Part 2 / Book 6 — Book VI (continued 3)

References.—Phil. Trans. for, 1729–1730, No. 412, Vol. XXXVI. p. 245, and for July 1888, also Hutton’s abridgments, Vol. VII. p. 383; V. T. M. Van der Willigen, “Arch. du Musée Teyler,” 1878, Vol. IV; Jacobi Rohaulti, “Physica,” 1718, Part III. cap. 8, p. 403, or the English translation by Dr. Clarke, 1728, Vol. II. p. 181; P. W. Hacker, “Zur theorie des magnetismus,” Nürnberg, 1856; Ath. Kircher, “Magnes. ...” 1643, lib. i. part ii. p. 63; Daniel Bernoulli, “Acta Helvetica,” 1758, Vol. III. p. 223; Nic. Cabæus “Philosophia Magnetica,” 1629, lib. iv. cap. 42, p. 407; Kenelme Digby, “The Nature of Bodies,” 1645, Chap. XXII. p. 243; “Dict. of Nat. Biog.” Vol. XXIV. p. 185.

A.D. 1729–1730.—Savery (Servington), English mechanician, succeeds in imparting magnetism to hard steel bars three-fourths of an inch square and sixteen inches long, by fitting one bar with an armature at each end and touching other bars with it whilst held in the magnetic meridian in the line of the inclined needle.

It was shown by Savery that his artificial magnets were preferable to loadstones. The first recorded attempt to make artificial magnets is credited to one John Sellers, believed to be the author of “The Practical Navigator,” of which the earliest edition appeared in 1669, and of “The Coasting Pilot,” published about 1680. An “Answer to Some Magnetical Inquiries Proposed in (the preceding) No. 23, pp. 423–424,” will be found in Phil. Trans. for 1667, Vol. II. pp. 478–479 and in the following abridgments: Baddam, 1745, Vol. I. p. 86; Hutton, Vol. I. p. 166 (as of No. 26, p. 478); John Lowthorp, Vol. II. p. 601. Reference is likewise made to this invention of Sellers at Vol. I. p. 86 of the “Memoirs of the Royal Society,” London, 1739, and in a paper by Réaumur, in the “Mémoires de l’Académie Française” for the year 1723.

References.—Savery, “Magnetical Observations and Experiments,” also Phil. Trans., Vol. XXXVI. pp. 295–340; and the following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. VII. p. 400; Reid and Gray, Vol. VI. p. 166; Eames and Martyn, Vol. VI. p. 260; Baddam, 1745, Vol. IX. p. 57; Geo. Adams, “Essay on Electricity,” 1785, p. 451.

A.D. 1731.—On the 25th of November the Royal Society were honoured by a visit from the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Lorraine, the last named being enrolled as a member during the evening. Experiments were performed “On the strength of Lord Paisley’s loadstone,” “On Dr. Frobenius’s phlogiston,” and “On the electrical observations of Mr. Stephen Grey.” These experiments which, it is said, “succeeded notwithstanding the largeness of the company,” showed the facility with which electricity passes through great lengths of conductors and are worth noting as being the first of their nature.

A.D. 1732.—Régnault (Le Père Noël) gives in “Les Entretiens Physiques,” etc., Vol. I. Nos. 15 and 16, the tables of the declination at Paris from the years 1600–1730, and treats at length of the merits of the loadstone and of the magnetic needle.

In Vols. II, IV and V he discourses about the extent of the magnetic fluid and explains the phenomena of meteors, St. Elmo’s fire, thunder, etc., besides recording the experiments of Grey, Dufay and others.

A.D. 1733.—Dufay (Charles François de Cisternay), French scientist and superintendent of the Jardin du Roi, now the Jardin des Plantes, of Paris (in which latter position he was succeeded by Buffon), communicates to the French Academy of Sciences the history of electricity brought down to the year 1732 (Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 195).

He is said to have originated the theory of two kinds of electricity permeating matter and producing all the known phenomena of attraction, repulsion and induction, though the honour of this important discovery should be shared by M. White, who was associated at one time with Stephen Grey and who, it appears, independently discovered the fact while in England. Dufay thus announces his discovery: “... there are two kinds of electricity, very different from one another, one of which I call vitreous (positive) and the other resinous (negative) electricity. The first is that of glass, rock crystal, precious stones, hairs of animals, wool and many other bodies. The second is that of amber, copal, gum-lac, silk, thread, paper and a vast number of other substances. The characteristics of these two electricities are that they repel themselves and attract each other. Thus a body of the vitreous electricity repels all other bodies possessed of the vitreous, and, on the contrary, attracts all those of the resinous electricity. The resinous also repels the resinous and attracts the vitreous. From this principle one may easily deduce the explanation of a great number of the phenomena; and it is probable that this truth will lead us to the discovery of many other things” (see Franklin, at A.D. 1752, and Symmer, at A.D. 1759).

Upon repeating Grey’s experiments, Dufay observed, amongst other things, that, by wetting pack thread, electricity was more readily transmitted through it, and he was enabled thus easily to convey the fluid a distance of 1256 feet, though the wind was high and although the line made eight returns.

References.—Fontenelle, “Eloge”; Priestley, “History and Present State of Electricity,” 1775, Period IV. pp. 43–54; Sturgeon, Lectures, 1842, p. 23; “An Epitome of El. and Mag.,” Philad., 1809, p. 29; Mém. de l’Acad. Royale des Sciences for 1733, pp. 23, 28, 76, 83, 233–236, 251, 252, 457; also for the years 1734, pp. 303, 341, and 1737, pp. 86, 307; Phil. Trans., Vol. XXXVIII. p. 258; also the following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. VII. p. 638; John Martyn, Vol. VIII. part ii. p. 393; Baddam, Vol. IX. p. 497; Thos. Thomson, “An Outline of the Sciences of Heat and Electricity,” London, 1830, p. 344 and Thos. Thomson, “Hist. of the Roy. Soc.,” London, 1812, p. 432; “Electricity in the Service of Man,” R. Wormell (from the German of Dr. Urbanitzky), London, 1900, p. 14; “Journal des Sçavans,” Vol. XCIII for 1731, pp. 383–388; Vol. C for 1733, p. 244; Vol. CIV for 1734, p. 479; Vol. CXII for 1737, p. 65; Vol. CXV for 1738, p. 173; Vol. CXXIX for 1743, p. 501.

A.D. 1733.—Winckler (Johann Heinrich), a philosopher of Wingendorf, Saxony, and Professor of Languages in the University of Leipzig, first uses a fixed cushion in the electric machine for applying friction instead of by means of the hand, and is, by many, believed to have been the first to suggest the use of conductors as a means of protection against lightning (see B.C. 600).

In March 1745, Winckler read a paper before the Royal Society, in which he describes machines for rubbing tubes and globes, also a contrivance with which he can give his globes as many as 680 turns in a minute. Priestley states that the German electricians generally used several globes at a time and that they could excite such a prodigious power of electricity from “globes, whirled by a large wheel and rubbed with woollen cloth or a dry hand, that, if we may credit their own accounts, the blood could be drawn from the finger by an electric spark; the skin would burst and a wound appear, as if made by a caustic.”

During the year 1746 Winckler made use of common electricity for telegraphic communications by the discharge of Leyden jars through very long circuits, in some of which the River Pleisse formed a part, and it may be added that Joseph Franz had previously discharged the contents of a jar through 1500 feet of iron wire while in the city of Vienna.

References.—Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIII. p. 307; Vol. XLIV. pp. 211, 397; Vol. XLV. p. 262; Vol. XLVII. p. 231; Vol. XLVIII. p. 772; also following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. IX. pp. 74, 109, 251, 345, 494; Vol. X. pp. 197, 529; John Martyn, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 269, 273, 327, 345, 399; Priestley, 1775, on the discoveries of the Germans, pp. 70–77; “Thoughts on the Properties,” etc., Leipzig, 1744, pp. 146, 149.

A.D. 1733.—Brandt (Georg), Swedish chemist, gives in the “Memoirs of the Academy” of Upsal an account of the experiments made by him to show the possibility of imparting magnetism to substances which are not ferruginous. He proved it in the case of the metal cobalt, and during the year 1750 the able discoverer of nickel, Axel. F. de Cronstedt, showed that the latter is likewise susceptible of this property.

References.—Thomas, “Dict. of Biog.,” 1871, Vol. I. p. 428; English Cyclopædia (Biography Supplement), 1872, p. 423.

A.D. 1734.—Polinière (Pierre), French physician and experimental philosopher (1671–1734), member of the Society of Arts, entirely revises the fourth edition of his “Expériences de Phisique” originally issued in 1709. While the second volume contains but a short chapter relative to electricity, meteoric disturbances, etc., the remainder of the work gives very curious and interesting experiments with the loadstone, making allusion to the observations of John Keill, besides treating of the declination of the needle, etc.

References.—“New Gen. Biog. Dict.,” London, 1850, Vol. XI. p. 177; Moréri, “Grand Dict. Hist.”; “Biog. Univ.” (Michaud), Vol. XXXIII. p. 637; “Nouv. Biog. Gén.” (Hœfer), Vol. XL. p. 614; Chaudon, “Dict. Hist. Univ.”

A.D. 1734.—Swedenborg (Emanuel), founder of the Church of New Jerusalem, details in his “Principia Rerum Naturalium,” etc., the result of experiments and sets forth the laws relating to magnetic and electric forces and effects. The first explicit treatise upon the close relationship existing between magnetism and electricity was, however, written fourteen years later by M. Laurent Béraud (1703–1777), Professor of Mathematics at the College of Lyons. Both Swedenborg and Béraud recognized the fact that it is, as Fahie expresses it, the same force, only differently disposed which produces both electric and magnetic phenomena.

In “Results of an Investigation into the MSS. of Swedenborg,” Edinburgh, 1869, p. 7, No. 16, Dr. R. L. Tafel makes following entry:

“A treatise on the magnet, 265 pages text and 34 pages tables, quarto. This work is a digest of all that had been written up to Swedenborg’s time on the subject, with some of his own experiments. According to the title page, Swedenborg had intended it for publication in London during the year 1722.”

