Bibliographical history of electricity & magnetism, chronologically arranged
History
Bibliographical history of electricity & magnetism, chronologically arranged
Electricity -- History; Electricity -- History -- Bibliography; Magnetism -- History; Magnetism -- History -- Bibliography; Science, Medieval
The invention of the Leyden jar is claimed with equal pertinacity for
Kleist, Musschenbroek and Cunæus. While it is necessarily conceded
that Von Kleist first published his discovery, it cannot be denied
that his explanation of it is so obscure as, for the time, to have
been of no practical use to others. It is stated by Priestley:
“Notwithstanding Mr. Kleist immediately communicated an account of this
famous experiment (which indeed it is evident he has but imperfectly
described) to Mr. Winckler, at Leipzig, Mr. Swiettiki, of Denmark, Mr.
Kruger, of Halle, and to the professors of the Academy of Lignitz,
as well as to Dr. Lieberkühn, of Berlin, above mentioned, they all
returned him word that the experiment did not succeed with them. Mr.
Gralath, of Dantzig, was the first with whom it answered; but this was
not till after several fruitless trials, and after receiving further
instructions from the inventor. The Abbé Nollet had information of
this discovery, and, in consequence of it says, in a letter to Mr.
Samuel Wolfe, of the Society of Dantzig, dated March 9, 1746, that the
experiment at Leyden was upon principles similar to that made with
a phial half full of water and a nail dipped in it; and that this
discovery would have been called the Dantzig experiment if it had not
happened to have got the name of that of Leyden.”
In the thirty-eighth volume of the _Philosophical Transactions_,
No. 432, p. 297, is given an abstract of a letter (dated Utrecht,
January 15, 1733, O. S.), from Petrus Van Musschenbroek, M.D., F.R.S.,
to Dr. J. T. Desaguliers, concerning experiments made on the Indian
Magnetic Sand, chiefly gathered along the seashore in Persia. After
detailing his many observations, Van Musschenbroek asks: “And, now,
what can this _sand_ be? Is it an imperfect magnet, or Subtile
Powder of it, which, when it is grown up into a greater lump, makes
the vulgar Loadstones? So I conjectured at first; but when I found by
experience that common Loadstones, exposed to the fire, according to
some of the methods above-mention’d, did rather lose of their force
than gain, I alter’d my opinion; and now confess that I have not yet
penetrated into the knowledge of the nature of this matter.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account