This is a modern-English version of A new system of chemical philosophy, Volume 2, Part 1, originally written by Dalton, John. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


A NEW SYSTEM OF
CHEMICAL
PHILOSOPHY.
Part One — Vol. II.

Reproduced in Facsimile

Reproduced in Facsimile

BY
William Dawson & Sons Ltd.
102 Wigmore Street,
London, W.1

BY
William Dawson & Sons Ltd.
102 Wigmore St,
London, W1

and Printed by
Henderson & Spalding
Sylvan Grove, Old Kent Road,
London, S.E.15

and Printed by
Henderson & Spalding
Sylvan Grove, Old Kent Road
London, SE15

This Edition is limited to 1,000 copies

This edition is limited to 1,000 copies.


A NEW SYSTEM OF
CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY.

A New System of
Chemical Philosophy.

PART FIRST OF
VOL. II.

Part One of
Vol. II.

BY
JOHN DALTON, F.R.S.

BY
JOHN DALTON, F.R.S.

President of the Literary and Philosophical Society, Manchester.
Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Paris,
Member of the Royal Academy, Munich, and of the Cæsarean
Natural History Society, Moscow;
Honorary Member of the Royal Medical Society, Edinburgh,
and of the Philosophical Societies of Bristol, Cambridge,
Leeds, Sheffield and Yorkshire.

President of the Literary and Philosophical Society, Manchester.
Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Paris,
Member of the Royal Academy, Munich, and of the Cæsarean
Natural History Society, Moscow;
Honorary Member of the Royal Medical Society, Edinburgh,
and of the Philosophical Societies of Bristol, Cambridge,
Leeds, Sheffield, and Yorkshire.

Manchester:

Manchester:

Printed by the Executors of S. Russell.
FOR
GEORGE WILSON,
ESSEX STREET, STRAND
LONDON.

Printed by the Executors of S. Russell.
FOR
GEORGE WILSON,
ESSEX STREET, STRAND
LONDON.

1827.

1827.


TO

TO

JOHN SHARPE, Esq. F. R. S.

JOHN SHARPE, Esq. F. R. S.

OF STANMORE, MIDDLESEX,
(Late of Manchester,)
AS A TESTIMONY OF HIS FRIENDLY REGARD, AND OF HIS
LIBERAL ENCOURAGEMENT GIVEN TO THE PROMOTION
OF CHEMICAL SCIENCE:

OF STANMORE, MIDDLESEX,
(Formerly of Manchester,)
AS A SIGN OF HIS FRIENDLY ATTITUDE, AND OF HIS
GENEROUS SUPPORT FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF CHEMICAL SCIENCE:

AND TO

AND TO

PETER EWART, Esq.

PETER EWART, Esq.

Vice-President of the Literary and Philosophical Society
of Manchester
,

Vice-President of the Literary and Philosophical Society
of Manchester
,

ON THE SCORE OF FRIENDSHIP,
BUT MORE ESPECIALLY FOR THE ABLE EXPOSITION AND
EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF MECHANICS,
IN HIS ESSAY ON THE MEASURE OF MOVING FORCE,[1]

ON THE SCORE OF FRIENDSHIP,
BUT ESPECIALLY FOR THE CLEAR EXPLANATION AND
GREAT ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE BASIC
PRINCIPLES OF MECHANICS,
IN HIS ESSAY ON THE MEASURE OF MOVING FORCE,[1]

THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY

THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY

THE AUTHOR.

THE AUTHOR.

1 Manchester Memoirs, Vol. II. (second series.)

1 Manchester Memoirs, Vol. II. (second series.)


PREFACE.

PREFACE.

The work now submitted to the public was begun to be printed in 1817; and the 13th and 14th sections, containing the oxides and sulphurets, were printed off before the end of October of the same year. The printing of the rest of the work to the appendix was finished in September, 1821. One sheet of the appendix was printed at the end of 1823; but no addition was afterwards made till May, 1826; when the printing was resumed, and has been continued to the present time.

The work now available to the public started being printed in 1817; and the 13th and 14th sections, which include the oxides and sulfides, were completed before the end of October that same year. The printing of the rest of the work up to the appendix was finished in September 1821. One sheet of the appendix was printed at the end of 1823, but no further additions were made until May 1826, when printing resumed and has continued to the present day.

It may be asked, what were the motives for such a plan of procedure. To this it may be replied, that soon after the publication of the first volume (in 1810), I began to prepare materials, and to institute experiments, relating to the oxides, &c., with occasional diversions into other departments of chemistry, as circumstances arose. As a great portion of my time was always necessarily engaged in professional duties, and as that part of the work I was about to commence was one running into detail, I thought it would be best to print it as I proceeded, whilst the train of thought and of experiments was fresh in view. The advantage in this case was expected to be partly at least counterbalanced by the loss of discoveries and improvements likely to be made in the interval between the printing and publishing of the several articles. This I was aware of; but as a principal object I had in view was to give the results of my own experience, in the various departments of chemical science, rather than to form the best compilation of Chemistry at the period, this object was most likely to be obtained by the proposed plan. It is true the time the work has been in the press has far exceeded my expectation; notwithstanding this I am not conscious of any very material alterations or additions, which I should wish to make at the present moment.

It might be asked what motivated such a plan of action. In response, I can say that shortly after the first volume was published (in 1810), I started gathering materials and conducting experiments related to oxides and other areas of chemistry as the opportunity arose. Since a large part of my time was always required for my professional duties, and the work I was about to begin was detailed in nature, I believed it would be best to print it as I progressed, while my thoughts and experiments were still fresh. I expected that the advantages of this approach would be somewhat offset by the potential loss of discoveries and improvements that could occur between the printing and publication of the various articles. I was aware of this, but my main goal was to share the results of my own experiences in different areas of chemical science, rather than to compile the best possible overview of Chemistry at that time. This goal was most likely achievable through the proposed plan. It's true that the time spent on this work has greatly exceeded my expectations; however, I am not aware of any significant changes or additions that I feel the need to make right now.

It affords me great pleasure to acknowledge the assistance I have had during the progress of this volume, from a valuable selection of chemical apparatus, for which I am indebted to the generosity of Mr. Sharpe; also the continued and friendly intercourse with Dr. Henry, whose discussions on scientific subjects are always instructive, and whose stores are always open when the promotion of science is the object.

I am very pleased to recognize the help I received while working on this volume, especially from the excellent selection of chemical equipment provided by Mr. Sharpe’s generosity. I also appreciate my ongoing and friendly conversations with Dr. Henry, whose discussions on scientific topics are always enlightening, and who is always willing to share his resources when it comes to advancing science.

My present design is to add a second part to this volume, and with that to finish the work. It will consist of the more complex compounds. Acids, and other products of the vegetable kingdom, Salts, &c., will form principal parts. Already I have a stock of experiments on these subjects; but I am not satisfied without exploring this region afresh.

My current plan is to add a second part to this volume and complete the work. It will include more complex compounds. Acids and other products from the plant kingdom, salts, etc., will be key components. I already have a collection of experiments on these topics, but I want to explore this area again to feel more satisfied.

August, 1827.

August 1827.


CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

CONTENTS OF VOL. 2.

Part First.

Part One.

Chap. V. compounds of two elements.
Page.
Section 13. Metallic Oxides  1
Oxide   of Gold  5
——— Platina 11
——— Silver 17
Oxides of Mercury 19
Oxide   of Palladium 24
Oxides of Rhodium, Iridium, and Osmium 26
——— Copper 26
——— Iron 28
——— Nickel 34
——— Tin 36
——— Lead 39
Oxide   of Zinc 51
Oxides of Potassium 53
——— Sodium 56
Oxide   of Bismuth 57
Oxides of Antimony 58
Oxide   of Tellurium 62
Oxides of Arsenic 63
——— Cobalt 68
——— Manganese 71
——— Chromium 80
——— Uranium 86
——— Molybdenum 87
——— Tungsten 90
——— Titanium 91
——— Columbium 92
——— Cerium 94
 
Section 14. Earthy, Alkaline, and Metallic Sulphurets 96
Sulphurets of Lime 99
Sulphuret of Magnesia 111
Sulphurets of Barytes 112
——— Strontites 114
——— Alumine, Silex, Yttria, Glucine and Zircone 114
——— Potash 116
——— Soda 119
Sulphuret   of Ammonia 120
Sulphurets of Gold 121
Sulphuret   of Platina 123
Sulphurets of Silver 126
——— Mercury 127
Sulphuret   of Palladium 131
——— Rhodium 132
——— Iridium 132
——— Osmium 132
Sulphurets of Copper 133
——— Iron 134
——— Nickel 138
——— Tin 139
——— Lead 144
——— Zinc 146
——— Potassium and Sodium 148
——— Bismuth 149
——— Antimony 151
Sulphuret   of Tellurium 153
Sulphurets of Arsenic 153
Sulphuret   of Cobalt 160
Sulphurets of Manganese 162
Sulphuret   of Chromium 163
——— Uranium 164
——— Molybdenum 164
Sulphuret   of Tungsten 164
Sulphurets of Titanium, Columbium, and Cerium 165
 
Section 15. Earthy, Alkaline, and Metallic Phosphurets 166
Phosphuret   of Hydrogen 169
Phosphurets of Carbon and Sulphur 184
Phosphuret   of Lime 184
———  Barytes 188
———  Strontites 190
———  Gold 191
———  Platina 194
———  Silver 195
———  Mercury 197
———  Palladium 198
———  Copper 199
———  Iron 201
———  Nickel 201
———  Tin 202
———  Lead 203
Phosphurets of  Zinc and Potassium 204
———  Sodium and Bismuth 207
———  Antimony and Arsenic 208
Phosphuret   of Cobalt 209
———  Manganese 210
 
Section 16. Carburets 211
———  of Iron ... steel 212-214
 
Section 17. Metallic Alloys 218
Alloys of Gold, with other metals 222
——— Platina, with other metals 226
——— Silver, with other metals 228
——— Mercury, and other metals: amalgams 230
  Triple, Quadruple, &c. amalgams 236
  Alloys of Copper, with other metals 238
    —— Iron, with other metals 253
  Alloys of Nickel and Tin, with do. 254
    —— Lead, with do. 258
  Triple Alloys, Solders; fusible metal, &c. 263
APPENDIX.
Abstract of De la Roche and Berard’s essay
  on the specific heat of gases 268
———   Dulong and Petit’s essays,
  On the expansion of air, mercury, glass,  
  iron, copper, and platina, by heat 272
  On the capacities of certain bodies, for heat 274
  On the laws of refrigeration 277
  On the specific heats of certain bodies 280
  Remarks on the above essays 282
New Table of the forces of vapours 298
Table of the expansion of air, and the force  
of aqueous and ætherial vapour, adapted  
to atmospheric temperatures 299
Applications of the above table 300
Formulæ for determining the proportions of  
combustible gases, in mixtures 305
Heat produced by the combustion of gases 309
Absorption of gases by water 309
Fluoric acid—deutoxide of hydrogen 311
Muriatic acid—oxymuriatic acid 313
Nitric acid—compounds of azote and oxygen 315
On ammonia 328
Decomposition of ammonia by nitrous oxide 330
—— ——  —— by nitrous gas and oxygen 332
Volume of gases from the decomposition of ammonia 335
Decomposition of ammonia by a red heat 335
Decomposition of ammonia by oxymuriatic acid 335
Sulphuret of Carbon 338
Potassium, Sodium, &c. 340
Alum 341
New table of the relative weights of atoms. 352
Additions. Steel; mixed gases; expansion of liquids by heat   354

[Pg 1]

[Pg 1]

NEW SYSTEM OF
CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY.

NEW SYSTEM OF
CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY.


CHAP. V.

CHAP. 5.

SECTION 13.
Metal oxides.

All the metals are disposed to combine with oxygen, but the combination is effected more easily with some than with others; the compound is usually called an oxide, but in some instances it is also called an acid. The same metal combines with one, two, or perhaps more atoms of oxygen, forming compounds which may be distinguished according to Dr. Thomson, by the terms protoxide, deutoxide, tritoxide, &c.

All metals tend to combine with oxygen, but some do so more easily than others; the resulting compound is generally called an oxide, though in some cases it can also be referred to as an acid. The same metal can combine with one, two, or sometimes more atoms of oxygen, creating compounds that can be categorized according to Dr. Thomson using the terms protoxide, deutoxide, tritoxide, etc.

Such however is the repulsion of oxygen to oxygen that we rarely find three atoms of it retained by a single atom of any kind; and there are [Pg 2] not many instances of metals capable of holding two atoms of oxygen. Various modifications of the proportions of metals and oxygen arise from the combinations of the oxides themselves one with another and with oxygen, so as to lead some to imagine that an atom of metal in some instances combines with 3, 4, or more of oxygen. This is altogether improbable: It is much more simple to suppose that one atom of oxygen connects two or more atoms of protoxide, 1 of protoxide unites to 1 or more of deutoxide, &c. These intermediate oxides are in few if any instances found to combine with acids like the other two oxides.

The repulsion between oxygen atoms is so strong that we rarely see three oxygen atoms held by a single atom of any kind, and there aren't many metals that can hold onto two oxygen atoms. Different ratios of metals and oxygen result from the various combinations of oxides with each other and with oxygen, leading some to think that a metal atom can sometimes combine with 3, 4, or more oxygen atoms. This seems unlikely; it's much simpler to assume that one oxygen atom connects to two or more protoxide atoms, and one protoxide combines with one or more deutoxide atoms, and so on. These intermediate oxides are rarely, if ever, found to react with acids like the other two oxides do. [Pg 2]

There is no reason that I am acquainted with for disbelieving that oxygen combined with a metal is still repulsive of oxygen, and that by the same law as particles of an elastic fluid; that is, the repulsion is inversely as the distance of the centres of the atoms. Hence it may be demonstrated that it requires twice the strength of affinity to form a deutoxide as a protoxide, three times the strength to form a tritoxide as a protoxide, &c. On this account it is, in all probability, that deutoxides are not numerous, and tritoxides are rarely if ever found. [Pg 3]

I can't think of a reason to doubt that oxygen combined with a metal still repels oxygen, just like particles of an elastic fluid do; that is, the repulsion decreases as the distance between the centers of the atoms increases. Therefore, it can be shown that it takes twice the strength of attraction to form a deutoxide compared to a protoxide, and three times the strength to create a tritoxide compared to a protoxide, and so on. This probably explains why deutoxides are not common and tritoxides are hardly ever found. [Pg 3]

The quantity of oxygen that combines with any metal to form an oxide may be investigated by several methods.

The amount of oxygen that bonds with any metal to create an oxide can be explored through various methods.

1st. By combustion; a given weight of the metal may be burned and the oxide produced may be collected and weighed; when the increase by combustion will appear.

1st. Through combustion; a specific weight of the metal can be burned, and the resulting oxide can be collected and weighed; this will show the increase from combustion.

2. By solution in an acid and precipitation by an earth or alkali; in this case a given weight of the metal is dissolved and precipitated; the precipitate collected and sufficiently dried shews the increase by oxygen.

2. By dissolving in an acid and then precipitating with an earth or alkali; in this case, a specific weight of the metal is dissolved and then precipitated; the collected precipitate, once properly dried, demonstrates the increase due to oxygen.

3. By transferring the oxygen from an oxide to another metal; in this case the metal in question is usually immersed in a saline solution of the other metal; this latter metal gives up its oxygen to the former and is itself reformed or revived as it is termed.

3. By transferring the oxygen from an oxide to another metal; in this case, the metal involved is usually placed in a saline solution of the other metal; this second metal gives up its oxygen to the first and is itself restored or revived, as it's called.

4. By determining the proportion of hydrogen gas evolved during the solution of a given weight of metal; then allowing half of that volume for its equivalent of oxygenous gas, the weight of it shews the oxygen united to the metal; it being now well understood that water furnishes the two elements of hydrogen and oxygen in such case.

4. By measuring the amount of hydrogen gas produced when a specific weight of metal dissolves, and then accounting for half of that volume as its equivalent of oxygen gas, the weight indicates the amount of oxygen combined with the metal. It's now well understood that water provides the two elements, hydrogen and oxygen, in this case.

5. The higher oxides are conveniently determined by the application of the solution of oxymuriate of lime to the lower oxides in solution. [Pg 4]

5. You can easily find the higher oxides by applying a solution of calcium hypochlorite to the lower oxides in solution. [Pg 4]

6. The quantity of oxygen in several oxides may be found from the quantity of nitrous gas evolved during the solution of a given weight of metal in nitric acid.

6. The amount of oxygen in various oxides can be determined by the amount of nitrous gas produced when a specific weight of metal is dissolved in nitric acid.

The first four methods have been used by chemists for several years past; the two last I have added from my own experience, having found them very useful assistants in various instances. The last method by nitrous gas, has indeed been proposed before, and labour bestowed on it both by others and myself, but without reducing the results to any certainty, till lately; the principal cause of this want of success has arisen from misunderstanding the nature and constitution of nitric acid. Most chemists seem with me to have mistaken nitrous acid for nitric; the former is composed of 1 atom of azote and 2 of oxygen; or perhaps of 2 azote and 4 oxygen; the latter of 2 azote and 5 oxygen, or 2 nitrous gas and 3 oxygen; the weight of the former is 19, or its double 38, on my scale, and that of the latter 45. [My reasons for adopting the above conclusion respecting nitrous acid, which is at variance with that in Vol. 1, p. 331, will be given hereafter.] When therefore a metal is oxidized by nitric acid, 3 atoms of oxygen (= 21) go to the metal, and 2 atoms of nitrous [Pg 5] gas (= 24) are disengaged. Hence ⅞ of the weight of nitrous gas evolved is the weight of oxygen combined. It sometimes happens however that the nitrous gas is partly or wholly retained by the residue of nitric acid; but in this case the oxymuriate of lime can be applied to convert the nitrous gas into nitric acid, and from the oxygen imbibed the quantity of nitrous gas may be inferred.

The first four methods have been used by chemists for many years; I’ve added the last two based on my own experience, finding them helpful in various situations. The last method involving nitrous gas has been suggested before, and both others and I have worked on it, but it didn't yield consistent results until recently. The main reason for this lack of success stems from misunderstanding the properties and structure of nitric acid. Most chemists, including myself, seem to have confused nitrous acid with nitric acid; the former consists of 1 atom of nitrogen and 2 of oxygen, or possibly 2 nitrogen and 4 oxygen; the latter consists of 2 nitrogen and 5 oxygen, or 2 nitrous gas and 3 oxygen. The weight of the former is 19, or double that, 38, on my scale, while the weight of the latter is 45. [I will explain my reasons for the above conclusion about nitrous acid, which differs from the one in Vol. 1, p. 331, later.] When a metal is oxidized by nitric acid, 3 atoms of oxygen (= 21) go to the metal, while 2 atoms of nitrous gas (= 24) are released. Thus, ⅞ of the weight of nitrous gas that escapes corresponds to the weight of oxygen combined. However, it sometimes happens that the nitrous gas is partly or completely retained by the remaining nitric acid; in this case, the oxymuriate of lime can be used to convert the nitrous gas back into nitric acid, allowing us to deduce the amount of nitrous gas from the oxygen absorbed.

1. Oxide of Gold.

Some difficulties have been found in ascertaining both the number and proportions of the oxides of gold; hence the differences in the results of authors.

Some challenges have emerged in determining both the amount and ratios of gold oxides; therefore, there are discrepancies in the findings of different authors.

Gold does not burn by exposure to heat, but gold leaf and gold wire may be deflagrated by electricity and galvanism; a purple powder is the product, which is considered by some as the protoxide of gold; but others, after Macquer and Proust, conceive with greater probability that this powder is nothing but gold reduced to its ultimate division. Solutions of gold which are of a fine yellow, give a purple stain; and gold deoxidized by green sulphate of iron is precipitated blue, which precipitate gradually assumes a yellow colour as the particles become [Pg 6] united. The very weak affinity of gold for oxygen is shewn by the difficulty with which it is oxidized and the ease with which the oxygen is expelled again by heat; these facts seem to preclude the idea of gold combining with oxygen in high temperatures.

Gold doesn’t burn when exposed to heat, but gold leaf and gold wire can be ignited by electricity and galvanism, producing a purple powder that some consider to be gold protoxide. However, others, following Macquer and Proust, believe it’s more likely that this powder is just gold broken down into its smallest particles. Solutions of fine yellow gold leave a purple stain, and gold deoxidized by green sulfate of iron precipitates as blue, gradually turning yellow as the particles come together. The weak attraction of gold to oxygen is evident in how hard it is to oxidize and how easily oxygen can be removed by heat. These facts suggest that gold doesn’t combine with oxygen at high temperatures.

Protoxide. Gold is scarcely affected by pure sulphuric, nitric or muriatic acid; but it is easily oxidized and dissolved by nitro-muriatic acid (that is, a mixture of nitric and muriatic acids) when assisted by a temperature of 150 or 200°. Caustic potash being put into the solution and heated, a brownish black precipitate is obtained; but a part of the oxide remains in solution combined with the muriate of potash, according to Vauquelin; and Proust has observed that the oxide cannot be washed and dried in a moderate heat without a portion of the gold being revived; hence the difficulty of ascertaining in this way the weight of oxygen combining with gold.

Protoxide. Gold is hardly affected by pure sulfuric, nitric, or hydrochloric acid; however, it dissolves easily in aqua regia (a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids) when heated to about 150 or 200°F. When caustic potash is added to the solution and heated, a brownish-black precipitate forms; yet some of the oxide stays in solution combined with potassium chloride, according to Vauquelin. Proust noted that the oxide can't be washed and dried at moderate heat without some gold being restored, making it difficult to determine the weight of oxygen that combines with gold this way.

I have succeeded, as I apprehend, in determining the relative weights of gold and oxygen, by two methods, which mutually corroborate each other. The first is by means of the nitrous gas generated by the solution of gold; and the second is, by finding what quantity of green [Pg 7] oxide of iron is converted into red by precipitating a given weight of gold in solution.

I believe I have managed to determine the relative weights of gold and oxygen using two methods that support each other. The first method involves the nitrous gas produced by dissolving gold, and the second method consists of measuring how much green oxide of iron turns red when a specific weight of gold in solution is precipitated. [Pg 7]

Ten grains of guinea gold of the sp. gr. 17.3, were repeatedly dissolved in a small excess of nitro-muriatic acid; the quantity and purity of the nitrous gas generated were duly observed and allowance made for the loss occasioned by a small portion of common air originally in the gas bottle. The volume of nitrous gas corrected as above was always found between 1100 and 1200 grain measures, the weight of which may be estimated at 1.6 grains, corresponding to 1.4 grains of oxygen. The small portion of alloy (¹/₁₂) known to be in standard gold is chiefly copper with a small part silver; now it will be seen in the sequel that copper takes ¼ of its weight of oxygen; hence if we allow .8 of a grain for copper and .2 for the oxygen combining with it, we shall have 9.2 gold united to 1.2 oxygen, or 100 gold with 13 oxygen, which is nearly the same as Berzelius has determined by precipitating the gold by mercury.—Again, 10 grains of gold were dissolved as above (= 9.2 pure) and precipitated by a solution of pure green sulphate of iron of the sp. gr. 1.181 and which I had previously proved to contain 9 grains of green oxide in 100 measures. They converted 120 measures of [Pg 8] this green sulphate into yellow, which was carefully precipitated afterwards by lime water, dried and weighed. The gold precipitated was found very nearly 9 grains; and the yellow oxide of iron mixed with oxide of copper was nearly 13 grains. Now 120 measures sulphate iron contain 10.8 grains green oxide, and these require ¹/₉ of their weight of oxygen (see the oxides of iron) to be changed into yellow oxide, or 1.2 oxygen. Hence it appears that the oxygen combined with the gold was transferred to the iron unchanged in quantity. It is to be observed however that green oxide of iron not only deoxidates the gold but it semideoxidates the copper also; so that .1 of the transferred oxygen above might be said to be derived from the copper, and the rest, or 1.1 from the 9 grains of gold; this would give 100 gold to 12.2 oxygen, which is still nearer to the determination of Berzelius. Upon the whole I am inclined to adopt the proportion of 8 to 1 or 100 to 12.5 as that which appears the most correct approximation and at the same time a ratio easily remembered and adapted to facilitate calculations.