The “Principia Rerum Naturalium” is the first volume of Swedenborg’s earliest great work, “Opera Philosophica et Mineralia,” originally published in Leipzig and Dresden 1734, which has justly been pronounced a very remarkable cosmogony. In the “Principia” Part I. chap. ix., is to be found his treatment of what he calls the second or magnetic element of the world; in Part III. chap. i. he gives a comparison of the sidereal heaven with the magnetic sphere, but he devotes the whole of Part II to the magnet in following chapters:

I. On the causes and mechanism of the magnetic forces;

II. On the attractive forces of two or more magnets, and the ratio of the forces to the distances;

III. On the attractive forces of two magnets when their poles are alternated;

IV. On the attractive forces of two magnets when their axes are parallel or when the equinoctial of the one lies upon the equinoctial of the other;

V. On the disjunctive and repulsive forces of two or more magnets when the cognomical or inimical poles are applied to each other;

VI. On the attractive forces of the magnet and of iron;

VII. On the influence of the magnet upon ignited iron;

VIII. On the quantity of exhalations from the magnet and their penetration through hard bodies, etc.;

IX. On the various modes of destroying the power of the magnet; and on the chemical experiments made with it;

X. On the friction of the magnet against iron, and on the force communicated from the former to the latter;

XI. On the conjunctive force of the magnet, as exercised upon several pieces of iron;

XII. On the operation of iron and of the magnet upon the mariner’s needle; and on the reciprocal operation of one needle upon another;

XIII. On other methods of making iron magnetical;

XIV. The declination of the magnet calculated upon the foregoing principles;

XV. On the causes of the magnetic declination;

XVI. Calculation of the declination of the magnet for the year 1722, at London.

References.—Béraud, “Dissertation,” etc., Bordeaux, 1748; also Priestley, 1775, p. 191; “Biographie Universelle,” Vol. III. p. 687; “Biog. Génér.,” Vol. XLIV. pp. 690–703; Daillant de la Touche, “Abrégé des ouvrages de Swedenborg,” 1788; J. Clowes, “Letters on the writings of Swedenborg,” 1799; “Svenskt Biografiskt Handlexikon,” Herm. Hofberg, Stockholm, pp. 368–369; “Swedenborg and the Nebular Hypothesis,” Magnus Nyrén, astronomer at Observatory of Pulkowa, Russia, translated from the “Viertel jahrschrift der Astronomischen Gesellschaft,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 81, by Rev. Frank Sewall.

A.D. 1735–1746.—Ulloa (Don Antonio de), Spanish mathematician, who left Cadiz May 26, 1735, for South America, whither he was sent with Condamine and other French Academicians, as well as with Spanish scientists, to measure a degree of the meridian, returned to Madrid July 25, 1746, and shortly after gave an account of his experiences during an absence of eleven years and two months.

In his “Voyage Historique de l’Amérique Méridionale,” Amsterdam and Leipzig, 1752, he speaks (Vol. I. pp. 14–18 and Vol. II. pp. 30–31, 92–94, 113, 123, 128) of the defective magnetic needles given him as well as of the means of correcting them, and he details at great length the variations of the needle observed during the voyage. He also alludes to the variation charts of Dr. Halley and to the alterations therein made by advice of William Mountaine and Jacob Dooson—James Dodson—of London, as well as to the methods of ascertaining the variation of the magnetic needle pointed out both by Manuel de Figueyredo, at Chaps. IX-X of his “Hidrographie ou Examen des Pilotes,” printed at Lisbon in 1608, and by Don Lazare de Flores at Chap. I, part ii. of his “Art de Naviguer,” printed in 1672. The latter, he says, asserts, in Chap. IX, that the Portuguese find his method so reliable that they embody it in all the instructions given for the navigation of their vessels.

At pp. 66, 67, Chap. X of vol. ii. Ulloa makes the earliest recorded reference to the aurora australis, as follows: “At half-past ten in the evening, and as we stood about two leagues from the island of Tierra de Juan Fernandez, we observed upon the summit of a neighbouring mountain a very brilliant and extraordinary light.... I saw it very distinctly from its inception, and I noticed that it was very small at first, and gradually extended until it looked like a large, lighted torch. This lasted three or four minutes, when the light began to diminish as gradually as it had grown, and finally disappeared.”

Incidentally, it may be stated here that the very learned Dr. John Dalton reported having seen the aurora australis in England, and to have besides observed the aurora borealis as far as 45° latitude south (see accounts in Philosophical Transactions, Philosophical Magazine, Manchester Transactions and Nicholson’s Journal), while Humboldt remarks (“Cosmos,” 1849, Vol. I. p. 192, note) that in south polar bands, composed of very delicate clouds, observed by Arago, at Paris, on the 23rd of June, 1844, dark rays shot upward from an arch running east and west, and that he had already made mention of black rays resembling dark smoke, as occurring in brilliant nocturnal northern lights.

References to the aurora australis are made by the naturalist John Reinhold Forster, in the article on “Aurora Borealis” of the “Encycl. Britannica.”

For Mountaine and Dodson, consult the Phil. Trans., Vol. XLVIII. p. 875; Vol. L. p. 329, also Hutton’s abridgments, Vol. XI. p. 149.

A.D. 1738.—Boze—Böse—(Georg Matthias) (1710–1761), Professor of Philosophy at Wittemburg, publishes his “Oratio inauguralis de electricitate,” which is followed, in 1746, by “Recherches sur la cause et sur la véritable théorie de l’électricité,” and, in 1747, by his completed “Tentamina electrica.”

To him is due the introduction in the electrical machine of the prime conductor, in the form of an iron tube or cylinder. The latter was at first supported by a man insulated upon cakes of resin and afterward suspended by silken strings. M. Boze discovered that capillary tubes discharging water by drops give a continuous run when electrified. He also conveyed electricity by a jet of water from one man to another, standing upon cakes of resin, at a distance of six paces, and likewise employed the jet for igniting alcohol as well as other liquids.

References.—Alglave et Boulard, 1882, p. 22, also Priestley, 1775, upon “Miscellaneous Discoveries,” likewise “Nouv. Biog. Générale” (Hœfer), Vol. VI. p. 772; “La Grande Encycl.,” Vol. VII. p. 454; “Journal des Sçavans,” Vol. LXIII for 1718, p. 485; Phil. Trans. for 1745, Vol. XLIII. p. 419, and for 1749, Vol. XLVI. p. 189; also Hutton’s abridgments, Vol. IX. pp. 127, 681; and J. Martyn’s abridgments, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 277, 329.

A.D. 1739.—Desaguliers (Jean Theophile), chaplain to his Grace the Duke of Chandos, gives an account of his first experiments on the phenomena of electricity at pp. 186, 193, 196, 198, 200, 209, 634, 637, 638 and 661 of Vol. XLI of the Phil. Trans. for 1739. Some of these experiments were made on the 15th of April, 1738, at H.R.H. the Prince of Wales’ house at Cliefden.

He was the first to divide bodies into “electrics,” or non-conductors, and “non-electrics,” or conductors. He ranked pure air amongst his electrics (Tyndall, Lecture I) and stated that “cold air in frosty weather, when vapours rise least of all, is preferable for electrical purposes to warm air in summer, when the heat raises the vapours” (Phil. Trans., John Martyn abridgment, Vol. VIII. p. 437). It was Desaguliers who announced that he could render bars of iron magnetic, either by striking them sharply against the ground while in a vertical position or by striking them with a hammer when placed at right angles to the magnetic meridian.

His “Dissertation Concerning Electricity” London, 1742, which won for him the grand prize of the Bordeaux Academy, is said to be the second work on the subject published in the English language, the first having been Boyle’s “Mechanical Origin and Production of Electricity,” mentioned at A.D. 1675.

Desaguliers was the second to receive the Copley medal, it having been previously bestowed by the Royal Society only upon Stephen Grey, who obtained it in 1731 and 1732 for his “New Electrical Experiments.” The list of recipients of this distinguished honour, given by C. R. Weld at p. 385, Vol. I of the “History of the Royal Society,” shows that Desaguliers received three Copley medals; these were awarded him during the years 1734, 1736 and 1741, for his “Experiments in Natural Philosophy.” John Canton was given two of the medals, in 1751 and 1764, the only other electrician similarly favoured being Michael Faraday, who received them during the years 1832 and 1838, while Sir Humphry Davy is credited with only one, conferred upon him in 1805.

In the year 1742, Desaguliers received the prize of the Académie Royale de Bordeaux for a treatise on the electricity of bodies, which latter was separately published at the time in a quarto volume of twenty-eight pages. The same Academy had previously conferred important prizes for dissertations, upon the nature of thunder and lightning by Louis Antoine Lozeran du Fech in 1726, upon the variations of the magnetic needle by Nicolas Sarrabat in 1727, and also subsequently decreed similar awards, to Laurent Béraud for an essay on magnets in 1748, to Denis Barberet for a treatise on atmospherical electricity in 1750, and to Samuel Theodor Quellmalz for a dissertation on medical electricity in 1753.

References.—Phil. Trans., Vol. XL. p. 385; Vol. XLII. pp. 14, 140; also the following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. VIII. pp. 246–248, 340, 346, 350–358, 470–474, 479, 546, 584; John Martyn, Vol. VIII. part ii. pp. 419, 422–444, 740. Very interesting reading is afforded by M. Desaguliers through the observations he made on the magnets having more poles than two. These will be found recorded in Phil. Trans. for 1738, p. 383 and in Hutton’s abridgments, Vol. VIII. p. 246; Thomson, “Hist. Roy. Soc.,” 1812, pp. 433, 434; “Gen. Biog. Dict.,” Alex. Chalmers, London, 1811, Vol. XI. pp. 489–493.

A.D. 1740.—Celsius (Anders), who filled the chair of astronomy at Upsal, is first to point out the great utility of making simultaneous observations over a large extent of territory and at widely different points. He states (Svenska Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar for 1740, p. 44) that a simultaneity in certain extraordinary perturbations, which had caused a horary influence on the course of the magnetic needle at Upsal and at London, afforded proof “that the cause of these disturbances is extended over considerable portions of the earth’s surface, and is not dependent upon accidental local actions.”

In the following year (1741), Olav Hiörter, who was Celsius’ assistant, discovered and measured the influence of polar light on magnetic variation. His observations were subsequently carried on in conjunction with Celsius, and were improved upon by Wargentin (A.D. 1750) and by Cassini (A.D. 1782–1791).

References.—Walker, “Ter. and Cos. Magnetism,” p. 116; also Humboldt, “Cosmos,” re “Magnetic Disturbances,” and Vol. II. p. 438, of Weld’s “History of the Royal Society.”

A.D. 1742.—Gordon (Andreas), a Scotch Benedictine monk (1712–1757), Professor of Philosophy at Erfurt, abandons the use of glass globes (Newton, at A.D. 1675 and Hauksbee, at A.D. 1705), and is the first to employ a glass cylinder, the better to develop electricity. His cylinder, eight inches long and four inches wide, is made to turn by means of a bow with such rapidity that it attains 680 revolutions per minute.

Priestley says (“Discovery of Germans,” Part I. period vii.) that Gordon “increased the electric sparks to such a degree that they were felt from a man’s head to his foot, so that a person could hardly take them without falling down with giddiness; and small birds were killed by them. This he effected by conveying electricity, with iron wires, to the distance of 200 ells (about 250 yards) from the place of excitation.”

