Chapter 43

1327. That in our attempts to penetrate into the nature of electrical action, and to deduce laws more general than those we are at present acquainted with, we should endeavour to bring apparently opposite effects to stand side by side in harmonious arrangement, is an opinion of long standing, and sanctioned by the ablest philosophers. I hope, therefore, I may be excused the attempt to look at the highest cases of conduction as analogous to, or even the same in kind with, those of induction and insulation.

1328. If we consider the slight penetration of sulphur (1241. 1242.) or shell-lac (1234.) by electricity, or the feebler insulation sustained by spermaceti (1279. 1240.), as essential consequences and indications of their _conducting_ power, then may we look on the resistance of metallic wires to the passage of electricity through them as _insulating_ power. Of the numerous well-known cases fitted to show this resistance in what are called the perfect conductors, the experiments of Professor Wheatstone best serve my present purpose, since they were carried to such an extent as to show that _time_ entered as an element into the conditions of conduction[A] even in metals. When discharge was made through a copper wire 2640 feet in length, and 1/15th of an inch in diameter, so that the luminous sparks at each end of the wire, and at the middle, could be observed in the same place, the latter was found to be sensibly behind the two former in time, they being by the conditions of the experiment simultaneous. Hence a proof of retardation; and what reason can be given why this retardation should not be of the same kind as that in spermaceti, or in lac, or sulphur? But as, in them, retardation is insulation, and insulation is induction, why should we refuse the same relation to the same exhibitions of force in the metals?

[A] Philosophical Transactions, 1834, p. 583.

1329. We learn from the experiment, that if _time_ be allowed the retardation is gradually overcome; and the same thing obtains for the spermaceti, the lac, and glass (1248.); give but time in proportion to the retardation, and the latter is at last vanquished. But if that be the case, and all the results are alike in kind, the only difference being in the length of time, why should we refuse to metals the previous inductive action, which is admitted to occur in the other bodies? The diminution of _time_ is no negation of the action; nor is the lower degree of tension requisite to cause the forces to traverse the metal, as compared to that necessary in the cases of water, spermaceti, or lac. These differences would only point to the conclusion, that in metals the particles under induction can transfer their forces when at a lower degree of tension or polarity, and with greater facility than in the instances of the other bodies.

1330. Let us look at Mr. Wheatstone's beautiful experiment in another point of view, If, leaving the arrangement at the middle and two ends of the long copper wire unaltered, we remove the two intervening portions and replace them by wires of iron or platina, we shall have a much greater retardation of the middle spark than before. If, removing the iron, we were to substitute for it only five or six feet of water in a cylinder of the same diameter as the metal, we should have still greater retardation. If from water we passed to spermaceti, either directly or by gradual steps through other bodies, (even though we might vastly enlarge the bulk, for the purpose of evading the occurrence of a spark elsewhere (1331.) than at the three proper intervals,) we should have still greater retardation, until at last we might arrive, by degrees so small as to be inseparable from each other, at actual and permanent insulation. What, then, is to separate the principle of these two extremes, perfect conduction and perfect insulation, from each other; since the moment we leave in the smallest degree perfection at either extremity, we involve the element of perfection at the opposite end? Especially too, as we have not in nature the case of perfection either at one extremity or the other, either of insulation or conduction.

1331. Again, to return to this beautiful experiment in the various forms which may be given to it: the forces are not all in the wire (after they have left the Leyden jar) during the whole time (1328.) occupied by the discharge; they are disposed in part through the surrounding dielectric under the well-known form of induction; and if that dielectric be air, induction takes place from the wire through the air to surrounding conductors, until the ends of the wire are electrically related through its length, and discharge has occurred, i.e. for the _time_ during which the middle spark is retarded beyond the others. This is well shown by the old experiment, in which a long wire is so bent that two parts (Plate VIII. fig. 115.), _a, b_, near its extremities shall approach within a short distance, as a quarter of an inch, of each other in the air. If the discharge of a Leyden jar, charged to a sufficient degree, be sent through such a wire, by far the largest portion of the electricity will pass as a spark across the air at the interval, and not by the metal. Does not the middle part of the wire, therefore, act here as an insulating medium, though it be of metal? and is not the spark through the air an indication of the tension (simultaneous with _induction_) of the electricity in the ends of this single wire? Why should not the wire and the air both be regarded as dielectrics; and the action at its commencement, and whilst there is tension, as an inductive action? If it acts through the contorted lines of the wire, so it also does in curved and contorted lines through air (1219, 1224, 1231.), and other insulating dielectrics (1228); and we can apparently go so far in the analogy, whilst limiting the case to the inductive action only, as to show that amongst insulating dielectrics some lead away the lines of force from others (1229.), as the wire will do from worse conductors, though in it the principal effect is no doubt due to the ready discharge between the particles whilst in a low state of tension. The retardation is for the time insulation; and it seems to me we may just as fairly compare the air at the interval _a, b_ (fig. 115.) and the wire in the circuit, as two bodies of the same kind and acting upon the same principles, as far as the first inductive phenomena are concerned, notwithstanding the different forms of discharge which ultimately follow[A], as we may compare, according to Coulomb's investigations[B] _different lengths_ of different insulating bodies required to produce the same amount of insulating effect.