Ten grains of guinea gold with a specific gravity of 17.3 were repeatedly dissolved in a small excess of aqua regia; the quantity and purity of the nitrous gas produced were carefully monitored, accounting for the loss caused by a small amount of common air that was originally in the gas bottle. The corrected volume of nitrous gas was consistently found to be between 1100 and 1200 grain measures, weighing approximately 1.6 grains, which corresponds to 1.4 grains of oxygen. The small amount of alloy (¹/₁₂) known to be in standard gold is primarily copper with a small amount of silver; it will be shown shortly that copper absorbs ¼ of its weight in oxygen. Therefore, if we allocate .8 of a grain to copper and .2 for the oxygen it combines with, we end up with 9.2 grains of gold combined with 1.2 grains of oxygen, or 100 grains of gold with 13 grains of oxygen, which is almost identical to what Berzelius determined by precipitating gold with mercury. Again, 10 grains of gold were dissolved as mentioned earlier (equaling 9.2 pure) and precipitated using a solution of pure green iron sulfate with a specific gravity of 1.181, which I had previously tested to contain 9 grains of green oxide per 100 measures. They converted 120 measures of this green sulfate into yellow, which was then carefully precipitated with lime water, dried, and weighed. The precipitated gold was found to be very close to 9 grains, and the yellow iron oxide mixed with copper oxide weighed nearly 13 grains. Now, 120 measures of iron sulfate contain 10.8 grains of green oxide, requiring ¹/₉ of their weight in oxygen (see the oxides of iron) to convert into yellow oxide, or 1.2 grains of oxygen. Thus, it appears that the oxygen that combined with the gold was transferred to the iron without any change in quantity. However, it should be noted that green iron oxide not only deoxidizes the gold but also partially deoxidizes the copper. Thus, .1 of the transferred oxygen might be attributed to the copper, with the remaining 1.1 coming from the 9 grains of gold; this would yield a ratio of 100 grains of gold to 12.2 grains of oxygen, which is even closer to Berzelius's findings. Overall, I tend to favor the proportion of 8 to 1 or 100 to 12.5 as the most accurate approximation, which is also a ratio that is easy to remember and useful for calculations.

We are now to consider whether the above is the protoxide. As no other oxide has been clearly shewn to exist, and as this combines with [Pg 9] muriatic acid, with ammonia, with the oxide of tin, &c. and is wholly deoxidated by green sulphate of iron and by a moderate heat, there seems every reason to conclude it is a combination of the most simple kind, or 1 atom of metal to 1 of oxygen. Hence the atom of oxygen being 7, that of gold must be 56, and not 140 or 200, as stated Vol. 1, p. 250.

We now need to determine whether the substance above is the protoxide. Since no other oxide has been clearly shown to exist, and because it reacts with hydrochloric acid, ammonia, tin oxide, etc., and is completely deoxidized by green sulfate of iron and moderate heat, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is a simple combination of 1 atom of metal to 1 atom of oxygen. Therefore, with the atom of oxygen being 7, the atom of gold must be 56, and not 140 or 200, as stated in Vol. 1, p. 250.

Berzelius seems to consider the above as the tritoxide, or three atoms of oxygen to one of gold; but it is extremely improbable that gold, which is allowed to have a weak affinity for oxygen, should be able to restrain the violent repulsion of three atoms of oxygen, and should on every occasion lose them all at once, and not by degrees, as is usual with other high oxides.

Berzelius appears to view the above as tritoxide, meaning three oxygen atoms for every one of gold; however, it’s highly unlikely that gold, which is known to have a weak attraction to oxygen, could overcome the strong repulsion of three oxygen atoms. It also seems improbable that it would lose them all at once, instead of gradually as is typical with other higher oxides.

Subjoined are the results of various authors in regard to the oxide of gold, but generally given with diffidence as to their accuracy.

Here are the results from various authors about the oxide of gold, but they're generally presented with hesitation regarding their accuracy.

  gold   oxygen
Bergman   100     +   10
Proust +  8.57 to 31.
Oberkampf + 10
Berzelius + 12 (4 suboxide)
My results + 12.5

[Pg 10] Since writing the above I have had an opportunity of repeating the experiments on the oxide of gold by an improved nitrous gas apparatus, calculated almost entirely to exclude atmospheric air; I find less nitrous gas produced during the solution than stated above, sometimes by ⅓, and that it is variable according to the excess of nitric acid; also that the solution requires a portion of oxymuriatic acid as an equivalent for the nitrous gas retained. I prefer, however, the method of oxidizing the green sulphate of iron; by putting a small excess of the green sulphate and precipitating, first the red oxide and then the green, I obtained very distinct results. On the whole I am inclined to think my results preceding these have rather overrated the oxygen, and that it would as nearly be stated at 11 on the hundred. This would be nearly a mean of those in the above table, and would require the atom of gold to be 63, and that of the oxide 70. Between the two extremes of 56 and 63 it is most probable the true weight of the atom of gold will be found.

[Pg 10] Since writing the above, I've had a chance to repeat the experiments with gold oxide using an improved nitrous gas setup designed to minimize atmospheric air exposure. I find that less nitrous gas is produced during the solution than mentioned earlier, sometimes by a third, and that it varies depending on the excess of nitric acid. Additionally, the solution requires some oxymuriatic acid to balance the nitrous gas that is retained. However, I prefer the method of oxidizing the green sulfate of iron. By using a small excess of green sulfate and precipitating first the red oxide and then the green, I obtained very clear results. Overall, I'm inclined to think that my previous results have somewhat overestimated the oxygen content, and it would more accurately be stated at 11 percent. This would be about the average of those in the table above, suggesting that the atomic weight of gold should be 63, and that of the oxide 70. It's likely that the true atomic weight of gold lies between the two extremes of 56 and 63.

It may be proper to add that I have found 100 grain measures of muriatic acid (1.16), and 25 of nitric (1.35), are sufficient to [Pg 11] dissolve 40 grains of standard gold; and I have reason to think the acids are in due proportion nearly, though different from what is usually recommended and employed.

It might be worth noting that I've discovered that 100 grain measures of hydrochloric acid (1.16) and 25 of nitric acid (1.35) are enough to dissolve 40 grains of standard gold; I believe the acids are nearly in the right proportions, even though they differ from what's typically suggested and used. [Pg 11]

2. Oxide of Platina.

Platina exhibits greater difficulties than gold in the investigation of its compounds with oxygen. It is not oxidized by heat; but by the explosion of an electric battery it is converted into a black powder, which is most probably the metal in extreme division, though it has been considered by some as the protoxide. Platina is capable of being oxidized and dissolved by nitro-muriatic acid, but less easily than gold; it requires more acid, as high or higher temperature and long continued digestion; nitrous gas is given out, during the solution, but sparingly. When lime or an alkali is added to the solution with a view to precipitate the oxide, a triple compound is usually formed of the acid, the oxide and the alkali, which is in most instances precipitated. This weighty compound renders the valuation of the oxygen in it very uncertain.

Platinum is harder to study in its compounds with oxygen compared to gold. It doesn't oxidize with heat; however, when exposed to an electric battery explosion, it turns into a black powder, which is likely the metal in very fine particles, although some have thought of it as the protoxide. Platinum can be oxidized and dissolved in aqua regia, but it's not as easy as with gold; it needs more acid, similar or higher temperatures, and prolonged digestion. During the dissolution process, nitrous gas is released, but only in small amounts. When lime or an alkali is added to the solution to precipitate the oxide, a triple compound usually forms—consisting of the acid, the oxide, and the alkali—which is typically precipitated. This heavy compound makes determining the amount of oxygen in it quite uncertain.

Chenevix has made some observations on the oxides of platina, (see Nichols. Journ. 7. p. 178.) He finds two oxides: the one consists of 93 [Pg 12] platina and 7 oxygen; the other of 87 platina and 13 oxygen; but the experiments on which these results rest are not quite satisfactory.

Chenevix has made some observations on the oxides of platinum (see Nichols. Journ. 7. p. 178). He finds two oxides: one contains 93 platinum and 7 oxygen; the other has 87 platinum and 13 oxygen; however, the experiments these results are based on are not entirely satisfactory.

Mr. E. Davy in the 40th vol. of the Philos. Magazine, states his having reduced the oxide of platina in solution by means of hydrogen; and that he finds the oxide to consist of 84 platina and 16 oxygen nearly. I could not succeed at all in effecting the reduction of the metal in this way.

Mr. E. Davy in the 40th volume of the Philosophical Magazine, mentions that he managed to reduce platinum oxide in solution using hydrogen; and he found that the oxide is made up of about 84 platinum and 16 oxygen. I wasn't able to successfully reduce the metal this way at all.

Berzelius has lately given us the results of his investigation on this subject. (An. de Chimie 87—126.) According to this distinguished chemist there are two oxides of platina; the first consists of 100 metal and 8¼ oxygen, and the second of 100 metal and 16½ oxygen, nearly. In order to understand his process it may be proper to premise that when nitro-muriatic acid has dissolved as much platina as it can, there is still a great excess of one or both of the acids, which is unnecessary for the existence of the solution, and which may, and in general ought to be expelled by evaporation; by exposing the solution to a heat of 100 or 150° the excess of both acids is in great part driven off and a dry red mass is obtained, without smell, but very deliquescent. It is equal to or rather more than twice the weight of the [Pg 13] platina. It consists of water, muriatic and nitric acids, oxygen and platina; it is still an acid salt. By exposing the dry mass again to a heat of 400 or 500°, it liquifies, exhales acid fumes having the odour of oxymuriatic acid, and becomes again a dry mass of an olive colour, exhaling fumes as the heat increases, and loses about ¼ of its weight. It is still soluble in water, except a few atoms of black powder, continues acid to the tests, and may be considered as a supermuriate of platina. If this olive powder be again heated almost to red, it exhales a visible smoke in the open air, which has the smell of oxymuriatic acid, and becomes a light brown powder, having lost a little weight. It is then neither deliquescent nor soluble in water except in a small degree so as to give the yellow colour. In this state it has been considered as a neutral muriate. By a moderately bright red heat this powder is decomposed and leaves a black spongy mass which is found to be pure platina.

Berzelius has recently shared the results of his research on this topic. (An. de Chimie 87—126.) According to this renowned chemist, there are two oxides of platinum; the first consists of 100 parts metal and about 8¼ parts oxygen, while the second consists of 100 parts metal and nearly 16½ parts oxygen. To understand his process, it's important to note that when aqua regia has dissolved as much platinum as it can, there's still a significant excess of one or both acids remaining, which is unnecessary for the solution to exist and should typically be removed through evaporation. By heating the solution to around 100 or 150°, most of the excess acids are driven off, resulting in a dry red mass that has no smell but is very hygroscopic. This mass weighs equal to or more than twice the amount of the platinum. It is made up of water, hydrochloric and nitric acids, oxygen, and platinum; it still functions as an acidic salt. If the dry mass is heated again to about 400 or 500°, it melts and emits acidic fumes with the scent of chlorine gas, transforming back into a dry olive-colored mass that releases fumes as the heat increases and loses about a quarter of its weight. It's still soluble in water, except for a few particles of black powder, continues to behave acidically in tests, and can be considered a superchloride of platinum. When this olive powder is heated nearly to redness, it gives off visible smoke in the open air that smells like chlorine gas, transforming into a light brown powder after losing a bit of weight. In this state, it is neither hygroscopic nor very soluble in water, except to a small extent, giving a yellow color. In this state, it has been regarded as a neutral chloride. When this powder is subjected to moderately bright red heat, it decomposes and leaves behind a black spongy mass that turns out to be pure platinum.

The insoluble muriate of platina according to Mr. E. Davy, contains 72.5 per cent. of platina, and Berzelius finds 73.3; the loss is considered as oxymuriatic acid; hence from the known proportions of this acid Berzelius infers the constituents of 100 muriate = 73.3 [Pg 14] platina, 6.075 oxygen and 20.625 muriatic acid; or 100 platina take 8.3 oxygen. The near agreement of the above authors is favourable to the accuracy of their results; but I have found some difficulty in obtaining the insoluble muriate free from the soluble one, and at the same time from reduced platina because the precise degree of heat requisite to produce it is neither well known nor easily attained; and it is desirable that a certain weight of platina should be dissolved and the same weight reproduced as a confirmation of accuracy. From a train of experiments on the soluble and insoluble muriates of platina, the salts being obtained from the purified laminated metal, I am disposed to consider the above results as good approximations to the truth.

The insoluble muriate of platinum, according to Mr. E. Davy, contains 72.5% platinum, while Berzelius finds it to be 73.3%. The loss is thought to be oxymuriatic acid; thus, from the known proportions of this acid, Berzelius infers that for 100 parts of muriate, there are 73.3 parts platinum, 6.075 parts oxygen, and 20.625 parts muriatic acid; or 100 parts platinum require 8.3 parts oxygen. The close agreement between these authors supports the accuracy of their findings. However, I have encountered some challenges in isolating the insoluble muriate from the soluble one, as well as from reduced platinum, due to the precise temperature needed to produce it not being well established or easily achieved. It is also important that a specific weight of platinum is dissolved and that the same weight is reproduced for confirmation of accuracy. Based on a series of experiments with the soluble and insoluble muriates of platinum, obtained from purified laminated metal, I believe these results are solid approximations to the truth.

In order to obtain the other oxide, Berzelius digests mercury in a solution of the supermuriate of platina; a black powder is thrown down, which is found to be platina, and mercury is taken up, being oxidized at the expence of the platina. It was found that 16.7 grains of mercury had precipitated 8.5 of platina; and the mercury being calculated as in the state of deutoxide, contained, from the known proportions of this metal, 1.4 oxygen; hence 8.5 platina must have yielded 1.4 oxygen; and [Pg 15] if 8.5 ∶ 1.4 ∷ 100 ∶ 16.4; so that 100 platina must have had 16.4 oxygen in the supermuriate, or twice the quantity it had in the insoluble muriate.

To get the other oxide, Berzelius combines mercury with a solution of supermuriate of platinum; a black powder forms, which turns out to be platinum, while mercury is absorbed, getting oxidized at the expense of the platinum. It was observed that 16.7 grains of mercury precipitated 8.5 grains of platinum; and when the mercury is considered to be in the form of deutoxide, it contains, based on the known proportions of this metal, 1.4 grains of oxygen; therefore, 8.5 grains of platinum must have provided 1.4 grains of oxygen; and [Pg 15] if 8.5 ∶ 1.4 ∷ 100 ∶ 16.4, that means 100 grains of platinum must have had 16.4 grains of oxygen in the supermuriate, or twice the amount it had in the insoluble muriate.

This conclusion appears to me premature; the mercurial oxide should at least have been precipitated and a corresponding quantity have been found and proved to be the red oxide. Even had this been the case, it is not easy to determine what quantity of it might be due to the residue of nitro-muriatic acid. But I have not found that the common yellow or red oxide of mercury is precipitated by lime water in such case; the precipitate is brown, and evidently contains both mercury and platina. Proust had found in his excellent essay on platina (Journ. de Physique 52—437, 1801) that mercury decomposes muriate of platina, that an amalgam of platina with a little calomel, and much mercury in powder, were precipitated; exposed to heat, a fine black powder was left which had the characters of platina. Into a solution of pure platina that had been evaporated to dryness in 150° and redissolved, I put 9¼ grs. of mercury, and boiled it for 10 minutes in a glass capsule, till there was apparently no further change; the liquor filtered was as yellow as at first; the mixture of black powder and [Pg 16] running mercury remaining on the filter, when dried, weighed 6½ grains; this heated to a low red in an iron spoon, left 1 grain of fine black powder; the liquid saturated with lime water, yielded 2½ grains dry black powder insoluble in cold nitric acid; after this, protomuriate of tin threw down 5¾ grains of the compound oxides of platina and tin. The solution at first contained 3.3 grains of platina.

This conclusion seems premature to me; the mercurial oxide should have at least been precipitated, and a corresponding amount should have been found and confirmed as the red oxide. Even if that were the case, it’s not easy to determine how much of it might come from the residue of nitro-muriatic acid. However, I have not discovered that the common yellow or red oxide of mercury is precipitated by lime water in such situations; the precipitate is brown and clearly contains both mercury and platinum. Proust found in his excellent essay on platinum (Journ. de Physique 52—437, 1801) that mercury decomposes muriate of platinum, that an amalgam of platinum with a little calomel and a lot of powdered mercury was precipitated; when heated, a fine black powder was left that had the characteristics of platinum. Into a solution of pure platinum that had been evaporated to dryness at 150° and then redissolved, I added 9¼ grams of mercury and boiled it for 10 minutes in a glass capsule until there seemed to be no further change; the filtered liquid was as yellow as it was initially; the mixture of black powder and [Pg 16] running mercury left on the filter, when dried, weighed 6½ grains; when this was heated to a low red in an iron spoon, it left 1 grain of fine black powder; the liquid saturated with lime water yielded 2½ grains of dry black powder that was insoluble in cold nitric acid; after this, protomuriate of tin precipitated 5¾ grains of the compound oxides of platinum and tin. The solution initially contained 3.3 grains of platinum.

In another experiment 2 parts of calomel were put to 1 of platina in solution; when heated to boiling, the calomel was dissolved and a little black powder was precipitated, which did not amount to half the weight of the platina. Lime water threw down from the liquid, a yellowish olive or brown precipitate, partially soluble in cold nitro-muriatic acid; and after this, muriate of tin yielded a brown precipitate. These experiments shew that the action between muriate of platina and mercury or the mercurial salts, is of a complicated nature, and is not limited to the decomposition of the oxide of platina and the substitution of the deutoxide of mercury in its place.

In another experiment, 2 parts of calomel were combined with 1 part of platinum in solution. When heated to boiling, the calomel dissolved, and a small amount of black powder was precipitated, which weighed less than half of the platinum. Lime water caused a yellowish olive or brown precipitate to form from the liquid, which was partially soluble in cold nitro-muriatic acid. After this, tin chloride produced a brown precipitate. These experiments show that the interaction between platinum chloride and mercury or mercurial salts is complex and involves more than just the breakdown of platinum oxide and the replacement of it with mercury dioxide.

The difficulties abovementioned have led me to investigate the oxygen combining with platina by means of the nitrous gas yielded upon its [Pg 17] solution in nitro-muriatic acid. By three distinct experiments I found that 10 grains of pure platina by solution yielded nearly 750 grain measures of nitrous gas, which may be considered as 1 grain in weight; ⅞ of which = .875 for oxygen; this would give 8.75 oxygen per cent. But from a subsequent experiment made under circumstances calculated to preclude as much as possible every source of fallacy, I obtained 790 measures of nitrous gas from 10 grains of platina; and the solution afterwards took 60 measures of oxymuriatic acid gas before a permanent smell of the gas was produced. These 790 measures = 1.05 grain, ⅞ of which = .92, to which add .04 for the oxygen acquired from the oxymuriatic acid, and we have .96 oxygen for 10 platina; or 100 platina take 9.6 oxygen. But if 9.6 ∶ 100 ∷ 7 ∶ 73, for the weight of an atom of platina, and 80 for that of the protoxide, as I apprehend it to be, and the only oxide of platina we can at present form. (The atom of platina in Vol. 1, page 248, was estimated at 100.)

The challenges mentioned earlier have prompted me to explore how oxygen combines with platinum using the nitrous gas released when it dissolves in nitro-muriatic acid. Through three different experiments, I discovered that 10 grains of pure platinum produced roughly 750 grain measures of nitrous gas, which can be seen as weighing 1 grain; ⅞ of this equals .875 for oxygen, suggesting 8.75 percent oxygen content. However, in a later experiment designed to minimize potential errors, I obtained 790 measures of nitrous gas from 10 grains of platinum. The solution then absorbed 60 measures of oxymuriatic acid gas before a lasting smell of the gas appeared. These 790 measures equal 1.05 grain, with ⅞ of this amount being .92. If we add .04 for the oxygen derived from the oxymuriatic acid, we arrive at .96 oxygen for 10 platinum, or 100 platinum requiring 9.6 oxygen. If we put it in proportion, 9.6:100 is to 7:73, considering the weight of a platinum atom to be 100 and the protoxide weight at 80, as I believe it is, and that is the only oxide of platinum we can currently create. (The platinum atom in Vol. 1, page 248, was estimated at 100.)

3. Oxide of Silver.

When silver wire is exploded by electricity in oxygen gas, a black powder is produced, which is the oxide of silver. If silver be [Pg 18] dissolved in nitric acid and precipitated by lime water, an olive brown powder falls which becomes black when exposed to the light. This black powder is the only oxide of silver with which we are acquainted. The proportion of silver and oxygen has been investigated by various chemists; the results are as under.

When silver wire is exploded with electricity in oxygen gas, a black powder is formed, which is silver oxide. If silver is dissolved in nitric acid and then precipitated with lime water, an olive-brown powder falls that turns black when exposed to light. This black powder is the only silver oxide we know of. The ratio of silver to oxygen has been studied by several chemists; the results are as follows.

  silver   oxygen
Wenzel   100     +   8.5
Proust + 9.5
Bucholz and Rose + 9.5[2]
Gay Lussac + 7.6[3]
Berzelius + 7.925

From the solution of 170 grains of standard silver I obtained nearly 30 oz. measures of nitrous gas = 18½ grains, corresponding to 16 oxygen. This would give 9.4 oxygen upon 100 silver. But as ⅒ of the metal or 17 grains was copper, and this takes ¼ of its weight of oxygen, we shall have 159 silver and 11¾ oxygen, or 100 silver and 7.7 oxygen nearly.

From the solution of 170 grains of standard silver, I got nearly 30 ounces of nitrous gas, which equals 18½ grains, corresponding to 16 oxygen. This would give 9.4 oxygen per 100 silver. However, since ⅒ of the metal, or 17 grains, was copper, and this requires ¼ of its weight in oxygen, we will have 159 silver and 11¾ oxygen, or about 100 silver and 7.7 oxygen.

If we adopt 7.8 as the proper quantity of oxygen on 100 silver, we shall have 7.8 ∶ 100 ∷ 7 ∶ 90 nearly, which represents the weight of an atom of silver, and 97 that of the oxide. [Pg 19]

If we take 7.8 as the correct amount of oxygen for 100 parts of silver, we get a ratio of about 7.8 to 100, which is similar to 7 to 90, representing the weight of a silver atom, compared to 97 for its oxide. [Pg 19]

4. Oxides of Mercury.

Two oxides of mercury have been long known and are well distinguished from each other. They may be obtained by exposing mercury to a heat not exceeding 600°, in contact with oxygen gas or atmospheric air, and due agitation; but this method is rarely adopted in practice. A high degree of heat decomposes the oxides again.

Two oxides of mercury have been known for a long time and are clearly different from each other. They can be produced by heating mercury to no more than 600° while in contact with oxygen gas or air, along with some stirring; however, this method is not commonly used in practice. High temperatures break down the oxides again.

Protoxide. To obtain the protoxide, mercury must be slowly dissolved in dilute nitric acid without heat, and an excess of mercury must be used. If to 1000 grain measures of nitric acid, 1.2 sp. gr. be put 500 grains of mercury, by occasional agitation the requisite solution will be obtained in 24 hours. A portion of this solution must be treated with a small excess of lime water or caustic alkali, when a black powder will be thrown down, which is the oxide containing a minimum of oxygen, and hence may be considered the protoxide.

Protoxide. To obtain the protoxide, mercury should be slowly dissolved in diluted nitric acid without applying heat, and a surplus of mercury must be used. If you add 500 grains of mercury to 1000 grain measures of nitric acid with a specific gravity of 1.2, stirring occasionally will yield the necessary solution within 24 hours. A portion of this solution should be mixed with a small excess of lime water or caustic alkali, which will result in a black powder being precipitated; this powder is the oxide that contains the least amount of oxygen and may thus be regarded as the protoxide.

Deutoxide. If to 1000 measures of nitric acid, 1.2 sp. gr. be put 350 grains of mercury, and the mixture be boiled till the mercury disappear, a solution will be obtained containing the deutoxide. A portion of this being treated as beforementioned with lime water, a [Pg 20] yellowish red powder is precipitated, which is the oxide of mercury containing a maximum of oxygen; all the later authors agree that it contains just double the quantity of oxygen to a given portion of mercury that the former does, and may therefore be called the deutoxide.