References.—Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. II. pp. 358, 359, and Nollet, “Recherches,” etc., p. 172. See also Gordon’s “Phenomena Electricitatis Exposita,” Erford, 1744 and 1746; “Philosophia,” 1745; “Tentamen ... Electricitatis,” 1745; “Versuche ... einer Electricität.,” 1745–1746.

A.D. 1743.—Hausen (Christian Augustus), Professor of Mathematics at Leipzig, publishes his “Novi profectus in historia electricitatis,” and is the first to revive the use of the glass globe introduced by Newton (A.D. 1675) and employed with great effect by Hauksbee (A.D. 1705).

In Watson’s “Expériences et observations sur l’électricité,” is shown an electrical machine constructed by Hausen and differing but slightly from the one alluded to herein at A.D. 1705 as made for M. Wolfius. In this illustration a lady is pressing her hand against the glass globe, which is being rotated rapidly, thus developing upon its surface the vitreous electricity, while the resinous electricity passes through her body to the earth. The young man who is suspended and insulated by silken cords, represents the prime conductor introduced by Prof. Boze (A.D. 1738). The vitreous electricity passes from the surface of the glass globe, through his feet and entire body, and is communicated by his hand to the young girl, who stands upon a large section of resin, and is able to attract small parcels of gold leaf by means of the electric fluid. Another machine, taken from the same French work (originally published at Paris in 1748), is said to have been at that time much in use throughout Holland and principally at Amsterdam. The man rotates a glass globe, against which the operator presses his hand, and the electricity is conveyed through the metallic rod supported by silk-covered stands and held by a third party, who is igniting spirits in the manner indicated at the A.D. 1744 date.

Reference.—Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. I. pp. 278, 279.

A.D. 1743.—Boerhaave—Boerhaaven—(Hermann), illustrious physician, mathematician and natural philosopher (1668–1738), who held the chairs of theoretical medicine, practical medicine, botany and chemistry at the University of Leyden, F.R.S. and member French Academy of Sciences, writes an Essay on the virtue of Magnetical Cures, of which there were subsequently many editions and translations in different languages.

One of his biographers calls him “the Galen, the Ibn Sina, the Fernel of his age.” Another remarks that he was, perhaps, the greatest physician of modern times: “A man who, when we contemplate his genius, his erudition, the singular variety of his talents, his unfeigned piety, his spotless character, and the impress which he left not only on contemporaneous practice, but on that of succeeding generations, stands forth as one of the brightest names on the page of medical history, and may be quoted as an example not only to physicians, but to mankind at large. No professor was ever attended, in public as well as at private lectures, by so great a number of students, from such distant and different parts, for so many years successively; none heard him without conceiving a veneration for his person, at the same time that they expressed their surprise at his prodigious attainments; and it may be justly affirmed, that none in so private a station ever attracted a more universal esteem.”

References.—“Biographica Philosophica,” Benj. Martin, London, 1764, pp. 478–483; “Eloge de Boerhaave,” by Maty, Leyde, 1747, and by Fontenelle, 1763, T. VI; his life, written by Dr. Wm. Burton, London, 1736; Van Swinden, “Recueil,” etc., La Haye, 1784, Vol. II. p. 354, note; “La Grande Encyclopédie,” Tome VII. p. 42; “Biographie Générale,” Tome VI. pp. 352–357; “Biographie Universelle,” Vol. IV. pp. 529–555; Ninth “Encycl. Britannica,” Vol. III. p. 854; “Histoire Philosophique de la Médecine,” Etienne Tourtelle, Paris, An. XII. (1807), Vol. II. pp. 404–446; “Bibl. Britan.” (Authors), Rob. Watt, Edinburgh, 1824, Vol. I. p. 127; “The Edinburgh Encyclopædia,” 1830, Vol. III. pp. 628–630 or the 1813 ed., Vol. III. pp. 612–614; G. A. Pritzel, “Thesaurus Literaturæ Botanicæ,” Lipsiæ, 1851, p. 26.

A.D. 1744.—Ludolf—Leudolff—(Christian Friedrich), of Berlin, first exhibits, January 23, the ignition of inflammable substances by the electric spark. This he does in the presence of hundreds of spectators, on the occasion of the opening of the Royal Academy of Sciences by Frederick the Great of Prussia, when fire is set to sulphuric ether through a spark from the sword of one of the court cavaliers (see notes on Tyndall’s second lecture, 1876, p. 80).

It was likewise at this period Ludolf the younger demonstrated that the luminous barometer is made perfectly electrical by the motion of the quicksilver, first attracting and then repelling bits of paper, etc., suspended by the side of the tube, when it was enclosed in another tube out of which the air was extracted (Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. III. p. 495).

A.D. 1744–1745.—Waitz (Jacob Siegismund von), a German electrician, writes three essays in Dutch and one in French, and is given the prize of fifty ducats proposed by the Berlin Academy of Sciences for the best dissertation on the subject of electricity. In the following year he makes experiments, with Etienne François du Tour, to show the destruction of electricity by flame, and, later on, with Prof. Georg Erhard Hamberger, he proves conclusively that the motion of quicksilver in a glass vessel out of which the air is extracted has the power of moving light bodies. Jean Nicolas Sebastien Allamand subsequently found that it was immaterial whether the vessel had air in it or not.

References.—Tyndall’s Notes on Lecture II, also Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. II. pp. 380, 426, and M. du Tour’s “Recherches sur les Différents Mouvements de la Matière Electrique,” Paris, 1760.

A.D. 1745.—Kratzenstein (Christian Gottlieb), Professor of Medicine at Halle, author of “Versuch einer Erklarung,” etc., and of “Theoria Electricitatis,” etc., is said to have first successfully employed electricity in the relief of sprains, malformations, etc. He observed that a man’s pulse, which had beat eighty in a second before he was electrified, immediately after beat eighty-eight, and was soon increased to ninety-six.

Kratzenstein is reported (Mary Somerville, “Physical Sciences,” Section XVII.) to have made instruments which articulated many letters, words and even sentences, and somewhat similar in construction to those alluded to at A.D. 1620 (De Bergerac), and A.D. 1641 (John Wilkins), some of which may truly be said to strongly suggest the modern phonograph.

Albertus Magnus constructed, after thirty years of experimentation, a curious machine which sent forth distinct vocal sounds, at which the very learned scholastic philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas (“Angel of the Schools”) was so much terrified that he struck the contrivance with his stick and broke it. Bishop Wilkins alludes to this machine as well as to a brazen head devised by Friar Bacon, which could be made to utter certain words (“Journal des Savants” for 1899, and J. S. Brewer, “F. Rog. Bacon,” 1859, p. xci; also, “How Fryer Bacon made a Brasen Head to Speake,” at pp. 13–14 of the “Famous Historie of Fryer Bacon published at London for Francis Groue”).

Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Wolfgang von Kempelen, Aulic Counsellor to the Royal Chamber of the Domains of the Emperor of Germany, after witnessing some magnetic games shown to the Empress Maria Theresa at Vienna, constructed, during the year 1778, a speaking machine which “gave sounds as of a child three or four years of age, uttering distinct syllables and words” (Wm. Whewell, “Hist. of the Inductive Sciences,” Vol. II. chap. vi.; J. E. Montucla, “Hist. des Mathém,” Vol. III. p. 813).

La Nature, Paris, May 6, 1905, pp. 353–354, illustrates the speaking head of l’Abbé Mical presented by him to the French Academy of Sciences July 2, 1783, and alludes to those of Albertus Magnus, Wolfgang von Kempelen, C. G. Kratzenstein, etc.

Two more curious productions, in pretty much the same line as Bergerac’s, can, with equal propriety, be inserted here.

The first is taken from the April number, 1632, of the Courier Véritable, a little monthly publication in which novel fancies were frequently aired: “Captain Vosterloch has returned from his voyage to the southern lands, which he started on two years and a half ago, by order of the States-General. He tells us, among other things, that in passing through a strait below Magellan’s, he landed in a country where Nature has furnished men with a kind of sponge which holds sounds and articulations as our sponges hold liquids. So, when they wish to dispatch a message to a distance, they speak to one of the sponges, and then send it to their friends. They, receiving the sponges, take them up gently and press out the words that have been spoken into them, and learn by this admirable means all that their correspondents desire them to know.”

The second is the production of one Thomas Ward, theological poet, who was born in 1640 and died in 1704. In the second canto of one of his poems occur these words:

References.—Priestley, “History,” etc., 1775, p. 374, and Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 294.

A.D. 1745.—Grummert (Gottfried Heinrich), of Biala, Poland, first observes the return of the electric light in vacuo. In order to ascertain whether an exhausted tube would give light when it was electrified, as well as when it was excited, he presented one eight inches long and a third of an inch wide, to the electrified conductor, and was surprised to find the light dart very vividly along the entire length of the tube. He likewise observed that some time after the tube had been presented to the conductor, and exposed to nothing but the air, it gave light again without being brought to an electrified body (see Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 417).

A.D. 1745.—Dr. Miles (Rev. Henry), of Tooting, D.D. (1698–1763) reads, March 7, before the English Royal Society a paper indicating the possibility of kindling phosphorus by applying to it an excited electric without the approach of a conducting body. This gentleman’s tube happening to be in excellent order upon this occasion, he observed, and doubtless was the first to notice, pencils of luminous rays, which he called coruscations, darting from the tube without the aid of any conductor approaching it.

In a paper which Dr. Miles read before the same Society on the 25th of January, 1746, he gave an account of other equally interesting experiments, one of which was the kindling of ordinary lamp spirits with a piece of black sealing wax excited by dry flannel or white and brown paper.

References.—“Dict. Nat. Biog.,” Sidney Lee, Vol. XXXVII. p. 378; Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIII. pp. 290, 441; Vol. XLIV. pp. 27, 53, 78, 158, and the following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. IX. pp. 107, 136, 191, 198, 207, 213, 232; John Martyn, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 272, 277, 317, 319, 322–323, 325.

A.D. 1745.—This period was to witness a discovery which, according to Professor Tyndall, “throws all former ones in the shade,” and which Dr. Priestley calls “the most surprising yet made in the whole business of electricity.” This was the accumulation of the electric power in a glass phial, called the Leyden jar after the name of the place where the discovery was made. It was first announced in a letter to Von Kleist, dean of the cathedral of Kamin—Cammin—in Pomerania, dated the 4th of November, 1745, and addressed to Dr. Lieberkühn, who communicated it to the Berlin Academy. The following is an extract: “When a nail or a piece of thick brass wire is put into a small apothecary’s phial and electrified, remarkable effects follow; but the phial must be very dry or warm; I commonly rub it over beforehand with a finger, on which I put some pounded chalk. If a little mercury, or a few drops of spirit of wine, be put into it, the experiment succeeds the better. As soon as this phial and nail are removed from the electrifying glass, or the prime conductor to which it has been exposed is taken away, it throws out a pencil of flame so long that, with this burning machine in my hand, I have taken above sixty steps in walking about my room; when it is electrified strongly I can take it into another room and there fire spirits of wine with it. If while it is electrifying I put my finger, or a piece of gold which I hold in my hand, to the nail, I receive a shock which stuns my arms and shoulders.”

