Conversations on Chemistry, V. 1-2: In Which the Elements of that Science Are Familiarly Explained and Illustrated by Experiments — John Shaqi
Conversations on Chemistry, V. 1-2: In Which the Elements of that Science Are Familiarly Explained and Illustrated by ExperimentsMarcet, Mrs. (Jane Haldimand)
Science
Conversations on Chemistry, V. 1-2: In Which the Elements of that Science Are Familiarly Explained and Illustrated by Experiments
Marcet, Mrs. (Jane Haldimand)
Chemistry
MRS. B.
It is by no means an easy one: the heat of a ray of light, refracted by
a prism, is so small, that it requires a very delicate thermometer to
distinguish the difference of the degree of heat within and without the
spectrum. For in this experiment the heat is not totally separated from
the light, each coloured ray retaining a certain portion of it, though
the greatest part is not sufficiently refracted to fall within the
spectrum.
EMILY.
I suppose, then, that those coloured rays which are the least
refrangible, retain the greatest quantity of heat?
MRS. B.
They do so.
EMILY.
Though I no longer doubt that light and heat can be separated, Dr.
Herschell’s experiment does not appear to me to afford sufficient proof
that they are essentially different; for light, which you call a simple
body, may likewise be divided into the various coloured rays.
MRS. B.
No doubt there must be some difference in the various coloured rays.
Even their chemical powers are different. The blue rays, for instance,
have the greatest effect in separating oxygen from bodies, as was found
by Scheele; and there exist also, as Dr. Wollaston has shown, rays more
refrangible than the blue, which produce the same chemical effect, and,
what is very remarkable, are invisible.
EMILY.
Do you think it possible that heat may be merely a modification of
light?
MRS. B.
That is a supposition which, in the present state of natural philosophy,
can neither be positively affirmed nor denied. Let us, therefore,
instead of discussing theoretical points, be contented with examining
what is known respecting the chemical effects of light.
Light is capable of entering into a kind of transitory union with
certain substances, and this is what has been called phosphorescence.
Bodies that are possessed of this property, after being exposed to the
sun’s rays, appear luminous in the dark. The shells of fish, the bones
of land animals, marble, limestone, and a variety of combinations of
earths, are more or less powerfully phosphorescent.
CAROLINE.
I remember being much surprised last summer with the phosphorescent
appearance of some pieces of rotten wood, which had just been dug out of
the ground; they shone so bright that I at first supposed them to be
glow-worms.
EMILY.
And is not the light of a glow-worm of a phosphorescent nature?
MRS. B.
It is a very remarkable instance of phosphorescence in living animals;
this property, however, is not exclusively possessed by the glow-worm.
The insect called the lanthorn-fly, which is peculiar to warm climates,
emits light as it flies, producing in the dark a remarkably sparkling
appearance. But it is more common to see animal matter in a dead state
possessed of a phosphorescent quality; sea fish is often eminently so.
EMILY.
I have heard that the sea has sometimes had the appearance of being
illuminated, and that the light is supposed to proceed from the spawn of
fishes floating on its surface.
MRS. B.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account