Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1

by Michael Faraday

952. A saturated solution of sulphate of soda was put into the cell, and the electrodes connected with a battery of 150 pairs of 4-inch plates: the current of electricity was conducted across the cell so freely, that the discharge was as good as if a wire had been used. A ray of polarized light was then transmitted through this solution, directly across the course of the electric current, and examined by an analysing plate; but though it penetrated seven inches of solution thus subject to the action of the electricity, and though contact was sometimes made, sometimes broken, and occasionally reversed during the observations, not the slightest trace of action on the ray could be perceived.

953. The large electrodes were then removed, and others introduced which fitted the ends of the cell. In each a slit was cut, so as to allow the light to pass. The course of the polarized ray was now parallel to the current, or in the direction of its axis (517.); but still no effect, under any circumstances of contact or disunion, could be perceived upon it.

954. A strong solution of nitrate of lead was employed instead of the sulphate of soda, but no effects could be detected.

955. Thinking it possible that the discharge of the electric forces by the successive decompositions and recompositions of the particles of the electrolyte might neutralize and therefore destroy any effect which the first state of tension could by possibility produce, I took a substance which, being an excellent electrolyte when fluid, was a perfect insulator when solid, namely, borate of lead, in the form of a glass plate, and connecting the sides and the edges of this mass with the metallic plates, sometimes in contact with the poles of a voltaic battery, and sometimes even with the electric machine, for the advantage of the much higher intensity then obtained, I passed a polarized ray across it in various directions, as before, but could not obtain the slightest appearance of action upon the light. Hence I conclude, that notwithstanding the new and extraordinary state which must be assumed by an electrolyte, either during decomposition (when a most enormous quantity of electricity must be traversing it), or in the state of tension which is assumed as preceding decomposition, and which might be supposed to be retained in the solid form of the electrolyte, still it has no power of affecting a polarized ray of light; for no kind of structure or tension can in this way be rendered evident.

956. There is, however, one beautiful experimental proof of a state of tension acquired by the metals and the electrolyte before the electric current is produced, and before contact of the different metals is made (915.); in fact, at that moment when chemical forces only are efficient as a cause of action. I took a voltaic apparatus, consisting of a single pair of large plates, namely, a cylinder of amalgamated zinc, and a double cylinder of copper. These were put into a jar containing dilute sulphuric acid[200], and could at pleasure be placed in metallic communication by a copper wire adjusted so as to dip at the extremities into two cups of mercury connected with the two plates.

957. Being thus arranged, there was no chemical action whilst the plates were not connected. On making the connexion a spark was obtained[201], and the solution was immediately decomposed. On breaking it, the usual spark was obtained, and the decomposition ceased. In this case it is evident that the first spark must have occurred before metallic contact was made, for it passed through an interval of air; and also that it must have tended to pass before the electrolytic action began; for the latter could not take place until the current passed, and the current could not pass before the spark appeared. Hence I think there is sufficient proof, that as it is the zinc and water which by their mutual action produce the electricity of this apparatus, so these, by their first contact with each other, were placed in a state of powerful tension (951.), which, though it could not produce the actual decomposition of the water, was able to make a spark of electricity pass between the zinc and a fit discharger as soon as the interval was rendered sufficiently small. The experiment demonstrates the direct production of the electric spark from pure chemical forces.

958. There are a few circumstances connected with the production of this spark by a single pair of plates, which should be known, to ensure success to the experiment[202]. When the amalgamated surfaces of contact are quite clean and dry, the spark, on making contact, is quite as brilliant as on breaking it, if not even more so. When a film of oxide or dirt was present at either mercurial surface, then the first spark was often feeble, and often failed, the breaking spark, however, continuing very constant and bright. When a little water was put over the mercury, the spark was greatly diminished in brilliancy, but very regular both on making and breaking contact. When the contact was made between clean platina, the spark was also very small, but regular both ways. The true electric spark is, in fact, very small, and when surfaces of mercury are used, it is the combustion of the metal which produces the greater part of the light. The circumstances connected with the burning of the mercury are most favourable on breaking contact; for the act of separation exposes clean surfaces of metal, whereas, on making contact, a thin film of oxide, or soiling matter, often interferes. Hence the origin of the general opinion that it is only when the contact is broken that the spark passes.

959. With reference to the other set of cases, namely, those of local action (947.) in which chemical affinity being exerted causes no transference of the power to a distance where no electric current is produced, it is evident that forces of the most intense kind must be active, and in some way balanced in their activity, during such combinations; these forces being directed so immediately and exclusively towards each other, that no signs of the powerful electric current they can produce become apparent, although the same final state of things is obtained as if that current had passed. It was Berzelius, I believe, who considered the heat and light evolved in cases of combustion as the consequences of this mode of exertion of the electric powers of the combining particles. But it will require a much more exact and extensive knowledge of the nature of electricity, and the manner in which it is associated with the atoms of matter, before we can understand accurately the action of this power in thus causing their union, or comprehend the nature of the great difference which it presents in the two modes of action just distinguished. We may imagine, but such imaginations must for the time be classed with the great mass of doubtful knowledge (876.) which we ought rather to strive to diminish than to increase; for the very extensive contradictions of this knowledge by itself shows that but a small portion of it can ultimately prove true[203].

960. Of the two modes of action in which chemical affinity is exerted, it is important to remark, that that which produces the electric current is as definite as that which causes ordinary chemical combination; so that in examining the production or evolution of electricity in cases of combination or decomposition, it will be necessary, not merely to observe certain effects dependent upon a current of electricity, but also their quantity: and though it may often happen that the forces concerned in any particular case of chemical action may be partly exerted in one mode and partly in the other, it is only those which are efficient in producing the current that have any relation to voltaic action. Thus, in the combination of oxygen and hydrogen to produce water, electric powers to a most enormous amount are for the time active (861. 873.); but any mode of examining the flame which they form during energetic combination, which has as yet been devised, has given but the feeblest traces. These therefore may not, cannot, be taken as evidences of the nature of the action; but are merely incidental results, incomparably small in relation to the forces concerned, and supplying no information of the way in which the particles are active on each other, or in which their forces are finally arranged.

961. That such cases of chemical action produce no current of electricity, is perfectly consistent with what we know of the voltaic apparatus, in which it is essential that one of the combining elements shall form part of, or be in direct relation with, an electrolytic conductor (921. 923.). That such cases produce no free electricity of tension, and that when they are converted into cases of voltaic action they produce a current in which the opposite forces are so equal as to neutralize each other, prove the equality of the forces in the opposed acting particles of matter, and therefore the equality of electric power in those quantities of matter which are called electro-chemical equivalents (824). Hence another proof of the definite nature of electro-chemical action (783. &c.), and that chemical affinity and electricity are forms of the same power (917. &c.).