The many tests which he made with his voltameter led him to the conclusion “that under every variety of circumstance, the decompositions of the voltaic current are as definite in their character as those chemical combinations which gave birth to the atomic theory” (Phil. Trans. for 1833, p. 675; for 1834, p. 77; Poggendorff, Annalen, Vols. XXXII. p. 401; XXXIII. pp. 301, 433, 481; Bakewell, “Electric Science,” p. 124; “Brit. Assoc. Report” for 1833, p. 393; Henry’s “Memoirs of Dalton,” p. 106).
The eighth series of his “Researches” (Vol. I. pars. 875, etc.) treats of the “electricity of the voltaic pile,” a further investigation of which is shown through the papers constituting his sixteenth and seventeenth series as per Index of Vol. II. p. 302. Faraday establishes by very simple experiments the most powerful known refutation of Volta’s contact theory and shows conclusively that the current in the pile results from the mutual chemical action of its elements, just as Fabbroni and Wollaston had stated before him. An extract from the conclusion of his very elaborate defence of the chemical theory reads as follows: “... the contact theory assumes, that a force which is able to overcome powerful resistance ... can arise out of nothing: that, without any change in the acting matter, or the consumption of any generating force, a current can be produced, which shall go on for ever against a constant resistance, or only be stopped as in the voltaic trough, by the ruins which its exertion has heaped upon its own course.... The chemical theory sets out with a power, the existence of which is pre-proved, and then follows its variations, rarely assuming anything which is not supported by some corresponding simple chemical fact. The contact theory sets out with an assumption to which it adds others, as the cases require, until at last the contact force, instead of being the firm unchangeable thing at first supposed by Volta, is as variable as chemical force itself. Were it otherwise than it is, and were the contact theory true, the equality of cause and effect must be denied. Then would perpetual motion also be true; and it would not be at all difficult, upon the first given case of an electric current by contact alone, to produce an electro-magnetic arrangement, which, as to its principle, would go on producing mechanical effects for ever” (“Exp. Res.,” pars. 2071–2073, Vol. II. pp. 103–104; Phil. Trans. for 1834, p. 425; for 1840, pp. 61, 93; Poggendorff, Annalen, Vols. XXXV. pp. 1, 222; LII. pp. 149, 547; LIII. pp. 316, 479, 548. Auguste Arthur De la Rive, “Archives de l’Elect.,” Genève, 1841–1845, Vol. I. pp. 93, 342; Graham, “Elem. of Chem.,” London, 1850, Vol. I. pp. 242, etc.; Faraday and Sturgeon, “Ann. of Elec.,” Vol. IV. pp. 229, 231; Daniell, “Intro. to Study of Chem. Phil.”; Liebig, Annal., Vol. XXXVI. p. 137; Figuier, “Expos. et Hist.,” 1857, Vol. IV. p. 434. Also De la Rive’s “Treatise,” Vol. I. pp. 393–402; “Exper. Researches,” Vol. I. pp. 322–323—induction of galvanic current upon itself).
Faraday’s theory of induction offers nothing new as to the nature of the electric forces—it simply indicates the manner of their distribution and the laws by which they are affected. His experiments show that electrization by influence is possible only by means of continuous particles of air or other non-conducting medium (dielectric), that no electric action occurs at a distance greater than the interval existing between two adjacent molecules of such medium, in which latter a true polarization of the particles takes place, and that it is by means of this polarization that electric force is transferred to a distance. Induction only takes place through insulators: induction is insulation, it being the action of a charged body upon insulating matter, of which latter the particles communicate to each other in a very minute degree the electric forces whereby they become polarized and are enabled to transmit an equal amount of the opposite force to a distance. The latter property is termed inductive force or specific inductive capacity, and Faraday discovered that the intensity of electric induction varies in different insulating media; for instance, the induction through shell-lac (the first substance he experimented with) being twice as great as through a like thickness of air. It was while experimenting with shell-lac that he first observed the singular phenomenon of the return or residual charge, i. e. the charge which would of itself gradually reappear in the apparatus after the latter had been suddenly and perfectly discharged. This, he considered due to the penetration, into the substance of the dielectric, of a portion of the charge by conduction. The inductive capacity of all gases he found to be the same as that of air, and this property does not alter with variations in their density.