Deutoxide. If you mix 1000 parts of nitric acid (with a specific gravity of 1.2) with 350 grains of mercury and heat the mixture until the mercury disappears, you will get a solution that contains the deutoxide. If you then treat a portion of this solution with lime water, a yellowish-red powder will be precipitated, which is the oxide of mercury that has the highest amount of oxygen. All recent authors agree that it contains exactly double the amount of oxygen compared to a given amount of mercury that the previous one does, and it can therefore be called the deutoxide. [Pg 20]

These two oxides combine with most acids and form salts, some of which exhibit remarkable differences occasioned by the oxides; thus, muriatic acid with the protoxide forms protomuriate of mercury, commonly called calomel, an insoluble salt; with the deutoxide it forms deutomuriate of mercury, commonly called corrosive sublimate, a soluble salt.

These two oxides react with most acids to create salts, some of which show significant differences due to the oxides involved. For example, when muriatic acid combines with protoxide, it produces protomuriate of mercury, which is often referred to as calomel, an insoluble salt. When it reacts with deutoxide, it forms deutomuriate of mercury, commonly known as corrosive sublimate, which is a soluble salt.

The proportions of metal and oxygen in the two oxides may be found by precipitating a known weight of mercury reduced by solution to either of the oxides, then drying and weighing the oxides, when the increase of weight by the addition of oxygen may be observed. This method is less accurate with regard to mercury than to other metals, on account of the very great weight of the atom, by which a small error in the gross weight of the oxide will be a great one as it respects the oxygen. This circumstance will partly account for the differences of authors on this subject. [Pg 21]

The proportions of metal and oxygen in the two oxides can be determined by precipitating a known weight of mercury that has been reduced to either of the oxides, then drying and weighing the oxides to see how much weight was added due to oxygen. This method is less accurate for mercury compared to other metals because of mercury's very heavy atomic weight, which means that even a small error in the total weight of the oxide can significantly affect the oxygen measurement. This issue helps explain the differences in opinions among authors on this topic. [Pg 21]

One fact has been for some time known which demonstrates the oxygen in the red oxide to be double that in the black. Corrosive sublimate may be reduced to calomel by adding to it as much mercury as the sublimate contains, and triturating the mixture well, the oxygen of the red oxide (as well as the acid) becomes equally divided amongst the mercury and forms the black oxide, which is a constituent of calomel. Hence it follows that if the oxygen in one oxide can be ascertained, that of the other becomes known. Or if we can find how much oxygen must be added to the black oxide to change it to the red, we shall know the oxygen in both. Conformably with this last idea I have found a very accurate and elegant method of ascertaining the oxygen required to convert the black to the red oxide by treating protomuriate of mercury, mixed with water and a little muriatic acid, with oxymuriate of lime in solution; this must be gradually added till the protomuriate is dissolved, or rather converted to the deutomuriate. The quantity of oxygen in a given solution of oxymuriate of lime is most conveniently found by a solution of green sulphate of iron, as will be shewn under the oxides of that metal. [Pg 22]

One fact has been known for a while now that shows the oxygen in the red oxide is double that in the black. Corrosive sublimate can be reduced to calomel by adding mercury equal to the amount of sublimate and grinding the mixture well. The oxygen from the red oxide (along with the acid) gets distributed evenly among the mercury, forming the black oxide, a component of calomel. Therefore, if we can figure out the oxygen in one oxide, we can determine it for the other. If we discover how much oxygen needs to be added to the black oxide to turn it into the red one, we will know the oxygen content for both. Following this idea, I have developed a precise and effective method for finding the oxygen required to convert the black into the red oxide by treating mercuric chloride mixed with water and a small amount of hydrochloric acid with calcium hypochlorite in solution. This must be added gradually until the mercuric chloride is dissolved, or rather changed into mercurous chloride. The amount of oxygen in a specific solution of calcium hypochlorite can most conveniently be found using a solution of green iron sulfate, as will be shown under the oxides of that metal. [Pg 22]

The oxides of mercury may be investigated by the nitrous gas produced during solution. When mercury is dissolved without heat, as mentioned above, no nitrous gas is liberated. The solution has a strong nitrous smell and requires a great quantity of oxymuriate of lime to saturate both the oxide and the acid. When heat is employed to accelerate the solution, nitrous gas is liberated. I dissolved 154 grains of mercury in nitric acid, 1.2 sp. gr., by the application of a gentle heat from a lamp. About ⅒ excess of acid remained in the solution; the nitrous gas obtained was 12 oz. measures = 7.5 grains, corresponding to 6.5 oxygen, which gives nearly 4 oxygen or 100 mercury. This would have led me to suppose I had obtained the black oxide in solution; it was however entirely the red, as it gave no precipitate by common salt, and exhibited the red oxide by lime water; but it required as much oxymuriate of lime as contained 6.5 oxygen to saturate the nitrous gas in the solution before any oxymuriatic acid was liberated. It was clear therefore that only ½ of the nitrous gas was evolved, and the other ½ was retained in the solution, though it had been exposed to boiling heat.

The oxides of mercury can be studied through the nitrous gas produced during the dissolution process. When mercury is dissolved without heat, as mentioned earlier, no nitrous gas is released. The solution emits a strong nitrous smell and needs a large amount of oxymuriate of lime to fully saturate both the oxide and the acid. However, when heat is applied to speed up the dissolution, nitrous gas is released. I dissolved 154 grains of mercury in nitric acid (1.2 sp. gr.) using gentle heat from a lamp. About ⅒ excess of acid remained in the solution, and the nitrous gas produced amounted to 12 oz. measures, which equals 7.5 grains, corresponding to 6.5 oxygen, equivalent to nearly 4 oxygen or 100 mercury. This might have led me to believe I had obtained the black oxide in solution; however, it was entirely the red oxide, as it didn’t produce any precipitate with common salt and showed the red oxide in lime water. Nonetheless, it required as much oxymuriate of lime as contained 6.5 oxygen to saturate the nitrous gas in the solution before any oxymuriatic acid was released. It was clear, then, that only half of the nitrous gas was released, while the other half remained in the solution, even after being exposed to boiling heat.

The following are the proportions assigned by the several authors for the oxides of mercury. [Pg 23]

The following are the proportions given by various authors for the oxides of mercury. [Pg 23]

  Mercury.   Oxygen
    black.   red.
Bergman[4]   100     +    4   +   ——
Lavoisier[5] + ——   +    7.75 to 8
Chenevix[6] + 12   +   18.5
Taboada[7] +  5.2   +   11
Fourcroy & Thenard[8] +  4.16   +    8.21
Sefstrom[9] +  3.99   +    7.99
My results give +  4.2   +    8.4

Though the relative weights of oxygen and mercury may be investigated as above, yet it is from the weight of mercury and the acids in the salts of mercury, some of which are of a very definite character, such as the muriate and the deutomuriate, that the relative weight of the atom of mercury is best investigated. From these I first deduced the weight of an atom of mercury to be 167 about 10 years ago, and subsequent experience has not induced me to change the number, though it probably may admit of some correction. If the atom of mercury be [Pg 24] denoted by 167, that of the protoxide will be 174, and that of the deutoxide 181; which makes 100 mercury take 4.2 and 8.4 oxygen for the oxides respectively, as in the above table.

While you can investigate the relative weights of oxygen and mercury as mentioned earlier, it's actually more effective to look at the weight of mercury and the acids in mercury salts, some of which are very specific, like the muriate and the deutomuriate, to determine the relative weight of a mercury atom. About ten years ago, I determined the weight of a mercury atom to be 167, and my experience since then has not led me to change this figure, although it may allow for some adjustments. If the weight of a mercury atom is set at 167, then the weight of the protoxide will be 174, and the deutoxide will be 181, which means that for 100 units of mercury, you need 4.2 and 8.4 units of oxygen for the respective oxides, as shown in the table above. [Pg 24]

5. Oxide of Palladium.

The discoverer of this metal, Dr. Wollaston, has given us its distinguishing chemical properties; but we are indebted to Berzelius and Vauquelin for the proportions of oxygen and sulphur which combine with the metal (Vid. Annal. de Chimie, 77 and 78.) Few chemists have had an opportunity of making experiments on this metal, owing to its great scarcity and the consequent high price of it (1 shilling per grain). It does not seem desireable that any but those skilled in the more delicate chemical manipulations should operate upon articles such as the present.

The discoverer of this metal, Dr. Wollaston, has shared its key chemical properties; however, we owe it to Berzelius and Vauquelin for the specific amounts of oxygen and sulfur that combine with the metal (See Annal. de Chimie, 77 and 78.) Few chemists have had the chance to experiment with this metal due to its extreme rarity and the resulting high cost (1 shilling per grain). It doesn’t seem wise for anyone other than those skilled in more delicate chemical techniques to work with materials like this.

Berzelius treated the muriate of palladium with mercury, which abstracted the oxygen and left an amalgam of palladium and mercury; from the quantity of mercury dissolved he calculates that 100 palladium combine with 14.2 oxygen. This conclusion was corroborated by the circumstance that 100 palladium were found to take 28 of sulphur, or double the quantity of oxygen, which frequently happens with the metals. [Pg 25]

Berzelius treated palladium chloride with mercury, which removed the oxygen and formed an amalgam of palladium and mercury. From the amount of mercury dissolved, he determined that 100 parts of palladium combine with 14.2 parts of oxygen. This finding was supported by the fact that 100 parts of palladium could react with 28 parts of sulfur, which is double the amount of oxygen, a phenomenon that often occurs with metals. [Pg 25]

Vauquelin precipitates the oxide of palladium from the muriate by potash; it appears of a red brown colour, and is probably a hydrate; when washed and dried in a moderate heat, it becomes black, it loses 20 per cent. by a red heat and becomes metallic. This would give 25 oxygen on 100 metal; but as he finds the sulphuret to be 100 metal with 24 or 30 sulphur, nearly agreeing with Berzelius, it is very probable that a moderate heat does not free the oxide from water, and that consequently a part of the 20 per cent. loss is water.

Vauquelin separates the oxide of palladium from the muriate using potash; it has a reddish-brown color and is likely a hydrate. When it's washed and dried at a moderate temperature, it turns black, losing 20 percent at a red heat and becoming metallic. This suggests there’s 25 oxygen for every 100 metal; however, since he finds the sulphide to be 100 metal with 24 or 30 sulfur, which is close to Berzelius’s findings, it’s very likely that moderate heat doesn’t remove the water from the oxide, meaning that part of the 20 percent loss is probably due to water.

I dissolved 3 grains of palladium in a small excess of nitro-muriatic acid and obtained 240 grain measures of nitrous gas; the same quantity was obtained a second time, and to the solution (slightly acid) were added by degrees 200 measures of oxymuriatic acid gas; after agitation no smell was perceived, but by increasing the quantity of gas a permanent smell of oxymuriatic acid was produced, and when 200 more had been added the smell was sensible for some days in an open jar, a presumption that no higher oxide is to be obtained. Now 240 nitrous gas = .32 of a grain, corresponding to .28 of oxygen, and 200 oxymuriatic [Pg 26] acid = .64 of a grain, corresponding to .15 oxygen; the sum of the two portions of oxygen = .43, which must have combined with 3 grains of palladium; if .43 ∶ 4 ∷ 7 ∶ 50 nearly. Or 100 metal combine with 14 oxygen, as determined by Berzelius. I find the sulphuret to accord with this determination; and by carefully saturating the excess of acid in the nitro-muriate of palladium and then finding the quantity of lime water necessary to precipitate a certain weight of palladium, as well as the quantity of test muriatic acid necessary to dissolve the precipitated oxide, I am confirmed in the opinion that the atom of palladium must weigh 50 nearly, and its oxide 57, which there is every reason to believe is the protoxide.

I dissolved 3 grains of palladium in a little extra nitro-muriatic acid and got 240 grain measures of nitrous gas; I got the same amount again, and then gradually added 200 measures of oxymuriatic acid gas to the solution (which was slightly acidic); after shaking it, there was no smell, but when I added more gas, a permanent smell of oxymuriatic acid appeared. After adding 200 more measures, the smell lingered for several days in an open jar, suggesting that no higher oxide can be obtained. Now 240 measures of nitrous gas equal 0.32 grains, which corresponds to 0.28 of oxygen, and 200 measures of oxymuriatic acid equal 0.64 grains, corresponding to 0.15 of oxygen; the total amount of oxygen from both portions equals 0.43, which must have combined with 3 grains of palladium. If 0.43 is to 4 as 7 is to 50, roughly. Or 100 parts of metal combine with 14 parts of oxygen, as determined by Berzelius. I find the sulphuret aligns with this determination; and by carefully neutralizing the excess of acid in the nitro-muriate of palladium and measuring the amount of lime water needed to precipitate a specific weight of palladium, as well as the amount of test muriatic acid required to dissolve the precipitated oxide, I'm convinced that the atom of palladium weighs about 50, and its oxide weighs 57, which is likely the protoxide.

6, 7, and 8. Oxides of Rhodium,
Iridium, and Osmium.

Nothing certain has yet been determined respecting the oxygenation of these very rare metals.

Nothing certain has been decided yet regarding the oxygenation of these very rare metals.

9. Oxides of Copper.

There are two oxides of copper according to the results of Proust, Chenevix, Berzelius and others, the proportions of which are given [Pg 27] nearly the same by all, and so as to leave no reasonable doubt concerning their accuracy.

There are two types of copper oxide based on the findings of Proust, Chenevix, Berzelius, and others, and the proportions are almost consistently reported by all of them, leaving little room for doubt about their accuracy. [Pg 27]

1. Protoxide. This oxide is orange, and contains 12½ oxygen on 100 copper: it is obtained by precipitating a portion of copper from the solution of any cupreous salt, by means of iron, then mixing this copper with a rather greater portion of the deutoxide and triturating them well. This being done, the mixture is to be dissolved in muriatic acid, and the orange oxide may then be precipitated by an alkali.

1. Protoxide. This oxide is orange, and has 12½ parts oxygen for every 100 parts copper. It’s created by taking some copper out of a solution of any copper salt using iron, then combining this copper with a slightly larger amount of the deutoxide and grinding them thoroughly. Once that’s done, dissolve the mixture in hydrochloric acid, and you can then precipitate the orange oxide using an alkali.

2. Deutoxide. This oxide is black; it contains 25 oxygen on 100 copper: the black oxide is obtained by dissolving copper in nitric or sulphuric acid, then precipitating by lime water or an alkali, and heating the dried precipitate red hot. It may also be obtained by exposing copper to a red heat for some time in common air or oxygen gas, removing the scales and exposing them in like manner, till at length the black oxide is formed.

2. Deutoxide. This oxide is black; it contains 25 parts of oxygen for every 100 parts of copper. The black oxide is created by dissolving copper in nitric or sulfuric acid, then precipitating it with lime water or an alkali, and heating the dried precipitate until it's red hot. It can also be produced by heating copper in regular air or oxygen gas for a while, scraping off the scales, and repeating the process until the black oxide forms.

By dissolving 112 grains of copper turnings in 1000 grain measures of 1.16 nitric acid, I obtained 48 oz. measures of nitrous gas, = 30 grains; by oxymuriate of lime I found 2 grains of nitrous gas in the [Pg 28] solution, making in all 32 grains = 28 grains of oxygen. If 28 ∶ 112 ∷ 14 ∶ 56, for the weight of an atom of copper; hence the protoxide = 63 and the deutoxide = 70. These weights I adopted in 1806, and have not seen any reason to modify them since.

By dissolving 112 grains of copper shavings in 1000 grains of 1.16 nitric acid, I collected 48 ounces of nitrous gas, which equals 30 grains; using bleach, I found 2 grains of nitrous gas in the solution, bringing the total to 32 grains, or 28 grains of oxygen. If 28 : 112 :: 14 : 56, that gives the weight of a copper atom; so the protoxide weighs 63, and the deutoxide weighs 70. I adopted these weights in 1806 and haven’t found a reason to change them since. [Pg 28]

10. Oxides of Iron.

Two well known and well distinguished oxides of iron are now universally admitted; the one contains 28 oxygen on 100 iron, the other 42 on 100.

Two well-known and clearly defined iron oxides are now universally accepted; one contains 28% oxygen and 100% iron, while the other contains 42% oxygen and 100% iron.

1. Protoxide. This is always formed when iron is dissolved in dilute sulphuric or muriatic acid; it may be precipitated from these solutions by the pure alkalies or earths; it appears at first of a dark green, being then a hydrate or combined with water; on a filtre it soon becomes yellow at the surface by attracting oxygen; when dried in a heat of 200° or upwards it becomes black. The quantity of oxygen in it is best ascertained from the hydrogen generated during the solution of the iron. All the authorities I have found nearly concur in their results as under.

1. Protoxide. This is always created when iron is dissolved in diluted sulfuric or hydrochloric acid; it can be precipitated from these solutions using pure alkalis or earths. Initially, it appears dark green, as it is a hydrate or water-combined form; when filtered, it quickly turns yellow on the surface due to oxygen absorption. When dried at a temperature of 200° or higher, it turns black. The amount of oxygen in it is best determined from the hydrogen produced during the dissolution of the iron. All the sources I found generally agree on their findings as stated below.

100 grains of iron dissolved in dilute sulphuric or muriatic acids yield hydrogen, according to [Pg 29]

100 grains of iron dissolved in dilute sulfuric or hydrochloric acids produce hydrogen, according to [Pg 29]

Cavendish (1766)   155   cubic inches.
Priestley, from 147 to 162  
Lavoisier   163  
Vandermonde, Berthollet, and Monge max. 176  
Vauquelin 160 to 179  
Dr. Thomson   163  
My own Experiments give 160  
  Mean 164 = 82 oxygen
      = 27.9 grains.

By precipitating the oxide, and drying it, nearly the same result may be obtained, as 100 iron will yield 128 oxide. This oxide is magnetic.

By forming the oxide and drying it, you can achieve nearly the same result, as 100 units of iron will produce 128 units of oxide. This oxide is magnetic.

2. Intermediate or red oxide. This oxide may be obtained in various ways. First by calcining the sulphate or nitrate of iron. Second by precipitation from old solutions of the salts of iron; the precipitate is yellow at first, being perhaps a hydrate; but when dried and heated it becomes brown-red. Third, by calcining iron or repeatedly exposing iron filings to a red heat, and trituration. Fourth, by treating a solution of the sulphate or other salt of the protoxide with oxymuriatic acid, or oxymuriate of lime till oxymuriatic acid is evolved; then precipitating the oxide which is thus converted [Pg 30] into the red. Fifth, by agitating water containing the green oxide recently precipitated, with oxygen gas. The red oxide is not sensibly magnetic.

2. Intermediate or red oxide. You can get this oxide in different ways. First, by heating iron sulfate or nitrate. Second, by precipitating it from older solutions of iron salts; the precipitate is initially yellow, possibly as a hydrate, but when dried and heated, it turns brown-red. Third, by heating iron or repeatedly exposing iron filings to high temperatures and grinding them down. Fourth, by treating a solution of iron sulfate or another salt of the protoxide with chlorine gas or bleaching powder until chlorine gas is released; then precipitating the oxide, which then turns red. Fifth, by mixing water with recently precipitated green oxide and oxygen gas. The red oxide is not notably magnetic.

The quantity of oxygen in the red oxide may be investigated in various ways, and it is generally allowed that they all concur in giving 42 on 100 iron. The one which I have used peculiarly, and prefer both for ease and accuracy, is to find the quantity of oxymuriatic acid gas necessary to saturate a given portion of the green sulphate. I take for instance 100 measures of 1.149 green sulphate, which I know to contain 8 grains of black oxide; this I find absorbs nearly 13 hundred measures of oxymuriatic acid gas before the acid smell is developed; the oxygen corresponding to this quantity of acid is known to be near 660 measures, = .88 grain. (See Vol. 1, p. 308.) Hence, if 8 ∶ .88 ∷ 128 ∶ 14; or 128 black oxide acquire 14 or become 142 when converted into the red oxide. This fact being established, I find it very convenient to make use of the oxymuriate of lime instead of the acid gas, adopting the solution of green sulphate of iron as a test of the quantity of oxymuriatic acid in a given volume of any solution of oxymuriate of lime. [Pg 31]

The amount of oxygen in the red oxide can be measured in different ways, and it's generally accepted that they all agree on giving 42 out of 100 for iron. The method I’ve used, and prefer for both simplicity and accuracy, is to determine how much oxymuriatic acid gas is needed to fully saturate a specific amount of green sulfate. For example, I take 100 measures of 1.149 green sulfate, which I know contains 8 grains of black oxide; I find that it absorbs nearly 13 hundred measures of oxymuriatic acid gas before the acid smell appears. The oxygen from this amount of acid is known to be about 660 measures, which equals .88 grain. (See Vol. 1, p. 308.) Therefore, if 8 : .88 :: 128 : 14, then 128 black oxide becomes 14 or turns into 142 when converted into the red oxide. With this established, I find it very useful to use the oxymuriate of lime instead of the acid gas, using the solution of green sulfate of iron as a way to test the amount of oxymuriatic acid in any volume of oxymuriate of lime solution. [Pg 31]

The quantity of oxygen in the red oxide of iron may be inferred, but not so satisfactorily, from the nitrous gas obtained during the solution of iron in nitric acid. In order to obtain the most gas from a given quantity of the materials, they should be so proportioned as to produce saturation nearly. If an excess of acid be used, it absorbs the nitrous gas in part; and if an excess of iron, it is not all dissolved. I took 50 grains of iron filings and 600 measures of 1.15 nitric acid; these were put together in a gas bottle and by the assistance of a little heat a quantity of nitrous gas was obtained equal to 12 grains in weight, allowing the sp. gr. of the gas to be 1.04 (air being 1); all the iron was dissolved except a few atoms, and the solution was slightly acid; the whole of the oxide was red when precipitated by lime water. Now 50 grains of iron take 21 of oxygen to form the red oxide, and these correspond to 24 of nitrous gas, which is just twice the quantity obtained; one half of the gas generated then remains in combination with the iron, even when the constituents of the salt are proportioned so as to produce mutual saturation. I was in expectation that the quantity of nitrous gas retained might be converted into nitric acid by oxymuriate of lime, and hence might be determined; but [Pg 32] in this I was disappointed. When oxymuriate of lime is added to the liquid, a pungent gas is liberated, the nature of which I have not determined. Thinking it might in part be owing to the iron, I transferred the acid to soda, by decomposing the nitrate of iron by the carbonate of soda; this nitrate of soda however, when treated with oxymuriate of lime, exhibited the same phenomenon as the nitrate of iron. When an acid is added the oxymuriatic acid itself is given out. These results will require further consideration. At present I am inclined to think the pungent gas is one atom of nitrous and one of oxygen or what I formerly considered as nitric acid. (See Vol. 1, plate 4, fig. 27.)

The amount of oxygen in the red oxide of iron can be estimated, although not very accurately, from the nitric oxide produced when iron dissolves in nitric acid. To get the maximum gas from a specific amount of materials, they should be mixed in proportions that nearly achieve saturation. If too much acid is used, it partially absorbs the nitric oxide; if too much iron is added, not all of it dissolves. I took 50 grains of iron filings and 600 measures of 1.15 nitric acid; these were combined in a gas bottle, and with a little heat, we produced a quantity of nitric oxide weighing 12 grains, assuming the specific gravity of the gas is 1.04 (with air being 1). All the iron dissolved except for a few small bits, and the solution was slightly acidic; the entire oxide was red when precipitated with lime water. Now, 50 grains of iron require 21 grains of oxygen to form red oxide, which corresponds to 24 grains of nitric oxide, double what we actually obtained; thus, half of the gas generated remains combined with the iron, even when the components are mixed to achieve saturation. I had hoped that the amount of nitric oxide trapped could be converted into nitric acid using calcium hypochlorite, and thereby measured; but I was disappointed. When calcium hypochlorite is added to the liquid, a pungent gas is released, which I have not yet identified. Thinking it might be partially due to the iron, I transferred the acid to soda by breaking down the iron nitrate with sodium carbonate; however, this sodium nitrate displayed the same behavior when treated with calcium hypochlorite as the iron nitrate did. When an acid is added, the hypochloric acid itself is released. These results need further investigation. For now, I suspect the pungent gas consists of one atom of nitric oxide and one atom of oxygen, or what I previously thought was nitric acid. (See Vol. 1, plate 4, fig. 27.)