It is said that Cunæus, rich burgess of Leyden, accidentally made the same discovery in January 1746. It appears that Pieter Van Musschenbroek, the celebrated professor, while experimenting with his colleagues, Cunæus and Allamand, observed that excited bodies soon lost their electricity in the open air, attributable to the vapours and effluvia carried in the atmosphere, and he conceived the idea that the electricity might be retained by surrounding the excited bodies with others that did not conduct electricity. For this purpose he chose water, the most readily procured non-electric, and placed some in a glass bottle. No important results were obtained until Cunæus, who was holding the bottle, attempted to withdraw the wire which connected with the conductor of a powerful electric machine. He at once received a severe shock in his arms and breast, as did also the others upon renewing the experiment. In giving an account of it to the great scientist, René de Réaumur, Musschenbroek remarked: “For the whole kingdom of France, I would not take a second shock.” Allamand states that when he himself took the shock “he lost the use of his breath for some minutes, and then felt so intense a pain along his right arm that he feared permanent injury from it.”

In his “Cours Elémentaire de Physique,” Musschenbroek describes one of the peculiar electrical machines then being constructed by the well-known London instrument maker, George Adams, and a cut of it can be seen at p. 353, Vol. I. of the translation made by Sigaud de la Fond at Paris during 1769. Another of Adams’ machines is described and illustrated at p. 126 of the French translation of Cavallo’s “Complete Treatise,” published at Paris in 1785.

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.”

References.—Dalibard, “Histoire Abrégée,” p. 33; Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. I. pp. 407, 409, 411; Johann Gottlob Kruger, “Dissert. de Elect.,” Helmstadt, 1756 (Poggendorff, I. p. 1323); Priestley, 1777, “The Hist. and Pres. State of Electricity,” pp. 82–84; Opuscoli Scelti, 4to, xviii, 55; Pierre Massuet, “Essais,” Leide, 1751; Musschenbroek’s “Epitome elementorum,” etc., 1726, “Tentamina Experimentorum Naturalium,” 1731, and his “Disertatio Physica experimentalis de Magnete,” as well as his “Elementa Physicæ,” 1734, and the “Introductio ad Philosophiam Naturalem,” 1762, the last-named two works being greatly amplified editions of the “Epitome.” For Musschenbroek—Musschenbrock—consult also Phil. Trans., Vol. XXXII. p. 370; Vol. XXXVII. pp. 357, 408, also the following abridgments: Baddam, 1745, Vol. VIII. p. 42; Reid and Gray, Vol. VI. p. 161 (Musschenbroek to Desaguliers); Hutton, Vol. VII. pp. 105, 647 (magnetic sand); Eames and Martyn, Vol. VI. part ii. p. 255; John Martyn, Vol. VIII. p. 737 (magnetic sand). For this magnetic sand, consult also Mr. Butterfield’s article in Phil. Trans. for 1698, p. 336 and in the abridgments of Hutton, Vol. IV. p. 310.

A.D. 1745.—Watson (William), M.D., F.R.S., an eminent English scientist, bears “the most distinguished name in this period of the history of electricity.” His first letters, treating of this science, are addressed to the Royal Society between March 28 and October 24, 1745, and, on the 6th of February and the 30th of October, 1746, he communicated other similar papers to the same Society, all which, like his subsequent treatises, are to be found in the Philosophical Transactions.

Dr. Watson, like most scientists at the time, made numerous experiments with the Leyden jar, and he was the first to observe the flash of light attending its discharge. He says: “When the phial is well electrified, and you apply your hand thereto, you see the fire flash from the outside of the glass wherever you touch it, and it crackles in your hand.” It is to him that we owe the double coating of the jar, as well as the plus and minus of electricity.

He also shows conclusively that glass globes and tubes do not possess in themselves the electrical power, but only serve “as the first movers or determiners of that power,” and he also proves that the electric fluid takes the shortest course, passing through the substance of the best medium of connection and not along its surface. This, he demonstrated by discharging a phial through a wire covered with a mixture of wax and resin.

In order to ascertain the velocity of the electric fluid from the Leyden phial and the distance at which it could be transmitted (John Wood, at A.D. 1726), Watson directed a series of experiments upon a very grand scale, with the assistance of Martin Folkes, President of the Royal Society, Lord Charles Cavendish, Dr. Bevis, Mr. Graham, Dr. Birch, Peter Daval and Messrs. Trembley, Ellicott, Robins and Short. On the 14th and 18th of July, 1747, they experimented upon a wire carrying the electricity from the Thames bank at Lambeth to the opposite bank at Westminster, across Westminster Bridge, and, on the 24th of July, at the New River, Stoke Newington, they sent a shock through 800 feet of water and 2000 feet of land, as well as through 2800 feet of land and 8000 feet of water. Other experiments followed on the 28th of July and the 5th of August, as well as on the 14th of August of the same year, proving the instantaneous transmission of the fluid; while a year later, August 5, 1748, additional observations were made, through 12,276 feet of wire, at Shooter’s Hill, showing again that the time occupied in the passage of the electricity was “altogether inappreciable.” Regarding these experiments, Prof. Musschenbroek wrote to Dr. Watson, “Magnificentissimis tuis experimentis superasti conatus omnium.”

Watson’s experiments were repeated, notably by Franklin, across the Schuylkill at Philadelphia, in 1748; by Deluc, across the Lake of Geneva, in 1749; and by Winckler, at Leipzig, in 1750. It is said that Lemonnier (A.D. 1746) produced shocks at Paris through 12,789 feet of wire and that Bétancourt (A.D. 1795) discharged electric jars through a distance of twenty-six miles.

To Dr. Watson is also due the first demonstration of the passage of electricity through a vacuum. Noad tells us that he caused the spark from his conductor to pass in the form of coruscations of a bright silver hue through an exhausted tube three feet in length, and he discharged a jar through a vacuum interval of ten inches in the form of “a mass of very bright embodied fire.” These demonstrations were repeated and varied by Canton, Smeaton and Wilson.

His experiments in firing gunpowder, hydrogen, etc., by the electric spark, are detailed at p. 78 of Priestley’s “History,” etc., London, 1775.

Watson was rewarded with the Copley medal for his researches in electricity, which brought him also honorary degrees from two German universities. He was knighted in 1786, one year before his death.

References.—“Watson’s Experiments and Observations on Electricity,” 1745, also his “Account of the Experiments made by some gentlemen of the Royal Society,” etc., 1748; Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIII. p. 481; Vol. XLIV. pp. 41, 388, 695, 704; Vol. XLV. pp. 49–120, 491–496; Vol. XLVI. p. 348; Vol. XLVII. pp. 202, 236, 362, 567; Vol. XLVIII. p. 765; Vol. LI. p. 394 (lyncurium of the ancients); Vol. LIII. p. 10; also the following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. IX. pp. 151, 195, 308, 368, 408, 410, 440, 553; Vol. X. pp. 12, 189, 197, 227, 233, 242, 303, 372–379, 525; Vol. XI. p. 419 (lyncurium of the ancients), 580, 660, 679; Vol. XII. p. 127; John Martyn, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 279–280, 290, 294, 329, 339, 347, 368, 407, 410. See likewise, Scientific American Supplement of Oct. 5, 1889, No. 718, pp. 11, 471, for an interesting engraving of Dr. Watson’s experiment made through the water of the Thames, as well as for a detailed account of Lemonnier’s experiment above referred to. For Mr. A. Trembley, consult Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIV. p. 58, and John Martyn’s abridgments, Vol. X. part ii. p. 321.

A.D. 1746.—Lemonnier (Pierre Claude Charles), a distinguished savant, who was member of the French Academy as adjunct geometrician before he had attained his twenty-first year and became foreign member of the English Royal Society three years later, was the first scientist who drew electricity from the narrow domain of the laboratory.

He confirmed the result previously obtained by Grey (A.D. 1720) that electric attraction is not proportioned to the mass or quantity of matter in bodies, but only to the extent of their surface, length having greater effect than breadth (Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIV for 1746, p. 290; Snow Harris, “Treatise on Frict. Elect.,” London, 1867, p. 239, and “Hist. de l’Acad.,” 1746). He found that an anvil weighing two hundred pounds gives but an inconsiderable spark, while the spark from a tin speaking-trumpet eight or nine feet long, but weighing only ten pounds, is almost equal to the shock of the Leyden phial. A solid ball of lead, four inches in diameter, gives a spark of the same force as that obtained from a thin piece of lead of like superficies bent in the form of a hoop. He took a thin and long piece of lead, and noticed that when it was electrified in its whole length it gave a very strong spark, but a very small one when it was rolled into a lump (Ac. Par., 1746, M. p. 369). It had likewise been shown by Le Roi and D’Arcy that a hollow sphere accepted the same charge when empty as when filled with mercury, which latter increased its weight sixtyfold; all proving the influence of surface as distinguished from that of mass (Tyndall, Notes on Lecture IV).

Lemonnier discovered that electricity is ever present in the atmosphere, that it daily increases in quantity from sunrise till about three or four o’clock in the afternoon, diminishing till the fall of dew, when it once more increases for a while, and finally diminishes again before midnight, when it becomes insensible. He observed a continual diminution of electricity as the rain began to fall, and he says: “When the wire was surrounded with drops of rain, it was observed that only some of them were electrical, which was remarkable by the conic figure they had; whilst the others remained round as before. It was also perceived that the electrical and non-electrical drops succeeded almost alternately; this made us call to mind a very singular phenomenon which happened some years before, to five peasants who were passing through a cornfield, near Frankfort upon the Oder, during a thunderstorm; when the lightning killed the first the third and the fifth of them, without injuring the second or the fourth” (Phil. Trans., Vol. XLVII. p. 550).

References.—Le Monnier, “Lois du Magnétisme,” Paris, 1776–1778; Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIV. p. 247; Vol. XLVIII. part i. p. 203; “Journal des Sçavans,” Vol. CXII for 1737, p. 73; also Hutton’s abridgments, Vol. IX. pp. 275, 308, 368, 591 (biogr.); John Martyn’s abridgments, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 329–348; “Philosophical Magazine,” Vol. VI. for 1800, p. 181, “Some Account of the Late P. C. Le Monnier,” 1715–1799; “Mémoires de l’Institut Nat. des Sc. et des Arts,” Hist. An. IX. p. 101; Mémoires de l’Acad. Royale des Sciences, 1746, pp. 14–24, 447, 671–696; 1752, Tome I. pp. 9–17, Tome II. 233–243, 346–362; 1770, p. 459; Bertholon, “Elec. du Corps Humain,” 1786, Vol. I. pp. 10–14; Harris, “Frict. Elec.,” p. 239; Sc. American Supplement, for Oct. 5, 1889, No. 718, pp. 11, 471. See also reports of the experiments of G. B. Beccaria, G. F. Gardini (“De inflexu,” etc., ss. 50, 51), Andrew Crosse and others at “Bibl. Britan. Sc. et Arts,” 1814, Vol. LVI. p. 524.

