Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur)
History
Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur)
Science; Science -- History
There are three distinctions in the kinds of bodies, or three states,
which have more especially claimed the attention of philosophical
chemists; namely, those which are marked by the terms elastic fluids,
liquids, and solids. A very familiar instance is exhibited to us
in water, of a body which, in certain circumstances, is capable of
assuming all the three states. In steam we recognize a perfectly
elastic fluid, in water a perfect liquid, and in ice a complete solid.
These observations have tacitly led to the conclusion which seems
universally adopted, that all bodies of sensible magnitude, whether
liquid or solid, are constituted of a vast number of extremely small
particles, or atoms of matter bound together by a force of attraction,
which is more or less powerful according to circumstances, and which
as it endeavours to prevent their separation, is very properly called
in that view, attraction of cohesion; but as it collects them from a
dispersed state (as from steam into water) it is called attraction of
aggregation, or more simply, affinity. Whatever names it may go by,
they will signify one and the same power. It is not my design to call
in question this conclusion, which appears completely satisfactory;
but to show that we have hitherto made no use of it, and that the
consequence of the neglect has been a very obscure view of chemical
agency, which is daily growing more so in proportion to the new lights
attempted to be thrown upon it.
The opinions I more particularly allude to, are those of Bertholet
on the Laws of chemical affinity; such as that chemical agency is
proportional to the mass, and that in all chemical unions there exist
insensible gradations in the proportions of the constituent principles.
The inconsistence of these opinions, both with reason and observation,
cannot, I think, fail to strike every one who takes a proper view of
the phenomena.
Whether the ultimate particles of a body, such as water, are all
alike, that is, of the same figure, weight, etc., is a question of
some importance. From what is known, we have no reason to apprehend
a diversity in these particulars: if it does exist in water, it must
equally exist in the elements constituting water, namely, hydrogen and
oxygen. Now it is scarcely possible to conceive how the aggregates
of dissimilar particles should be so uniformly the same. If some of
the particles of water were heavier than others, if a parcel of the
liquid on any occasion were constituted principally of these heavier
particles, it must be supposed to affect the specific gravity of the
mass, a circumstance not known. Similar observations may be made on
other substances. Therefore we may conclude that the ultimate particles
of all homogeneous bodies are perfectly alike in weight, figure, etc.
In other words, every particle of water is like every other particle
of water; every particle of hydrogen is like every other particle of
hydrogen, etc.
FOOTNOTES:
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