[A] These will be examined hereafter (1348. &c.).

[B] Mémoires de l'Académie, 1785, p. 612. or Ency. Britann. First Supp. vol. i. p. 614.

1332. This comparison is still more striking when we take into consideration the experiment of Mr. Harris, in which he stretched a fine wire across a glass globe, the air within being rarefied[A]. On sending a charge through the joint arrangement of metal and rare air, as much, if not more, electricity passed by the latter as by the former. In the air, rarefied as it was, there can be no doubt the discharge was preceded by induction (1284.); and to my mind all the circumstances indicate that the same was the case with the metal; that, in fact, both substances are dielectrics, exhibiting the same effects in consequence of the action of the same causes, the only variation being one of degree in the different substances employed.

[A] Philosophical Transactions, 1834, p, 212.

1333. Judging on these principles, velocity of discharge through the _same wire_ may be varied greatly by attending to the circumstances which cause variations of discharge through spermaceti or sulphur. Thus, for instance, it must vary with the tension or intensity of the first urging force (1234. 1240.), which tension is charge and induction. So if the two ends of the wire, in Professor Wheatstone's experiment, were immediately connected with two large insulated metallic surfaces exposed to the air, so that the primary act of induction, after making the contact for discharge, might be in part removed from the internal portion of the wire at the first instant, and disposed for the moment on its surface jointly with the air and surrounding conductors, then I venture to anticipate that the middle spark would be more retarded than before; and if these two plates were the inner and outer coating of a large jar or a Leyden battery, then the retardation of that spark would be still greater.

1334. Cavendish was perhaps the first to show distinctly that discharge was not always by one channel[A], but, if several are present, by many at once. We may make these different channels of different bodies, and by proportioning their thicknesses and lengths, may include such substances as air, lac, spermaceti, water, protoxide of iron, iron and silver, and by _one_ discharge make each convey its proportion of the electric force. Perhaps the air ought to be excepted, as its discharge by conduction is questionable at present (1336.); but the others may all be limited in their mode of discharge to pure conduction. Yet several of them suffer previous induction, precisely like the induction through the air, it being a necessary preliminary to their discharging action. How can we therefore separate any one of these bodies from the others, as to the _principles and mode_ of insulating and conducting, except by mere degree? All seem to me to be dielectrics acting alike, and under the same common laws.

[A] _Philosophical Transactions_, 1776, p. 197.

1335. I might draw another argument in favour of the general sameness, in nature and action, of good and bad conductors (and all the bodies I refer to are conductors more or less), from the perfect equipoise in action of very different bodies when opposed to each other in magneto-electric inductive action, as formerly described (213.), but am anxious to be as brief as is consistent with the clear examination of the probable truth of my views.

1336. With regard to the possession by the gases of any conducting power of the simple kind now under consideration, the question is a very difficult one to determine at present. Experiments seem to indicate that they do insulate certain low degrees of tension perfectly, and that the effects which may have appeared to be occasioned by _conduction_ have been the result of the carrying power of the charged particles, either of the air or of dust, in it. It is equally certain, however, that with higher degrees of tension or charge the particles discharge to one another, and that is conduction. If the gases possess the power of insulating a certain low degree of tension continuously and perfectly, such a result may be due to their peculiar physical state, and the condition of separation under which their particles are placed. But in that, or in any case, we must not forget the fine experiments of Cagniard de la Tour[A], in which he has shown that liquids and their vapours can be made to pass gradually into each other, to the entire removal of any marked distinction of the two states. Thus, hot dry steam and cold water pass by insensible gradations into each other; yet the one is amongst the gases as an insulator, and the other a comparatively good conductor. As to conducting power, therefore, the transition from metals even up to gases is gradual; substances make but one series in this respect, and the various cases must come under one condition and law (444.). The specific differences of bodies as to conducting power only serves to strengthen the general argument, that conduction, like insulation, is a result of induction, and is an action of contiguous particles.