A.D. 1746.—Bevis (John), English astronomer and Secretary of the Royal Society, first suggested to Dr. Watson the external coating of the Leyden jar with tinfoil or sheet-lead, and was likewise the first to observe that the force of the charge increases as larger jars are employed, but not in proportion to the quantity of water they contain. As water only played the part of a conductor, he rightly thought that metal would do equally well, and he therefore filled three jars with leaden shot instead of with water. When the metallic connection was made it was found that the discharge from three jars was greater than that from two and the discharge from two much greater than that from one. This showed that the seat of the electric force is the surface of the metal and the glass, and proves that the force of the charge is in proportion to the quantity of coated surface.

Thus to Dr. Bevis belongs the credit of having constructed the first electric battery, although the honour has been claimed by the friends of Daniel Gralath (A.D. 1747).

References.—Phil. Trans., abridged, Vol. X. pp. 374, 377; Wilson, “Treatise,” London, 1752, Prop. XVII. p. 107.

A.D. 1746.—Le Cat (Claude Nicolas), a physician of Rouen, observed, when suspending several pieces of leaf gold at his conductor, that they hung at different distances according to their sizes, the smallest pieces placing themselves nearest the conductor and the largest farthest from it.

Le Cat (1700–1768) became celebrated for his surgical operations and succeeded in carrying off all the first prizes offered by the Royal Academy of Surgeons between the years 1734 and 1738 inclusively. Consult his different works named at p. 292 of Ronalds’ “Catalogue”; “Histoire de l’Electricité,” pp. 84 and 85; “Biographie Générale,” Vol. XXX. pp. 179–182.

A.D. 1746.—Maimbray (M.), of Edinburgh, electrified two myrtle trees, during the entire month of October 1746, and found that they put forth small branches and blossoms sooner than other shrubs of the same kind which had not been electrified. This result was confirmed by the Abbé Nollet, who filled two pots with vegetating seeds and found that the pot which he had constantly electrified for fifteen consecutive days put forth earlier sprouts as well as more numerous and longer shoots than did the other.

Like experiments were at the same time carried on with equal success by M. Jallabert and M. Boze, as well as by the Abbé Menon, Principal of the College of Bueil at Angers, France. The last named also found that electricity increases the insensible perspiration of animals. He chose cats, pigeons and chaffinches, and observed after they were electrified, that one cat was sixty-five or seventy grains lighter than the other, the pigeon from thirty-five to thirty-eight grains, and the chaffinch had lost six or seven grains. He also electrified a young person between the ages of twenty and thirty, for five hours and found a loss in weight of several ounces.

With reference to the effect of electricity on different varieties of growing plants, a paper in Boston not long ago published the following:

“In the last few years some very interesting experiments in gardening by electricity have been made by Prof. Selim Lemström, of the University of Helsingfors. These have been carried out both upon the potted plants in the hot-house and upon plants in the open field, the insulated wires in the latter case being stretched upon poles over the plot of ground, and provided with a point for each square metre of area. The current has been supplied by Holtz machines run from eight to eighteen hours daily, the positive pole being connected with the network of wires and the negative with a zinc plate buried in the ground. The electric influence was scarcely perceptible in the growing plants, but was very marked in the yield of many species, especially of barley and wheat, of which the crop was increased by half in some cases. In the hot-house the maturity of strawberries was greatly advanced. The results have shown that plants may be divided into two groups: one, the development of which is favoured by electricity, comprising wheat, rye, barley, oats, red and white beets, parsnips, potatoes, celeriac, beans, raspberries, strawberries and leeks; and the other, whose development is more or less interfered with by electricity, including peas, carrots, kohlrabi, rutabagas, turnips, white cabbages and tobacco. The more fertile the soil, and consequently the more vigorous the vegetation, the greater has been the excess of the crop under electric influence. Prof. Lemström’s experiments up to 1887 were carried on in Finland, but he has since repeated his work in France, and demonstrated that the electric influence is the same in any climate, though likely to be injurious under a scorching sun.”

References.—Nollet, “Recherches sur l’Electricité,” pp. 366, 382; Phil. Trans., abridged, Vol. X. p. 384; Electrical Review, London, June 5, 1891, p. 707.

A.D. 1746.—Knight (Gowan or Gowin), F.R.S., an English physician, is the first to make very powerful steel magnets. The method, which he long succeeded in keeping secret, was described after his death, in the Phil. Trans. for 1746–1747, Vol. XLIV. It consists of placing two magnets in the same straight line, with their opposite poles close to or very near each other, and in laying under them the bar to be magnetized after having it tempered at a cherry-red heat. The magnets are then drawn apart in opposite directions along the bar, so that the south pole of one magnet passes over the north polar half, and the north pole of the other magnet passes over the south polar half of the bar.

This was how Dr. Knight made the bars of the two great magnets of the Royal Society. Each magnet contained two hundred and forty bars, fifteen inches long, one inch wide and half an inch thick. Dr. Robison described, in 1800, the effect of pressing together the dissimilar poles of the two magnets, and, thirty years later, Prof. Faraday, upon placing a soft iron cylinder, one foot long and three-quarters of an inch in diameter, across the dissimilar poles, found that he required a force of one hundred pounds to break down the attractive power.

Previously to Dr. Knight’s discovery, the method of making artificial magnets most in use was by simply rubbing the bar to be magnetized upon one of the poles of a natural magnet in a plane at right angles to the line joining its two poles.

Another secret of Dr. Knight was also, after his death, made known to the Royal Society by its secretary, Mr. Benjamin Wilson. It was the mode of making artificial paste magnets. He collected a large quantity of iron filings, which he cleansed and made into a fine powder under water and afterward dried and mixed, preferably with linseed oil. This was baked into cakes, which were magnetized by placing them between the ends of his magazine of artificial magnets.

To Dr. Knight was given the first English patent in the Class of Electricity and Magnetism. It bears date June 10, 1766, No. 850, and is for the construction of “Compasses so as to prevent them being affected by the motion of the ship,” etc.

References.—Phil. Trans., Vol. XLIII. pp. 161, 361; Vol. XLIV. p. 656; Vol. XLIX. p. 51; Vol. LXVI. p. 591; C. R. Weld, “Hist. of Roy. Soc.,” Vol. I. p. 511; Noad, “Manual,” 1859, p. 593; Sturgeon, “Sc. Researches,” Bury, 1850, p. 249; also the abridgments by Hutton, Vol. IX. pp. 71, 74, 122, 390 (Folkes), 653; Vol. X. pp. 64, 67; Vol. XIV. pp. 117, 480; and by John Martyn, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 678–698.

A.D. 1746.—Gravesande (Wilhelm Jacob), celebrated Dutch mathematician and natural philosopher (1688–1742), whose family name was Storen Van ’Sgravesande, is the author of “Eléments de physique démontrés mathématiquement ... ou introduction à la philosophie Newtonienne,” which was translated from the Latin and published at Leyden in 1746.

At p. 87 of the second volume of the last-named work he gives a description of an electrical machine constructed on the plan of that of Hauksbee. It consisted merely of a crystal globe, which was mounted upon a copper stand, and against which was pressed the hand of the operator while it was made to revolve rapidly by means of a large wheel.

Gravesande taught publicly on the Continent the philosophy of Newton, and, by so doing, was one of the first to bring about a revolution in the domain of physical sciences generally. His original “Physices Elementa Mathematica,” as well as his “Philosophiæ Newtonianæ,” etc., and “Introductio ad Philosophiam,” etc., were respectively published at Leyden in 1720, 1723 and 1736.

Reference.—Houzeau et Lancaster, “Bibl. Générale,” Vol. II. p. 252.

A.D. 1746.—Nollet (Jean Antoine), a distinguished French philosopher (1700–1770), to whom was given the title of Abbé while holding deacon’s orders, is the first in France to make experiments with the Leyden jar.

While in Paris he applied himself to electrical studies in company with Charles Dufay (already noticed at A.D. 1733), and made such ingenious experiments that René de Réaumur allowed him the free use of his extensive apparatus and laboratory. During the month of April 1746, he transmitted, in the presence of the French King, an electrical shock from a small phial through a chain of one hundred and eighty of the Royal Guards, and at the Carthusian Convent, not long afterward, he sent a shock through a line of monks stretched a distance of over a mile, causing them all to experience instantaneously the same sensation.

Nollet’s work, “Essai sur l’électricité des corps,” was originally published at Paris in 1746. He was the first to observe that pointed bodies electrified give out streams of light (the smallest points displaying “brushes of electric light”), but that they do not exhibit as powerful indications of electricity as are shown by blunt bodies. He also found that glass and other non-conductors are more strongly excited in air than in vacuo; that the electric spark is more diffuse and unbroken in vacuo; and that an excited tube loses none of its electricity by being placed in the focus of a concave mirror when the sunlight is therein concentrated.

His experiments upon the evaporation of fluids by electricity, as well as upon the electrification of capillary tubes full of water (observed also by Boze), and upon the electrification of plants and animals, are detailed in his “Recherches,” etc., pp. 327, 351, 354–356, while his observations upon the electrical powers of different kinds of glass are given in the sixth volume of the “Leçons de Physique Expérimentale,” issued in 1764.

As has been truly said, it is no easy matter to form an adequate idea of Nollet’s theory of electricity, which was opposed at the time by almost all the eminent electrical philosophers of Europe. He asserted that when an electric is excited, electricity flows to it from all quarters, and when it is thus affluent, it drives light bodies before it. Hence the reason why excited bodies attract. When the electricity is effluent the light bodies are of course driven from the electric, which in that condition appears to repel. He therefore believed every electric to be possessed of two different kinds of pores, one for the emission of the electric matter, and the other for its reception.

Nollet is the first one who published the close relationship existing between lightning and the electric spark. This he did during the year 1748, in the fourth volume of his “Leçons,” already alluded to and from which the following is extracted: “If any one should undertake to prove, as a clear consequence of the phenomenon, that thunder is in the hands of nature what electricity is in ours—that those wonders which we dispose at our pleasure are only imitations on a small scale of those grand effects which terrify us, and that both depend on the same mechanical agents ... I confess that this idea, well supported, would please me much.... The universality of the electric matter, the readiness of its actions, its instrumentality and its activity in giving fire to other bodies, its property of striking bodies, externally and internally, even to their smallest parts ... begin to make me believe that one might, by taking electricity for the model, form to one’s self, in regard to thunder and lightning, more perfect and more probable ideas than hitherto proposed.”

