Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1

by Michael Faraday

1325. In ice or water we have a better conductor than spermaceti, and the phenomena of induction and insulation therefore rapidly disappear, because conduction quickly follows upon the assumption of the inductive state. But let a plate of cold ice have metallic coatings on its sides, and connect one of these with a good electrical machine in work, and the other with the ground, and it then becomes easy to observe the phenomena of induction through the ice, by the electrical tension which can be obtained and continued on both the coatings (419. 426.). For although that portion of power which at one moment gave the inductive condition to the particles is at the next lowered by the consequent discharge due to the conductive act, it is succeeded by another portion of force from the machine to restore the inductive state. If the ice be converted into water the same succession of actions can be just as easily proved, provided the water be distilled, and (if the machine be not powerful enough) a voltaic battery be employed.

1326. All these considerations impress my mind strongly with the conviction, that insulation and ordinary conduction cannot be properly separated when we are examining into their nature; that is, into the general law or laws under which their phenomena are produced. They appear to me to consist in an action of contiguous particles dependent on the forces developed in electrical excitement; these forces bring the particles into a state of tension or polarity, which constitutes both induction and insulation; and being in this state, the continuous particles have a power or capability of communicating their forces one to the other, by which they are lowered, and discharge occurs. Every body appears to discharge (444. 987.); but the possession of this capability in a greater or smaller degree in different bodies, makes them better or worse conductors, worse or better insulators; and both induction and conduction appear to be the same in their principle and action (1320.), except that in the latter an effect common to both is raised to the highest degree, whereas in the former it occurs in the best cases, in only an almost insensible quantity.

1327. That in our attempts to penetrate into the nature of electrical action, and to deduce laws more general than those we are at present acquainted with, we should endeavour to bring apparently opposite effects to stand side by side in harmonious arrangement, is an opinion of long standing, and sanctioned by the ablest philosophers. I hope, therefore, I may be excused the attempt to look at the highest cases of conduction as analogous to, or even the same in kind with, those of induction and insulation.

1328. If we consider the slight penetration of sulphur (1241. 1242.) or shell-lac (1234.) by electricity, or the feebler insulation sustained by spermaceti (1279. 1240.), as essential consequences and indications of their conducting power, then may we look on the resistance of metallic wires to the passage of electricity through them as insulating power. Of the numerous well-known cases fitted to show this resistance in what are called the perfect conductors, the experiments of Professor Wheatstone best serve my present purpose, since they were carried to such an extent as to show that time entered as an element into the conditions of conduction[250] even in metals. When discharge was made through a copper wire 2640 feet in length, and 1/15th of an inch in diameter, so that the luminous sparks at each end of the wire, and at the middle, could be observed in the same place, the latter was found to be sensibly behind the two former in time, they being by the conditions of the experiment simultaneous. Hence a proof of retardation; and what reason can be given why this retardation should not be of the same kind as that in spermaceti, or in lac, or sulphur? But as, in them, retardation is insulation, and insulation is induction, why should we refuse the same relation to the same exhibitions of force in the metals?

1329. We learn from the experiment, that if time be allowed the retardation is gradually overcome; and the same thing obtains for the spermaceti, the lac, and glass (1248.); give but time in proportion to the retardation, and the latter is at last vanquished. But if that be the case, and all the results are alike in kind, the only difference being in the length of time, why should we refuse to metals the previous inductive action, which is admitted to occur in the other bodies? The diminution of time is no negation of the action; nor is the lower degree of tension requisite to cause the forces to traverse the metal, as compared to that necessary in the cases of water, spermaceti, or lac. These differences would only point to the conclusion, that in metals the particles under induction can transfer their forces when at a lower degree of tension or polarity, and with greater facility than in the instances of the other bodies.

1330. Let us look at Mr. Wheatstone's beautiful experiment in another point of view, If, leaving the arrangement at the middle and two ends of the long copper wire unaltered, we remove the two intervening portions and replace them by wires of iron or platina, we shall have a much greater retardation of the middle spark than before. If, removing the iron, we were to substitute for it only five or six feet of water in a cylinder of the same diameter as the metal, we should have still greater retardation. If from water we passed to spermaceti, either directly or by gradual steps through other bodies, (even though we might vastly enlarge the bulk, for the purpose of evading the occurrence of a spark elsewhere (1331.) than at the three proper intervals,) we should have still greater retardation, until at last we might arrive, by degrees so small as to be inseparable from each other, at actual and permanent insulation. What, then, is to separate the principle of these two extremes, perfect conduction and perfect insulation, from each other; since the moment we leave in the smallest degree perfection at either extremity, we involve the element of perfection at the opposite end? Especially too, as we have not in nature the case of perfection either at one extremity or the other, either of insulation or conduction.