His discovery of the specific inductive capacity of various substances has been already alluded to (A.D. 1772, Cavendish). Faraday’s biographer in the ninth “Britannica” says: “It appears, from hitherto unpublished papers, that Henry Cavendish had, before 1773, not only discovered that glass, wax, rosin and shell-lac have higher specific inductive capacities than air but had actually determined the numerical ratios of these capacities. This, of course, was not known to Faraday or other electricians of his time.” It was on the 30th of November, 1837, Faraday communicated to the Royal Society the paper on Induction wherein he announces the re-discovery of specific inductive capacity. One of its most important results to-day, remarks John Tyndall, “is the establishment of the specific inductive capacity of insulators—a subject of supreme importance in connection with submarine cables. As a striking illustration of Faraday’s insight, it may be mentioned that as early as 1838 he had virtually foreseen and predicted the retardation produced by the inductive action between the wires of submarine cables and the surrounding sea-water” (Tyndall’s “Notes on Electricity,” 1871, pp. 160–161; “Exper. Researches,” Index Vol. I.; “Faraday as a Discoverer,” new edition, p. 89). Consult, also, the references entered at Cavendish, A.D. 1772; J. E. H. Gordon, “Phys. Treatise on Elect. ...” London, 1883, Vol. I. chap. xi. par. 81–83, which alludes to “Exper. Researches,” 1161, Vol. I. p. 360 as well as to the investigations of specific inductive capacities made by Boltzmann, Romich and Fajdiga, Romich and Nomak, Schiller, Silow, Wüllner, Dr. Hopkinson, J. E. H. Gordon, Ayrton and Perry, and gives the “General Table of Specific Inductive Capacities,” detailing the observations of Cavendish, Faraday and all the others named above. See, besides, “Reprint of Papers ...” Sir Wm. Thomson, 1872 to 1884, 2nd ed., paragraphs 36, 46, 50; Phil. Trans., 1838, pp. 1, 79, 83, 125; 1842, p. 170; Poggendorff, Annalen, Vols. XLVI. pp. 1, 537; XLVII. pp. 33, 271, 529; XLVIII. pp. 269, 424, 513; XCVI. p. 488; XCVII. p. 415; Phil. Mag., Vols. IX. p. 61; XI. p. 10; XIII. pp. 281, 355, 412; “Bibl. Univ.,” Vol. XVII. p. 178 and “Archives des Sc. Phys.,” Vol. XXXI. p. 48; “Journal de Pharm.,” Vol. XXVII. p. 60; W. S. Harris, “Specific Inductive Capacities ...” (Phil. Trans., 1842).
In the fifteenth series of his “Exper. Researches” (Vol. II. pars. 1749–1795), Faraday gives the results of his experiments proving the identity of the power of the gymnotus or the torpedo with common electricity. He concludes that “a single medium discharge of the fish is at least equal to the electricity of a Leyden battery of fifteen jars, containing 3500 square inches of glass coated on both sides, charged to its highest degree” (p. 8); “all the water and all the conducting matter around the fish, through which a discharge circuit can in any way be completed, is filled at the moment with circulating electric power and this state might be easily represented generally in a diagram by drawing the lines of inductive action upon it. In the case of a gymnotus surrounded equally in all directions by water, these would resemble generally in disposition the magnetic curves of a magnet having the same straight or curved shape as the animal, that is, provided he in such cases employed, as may be expected, his four electric organs at once” (p. 12) (C. Matteucci, “Traité des phénom. ...” Paris, 1844, pp. 188–192).
Then follow in due course, Faraday’s remarkable papers relating to the magnetization of light and the illumination of magnetic lines of force, the polar and other condition of diamagnetic bodies, etc. These communications, which he made to the Royal Society in November and December 1845, contain the particulars of what many consider to be his most brilliant discoveries. He first shows that when a ray of polarized light passes through a piece of silicated borate of lead glass placed between the poles of a natural (or preferably an electro-) magnet, so that the line of magnetic force shall pass through its length, the polarized ray will experience a rotation. The law is thus expressed: “If a magnetic line of force be going from a North pole or coming from a South pole, along the path of a polarized ray, coming to the observer, it will rotate that ray to the right hand, or if such a line of force be coming from a North pole or going from a South pole it will rotate such a ray to the left hand” (Phil. Trans. for 1846 and 1856; Poggendorff, Annalen, Vol. C. pp. 111, 439; Noad, “Manual,” pp. 804–805; Harris, “Rud. Mag.,” Parts I and II. p. 71; Whewell, “Hist. of the Inductive Sciences,” Vol. II. pp. III, 133; Gmelin’s “Chemistry,” Vol. I. pp. 168–169). At the Faraday Centenary Celebration held in London, June 18, 1891, Lord Rayleigh observed that “the full significance of the last-named discovery was not yet realized. A large step towards realizing it, however, was contained in the observation of Sir William Thomson, that the rotation of the plane of polarization proved that something in the nature of rotation must be going on within the medium when subjected to the magnetizing force, but the precise nature of the rotation was a matter for further speculation, and perhaps might not be known for some time to come.”
