounding tissue, and adherent blood clots. Infiltration is more informative than loose blood merely lying on the surface: serial cuts can show whether blood has penetrated the tissue rather than simply coated it.

The interval of survival changes what can reasonably be expected. If the person survived long enough, surrounding inflammation, cellular reaction, formation of granulation tissue, or an established scar is evidence of a process that began during life. Such findings can make the conclusion much stronger than the appearance of a fresh cut. They do not furnish a universal clock: wound healing varies with site, severity, health and environment.

A post-mortem cut will often have relatively pale margins and little infiltration, although it can gape because skin and other tissues are elastic. Blood may still escape from a recently dead body, particularly from dependent or congested parts, and coagulation can occur around the time of death. Livor mortis can resemble bruising, while drying and putrefaction alter colour and consistency. A body moved, compressed or subjected to attempts at resuscitation presents further opportunities for artefact. Therefore neither “it bled” nor “the edges retracted” establishes that the wound was inflicted during life.

For modern corroboration, sample the margin, underlying tissue and an uninjured comparison site for histology, interpreting inflammation and other markers in the context of the whole examination. A primary study of decomposed forensic cases illustrates the use of immunohistochemistry while explicitly warning that extravasated red blood cells alone do not reliably establish wound vitality.^[ref]

Consequently, a rapidly fatal wound may be impossible to distinguish confidently from one inflicted immediately after death by gross aspect alone. Absence of developed inflammation is expected when survival was extremely brief; it is not proof of post-mortem injury. The answer should express the degree of support, rather than force an unwarranted yes-or-no conclusion.

For an ordinary private admission in England and Wales in 1867: a prescribed written reception order and statement, together with two independent medical certificates based on separate personal examinations. Pauper admissions and certain exceptional admissions had different statutory routes. The expressions “lunatic” and “pauper” below are the historical statutory categories.

The relevant law was the Lunacy Act 1845, the Lunatic Asylums Act 1853, the Lunatics Care and Treatment Act 1853, and the Lunacy Acts Amendment Act 1862. The later Lunacy Act 1890 must not be read backwards into this examination.

For a private patient entering a licensed house or registered hospital, the 1853 care-and-treatment statute required the prescribed order and particulars, with certificates from two qualified practitioners. Each must examine the person separately within seven clear days before reception; partners and assistants could not certify together. Each certificate must distinguish personally observed facts indicating the alleged mental disorder from facts reported by others: hearsay alone was insufficient. The statute also excluded specified relationships and interests connecting certifiers with the institution or order-maker. The exceptional single-certificate route required the special circumstances to be recorded and two further independent certificates within three clear days of reception.^[ref]

The 1862 amendment added that the private order-maker must have seen the person within the preceding month and record when and where. The order ceased to authorize reception after one calendar month. Additional disqualifications concerned financial interests and institutional medical attendants. Where possible the admission order should name and give the address of a relation. The principal admission documents for private patients had to reach the Commissioners within one clear day; the subsequent medical statement remained a separate return. A person already found subject to the relevant jurisdiction by formal inquisition had a distinct route through the appointed committee's order and the court documentation.^[ref]

For a county or borough asylum, the Lunatic Asylums Act 1853 supplied the corresponding private-patient procedure. For a pauper patient, the ordinary route involved official inquiry and a reception order, normally by a justice, supported by one medical certificate and the prescribed particulars. The statute also provided a route involving an officiating clergyman with a relieving officer or overseer, subject to its conditions. The medical examination must again be within seven clear days before reception. Thus “two doctors and a relative's request” is not a complete account of every admission.^[ref]

The practical sequence is to ascertain the applicable legal category, arrange the required examinations and order, check qualifications, independence, facts, dates and signatures, and deliver the documents to the authorized institution before reception. An unsupported allegation by a relative or a bare medical assertion supplies none of these safeguards. This is an account of Historical English asylum admission, not a statement of present admission law.

First record the position, extent, colour and underlying material of the stain. Keep a portion untouched, take a small scraping or cutting for examination, and test an unstained portion of the same material alongside it. The comparison is important: a coloured fabric, iron oxide or a vegetable colouring substance may resemble dried blood, and the material itself can interfere with a chemical test. Brown colour alone proves nothing.

For an examination practicable in 1867, use complementary observations:

These observations should agree before the examiner expresses a positive conclusion. Failure to recover intact red blood cells does not exclude an old bloodstain; conversely, a colour reaction without suitable controls is weak evidence. A defensible period report would distinguish “blood identified, consistent with mammalian origin” from “human blood proved.” The second conclusion does not follow from the first.

For comparison, later precipitin tests use antibodies against human proteins to investigate species of origin. Modern DNA profiling can investigate the donor, subject to preservation and contamination limits. These are later developments, not procedures to attribute to an Oxford candidate in 1867.^[ref]

TODO: No ophthalmoscopic findings or retinal image for the unspecified patient. The required physical examination inputs are not supplied in the scanned paper.