Some authors have found as they conceive, other oxides of iron, containing less or more of oxygen than the above; thus Darso finds by calcination from 15 to 56 oxygen on 100, (Nicholson’s Journ. Vol. 17); but there is great reason to believe that uncertainties must exist in his mode of experimenting sufficient to account for the anomalies observed. This author has suggested some doubt whether the oxygenous gas naturally contained in water has any effect on the salts with green oxide of iron. I have ascertained that [Pg 33] point by repeated experiments, and can assert that the oxygen in water immediately unites to the green oxide of iron to convert it into red, and that the green sulphate may be used as an accurate test of the quantity of oxygen in water. When pure green sulphate of iron is dropped into water and then the oxide precipitated by a gradual addition of lime water, it falls down yellow in proportion to the oxygen in the water, which may be increased 3 or 4 times by artificial impregnation. If the oxygen of the water be previously saturated with nitrous gas, then the oxide is wholly precipitated green.

Some authors have discovered that there are different oxides of iron containing varying amounts of oxygen. For example, Darso found between 15 and 56 parts of oxygen per 100 during calcination (Nicholson’s Journ. Vol. 17); however, there is good reason to believe that there are uncertainties in his methods that could explain the anomalies observed. This author has raised doubts about whether the oxygen gas naturally found in water affects the salts with green oxide of iron. I have confirmed that [Pg 33] through repeated experiments and can affirm that the oxygen in water quickly binds with the green oxide of iron, turning it red, and that green sulfate can accurately indicate the amount of oxygen in water. When pure green sulfate of iron is added to water and then the oxide is precipitated by slowly adding lime water, it turns yellow in proportion to the oxygen in the water, which can be increased 3 or 4 times through artificial saturation. If the water's oxygen is saturated with nitrous gas beforehand, then the oxide precipitates completely green.

Gay Lussac, in the 80th Vol. of the Annal. de Chimie, asserts that an oxide of iron containing 37.8 oxygen upon 100 iron is always obtained when iron is burned in oxygenous gas, and still more effectually when iron is oxydized by water or steam. If this oxide exist in the proportions stated, it must be a compound of 1 atom of the protoxide and 2 of the red oxide, which would give 37.3 oxygen on 100 of iron.

Gay Lussac, in the 80th Volume. of the Annal. de Chimie, claims that an iron oxide containing 37.8% oxygen per 100% iron is always produced when iron is burned in oxygen gas, and even more effectively when iron is oxidized by water or steam. If this oxide exists in the specified proportions, it must be a combination of 1 atom of the protoxide and 2 atoms of the red oxide, which would result in 37.3% oxygen per 100% of iron.

From the above facts and observations it is evident the atom of iron [Pg 34] must be considered as weighing 25, (and not 50 as already given, Vol. 1, page 258); the protoxide is 32, and the intermediate or red oxide is 2 atoms protoxide and 1 of oxygen = 71.

From the facts and observations mentioned above, it's clear that the iron atom should be considered to weigh 25 (not 50 as previously stated, Vol. 1, page 258); the protoxide weighs 32, and the intermediate or red oxide consists of 2 atoms of protoxide and 1 of oxygen, totaling 71. [Pg 34]

11. Oxides of Nickel.

1. Protoxide. It appears to be ascertained from the experiments of Proust (Journ. de Physiq. 63—442), Richter (Nichols. Jour. 12.), Tupputi (An. de Chimie 78.), and Rolhoff (An. of Philos. 3—335.), that the protoxide of nickel consists of 100 metal and from 25 to 28 oxygen. My experiments on the solution of nickel in nitric acid give me 14 grains nitrous gas, corresponding to 12 oxygen, in the solution of 44 grains of nickel; this gives 100 nickel to 27 oxygen, which I adopt as agreeing with the mean of the beforementioned results. This oxide may be obtained by precipitation from a solution of nitrate of nickel; it is at first white, being then a hydrate; when dried in a moderate temperature it becomes yellowish; after this, being heated to a cherry red, it loses from 20 to 24 per cent. of water and becomes of an ash grey colour: this is the only oxide of nickel soluble in acids, and must therefore be deemed the protoxide: hence we have 27 ∶ 100 ∷ 7 ∶ 26, [Pg 35] nearly, for the weight of an atom of nickel; and not 25 or 50, as estimated at page 258. Vol. 1.

1. Protoxide. It seems to be established from the experiments of Proust (Journ. de Physiq. 63—442), Richter (Nichols. Jour. 12.), Tupputi (An. de Chimie 78.), and Rolhoff (An. of Philos. 3—335.) that the protoxide of nickel consists of 100 parts nickel and 25 to 28 parts oxygen. My experiments on dissolving nickel in nitric acid yield 14 grains of nitrous gas, which corresponds to 12 parts oxygen, in the solution of 44 grains of nickel; this results in 100 parts nickel to 27 parts oxygen, which I adopt as consistent with the average of the previously mentioned results. This oxide can be obtained by precipitation from a nickel nitrate solution; it is initially white, as it is a hydrate; when dried at moderate temperatures, it turns yellowish; when heated to a cherry red, it loses 20 to 24 percent of water and turns ash grey: this is the only nickel oxide that is soluble in acids and should therefore be considered the protoxide: thus, we have a ratio of 27:100 as compared to 7:26, approximately, for the weight of a nickel atom; and not 25 or 50, as estimated on page 258. Vol. 1

Intermediate oxide. Thenard discovered a second oxide of nickel by passing oxymuriatic acid through a solution of nickel and then precipitating; it is a black powder; when treated with sulphuric or nitric acid it gives out gas, being the excess of oxygen above the protoxide; but with muriatic acid it gives oxymuriatic acid gas. Rolhoff was induced to believe, but I do not know upon what evidence, that this oxide contained 1⅓ or 1½ times the oxygen of the protoxide. By means of oxymuriate of lime I find the protoxide recently precipitated, takes half as much oxygen as it had previously, to form the black oxide; and that it cannot be formed, like the red oxide of iron, by agitation with water mixed with common air. The white oxide treated with oxymuriate of lime becomes almost instantly blue, growing darker till it gradually passes into brown, and finally black in about half an hour. It contains 40 oxygen on 100 nickel, and is most probably constituted of 1 atom of oxygen holding 2 of protoxide together, more especially as it is not found in combination with acids. The method I prefer to procure the black oxide is to precipitate a known weight of [Pg 36] oxide by lime water; then pouring off the clear liquid, I put as much liquid oxymuriate of lime to the moist hydrate as contains ⅒ of the weight of the oxide of oxygen, and stir frequently for half an hour; the point of saturation is found when more oxide put to the clear liquid is not discoloured on one hand, and when more oxymuriate of lime does not affect the colour, but remains in the clear liquid on the other hand.

Intermediate oxide. Thenard discovered a second oxide of nickel by passing chlorine gas through a solution of nickel and then precipitating it; it appears as a black powder. When treated with sulfuric or nitric acid, it releases gas, which is the excess oxygen compared to the protoxide. However, when treated with hydrochloric acid, it produces chlorine gas. Rolhoff was led to believe, although I'm unsure of the evidence, that this oxide contains 1⅓ or 1½ times the oxygen of the protoxide. Using calcium hypochlorite, I've found that the recently precipitated protoxide takes in half as much oxygen as it previously had to form the black oxide. It cannot be created, like the red oxide of iron, by agitation with water mixed with common air. The white oxide, when treated with calcium hypochlorite, quickly turns blue, darkening until it transitions to brown, and ultimately black in about half an hour. It contains 40 parts oxygen for every 100 parts nickel, and is most likely made up of 1 atom of oxygen binding 2 atoms of protoxide together, especially since it isn’t found combined with acids. The method I prefer to obtain the black oxide is to precipitate a known weight of [Pg 36] oxide using lime water. After pouring off the clear liquid, I add as much liquid calcium hypochlorite to the moist hydrate as contains ⅒ of the weight of the oxide as oxygen, and I stir frequently for half an hour. The saturation point is reached when adding more oxide to the clear liquid does not cause any discoloration, and when additional calcium hypochlorite has no effect on the color and remains in the clear liquid.

12. Oxides of Tin.

There are two oxides of tin, which have been carefully investigated by several chemists, and appear to be ascertained with great precision. The protoxide is grey, and contains 13½ oxygen on 100 tin; the deutoxide is white, and contains 27 oxygen on 100 tin.

There are two oxides of tin that several chemists have thoroughly studied, and their properties seem to be clearly determined. The protoxide is gray and contains 13.5 parts oxygen for every 100 parts tin; the deutoxide is white and contains 27 parts oxygen for every 100 parts tin.

1. Protoxide. There are two methods of obtaining the constitution of this oxide. The first is by dissolving a certain weight of tin filings in muriatic acid, precipitating by lime water or carbonated alkalies and drying the oxide in a moderate heat; this is liable to some uncertainty; the precipitate being a hydrate, requires to be exposed to heat to expel the water; but if the heat approaches to red, the oxide takes fire and is converted into the [Pg 37] deutoxide. The second method is to dissolve tin in muriatic acid and carefully collect the hydrogen gas evolved; this was first done by Mr. Cavendish, with his usual accuracy, and published in 1766; he found 1 oz. of tin yield 202 oz. measures of hydrogen gas. I have frequently tried this experiment and always found a proportional quantity, or very nearly 200 measures for each grain of tin. This mode of investigation appears to me unexceptionable. Now 200 hydrogen unite to 100 oxygen, and 100 grain measures of oxygen = .134 grain in weight; hence if .134 oxy. ∶ 1 tin ∷ 7 oxy. ∶ 52 nearly for the weight of an atom of tin, on the presumption this is the protoxide.

1. Protoxide. There are two ways to determine the composition of this oxide. The first method involves dissolving a specific amount of tin filings in hydrochloric acid, then precipitating it with lime water or carbonated alkalies and drying the oxide at a moderate heat. This method can be somewhat uncertain since the precipitate is a hydrate and needs to be heated to remove the water; however, if the heat gets too high and reaches a red temperature, the oxide can ignite and turn into the deutoxide. The second method involves dissolving tin in hydrochloric acid and carefully collecting the hydrogen gas produced. Mr. Cavendish first conducted this experiment with his usual accuracy and published his findings in 1766; he found that 1 oz. of tin produces 202 oz. measures of hydrogen gas. I have often performed this experiment and consistently found a proportional amount, or very nearly 200 measures for every grain of tin. I believe this method of investigation is reliable. Now, 200 parts of hydrogen combine with 100 parts of oxygen, and 100 grain measures of oxygen weigh approximately .134 grain; therefore, if .134 oxygen ∶ 1 tin ∷ 7 oxygen ∶ 52 is nearly the weight of a tin atom, assuming this is the protoxide.

2. Deutoxide. This may be obtained by heating tin till it takes fire, and the produce of the combustion is the oxide required; but to ascertain the proportions of tin and oxygen two other methods are preferable; the one is to treat tin with nitric acid of the sp. gr. 1.2 to 1.4; a violent effervescence and great heat ensue and the tin is converted into a white powder. This being dried in 100° gives about 160 grains for 100 of tin. It consists of the deutoxide united to a little acid and water; these two may be driven off by a low red heat, and 127 [Pg 38] grains of the deutoxide remain in the state of a white powder. The other method is to treat a solution of the protoxide of tin with oxymuriate of lime till it is saturated; this will be found when 59 grains of the protoxide have acquired 7 grains of oxygen, or 113½ grains of the deutoxide have acquired 13½ grains of oxygen, which corroborates the result by the 1st method. This oxide containing just twice as much oxygen as the former, may justly be considered as the deutoxide. No higher oxide of tin has been obtained.

2. Deutoxide. This can be made by heating tin until it catches fire, and the result of the combustion is the required oxide. However, to determine the proportions of tin and oxygen, two other methods are better. One method is to treat tin with nitric acid with a specific gravity of 1.2 to 1.4; this causes a violent fizzing and produces a lot of heat, turning the tin into a white powder. When dried at 100°, it yields about 160 grains for every 100 grains of tin. This powder consists of deutoxide combined with a little acid and water; both can be removed by applying a low red heat, leaving 127 grains of deutoxide as a white powder. The other method involves treating a solution of tin(II) oxide with chlorine lime until it is saturated. It will be found that when 59 grains of tin(II) oxide have taken on 7 grains of oxygen, or 113½ grains of deutoxide have taken on 13½ grains of oxygen, this supports the result from the first method. Since this oxide contains exactly twice as much oxygen as the former, it can rightly be identified as deutoxide. No higher oxide of tin has been produced.

The two oxides, though both white when precipitated, may be distinguished from their different appearances; the first is curdy, the second, gelatinous.

The two oxides, even though they’re both white when formed, can be told apart by their different looks; the first is curdy, while the second is gelatinous.

It may be proper to subjoin authorities for these oxides:

It might be appropriate to add references for these oxides:

    Tin   Protoxide Deutoxide
Cavendish, from the hydrogen 100 113.5 ————
Proust (Journ. de Physique 59-341) 100 115   127½.128[10]
Gay Lussac (Annal. de Chimie 80-170) 100 113.5 127.2[11]
Berzelius (Annal. de Chim. 87-55) 100 113.6 127.2[12]
My own, as above 100 113.4 127 [Pg 39]

13. Oxides of Lead.

There are three oxides of lead now generally recognized, the yellow, the red, and the brown, the proportion of oxygen in each of which has been investigated by several chemists whose results do not well accord with each other. I shall treat of them under the following names, namely the protoxide, the intermediate oxides, and the deutoxide, for reasons which will appear.

There are three known lead oxides: the yellow, the red, and the brown. The amount of oxygen in each has been studied by various chemists, but their results don't match up well. I will refer to them as the protoxide, the intermediate oxides, and the deutoxide, for reasons that will be explained.

1. Protoxide. The yellow oxide of lead is the only one capable of forming salts with acids. Lavoisier found the oxygen of this oxide combined with 100 lead to be 4.47; Wenzel, 10; Proust, 9; Thomson, 10.5; Bucholz, 8; Berzelius, 7.7. This last accords best with my own experience; but it is chiefly from the other combinations of lead, that the weight of its atom as well as that of the protoxide are determined and confirmed, as lead forms several very definite compounds with acids, &c. The quantity of oxygen in the protoxide may be found by several methods, as under.

1. Protoxide. The yellow oxide of lead is the only one that can create salts with acids. Lavoisier discovered that the oxygen in this oxide combined with 100 parts of lead is 4.47; Wenzel found it to be 10; Proust, 9; Thomson, 10.5; Bucholz, 8; and Berzelius, 7.7. The last result aligns best with my own findings; however, it is mainly from the other lead combinations that we determine and confirm the weight of its atom as well as that of the protoxide, since lead creates several very specific compounds with acids, etc. The amount of oxygen in the protoxide can be determined by various methods, as outlined below.

1st. By dissolving a given portion of the oxide in acetic acid, and precipitating the lead by another metal, as zinc; in this case the [Pg 40] oxygen of the lead goes to the zinc which becomes dissolved, and from the loss of weight of the zinc and the proportion of oxygen in zinc oxide being previously known, and the weight of the precipitated lead being found, we have data for determining the oxide of lead. I took 200 measures of acetate of lead solution (1.142), which I knew contained 27 grains of oxide of lead; this being diluted with an equal volume of water, the lead was precipitated by a rod of zinc; in 6 hours an arbor saturni was formed which was collected and well dried; it weighed 21¾ grains, and the zinc rod had lost 7 grains: care must be taken in performing this experiment that all the lead be not precipitated, otherwise the oxide of zinc begins to fall, and the result is uncertain. In the residuary liquid I got 4 grains of sulphate of lead by sulphuric acid. Here then we have the oxygen of 21¾ lead transferred to 7 zinc; but if 7 ∶ 21¾ ∷ 29 ∶ 90 nearly. Now it is known that 29 parts of zinc take 7 of oxygen, therefore 90 lead take 7 of oxygen, and the atom of lead = 90, and the protoxide 97.

1st. By dissolving a specific amount of the oxide in acetic acid and precipitating the lead with another metal, like zinc; in this case, the oxygen from the lead bonds with the zinc, which then dissolves. By measuring the decrease in weight of the zinc and knowing the amount of oxygen in zinc oxide, along with the weight of the precipitated lead, we can determine the amount of lead oxide. I took 200 measures of lead acetate solution (1.142), which I knew contained 27 grains of lead oxide; after diluting it with an equal volume of water, I used a zinc rod to precipitate the lead. After 6 hours, an arbor saturni formed, which I collected and dried thoroughly; it weighed 21¾ grains, and the zinc rod lost 7 grains. Care must be taken during this experiment to ensure that all the lead is precipitated; otherwise, zinc oxide starts to precipitate, leading to uncertain results. In the remaining liquid, I obtained 4 grains of lead sulfate using sulfuric acid. Here, we have the oxygen from 21¾ grains of lead transferred to 7 grains of zinc; thus, 7 ∶ 21¾ ∷ 29 ∶ 90 approximately. It's known that 29 parts of zinc can take up 7 of oxygen, so 90 parts of lead would also take 7 of oxygen, confirming that the atomic weight of lead is 90, and its protoxide is 97.

I formerly stated the atom of lead 95. Vol. 1, page 260.

I used to say the atom of lead 95. Vol. 1, page 260.

2. By dissolving 180 grains of lead in nitric acid in a small thin [Pg 41] capsule, and heating it till the salt was quite dry, I got 288 grains of salt, weighed in the capsule; 36 grains of this salt yielded 24¼ yellow oxide by a low red heat = 22½ lead. This gives 90 lead to 7 oxygen.

2. By dissolving 180 grains of lead in nitric acid in a small thin capsule, and heating it until the salt was completely dry, I obtained 288 grains of salt, weighed in the capsule; 36 grains of this salt produced 24¼ yellow oxide with a low red heat, which equals 22½ lead. This results in a ratio of 90 lead to 7 oxygen. [Pg 41]

3d. Again, 36 grains of the above salt, dissolved in water, precipitated by ammonia, and well washed on a filter, gave 23+ grains of oxide separated from the filter, and this had acquired 1 grain, making 24+ grains of oxide from the 22½ lead as before; the residue of liquid gave no signs of lead by hydrosulphuret of ammonia. The same quantity of salt precipitated by an excess of lime water gave only 22 grains of oxide; but hydrosulphuret of ammonia precipitated 2+ grains of sulphuret of lead from the clear liquid.

3d. Again, 36 grains of the salt mentioned above, dissolved in water, were precipitated by ammonia and thoroughly washed on a filter, resulting in 23+ grains of oxide collected from the filter. This obtained an additional 1 grain, totaling 24+ grains of oxide from the 22½ lead as noted before; the leftover liquid showed no signs of lead when tested with hydrosulphuret of ammonia. The same amount of salt precipitated with an excess of lime water resulted in only 22 grains of oxide; however, hydrosulphuret of ammonia precipitated 2+ grains of lead sulfide from the clear liquid.

II. Intermediate oxide or oxides. Minium or red lead, &c. Minium is an article of commerce used as a pigment and for various other purposes. It is made by exposing the yellow or protoxide of lead finely pulverized to a low red heat in a current of air, and constantly stirring the oxide so as to expose fresh particles to the air. In two days the yellow oxide is converted into the red. Several authors observe that red lead usually contains 1, 2, or more grains per cent. of impurities insoluble in nitric and acetic acids; the specimen I used [Pg 42] however was so pure as not to leave more than ⅓ of a grain per cent. of insoluble matter after being heated red and treated with dilute nitric acid.

II. Intermediate oxide or oxides. Minium or red lead, etc. Minium is a commercial product used as a pigment and for various other purposes. It is created by heating finely ground yellow lead oxide to a low red temperature in a stream of air and constantly mixing it to expose fresh particles to the air. In two days, the yellow oxide turns into red. Some authors note that red lead typically contains 1, 2, or more grains per cent. of impurities that are insoluble in nitric and acetic acids; however, the sample I used was so pure that it left no more than ⅓ of a grain per cent. of insoluble matter after being heated to red and treated with dilute nitric acid. [Pg 42]

Some of the most remarkable properties of red lead are, 1st. It is never obtained in combination with any acid; 2d. It yields oxygen gas when exposed to a bright red heat or when treated with concentrated sulphuric acid, and is in both cases reduced to the protoxide; 3d. When treated with dilute nitric acid it is dissolved in part, but constantly leaves an insoluble brown residuum, which is the deutoxide, as will be shewn; the weight of the deutoxide obtained is by my experiments 20 per cent. and the part in solution is found to be the protoxide; 4th. When treated with muriatic acid, muriate of lead is formed and oxymuriatic acid given out; 5th. When treated with dilute acetic acid or cold concentrated acetic acid, ½ of the oxide is dissolved and the remainder is still red, its colour being rather improved; if concentrated acid be used and boiling heat applied, then ⅘ of the whole oxide is dissolved and ⅕ remains of brown oxide, the same as with nitric acid.

Some of the most interesting properties of red lead are: 1. It is never found combined with any acid; 2. It releases oxygen gas when heated to a bright red or treated with concentrated sulfuric acid, and in both cases, it is reduced to the protoxide; 3. When treated with dilute nitric acid, it partially dissolves but always leaves an insoluble brown residue, which is the deutoxide, as will be shown; my experiments show that the weight of the deutoxide obtained is 20 percent, and the dissolved part is the protoxide; 4. When treated with hydrochloric acid, lead chloride is formed and hydrochloric gas is released; 5. When treated with dilute acetic acid or cold concentrated acetic acid, half of the oxide dissolves and the remaining portion stays red, with its color being slightly enhanced; if concentrated acid is used and boiling heat applied, then four-fifths of the entire oxide dissolves, leaving one-fifth as brown oxide, similar to the results with nitric acid.

Some of the above facts are new, and may contribute to elucidate this [Pg 43] most curious oxide, which scarcely has a parallel. Proust is the only author I know who has given a plausible conjecture concerning the peculiar nature of this oxide. He supposes it a compound of the yellow and brown oxides. This I believe is the fact; but it will be found I apprehend to be a compound of 1 atom of oxygen with 6 of the yellow oxide, as will appear from what follows.

Some of the facts mentioned above are new and may help clarify this [Pg 43] very unusual oxide, which is almost without comparison. Proust is the only writer I know who has offered a reasonable guess about the unique nature of this oxide. He suggests it's a combination of the yellow and brown oxides. I believe this is true; however, I think it will turn out to be a compound of 1 atom of oxygen with 6 atoms of the yellow oxide, as will be shown in the following sections.

Respecting the quantity of oxygen in the red oxide, Lavoisier finds 9 oxygen to 100 lead, Thomson 13.6, and Berzelius 11.55. This last is partly from experience and partly from a supposed analogy, that the successive oxides of the same metal contain oxygen as 1, 1½ and 2 respectively; and having found (I believe) correctly, that the brown oxide contains just twice as much oxygen as the yellow, this ingenious and generally accurate author adopts the theoretic inference in this instance at least prematurely, and concludes the red oxide is the mean between the yellow and the brown. But we must appeal to experience.

Respecting the amount of oxygen in red oxide, Lavoisier identifies 9 parts oxygen to 100 parts lead, Thomson finds 13.6, and Berzelius reports 11.55. Berzelius's result is based partly on experience and partly on an assumed analogy, suggesting that the successive oxides of the same metal contain oxygen in proportions of 1, 1.5, and 2 respectively. After finding (I believe correctly) that the brown oxide contains exactly twice as much oxygen as the yellow, this clever and generally precise author jumps to the theoretical conclusion—at least in this case—too soon and concludes that the red oxide is an average between the yellow and the brown. However, we should rely on experience.

It has already been stated that when red lead is exposed to heat, oxygen gas is given out, and it may be added, a small trace of water; and yellow oxide remains. [Pg 44]

It has already been mentioned that when red lead is heated, it releases oxygen gas, and it can also produce a small amount of water; yellow oxide is left behind. [Pg 44]

This experiment requires considerable skill. If too great a heat is used, a part of the lead is reduced or revived as it is termed; if too little heat, then a part of the red lead remains unaltered. In performing this experiment I use a small clean iron spoon to hold the red lead, and cover it by another iron spoon; the whole is then held by a pair of tongs in a red fire till the spoon exhibits a uniform moderate red, and some time after.