Through Faraday’s other communication, is made known the discovery of diamagnetism. Therein he shows, as the result of his customary careful experimental explorations that the magnetism of every known substance (even tissues of the human frame) is manifested in one of two ways. Either the body is, like iron, attracted by the magnet, taking a position coincident with the magnetic forces which he calls paramagnetic (para beside or near, magnetes, magnes, magnet) or bodies—like bismuth, for instance—are repelled by the poles and should therefore be called diamagnetic (dia, across) for they set themselves across, equatorially, or at right angles to the magnetic lines. As far back as 1788, the repulsion by bismuth was first observed by Brugmans, while M. Becquerel, during 1827, confirmed the observation, said to have been made by Coulomb, that a needle of wood could be made to point across the magnetic curves, and stated that he had found such a needle place itself parallel to the wires of a galvanometer. Yet, neither M. Becquerel nor M. Lebaillif, who (after Saigy and Seebeck) had called attention to the repulsion of both bismuth and antimony by the magnet, made a distinction of the diamagnetic force from the paramagnetic as Faraday did. Amongst other results, this English scientist found that phosphorus is at the head of all diamagnetic substances, bismuth taking the lead amongst the metals, whilst, of many gases and vapours, oxygen proved to be the least diamagnetic, in fact, the only one which is paramagnetic (“Lond., Edin., and Dub. Phil. Mag.” for December 1850). All the facts set forth in Mr. Faraday’s paper are, according to Brande, resolvable by induction into the general law; that while every particle of a magnetic body is attracted, every particle of a diamagnetic body is repelled by either pole of a magnet: these forces continue as long as the magnetic power is sustained, and cease on the cessation of that power, standing therefore in the same general antithetical relation to each other as the positive and negative conditions of electricity, the northern and southern polarities of ordinary magnetism, or the lines of electric and magnetic force in magneto-electricity. (Phil. Trans. for 1846–1851; Phil. Mag., Vols. XXVIII. pp. 294, 396, 455; XXIX. pp. 153, 249; XXXVI. p. 88; Annales de Chimie, Vol. XVII. p. 359; Poggendorff, Annalen, Vols. LXVIII. p. 105; LXX. p. 283; LXXXII. pp. 75, 232; “Bibl. Univ. Archives,” Vols. I. p. 385; III. p. 338; XVI. p. 89; Ludwig F. von Froriep, “Notizen,” Vols. XXXVII. cols. 6–8; XXXIX. col. 257; Erdmann, “Jour. Prak. Chem.,” Vol. XXXVIII. p. 256; Liebig, Annal., Vol. LVII. p. 261; Napoli, “Rendiconto,” Vol. VI. p. 227; Silliman’s “Journal,” Vols. II. p. 233; X. p. 188; Walker, “Elect. Mag.,” Vol. II. p. 259; John Tyndall, “Researches on Diamagnetism and Magne-crystallic Action,” London, 1870, pp. 1, 38, 89, 90, 137; Whewell, “Hist. of Ind. Sc.,” 1859, Vol. II. p. 620; “Athenæum” for January 31, 1846; Plücker’s paper “On the relation of Magnetism and Diamagnetism,” dated September 8, 1847, in Poggendorff’s Annalen and in Taylor’s “Scientific Memoirs,” Vol. V. part ix. p. 376; Edmond Becquerel’s “Memoir on Diamagnetism” in An. de Ch. et de Ph., Vol. XXXII. p. 112; “Practical Mech. and Engin. Mag.,” 1846, p. 117; for “Coexistence of Paramagnetism and Diamagnetism in same Crystal,” see “Jour. of Chem. Soc.,” London, February 1906, p. 69, taken from Les Comptes Rendus).