1331. Again, to return to this beautiful experiment in the various forms which may be given to it: the forces are not all in the wire (after they have left the Leyden jar) during the whole time (1328.) occupied by the discharge; they are disposed in part through the surrounding dielectric under the well-known form of induction; and if that dielectric be air, induction takes place from the wire through the air to surrounding conductors, until the ends of the wire are electrically related through its length, and discharge has occurred, i.e. for the time during which the middle spark is retarded beyond the others. This is well shown by the old experiment, in which a long wire is so bent that two parts (Plate VIII. fig. 115.), a, b, near its extremities shall approach within a short distance, as a quarter of an inch, of each other in the air. If the discharge of a Leyden jar, charged to a sufficient degree, be sent through such a wire, by far the largest portion of the electricity will pass as a spark across the air at the interval, and not by the metal. Does not the middle part of the wire, therefore, act here as an insulating medium, though it be of metal? and is not the spark through the air an indication of the tension (simultaneous with induction) of the electricity in the ends of this single wire? Why should not the wire and the air both be regarded as dielectrics; and the action at its commencement, and whilst there is tension, as an inductive action? If it acts through the contorted lines of the wire, so it also does in curved and contorted lines through air (1219, 1224, 1231.), and other insulating dielectrics (1228); and we can apparently go so far in the analogy, whilst limiting the case to the inductive action only, as to show that amongst insulating dielectrics some lead away the lines of force from others (1229.), as the wire will do from worse conductors, though in it the principal effect is no doubt due to the ready discharge between the particles whilst in a low state of tension. The retardation is for the time insulation; and it seems to me we may just as fairly compare the air at the interval a, b (fig. 115.) and the wire in the circuit, as two bodies of the same kind and acting upon the same principles, as far as the first inductive phenomena are concerned, notwithstanding the different forms of discharge which ultimately follow[251], as we may compare, according to Coulomb's investigations[252] different lengths of different insulating bodies required to produce the same amount of insulating effect.

1332. This comparison is still more striking when we take into consideration the experiment of Mr. Harris, in which he stretched a fine wire across a glass globe, the air within being rarefied[253]. On sending a charge through the joint arrangement of metal and rare air, as much, if not more, electricity passed by the latter as by the former. In the air, rarefied as it was, there can be no doubt the discharge was preceded by induction (1284.); and to my mind all the circumstances indicate that the same was the case with the metal; that, in fact, both substances are dielectrics, exhibiting the same effects in consequence of the action of the same causes, the only variation being one of degree in the different substances employed.

1333. Judging on these principles, velocity of discharge through the same wire may be varied greatly by attending to the circumstances which cause variations of discharge through spermaceti or sulphur. Thus, for instance, it must vary with the tension or intensity of the first urging force (1234. 1240.), which tension is charge and induction. So if the two ends of the wire, in Professor Wheatstone's experiment, were immediately connected with two large insulated metallic surfaces exposed to the air, so that the primary act of induction, after making the contact for discharge, might be in part removed from the internal portion of the wire at the first instant, and disposed for the moment on its surface jointly with the air and surrounding conductors, then I venture to anticipate that the middle spark would be more retarded than before; and if these two plates were the inner and outer coating of a large jar or a Leyden battery, then the retardation of that spark would be still greater.

1334. Cavendish was perhaps the first to show distinctly that discharge was not always by one channel[254], but, if several are present, by many at once. We may make these different channels of different bodies, and by proportioning their thicknesses and lengths, may include such substances as air, lac, spermaceti, water, protoxide of iron, iron and silver, and by one discharge make each convey its proportion of the electric force. Perhaps the air ought to be excepted, as its discharge by conduction is questionable at present (1336.); but the others may all be limited in their mode of discharge to pure conduction. Yet several of them suffer previous induction, precisely like the induction through the air, it being a necessary preliminary to their discharging action. How can we therefore separate any one of these bodies from the others, as to the principles and mode of insulating and conducting, except by mere degree? All seem to me to be dielectrics acting alike, and under the same common laws.