This experiment takes a lot of skill. If too much heat is applied, some of the lead gets reduced, or as it’s called, revived; if there’s not enough heat, then some of the red lead stays unchanged. When I do this experiment, I use a small clean iron spoon to hold the red lead and cover it with another iron spoon. The whole setup is then held with a pair of tongs in a red fire until the spoon shows a steady moderate red color, and then I wait a bit longer.

It is then withdrawn and cooled, and the oxide weighed. The average loss of weight is nearly 2 grains per cent. If only 1 grain or less, a considerable portion of red oxide remains mixed with the yellow; if 3 or more grains, then the margin of the oxide exhibits particles of lead amounting to ⅒, less or more, of the original weight; this can be easily separated from the oxide if necessary, but it is apt to adhere to the iron; when red oxide remains, it is so mixed with the yellow as not easily to be separated, but its quantity may be determined by nitric acid, which dissolves the yellow, and ⅘ of the red, leaving a residuum of brown oxide, from which the quantity of red is inferred. Now if the loss of weight of 100 red oxide be only 2 grains, and a part [Pg 45] of that be water, it is impossible that 115.55 should lose 3.85 grains of oxygen, according to Berzelius. Another experiment, equally decisive of the question, is to determine the quantity of oxygenous gas to be obtained by heat or acids from a given weight of red lead. In one experiment made with great care, 500 grains of red oxide gave 6 grains of oxygenous gas by sulphuric acid; in another, 200 yielded 2½ grains. In order to vary the mode of determining the quantity of oxygen, into 210 measures of test green sulphate of iron solution, (1.156) = 16.8 green oxide, put 160 grains of minium; to this was added dilute muriatic acid more than sufficient for the minium: The oxymuriatic acid from the oxygen of the minium was instantly seized by the oxide of the iron, the whole of which was found by precipitation to be changed from green to red and an excess of oxymuriatic acid appeared. Now 16.8 oxide would require 1.86 oxygen to become red, which it must have acquired from 160 of red lead; or 100 red lead yielded 1.2 oxygen, the same proportion as by sulphuric acid. These experiments point out 1.2 oxygen in 100 red lead as the excess which converts the yellow to the red oxide. Were any doubt to remain on the subject, the experiment with [Pg 46] nitric acid and red oxide will remove it. If the red oxide contained a mean of oxygen between the yellow and the brown, when it is treated with nitric acid more than 50 per cent. of brown oxide would be obtained instead of 20, which is contrary to all experience. It must be observed that Berzelius informs us he extracted the yellow oxide, mechanically mixed (as he conceives) with the red oxide, by digestion with dilute acetic acid; but he does not inform us how much per cent. his minium was reduced by this operation. From what is stated above, it appears that about ½ of the whole is thus dissolved. The remaining half would then contain double the quantity of oxygen and brown oxide per cent. that the original did. Still these quantities are inadequate to explain the phenomena. Besides it cannot be admitted that a red and a yellow powder can be intimately mixed in equal quantities and the mixture not be distinguishable without difficulty from the red one, and be altogether different from the yellow. We must then conclude that the minium of commerce (such as I have used) is a true chemical compound.

It is then removed and cooled, and the oxide is weighed. The average weight loss is nearly 2 grains per percent. If the loss is only 1 grain or less, a significant amount of red oxide remains mixed with the yellow; if it's 3 grains or more, then the oxide shows lead particles that make up about ⅒ of the original weight, which can be easily separated from the oxide if needed, but it tends to stick to the iron; when red oxide remains, it's blended with the yellow in such a way that it's not easily separable, but its quantity can be determined using nitric acid, which dissolves the yellow and ⅘ of the red, leaving a brown oxide residue, from which the quantity of red is inferred. Now, if the weight loss of 100 red oxide is only 2 grains, and part of that is water, it's impossible for 115.55 to lose 3.85 grains of oxygen, according to Berzelius. Another experiment that decisively addresses the question involves determining how much oxygen gas can be obtained through heat or acids from a specific weight of red lead. In one carefully conducted experiment, 500 grains of red oxide produced 6 grains of oxygen gas using sulfuric acid; in another, 200 grains produced 2.5 grains. To vary the method of determining the quantity of oxygen, 210 measures of test green sulfate of iron solution (1.156) = 16.8 green oxide were made, and 160 grains of minium were added; this was followed by adding enough dilute muriatic acid for the minium: The oxymuriatic acid from the oxygen in the minium was immediately absorbed by the iron oxide, which completely changed from green to red, and an excess of oxymuriatic acid was noted. Now, 16.8 oxide would need 1.86 oxygen to become red, which it must have gained from 160 of red lead; or 100 red lead would yield 1.2 oxygen, the same proportion as with sulfuric acid. These experiments indicate that 1.2 oxygen in 100 red lead is the excess that converts the yellow to red oxide. If there were any doubt remaining on the topic, the experiment with nitric acid and red oxide would clarify it. If the red oxide contained an average amount of oxygen between the yellow and the brown, treating it with nitric acid would yield more than 50 percent brown oxide instead of the 20, which is contrary to all experience. It's notable that Berzelius mentioned he extracted the yellow oxide, which he thought was mechanically mixed with the red oxide, by digesting it with dilute acetic acid; however, he didn’t say how much his minium was reduced by this process. From what has been stated above, it seems that about half of the total is dissolved this way. The remaining half would then have double the amount of oxygen and brown oxide per percent that the original did. Still, these amounts are insufficient to explain the observed phenomena. Furthermore, it can't be accepted that a red and a yellow powder can be intimately blended in equal amounts and the mixture remain hard to distinguish from the red one, while being entirely different from the yellow. Therefore, we must conclude that the commercial minium (like the one I’ve used) is a true chemical compound.

Grounding our reasonings upon the preceding facts, there are but two suppositions that can be considered as plausible, respecting the [Pg 47] constitution of the red oxide. It may be 1 atom of oxygen and 5 of yellow oxide, or 1 atom of oxygen and 6 of yellow oxide. The former would give 1.4 per cent. extra oxygen in 100 red oxide, and 21 brown oxide; the latter would give 1.2 per cent. extra oxygen and 18 brown oxide. I adopt the latter supposition; because it agrees with experiment in regard to oxygen, and gives the brown oxide a little lower than experiment, as may be expected on two accounts; first, the residue of brown oxide contains the insoluble dross of the red oxide (which was very small however, as stated above); and, second, unless a considerable excess of nitric acid be used, or long digestion, a small portion of the red oxide escapes decomposition. Another and still more important consideration, as to the question whether 5 or 6 atoms, is the equal division of the red oxide by the operation of cold acetic acid; it reduces the 1 oxygen and 6 yellow oxide to 1 and 3 atoms; whereas if we adopt the other, we must conclude it reduces the 1 and 5 to 1 and 2½, a position that cannot well be reconciled to the atomic theory.

Based on the previous facts, there are only two plausible theories regarding the composition of the red oxide. It could consist of 1 atom of oxygen and 5 atoms of yellow oxide, or 1 atom of oxygen and 6 atoms of yellow oxide. The first combination would result in 1.4 percent extra oxygen in 100 parts of red oxide and 21 parts of brown oxide; the second would yield 1.2 percent extra oxygen and 18 parts of brown oxide. I prefer the second theory because it aligns with experimental results regarding oxygen and suggests that the brown oxide is slightly less than what experiments indicate, which makes sense for two reasons: first, the residue of brown oxide contains some insoluble impurities from the red oxide (though this was minimal, as mentioned earlier); and second, unless a significant amount of nitric acid is used or the mixture is digested for a long time, a small amount of the red oxide may not break down completely. Another critical factor in deciding between 5 or 6 atoms is how effectively the red oxide is divided when treated with cold acetic acid; this process reduces the 1 atom of oxygen and 6 atoms of yellow oxide to 1 and 3 atoms. If we consider the first option, we would have to conclude that it reduces the 1 atom and 5 atoms to 1 and 2.5 atoms, which doesn’t fit well with atomic theory.

According to this conclusion then the red oxide of lead or minium of commerce is constituted of 1 atom of oxygen holding 6 atoms of yellow oxide together; or it is composed of 100 lead and 9.07 oxygen. When it [Pg 48] is digested in cold acetic acid the residuum constitutes another oxide consisting of 1 atom of oxygen and 3 of yellow oxide, or 100 lead and 10.4 oxygen, possessing the same colour as the former, but distinguishable by its not being acted on by cold acetic acid, and by its containing twice as much brown oxide and extra oxygen as minium. No doubt the other intermediate oxides of 1 to 4 and 1 to 5 exist, and are all alike red; but have not perhaps any remarkable distinctions besides their containing different proportions of oxygen and brown oxide. Whether an oxide consisting of 1 oxygen and 2 yellow oxide exists, I have not discovered; but that 1 oxygen and 1 yellow oxide are found united, appears below.

According to this conclusion, the commercial red lead oxide, or minium, is made up of 1 atom of oxygen binding together 6 atoms of yellow oxide; or it can be represented as 100 parts lead and 9.07 parts oxygen. When it is mixed with cold acetic acid, the residue forms another oxide that consists of 1 atom of oxygen and 3 atoms of yellow oxide, or 100 parts lead and 10.4 parts oxygen. This oxide has the same color as the first one but can be distinguished because it doesn’t react to cold acetic acid and has twice as much brown oxide and extra oxygen as minium. It’s likely that other intermediate oxides, with ratios of 1 to 4 and 1 to 5, exist and are all similarly red; however, they might not have any significant differences besides varying proportions of oxygen and brown oxide. I have not found evidence that an oxide consisting of 1 atom of oxygen and 2 atoms of yellow oxide exists, but it is clear below that 1 atom of oxygen and 1 atom of yellow oxide can be found combined.

III. Deutoxide. This is the flea-brown oxide mentioned above. It may also be obtained by treating solutions of salts containing the yellow oxide by oxymuriate of lime, in which case the oxide is precipitated, leaving the acid in the liquor, a proof that it is insoluble in acids. Its more remarkable properties are: 1st. like the red oxide, when heated to a low red, or treated with sulphuric acid, it yields oxygenous gas, and more copiously; it is thus reduced to the yellow oxide: 2d. with muriatic acid it yields oxymuriatic acid in great [Pg 49] plenty and muriate of lead: 3d. it detonates when rubbed with sulphur in a mortar.

III. Deutoxide. This is the flea-brown oxide mentioned earlier. It can also be obtained by treating solutions of salts containing the yellow oxide with calcium hypochlorite, which causes the oxide to precipitate, leaving the acid in the solution—showing that it doesn't dissolve in acids. Its more notable properties are: 1st. like the red oxide, when heated to a low red temperature or treated with sulfuric acid, it releases oxygen gas, and in larger amounts; it is then reduced to the yellow oxide: 2nd. with hydrochloric acid, it produces a large amount of chlorine gas and lead chloride: 3rd. it explodes when rubbed with sulfur in a mortar. [Pg 49]

The quantity of oxygen in the brown oxide is stated by Thomson at 25 oxygen to 100 lead, by Berzelius at 15.6 to 100. This last is very nearly right by my experience, and being just double of the oxygen in the protoxide, it warrants us in denominating it the deutoxide. Berzelius finds 100 of the brown oxide lose 6.5 by a red heat so as to reduce it to the yellow; Dr. Thomson finds the loss 9 grains. This difference is easily accounted for; it loses, I find, from 7 to 10 grains per cent. according to the previous degree of dryness; when exposed to a moist atmosphere it attracts humidity; when dried in a temperature of 200° and exposed to red heat immediately after, it does not lose more than 6.5 or 7 per cent. This is corroborated too by the oxygen expelled by sulphuric acid. From 100 grains of brown oxide and sulphuric acid in a gas bottle, I obtained by the heat of a lamp 8.3 oz. of oxygenous gas = 5.3 grains; about 120 grains of grey sulphate of lead were left in the bottle. The oxygen is rather less than was expected; but it must be remembered that 100 grains of brown oxide, [Pg 50] obtained in the ordinary way, have the insoluble dross of 500 red oxide in them, which must have some influence in diminishing the production of oxygen.

The amount of oxygen in brown oxide is reported by Thomson as 25 parts oxygen to 100 parts lead, while Berzelius states it's 15.6 to 100. From my experience, Berzelius's figure is pretty accurate, and since it's double the oxygen found in protoxide, we can call it deutoxide. Berzelius found that 100 parts of brown oxide lose 6.5 parts when heated red, reducing it to yellow; Dr. Thomson found a loss of 9 grains. This difference can easily be explained; I find it loses between 7 to 10 grains per 100 grains based on how dry it was beforehand. When exposed to a humid atmosphere, it absorbs moisture, but when dried at 200° and immediately exposed to red heat, it doesn’t lose more than 6.5 or 7 percent. This is also supported by the oxygen released by sulfuric acid. From 100 grains of brown oxide and sulfuric acid in a gas bottle, I generated 8.3 ounces of oxygen gas = 5.3 grains using a lamp's heat; about 120 grains of grey sulfate of lead remained in the bottle. The amount of oxygen is slightly less than expected; however, it's important to note that 100 grains of brown oxide, when obtained conventionally, contain the insoluble residue of 500 grains of red oxide, which likely affects the oxygen production. [Pg 50]

Though the above might be deemed sufficient to demonstrate the proportion of oxygen in the brown oxide, I was desirous to corroborate the results by oxymuriate of lime. I found repeatedly that 100 grain measures of acetate of lead (1.142) = 13.8 yellow oxide, required 400 measures of oxymuriate of lime = 1 oxygen, to precipitate the whole of the oxide in a brown state. Now if 13.8 ∶ 1 ∷ 97 ∶ 7. Again, into 240 measures of test green sulphate of iron (1.156) = 19 oxide, were put 40 grains of brown oxide of lead, together with a sufficient quantity of muriatic acid to saturate the lead, and discharge the oxygen; after due agitation sulphate of lead was precipitated, and the whole of the oxide of iron was found, when precipitated, to be yellow. But 19 grains oxide of iron require 2+ of oxygen to become yellow; hence the 40 grains brown oxide of lead must have furnished 2+ grains of oxygen to form oxymuriatic acid, which transferred it to the oxide of iron. If 40 ∶ 2+ ∷ 100 ∶ 5+ oxygen, for the excess or second dose of oxygen in 100 [Pg 51] brown oxide, such as is obtained by nitric acid along with its impurities; which agrees with the results obtained by the other methods.

While the above might be seen as enough to show the amount of oxygen in the brown oxide, I wanted to confirm the results using oxymuriate of lime. I repeatedly found that 100 grain measures of acetate of lead (1.142) = 13.8 yellow oxide required 400 measures of oxymuriate of lime = 1 oxygen to fully precipitate the entire oxide in a brown state. Now if 13.8 ∶ 1 ∷ 97 ∶ 7. Additionally, in 240 measures of test green sulphate of iron (1.156) = 19 oxide, I added 40 grains of brown oxide of lead along with enough muriatic acid to saturate the lead and release the oxygen; after proper agitation, sulfate of lead was precipitated, and all of the iron oxide, when precipitated, was found to be yellow. But 19 grains of iron oxide need 2+ grams of oxygen to turn yellow; thus, the 40 grains of brown oxide of lead must have provided 2+ grams of oxygen to form oxymuriatic acid, which transferred it to the iron oxide. If 40 ∶ 2+ ∷ 100 ∶ 5+ oxygen is for the excess or second dose of oxygen in 100 brown oxide, like what is obtained by nitric acid along with its impurities; this aligns with the results from the other methods. [Pg 51]

14. Oxide of zinc.

When zinc is exposed to a strong heat it burns with a brilliant white flame, and a white powder sublimes, which is the oxide of the metal. When dilute sulphuric acid is poured on granulated zinc, hydrogen gas is produced in great abundance and purity; the metal is oxidized at the expence of the water and dissolved in the acid, the oxide may be precipitated by an alkali; it is white both when precipitated and dried, and when heated does not differ from that obtained by combustion. By a violent heat it runs into glass.

When zinc is exposed to intense heat, it ignites with a bright white flame, and a white powder forms, which is the oxide of the metal. When dilute sulfuric acid is added to granulated zinc, a large amount of pure hydrogen gas is released; the metal oxidizes using the water and dissolves in the acid. The oxide can be precipitated using an alkali; it remains white when precipitated and dried, and when heated, it is indistinguishable from that produced by combustion. Under extreme heat, it melts into glass.

The quantity of oxygen in zinc oxide is, I think, best estimated by the hydrogen gas produced during the solution; it may also be obtained by direct combustion, or by solution in nitric acid and calcination. Dr. Thomson determines the oxygen by comparison of the weights of real sulphuric acid and metallic zinc in a solution of sulphate of zinc, along with the consideration that the proportion of sulphuric acid and oxygen in the metallic sulphates is known; Mr. Cavendish obtained 356 [Pg 52] oz. measures of hydrogen from 1 oz. of zinc by solution. I dissolved 49 grains of zinc in dilute sulphuric acid and obtained hydrogen, after the rate of 363 grain measures for 1 grain of zinc = 182 measures of oxygen = .24 grain of oxygen.

The amount of oxygen in zinc oxide is, I believe, best estimated by the hydrogen gas produced during the solution; it can also be determined by direct combustion, or by dissolving it in nitric acid and then calcining it. Dr. Thomson figures out the oxygen by comparing the weights of actual sulfuric acid and metallic zinc in a solution of zinc sulfate, considering that the ratio of sulfuric acid and oxygen in metallic sulfates is known; Mr. Cavendish produced 356 [Pg 52] ounces of hydrogen from 1 ounce of zinc through dissolution. I dissolved 49 grains of zinc in dilute sulfuric acid and produced hydrogen, at a rate of 363 grain measures for 1 grain of zinc = 182 measures of oxygen = .24 grain of oxygen.

The following are the principal authorities for the quantity of oxygen in zinc oxide, in the order of time.

The following are the main sources for the amount of oxygen in zinc oxide, listed chronologically.

    Zinc.   Oxygen
1766. Cavendish   100     +   23.3
1785. Lavoisier   +   19.6
1790-1800. Wenzel and Proust   +   25
1801. Desorme and Clement   +   21.7
  Davy   +   21.95
Berzelius   +   24.4
Gay Lussac   +   24.4
Thomson   +   24.42
My own   +   24

Now if 24 oxy. ∶ 100 zinc ∷ 7 oxy. ∶ 29 zinc, nearly, which is therefore the weight of an atom of this metal, on the supposition that the oxide is 1 oxygen and 1 metal; and the atom of oxide = 36.

Now if 24 oxygen to 100 zinc is similar to 7 oxygen to 29 zinc, approximately, which is therefore the weight of an atom of this metal, assuming that the oxide consists of 1 oxygen and 1 metal; and the atom of oxide equals 36.

I formerly estimated the atom of zinc at 56 (Vol. 1, page 260). This was occasioned by taking the above as the deutoxide instead of the protoxide. By violently heating the oxide of zinc in a close vessel, Desorme and Clement reduced the oxygen nearly one [Pg 53] half, so as to afford a presumption that an oxide with half the oxygen of the common one subsisted. Since that time some observations of Berzelius seem to shew that a suboxide of zinc exists. It does not appear however, that such oxide is ever found in combination with acids; and, granting the accuracy of the observations, it is rather to be presumed to be the semi-oxide, or 1 atom of oxygen and 2 of metal, than the protoxide. No higher oxidation of zinc than the above has yet been obtained, and probably does not exist.

I previously estimated the zinc atom to be 56 (Vol. 1, page 260). This was due to considering the above as the deutoxide instead of the protoxide. By heating zinc oxide intensely in a sealed container, Desorme and Clement reduced the oxygen by almost half, suggesting that an oxide with half the oxygen of the common one might exist. Since then, some observations by Berzelius seem to indicate that a suboxide of zinc exists. However, it doesn't appear that such an oxide is ever found in combination with acids; and, assuming the accuracy of these observations, it’s more likely to be the semi-oxide, or 1 atom of oxygen and 2 atoms of metal, rather than the protoxide. No higher oxidation state of zinc than the one mentioned has been obtained yet, and it's probably nonexistent.

15. Oxides of potassium.

Since writing the articles “potassium and sodium,” in the former volume, a very important essay relating chiefly to these subjects has been written by Gay Lussac and Thenard (a copy of which they were so good as to send me), entitled “Recherches Physico-chimiques, &c.” in 2 Vol.—Many of the most interesting experiments of Davy have been repeated on a larger scale, and a great number of original ones added; these ingenious authors endeavour to sum up the evidences for and against the two hypotheses concerning potassium and sodium, namely, as to their being metals or hydrurets, and upon the whole incline to [Pg 54] the former, allowing however, that the facts afford great plausibility to both. One thing they seem to have discovered and established, that the new bodies or metals admit of various degrees of oxidation, and of course these products have a claim to be classed amongst oxides in general though the nature of their bases may still be an object of dispute.

Since writing the articles “potassium and sodium” in the previous volume, a significant essay primarily focused on these topics has been written by Gay Lussac and Thenard (which they kindly sent me), titled “Recherches Physico-chimiques, &c.” in 2 Vol.—Many of Davy's most fascinating experiments have been repeated on a larger scale, and a large number of original experiments have been added; these clever authors attempt to summarize the evidence for and against the two hypotheses regarding potassium and sodium, specifically whether they are metals or hydrides, and overall they lean toward the first option, while acknowledging that both hypotheses have strong supporting evidence. One thing they seem to have discovered and established is that the new substances or metals can undergo various degrees of oxidation, and as a result, these products should be classified as oxides in general, even though the nature of their bases may still be a topic of debate.

They find three oxides of potassium; the lowest degree is obtained by exposing potassium to atmospheric air in a small bottle, with a common cork; a gradual oxidation takes place; a blueish grey brittle product is obtained; there does not appear however, to be any proper limit to this oxidation besides that which they admit as characterizing the second degree or potash, which degree of oxidation may always be immediately obtained by placing potassium in contact with water. This I think should be called the protoxide and considered as 1 atom of potassium, and 1 of oxygen; before this point it is potassium and potash mixed or perhaps combined.

They find three types of potassium oxides; the lowest level is created by exposing potassium to air in a small bottle with a standard cork. A gradual oxidation occurs, resulting in a bluish-grey brittle substance. However, there doesn’t seem to be a clear limit to this oxidation other than what is recognized as the second degree or potash. This level of oxidation can always be immediately achieved by placing potassium in contact with water. I believe this should be called protoxide and considered as 1 atom of potassium and 1 atom of oxygen; before this stage, it is a mixture or perhaps a combination of potassium and potash.

Besides these there is another obtained by burning potassium in oxygen gas at an elevated temperature; this oxide is yellow, fusible by heat, and crystallizes in lamina on cooling; it contains three times as much [Pg 55] oxygen as potash; put into water it is suddenly decomposed, giving out ⅔ of the oxygen in gas and becoming potash. Very probably an oxide containing twice as much oxygen as potash might be formed with some mark of discrimination, by uniting 18 parts potassium with 56 of yellow oxide, but this has not yet been done.

Besides these, there's another one created by burning potassium in oxygen gas at a high temperature. This oxide is yellow, melts when heated, and crystallizes into thin layers as it cools. It has three times the amount of oxygen compared to potash. When placed in water, it rapidly breaks down, releasing two-thirds of the oxygen as gas and turning into potash. It's quite likely that an oxide with twice the oxygen content of potash could be formed with some distinguishing feature by combining 18 parts of potassium with 56 parts of the yellow oxide, but this has not been attempted yet. [Pg 55]

According to these conclusions the weights of the oxides of potassium may be stated as under.—Potassium 35, protoxide or potash 42, deutoxide (supposed to exist) 49, and the yellow or tritoxide 56. Hence we have

According to these conclusions, the weights of the potassium oxides can be stated as follows: Potassium 35, protoxide or potash 42, deutoxide (which is believed to exist) 49, and the yellow or tritoxide 56. Therefore, we have

  Potassium.   Oxygen    
Protoxide (potash) 100   +   20 Gay Lussac & Thenard
      19 Davy
Deutoxide 100   +   40   (unknown)
Tritoxide 100   +   60   Gay Lussac & Thenard

One feels unwilling to admit of a tritoxide, (and that perhaps the only one existing,) when the deutoxide is unknown, were it not upon good authority. The obscurity on this subject may be removed by future experiments.