For a memoir treating of the cause of thunder and lightning, written by the Rev. Father de Lozeran de Fech, of Perpignan, the Bordeaux Academy of Sciences had in 1726 awarded him its annual prize; and the same institution conferred a similar award, in August 1750, upon M. Bergeret, a physician of Dijon, whose memoir admitted the close analogy between lightning and electricity.

References.—Ronalds’ “Catalogue,” pp. 369–371; Jean Morin, “Réplique,” Paris, 1749; A. H. Paulian, “Conjectures,” 1868; “Abrégé des transactions philosophiques,” Vol. X. p. 336; “Mémoires de mathématique,” etc., pour 1746, p. 22; “Journal des Sçavans,” Vol. CXVII. for 1739, pp. 111–115, and Vol. CXLII for 1747, pp. 248–265; “Medical Electricity,” by Dr. H. Lewis Jones, Philad., 1904, p. 2; “Mémoires de l’Acad. Royale des Sciences” pour 1745, p. 107; 1746, p. 1; 1747, pp. 24, 102, 149, 207; 1748, p. 164; 1749, p. 444; 1753, pp. 429, 475; 1755, p. 293; 1761, p. 244; 1762, pp. 137, 270; 1764, pp. 408–409; 1766, p. 323; “Leçons,” eighth edition, Vol. IV. p. 315; Phil. Trans., Vol. XLV. p. 187; Vol. XLVI. p. 368; Vol. XLVII. p. 553; also the following abridgments: Hutton, Vol. X. pp. 20, 295, 372–379, 446 (Dr. Birch); Vol. XI. p. 580; John Martyn, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 277–333, 382 (Folkes), 414. See the experiments of Etienne François du Tour, “Sur la manière dont la flamme agit sur les corps electriques,” in a letter addressed by him to Nollet in 1745, and in “Mém. de Mathém. et Phys.,” Vol. II. p. 246, Paris, 1755; also Zantedeschi and Faraday on the “Magnetic Condition of Flame” (Faraday’s “Exper. Res.,” Vol. III. pp. 490–493).

A.D. 1746.—Wilson (Benjamin) (1721–1788), Secretary to the Royal Society, writes his “Essay toward an explication of the phenomena of Electricity deduced from the ether of Sir Isaac Newton.” In the chapter of Priestley’s “History” treating of the Theories of Electricity, he says: “With some, and particularly Mr. Wilson, the chief agent in all electrical operations is Sir Isaac Newton’s ether, which is more or less dense in all bodies in proportion to the smallness of their pores, except that it is much denser in sulphureous and unctuous bodies. To this ether are ascribed the principal phenomena of attraction and repulsion, whereas the light, the smell, and other sensible qualities of the electric fluid are referred to the grosser particles of bodies, driven from them by the forcible action of this ether. Many phenomena in electricity are also attempted to be explained by means of a subtile medium, at the surface of all bodies, which is the cause of the refraction and reflection of the rays of light, and also resist the entrance and exit of this ether. This medium, he says, extends to a small distance from the body, and is of the same nature with what is called the electric fluid.[50] On the surface of conductors this medium is rare and easily admits the passage of the electric fluid, whereas on the surface of electrics it is dense and resists it. This medium is rarefied by heat, which converts non-conductors into conductors.”

At pp. 71 and 88, 1746 edition, and at p. 88, Prop. XI. of the 1752 edition of this same “Essay,” Wilson says that during the year 1746 he discovered a method of giving the shock of the Leyden jar to any particular part of the body without affecting any other portion; that he increased the shock from the jar by plunging it into water, thereby giving it a coating of water on the outside as high as it was filled on the inside; and that the accumulation of electricity in the Leyden jar is always in proportion to the thinness of the glass, the surface of the glass and that of the non-electrics in contact with the inside and outside thereof.

It was in this same year, 1746, that Wilson first observed the lateral shock or return stroke, which was not, however, explained until Lord Mahon, third Earl of Stanhope, published his “Principles of Electricity,” in 1779.

On the 13th of November, 1760, a paper of Mr. Wilson’s was read before the Royal Society, in which he detailed several of his ingenious experiments on the plus and minus of electricity, and showed that these can be produced at pleasure by carefully attending to the form of bodies, their sudden or gradual removal and the degrees of electrifying. He had previously noticed that when two electrics are rubbed together, the body whose substance is hardest and electric power strongest is always electrified positively and the other negatively. Rubbing the tourmaline and amber together he produced a plus electricity on both sides of the stone and a minus on the amber; but, rubbing the diamond and the tourmaline, both sides of the tourmaline were electrified minus and the diamond plus. When insulated silver and glass were rubbed, the silver became minus and the glass plus.

He further observed that when directing a stream of air against a tourmaline, a pane of glass or a piece of amber, these were electrified plus on both sides. Prof. Faraday subsequently showed that no electrical effect is produced in these cases unless the air is either damp or holds dry powders in suspension, the electricity being produced by the friction of particles of water in the one case and by the particles of powder in the other. Sir David Brewster, who thus mentions the latter fact, likewise singles out two more of Mr. Wilson’s observations, viz. that when a stick of sealing-wax is broken across or when a dry, warm piece of wood is rent asunder, one of the separated surfaces becomes vitreously and the other resinously electrified.

References.—De La Rive, “Electricity,” Vol. I. p. 203; Wilson, “Treatise on Electricity”; Wilson and Hoadley, “Observations on a Series of Electrical Experiments”; Phil. Trans., Vol. XLVIII. p. 347; Vol. XLIX. p. 682; Vol. LI. part i. pp. 83, 308, 331, part ii. p. 896; Vol. LIII. pp. 436, etc.; Vol. LXVIII. p. 999; Vol. LXIX. p. 51; also Hutton’s abridgments; Vol. X. p. 420; Vol. XI. pp. 15, 396, 504; Vol. XII. pp. 44, 147; Vol. XIII. p. 374; Vol. XIV. pp. 334, 337, 458, 480; “The Electrical Researches of the Hon. Henry Cavendish,” Cambridge, 1879, No. 125; L. E. Kaemtz, “Lehrbuch der Meteor,” Halle, 1832, Vol. II. p. 395.

A.D. 1746.—Ellicott (John), of Chester, suggests a method of estimating the exact force of the electric charge contained in the Leyden jar by its power to raise a weight in one scale of a balance while the other scale is held over and attracted by the electrified body. This was the principle upon which Mr. Gralath constructed the electrometer shown in Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 525.

With reference to the experiments of Boze (A.D. 1738) and of Nollet (A.D. 1746) made with capillary tubes, he says that the siphon, though electrified, will only deliver the water by drops if the basin containing the water is also electrified. He explains Nollet’s observation, that the electric matter issues more sensibly from the point at the extremity of the conductor, by saying that the effluvia, in rushing from the globe along the conductor, as they approach the point are brought nearer together, and therefore are denser there, and if the light be owing to the density and velocity of the effluvia it will be visible at the point and nowhere else. Ellicott’s theory of electricity is founded upon the following data: (1) electrical phenomena are produced by effluvia; (2) these effluvia repel each other; (3) they are attracted by all other matter. If the word fluid is substituted for effluvia, these data absolutely agree with those adopted by Æpinus and Cavendish, forming the basis of the only satisfactory theory of electricity hitherto proposed.

References.—Boulanger, “Traité de la Cause et des phénomènes de l’électricité,” Paris, 1750, p. 324; Phil. Trans. for 1746, Vol. XLIV. p. 96, and for 1748, Vol. XLV. pp. 195–224, 313; also the abridgments of John Martyn, Vol. X. part ii. pp. 324, 386, 389, 394; Hutton, Vol. IX. p. 475.

A.D. 1747.—Pivati (Johannes Francisco), a Venetian physician, relates in his “Lettere della elettricita medica,” that if odorous substances are confined in glass vessels and the latter excited, the odours and other medical virtues will transpire through the glass, infect the atmosphere of a conductor, and communicate the virtue they may possess to all persons in contact therewith; also, that those substances held in the hands of persons electrified will communicate their virtue to them so that medicines can thus be made to operate without being taken in the usual manner.

This appears to have been likewise asserted especially by M. Veratti, of Bologna, and by M. Bianchi, of Turin; also by Prof. Winckler, of Leipzig, who satisfied himself of the power of electricity on sulphur, cinnamon, and on balsam of Peru even at a distance.

By the above-named means of applying the electric fluid Pivati is reported to have effected cures of ordinary pains and aches, and to have even relieved of gout the old Bishop Donadoni, of Sebenico, who had long been a sufferer, and who was at the time seventy-five years of age. This pretended transudation and its medical effects could not, however, be verified, even with the directions asked of and given by Prof. Winckler, when very careful and exhaustive experiments were made, on the 12th of June, 1751, at the house of Dr. Watson, in presence of the president and other officers as well as friends of the Royal Society. Nor could Dr. Bianchini, Professor of Medicine at Venice, succeed any better. At a later date, Franklin asserted that it was impossible to combine the virtues of medicines with the electric fluid.

References.—Franklin’s Letters, p. 82; Phil. Trans. for 1748, Vol. XLV. pp. 262, 270; for 1750, Vol. XLVI. pp. 348, 368; for 1751, Vol. XLVII. p. 231; for 1753, Vol. XLVIII. pp. 399, 406, and Vol. X. abridged, pp. 400–403.

A.D. 1747.—Louis (Antoine), eminent French surgeon (1723–1792), publishes “Observations sur l’électricité,” of which the first issue appeared in 1747 and wherein he indicates the employment of electricity in medical practice. This he did again in his “Recueils,” upon a more pretentious scale, six years later, 1753.

References.—N. F. J. Eloy, “Dict. de la Médecine,” Mons, 1778, Vol. III. p. 206; “Gen. Biog. Dict.” of Alex. Chalmers, 1815, Vol. XX. p. 419; Hœfer, “Nouv. Biog. Gén.,” Vol. XXXI. p. 1033; Quérard, “La France Littéraire”; “Biog. Univ.,” de Michaud, Vol. XXV. pp. 319–325.

A.D. 1747.—Gralath (Daniel) publishes in the Dantzig Memoirs his “Geschichte der Electricität.”

He is the first to construct a Leyden phial with a long, narrow neck, through which is passed an iron wire bearing a tin knob in place of the iron nail theretofore used; and, with several of these phials joined together in the form of a battery, he had, during the previous year, transmitted a shock through a chain of twenty persons. His observations are recorded in the above-named Memoirs at pp. 175–304 and 506–534, Vol. I.; pp. 355–460, Vol. II.; pp. 492–556, Vol. III. Gralath’s “Electrische Bibliothek” is in Vols. II. and III.

