Chapter XXXI: Section V: , treating of “Magnetic Attraction,” concludes as follows (2)

REFERENCES.--“Encycl. Brit.,” 1857, Vol. XIV. pp. 7, 63,
and _Journal de Physique_, Vol. LIX. p. 450. For Mr. Biot’s
observations on the magnetism of metals and minerals, and on
the distribution of magnetism in artificial magnets, as well
as for his improvement upon Coulomb’s method of constructing
the latter, see the last-named volume of the “Britannica,”
pp. 23, 26, 71, and Noad’s “Manual of Electricity,” London,
1859, pp. 528, 535, while, for Biot’s very ingenious theory
relative to the aurora, see Lardner and Walker’s “Manual of
Elec. Mag. and Meteor.,” London, 1844, Vol. II. p. 235, and
Noad, pp. 232, 233. The observations concerning the laws
regulating the intensity of electro-magnetic phenomena, made by
MM. Biot and Savary, are alluded to by Noad at pp. 644, 645,
in the “Encycl. Metropol.” (Elec. Magn.), Vol. IV. p. 427; and
Whewell’s “History of the Inductive Sciences,” 1859, Vol. II.
pp. 245–249; “Scientific papers of the Royal Society,” Vol.
I. pp. 374–386; Biot’s “Traité de Phys. Exp. et Math.,” Vol.
II. p. 457; _Journal de Physique_, Vol. LIX. pp. 315, 318;
Wilkinson’s “Elem. of Galv.,” Vol. II. pp. 38, 123, 154, 361,
Chap. XVI; Humboldt’s “Cosmos,” treating of Aerolites, of the
Zodiacal Light and of the figure of the earth; Noad, “Manual,”
p. 530; Eighth “Ency. Brit.,” Vol. VIII. p. 580; Sir H. Davy,
“Bakerian Lectures,” London, 1840, p. 3, alluding to Biot
and Thénard in No. 40 of the _Moniteur_ for 1806; “Encycl.
Metropol.,” Vol. IV. (Electro-Magn.), p. 7; Harris “Rudim.
Magn.,” Part III, London, 1852, pp. 116, 117; Gautherot at A.D.
1801; Figuier, “Exposition,” etc., Paris, 1857, Vol. iv. p. 429;
“Lib. of Useful Knowl.” (Electricity), p. 64 and (Magnetism),
p. 89; “Soc. Philomath.,” An. IX. p. 45; An. XI. pp. 120, 129;
Becquerel’s “Traité,” 1856, Vol. III. p. 11; _Phil. Mag._, Vols.
XVI. p. 224; XXI. p. 362; “Mém. de l’Institut” for 1802, Vol.
V; “Annales des Mines” for 1820, relative to the experiments
on electro-magnetism made by Oersted, Arago, Ampère and Biot;
_Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXII. pp. 248, 249, for the magnetical
observations made by Biot and Arago; _Comptes Rendus_ for 1839,
I Sem., VIII, No. 7, p. 233, for the observations of Biot and
Becquerel on the nature of the radiation emanating from the
electric spark; “Chemical News,” London, 1868, Vol. XVI for
John Tyndall’s lecture on some experiments of Faraday, Biot
and Savary; “Atti dell’ Accad. dei Nuovi Lincei, Ann.,” XV.
Sess., IV. del 2 Marzo 1862, for the biography of J. B. Biot,
who died Feb. 2, 1862, within two months of the completion of
his eighty-eighth year. “Journal des Savants” for June and July
1820, April 1821, and for Feb.-Mar.-April 1846.

J. B. Biot’s son, Edward Constant Biot (1803–1850), is the author of the extended catalogue of shooting stars and other meteors observed in China during twenty-four centuries, which was presented to the French Academy during 1841, and a supplement to which was published at Paris in 1848 (_Acad. des Sciences_, _Savants Etrangers_, Tome X).

=A.D. 1803–1805.=--Acting upon the discovery of Gautherot, the Bavarian philosopher Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776–1810) is the first to construct an electrical accumulator.

Ritter’s “ardency of research and originality of invention” had, as far back as 1796, shown itself in the numerous very able scientific papers relating to Electricity, Galvanism and Magnetism which he had communicated mainly through L. W. Gilbert’s _Annalen der Physik_, J. H. Voigt’s _Mag. für Naturkunde_ and A. F. Gehlen’s _Journal für die Chemie_, all which obtained recognition in several foreign publications. These papers secured for him membership in the Munich Academy during the year 1805.

From Prof. H. W. Dove’s discourse before the Society for Scientific Lectures, of Berlin, the following is extracted:

“As the (then considered) essential portions of a galvanic circuit were two metals and a fluid, innumerable combinations were possible, from which the most suitable had to be chosen. This gigantic task was undertaken by Ritter, an inhabitant of a village near Leignitz, who almost sacrificed his senses to the investigation. He discovered the peculiar pile which bears his name, and opened that wonderful circle of actions and reactions which, through the subsequent discoveries of Oersted, Faraday, Seebeck and Peltier, drew with ever-tightening band the isolated forces of nature into an organic whole. But he died early, as Günther did before him, exhausted by restless labour, sorrow and disordered living.”

Ritter’s _charging or secondary pile_ consists of but one metal, the discs of which are separated by circular pieces of cloth, flannel or cardboard, moistened in a liquid which cannot chemically affect the metal. When the extremities are put in communication with the poles of an ordinary voltaic pile it becomes electrified and can be substituted for the latter; and it will retain the charge, so that for a time there can be obtained from it sparks, shocks, as well as the decomposition of water.

