Part 48 (2/2)

[B] Amongst others, Davy, Philosophical Transactions, 1821, p. 438.

Pelletier's important results, Annales de Chimie, 1834, lvi. p. 371.

and Becquerel's non-heating current, Bib. Universelle, 1835, lx. 218.

[C] Philosophical Transactions, 1824, pp. 225. 228.

[D] Annales de Chimie, 1836, lxii. 177.

1626. When the production of heat is observed in electrolytes under decomposition, the results are still more complicated. But important steps have been taken in the investigation of this branch of the subject by De la Rive[A] and others; and it is more than probable that, when the right limitations are applied, constant and definite results will here also be obtained.

[A] Bib. Universelle, 1829, xl. 49; and Ritchie, Phil. Trans. 1832. p.

296.

1627. It is a most important part of the character of the current, and essentially connected with its very nature, that it is always the same. The two forces are everywhere in it. There is never one current of force or one fluid only. Any one part of the current may, as respects the presence of the two forces there, be considered as precisely the same with any other part; and the numerous experiments which imply their possible separation, as well as the theoretical expressions which, being used daily, a.s.sume it, are, I think, in contradiction with facts (511, &c.). It appears to me to be as impossible to a.s.sume a current of positive or a current of negative force alone, or of the two at once with any predominance of one over the other, as it is to give an absolute charge to matter (516. 1169. 1177.).

1628. The establishment of this truth, if, as I think, it be a truth, or on the other hand the disproof of it, is of the greatest consequence. If, as a first principle, we can establish, that the centres of the two forces, or elements of force, never can be separated to any sensible distance, or at all events not further than the s.p.a.ce between two contiguous particles (1615.), or if we can establish the contrary conclusion, how much more clear is our view of what lies before us, and how much less embarra.s.sed the ground over which we have to pa.s.s in attaining to it, than if we remain halting between two opinions! And if, with that feeling, we rigidly test every experiment which bears upon the point, as far as our prejudices will let us (1161.), instead of permitting them with a theoretical expression to pa.s.s too easily away, are we not much more likely to attain the real truth, and from that proceed with safety to what is at present unknown?

1629. I say these things, not, I hope, to advance a particular view, but to draw the strict attention of those who are able to investigate and judge of the matter, to what must be a turning point in the theory of electricity; to a separation of two roads, one only of which can be right: and I hope I may be allowed to go a little further into the facts which have driven me to the view I have just given.

1630. When a wire in the voltaic circuit is heated, the temperature frequently rises first, or most at one end. If this effect were due to any relation of positive or negative as respects the current, it would be exceedingly important. I therefore examined several such cases; but when, keeping the contacts of the wire and its position to neighbouring things unchanged, I altered the direction of the current, I found that the effect remained unaltered, showing that it depended, not upon the direction of the current, but on other circ.u.mstances. So there is here no evidence of a difference between one part of the circuit and another.

1631. The same point, i.e. uniformity in every part, may be ill.u.s.trated by what may be considered as the inexhaustible nature of the current when producing particular effects; for these effects depend upon transfer only, and do not consume the power. Thus a current which will heat one inch of platina wire will heat a hundred inches (853. note). If a current be sustained in a constant state, it will decompose the fluid in one voltameter only, or in twenty others if they be placed in the circuit, in each to an amount equal to that in the single one.

1632. Again, in cases of disruptive discharge, as in the spark, there is frequently a dark part (1422.) which, by Professor Johnson, has been called the neutral point[A]; and this has given rise to the use of expressions implying that there are two electricities existing separately, which, pa.s.sing to that spot, there combine and neutralize each other[B]. But if such expressions are understood as correctly indicating that positive electricity alone is moving between the positive ball and that spot, and negative electricity only between the negative ball and that spot, then what strange conditions these parts must be in; conditions, which to my mind are every way unlike those which really occur! In such a case, one part of a current would consist of positive electricity only, and that moving in one direction; another part would consist of negative electricity only, and that moving in the other direction; and a third part would consist of an acc.u.mulation of the two electricities, not moving in either direction, but mixing up together! and being in a relation to each other utterly unlike any relation which could be supposed to exist in the two former portions of the discharge. This does not seem to me to be natural.

In a current, whatever form the discharge may take, or whatever part of the circuit or current is referred to, as much positive force as is there exerted in one direction, so much negative force is there exerted in the other. If it were not so we should have bodies electrified not merely positive and negative, but on occasions in a most extraordinary manner, one being charged with five, ten, or twenty times as much of both positive and negative electricity in equal quant.i.ties as another. At present, however, there is no known fact indicating such states.

[A] Silliman's Journal, 1834, xxv. p. 57.

[B] Thomson on Heat and Electricity, p. 171.

1633. Even in cases of convection, or carrying discharge, the statement that the current is everywhere the same must in effect be true (1627.); for how, otherwise, could the results formerly described occur? When currents of air const.i.tuted the mode of discharge between the portions of paper moistened with iodide of pota.s.sium or sulphate of soda (465. 469.), decomposition occurred; and I have since ascertained that, whether a current of positive air issued from a spot, or one of negative air pa.s.sed towards it, the effect of the evolution of iodine or of acid was the same, whilst the reversed currents produced alkali. So also in the magnetic experiments (307.) whether the discharge was effected by the introduction of a wire, or the occurrence of a spark, or the pa.s.sage of convective currents either one way or the other (depending on the electrified state of the particles), the result was the same, being in all cases dependent upon the perfect current.

1634. Hence, the section of a current compared with other sections of the same current must be a constant quant.i.ty, if the actions exerted be of the same kind; or if of different kinds, then the forms under which the effects are produced are equivalent to each other, and experimentally convertible at pleasure. It is in sections, therefore, we must look for ident.i.ty of electrical force, even to the sections of sparks and carrying actions, as well as those of wires and electrolytes.

1635. In ill.u.s.tration of the utility and importance of establis.h.i.+ng that which may be the true principle, I will refer to a few cases. The doctrine of unipolarity, as formerly stated, and I think generally understood[A], is evidently inconsistent with my view of a current (1627.); and the later singular phenomena of poles and flames described by Erman and others[B]

partake of the same inconsistency of character. If a unipolar body could exist, i.e. one that could conduct the one electricity and not the other, what very new characters we should have a right to expect in the currents of single electricities pa.s.sing through them, and how greatly ought they to differ, not only from the common current which is supposed to have both electricities travelling in opposite directions in equal amount at the same time, but also from each other! The facts, which are excellent, have, however, gradually been more correctly explained by Becquerel[C], Andrews[D], and others; and I understand that Professor Ohms[E] has perfected the work, in his close examination of all the phenomena; and after showing that similar phenomena can take place with good conductors, proves that with soap, &c. many of the effects are the mere consequences of the bodies evolved by electrolytic action.

[A] Erman, Annales de Chimie, 1807. lxi. p. 115. Davy's Elements, p.

168. Biot, Ency. Brit. Supp, iv. p. 444. Becquerel, Traite, i. p. 167.

De la Rive, Bib. Univ. 1837. vii. 392.

[B] Erman, Annales de Chimie, 1824. xxv. 278. Becquerel, Ibid. x.x.xvi.

<script>