A.D. 1747.—The Swedish mathematician and philosopher, Samuel Klingenstierna, and his pupil, M. Stroemer, were the first who properly electrified by the rubber, and their experiments were published in the Acts of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Stockholm for the year 1747 (see Priestley’s “History of Electricity,” Part I. period viii. s. 3, wherein he alludes to Wilcke’s “Herrn Franklin’s briefe,” etc., p. 112).

A.D. 1748.—Morin (Jean), French physicist, publishes at Chartres “Nouvelle dissertation sur l’électricité des corps,” etc., in which he details many of his experiments, and endeavours to give a correct explanation of all the extraordinary electrical phenomena hitherto observed. He is also the author of a “Reply to Mr. Nollet upon Electricity,” published in 1749 at Chartres and at Paris, as well as of a treatise upon Universal Mechanism, which latter, according to the Journal des Savants, contained more information upon Nature generally, and expressed in fewer words, than was embraced in any previous work.

References.—“Dict. Univ.,” Vol. XI. p. 568; “Biog. Générale,” Vol. XXXVI. p. 599.

A.D. 1749.—Stukeley (the Rev. William), M.D., is the first who advanced that earthquakes are probably caused by electricity. This he did in a paper read before the Royal Society, March 22, 1749, having reference to the subterranean disturbances noticed in London, February 8 and March 8 of the same year. In this communication, as well as in a subsequent one read to the same Society, December 6, 1750, bearing upon a similar disturbance observed throughout England during the previous month of September, he explains why earthquakes are not the result of subterraneous winds, fires, vapours, etc.

One of his strongest arguments is that no such vapours could instantaneously have destroyed thirteen great cities as did the earthquake which occurred in Asia Minor, A.D. 17, and which is reckoned to have shaken a cone of earth three hundred miles diameter in base and two hundred miles in the axis. This quantity of earth, he says, “all the gunpowder which has ever been made since the invention of it would not have been able to stir, much less any vapours, which could be supposed to be generated so far below the surface,” and, he adds, “if the concussion depended upon a subterraneous eruption the shock would precede the noise.”

He observes that the earth for months prior to the afore-named disturbances “must have been in a state of electricity ready for that particular vibration in which electrification exists”; that all the vegetation had been “uncommonly forward ... and electricity is well known to quicken vegetation”; that the aurora borealis had been very frequent about the same time and had been twice repeated just before the earthquake, “of such colours as had never been seen before,” there being, one evening, “a deep red aurora borealis covering the cope of heaven very terrible to behold”; that the whole year had been “remarkable for fire-balls, thunder, lightning and coruscations, almost throughout all England,” all which “are rightly judged to proceed from the electrical state of the atmosphere”; and, finally, that, a little before the earthquake, “a large and black cloud suddenly covered the atmosphere, which probably occasioned the shock by the discharge of a shower.” He adds that, according to Dr. Childrey, earthquakes are always preceded by rain and sudden tempests of rain in times of great drought.

Dr. Stephen Hales (1677–1761), who was Stukeley’s classmate at Bennet College, Cambridge, and later his chief assistant in the study of the natural sciences, and who afterward became celebrated for his physical investigations and discoveries, arrives at a like conclusion. He thinks that “the electric appearances were only occasioned by the great agitation which the electric fluid was put into by the shock of so great a mass of the earth.” The great noise which attended the disturbance of March 8, 1749, he conjectured was “owing to the rushing or sudden expansion of the electric fluid at the top of St. Martin’s spire, where all the electric effluvia, which ascended along the large body of the tower, being strongly condensed, and accelerated at the point of the weathercock, as they rushed off made so much the louder expansive explosion.” It may be added here that Dr. Hales is the one who, at a previous date, had communicated to the Royal Society his observation of the fact that the electric spark proceeding from warm iron is of a bright, light colour, while that from warm copper is green, and the colour from a warm egg of a light yellow. In his opinion, these experiments appeared to argue that some particles of those different bodies are carried off in the electric flashes wherein those different colours are exhibited.

For Stephen Hales, consult the Phil. Trans., Vol. XLV. p. 409, as well as the abridgments of Hutton, Vol. IX. p. 534, and for his portrait see “Essays in Historical Chemistry,” by T. E. Thorpe, London, 1894.

For Stukeley and for Stephen Hales: consult “General Biographical Dictionary,” Alex. Chalmers, London, 1814, Vol. XVII. pp. 41–43.

References.—Priestley, “History of Electricity,” Part I. period x. s. 12; Phil. Trans., abridged by John Martyn, Part II. of Vol. X. pp. 406–526, 535, 540, 541, 551; Vol. XLIV-XLV, p. 409; Appendix to the Phil. Trans. for 1750, Vol. XLVI; Hale, “Statical Essays,” II. p. 291; Thomson, “Hist. Roy. Soc.,” 1812, p. 197.

A.D. 1749.—Jallabert (Jean Louis), Professor of Philosophy and Mathematics at Geneva, is the author of “Expériences sur l’électricité, avec quelques conjectures sur la cause de ses effets,” of which a smaller edition had appeared at Geneva in 1748.

He confirms the result obtained by Dr. Watson (A.D. 1745) that the electric fluid takes the shortest course by passing through the substance of a conducting wire instead of along its surface. By making his Leyden experiments with a jar in which the water is frozen, he shows that ice is a conductor of electricity. He improves upon Nollet’s experiments, and demonstrates conclusively that plants which are electrified grow faster and have finer stems, etc., than those not electrified. He is the first to observe that a body pointed at one end and round at the other produces different appearances upon the same body, according as the pointed or the rounded end is presented to it. The Dantzig Memoirs, Vol. II. p. 378, tell us that Carolus Augustus Van Bergen, Professor of Medicine at Frankfort on Oder, had previously noticed, “as a small step toward discovering the effect of pointed bodies,” that sparks taken from a polished body are stronger than those from a rough one. With the latter he found it difficult to fire spirits, but he could easily do it with a polished conductor.

M. Jallabert is also known to have effected some medical cures through the agency of the electric fluid, as related in the “Expériences” above alluded to.

References.—“Biog. Univ.,” Vol. XX. p. 535; Bertholon, “Elec. du Corps Humain,” 1786, Vol. I. pp. 260, 292, 299, 334, 413, and Vol. II. p. 291; Beccaria, “Dell’ Elettricismo Naturale,” etc., p. 125; “Journal des Sçavans,” Vol. CXLIX. for 1749, pp. 1–18, 441–461; “Medical Electricity,” by Dr. H. Lewis Jones, Philad. 1904, p. 2.

A.D. 1749.—Mines are fired by electricity (S. P. Thompson, lecture delivered October 7, 1882, at the University College, Bristol).

A.D. 1749.—Through the important work entitled “Traité sur l’Electricité,” Louis Elisabeth de la Vergne Tressan secures, a year later, admission to both the French Académie des Sciences and the English Royal Society. During 1786, three years after his death, the above-named work was merged into a publication in two volumes under the title of “Essai sur le fluide électrique considéré comme agent universel.”

References.—“Biographie Générale,” Vol. XLV. pp. 623–626; Larousse, “Dictionnaire Universel,” Vol. XV. p. 474.

A.D. 1749.—Duhamel (Henri Louis, du Monceau) (1700–1782), member of the French Royal Academy of Sciences, develops, in conjunction with M. Antheaulme, the method introduced by Gowin Knight (A.D. 1746) for making artificial magnets, which latter process was found to be defective when applied to very large bars. To Le Maire, however, is due (Mem. de l’Acad. de Paris, 1745 and 1750), the notable improvement which consists in magnetizing at the same time two steel bars of any shape by placing them parallel to each other and connecting their extremities, with pieces of soft iron placed at right angles, in order to form a closed rectangular parallelogram. Two strong magnets, or two bunches of small magnetic bars, with their similar poles together, are then applied to the centre of one of the bars to be magnetized and are drawn away from each other, practically as in Dr. Knight’s method, while being held at an inclination of about forty-five degrees. The operation is repeated upon the other bar and continued alternately until sufficient magnetism is imparted to both, it being borne in mind that before the treatment is given to the second bar the poles must in each instance be reversed, i. e. the pole which was to the right hand should be turned to the left. The entire operation is to be repeated upon the reverse side of both bars.

References.—Harris, “Rudim. Magn.,” I. and II. pp. 85 and 86; P. Larousse, “Dict. Univ.,” Vol. VI. p. 1363; “Biog. Générale,” Vol. XV. pp. 106–107; Condorcet, “Eloge de Duhamel”; I. M. Des Essarts, “Siècles littéraires”; Georges Cuvier, “Hist. des Sc. Naturelles,” Vol. V; Thos. Thomson, “Hist. of the Roy. Soc.,” London, 1812, p. 45.

A.D. 1750–1753.—In M. Arago’s “Historical Eloge of James Watt,” translated by James P. Muirhead and published in London during the year 1839, it is said, at p. 6, that Watt constructed, at about the period first mentioned herein, a small electrical (his earliest) machine, the brilliant sparks from which became a subject of much amusement and surprise to all the companions of the poor invalid (“James Watt,” by Andrew Carnegie, New York, 1905).

A.D. 1750.—Wargentin (Pierre Guillaume—Perh Vilhelm—) (1717–1783), Secretary to the Swedish Academy of Sciences and a distinguished astronomer, addresses, on the 21st of February, a letter to the Royal Society, of which a copy is to be found in Vol. XLVII. p. 126 of the Phil. Trans. In this he gives his observations of the result produced on the magnetic needle by the aurora borealis.

We have already seen (under the A.D. 1683 date), that the discovery of the fact that magnets are affected by the polar lights has been ascribed to Wargentin, and we have also learned (A.D. 1722) that he ascertained the diurnal changes of the magnetic needle with more precision than had been done by George Graham.

References.—Walker, “Magnetism,” p. 116; American Journal Science and Arts, 1841, Vol. XXX. p. 227; Celsius, A.D. 1740, and the abridgments of Hutton, Vol. X. p. 165.

A.D. 1750.—Michell (John), an eminent English man of science, Professor at Queens’ College, Cambridge, publishes “A treatise of Artificial Magnets, in which is shown an easy and expeditious method of making them superior to the best natural ones.”

The process introduced by this work is known as that of the “double touch.” This consists in first joining, at about a quarter of an inch distance, two bundles of strongly magnetized bars, having their opposite poles together, and in drawing these bars backward and forward upon and along the entire length of the bars to be magnetized, which latter have already been laid down end to end and in a straight line. The operation is to be repeated upon each side of the bars. The central bars of a series thus acquire at first a higher degree of magnetism than do the outer ones, but by transposing the latter and treating all alike the magnetic virtue is evenly distributed. In this process the external bars act the same part as do the pieces of soft iron employed in the Duhamel method.