[A] Annales de Chimie, xxi. pp. 127, 178, or Quarterly Journal of Science, xv. 145.

1337. I might go on now to consider induction and its concomitant, _conduction_, through mixed dielectrics, as, for instance, when a charged body, instead of acting across air to a distant uninsulated conductor, acts jointly through it and an interposed insulated conductor. In such a case, the air and the conducting body are the mixed dielectrics; and the latter assumes a polarized condition as a mass, like that which my theory assumes _each particle_ of the air to possess at the same time (1679). But I fear to be tedious in the present condition of the subject, and hasten to the consideration of other matter.

1338. To sum up, in some degree, what has been said, I look upon the first effect of an excited body upon neighbouring matters to be the production of a polarized state of their particles, which constitutes _induction_; and this arises from its action upon the particles in immediate contact with it, which again act upon those contiguous to them, and thus the forces are transferred to a distance. If the induction remain undiminished, then perfect insulation is the consequence; and the higher the polarized condition which the particles can acquire or maintain, the higher is the intensity which may be given to the acting forces. If, on the contrary, the contiguous particles, upon acquiring the polarized state, have the power to communicate their forces, then conduction occurs, and the tension is lowered, conduction being a distinct act of discharge between neighbouring particles. The lower the state of tension at which this discharge between the particles of a body takes place, the better conductor is that body. In this view, insulators may be said to be bodies whose particles can retain the polarized state; whilst conductors are those whose particles cannot be permanently polarized. If I be right in my view of induction, then I consider the reduction of these two effects (which have been so long held distinct) to an action of contiguous particles obedient to one common law, as a very important result; and, on the other hand, the identity of character which the two acquire when viewed by the theory (1326.), is additional presumptive proof in favour of the correctness of the latter.

* * * * *

1339. That heat has great influence over simple conduction is well known (445.), its effect being, in some cases, almost an entire change of the characters of the body (432. 1340.). Harris has, however, shown that it in no respect affects gaseous bodies, or at least air[A]; and Davy has taught us that, as a class, metals have their conducting power _diminished_ by it[B].

[A] _Philosophical Transactions_, 1834, p. 230

[B] Ibid. 1821, p. 431.

1340. I formerly described a substance, sulphuret of silver, whose conducting power was increased by heat (433. 437. 438.); and I have since then met with another as strongly affected in the same way: this is fluoride of lead. When a piece of that substance, which had been fused and cooled, was introduced into the circuit of a voltaic battery, it stopped the current. Being heated, it acquired conducting powers before it was visibly red-hot in daylight; and even sparks could be taken against it whilst still solid. The current alone then raised its temperature (as in the case of sulphuret of silver) until it fused, after which it seemed to conduct as well as the metallic vessel containing it; for whether the wire used to complete the circuit touched the fused fluoride only, or was in contact with the platina on which it was supported, no sensible difference in the force of the current was observed. During all the time there was scarcely a trace of decomposing action of the fluoride, and what did occur, seemed referable to the air and moisture of the atmosphere, and not to electrolytic action.

1341. I have now very little doubt that periodide of mercury (414. 448. 691.) is a case of the same kind, and also corrosive sublimate (692.). I am also inclined to think, since making the above experiments, that the anomalous action of the protoxide of antimony, formerly observed and described (693. 801.), may be referred in part to the same cause.

1342. I have no intention at present of going into the particular relation of heat and electricity, but we may hope hereafter to discover by experiment the law which probably holds together all the above effects with those of the _evolution_ and the _disappearance_ of heat by the current, and the striking and beautiful results of thermo-electricity, in one common bond.

