Triumphs and Wonders of the 19th Century: The True Mirror of a Phenomenal Era: A volume of original, entertaining and instructive historic and descriptive writings, showing the many and marvellous achievements which distinguish an hundred years of material, intellectual, social and moral progressBoyd, James P. (James Penny)
History
Triumphs and Wonders of the 19th Century: The True Mirror of a Phenomenal Era: A volume of original, entertaining and instructive historic and descriptive writings, showing the many and marvellous achievements which distinguish an hundred years of material, intellectual, social and moral progress
Boyd, James P. (James Penny)
Inventions; Progress
Very soon, however, it was found that organic compounds existed having
the same percentage composition, but quite dissimilar properties,
physical and chemical, as, for instance, sugar and starch. Other
striking examples are Faraday’s discovery (1825) of a compound
identical in composition with ethylene, but wholly different in
properties; and Wöhler’s classical synthesis (1828) of urea by the
transformation of ammonium cyanate. Similar facts in the domain of
inorganic chemistry, though now well known, were at that time wanting,
and thus this most fruitful idea, designated as isomerism, was
introduced into the science.
The next great step was the introduction of the theory of radicles,
first suggested tentatively by Berzelius (1810), but put forward in
a definite way as one of the results of the classical investigation
on benzoyl by Liebig and Wöhler (1832). That is to say, a group of
elements, or radicle, can pass through a series of compounds, from one
to the other, as though the group were one single element. For years
this idea was the guiding principle in chemical investigations, and
was most useful in aiding the classification of chemical compounds and
bringing order out of the chaos of accumulating observations.
But the search for radicles was in a sense a vain one. We now know
that _no_ radicle exists as such by itself. Meanwhile, Dumas and
his pupil Laurent had introduced and developed the theory of types,
whereby all chemical compounds could be classified under four types,
which marked a distinct step in advance. Laurent, together with his
colleague Gerhardt (1816–1856), recognized the shortcomings of both
the radicle and type theories in their earlier forms, and showed
their inter-relation, when modified so as to do away with certain
inconsistencies.
Dumas had before this demonstrated the theory of substitution
(1834),—that is, that in certain compounds one or more of the elements
can be driven out and replaced by others without changing the essential
characteristics of the compound. For instance, chloracetic acid,
in which part of the hydrogen of acetic acid has been replaced by
chlorine, contains all the essential characteristics of acetic acid; in
fact, some of them—its acidic properties, for example—being markedly
accentuated. This theory was fiercely assailed at first, notably by
Liebig. Like all theories of science, it was in the beginning pushed
to the extreme, and put forward to explain things to which it was
not applicable. It gradually came to demonstrate its own right to
existence, largely as a result of the work of Laurent and Gerhardt,
and made its influence felt in the exposition of their ideas, to which
reference has just been made.
The development of these theories, about the middle of the century, was
greatly hastened by the work of many brilliant investigators, notably
Wurtz (1817–1884), Hofmann (1818–1892), Williamson (1824–), Kolbe
(1818–1884), and Frankland (1825–) among others.
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