One is hesitant to acknowledge a tritoxide, (and maybe the only one that exists), when the deutoxide is unknown, unless it comes from reliable sources. Future experiments may clear up the confusion around this topic.

It may be proper to add that Gay Lussac and Thenard concur with Davy in assigning a much greater saturating power to potassium and sodium than to the fused hydrates of potash and soda of equal weights. From the table, Recherches, Tom. 2, p. 214, it may be deduced that 35 potassium [Pg 56] require as much sulphuric acid to saturate them as 50 or more of the hydrate of potash; and that 21 sodium are equivalent to 36 or 37 hydrate of sodium. If these results are accurate, the weights of potassium and sodium, considered as hydrurets, cannot be as we have deduced them at pages 486 and 503, Vol. 1, namely, 43 and 29 respectively, but 35 and 21, as at page 262.

It might be appropriate to mention that Gay Lussac and Thenard agree with Davy in stating that potassium and sodium have a much greater saturating power than the fused hydrates of potash and soda of equal weights. From the table in Recherches, Tom. 2, p. 214, it can be concluded that 35 parts of potassium require as much sulfuric acid to saturate them as 50 or more parts of the hydrate of potash; and that 21 parts of sodium are equivalent to 36 or 37 parts of sodium hydrate. If these results are correct, the weights of potassium and sodium, considered as hydrurets, cannot be as we previously calculated on pages 486 and 503, Vol. 1, which are 43 and 29 respectively, but rather 35 and 21, as noted on page 262.

16. Oxides of sodium.

Gay Lussac and Thenard find a suboxide of sodium in the same way as that of potassium, and it is probably a compound of soda and sodium: the remarkable oxidation which produces soda is, I should imagine, the protoxide or one atom to one, as obtained by placing sodium in contact with water. A higher oxide is obtained as with potassium, by burning sodium in oxygen gas with a vivid heat. It resembles the yellow oxide of potassium in its appearance and properties. The degree of oxidation varies in the different experiments from 1¼ to 1¾ times the oxygen of soda. It is probably a combination of the protoxide and deutoxide. Hence the oxides of sodium may be as under; reckoning the atom of sodium 21, and soda 28. [Pg 57]

Gay Lussac and Thenard discovered a suboxide of sodium similarly to how they did with potassium, and it’s likely a compound of soda and sodium. The significant oxidation that produces soda is probably the protoxide or a one-to-one ratio, which is achieved by putting sodium in contact with water. A higher oxide, like with potassium, is produced by burning sodium in oxygen gas with intense heat. It looks and behaves similarly to the yellow oxide of potassium. The level of oxidation varies across different experiments from 1¼ to 1¾ times the oxygen of soda. It’s likely a mix of the protoxide and deutoxide. Therefore, the oxides of sodium could be summarized as follows, considering the atomic weight of sodium is 21 and soda is 28. [Pg 57]

  Sodium.   Oxygen.
Protoxide (Soda)   100     +   33⅓
Intermediate oxide 100 + 50

17. Oxide of bismuth.

Only one oxide of bismuth is known, and the proportion of its parts has been gradually approximated by Bergman, Lavoisier, Klaproth, Proust, and others. Berzelius mentions a purple oxide obtained by exposing bismuth to the action of the atmosphere; but as no experiments have been made upon it, we cannot adopt it at present. According to Klaproth and Proust, 100 bismuth unite with 12 oxygen; but by the more recent experiments of Mr. J. Davy and Lagerhjelm 100 bismuth take 11.1 or 11.3 oxygen. If we adopt this last, which is doubtless near the truth; we shall have 11.3 ∶ 100 ∷ 7 ∶ 62 for the weight of the atom of bismuth, on the supposition that the compound is the protoxide or 1 atom of metal to 1 of oxygen. My former weight of bismuth was 68 (page 263), which is clearly too high.

Only one oxide of bismuth is known, and its proportions have been gradually refined by Bergman, Lavoisier, Klaproth, Proust, and others. Berzelius mentions a purple oxide that forms when bismuth is exposed to the atmosphere; however, since no experiments have been conducted on it, we can't accept it at this time. According to Klaproth and Proust, 100 parts of bismuth combine with 12 parts of oxygen; but more recent experiments by Mr. J. Davy and Lagerhjelm show that 100 parts of bismuth react with 11.1 or 11.3 parts of oxygen. If we use this latest finding, which is likely close to the truth, we would have a ratio of 11.3 to 100, which is equivalent to 7 to 62 for the weight of the atom of bismuth, assuming the compound is protoxide or 1 atom of metal to 1 atom of oxygen. My previous weight of bismuth was 68 (page 263), which is clearly too high.

Bismuth is best oxidized by nitric acid. Part of the oxide combines with the acid and part precipitates in the state of a white powder; if [Pg 58] the whole be gradually heated, the acid is driven off, and at a low red the oxide remains pure; it is fused into glass and of a red or yellow colour, according to the heat employed. Bismuth may also be oxidized by heat in open vessels; yellow fumes arise which may be condensed and are found to be the oxide.

Bismuth is best oxidized with nitric acid. Some of the oxide reacts with the acid while part settles out as a white powder. If you gradually heat the entire mixture, the acid evaporates, leaving behind pure oxide at a low red heat. It can then be melted into glass that appears red or yellow depending on the heat used. Bismuth can also be oxidized by heating it in open containers; this produces yellow fumes that can be condensed and are identified as the oxide.

18. Oxides of antimony.

Considerable difference of opinions exists with regard to the oxides of antimony. Proust finds two oxides which he determines to consist, the first, of 100 metal + 22 or 23 oxygen; the second of 100 metal + 30 oxygen. Thenard finds 6 oxides: J. Davy two oxides, namely, 100 metal + 17.7 oxygen, and 100 + 30 oxygen. Berzelius infers from his experiments that there are 4 oxides of antimony, the first containing 4.65 oxygen, the second 18.6, the third 27.9, and the fourth 37.2 of oxygen on 100 metal. He admits however that the oxide obtained by boiling nitric acid on antimony and expelling the superfluous acid by a low red heat, consists of 100 metal + 29 to 31 oxygen, as determined by Proust and others. This is certainly the most definite of the oxides, next to that [Pg 59] which is obtained from the solution of antimony in muriatic acid. This last may be had by pouring water into a solution of muriate of antimony; a white powder precipitates, which is the oxide with a little muriatic acid; the acid may be abstracted by boiling the precipitate in a solution of carbonate of potash. This oxide is a grey powder, and fusible at a low red heat. It enters exclusively into various well known compounds, as the golden sulphur of antimony, antimoniated tartrate of potash, &c. Its constitution, according to Proust, is 100 metal + 23 oxygen; but J. Davy finds only 17.7 oxygen, and Berzelius 18.6. As this oxide possesses the most distinct features, and besides is the most important, it is desirable its constitution should be ascertained without doubt. From several experiments I made on the precipitation of antimony by zinc, I conclude the oxide contains about 18 oxygen on 100 metal. I took the common muriate of antimony with excess of acid, and immersed a rod of zinc into it, covering the whole with a graduated bell glass. Hydrogen gas was produced by the excess of acid, and its quantity was ascertained; the antimony was in due time precipitated, and when the operation ceased, the loss of zinc and the weight of antimony were found. For [Pg 60] instance, to 50 measures of 1.69 mur. ant. 60 water were added, no precipitation was observed; a zinc rod was put in and the whole covered by a bell glass, over water; in a few hours the operation had ceased, and there appeared 3480 grain measures of hydrogen gas generated; the dried antimony weighed 25½ grains, and the zinc had lost 29 grains. Now 3480 hydrogen require 1740 of oxygen = 2.3 grains in weight. But 29 zinc require 7 oxygen; therefore the zinc must have got 4.7 oxygen from the antimony; that is, 25.5 antimony were found united to 4.7 oxygen; this gives 100 antimony + 18.4 oxygen. I conclude then that the error is with Proust; and this appears to be confirmed by the consideration that Proust himself obtains only 86 oxide of antimony from 100 sulphuret, which he allows to contain 74 antimony; now if 74 ∶ 12 ∷ 100 ∶ 17 nearly. I am therefore inclined to adopt 18 for the oxygen which combines with 100 antimony to form the grey oxide. Whether this is the protoxide or deutoxide may be disputed; and the facts known concerning the other oxide or oxides will scarcely determine the case: but the proportions of the muriate and sulphuret of antimony accord much better with the former supposition. Now if 18 ∶ 100 ∷ 7 ∶ 39, for [Pg 61] the weight of the atom of antimony; I prefer the weight 40, deduced from the sulphuret, as announced in Vol. 1, page 264.

A significant range of opinions exists regarding the oxides of antimony. Proust identifies two oxides: the first consists of 100 parts antimony and 22 or 23 parts oxygen, while the second contains 100 parts antimony and 30 parts oxygen. Thenard reports six oxides, and J. Davy finds two, specifically 100 parts antimony and 17.7 parts oxygen, and 100 parts antimony and 30 parts oxygen. Berzelius deduces from his experiments that there are four oxides of antimony, with the first containing 4.65 parts oxygen, the second 18.6, the third 27.9, and the fourth 37.2 parts oxygen per 100 parts antimony. However, he acknowledges that the oxide formed by boiling nitric acid with antimony and removing the excess acid by applying low red heat consists of 100 parts antimony and 29 to 31 parts oxygen, as established by Proust and others. This is definitely the most specific of the oxides, next to the one derived from the solution of antimony in hydrochloric acid. The latter can be obtained by adding water to a solution of antimony chloride; a white powder precipitates, which is the oxide mixed with a small amount of hydrochloric acid. The acid can be removed by boiling the precipitate with a solution of potassium carbonate. This oxide is a gray powder and melts at low red heat. It is involved solely in various well-known compounds, such as the golden sulfur of antimony and antimonium tartrate of potash, etc. Proust states its composition as 100 parts antimony and 23 parts oxygen, while J. Davy finds only 17.7 parts oxygen and Berzelius finds 18.6 parts. Since this oxide exhibits the most distinct characteristics and is also the most significant, it's important to determine its composition with certainty. From several experiments I conducted on the precipitation of antimony by zinc, I conclude that the oxide contains about 18 parts oxygen per 100 parts antimony. I used common antimony chloride with excess acid and submerged a zinc rod in it, covering the entire setup with a graduated bell jar. Hydrogen gas was produced due to the excess acid, and I measured its quantity; the antimony was eventually precipitated, and when the process ended, I recorded the loss of zinc and the weight of the antimony. For example, to 50 measures of 1.69 molar antimony chloride, I added 60 measures of water, and no precipitation occurred. A zinc rod was inserted, and the entire setup was covered with a bell jar over water. After a few hours, the reaction completed, and there was 3480 grain measures of hydrogen gas generated. The dried antimony weighed 25½ grains, and the zinc lost 29 grains. Now, 3480 measures of hydrogen require 1740 parts oxygen, which equals 2.3 grains in weight. But 29 grains of zinc require 7 parts oxygen; therefore, the zinc must have acquired 4.7 parts oxygen from the antimony. This means that 25.5 grains of antimony were found combined with 4.7 parts oxygen, giving a composition of 100 parts antimony plus 18.4 parts oxygen. I conclude that Proust's figure is incorrect, which is further supported by the fact that Proust himself obtains only 86 parts antimony oxide from 100 parts sulfur compound, which he believes contains 74 parts antimony. This leads to a ratio of 74 : 12 proportional to 100 : approximately 17. Therefore, I lean towards the idea that 18 is the oxygen combining with 100 parts antimony to create the gray oxide. Whether this is the protoxide or deutoxide can be debated, and the available information about the other oxide or oxides won't really clarify the situation: however, the ratios of the antimony chloride and sulfur compound align better with the first assumption. Now, if 18 : 100 corresponds to 7 : 39 for the atomic weight of antimony, I prefer the weight of 40, derived from the sulfur compound, as mentioned in Vol. 1, page 264.

The oxide which contains 30 on 100 must be 2 atoms of the deutoxide and 1 of the protoxide united. What Berzelius calls the white oxide or antimonious acid, may be 1 atom of each oxide united, containing 27 oxygen on the 100. The oxide supposed to contain 36 or 37 oxygen on 100, and which must be considered as the deutoxide, has not been proved to exist separately. My efforts to procure it have failed as well as those before mine: by treating muriate of antimony with oxymuriate of lime I have obtained oxides of 30 on the 100, but never much higher. Whenever a greater proportion of oxymuriate of lime is added, the smell of the gas becomes permanent.

The oxide that contains 30 out of 100 must consist of 2 atoms of deutoxide and 1 of protoxide combined. What Berzelius refers to as the white oxide or antimonious acid may be formed by 1 atom of each oxide combined, containing 27 oxygen out of 100. The oxide thought to contain 36 or 37 oxygen out of 100, which should be considered the deutoxide, has not been proven to exist separately. My attempts to obtain it have failed, just like those of others before me: by treating antimony muriate with calcium hypochlorite, I have acquired oxides with 30 out of 100 but never any significantly higher. Whenever a larger amount of calcium hypochlorite is added, the gas's odor becomes persistent.

Antimony exposed to a red heat in a current of common air or oxygenous gas takes fire, and white fumes arise formerly called flowers of antimony; this oxide contains 27 or 30 oxygen on 100 metal.

Antimony heated to a red glow in a flow of regular air or oxygen gas ignites, producing white fumes that were once called flowers of antimony; this oxide contains 27 or 30 parts of oxygen per 100 parts of metal.

Antimony thrown into red hot nitre is oxidized rapidly; the remaining powder, washed in water, is found to be a compound of oxide of antimony and potash. Berzelius calls the oxide the antimonic acid, and the salt the antimoniate of potash. It consists, according to his [Pg 62] experience, of 100 acid and 26.5 potash. A similar salt formed between the antimonious acid and potash is constituted of 100 acid and 30.5 potash.

Antimony thrown into red-hot nitrate gets oxidized quickly; the leftover powder, when washed in water, turns out to be a compound of antimony oxide and potash. Berzelius refers to the oxide as antimonic acid and the salt as the antimoniate of potash. According to his findings, it contains 100 parts acid and 26.5 parts potash. A similar salt formed from antimonious acid and potash consists of 100 parts acid and 30.5 parts potash. [Pg 62]

19. Oxide of tellurium.

We are chiefly indebted to Berzelius for the proportions in which tellurium combines. He finds 100 tellurium unite to 24.8 oxygen. Also that 201.5 tellurate of lead gave 157 sulphate of lead. This last contains 116 oxide of lead, which must therefore have combined with 85.5 of the oxide of tellurium. Hence 97 oxide of lead would combine with 71.5 oxide of tellurium = 57½ tellurium + 14 oxygen. Whether this oxide of tellurium is the protoxide or deutoxide, is somewhat uncertain. The atom of tellurium will weigh 57½ in the latter case, but only 28 or 29 in the former. The analogy of the oxide to acids favours the notion of a deutoxide; but the facility with which the tellurium is volatilized by hydrogen is in favour of the lighter atom. The oxide is a white powder; it is produced by dissolving the metal in nitro-muriatic acid and precipitating by an alkali. [Pg 63]

We mainly owe our understanding of the proportions in which tellurium combines to Berzelius. He discovered that 100 parts of tellurium combine with 24.8 parts of oxygen. He also found that 201.5 parts of lead tellurate produced 157 parts of lead sulfate. This last contains 116 parts of lead oxide, which must have combined with 85.5 parts of tellurium oxide. Therefore, 97 parts of lead oxide would combine with 71.5 parts of tellurium oxide, amounting to 57.5 parts of tellurium and 14 parts of oxygen. It's somewhat unclear whether this tellurium oxide is the protoxide or deutoxide. In the case of deutoxide, the atomic weight of tellurium would be 57.5, but only 28 or 29 in the case of protoxide. The similarity of the oxide to acids supports the idea of it being a deutoxide; however, the ease with which tellurium is volatilized by hydrogen favors the lighter atomic weight. The oxide appears as a white powder; it is obtained by dissolving the metal in a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids and then precipitating it with an alkali. [Pg 63]

20. Oxides of arsenic.

There are two distinct combinations of arsenic and oxygen; the one has been long known as an article of commerce under the name of arsenic. It is a white, brittle, glassy substance, obtained during the extraction of certain metals from their ores. Its specific gravity is about 3.7. According to Klaproth boiling water dissolves from 7 to 8 per cent. of the oxide of arsenic; but on cooling it retains only about 3 per cent.; and this I find is gradually deposited on the sides of the vessel till it is reduced to 2 per cent. or less in cold weather, and by some months standing. Water of 60° or under dissolves no more than ¼ per cent. of the oxide. At the temperature of about 400° the oxide sublimes. This oxide combines with the alkalies, earths, and metallic oxides somewhat as the acids do, but does not neutralize them, and in other respects it is destitute of acid properties; as for instance, it does not affect the colour tests. It is extremely poisonous.

There are two different combinations of arsenic and oxygen; one has long been known as arsenic in commerce. It's a white, brittle, glassy substance obtained during the extraction of certain metals from their ores. Its specific gravity is about 3.7. According to Klaproth, boiling water dissolves about 7 to 8 percent of arsenic oxide; however, when it cools, it retains only around 3 percent, and I find that this gradually settles on the sides of the container until it decreases to 2 percent or less in cold weather and after sitting for several months. Water at 60° or below dissolves no more than ¼ percent of the oxide. At a temperature of about 400°, the oxide sublimes. This oxide combines with alkalis, earths, and metallic oxides in a similar way to acids, but it doesn't neutralize them, and in other ways, it lacks acidic properties; for example, it doesn't change the color tests. It is extremely poisonous.

The other oxide is obtained by treating either the white oxide or pure metallic arsenic with nitric acid and heat. One hundred grains of white oxide require two or three times their weight of nitric acid, of 1.3, to [Pg 64] oxidize them. The new oxide is produced in a liquid form; from which the excess of nitric acid may be driven by a low red heat, and the oxide is obtained pure in the form of a white opake glass, which soon becomes liquid by attracting moisture from the atmosphere. This oxide, discovered by Scheele, has all the properties of acids in general, and is therefore denominated arsenic acid. When just fluid by attracting moisture it has the sp. gravity 1.65 nearly. It is represented as equally poisonous with the white oxide.

The other oxide is produced by treating either the white oxide or pure metallic arsenic with nitric acid and heat. One hundred grains of white oxide need two or three times their weight in nitric acid, with a density of 1.3, to oxidize them. The new oxide forms in a liquid state; the excess nitric acid can be removed by applying low red heat, resulting in a pure oxide that appears as a white opaque glass, which quickly becomes liquid by absorbing moisture from the air. This oxide, discovered by Scheele, has all the general properties of acids, so it's called arsenic acid. When it’s fluid from absorbing moisture, its specific gravity is about 1.65. It is considered equally poisonous as the white oxide.

The proportions of the elements in these two oxides have been investigated with considerable success. Proust finds the white oxide constituted of 100 metal and 33 or 34 oxygen, and the second of 100 metal with 53 or 54 oxygen: with these results those of Rose and Bucholz nearly agree. Thenard finds 100 + 34.6 for the white oxide, and 100 + 56.25 for the acid: and Thomson 100 + 52.4 for the acid. Berzelius however, infers from his recent experiments that the oxide consists of 100 metal + 43.6 oxygen, and the acid of 100 + 71.3; these last results I have little doubt are incorrect from my own experience.

The ratios of the elements in these two oxides have been studied with notable success. Proust finds that the white oxide is made up of 100 parts metal and 33 or 34 parts oxygen, while the second oxide has 100 parts metal and 53 or 54 parts oxygen; Rose and Bucholz's findings are quite similar. Thenard discovers 100 + 34.6 for the white oxide and 100 + 56.25 for the acid; Thomson finds 100 + 52.4 for the acid. However, Berzelius concludes from his recent experiments that the oxide consists of 100 parts metal and 43.6 parts oxygen, and the acid has 100 + 71.3; I have little doubt that these last results are incorrect based on my own experience.

It appears that when arsenic is oxidized by nitric acid, 100 parts yield from 152 to 156 of acid, dried in a low red heat. The differences [Pg 65] may in part be owing to the metal being partly oxidized at the commencement of the operation. On this account I should suppose 55 or 56 to be the proper quantity of oxygen united to 100 metal to form the acid. Proust and Thenard both found that 100 white oxide, when converted into acid by nitric acid, gave 115 or 116. I have found the same. Now if 116 ∶ 100 ∷ 156 ∶ 134; hence the white oxide of arsenic must contain 100 metal to 34 oxygen, if the data be correct; or the metal and oxygen are as 3 to 1 nearly. It is highly improbable that any inferior oxide subsists, as no traces of such have been found, if we disallow a conjecture of Berzelius on the subject. The white oxide of arsenic must then be considered as the protoxide, and the atom of arsenic must weigh 21 nearly, and that of the protoxide 28.

It seems that when arsenic is oxidized by nitric acid, 100 parts yield between 152 to 156 parts of acid, dried at a low red heat. The variations may partly be due to the metal being partially oxidized at the start of the process. For this reason, I believe that 55 or 56 is the correct amount of oxygen combined with 100 parts of metal to form the acid. Proust and Thenard both found that 100 parts of white oxide, when converted into acid by nitric acid, produced 115 or 116 parts. I have found the same results. Now, if 116:100::156:134, then the white oxide of arsenic must contain 100 parts metal to 34 parts oxygen, if the data is accurate; or the ratio of metal to oxygen is nearly 3 to 1. It’s very unlikely that any lower oxide exists, as no traces of such have been found, unless we consider Berzelius’s conjecture on the subject. Therefore, the white oxide of arsenic should be regarded as the protoxide, and the atomic weight of arsenic should be nearly 21, while that of the protoxide is 28.

It is plain the other is not the deutoxide, as it does not contain twice the oxygen of the protoxide; but as the proportion of oxygen in it is to that of the protoxide, as 5 ∶ 3, it may be a compound of 2 atoms of deutoxide, and 1 of protoxide; that is, it may be the superarseniate of arsenic, if we consider the deutoxide as the acid, and the protoxide as the base. According to this view, the [Pg 66] compound oxide, or arsenic acid of Scheele, is constituted of two atoms of the deutoxide, weighing 70, and 1 atom of the protoxide weighing 28, together making 98, for the weight of an atom of arsenic acid, = 63 arsenic + 35 oxygen: and 100 arsenic take 55.5 oxygen to form the acid, agreeably to the above recited experiments. Singular as this conclusion may appear, the truth of it is put beyond doubt, I think, by the following experiments.

It’s clear that the other is not the deutoxide, as it doesn’t contain twice the oxygen of the protoxide; however, since the ratio of oxygen in it compared to that of the protoxide is 5:3, it might be a compound of 2 atoms of deutoxide and 1 of protoxide. In other words, it could be the superarseniate of arsenic, if we view the deutoxide as the acid and the protoxide as the base. From this perspective, the arsenic acid of Scheele is made up of two atoms of deutoxide, weighing 70, and 1 atom of protoxide weighing 28, adding up to 98, as the weight of an atom of arsenic acid is 63 for arsenic and 35 for oxygen: and 100 parts of arsenic require 55.5 parts of oxygen to form the acid, in line with the earlier mentioned experiments. Strange as this conclusion may seem, I believe its validity is supported by the following experiments.

I have repeatedly found that 28 parts of white oxide in solution are sufficient to throw down 24 parts of lime, from lime water, so as to produce 52 parts of arsenite of lime, and leave the water free from both elements. This confirms the notion of the atom of protoxide weighing 28.

I have often found that 28 parts of white oxide in solution are enough to precipitate 24 parts of lime from lime water, resulting in 52 parts of arsenite of lime, and leaving the water free from both elements. This supports the idea that the atom of protoxide weighs 28.