At Chap. VI. p. 20 of the third volume of his “Rudimentary Magnetism,” Harris thus expresses himself: “Michell advanced the idea that in all the experiments of Hauksbee, Dr. Brooke Taylor, William Whiston and Musschenbroek, the force may really be in the inverse duplicate ratio of the distances, proper allowance being made for the disturbing changes in the magnetic forces so inseparable from the nature of the experiment. He is hence led to conclude that the true law of the force is identical with that of gravity, although he does not set it down as certain.”

References.—Harris, “Rud. Mag.,” I. and II. pp. 94–95; C. R. Weld, “Hist. Roy. Soc.,” Vol. I. p. 512; Phil. Trans., Vol. LI. pp. 390, 393, and Hutton’s abridgment, Vol. XI. p. 418; Gaugain’s observations in “Sc. Am. Suppl.,” No. 7, p. 99.

A.D. 1750.—Boulanger—not Boullangère—(Nicholas Antoine) (1722–1759), a well-known French writer, whose extensive studies were interrupted by his death, in 1759, at the early age of thirty-seven, gives, in this “Traité de la cause et des phénomènes de l’électricité,” accounts of many important observations made in the electrical field.

His attention was carefully given to ascertaining the degrees in which different substances are capable of being excited, and he gives several lists of such, inferring therefrom that the most transparent and the most brittle are always the most electric.

At pp. 64 and 124 of the above-named “Traité” he states that electricity affects mineral waters much more sensibly than common water; that black ribbons are more readily attracted than those of other colours, next to the black being the brown and deep red; and that, of two glass cylinders exactly alike, except that one is transparent and the other slightly coloured, the transparent one will be the more readily excited.

References.—The “Traité,” notably at pp. 135 and 164; “Biog. Générale,” Vol. VI. p. 939; Le Bas, “Dict. Encycl. de la France”; Quérard, “La France Littéraire”; Chaudon et Delandine, “Dict. historique.”

A.D. 1751.—Adanson (Michael), a French naturalist of very high reputation, who, before the age of nineteen, had actually described four thousand species of the three kingdoms of nature, introduces in his “History of Senegal” the silurus electricus, a large species of eel originally brought from Surinam. Sir John Leslie states that the silurus is furnished with a very peculiar and complex nervous apparatus which has been fancifully likened to an electrical battery, and that, from a healthy specimen exhibited in London, vivid sparks were drawn in a darkened room. M. Broussonet alludes to the silurus as Le Trembleur in the “Hist. de l’Acad. Royale des Sciences” for 1782, p. 692.

Adanson also called attention, in 1756, to the electrical powers of the malapterus electricus, but, according to the able naturalist, James Wilson (“Ichthyology,” Encycl. Brit.), there is a much earlier account of the fish extracted from the narrative of Baretus and Oviedo dated 1554.

The Swedish scientist, Karl A. Rudolphi, pupil of Linnæus, called the princeps helminthologorum, has given a detailed description as well as illustrations of the electric organs of the malapterus in “Ueber den Zitter-wels,” Abh. Berl. Acad. VII.... This fish, which the Arabs call Raad or Raash (thunder), gives its discharge chiefly when touched on the head, but is powerless when held by the tail, the electrical organs in fact not reaching the caudal fin.

To Adanson has been attributed the authorship of an essay on the “Electricity of the Tourmaline” Paris, 1757, which bears the name of the Duke de Noya Caraffa.

References.—Spreng, “Hist. R. Herb.,” Vol. II; and “Adanson’s Biog.,” Vol. II. “Encycl. Britannica,” Rees’ “Cycl.” Supplement and in “Bibl. Universelle,” Vol. I; Chambers’ “Encyl.” for 1868, Vol. III. p. 822; Cavallo, “Nat. Phil.,” Philad., 1825, Vol. II. p. 237; Scientific American Supplement, No. 457, pp. 7300, 7301; Rozier, Vol. XXVII. p. 139, and W. Bryant in Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. II. p. 166, O. S.

A.D. 1752.—Franklin (Benjamin) (1706–1790), an able American editor, philosopher and statesman, crowns his many experiments with the brilliant discovery of the identity of electricity and lightning. Humboldt says: “From this period the electric process passes from the domain of speculative physics into that of cosmical contemplation—from the recesses of the study to the freedom of nature” (“Cosmos,” Vol. II. 1849, p. 727). Wall (A.D. 1708) had only alluded to the resemblance of electricity to thunder and lightning; Grey (A.D. 1720) had conjectured their identity and implied that they differed only in one degree, while Nollet (A.D. 1746) pointed out a closer relationship than ever before adduced between lightning and the electric spark; but it was left for Franklin to prove the fact with empirical certainty.

Franklin’s attention was first directed to electrical studies in 1745, by a letter from Peter Collinson, Fellow of the Royal Society of London, to the Literary Society of Philadelphia, and he first wrote on the subject to that gentleman on the 28th of July, 1747. This was followed by several other similar communications up to April 18, 1754, the whole of which comprise most of what subsequently appeared under the title “New Experiments and Observations on Electricity, made at Philadelphia, in America, by Benjamin Franklin, LL.D. and F.R.S.”

Franklin first entertained the idea that lightning was not likely to be attracted by a pointed rod unless the latter was placed at a great height, and he therefore waited for the erection of a tall spire in Philadelphia which he intended to utilize for his observations, but delay in its completion led him to use a kite pointed with an iron rod, not doubting that the electric fluid could, during a thunderstorm, be drawn from it through a string.

The manner of constructing and employing the kite, and the attending results, are thus given in a letter dated Oct. 19, 1752 (Letter XII, “Experiments and observations on Electricity”): “Make a small cross of two light strips of cedar, the arms so long as to reach to the four corners of a large thin silk handkerchief when extended. Tie the corners of the handkerchief to the extremities of the cross, so you have the body of a kite which, being properly accommodated with a tail, loop and string, will rise in the air like those made of paper; but, this being made of silk, is fitter to bear the wet and wind of a thunder-gust without tearing. To the top of the upright stick of the cross is to be fixed a very sharp-pointed wire, rising a foot or more above the wood. In the end of the twine, next the hand, is to be held a silk ribbon, and where the silk and twine join a key may be fastened. This kite is to be raised when a thunder-gust appears to be coming on, and the person who holds the string must stand within a door or window, or under some cover, so that the silk ribbon may not be wet, and care must be taken that the twine does not touch the frame of the door or window. As soon as any of the thunder clouds come over the kite, the pointed wire will draw the electric fire from them, and the kite with all the twine will be electrified, and the lose filaments of the twine will stand out every way and be attracted by an approaching finger. And when the rain has wetted the kite so that it can conduct the electric fire freely, you will find it stream out plentifully from the key on the approach of your knuckle. At this key, the phial (Leyden jar) may be charged, and from electric fire thus obtained spirits may be kindled, and all the other electric experiments be performed which are usually done by the help of a rubber glass globe or tube, and thereby the sameness of the electric matter with that of lightning completely demonstrated.”

It was during the month of June 1752, on the approach of a storm, that he and his son walked out upon the Philadelphia Commons and first raised the kite. At the outset no important results were obtained, but as soon as the cord became wet by the shower that followed, the electric sparks were easily drawn from the key and enabled Franklin to charge and give shocks from a Leyden jar.

Thus, says Sabine, was Benjamin Franklin successful in one of the boldest experiments ever made by man upon the powers of nature, and from that moment he became immortal.

He had already, in 1749, made public the following, which is embodied in one of his letters to Mr. Collinson: “The electrical spark is zigzag, and not straight; so is lightning. Pointed bodies attract electricity; lightning strikes mountains, trees, spires, masts and chimneys. When different paths are offered to the escape of electricity, it chooses the best conductor; so does lightning. Electricity fires combustibles; so does lightning. Electricity fuses metals; so does lightning. Lightning rends bad conductors when it strikes them; so does electricity when rendered sufficiently strong. Lightning reverses the poles of a magnet; electricity has the same effect.”

Franklin had, likewise, published at about the same period the plan for an experiment to ascertain from elevated structures whether the clouds that contain lightning are electrified or not. He himself had proposed to put the plan to execution; but he was led to try the kite experiment, and, meanwhile, his suggestions had been successfully acted upon, in France, by M. Dalibard and de Lor, as will be shown later on.

“The lightning, which doth cease to be, ere one can say, ‘it lightens.’”—Shakespeare.

“First let me talk with this philosopher; what is the cause of thunder?”—Shakespeare.

“... a way for the lightning of the thunder.”—Job xxviii. 26, and xxxviii. 25.

“It related not to the instances of the magneticalness of lightning.”—“Hist. of Roy. Soc.,” by Thomas Birch, Vol. IV. p. 253.

When specifying the great points of coincidence existing between the ordinary electric discharge and lightning, Franklin, as already partly stated, had remarked that flashes of lightning are frequently waving and crooked, of a zigzag or forked appearance, sometimes diffused and sometimes coloured (“On the Nature of Thunderstorms,” W. Snow Harris, London, 1843, p. 24; Priestley, “History and Present State of Electricity,” London, 1769, p. 166; “Encycl. Metropol.,” article “Electricity”; Biot, “Traité de Physique,” Vol. II). In treating of the subject of lightning flashes, Dr. L. D. Gale (trans. of M. F. J. F. Duprez’s paper on “Atmospheric Electricity,” taken from the memoirs of the Royal Academy of Brussels) alludes to the attempts made by C. G. Helvig to determine the velocity of the linear flashes (Gilbert’s Annalen, Vol. LI. pp. 136 and 139, ss. 2, 10) which he estimated to be 40,000 to 50,000 feet in a second, and states that M. Weigsenborn, of Weimar (Comptes Rendus, Vol. IX. p. 218), calculated the velocity of a flash observed in 1839 to be more than two leagues, while M. François Arago (“Annuaire,” etc., pour l’année 1838, pp. 249, 255, 257, 459, estimated the lengths of certain flashes to be 3·3, 3·6, 3·8 leagues. The views of Messrs. Logan (Phil. Trans., 1735, Vol. XXXIX. p. 240), L. J. Gay-Lussac (Ann. de Chim. et de Phys., 1805, Vol. XXIX. p. 105), H. W. Brandes (“Beiträge zur Witterungskunde,” etc., 1820, p. 353), C. H. Pfaff and L. E. Kaemtz (J. S. T. Gehler, “Dict. de Phys.,” Vol. I. p. 1001, and “Lehrbuch d. Meteor,” Vol. II. p. 430), Gabriel Lamé (“Cours. de Phys. de l’Ecole Polytech.,” Tome II. 2^e partie, p. 82), Becquerel (Comptes Rendus, 1839, Tome VIII. p. 216), Faraday (Philos. Magazine, 1841, Vol. XIX. p. 104), Pouillet (“Eléments de Phys. et de Météor,” Tome II. p. 808), Parrot (J. S. T. Gehler, “Dict. de Phys.,” Vol. I. p. 999), are also set forth in the above-named translation of M. Duprez’s valuable work.