A.D. 1802.—Gibbes (George Smith), M.D., of Bath, reads before the Royal Society a paper on the Phenomena of Galvanism thus noticed by Dr. Young at pp. 672, 673, Vol. II. of his “Course of Lectures,” London, 1707:
“Dr. Gibbes begins with reciting some experiments on the oxidation produced during the union of tinfoil with mercury, first in the air and then under water. He assumes a different opinion from that of Dr. Wollaston, respecting the origination of electricity in chemical changes, and maintains on the contrary that the electrical changes are to be considered as preceding and favouring the chemical. He imagines that the simple contact of various substances produces changes of electrical equilibrium, and that the action of acids is effectual in promoting these changes, by bringing their surfaces into contact. Dr. Gibbes observes upon Dr. Wollaston’s experiment of immersing zinc and silver in an acid solution, that if they are placed in two separate portions of the fluid, and the parts not immersed are brought into contact there is no emission of gas from the silver; but that it is copiously produced when the contact takes place in the same fluid. He proceeds to relate some experiments which seem to show a difference between galvanism and electricity, particularly that galvanism does not appear to be attracted by metallic points. He also states an experiment in which a piece of paper is placed on tinfoil, and rubbed with elastic gum, and although the tinfoil is not insulated, sparks are produced on raising the paper. Dr. Gibbes concludes with some arguments against the doctrine of the decomposition of water; and advances as a probable opinion, that oxygen and hydrogen gas are composed of water as a basis, united with two other elements, which, combined, form heat.”
As remarked by Wilkinson (“Elements of Galvanism,” London, 1804, Vol. II. pp. 385, 386), Dr. Gibbes’ hypothesis as to the composition of water having been deduced from Richter’s experiments, and these latter proving erroneous, the ingenious superstructure which the doctor has erected must necessarily fall to the ground.
A.D. 1802.—Romagnosi (Gian Domenico Gregorio Giuseppe), Italian jurist of Salsomaggiore, near Piacenza, who had devoted much time to scientific investigation, and was about taking the law professorship at the Parma University, communicates, Aug. 3, 1802, to the Gazetta di Trento, his important paper entitled “Articulo sul Galvanismo.” Of the latter, a translation, made from the reprint at p. 8 of Gilb. Govi’s “Romagnosi e l’Elettro-magnetismo,” appears at pp. 259, 260 of Fahie’s “History of Electric Telegraphy.”
To Romagnosi has by many been given the credit of having discovered the directive influence of the galvanic current upon a magnetic needle. This claim has of late years been again made for him, notably by Dr. Donato Tommasi, of Paris (Cosmos, les Mondes of June 30, 1883), while Dr. J. Hamel endeavoured to prove (pp. 37–39 of “Historical Account ... Galv. and Mag. Elec. ...” reprinted by W. F. Cooke for the Society of Arts, London, 1859) that Oersted was aware of Romagnosi’s experiments at the time he published the discovery of electro-magnetism. This is what Dr. Hamel says:
“I cannot forego stating my belief that Oersted knew of Romagnosi’s discovery announced in 1802, which was eighteen years before the publication of his own observations. It was mentioned in the book of Giovanni Aldini (the nephew of Galvani) ... Oersted was in Paris 1802 and 1803, and it appears from the book of Aldini, that at the time he finished it Oersted was still in communication with him; for he says at the end (p. 376) he had not been able to add the information received from Oersted, Doctor of the University at Copenhagen, about the galvanic labours of scientific men in that country.... It deserves to be remembered, that from Aldini’s book (“Essai théorique et expérimental sur le galvanisme,” etc., Paris, 1804, qto. p. 191, or Vol. I. of the 8vo ed., pp. 339–340) it was known that the chemist, Giuseppe Mojon (Joseph Mojon, in the French), at Genoa, had before 1804 observed in unmagnetized needles exposed to the galvanic current ‘a sort of polarity.’ Joseph Izarn repeats this also in his ‘Manuel du Galvanisme’ (Paris, An. xii., 1804, sec. iii. p. 120, or 1805, sec. ix.), which book was one of those that by order were to be placed in the library of every lycée of France.”
Robert Sabine remarks (“The Electric Telegraph,” 8vo., 1867, p. 22; “History of the Electric Telegraph,” in Weale’s Rudimentary Treatises, 1869, pp. 23, 24; “History and Progress of the Electric Telegraph,” 3rd ed., 1872, p. 23):
“The discovery of the power of a galvanic current to deflect a magnetic needle, as well as to polarize an unmagnetized one, were known to, and described as early as 1804, by Prof. Izarn.... The paragraph which especially refers to this subject is headed ‘Appareil pour reconnaitre l’action du galvanisme, sur la polarité d’une aiguille aimantée.’ After explaining the way to prepare the apparatus, which consists simply in putting a freely suspended magnetic needle parallel and close to a straight metallic conductor through which a galvanic current is circulating, he described the effects in the following words: ‘According to the observations of Romagnosi, a physicist of Trent, a magnetized needle which is submitted to a galvanic current undergoes (éprouve) a declination; and according to those of J. Mojon, a learned chemist of Genoa, unmagnetized needles acquire by this means a sort of magnetic polarity.’ To Romagnosi, physicist of Trent, therefore, and not, as is generally believed, to Oersted, physicist at Copenhagen (who observed, in 1820, the phenomenon of the deflection of a magnet needle by a voltaic current), is due the credit of having made this important discovery.”
On the other hand, Gilb. Govi, who gives in his afore-named work a good illustration of Romagnosi’s experiment, explains that it resembles in no way the experiment of Oersted, there being no magnetic action of the column on the magnetic needle, which latter is in fact repelled by the mere electricity of the pile. Ronalds states that Romagnosi’s experiment, much like that made by Schweigger (A. F. Gehlen’s Journal für die Chimie und Physik, 1808, pp. 206–208), was a modification if not a repetition of the one which Thomas Milner performed with static electricity (T. Milner’s “Experiments and Observations in Electricity,” London, 1783, p. 35), wherein a magnetic needle forms the electrometer since improved upon by J. C. A. Peltier.
To the ordinary mind, a conclusive proof that Romagnosi had no part in the discovery of electro-magnetism would seem to be, as Fahie rightly observes, the fact that he himself never claimed any, although he lived until 1835, fifteen years after the announcement made by the Danish philosopher. Fahie calls attention, for some experiments in the same line, to J. B. Van Mons’ Journal de Chimie, Bruxelles, January 1803, p. 52, and to Nicholson’s Journal of Nat. Phil., Vol. VII. p. 304, as well as to the 1746 and 1763 Phil. Trans. for investigations made by B. Robins and Ebenezer Kinnersley, and he likewise alludes to others recorded in the Amer. Polytechnic Review for 1831, and in the Quarterly Journal of Science and the Arts for 1826, to all of which, he says, as little real attention should be given as can properly be attached to the observations of Aldini and of Izarn previously referred to.