The writer of the article at p. 268 of the April 1802 _Monthly Magazine_, making reference to _an artificial magnet_ discovered at Vienna (Bakewell, “Elec. Science,” p. 40), no doubt alludes to the above-named charging or secondary pile, in the construction of which Ritter made many modifications. At first he arranged 32 copper and card discs in three series, two of which series contained 16 copper discs while the intermediate series consisted of 32 card discs. He then placed them so that the discs alternated, employing but 31 discs of copper, and he also used 64 as well as 128 copper discs alternating with similar ones of cardboard. In each case he compared the chemical action through the decomposition of water as well as the physiological effect or shock and the physical property or electrical tension. The results obtained are given in his many papers alluded to below.

Independently of the English scientists he discovered the property possessed by the voltaic pile of decomposing water as well as saline compounds, and of collecting oxygen and acids at the positive pole while hydrogen and the bases collect at the negative pole. He conceived that he had procured oxygen from water without hydrogen, by making sulphuric acid the medium of the communication at the negative surface, but, as Davy says, in this case sulphur is deposited, while the oxygen from the acid and the hydrogen from the water are respectively repelled, and the new combination produced.

A correspondent in Alex. Tilloch’s _Philosophical Magazine_ (Vol. XXIII for 1805–1806, pp. 51–54--Extracts from a letter of M. Christ. Bernoulli abridged from Van Mons’ _Journal_, Vol. VI) thus alludes to some of Ritter’s experiments communicated in May 1805 to the Munich Royal Society:

“I have seen him galvanize a louis d’or. He places it between two pieces of pasteboard thoroughly wetted, and keeps it six or eight minutes in the circuit of the pile. Thus it becomes charged, though not immediately in contact with the conducting wires. If applied to the recently bared crural nerves of a frog the usual contractions ensue. I put a louis d’or thus galvanized into my pocket, and Ritter told me, some minutes after, that I might discover it from the rest by trying them in succession upon the frog. I made the trial, and actually distinguished, among several others, one in which only the exciting quality was evident. The charge is retained in proportion to the time that the coin has been in the circuit of the pile. Thus, of three different coins, which Ritter charged in my presence, none lost its charge under five minutes. A metal thus retaining the galvanic charge, though touched by the hand and other metals, shows that this communication of galvanic virtue has more affinity with magnetism than with electricity, and assigns to the galvanic fluid an intermediate rank between the two. Ritter can, in the way I have just described, charge at once any number of pieces. It is only necessary that the two extreme pieces of the number communicate with the pile through the intervention of wet pasteboards. It is with metallic discs charged in this manner and placed upon one another, with pieces of wet pasteboard alternately interposed, that he constructs his charging pile, which ought, in remembrance of its inventor, to be called the _Ritterian pile_. The construction of this pile shows that each metal galvanized in this way acquires polarity, as the needle does when touched with a magnet.”

The same correspondent alludes to experiments made with Ritter’s battery of 100 pairs of metallic plates, the latter having their edges turned up so as “to prevent the liquid pressed out from flowing away” (_Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXIII. p. 51), but he says he was unable to see either Ritter’s great battery of 2000 pieces, or the one of 50 pieces, each 36 inches square, the action of which is said to have continued very perceptibly for a fortnight. He writes as follows:

“After showing me his experiments on the different contractibility of various muscles (“Beiträge zur nähern Kenntniss,” etc., Jena, 1802, B. II) Ritter made me observe that the piece of gold galvanized by communication with the pile exerts at once the action of two metals, or of one voltaic couple, and that the face which in the voltaic circuit was next the negative pole became positive, and the face toward the positive pole negative. Having discovered a way to galvanize metals, as iron is rendered magnetic, and having found that the galvanized metals always exhibit two poles as the magnetized needle does, Ritter suspended a galvanized gold needle on a pivot, and perceived that it had a certain dip and variation, or deflection, and that the angle of deviation was always the same in all his experiments. It differed, however, from that of the magnetic needle, and it was the positive pole that always dipped.”

It can truly be said that the nearest approach to a solution of the question as to the analogy between electric and magnetic forces, which had remained unsettled since the time of Van Swinden (see A.D. 1784), was given by Ritter, who announced “that a needle composed of silver and zinc arranged itself in the magnetic meridian and was slightly attracted and repelled by the poles of a magnet; that by placing a gold coin in the voltaic circuit, he had succeeded in giving to it positive and negative electric poles; that the polarity so communicated was retained by the gold after it had been in contact with other metals, and appeared therefore to partake of the nature of magnetism; that a gold needle under similar circumstances acquired still more decided magnetic properties; that a metallic wire, after being exposed to the voltaic current, took a direction N.E. and S.W.” Dr. Roget gives these same extracts in his article on “Electro-Magnetism,” and justly remarks that Ritter’s speculations were of too crude a nature to throw any distinct light on the true connection between magnetism and electricity, nor was much notice taken of Ritter’s announcements, owing to the vague manner in which they were made. No satisfactory results were in fact obtained until Oersted (at A.D. 1820) made his famous discovery which forms the basis of the science of electro-magnetism.

REFERENCES.--The “Encyclopædia Britannica” article relating to
the influence of magnetism on chemical action, for an account
of Ritter’s other experiments; also Faraday’s “Experimental
Researches,” No. 1033; Ritter’s “Physisch. Chem. Abhand.,”
etc., 3 vols., Leipzig, 1806; Poggendorff, Vol. II. p. 652;
Tyndall’s notes on Electric Polarization; Donovan’s “Essay on
the Origin, Progress and Present State of Galvanism,” Dublin,
1816; “Société Philomathique,” An. IV. p. 181; An. IX. p. 39;
An. XI. pp. 128, 197; An. XII. p. 145; _Bull. Soc. Phil._, Nos.
53, 76, 79; _Nuova Scelta d’Opus._, Vol. I. pp. 201, 334; _Bibl.
Brit._, XXXI; “Reichsanzeiger,” 1802, Bd. I, No. 66, and Bd.
II, No. 194; also F. L. Augustin’s “Versuch einer geschichte
...” 1803, p. 75; Gilbert’s _Annalen_, II, VI, VII, VIII, IX,
XIII, XV, XVI; Voigt’s _Magazin_, Vol. II. p. 356; Gehlen’s
_Journal_, Vol. III for 1804, and Vol. VI for 1806; “Denkschr.
d. Münch.,” 1808 and 1814; _Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXIII. chap.
ix. pp. 54, 55 (for experiments from Van Mons’ _Journal_, No.
17), Vols. XXIV. p. 186; XXV. p. 368; LVIII. p. 43; L. F. F.
Crell, “Chemische Annalen” for 1801; _Nicholson’s Journal_,
Vols. IV. p. 511; VI. p. 223; VII. p. 288, VIII. pp. 176, 184;
“Gottling’s Almanach” for 1801; Leithead, “Electricity,” p.
255; “Encycl. Metropolitana,” article “Galvanism,” Vol. IV. p.
206; “Biographie Générale,” Vol. XLII. p. 322; Larousse, “Dict.
Universel,” Vol. XIII. p. 1234; Pierre Sue, aîné, “Histoire du
Galvanisme,” Paris, An. X, 1802, Vol. I. pp. 226, 266; Vol. II.
pp. 112–119, 156; Joseph Izarn, “Manuel du Galvanisme,” Paris,
An. XII, 1804, pp. 84–87, 249, 255–261; Brugnatelli, “Notizie
... nell’ anno 1804,” Pavia, 1805, p. 16, also his _Annali di
chimica_, Vol. XXII. p. 1; _Journal de Physique_, Vol. LVII.
pp. 345, 406; _Annales de Chimie_, Vols. XLI. p. 208; LXIV.
pp. 64–80; _Jour. de Chim. de Van Mons_, No. 14, p. 212, for
the experiments of Van Marum and Oersted, made with Ritter’s
apparatus; Sturgeon’s “Scientific Researches,” Bury, 1850, pp.
7, 8, and Prof. Millin’s “Magazin Encyclopédique”; “Allgemeine
Deutsche Biographie,” Leipzig, 1875, Vol. XXVIII. pp. 675–678;
“Bibl. Britan.,” Vol. XXXI. 1806, p. 97, Vol. XXV. 1807, pp.
364–386 (Lettre de M. le Dr. Thouvenel).

=A.D. 1803.=--Basse (Frédéric Henri), of Hamel, makes one of the earliest trials of the transmission of galvanism through water and soil, the results of which appear in his work, “Galvanische Versuche,” etc., published at Leipzig the year following.

Along the frozen water of the ditch or moat surrounding the town of Hamel he suspended, on fir posts, 500 feet of wire, at a height of six feet above the surface of the ice, then making two holes in the ice and dipping into them the ends of the wire, in the circuit of which were included a galvanic battery and a suitable electroscope, he found the current circulating freely. Similar experiments were made in the Weser; afterwards, with two wells, 21 feet deep and 200 feet apart; and, lastly, across a meadow 3000 to 4000 feet wide. Whenever the ground was dry it was only necessary to wet it in order to feel a shock sent through an insulated wire from the distant battery. Erman, of Berlin, in 1803, and Sömmering, of Munich, in 1811, performed like experiments, the one in the water of the Havel, near Potsdam, and the other along the river Isar.

Fahie, from whom we take the above, alludes to Gilbert’s _Annalen der Physik_, Vol. XIV. pp. 26 and 385, as well as to Hamel’s “Historical Account,” p. 17, of Cooke’s reprint, and adds that Fechner, of Leipzig, after referring to Basse’s and Erman’s experiments in his “Lehrbuch des Galvanismus,” p. 268, goes on to explain the conductibility of the earth in accordance with Ohm’s law. As he immediately after alludes to the proposals for electric telegraphs, he has sometimes been credited with the knowledge of the fact that the earth could be used to complete the circuit in such cases. This, however, is not so, as we learn from a letter which Fechner addressed to Prof. Zetzsche, on the 19th of February 1872.

REFERENCES.--Zetzsche’s “Geschichte der Elektrischen
Telegraphie,” p. 19. See Dr. Turnbull’s Lectures in the _Journal
of the Franklin Institute_, Vol. XXI. pp. 273–274; “Scientific
Papers of the Royal Society,” Vol. I. p. 203.

=A.D. 1803.=--Thillaye-Platel (Antoine), French savant, who was afterward appointed pharmacist in the Paris _Hôtel-Dieu_, gives out as the result of numerous investigations a great many useful precepts on the medical application of electricity and galvanism, which will be found in his thesis presented to the Paris Ecole de Médecine on the 15th Floréal, An. XI. These precepts, De la Rive says (“Treatise on Elect.,” translated by C. V. Walker, London, 1858, Vol. III. pp. 587, 588), are followed to this day and are extremely simple, requiring only the use of metallic brushes held by an insulated handle and put into communication with the conductor of the machine; and directing the application of electricity in its mildest form as well as its gradual increase to as much as the invalid is able to support, besides allowing of the concurrent employment of other means acting in the same direction, such as frictions, blisters, etc.

Antoine Thillaye-Platel’s uncle, Jean Baptiste Jacques Thillaye (1752–1822), French physician and Professor of Anatomy at Rouen and in Paris, published “Eléments de l’Elect. et du Galv.,” Paris, 1816–1817, ten years after the death of his nephew (Poggendorff, Vol. II. p. 1094; Larousse, “Dict. Univ.,” Vol. XV. p. 131).

De la Rive alludes to cures effected by several specialists and particularly to Father R. B. Fabre-Palaprat’s translation made in 1828 of La Beaume’s English work on the medical efficacy of electricity and galvanism, originally published in 1820–1826. The latter, he says, is preceded by a preface wherein the translator rivals the author on the wonderful effects of the electric fluid as a sovereign remedy for nearly all maladies.

REFERENCES.--For M. Thillaye’s experiments with M. Butet on
galvanic electricity, made at the Paris École de Médecine,
see the _Bulletin des Sciences de la Soc. Philom._, No. 43,
Vendémiaire An. IX, also Vol. IX. p. 231, of the “Recueil
Périodique de la Soc. Libre de Médecine du Louvre.” Consult
likewise, Poggendorff, Vol. II. p. 1094; “Royal Society
Catalogue of Scientific Papers,” Vol. V. p. 954; De la Rive’s
“Treatise,” Vol. III. pp. 587, 588; P. Sue, aîné, “Histoire du
Galvanisme,” Vol. III. p. 14. Some of the other authors who have
treated of the same subject are: F. Zwinger, 1697–1707; W. B.
Nebel, 1719; Oppermanno, 1746; E. Sguario, 1746; G. C. Pivati,
1747–1750; G. Veratti, 1748–1750; O. de Villeneuve, 1748; L.
Jallabert, 1748–1750; G. F. Bianchini, 1749; Mellarde, of Turin,
1749; Palma, 1749; F. Sauvages de la Croix, 1749–1760; J. B.
Bohadsch, 1751; O. M. Pagani, 1751; S. T. Quellmaz, 1753; A. von
Haller, 1753–1757; Linné (Linnæus), 1754; P. Paulsohn, 1754; E.
F. Runeberg, 1757; P. Brydone, 1757; Lower, 1760; De Lassone,
1763; Wm. Watson, 1763; G. F. Hjotberg, 1765; J. G. Teske,
1765; P. A. Marrherr, 1766; Gardane, 1768–1778; J. G. Krunitz,
1769; R. Symes, 1771; Sigaud de la Fond, 1771; C. A. Gerhard,
1772; Abbé Sans, 1772–1778; J. Janin de Combe Blanche, 1773;
J. B. Becket, 1773; Marrigues à Montfort L’Amaury, 1773; G. F.
Gardini, 1774; J. G. Schaffer, 1776; Mauduyt, 1776–1786; De
Thouri, 1777; A. A. Senft, 1778; Masars de Cazéles, 1780–1788;
P. F. Nicolas, 1782; Bonnefoy, 1782; Niccolas, 1783; K. G. Kuhn,
1783, 1797; C. W. Hufeland, 1783; Cosnier, Maloet, Darcet, etc.,
1783; J. P. Marat, 1784; G. Vivenzio, 1784; Carmoy, 1784–1785;
G. Piccinelli, 1785; L. E. de Tressan, “Essai ...” 1786, p.
233, etc.; Krunitz-Kirtz, 1787; Porna and Arnaud, 1787; F.
Lowndes, 1787–1791; J. H. D. Petetin, 1787, 1808; G. Pickel,
1788; Van Troostwijk and Krayenhoff, 1788; R. W. D. Thorp,
1790; G. Wilkinson, 1792; C. H. Pfaff, 1793; G. Klein, 1794;
M. Imhof, 1796; C. H. Wilkinson, 1799; C. A. Struve, 1802;
Maurice, 1810; J. Morgan, 1815; Le Blanc, 1819; P. A. Pascalis,
1819; J. Price, 1821; K. Sundelin, 1822; Girardin, 1823;
Ch. Bew, 1824; Sarlandière, 1825; S. G. Marianini, 1833; F.
Puccinotti, 1834; François Magendie, 1836, 1837; Gourdon, 1838;
C. Matteucci, Piria, etc., 1838, 1858; Breton Frères, 1844;
B. Mojon, Jr., 1845; J. E. Riadore, 1845; A. Restelli, 1846;
Budge, 1846; F. Hollick, 1847; R. Froriep, 1850; C. V. Rauch,
1851; H. Valerius, 1852; Burci, 1852; Marie-Davy, 1852–1853;
W. Gull, 1852; C. Beckensteiner, 1852–1870; F. Channing, 1852;
F. F. Videt, 1853; R. M. Lawrance, 1853–1858; G. M. Cavalleri,
1854, 1857; Briand, 1854; M. Kierski, 1854; P. Zetzell, 1856;
Ad. Becquerel, 1856–1860; E. Pfluger, 1856, 1858; Pulvermacher,
1856; P. C. Pinson, 1857; H. Ziemssen, 1857–1866; Philipeaux,
1857; J. Dropsy, 1857; M. Meyer, 1857–1869; Nivelet, 1860–1863;
A. Tripier, 1861; J. Rosenthal, 1862; Desparquets, 1862; M. P.
Poggioli (Mémoire lu à l’Institut, Oct. 31, 1853; “Annual of
Scientific Disc.,” 1865, p. 327); G. Niamias, “Della elettr.
... medicina,” 1851 (“An. of Sci. Disc.,” 1865, p. 327); A. C.
Garrat, 1866; H. Lobb, 1867; Aug. Beer, 1868; H. M. Collis (“An.
of Sci. Dis.,” 1869, p. 175); Toutain, 1870; J. R. Reynolds,
1872; Onimus and Legros, 1872; as well as Jobert de Lamballe,
Richter and Erdmon, T. Guitard, J. J. Hemmer, H. van Holsbeek,
T. Percival, J. D. Reuss and Mr. Ware (in Kuhn, Hist. II. p.
183).

=A.D. 1803.=--Berthollet (Claude Louis de), very eminent French scientist, who was the first of the leading chemists to openly endorse the antiphlogistic doctrine propounded by Lavoisier (A.D. 1781), and who with Laplace founded the well-known scientific Société d’Arcueil, admits in his “Essai de Statique Chimique” the analogy existing between caloric and the electric fluid. He believes that the latter during the oxidation of metals does not give out much heat, but causes only a dilatation of bodies which separates their molecules, and he also believes that electricity aids metallic oxidation by lessening cohesion (Delaunay, “Manuel de l’Electricité,” p. 16).

When Berthollet and Charles passed heavy electrical charges through platinum wire, they observed that the latter acquired a temperature about equal to that of boiling water, and therefore not sufficient to fuse the wire. If the metal is one easily oxidized, the separation of the molecules causes them to unite with the oxygen of the air, and it is therefore the oxidation itself which produces the consequent high degree of heat.

REFERENCES.--“Essai de Statique,” Vol. I. pp. 209 and 263.
See also “Biographie Générale,” Vol. V. p. 716; Young’s
“Lectures,” London, 1807, Vol. II. p. 423, and _Nicholson’s
Journal_, Vol. VIII. p. 80; Larousse, “Dict. Univ.,” Vol. II.
p. 617; “Sci. Papers of Roy. Soc.,” Vol. I. pp. 321–323; Sir H.
Davy, “Bakerian Lectures,” London 1840, pp. 41, 94, regarding
more particularly Berthollet’s elaborate experiments on the
decomposition of ammonia by electricity alluded to in _Mém. de
l’Acad._, 1782, p. 324, also Delaunay, “Manuel,” pp. 17, 150.

=A.D. 1804.=--Jacotot (Pierre), Professor of Astronomy at the Lyceum of Dijon, states, at p. 223, Vol. I of his “Eléments de Physique Expérimentale,” that Wlik, teacher of natural philosophy at Stockholm, invented the electrophorus during the year 1762. Jacotot, of course, refers to Johannes Carolus Wilcke (see A.D. 1757) who, during the month of August 1762, constructed a resinous apparatus to which he gave the name of _perpetual_ electrophorus (Scripta Academiæ Suec., 1762). Books V, VI and VII of the same volume treat respectively of Electricity, Galvanism and Magnetism.

REFERENCES.--With regard to the _perpetual_ electrophorus,
see L. S. Jacquet de Malzet “Lettre d’un Abbé de Vienne ...”
Vienna, 1775, translated into German by “A. H.” (A. Hildebrand),
Wien, 1776; also C. Cuyper’s “Exposé d’une méthode ...” La
Haye, 1778; and, for other improvements, Marsiglio Landriani,
_Scelta d’Opuscoli_, 12mo, XIX. p. 73; J. F. Klinkosch, _Mém.
de l’Acad. de Prague_, III. p. 218. Consult J. C. Poggendorff,
“Biog.-Litter. Hand. ...” Vol. I. pp. 1, 182, and Larousse,
“Dictionnaire Universel,” Vol. IX. p. 868.

=A.D. 1804.=--Hatchett (Charles), F.R.S. and foreign member of the Paris Academy, communicates through a paper entitled “An Analysis of the Magnetical Pyrites ...” his conclusions that iron must be combined with a large portion of either carbon, phosphorus or sulphur in order to acquire the property of receiving permanent magnetic virtue, there being, however, a limit beyond which an excess of either of the above-named substances renders the compound wholly incapable of exhibiting the magnetic energy. In this connection, the interesting observations of Messrs. Seebeck, Chenevix and Dr. Matt. Young on anti-magnetic bodies, in Vol. XIV. p. 27, of the eighth “Encyclopædia Britannica,” will repay perusal.

Three years before, on the 26th of November 1801, Mr. Hatchett had communicated to the Royal Society an interesting paper on _columbium_, a new metallic substance found in an ore from the State of Massachusetts.

REFERENCES.--“Abstracts of the papers ... of the _Phil.
Trans._,” Vol. I. p. 155; also the _Phil. Trans._ for 1804, p.
315; _Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXI. pp. 133 and 213; Poggendorff, Vol.
I. p. 1031; “Cat. Sc. Papers Roy. Soc.,” Vol. I. p. 155.

=A.D. 1804.=--M. Dyckhoff publishes in _Nicholson’s Journal_, Vol. VII. pp. 303 and 305, “Experiments on the activity of a galvanic pile in which thin strata of air are substituted instead of the wet bodies.” His description of what has by many been called the first practical dry pile is as follows:

“I constructed a pile with discs of copper and zinc, and little bits of thin green glass about the size of a lentil, three of which I placed triangularly in the intervals that separated the metallic plates. Thus between each pair of metals I had a thin stratum of air instead of a wet substance. A pile of ten pairs tried by the condenser affected the electrometer as powerfully as a common (voltaic) pile of five pairs.”

It was in the year following, 1805, that Wilhelm Behrends, of Frankfort, constructed his dry pile consisting of eighty pairs of discs of copper, zinc and gilt paper (De la Rive, “Treatise on Electricity,” Vol. II. p. 852).

The investigations of Maréchaux, De Luc, Zamboni and others in the same line will appear in due course.

REFERENCES.--Young’s “Lectures,” London, 1807, Vol. II. p. 430,
and _Nicholson’s Journal_, Vol. VII. pp. 303 and 305, Becquerel,
Paris, 1851, p. 34; Sturgeon’s “Lectures on Galvanism,” p.
73; Sturgeon’s _Annals of Electricity_, Vol. VIII. pp. 378,
etc.; _Journal de Chimie de Van Mons_, No. 11, p. 190, and
also No. 12, p. 300, for Bouvier de Jodoigne’s experiments;
“Catalogue Scientific Papers of the Royal Society,” Vol. II. p.
432; Gilbert, XIX. pp. 355–360, and Wilkinson’s denial of the
effectiveness of Dyckhoff’s pile, in _Nicholson’s Journal_, Vol.
VIII. p. 1.

=A.D. 1804.=--Gay-Lussac (Joseph Louis), one of the most prominent of modern scientists, who was for a time assistant to Berthollet, makes, in Paris, two ascents in a balloon, at heights varying between 12,000 and 23,623 feet, for the purpose of carrying out extensive observations upon terrestrial magnetism. The latter are recorded at length in the _Journal de Physique_, Vol. LIX, and are alluded to in the articles “Aeronautics” and “Meteorology” of the “Encycl. Brit.,” likewise at Biot, A.D. 1803, and in paragraphs 2961 and 2962 of Faraday’s “Experimental Researches in Electricity,” while at p. 193, Vol. XXI of the _Phil. Mag._ will be found the account of a very interesting aerial voyage made during January of the same year (1804) by M. Sacharof, of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

In conjunction with Louis Jacques Thénard (alluded to at Fourcroy, A.D. 1801), Gay-Lussac communicates to the _Annales de Chimie_ for 1810 (Vol. LXXIII. p. 197, etc.), a paper relative to their “preparation of an ammoniacal amalgam through the agency of the voltaic pile” which had been read at the “Institut National” during the month of September 1809, and which is also alluded to at pp. 250, etc., of the _Annales de Chimie_, Vol. LXXVIII for 1811. Their united “physico-chemical researches on the voltaic pile ...” are reviewed at pp. 243, etc., of the last-named volume and are likewise alluded to at p. 36 of Vol. LXXIX for the same year. The largest of the many piles they employed in their several experiments consisted of 600 pairs with a square surface of 1800 feet (Figuier, “Exposition et Histoire ...” 1857, Vol. IV. pp. 387 and 433; _Journal des Mines_, Vol. XXX. pp. 5–56; Schweigger’s _Journal_, Vol. II. pp. 409–423).

At pp. 76, etc., of the second volume of the _Annales de Chimie et de Physique_ for the month of May 1816, are to be found the observations of Gay-Lussac on dry voltaic piles, especially upon those of Desormes et Hachette, De Luc and Zamboni. He remarks that the last named does not appear to have so constructed his pile as to enable the oscillations of the needle to indicate an exact measure of time (Schweigger’s _Journal für Chemie_, Vol. XV. pp. 113, 130–132), but that the so-called electric clocks of M. Ramis, of Munich, and of M. Streizig, of Verona, readily pointed the hours, minutes and seconds (Schweigger’s _Journal_, Vol. XIII. p. 379; Ronalds’ “Catalogue” for notices of his own as well as of the clocks of Ramis and of Streizig).

The investigations of Gay-Lussac and Humboldt, relative to the magnetic intensity and dip or inclination, throughout France, Germany, Switzerland and Italy, will be found recorded in the first volume of _Mém. d’Arcueil_, 1807, while at p. 284, Vol. X, and at pp. 305–309 of the _Annales de Chimie_ are observations of Gay-Lussac and Arago, and at p. 509 of the fourth volume of Figuier’s “Exposition et Histoire,” etc., Paris, 1857, appears an extended account of the special report upon lightning rods, which Gay-Lussac was authorized by the Natural Philosophy Division of the French Academy of Sciences to prepare during the year 1823, and the outcome of which appears in the _Comptes Rendus des Séances_ ... Vol. XXXIX. p. 1142.

REFERENCES.--Faraday’s “Experimental Researches,” 1839, Vol.
I. p. 217, note, as well as paragraph No. 741 “Recherches
Physicochimiques,” p. 12, and J. Farrar’s “Elem. of Elec. Mag.,”
1826, pp. 150–152; while for Gay-Lussac and Thénard’s repetition
of Sir Humphry Davy’s experiments on the decomposition of the
alkalies, see _Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXXII. p. 88; “Instruction sur
les parat ...” for Gay-Lussac, Fresnel, Lefevre, Gineau and
others, Paris, 1824, and for Gay-Lussac and Pouillet, Paris,
1855. Other reports on lightning rods not hitherto specially
mentioned are: J. Langenbucher, 1783; Beyer, 1806–1809; P.
Beltrami, 1823; Bourges, at Bordeaux, 1837; Boudin, 1855, and
J. Bushee, Amer. Assoc., 1868. The observations of Thénard
and Dulong are recorded at paragraphs 609, 612, 636, 637 of
Faraday’s “Experimental Researches,” as well as at Vols. XXIII.
p. 440; XXIV. pp. 380, 383 and 386 of the _Annales de Chimie_,
and those of Thénard, Fourcroy, and Vauquelin will be found in
the _Mém. des Soc. Sav. et Lit._, Vol. I. p. 204. See “Royal
Society Catalogue of Sc. Papers,” Vol. II. pp. 800–807; Vol.
V. pp. 944–948; Vol. VI. p. 666; Vol. VII. p. 748; Vol. VIII.
p. 1072; “Discours de M. Becquerel ...” _Inst. Nat. Acad. des
Sciences_; _Phil. Mag._, Vols. XX. p. 83; XXI. p. 220; _Sci. Am.
Supp._, p. 11794; _Edin. Magazine_, Vol. V. p. 471; _Annales
de Chimie et Physique_ for 1818, Vol. VIII. pp. 68, 161, 163;
the eighth “Britannica,” Vol. VIII. pp. 532, 539, 573 for
Gay-Lussac’s additional experiments; the ninth “Britannica,”
Vol. X. pp. 122, etc.; also _Report Brit. Asso._, London,
1838, pp. 7–8, for the magnetic observations of Gay-Lussac and
Humboldt on the European Continent, likewise Sir Humphry Davy
“Bakerian Lectures,” London, 1840, pp. 134–137; Humboldt, at
A.D. 1799, and Cruikshanks, at A.D. 1800. For a description of
the Volta eudiometer invented by Gay-Lussac, see _Ann. de Ch. et
Phys._, Vol. IV. p. 188, also Dr. Hare in _Silliman’s Journal_,
Vol. II. p. 312, and for the “Memoir of Louis Jacques Thénard,”
by M. Flourens, see the “Report of the Smithsonian Institution”
for 1862, pp. 372–383; “Journal des Savants” for Dec. 1850;
Meyer’s “Konversations-Lexikon” Leipzig und Wien, 1894, Vol.
VII. pp. 140–141; “Dict. Général de Biog. et d’Histoire,” Paris,
2nd ed., pp. 1218–1219.