TODO: No examination findings for the aphonia patient. The required physical examination inputs are not supplied in the scanned paper.

TODO: The displayed surgical instruments are not identified or illustrated. The required physical examination inputs are not supplied in the scanned paper.

TODO: No clinical case records for the unspecified ward patients. The required physical examination inputs are not supplied in the scanned paper.

Translation. For rapidly developing, or acute diseases, also resolve of their own accord, sometimes through favourable chance and sometimes through nature's favour. Consequently, ignorant people, carried away by this, often avoid physicians and attribute these favourable outcomes to new incantations and amulets, or to chance; for these rapidly developing diseases are driven out either by a flow of sweat, by blood discharged through the nose, or by a discharge from the intestines. But chronic diseases, or diseases of slow development, which have already gained possession of the body with a kind of prior claim, call for the skill of the physician alone, since they are resolved neither by nature nor by chance.

Interpretation. Caelius Aurelianus contrasts spontaneous resolution in acute disease with the entrenched course of chronic disease. Here passiones means affections or diseases, not emotions; ligamenta means protective bindings or amulets, not anatomical ligaments; proventus means favourable outcomes. The metaphor praejudicio quodam gives the established disease something like a prior claim on the body. The final assertion is the author's defence of professional medicine, not a present-day law that every chronic disease requires effective medical treatment or that none can remit spontaneously. The account of sweating, nosebleeds and intestine discharge describes his historical explanation, not evidence that deliberately producing these discharges cures acute disease. ^[ref]

By 1867 the central change was from confidence in bloodletting as a general remedy to a disputed, increasingly restricted practice tested against clinical outcomes. Bloodletting includes opening a vein, local wet cupping, and the application of medicinal leeches. The history must explain both the theories that supported it and why clinical comparisons weakened that support.

Ancient explanations and qualifications. In the Hippocratic Corpus, disease could be explained through disturbances of bodily fluids. The four-fluid account underlying humorism named blood, humoral phlegm, yellow bile and black bile; restoring their proper mixture offered a rationale for evacuation. This was a historical explanatory system, not a modern description of blood composition. Nor was ancient practice uniformly indiscriminate. Aulus Cornelius Celsus describes bloodletting as a powerful intervention whose suitability depends on bodily strength and whether the condition represents excess rather than exhaustion. Galen likewise distinguishes whether evacuation is needed, whether it should be by venesection, and whether the patient can tolerate it; he discusses the site, quantity and repetition. Thus the ancient debate already included selection and restraint. ^{[ref] [ref] [ref]}

Medieval continuity and the instruments. The Canon of Medicine by Ibn Sina preserves a carefully qualified doctrine of venesection, including cases where removing good blood would leave harmful fluids behind. Its reasoning belongs to humorism; its distinctions should not be mistaken for verified modern indications. In late medieval Europe, bloodletting was also organized by calendars: a surviving Augsburg calendar for 1472 specifies supposedly favourable times according to the patient and the Moon. This documents an additional astrological framework, not evidence of therapeutic efficacy. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The material distinction between general and local removal mattered. Venesection opened a vein with a sharp instrument. Wet cupping combined superficial cuts in the skin with suction under a cup; Celsus describes bronze cups in which burning material reduced the enclosed air's pressure, and horn cups from which air was sucked through a small opening. Dry cupping did not include the cuts and therefore did not itself remove blood. Medicinal leeches provided another means of local removal. These instruments made depletion visibly demonstrable, but the visible removal of blood did not establish that a disease had been removed. ^[ref]

New physiology did not immediately settle treatment. William Harvey's 1628 account of blood circulation undermined the older picture of blood simply being supplied and consumed in the parts. His observations of venous valves and experiments with arm ligatures showed directional movement: filling below a ligature and the behaviour of compressed veins helped demonstrate return towards the heart. Nevertheless, a circulating blood supply could still be invoked to explain relief through depletion or redistribution. Establishing blood circulation and establishing the benefit of bloodletting were different questions. ^[ref]

In the early nineteenth century, François-Joseph-Victor Broussais's emphasis on local irritation and inflammation encouraged extensive use of medicinal leeches. This illustrates why changing theory could increase bloodletting: a local inflammatory explanation supplied a fresh reason to remove blood near the supposed seat of disease. The accompanying claims of efficacy still needed comparison with what happened under other treatments. ^[ref]

Comparative evidence weakened general claims. In 1835 Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis asked whether comparable patients with pneumonia did better when first subjected to bloodletting during days 1–4 than when first bled later. He explicitly considered age and other differences. This numerical method in medicine shifted attention from selected recoveries to outcomes in defined groups. His work restricted confidence in a large, general benefit; it should not be presented as a randomized controlled trial proving that every use was ineffective. In modern terms, these were observational studies: confounding by indication could make the earlier-treated group differ in severity, and surviving long enough to enter the later-treated group could introduce selection bias. Counting cases was an advance, but did not automatically remove these problems. ^[ref]