If to 24 parts of lime dissolved in water we put 98 parts of dry arsenic acid, the compound remains in solution, and is perfectly neutral to the colour test, but so that the addition of a small quantity of either ingredient disturbs the neutrality. If to this solution 24 parts of lime dissolved in water be added, the compound remains a limpid solution, but is very limy to the test. If to this we put in like manner, 24 parts more of lime, the whole compound is thrown down, and yields, when dried, 170 parts of arseniate of lime, the liquid [Pg 67] being now free from both elements. Here we see first, two atoms of the deutoxide, neutralized by two atoms of base, namely, 1 of arsenic oxide, and 1 of lime; but (second), when one atom more of lime is added, an union of 2 deutoxide, and 3 of base is effected, which of course is an alkaline salt; when (third) more of lime is added, the 2 deutoxide and the 1 protoxide each attach 1 of lime, and form a still more alkaline salt, which being insoluble, is wholly thrown down, most probably in a compound state of 98 parts arsenic acid, combined with 72 parts lime.

If you take 24 parts of lime dissolved in water and mix it with 98 parts of dry arsenic acid, the resulting compound stays in solution and tests neutral in color. However, adding even a small amount of either ingredient disrupts this neutrality. If you then add 24 more parts of lime dissolved in water to this solution, it remains clear but tests highly limey. If you add yet another 24 parts of lime, the entire compound precipitates out and produces, when dried, 170 parts of arseniate of lime, leaving the liquid free of both components. Here, we first see two atoms of the deutoxide neutralized by two atoms of base, which include one of arsenic oxide and one of lime. Secondly, when one more atom of lime is added, it combines with two deutoxide and three base atoms, resulting in an alkaline salt. Thirdly, when additional lime is introduced, each of the two deutoxide and one protoxide combines with one lime atom, forming an even more alkaline salt, which is insoluble and completely precipitates out, likely in a compound ratio of 98 parts arsenic acid combined with 72 parts lime. [Pg 67]

In like manner, I find that 42 parts of potash, 28 of soda, and 12 of ammonia, severally neutralize 98 parts of arsenic acid.

In the same way, I find that 42 parts of potash, 28 of soda, and 12 of ammonia each neutralize 98 parts of arsenic acid.

1st. 24 lime   +   32.7 arsenic acid = insoluble arseniate
2d.   +   49 ————— = soluble arseniate
3d.   +   98 ————— = neutral arseniate

It is a remarkable fact, that when neutral arseniate of potash and nitrate of lead are mixed together to mutual saturation, the precipitate is found to consist chiefly of arsenic acid and oxide of lead, in proportion of 1 of acid to two of oxide, (that is, 98 ∶ 194, or 100 ∶ 198); which does not differ much from the determination of Berzelius. [Pg 68]

It’s an interesting fact that when neutral potassium arseniate and lead nitrate are mixed to the point of saturation, the resulting precipitate mainly consists of arsenic acid and lead oxide in a ratio of 1 part acid to 2 parts oxide (that is, 98 : 194, or 100 : 198), which is quite similar to Berzelius's findings. [Pg 68]

I find however, only one fourth of the nitric acid in the residuary liquid in a free state; which leads me to suspect that the precipitate is a compound of subnitrate and arseniate of lead, in which the arsenic acid and lead are in due proportion, or 98 acid, to 97 oxide. This consideration may be properly resumed hereafter.

I find, however, that only one-fourth of the nitric acid in the leftover liquid is in a free state, which makes me think that the precipitate is a compound of subnitrate and arseniate of lead, where the arsenic acid and lead are in the correct proportion, or 98 acid to 97 oxide. This point can be revisited later.

Hence we conclude, the atom of arsenic weighs 21 (and not 42, as at page 264, Vol. 1), that of the protoxide of common white arsenic, 28; and that of arsenic acid = 98, being a compound of 2 atoms of deutoxide, and 1 of protoxide. Or,

Hence we conclude, the atomic weight of arsenic is 21 (not 42, as stated on page 264, Vol. 1), the atomic weight of the protoxide of common white arsenic is 28; and the atomic weight of arsenic acid is 98, which is a compound of 2 atoms of deutoxide and 1 of protoxide. Or,

100 Arsenic   +   33.3 oxygen = 133.3 protoxide
  +   55.5 —— = 155.5 arsenic acid

21. Oxides of cobalt.

There are at least two oxides of cobalt, the one blue, the other black. Authors differ as to the proportions of the elements. Proust states the blue oxide to consist of 100 metal, and 19 or 20 oxygen, and the black of 25 or 26 oxygen. Klaproth finds in the blue, 100 metal and 18 oxygen. But Rolhoff according to Berzelius, finds 100 metal and 27.3 oxygen in the blue oxide, and 40.9 in the black. I have taken some [Pg 69] pains to investigate these oxides, and have been able to satisfy myself in a good degree, respecting their constitution. The blue or protoxide consists of 100 metal and 19 oxygen, and the black oxide of 100 metal, and 25 or 26, very nearly as Proust determined.

There are at least two types of cobalt oxides: one is blue, and the other is black. Different authors have varying opinions on the proportions of the elements. Proust claims the blue oxide has 100 parts metal and 19 or 20 parts oxygen, while the black oxide has 25 or 26 parts oxygen. Klaproth reports the blue oxide as having 100 parts metal and 18 parts oxygen. However, Rolhoff, according to Berzelius, finds that the blue oxide contains 100 parts metal and 27.3 parts oxygen, and the black oxide has 40.9 parts oxygen. I have made an effort to examine these oxides and have been able to gain a good understanding of their composition. The blue or protoxide consists of 100 parts metal and 19 parts oxygen, while the black oxide contains 100 parts metal and 25 or 26 parts oxygen, very close to Proust’s findings. [Pg 69]

Protoxide. By repeated trials I have found, that if 37 parts of metallic cobalt be treated with the due quantity of nitro-muriatic acid, and a heat of 150°, a rapid solution takes place, and a disengagement of pure nitrous gas; this being carefully collected, it will be found to weigh 8 grains, and of course corresponds to 7 grains of oxygen; hence 37 cobalt, unite to 7 oxygen, to form 44 of the blue oxide; and as this is the only oxide that combines with acids, it must be considered as the most simple or protoxide, being 1 atom of metal (37), and 1 of oxygen (7). The estimation of the atom of cobalt at 50 or 60, (page 265), must therefore be corrected.

Protoxide. Through repeated experiments, I've discovered that if you treat 37 parts of metallic cobalt with the right amount of nitro-muriatic acid while heating it to 150°, a rapid solution occurs, releasing pure nitrous gas. When this gas is carefully collected, it will weigh 8 grains, which corresponds to 7 grains of oxygen. Therefore, 37 parts of cobalt combine with 7 parts of oxygen to form 44 parts of the blue oxide. Since this is the only oxide that reacts with acids, it should be regarded as the simplest form or protoxide, consisting of 1 atom of metal (37) and 1 atom of oxygen (7). The estimation of the cobalt atom being 50 or 60, (page 265), needs to be adjusted.

Compound oxides. When the blue oxide of cobalt is precipitated from a solution, by an alkali or lime water, and oxymuriate of lime is gradually dropped in, the precipitate changes colour rapidly; it passes from blue to green and olive, thence to a dark bottle green, and finally becomes black; oxygen gas is given out copiously when an excess [Pg 70] of oxymuriate of lime is used. I find the additional oxygen requisite to convert the blue to the black oxide is what Proust states it, namely, ⅓ of that necessary to form the blue; hence it must be considered as a compound of 1 atom of oxygen and 3 of the protoxide. Probably the other coloured oxides are 1 to 4, 1 to 5, &c. The protoxide is blue when precipitated, but it is supposed to contain water, or to be a hydrate; as it is dark grey when heated. The blue oxide in a short time after precipitation being still under water, changes to a yellowish or dead-leaf colour; which also appears to be a hydrate of the protoxide, as it dissolves in acids without giving out gas, and yields the blue oxide by an alkali. According to Proust, this hydrate contains 20 or 21 per cent. water. If we suppose the blue to be 1 atom oxide, and 1 water, the yellow hydrate may be 1 water and 2 of the proto-hydrate; or 88 oxide, and 24 water, which will be nearly 21 per cent. water.

Compound oxides. When cobalt blue oxide is precipitated from a solution using an alkali or lime water, and oxymuriate of lime is gradually added, the precipitate quickly changes color; it goes from blue to green and olive, then to a dark bottle green, and finally turns black. A lot of oxygen gas is released when too much oxymuriate of lime is used. I find that the extra oxygen needed to convert the blue into the black oxide is what Proust mentions, specifically ⅓ of what’s needed to create the blue; therefore, it should be viewed as a compound of 1 atom of oxygen and 3 atoms of the protoxide. Other colored oxides are probably in a 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 ratio, etc. The protoxide appears blue when precipitated, but it's thought to contain water or to be a hydrate, as it turns dark grey when heated. The blue oxide, shortly after being precipitated and still submerged in water, changes to a yellowish or dead-leaf color; this also seems to be a hydrate of the protoxide, as it dissolves in acids without releasing gas, and can produce the blue oxide when treated with an alkali. According to Proust, this hydrate contains 20 or 21 percent water. If we assume the blue is 1 atom of oxide and 1 of water, the yellow hydrate might consist of 1 water and 2 of the proto-hydrate; or 88 oxide and 24 water, which is close to 21 percent water.

The black oxide gives out oxygen gas by a red heat, and is reduced to the grey oxide: it forms oxymuriatic acid, with muriatic acid, and the protoxide remains in solution.

The black oxide releases oxygen gas when heated to red-hot and is reduced to grey oxide: it forms oxymuriatic acid when combined with muriatic acid, and the protoxide stays dissolved.

(See Tassaert.—An. de Chimie 28; Thenard, 42; and Proust, 60.) [Pg 71]

(See Tassaert.—An. de Chimie 28; Thenard, 42; and Proust, 60.) [Pg 71]

22. Oxides of manganese.

One of the oxides of manganese being a natural production, and sometimes of great purity, and the metal not being obtainable without skill and labour, it may be most convenient to adopt the inverse method in our investigations; that is, to trace out the atom of metal from its oxides.

One of the manganese oxides is a natural product and can sometimes be very pure. Since obtaining the metal requires skill and effort, it might be more practical to use the reverse approach in our studies; that is, to track the metal atom from its oxides.

Native oxides of manganese. Of late, I have met with excellent specimens of this oxide; they are in masses of a grey, crystalline appearance, sp. gr. 4, easily pulverizable into a greasy, shining, dark grey powder. They are nearly pure oxide; but the more common sort is blacker, and contains less or more of siliceous earth. Some specimens are very harsh, require an iron mortar to pulverize them, and contain 50 or upwards per cent. of siliceous earth. Of the common sort when pulverized, the black inclining to blue, is generally preferable to the black inclining to brown. I have not observed any earthy carbonates mixed with the oxide of manganese. Amongst various specimens I obtained the following analyses. [Pg 72]

Native oxides of manganese. Recently, I've come across great specimens of this oxide; they come in masses with a grey, crystalline look, specific gravity 4, and can be easily ground into a smooth, shiny, dark grey powder. They're nearly pure oxide; however, the more common type is blacker and has varying amounts of siliceous earth. Some specimens are quite tough, requiring an iron mortar to grind them down, and contain 50% or more of siliceous earth. When grinding the common type, the black that has a blue tint is generally preferred over the black that has a brown tint. I haven't noticed any earthy carbonates mixed with the manganese oxide. Among the various specimens, I got the following analyses. [Pg 72]

    Oxide. sand and
insoluble
matter.
1. Grey, crystallized oxide 100 ——
2. Pulverized black oxide, from 80 20
  a bleacher, reputed good
3. Another specimen, in the lump 77 23
4. A light brown oxide 47 53
5. A sparry oxide, abounding with 27 73
  flint; black brown when pulverized

Some of the chemical characters of the native oxide of manganese are, its giving oxygen gas by a red heat, its insolubility in nitric and sulphuric acids, and its solubility in muriatic acid, but with the accompanying circumstance of disengaging oxymuriatic acid.

Some of the chemical properties of the native manganese oxide include its ability to release oxygen gas when heated to red heat, its resistance to dissolving in nitric and sulfuric acids, and its solubility in hydrochloric acid, though this process results in the release of chlorine gas.

All these facts shew that it is of the higher order of oxides, or analogous to the brown and red oxides of lead.—The muriatic acid solution abovementioned, contains an oxide of an inferior degree, which is soluble in all acids, and which is the only oxide of manganese that appears to be soluble in acids. If this be considered, (as it may with the greatest probability), the protoxide, then it will appear from what follows, that the common native manganese is the deutoxide, and that there is an intermediate one, which contains a mean quantity of oxygen. [Pg 73]

All these facts show that it belongs to a higher category of oxides, similar to the brown and red oxides of lead. The hydrochloric acid solution mentioned above contains an oxide of a lower degree, which is soluble in all acids, and it's the only manganese oxide that seems to dissolve in acids. If we consider this to be, with a high degree of probability, the protoxide, it will then become evident from what follows that the common natural manganese is the deutoxide, and that there exists an intermediate one containing a moderate amount of oxygen. [Pg 73]

Protoxide. This may be obtained in solution with muriatic acid as above, from the native oxide. Or the black oxide may be mixed with sulphuric acid into a paste, and heated in an iron spoon to redness; the mass being lixiviated, a solution of the protoxide in sulphuric acid is obtained, generally with a slight excess of the acid; in this process heat and the presence of sulphuric acid, expels the redundant oxygen of the black oxide, and reduce it to the protoxide, which hence becomes soluble. If in either of these solutions any oxide of iron be present, whether from the manganese, or acquired during the manipulation, it is easily discovered and separated, as I have frequently found. Into any solution containing a mixture of the oxides of manganese, the green oxide of iron, and the red oxide of iron, let lime water be gradually poured; the red oxide of iron will be first precipitated, next the green oxide, and lastly the oxide of manganese, which may hence be separated from each other. Iron may also be discovered and separated by carbonate of potash, which must be dropped into the solution as long as any coloured precipitate appears; as soon as it has subsided, the snow-white carbonate of manganese succeeds. [Pg 74] This white carbonate may be very conveniently used for obtaining solutions of pure manganese in any of the acids.

Protoxide. You can get this in solution with hydrochloric acid as mentioned above, from the natural oxide. Alternatively, the black oxide can be mixed with sulfuric acid into a paste and heated in an iron spoon until it's red hot; after this mass is leached, a solution of the protoxide in sulfuric acid is produced, usually with a slight excess of the acid. In this process, heat and the presence of sulfuric acid remove the extra oxygen from the black oxide, reducing it to the protoxide, which then becomes soluble. If there’s any iron oxide present in either of these solutions, whether from manganese or introduced during the process, it can be easily identified and separated, as I have often observed. To separate a solution containing a mix of manganese oxides, the green iron oxide, and the red iron oxide, gradually pour lime water into it; the red iron oxide will precipitate first, then the green oxide, and finally the manganese oxide, allowing them to be separated from one another. Iron can also be identified and separated using potassium carbonate, which should be added to the solution until no more colored precipitate forms; once it settles, the pure white carbonate of manganese will follow. [Pg 74] This white carbonate is very useful for preparing solutions of pure manganese in any of the acids.

When a solution of pure manganese is treated with lime water, or ammonia, a light buff oxide, not much differing in appearance from the yellow oxide of iron, is obtained. This oxide is soluble in all acids, when recently precipitated; but, such is its avidity for oxygen, with moderate agitation of the liquid it acquires oxygen and becomes brown, when it ceases to be totally soluble; if dried in the air quickly, it becomes brown and obtains considerable oxygen. The buff oxide recently precipitated, is probably a hydrate; for, when the white carbonate of manganese is heated gradually to red, the water and the acid are both expelled, and a grey powder remains; this is quite black on the surface of the mass, if exposed to the air during the process. Probably this grey powder is the pure protoxide; it is soluble in acids, except the black powder at the surface; perhaps but for the oxygen of the air, the protoxide would be nearly white.

When a pure manganese solution is mixed with lime water or ammonia, a light buff oxide is produced, which looks similar to the yellow oxide of iron. This oxide dissolves in all acids when it's freshly precipitated; however, it has a strong attraction for oxygen. With some agitation, it takes in oxygen and turns brown, at which point it becomes less soluble. If it dries quickly in the air, it also turns brown and gains a significant amount of oxygen. The recently precipitated buff oxide is likely a hydrate because when the white manganese carbonate is gradually heated to red, both the water and acid are released, leaving behind a grey powder. This powder appears black on the surface if it's exposed to air during the heating. This grey powder is probably the pure protoxide; it dissolves in acids, except for the black powder on the surface. Without the oxygen from the air, the protoxide would likely be almost white.

From its combinations with sulphuric and carbonic acids, I find the weight of an atom of the protoxide to be 32, or the same as that of iron. Dr. John, a German chemist, who seems to have investigated these [Pg 75] salts with more attention than any other person, has deduced nearly the same results. (Annals of Philos. 2-172). He finds 33⅔ sulphuric acid + 31 oxide, and 34.2 carbonic acid + 55.8 oxide; that is, when reduced to compare with my results, 34 sulphuric acid + 31.3 oxide, and 19.4 carbonic acid + 32 oxide. This near agreement may be considered as a confirmation of the accuracy of both. Dr. John finds, as I have done, three distinct oxides of manganese, the greyish green, the brown, and the black. The first of these is the only one that combines with acids; but we differ materially as to the quantity of oxygen in each. He found manganese decompose water at the ordinary temperature; by oxidizing the metal this way, 100 metal acquired 15 oxygen to constitute the protoxide; according to this, 28 metal + 4 oxygen would make 32 protoxide; but this conclusion would be so contrary to all analogy, that it cannot be admitted as satisfactory. The probability is, that the manganese must have contained a little oxygen at the commencement of the experiment. The general analogy of manganese to iron, lead, &c. requires that 32 protoxide should contain 7 oxygen. If this be allowed, we have the atom of manganese = 25, and not 40, (as at page 266, [Pg 76] Vol. 1), the same as that of iron: and this conclusion is corroborated by what follows.

From its combinations with sulfuric and carbonic acids, I've found the weight of an atom of the protoxide to be 32, which is the same as iron. Dr. John, a German chemist who seems to have studied these salts more than anyone else, has reached nearly the same results. (Annals of Philos. 2-172). He finds 33⅔ sulfuric acid + 31 oxide, and 34.2 carbonic acid + 55.8 oxide; when compared to my results, this is 34 sulfuric acid + 31.3 oxide, and 19.4 carbonic acid + 32 oxide. This close agreement can be viewed as a confirmation of both findings. Dr. John identifies, as I have, three distinct oxides of manganese: the grayish-green, the brown, and the black. The first of these is the only one that combines with acids; however, we significantly differ in terms of the amount of oxygen in each. He found that manganese decomposes water at room temperature; by oxidizing the metal this way, 100 units of metal gained 15 units of oxygen to form the protoxide. According to this, 28 units of metal + 4 units of oxygen would equal 32 protoxide; but this conclusion contradicts all analogy and can't be considered satisfactory. It's likely that the manganese contained a bit of oxygen at the start of the experiment. The general similarities between manganese and iron, lead, etc., suggest that 32 protoxide should have 7 units of oxygen. If we accept this, it implies that the atom of manganese equals 25, not 40 (as mentioned on page 266, [Pg 76] Vol. 1), which is the same as that of iron: this conclusion is supported by what follows.

2. Intermediate or olive brown oxide. This may be formed by combining oxygen directly with the buff or protoxide recently precipitated, and still remaining in the liquor; simple agitation in oxygenous gas or common air for a few minutes, is all that is requisite. Or it may be instantly formed by treating the same moist protoxide with liquid oxymuriate of lime. Or it may be had by exposing the purest black oxide to a bright red heat for some time, when it will lose 9 or 10 per cent. and there will remain the olive brown oxide.

2. Intermediate or olive brown oxide. This can be created by mixing oxygen directly with the buff or protoxide that has recently settled and is still in the solution; simply stirring it in oxygen gas or regular air for a few minutes is all that’s needed. Alternatively, it can be quickly produced by treating the same moist protoxide with liquid oxymuriate of lime. It can also be obtained by heating the purest black oxide to a bright red temperature for a period, at which point it will lose 9 or 10 percent of its mass, leaving behind the olive brown oxide.

To find the proportion of oxygen absorbed, I precipitated 3.2 grains of the protoxide by lime water; the liquid containing the oxide was put into a well stoppered bottle of oxygen gas; on agitation the oxide changed colour fast, from buff to brown; in a short time it absorbed 260 grain measures of gas = .35 of a grain in weight, and then ceased to absorb. In another experiment, 3.2 grains of precipitated protoxide, took 100 measures of a solution of oxymuriate of lime, containing .35 per cent. of oxygen, (that is, 1.45 oxymuriatic acid). Hence as 32 take [Pg 77] 3.5, 64 must take 7; which shews the brown oxide to be a compound of 1 atom of oxygen, and 2 of the protoxide.

To determine the amount of oxygen absorbed, I precipitated 3.2 grains of the protoxide using lime water; the liquid containing the oxide was placed in a well-sealed bottle filled with oxygen gas. When I shook it, the oxide quickly changed color from buff to brown. Soon after, it absorbed 260 grain measures of gas, which equals 0.35 grains by weight, and then it stopped absorbing. In another experiment, 3.2 grains of precipitated protoxide absorbed 100 measures of a solution of oxymuriate of lime, which contained 0.35 percent oxygen (equating to 1.45 oxymuriatic acid). Therefore, as 32 takes 3.5, then 64 must take 7; this shows that the brown oxide is a compound of 1 atom of oxygen and 2 atoms of the protoxide. [Pg 77]

The characters of this oxide are, its olive brown colour, its insolubility in nitric and sulphuric acids, without heat or deoxidation, and its solubility in muriatic acid after the evolution of oxymuriatic acid. By long exposure to the air, it is gradually changed, in all probability into the black oxide.

The characteristics of this oxide include its olive brown color, its inability to dissolve in nitric and sulfuric acids without heat or deoxidation, and its ability to dissolve in hydrochloric acid after the release of chlorine gas. With prolonged exposure to air, it likely gradually changes into the black oxide.

3. Deutoxide. In order to determine the quantity of oxygen deducible from the purest native oxide of manganese, to convert it into protoxide, I have successfully adopted the two following methods. 1st. Let 39 or 40 grains of the oxide be mixed with 60 common salt; to this add 80 grains of water, and 120 grains weight of strong sulphuric acid, in a gas bottle. The heat must be gradually raised to boiling, and the oxymuriatic acid gas may be received in a quart of lime water. This will be found sufficient to convert 800 measures of test green sulphate of iron (1.156) into red; that is, it will produce 29 grains of oxymuriatic acid, which will cause 7 grains of oxygen, to unite to the green oxide of iron. Now 100 measures of 1.156 sulphate, according to some recent experiments of mine, contain 8 grains of green oxide, [Pg 78] (I estimated the sp. gr. of test sulphate, heretofore at 1.149); hence 800 contain 64 oxide, and these require just 7 grains of oxygen to be united to them, to form the red oxide, as has been shewn, page 34. In the above experiment, the 39 grains of oxide, will be found to vanish or be dissolved, if pure, and to yield 32 grains of protoxide, making up with the 7 grains of oxygen, the original weight. Hence we have 39 grains of the oxide resolved into 32 protoxide, and 7 oxygen. If then we allow 32 protoxide, to contain 7 oxygen, it appears that 39 grains of the native oxide, consists of 1 atom manganese (25), and two atoms of oxygen (14); or it is the deutoxide of the metal. 2d. A more direct and expeditious method, of transferring the oxygen from the manganese to the iron, is as follows: Let 39 grains of pure grey shining oxide, be mixed with 800 of test green sulphate of iron; to this mixture let 25 or 30 grain measures of strong sulphuric acid be added: after stirring the mixture for 5 minutes, the oxide of manganese will be completely dissolved, and, on precipitating the oxide of iron gradually, by lime water, it will be found to be wholly yellow or buff; shewing that 7 grains of oxygen have been transferred from the oxide of manganese to that of iron.—If more green sulphate of iron be [Pg 79] used, then the surplus of the oxide will be thrown down green; the order of precipitation being the yellow oxide of iron, the green oxide of iron, and lastly, the yellow or buff oxide of manganese, as has been stated. This affords an easy and elegant method of appreciating the different oxides of manganese of commerce; and it was in this mode, the valuations of the specimens in the above table were made.

