In their researches, the alchemists frequently made use of two chemical processes which are now termed ‘reduction’ and ‘oxidation.’ The rusting of metals, and in general their conversion from a metallic into an earthy form, is called ‘oxidation,’ whilst the extraction of a metal from an earthy substance is called ‘reduction.’ Many metals—for instance, iron, lead, and tin—are oxidised by heating in air alone, and may be again reduced by heating with carbon. Such oxidised metals are found in the earth, and form the majority of metallic ores. The metals, such as tin, iron, and copper, may be extracted from these ores by heating them together with carbon. All these processes were well studied by the alchemists. It was afterwards shown that all earths and minerals are formed of similar metallic rusts or oxides, or of their combinations. Thus the alchemists knew of two forms of chemical changes: the oxidation of metals and the reduction of the oxides so formed into metals. The explanation of the nature of these two classes of chemical phenomena was the means for the discovery of the most important chemical laws. The first hypothesis on their nature is due to Becker, and more particularly to Stahl, a surgeon to the King of Prussia. Stahl writes in his ‘Fundamenta Chymiæ,’ 1723, that all substances consist of an imponderable fiery substance called ‘phlogiston’ (materia aut principium ignis non ipse ignis), and of another element having particular properties for each substance. The greater the capacity of a body for oxidation, or the more combustible it is, the richer it is in phlogiston. Carbon contains it in great abundance. In oxidation or combustion phlogiston is emitted, and in reduction it is consumed or enters into combination. Carbon reduces earthy substances because it is rich in phlogiston, and gives up a portion of its phlogiston to the substance reduced. Thus Stahl supposed metals to be compound substances consisting of phlogiston and an earthy substance or oxide. This hypothesis is distinguished for its very great simplicity, and for this and other reasons it acquired many supporters.[24]
Fig. 3.—Lavoisier's apparatus for determining the composition of air and the reason of metals increasing in weight when they are calcined in air.
Lavoisier proved by means of the balance that every case of rusting of metals or oxidation, or of combustion, is accompanied by an increase in weight at the expense of the atmosphere. He formed, therefore, the natural opinion that the heavier substance is more complex than the lighter one.[25] Lavoisier's celebrated experiment, made in 1774, gave indubitable support to his opinion, which in many respects was contradictory to Stahl's doctrine. Lavoisier poured four ounces of pure mercury into a glass retort (fig. [3]), whose neck was bent as shown in the drawing and dipped into the vessel R S, also full of mercury. The projecting end of the neck was covered with a glass bell-jar P. The weight of all the mercury taken, and the volume of air remaining in the apparatus, namely, that in the upper portion of the retort, and under the bell-jar, were determined before beginning the experiment. It was most important in this experiment to know the volume of air in order to learn what part it played in the oxidation of the mercury, because, according to Stahl, phlogiston is emitted into the air, whilst, according to Lavoisier, the mercury in oxidising absorbs a portion of the air; and consequently it was absolutely necessary to determine whether the amount of air increased or decreased in the oxidation of the metal. It was, therefore, most important to measure the volume of the air in the apparatus both before and after the experiment. For this purpose it was necessary to know the total capacity of the retort, the volume of the mercury poured into it, the volume of the bell-jar above the level of the mercury, and also the temperature and pressure of the air at the time of its measurement. The volume of air contained in the apparatus and isolated from the surrounding atmosphere could be determined from these data. Having arranged his apparatus in this manner, Lavoisier heated the retort holding the mercury for a period of twelve days at a temperature near the boiling point of mercury. The mercury became covered with a quantity of small red scales; that is, it was oxidised or converted into an earth. This substance is the same mercury oxide which has already been mentioned (example 3). After the lapse of twelve days the apparatus was cooled, and it was then seen that the volume of the air in the apparatus had diminished during the time of the experiment. This result was in exact contradiction to Stahl's hypothesis. Out of 50 cubic inches of air originally taken, there only remained 42. Lavoisier's experiment led to other equally important results. The weight of the air taken decreased by as much as the weight of the mercury increased in oxidising; that is, the portion of the air was not destroyed, but only combined with mercury. This portion of the air may be again separated from the mercury oxide and has, as we saw (example 3), properties different from those of air. It is called ‘oxygen.’ That portion of the air which remained in the apparatus and did not combine with the mercury does not oxidise metals, and cannot support either combustion or respiration, so that a lighted taper is immediately extinguished if it be dipped into the gas which remains in the bell-jar. ‘It is extinguished in the residual gas as if it had been plunged into water,’ writes Lavoisier in his memoirs. This gas is called ‘nitrogen.’ Thus air is not a simple substance, but consists of two gases, oxygen and nitrogen, and therefore the opinion that air is an elementary substance is erroneous. The oxygen of the air is absorbed in combustion and the oxidation of metals, and the earths produced by the oxidation of metals are substances composed of oxygen and a metal. By mixing the oxygen with the nitrogen the same air as was originally taken is re-formed. It has also been shown by direct experiment that on reducing an oxide with carbon, the oxygen contained in the oxide is transferred to the carbon, and gives the same gas that is obtained by the combustion of carbon in air. Therefore this gas is a compound of carbon and oxygen, just as the earthy oxides are composed of metals and oxygen.