During the course of Faraday’s experiments to ascertain the effects of magnetism on crystals some very curious results were obtained with bismuth. Having suspended four bars of the metal horizontally between the poles of the electro-magnet, the first pointed axially; the second equatorially; another equatorial in one position, and obliquely equatorial if turned round on its axis fifty or sixty degrees; the fourth equatorially and axially under the same treatment; whilst all of them were repelled by a single magnetic pole, thus showing their strong and well-marked diamagnetic character. These variations were attributed to the regularly crystalline condition of the bars. He then chose carefully selected crystals and, after describing their peculiar action between the poles, he says that “the results are altogether very different from those produced by diamagnetic action. They are equally distinct from those dependent on ordinary magnetic action. They are also distinct from those discovered and described by Plücker, in his beautiful researches into the relation of the optic axis to magnetic action; for there the force is equatorial, whereas here it is axial. So they appear to present to us a new force, or a new form of force in the molecules of matter, which, for convenience’ sake, I will conventionally designate by a new word, as the magne-crystallic force.” Prof. A. M. Mayer justly observes (“Johnson’s Cycl.,” I. 1342) that the above-named facts “received their full explanation at the hands of Tyndall, whose subtile examination or lucid explanation of these phenomena—though not popularly known—we think form his greatest claim to illustrious distinction as a man of science.” For an extract from the last-named work relative to M. Poisson’s remarkable theoretic prediction of magne-crystallic action, see the article concerning that scientist at A.D. 1811. (Consult Phil. Trans. for 1849, pp. 4, 22; Phil. Mag., Vol. XXIV. p. 77 and s. 4, Vol. II. p. 178; De la Rive, “Treatise,” Vol. I. pp. 482–497; “Athenæum,” No. 1103, p. 1266; Gmelin’s “Chemistry,” Vol. I. pp. 514–519.)
The remarkable discoveries we have named were succeeded by many others of a very high order, the references to which occupy as many as 158 separate entries through pp. 555–560, Vol. II. of the “Catal. of Sci. Papers of the Royal Society.” Among those may be singled out his additional investigations regarding the magnetism of gases and the magnetic relations of flames and gases, the lines of magnetic force, subterraneous electro-telegraphic wires (Phil. Mag. s. 4, Vol. VII. 1854), the relation of gravity to electricity, atmospheric magnetism, likewise his recorded observations on hydro-electricity, magneto-electric light for lighthouses, pyro-electricity, the electrophorus, Wheatstone’s telegraph, etc. (“Roy. Inst. Proc.” for 1854–1858, pp. 555–560). It was in 1848 he wrote of the powerful insulating properties of gutta-percha (Gmelin’s “Chemistry,” Vol. I. p. 313; “Lond. and Edin. Phil. Mag.,” Vol. XXXII. p. 165), and he not long after constructed a very singular apparatus to a Leyden jar consisting of a wire 140 miles long, perfectly insulated with gutta-percha, one end of which communicated with an insulated pile of 360 elements of zinc and copper charged with acidulated water, as described in the “Britannica.” The results of his inquiries concerning the Leyden jar charge of buried electric conducting wires were, according to Whitehouse’s pamphlet on the Atl. Tel. (p. 5) communicated to the Roy. Inst. during the year 1854.
The life of Michael Faraday is an admirable example of extraordinary successes achieved through patient endeavour and constancy of purpose over unusual obstacles of birth and education. M. Dumas, in the sixteenth volume of the London “Chemical News,” tells us he was the only man in England who raised himself to the first rank in science, whose every attribute can be fearlessly held up as a model. He had none of the “ambition, eternal pining after rank or hauteur” of Davy, nor “the secretiveness and coldness” of Wollaston. “Faraday’s intellect, while it burnt as brightly as Davy’s, was as deep searching as Wollaston’s, and as reverent as Newton’s, yet it had nothing in it which could repel us, chill us, or forbid our affection.” The son of a blacksmith, he was first placed in a bookseller’s shop, then apprenticed to a bookbinder, but his tastes were averse to the trade and he was led to seek instruction in another line, more particularly after attending the evening lectures of Mr. Tatum, yet, as already stated (see Dr. George Gregory, A.D. 1796), it was while in M. Riebau’s (the bookbinder’s) employ that chance threw in his way the works which led him to enter the channels in which he subsequently became so distinguished. To a friend, he writes: