Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1

by Michael Faraday

1634. Hence, the section of a current compared with other sections of the same current must be a constant quantity, if the actions exerted be of the same kind; or if of different kinds, then the forms under which the effects are produced are equivalent to each other, and experimentally convertible at pleasure. It is in sections, therefore, we must look for identity of electrical force, even to the sections of sparks and carrying actions, as well as those of wires and electrolytes.

1635. In illustration of the utility and importance of establishing that which may be the true principle, I will refer to a few cases. The doctrine of unipolarity, as formerly stated, and I think generally understood[309], is evidently inconsistent with my view of a current (1627.); and the later singular phenomena of poles and flames described by Erman and others[310] partake of the same inconsistency of character. If a unipolar body could exist, i.e. one that could conduct the one electricity and not the other, what very new characters we should have a right to expect in the currents of single electricities passing through them, and how greatly ought they to differ, not only from the common current which is supposed to have both electricities travelling in opposite directions in equal amount at the same time, but also from each other! The facts, which are excellent, have, however, gradually been more correctly explained by Becquerel[311], Andrews[312], and others; and I understand that Professor Ohms[313] has perfected the work, in his close examination of all the phenomena; and after showing that similar phenomena can take place with good conductors, proves that with soap, &c. many of the effects are the mere consequences of the bodies evolved by electrolytic action.

1636. I conclude, therefore, that the facts upon which the doctrine of unipolarity was founded are not adverse to that unity and indivisibility of character which I have stated the current to possess, any more than the phenomena of the pile itself (which might well bear comparison with those of unipolar bodies,) are opposed to it. Probably the effects which have been called effects of unipolarity, and the peculiar differences of the positive and negative surface when discharging into air, gases, or other dielectrics (1480. 1525.) which have been already referred to, may have considerable relation to each other[314].

* * * * *

1637. M. de la Rive has recently described a peculiar and remarkable effect of heat on a current when passing between electrodes and a fluid[315]. It is, that if platina electrodes dip into acidulated water, no change is produced in the passing current by making the positive electrode hotter or colder; whereas making the negative electrode hotter increased the deflexion of a galvanometer affected by the current, from 12° to 30° and even 45°, whilst making it colder diminished the current in the same high proportions.

1638. That one electrode should have this striking relation to heat whilst the other remained absolutely without, seem to me as incompatible with what I conceived to be the character of a current as unipolarity (1627. 1635.), and it was therefore with some anxiety that I repeated the experiment. The electrodes which I used were platina; the electrolyte, water containing about one sixth of sulphuric acid by weight: the voltaic battery consisted of two pairs of amalgamated zinc and platina plates in dilute sulphuric acid, and the galvanometer in the circuit was one with two needles, and gave when the arrangement was complete a deflexion of 10° or 12°.

1639. Under these circumstances heating either electrode increased the current; heating both produced still more effect. When both were heated, if either were cooled, the effect on the current fell in proportion. The proportion of effect due to heating this or that electrode varied, but on the whole heating the negative seemed to favour the passage of the current somewhat more than heating the positive. Whether the application of heat were by a flame applied underneath, or one directed by a blowpipe from above, or by a hot iron or coal, the effect was the same.

1640. Having thus removed the difficulty out of the way of my views regarding a current, I did not pursue this curious experiment further. It is probable, that the difference between my results and those of M. de la Rive may depend upon the relative values of the currents used; for I employed only a weak one resulting from two pairs of plates two inches long and half an inch wide, whilst M. de la Rive used four pairs of plates of sixteen square inches in surface.

* * * * *

1641. Electric discharges in the atmosphere in the form of balls of fire have occasionally been described. Such phenomena appear to me to be incompatible with all that we know of electricity and its modes of discharge. As time is an element in the effect (1418. 1436.) it is possible perhaps that an electric discharge might really pass as a ball from place to place; but as every thing shows that its velocity must be almost infinite, and the time of its duration exceedingly small, it is impossible that the eye should perceive it as anything else than a line of light. That phenomena of balls of fire may appear in the atmosphere, I do not mean to deny; but that they have anything to do with the discharge of ordinary electricity, or are at all related to lightning or atmospheric electricity, is much more than doubtful.