The many examples of the formation and decomposition of substances which are met with convince us that the majority of substances with which we have to deal are compounds made up of several other substances. By heating chalk (or else copper carbonate, as in the second example) we obtain lime and the same carbonic acid gas which is produced by the combustion of carbon. On bringing lime into contact with this gas and water, at the ordinary temperature, we again obtain the compound, carbonate of lime, or chalk. Therefore chalk is a compound. So also are those substances from which it may be built up. Carbonic anhydride is formed by the combination of carbon and oxygen; and lime is produced by the oxidation of a certain metal called ‘calcium.’ By resolving substances in this manner into their component parts, we arrive at last at such as are indivisible into two or more substances by any means whatever, and which cannot be formed from other substances. All we can do is to make such substances combine together to act on other substances. Substances which cannot be formed from or decomposed into others are termed simple substances (elements). Thus all homogeneous substances may be classified into simple and compound substances. This view was introduced and established as a scientific fact during the lifetime of Lavoisier. The number of these elements is very small in comparison with the number of compound substances which are formed by them. At the present time, only seventy elements are known with certainty to exist. Some of them are very rarely met with in nature, or are found in very small quantities, whilst the existence of others is still doubtful. The number of elements with whose compounds we commonly deal in everyday life is very small. Elements cannot be transmuted into one another—at least up to the present not a single case of such a transformation has been met with; it may therefore be said that, as yet, it is impossible to transmute one metal into another. And as yet, notwithstanding the number of attempts which have been made in this direction, no fact has been discovered which could in any way support the idea of the complexity of such well-known elements[26] as oxygen, iron, sulphur, &c. Therefore, from its very conception, an element is not susceptible to reactions of decomposition.[27]
The quantity, therefore, of each element remains constant in all chemical changes: a fact which may be deduced as a consequence of the law of the indestructibility of matter, and of the conception of elements themselves. Thus the equation expressing the law of the indestructibility of matter acquires a new and still more important signification. If we know the quantities of the elements which occur in the re-acting substances, and if from these substances there proceed, by means of chemical changes, a series of new compound substances, then the latter will together contain the same quantity of each of the elements as there originally existed in the re-acting substances. The essence of chemical change is embraced in the study of how, and with what substances, each element is combined before and after change.
In order to be able to express various chemical changes by equations, it has been agreed to represent each element by the first or some two letters of its (Latin) name. Thus, for example, oxygen is represented by the letter O; nitrogen by N; mercury (hydrargyrum) by Hg; iron (ferrum) by Fe; and so on for all the elements, as is seen in the tables on page [24]. A compound substance is represented by placing the symbols representing the elements of which it is made up side by side. For example, red mercury oxide is represented by HgO, which shows that it is composed of oxygen and mercury. Besides this, the symbol of every element corresponds with a certain relative quantity of it by weight, called its ‘combining’ weight, or the weight of an atom; so that the chemical formula of a compound substance not only designates the nature of the elements of which it is composed, but also their quantitative proportion. Every chemical process may be expressed by an equation composed of the formulæ corresponding with those substances which take part in it and are produced by it. The amount by weight of the elements in every chemical equation must be equal on both sides of the equation, since no element is either formed or destroyed in a chemical change.
On pages [24], [25], and [26] a list of the elements, with their symbols and combining or atomic weights, is given, and we shall see afterwards on what basis the atomic weights of elements are determined. At present we will only point out that a compound containing the elements A and B is designated by the formula An Bm, where m and n are the coefficients or multiples in which the combining weights of the elements enter into the composition of the substance. If we represent the combining weight of the substance A by a and that of the substance B by b, then the composition of the substance An Bm will be expressed thus: it contains na parts by weight of the substance A and mb parts by weight of the substance B, and consequently 100 parts of our compound contain na 100 / na + mb percentage parts by weight of the substance A and mb 100 / na + mb of the substance B. It is evident that as a formula shows the relative amounts of all the elements contained in a compound, the actual weights of the elements contained in a given weight of a compound may be calculated from its formula. For example, the formula NaCl of table salt shows (as Na = 23 and Cl = 35·5) that 58·5 lbs. of salt contain 23 lbs. of sodium and 35·5 lbs. of chlorine, and that 100 parts of it contain 39·3 per cent. of sodium and 60·7 per cent. of chlorine.