=A.D. 1805.=--Mr. Joseph Davis submits to the London Society of Arts an improvement upon the telegraph of Lord George Murray (A.D. 1795), consisting of the addition of a seventh shutter, which, instead of being poised on a horizontal axis, is made to slide up and down in grooves in the centre of the framework; so that it may either range with the six shutters or, if not required at all, may descend into a space provided for it in the roof of the Observatory. By this simple device the power of the apparatus is quadrupled, it being made capable of indicating in all 252 changes.

The night signals are given by a coloured lamp mounted in the centre of the seventh or sliding shutter and by six white lights fastened to the outside of the frame, to produce, through their display or concealment by slides, the same signals as, under ordinary circumstances, are given by the opening and closing of the shutters.

=A.D. 1805.=--Grotthus--Grothuss--(Theodor--more properly Christian Johann Dietrich, Baron von) makes known his theory of electro-chemical decompositions, through the “Mémoire,” etc., published in 12mo at Rome, and of which an English translation appeared in London during 1806.

As Lardner and Fahie have it, Grotthus’ theory was the most plausible of the many proposed at this early period of experimental inquiry to explain chemical decomposition by the voltaic apparatus. The above-named “Mémoire ...” which appeared in the _Phil. Mag._ for 1806, Vol. XXV. pp. 330–334, is analyzed by both of these writers (Lardner, “Electricity, Mag. and Meteor.,” Vol. I. pp. 135–137, or “Popular Lectures,” 1851, Vol. I. pp. 348, 349; Fahie, “Hist. of Elec. Teleg.,” pp. 210, 211), but it may be briefly stated in the words of Sir David Brewster as follows:

“Grotthus (_Annales de Chimie_ for 1806, Vol. LVIII. p. 61) regards the pile as an electric magnet with _attracting_ and _repelling_ poles, the one attracting hydrogen and repelling oxygen, and the other attracting oxygen and repelling hydrogen. The force exerted upon each molecule of the body is supposed to be inversely as its distance from the poles, and a succession of decompositions and recompositions is supposed to exist among the intervening molecules.”

In this connection it will be well to add here, by way of contrast, and again according to Sir David Brewster, the views held by other experimentalists of the same period. Sir Humphry Davy adopts the idea of attractions at the poles, diminishing to the middle or neutral points, and he thinks a succession of decompositions and recompositions probable. Messrs. Riffault and Chompré regard the negative current as collecting and carrying the acids on to the positive pole, and the positive current as doing the same, with the bases toward the negative pole. Biot attributes the effects to the opposite electrical states of the decomposing substances in the vicinity of the two poles. M. De la Rive considers the portions decomposed to be those contiguous to both poles, the current from the positive pole combining with the hydrogen or the bases which are there present, and leaving the oxygen or acids at liberty, but carrying the substances in union with it across to the negative pole, where it is separated from them, entering the conducting metal, and leaving on its surface the hydrogen or its bases. Faraday regards the poles as exercising no specific action, but merely as surfaces or doors by which the electricity enters into or passes out of the substance undergoing decomposition. He supposes that “the effects are due to a modification of the electric current and the chemical affinity of the particles through or by which that current is passing, giving them the power of acting more forcibly in one direction than in another, and consequently making them travel by a series of successive decompositions and recompositions in opposite directions, and finally causing their repulsion or exclusion at the boundaries of the body under decomposition in the direction of the current, and that, in larger or smaller quantities, according as the current is more or less powerful.”

In 1810 Grotthus published his “Uber d. elektricität ... wassers entwickelt,” one of his curious observations being the fact that when water is rapidly frozen in a Leyden jar, the outside coating, not being insulated, receives a weak electrical discharge, the inside being positive and the outside negative, and when the ice is rapidly thawed, the inside is negative and the outside positive.