¶ viii. _Electrolytic discharge._

1343. I have already expressed in a former paper (1164.), the view by which I hope to associate ordinary induction and electrolyzation. Under that view, the discharge of electric forces by electrolyzation is rather an effect superadded, in a certain class of bodies, to those already described as constituting induction and insulation, than one independent of and distinct from these phenomena.

1344. Electrolytes, as respects their insulating and conducting forces, belong to the general category of bodies (1320. 1334.); and if they are in the solid state (as nearly all can assume that state), they retain their place, presenting then no new phenomenon (426. &c.); or if one occur, being in so small a proportion as to be almost unimportant. When liquefied, they also belong to the same list whilst the electric intensity is below a certain degree; but at a given intensity (910. 912. 1007.), fixed for each, and very low in all known cases, they play a new part, causing discharge in proportion (783.) to the development of certain chemical effects of combination and decomposition; and at this point, move out from the general class of insulators and conductors, to form a distinct one by themselves. The former phenomena have been considered (1320. 1338.); it is the latter which have now to be revised, and used as a test of the proposed theory of induction.

1345. The theory assumes, that the particles of the dielectric (now an electrolyte) are in the first instance brought, by ordinary inductive action, into a polarized state, and raised to a certain degree of tension or intensity before discharge commences; the inductive state being, in fact, a _necessary preliminary_ to discharge. By taking advantage of those circumstances which bear upon the point, it is not difficult to increase the tension indicative of this state of induction, and so make the state itself more evident. Thus, if distilled water be employed, and a long narrow portion of it placed between the electrodes of a powerful voltaic battery, we have at once indications of the intensity which can be sustained at these electrodes by the inductive action through the water as a dielectric, for sparks may be obtained, gold leaves diverged, and Leyden bottles charged at their wires. The water is in the condition of the spermaceti (1322. 1323.) a bad conductor and a bad insulator; but what it does insulate is by virtue of inductive action, and that induction is the preparation for and precursor of discharge (1338.).

1346. The induction and tension which appear at the limits of the portion of water in the direction of the current, are only the sums of the induction and tension of the contiguous particles between those limits; and the limitation of the inductive tension, to a certain degree shows (time entering in each case as an important element of the result), that when the particles have acquired a certain relative state, _discharge_, or a transfer of forces equivalent to ordinary conduction, takes place.

1347. In the inductive condition assumed by water before discharge comes on, the particles polarized are the particles of the _water_ that being the dielectric used[A]; but the discharge between particle and particle is not, as before, a mere interchange of their powers or forces at the polar parts, but an actual separation of them into their two elementary particles, the oxygen travelling in one direction, and carrying with it its amount of the force it had acquired during the polarization, and the hydrogen doing the same thing in the other direction, until they each meet the next approaching particle, which is in the same electrical state with that they have left, and by association of their forces with it, produce what constitutes discharge. This part of the action may be regarded as a carrying one (1319. 1572. 1622.), performed by the constituent particles of the dielectric. The latter is always a compound body (664. 823.); and by those who have considered the subject and are acquainted with the philosophical view of transfer which was first put forth by Grotthuss[B], its particles may easily be compared to a series of metallic conductors under inductive action, which, whilst in that state, are divisible into these elementary moveable halves.

[A] See 1699-1708.--_Dec. 1838_

[B] Annales de Chimie, lviii. 60. and lxiii, 20.

1348. Electrolytic discharge depends, of necessity, upon the non-conduction of the dielectric as a whole, and there are two steps or acts in the process: first a polarization of the molecules of the substance and then a lowering of the forces by the separation, advance in opposite directions, and recombination of the elements of the molecules, these being, as it were, the halves of the originally polarized conductors or particles.

1349. These views of the decomposition of electrolytes and the consequent effect of discharge, which, as to the particular case, are the same with those of Grotthuss (481.) and Davy (482.), though they differ from those of Biot (487.), De la Rive (490.), and others, seem to me to be fully in accordance not merely with the theory I have given of induction generally (1165.), but with all the known _facts_ of common induction, conduction, and electrolytic discharge; and in that respect help to confirm in my mind the truth of the theory set forth. The new mode of discharge which electrolyzation presents must surely be an evidence of the _action of contiguous particles_; and as this appears to depend directly upon a previous inductive state, which is the same with common induction, it greatly strengthens the argument which refers induction in all cases to an action of contiguous particles also (1295, &c.).