The dispute still alive in 1867. William Pulteney Alison defended earlier experience of benefit, while John Hughes Bennett opposed routine depletion and developed a restorative approach. One defence of the altered practice was the change-of-type theory of disease: formerly vigorous or “sthenic” inflammatory illness was said to have become weak or “asthenic”, so that measures once borne well were now inappropriate. The rival explanation was that understanding of pathology and the evidence about treatment had improved. Alison's 1856 argument and the contemporary 1858 review show that this was an active disagreement, not a completed unanimous rejection. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Bennett's 1864 discussion made the theoretical contrast explicit: an account centred on altered blood and vessels favoured depletion, whereas his account of tissue irritation and inflammatory exudation led him towards the opposite practice. That historical account of inflammation should itself be evaluated historically, rather than adopted as current pathology. The durable methodological lesson is that recovery after treatment is insufficient evidence of recovery because of it: acute disease may resolve naturally, as even the Latin extract acknowledges. Changes in theory, recognition of the patient's limited reserve, and comparative clinical observation together explain the retreat from routine bloodletting. ^[ref]

Present-day distinction. Contemporary venesection has specific indications: in haemochromatosis, removal of red blood cells helps reduce excess iron; in polycythaemia vera, it can reduce an excessive red blood cell burden. Those uses concern defined abnormalities, rather than correction of historical humorism or a general remedy for fever and inflammation. They are a modern explanatory coda, not knowledge attributed to the 1867 candidate. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Translation. The stomach, the internal organ responsible for digestion, performs digestion poorly whenever diarrhoea takes hold of a person; and the diarrhoea consists of liquid, undigested food. Unless this happens from a temporary cause for only one or two days, the whole person becomes weak through wasting of the body, and the coeliac affection of Aretaeus becomes a chronic disease, through weakness of the digestive heat and chilling of the stomach. Then the food is indeed broken down under the action of heat, but the heat does not digest it completely or turn it into an appropriate nutritive fluid: it leaves it half-finished (the printed word is incomplete), through failure of the completing power. The food, abandoned by the process, changes for the worse in colour, smell and consistency. Its colour is white and lacking bile; its smell is foul and dung-like; and it is liquid and without cohesion because the process has failed, retaining only the beginning of digestion as its one good quality. Hence there is gaseous, continual, foul-smelling belching in the stomach.

Text and medical meaning. The scan ends PDF volume p. 101 with λείπε- and begins p. 102 with ἀδρανείῃ. The translation marks this defective word rather than silently pretending that the missing ending is visible. The corresponding edited Greek has λείπει, “leaves”, which supplies the sense used here. The Oxford extract also separates the conditional clause from the following sentence more abruptly than that edition; the translation carries its evident qualification forward. ^[ref]

Aretaeus of Cappadocia uses κοιλίη for the stomach or digestive belly and σκῆνος, literally a tent or dwelling, for the body. ἀτροφίη indicates wasting or failure of nourishment; it need not denote the modern histological concept of atrophy. “Appropriate nutritive fluid” renders χυμὸν οἰκεῖον: the product that the author thinks suitable for bodily nourishment, rather than a modern chemical identification. The pale, foul, loose output is an observed feature; the explanation by weak digestive heat is the author's theory. It is not a modern account of digestion. ^[ref]

The historical coeliac affection of Aretaeus cannot establish a modern diagnosis of coeliac disease. Modern coeliac disease involves an immune response to gluten that damages the small intestine; the ancient symptom description alone cannot identify that mechanism. The diagnosis should therefore not be read back into the passage as certain. ^[ref]

TODO: Testing F for oxalic acid remains incomplete. The chemical solution and its observed test results are unavailable, so neither the presence nor the absence of oxalic acid can be reported.

TODO: Testing G for antimony or arsenic remains incomplete. The chemical solution and its observed test results are unavailable, so neither antimony nor arsenic can be identified or excluded. The alternatives named in the paper specify what to investigate; they do not establish what G contains.

TODO: The gas in D and the gas in E remain unidentified. Neither bottle nor any observations of its contents are available. There is no basis for assigning a particular gas to either bottle.

TODO: The identities of the chemical substances in A, B and C remain undetermined. The scanned paper supplies the tube labels but no samples, compositions or observations. Each tube therefore requires its own missing experimental evidence; the labels alone do not identify any of the three chemical substances.

Specific heat capacity is heat capacity per unit mass. For a specified thermodynamic process without a phase transition,The constraint matters: constant-pressure and constant-volume heat capacities need not coincide. Here the supplied iron value and water value are treated as constants.

At the stipulated barometer reading, iron left in boiling water reaches $100^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Taking water's specific heat capacity as one in the given units, the iron has heat capacity $100(0.114)=11.4$. The adhering gramme of hot water adds another one. Thus the hot material has total heat capacity $12.4$, compared with $150$ for the initially cool water.

The no-loss calorimetry energy balance issoThe adhering water enters on the hot side, not as extra water initially at $10^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. The vessel's heat capacity is neglected, as none is supplied.