REFERENCES.--Faraday’s “Experimental Researches,” articles 481,
485, 489, 492, 507, etc.; also _Phil. Mag._, Vols. XXIV. p. 183,
and XXVIII. pp. 35 and 59; Joseph Izarn, “Manuel du Galvanisme,”
pp. 280–284 for M. Riffault and N. M. Chompré; Whewell, “History
of the Inductive Sciences,” Vol. II. p. 304; Noad, “Manual,” pp.
364, 365; William R. Grove, “On Grotthus’ Theory ...” London,
1845; J. S. C. Schweigger’s _Journal_, Vols. III, IV, IX, XXVIII
and XXXI; A. F. Gehlen’s _Journal_ for 1808; L. W. Gilbert’s
_Annalen der Physik_, Vol. LXVII; Ostwald, “Elektrochemie,”
1896, pp. 309–316; A. N. Scherer’s _Allgem. nördliche Annal. d.
Chemie_, Vol. IV; _Annales de Chimie_, Vol. LXIII; _Phil. Mag._,
Vol. LIX. p. 67; J. C. Poggendorff, “Biog. Literarisches,” etc.,
Vol. I. pp. 959, 960; “Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific
Papers,” Vol. III. pp. 29–31.

Grotthus’ theory was extended by Rudolf Clausius, and the latter’s theory in turn gave way to that of Svante Arrhénius. Clausius maintained that the exchanges were going on continuously, although no current was flowing; while the assumption of Arrhénius was that in every electrolyte, a certain number of molecules break up into ions and that all electrolytes contain some of these free ions. This is the much controverted dissociation theory (Dr. Henry S. Carhart’s Presidential Address).

The “Encycl. Amer.,” New York, 1903, Vol. II says that the establishment of the theory of electrolytic dissociation, which is due to the noted Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhénius, supplies a reasonable explanation of many chemical phenomena otherwise insoluble, and correlates various facts between which no connection was previously discovered. Two important publications by Arrhénius are “Sur la conductibilité galvanique des electrolytes” (1884), and a treatise in German on electro-chemistry (1902). (See “Le Moniteur Scientifique,” Avril 1904, pp. 241–243.)

Rudolf Clausius, German scientist (1822–1888), “one of the most celebrated mathematical physicists of the nineteenth century,” communicated in 1850 to the Berlin Academy of Sciences the paper wherein he announced the second law of thermo-dynamics, that “heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.” The honour of establishing the science of thermo-dynamics upon a scientific basis he thus shares with Rankine and Thomson (“Encycl. Amer.,” Vol. V. n. p.; “New Inter. Encycl.,” New York, 1902, Vol. IV. p. 711. For biography, consult Riecke, “Rudolf Clausius,” Göttingen, 1889; “Meyer’s Konversations-Lexikon,” Leipzig, 1894, Vol. IV. p. 213).

=A.D. 1805.=--Alexander Tilloch’s _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. XXI. p. 279, has a letter addressed by W. Peel to the editor, under date Cambridge, April 23, 1805, relative to the “Production of Muriate of Soda by the Galvanic Decomposition of Water.” This is followed by a communication dated Pisa, May 9, 1805, from Dr. Francis G. Pacchiani, Professor of Philosophy at the Pisa University (Rees’ Encyclopedia, “Galvanism,” p. 15), to Lawrence Pignotti, Historiographer to the King, entitled “Formation of Muriatic Acid by Galvanism,” as well as by two letters, one from W. Peel, dated Cambridge, June 4, 1805, on “The Production of Muriates by the Galvanic Decomposition of Water,” and the other from Dr. Wm. Henry, dated Manchester, July 23, 1805, relative to the above-named processes and to the latter’s own experiments in the same direction.

REFERENCES.--_Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXII. pp. 153, 179, 188; XXIII.
p. 257; XXIV. p. 183; XXVII. p. 82; XXVIII. p. 306; Sir Humphry
Davy’s allusion to above, as well as his earlier experiments
communicated to Dr. Beddoes, Sir James Hall, Mr. Clayfield
and others, in “Bakerian Lectures,” London, 1840, pp. 2, 3;
Sylvester, at A.D. 1806, and Donovan, at A.D. 1812; Lardner’s
“Lectures on Science and Art,” Vol. I. p. 350; Faraday’s
“Experimental Researches,” No. 314; J. F. Macaire, _Ann. Ch.
et Phys._, XVII. 1821; Marni “Sulla formazione ...”; G. B.
Polcastro, “Giorn. Ital. Letter del Dal Rio,” X. p. 182, 1805;
Cioni and Petrini, _Phil. Mag._, XXIV. 167, 1806; The Paris
Galvani Society, _Phil. Mag._, XXIV. p. 172, and _Ann. de Ch._,
Vol. LVI, 1806; A. B. Hortentz, _Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXIV. p.
91, 1806; Leop. de Buch, _Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXIV. p. 244, 1806;
Veau Delaunay, _Phil. Mag._, XXVII. p. 260, 1807; G. Innocenti,
_Nuova Scelta d’ Opuscoli_, II. p. 96, 1807; P. Alemanni, _Phil.
Mag._, Vol. XXVII. p. 339, 1807; C. H. Pfaff, _Phil. Mag._,
XXVII. p. 338, and XXIX. p. 19; _Ann. de Chim._, Vols. LX. p.
314; LXII. p. 23, 1807–8; Wm. Henry, _Phil. Mag._, Vols. XXII.
p. 183; XL. p. 337, 1805–1812; F. G. Pacchiani, in _Nuova Scelta
d’ Opuscoli_, I. p. 277; Brugnatelli, _An. di Chimica_, Vol.
XXII. pp. 125, 134 and 144; _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journal_, of
July 1, 1805; _Phil. Mag._, Vol. XXIV. p. 176, for his letter to
Fabbroni. For Dr. Wm. Henry, consult “Bibl. Britan.,” Vol. XV,
An. VIII. pp. 35, 293; _Phil. Mag._, Vols. VII for 1830, p. 228;
XXII. p. 183; XXXII. p. 277, and XL. p. 337; _Phil. Trans._,