3. Deutoxide. To find out how much oxygen can be extracted from the purest native oxide of manganese to turn it into protoxide, I've successfully used the following two methods. 1st. Mix 39 or 40 grains of the oxide with 60 grains of common salt; then add 80 grains of water and 120 grains of strong sulfuric acid in a gas bottle. Gradually raise the heat to boiling, and collect the oxymuriatic acid gas in a quart of lime water. This will be enough to convert 800 measures of test green sulfate of iron (1.156) into red; that is, it will produce 29 grains of oxymuriatic acid, which will cause 7 grains of oxygen to combine with the green oxide of iron. Based on some recent experiments of mine, 100 measures of 1.156 sulfate contain 8 grains of green oxide, [Pg 78] (I previously estimated the specific gravity of the test sulfate at 1.149); therefore, 800 measures contain 64 grains of oxide, which need exactly 7 grains of oxygen to combine with them to form the red oxide, as demonstrated, page 34. In this experiment, the 39 grains of oxide will dissolve if pure, yielding 32 grains of protoxide, which, along with the 7 grains of oxygen, will equal the original weight. Therefore, we have 39 grains of the oxide breaking down into 32 grains of protoxide and 7 grains of oxygen. If we consider the 32 grains of protoxide to include the 7 grains of oxygen, it appears that 39 grains of the native oxide comprises 1 atom of manganese (25) and 2 atoms of oxygen (14); in other words, it's the deutoxide of the metal. 2d. A more straightforward and quicker method to transfer oxygen from manganese to iron is as follows: Mix 39 grains of pure gray shining oxide with 800 grains of test green sulfate of iron; then add 25 or 30 grains of strong sulfuric acid. After stirring the mixture for 5 minutes, the manganese oxide will be completely dissolved, and when you gradually precipitate the iron oxide with lime water, it will all appear yellow or buff, indicating that 7 grains of oxygen have been transferred from the manganese oxide to the iron oxide. If more green sulfate of iron is used, the excess oxide will precipitate as green; the order of precipitation will be the yellow iron oxide, the green iron oxide, and lastly, the yellow or buff manganese oxide, as mentioned. This provides a simple and elegant method for assessing the different commercial oxides of manganese, and it was in this way that the valuations of the specimens in the above table were determined.

The proportions of the three oxides are then as under:

The proportions of the three oxides are as follows:

  Manganese   Oxygen  
Protoxide 100 +   28 — buff; soluble in acids.
Intermediate oxide +   42 — brown; insoluble.
Deutoxide +   56 — black; insoluble.

It may be proper to subjoin the results of others, who have investigated the oxides of manganese. Bergman finds 3 oxides, containing 100 metal + 25, 35, and 66.6 oxygen; Dr. John finds 3 oxides, containing 100 metal + 15, 25, and 40 oxygen: Berzelius finds 5 oxides, containing 100 metal + 7, 14, 28, 42, and 56 oxygen; and Davy finds 2 oxides, containing 100 metal + 26.6, and 39.9 oxygen, respectively. [Pg 80]

It might be appropriate to include the findings of others who have studied manganese oxides. Bergman identifies 3 oxides, containing 100 parts metal plus 25, 35, and 66.6 parts oxygen; Dr. John identifies 3 oxides, containing 100 parts metal plus 15, 25, and 40 parts oxygen; Berzelius identifies 5 oxides, containing 100 parts metal plus 7, 14, 28, 42, and 56 parts oxygen; and Davy identifies 2 oxides, containing 100 parts metal plus 26.6 and 39.9 parts oxygen, respectively. [Pg 80]

23. Oxides of chromium.

There appear to be at least two oxides of chromium, one or other of which is found in combination with the oxides of lead or iron, but hitherto so very sparingly that few chemists have had an opportunity of investigating the proportions of chrome and oxygen, in the oxides of chromium. The chief sources for information on this subject, are essays by Vauquelin, An. de Chimie, Vol. 25 and 70; by Tassaert, ibid. 31; by Mussin Puschin, ibid. 32; by Godon, ibid. 53; by Laugier ibid. 78, and by Berzelius, Annal. of Philosophy, 3.

There seem to be at least two oxides of chromium, one of which often occurs alongside the oxides of lead or iron, but until now, they have been so rare that few chemists have had the chance to study the proportions of chromium and oxygen in these oxides. The main sources of information on this topic are essays by Vauquelin, An. de Chimie, Vol. 25 and 70; by Tassaert, ibid. 31; by Mussin Puschin, ibid. 32; by Godon, ibid. 53; by Laugier ibid. 78, and by Berzelius, Annal. of Philosophy, 3.

The oxides of chromium, as might be supposed, are distinguished for the colours which they possess and impart to the compounds into which they enter. One of the oxides is green; it gives colour to the emerald. The other is yellow, dissolved in water, but deep red when crystallized, and possesses the characters of an acid; it unites with alkalies, earths, and metallic oxides; it was first found in Siberia, in combination with the oxide of lead, a salt now denominated chromate of lead, of a splendid yellow colour, inclining to [Pg 81] orange or red. Since then, the chromate of iron, has been found in France, America, and Siberia, with a prospect of greater abundance.

The oxides of chromium are known for the vibrant colors they have and the ones they add to the compounds they are part of. One of the oxides is green, which gives its color to the emerald. The other is yellow, soluble in water but turns deep red when crystallized, and acts like an acid; it reacts with alkalis, earths, and metallic oxides. It was first discovered in Siberia, combined with lead oxide, creating a bright yellow salt now called chromate of lead, which leans towards orange or red. Since then, chromate of iron has been found in France, America, and Siberia, and it looks like there will be even more discovered.

In order to investigate the weight of the atom of chromic acid, it is necessary to attend to such of the chromates as have been carefully examined. The chromates of potash, barytes, lead, iron, and mercury, are those with which we are best acquainted.

To investigate the weight of the atom of chromic acid, it's important to focus on the chromates that have been thoroughly studied. The chromates of potash, barytes, lead, iron, and mercury are the ones we know the most about.

Vauquelin has given us the components of the native chromate of lead by analysis, and those of the artificial chromate by synthesis; the results do not accord very nearly: for, according to the analysis corrected by the modern science,

Vauquelin has provided us with the components of natural lead chromate through analysis, and those of artificial lead chromate through synthesis; however, the results don’t match very closely. According to the analysis adjusted by modern science,

Chromate of lead = 62 acid + 97 oxide
By synth. chromate of lead   =   57½ + 97  —

Berzelius however, has more lately given us the results of his experience, both analytical, and synthetical; and he finds both to give chromate of lead nearly = 44 acid + 97 oxide.

Berzelius, however, has more recently shared the results of his experience, both analytical and synthetic; he finds that both give chromate of lead nearly equal to 44 acid + 97 oxide.

Chromate of barytes (Vauq.)   =   47.8 acid   +   68 barytes
Ditto (Berz.) = 44 + 68
Native chromate of iron (Vauq.) = 45 acid + 35½ oxide
Ditto (Laugier) = 55 + 35½

[Pg 82] Having received a small portion of chromate of potash in solution, from a chemical friend (J. Sims), I endeavoured to satisfy myself, as far as my materials would go, as to the nature and proportions of the chromates. The solution was of the sp. gr. 1.061, and consequently in 100 measures contained nearly 6.7 grains of chromic acid and potash, &c.—The liquid was a beautiful yellow; it was alkaline by the colour test. By the usual tests, I had reason to believe, that the solution contained as under per cent.—namely,

[Pg 82] After receiving a small amount of potassium chromate solution from a chemistry friend (J. Sims), I tried to determine the nature and proportions of the chromates, as far as my materials allowed. The solution had a specific gravity of 1.061, meaning it contained almost 6.7 grains of chromic acid and potash in every 100 measures. The liquid was a stunning yellow and tested alkaline by the color test. Based on the standard tests, I had reason to believe that the solution contained the following percentages—namely,

2.2  gr. chromic acid
2.  potash
.8 uncomb. potash
1.4 carb. potash
.3 sulphate of potash
6.7  

With this liquid neutralized by nitric acid, I formed the chromates of lead, barytes, iron, and mercury; and I am inclined to believe these salts are nearly constituted as under:

With this liquid neutralized by nitric acid, I created the chromates of lead, barium, iron, and mercury; and I tend to think these salts are made up as follows:

Neutral chromate of potash 46 acid   +   42 potash
of barytes 46 + 68 barytes
of lead 46 + 97 oxide
of iron 46 + 32 oxide (black)
of mercury 46 + 174 oxide (black)

[Pg 83] According to these results, the atom of chromic acid weighs 46; it is made 44 by the results of Berzelius, and from 45 to 62 by those of Vauquelin; I would not be understood to place great confidence in the above results of mine, though I am persuaded they will be found good approximations.

[Pg 83] According to these results, the atom of chromic acid weighs 46; Berzelius measured it at 44, and Vauquelin found it to be between 45 and 62. I don’t want to imply that I have a lot of confidence in my results, but I do believe they will be considered good approximations.

Is the chromic acid the deutoxide, or the tritoxide of chromium?

Is chromic acid the deutoxide or the tritoxide of chromium?

The determination will evidently be affected by the question, how much oxygen must be abstracted from the chromic acid to reduce it to the green oxide. Vauquelin finds 46 acid to lose 6½ oxygen, and Berzelius 10½, when converted into green oxide by heat. From the former of these, one would infer chrome to be 32, the green or protoxide of chrome to be 39, and the acid or deutoxide 46: from the latter, chrome = 25, protoxide = 32 (unknown), the green oxide = 1 protoxide and 1 deutoxide united [= 71 = 50 chrome + 21 oxygen = (25 chrome + 10½ oxygen) × 2 = 35½ × 2] the deutoxide = 39, and the tritoxide or chromic acid = 46. I have not had an opportunity to perform any experiment that appears to me decisive as to the accuracy of one or other of these views; but shall make a few remarks relative to them. [Pg 84]

The determination will clearly be influenced by the question of how much oxygen needs to be removed from chromic acid to reduce it to green oxide. Vauquelin found that 46 acid loses 6½ oxygen, and Berzelius found it loses 10½ when converted to green oxide through heating. From the first finding, one might conclude that chrome is 32, the green or protoxide of chrome is 39, and the acid or deutoxide is 46; from the second, chrome = 25, protoxide = 32 (unknown), and the green oxide = 1 protoxide and 1 deutoxide combined [= 71 = 50 chrome + 21 oxygen = (25 chrome + 10½ oxygen) × 2 = 35½ × 2]. The deutoxide = 39, and the tritoxide or chromic acid = 46. I haven't had the chance to conduct any experiments that seem decisive regarding the accuracy of either perspective, but I will make a few comments about them. [Pg 84]

The green oxide being the most prominent compound next to the chromic acid, being commonly produced from it by any deoxidizing process, being the lowest oxide known, and combining with acids, is on these accounts entitled to the consideration of the protoxide; indeed there does not seem an instance where the protoxide of a metal is unknown, whilst the deutoxide and compound oxides are known. There is however, another oxide observed by Vauquelin and by Berzelius, which is obtained by heating the nitrate, or combination of nitric acid and the green oxide, to dryness and expelling the acid; this oxide is brown, and gives oxymuriatic acid when treated with muriatic acid; on this account it would seem to be intermediate between the green oxide and the chromic acid; it is probably a combination of the two, or the chromate of chromium. On the other view however, it must be considered as the deutoxide. What corroborates the notion of the green oxide being 39, is the fact which I have observed, of 46 parts of chromic acid combining with 64 of the green oxide of iron to form 110 of chromate of iron; in this combination the oxide of iron may be said to borrow 1 atom of [Pg 85] oxygen from the chromic acid, and the compound may then be considered as the union of the green oxide of chrome, and the red oxide of iron. When this precipitate is subjected to the action of muriatic acid, a green solution is obtained containing the oxide of chrome, and red oxide of iron is precipitated, as Vauquelin has observed. To form the above chromate (or rather subchromate) of iron, let a given portion of neutral chromate of potash be treated with green sulphate of iron, and lime water be added, sufficient to saturate the sulphuric acid, a brown red precipitate is obtained; more sulphate and lime water must be gradually added to the clear liquid till the precipitate become green, when the proportions will be found as above stated. This artificial compound seems a subchromate; whereas the native compound seems to be a chromate. That there is some uncertainty in decomposing a chromate by heat with a view to obtain the green oxide, I have reason to suspect from having decomposed 5⅓ grains of chromate of mercury by a moderate red heat; this compound contained 1.1 chromic acid, and it yielded only .6 of green oxide, whereas it should have been .9 or .8 at least.

The green oxide is the main compound next to chromic acid, usually produced from it through any deoxidizing process. It's the lowest oxide known and can combine with acids, which is why it's considered the protoxide. In fact, there's no known case where the protoxide of a metal is absent while the deutoxide and other compound oxides are present. However, there’s another oxide noted by Vauquelin and Berzelius, which is created by heating the nitrate, a combination of nitric acid and green oxide, until dry and then removing the acid. This oxide is brown and produces oxymuriatic acid when mixed with muriatic acid; thus, it seems to be between the green oxide and chromic acid, likely a combination of the two or the chromate of chromium. On the other hand, it might also be seen as the deutoxide. The idea that the green oxide is 39 is supported by my observation that 46 parts of chromic acid combine with 64 of green iron oxide to create 110 of iron chromate. In this combination, the iron oxide presumably takes 1 atom of oxygen from the chromic acid, allowing us to view the compound as the link between green chrome oxide and red iron oxide. When this precipitate is treated with muriatic acid, a green solution appears that contains chrome oxide, while red iron oxide is precipitated, as observed by Vauquelin. To create the aforementioned chromate (or rather subchromate) of iron, take a specific amount of neutral chromate of potash, mix it with green iron sulfate, and add enough lime water to neutralize the sulfuric acid; a brown-red precipitate will form. Gradually add more sulfate and lime water to the clear liquid until the precipitate turns green, at which point the proportions will match those stated above. This artificial compound appears to be a subchromate, whereas the natural compound looks like a chromate. There’s some uncertainty about decomposing a chromate with heat to obtain the green oxide, which I suspect based on my experience breaking down 5⅓ grains of mercury chromate using moderate red heat; this compound had 1.1 chromic acid and produced only .6 of green oxide, when it should have yielded at least .9 or .8.

Upon the whole I think the evidence is in favour of the opinion that [Pg 86] the atom of chrome is 32, the green or protoxide 39, and the deutoxide or chromic acid is 46.

Overall, I believe the evidence supports the view that the chrome atom is 32, the green or protoxide is 39, and the deutoxide or chromic acid is 46. [Pg 86]

24. Oxides of uranium.

There appear to be two oxides of uranium from the experiments of Klaproth, Bucholz, and Vauquelin; but the proportions of metal and oxygen have not been very nearly ascertained, from the great scarcity of the minerals containing this metal. (Vid. Bucholz, An. de Chimie, 56—142. Vauquelin, ibid. 68—277; or Nicholson’s Journ. 25—69). The oxides are obtained by precipitation from solutions of the minerals in the nitric or muriatic acid, the foreign substances being first separated.

There seem to be two oxides of uranium based on the experiments by Klaproth, Bucholz, and Vauquelin; however, the exact ratios of metal to oxygen haven't been accurately determined due to the limited availability of minerals that contain this metal. (See Bucholz, An. de Chimie, 56—142. Vauquelin, ibid. 68—277; or Nicholson’s Journ. 25—69). The oxides are produced by precipitating them from solutions of the minerals in nitric or hydrochloric acid, after removing the impurities.

The protoxide of uranium precipitates dark bottle green by caustic alkalies, and forms crystallizable salts with acids; the other, probably the deutoxide, precipitates orange yellow, and forms uncrystallizable salts with acids; in these respects the oxides bear a near resemblance to those of iron.

The uranium protoxide forms a dark bottle green precipitate when mixed with caustic alkalis and creates crystallizable salts with acids; the other one, likely the deutoxide, produces an orange-yellow precipitate and forms uncrystallizable salts with acids. In these ways, the oxides are quite similar to those of iron.

Bucholz estimates the yellow oxide at 100 metal + from 25 to 32 oxygen; as it yields oxymuriatic acid when treated with muriatic, it is most [Pg 87] likely to be the deutoxide; now if we take 28 for the oxygen combined with 100 metal, the protoxide must consist of 100 metal + 14 oxygen, or of 50 metal + 7 oxygen, and the atom of uranium = 50. From his account of the sulphate and nitrate of uranium the weight of the atom might be inferred to be double of the above or 100. These different conclusions can only be elucidated by future experiments.

Bucholz estimates the yellow oxide to contain 100 parts metal and between 25 to 32 parts oxygen; since it produces oxymuriatic acid when mixed with muriatic acid, it’s likely to be the deutoxide. If we consider 28 for the oxygen combined with 100 parts metal, then the protoxide must consist of 100 parts metal and 14 parts oxygen, or 50 parts metal and 7 parts oxygen, which makes the atomic weight of uranium equal to 50. Based on his analysis of the sulfate and nitrate of uranium, the atomic weight could be inferred to be double that, or 100. These various conclusions can only be clarified through future experiments. [Pg 87]

25. Oxides of molybdenum.

The latest and as it should seem most accurate experiments on the oxides of molybdenum were made by Bucholz. (Vid. Nicholson’s Journal, 20, p. 121). There appear to be 3 oxides or combinations of molybdenum and oxygen, namely, the brown, the blue, and the white or yellow. The two last have the character of acids, and none of them seem to form salts with acids, like oxides in general. Bucholz ascertained the above gradation, and that the white oxide or molybdic acid contains ⅓ of its weight of oxygen; (which has since been corroborated by Berzelius); he also found that the blue was best formed by mixing, triturating, and boiling in water 3 parts of brown oxide, and 4 of white, or one of metal, and two of acid; and that [Pg 88] it has acid qualities as well as the white. Bucholz also found 3 parts of liquid ammonia of the sp. gr. .97 dissolve 1 of molybdic acid; now 3 parts of ammonia = .186 real (Vol. 1, p. 422); and 1 ∶ .186 ∷ 64 ∶ 12, the quantity of ammonia usually saturated by one atom of acid; and Berzelius found 100 molybdic acid saturate 155 oxide of lead, or 63 acid to 97 oxide. The native sulphuret of molybdenum (the state in which this metal is usually found) was analyzed by Bucholz and found to consist of 60 metal and 40 sulphur.

The latest and, it seems, the most accurate experiments on molybdenum oxides were conducted by Bucholz. (See Nicholson’s Journal, 20, p. 121). There appear to be three oxides or combinations of molybdenum and oxygen, namely, the brown, the blue, and the white or yellow. The last two have acidic properties, and none of them seem to form salts with acids, unlike most oxides. Bucholz determined this gradation, and found that the white oxide or molybdic acid contains one-third of its weight in oxygen; (this has since been confirmed by Berzelius); he also discovered that the blue oxide is best produced by mixing, grinding, and boiling together 3 parts of brown oxide and 4 of white, or one part of metal and two parts of acid; and that it has acidic qualities similar to the white oxide. Bucholz also found that 3 parts of liquid ammonia with a specific gravity of .97 can dissolve 1 part of molybdic acid; now 3 parts of ammonia = .186 actual (Vol. 1, p. 422); and 1 ∶ .186 ∷ 64 ∶ 12 is the amount of ammonia typically saturated by one atom of acid; Berzelius found that 100 parts of molybdic acid can saturate 155 parts of lead oxide, or 63 parts of acid to 97 parts of oxide. Bucholz analyzed the natural sulfide of molybdenum (the form in which this metal is usually found) and determined it consists of 60% metal and 40% sulfur.

The molybdic acid may be obtained by roasting the sulphuret in a crucible and stirring it frequently; the sulphur in great part escapes in the form of sulphurous acid and the metal becomes oxidated: carbonate of soda in solution may be added to the residuum as long as any effervescence is observed; molybdate of soda remains in solution and the acid may be precipitated by nitric acid. The brown oxide is best obtained by heating molybdate of ammonia to red; the ammonia and part of the oxygen are expelled, and the brown oxide remains.

The molybdic acid can be obtained by roasting the sulfide in a crucible and stirring it frequently; the sulfur mostly escapes as sulfurous acid, and the metal gets oxidized. You can add a solution of sodium carbonate to the remaining material as long as you see any fizzing; sodium molybdate will stay in solution, and the acid can be precipitated with nitric acid. The brown oxide is best produced by heating ammonium molybdate until it’s red hot; the ammonia and some of the oxygen are released, leaving behind the brown oxide.

There are two views with which the preceding results may be reconciled; namely, 1st. supposing the atom of molybdenum to weigh 21; and 2d, by [Pg 89] supposing it to weigh 42 or twice that number. In the first case the brown oxide will weigh 24½ (49) being supposed 2 atoms of metal and 1 of oxygen, the blue or protoxide will weigh 28, and the white oxide or molybdic acid will weigh 63, being a compound of the protoxide and deutoxide, molybdena or native sulphuret will then be as usual, the protosulphuret, consisting of 21 metal and 14 sulphur, or 60 metal and 40 sulphur. In the 2d. case the brown or protoxide will weigh 49, the blue or deutoxide 56, and the acid or tritoxide 63. The native sulphuret, molybdena, must in this view be the deutosulphuret, or 42 metal and 28 sulphur.

There are two ways to make sense of the previous results: first, by assuming that the atom of molybdenum weighs 21; and second, by assuming it weighs 42, which is double that amount. In the first case, the brown oxide will weigh 24½ (49), considering 2 atoms of metal and 1 of oxygen. The blue or protoxide will weigh 28, and the white oxide or molybdic acid will weigh 63, being a compound of the protoxide and deutoxide. Molybdena, or native sulphuret, will then typically be the protosulphuret, consisting of 21 metal and 14 sulphur, or 60 metal and 40 sulphur. In the second case, the brown or protoxide will weigh 49, the blue or deutoxide 56, and the acid or tritoxide 63. The native sulphuret, molybdena, must in this scenario be the deutosulphuret, or 42 metal and 28 sulphur.

The former of these views exhibits the oxides somewhat complicated, but agrees well with the sulphuret; the latter shews the oxides in a more regular train, but does not appear so probable from the sulphuret; besides, the notion of a metallic tritoxide is rather singular, especially in a metal that is rarely if ever found in combination with oxygen. Upon the whole I prefer the former view; but it must be considered as problematical only. The atom of 60 (see page 267 Vol. 1) must doubtless be erroneous. [Pg 90]

The first perspective shows the oxides as somewhat complicated, but aligns well with the sulfide; the second shows the oxides in a more organized sequence, but seems less likely when considering the sulfide. Additionally, the idea of a metallic trioxide is quite unusual, especially for a metal that is rarely, if ever, found combined with oxygen. Overall, I prefer the first perspective, but it should be viewed as uncertain. The atom of 60 (see page 267 Vol. 1) must certainly be incorrect. [Pg 90]

26. Oxides of tungsten.

From the experiments of D’Elhuiarts, Bucholz[13] and Berzelius[14] it seems very probable that the tungstic acid is composed of about 100 metal + 25 oxygen. It is a yellow powder of the sp. gr. 6.12, and is best obtained from the native tungstate of lime (a scarce mineral). One part tungstate of lime and four of carbonate of potash are fused together, dissolved in water, and then the tungstic acid may be precipitated by nitric acid. There is an inferior oxide that is black or dark brown; Berzelius reduced the yellow oxide to a flea-brown colour, by sending a current of hydrogen gas through it in a glass tube heated red hot. 100 parts of this oxide burnt be 107 yellow oxide. Hence 100 metal must combine with about 16½ or 17 oxygen to form this oxide, which is ⅔ of that in the yellow or tungstic acid.—Upon the whole it does not seem improbable, considering the great sp. gravity of this metal, that it forms three oxides and that the acid or yellow [Pg 91] oxide is the 3d. Hence the atom of tungsten must be 84, that of the protoxide 91, the deutoxide 98, and the tritoxide or tungstic acid 105. The native tungstate of lime, if pure, according to this would be 81.4 acid + 18.6 lime, which is not far from Klaproth’s analysis; he having found 18.7 lime in one specimen; nor from that of Berzelius, he having found 80.4 tungstic acid and 19.4 lime in 99.8 tungstate of lime.[15]

From the experiments by D’Elhuiarts, Bucholz[13] and Berzelius[14], it seems very likely that tungstic acid is made up of about 100 parts metal and 25 parts oxygen. It appears as a yellow powder with a specific gravity of 6.12 and is best sourced from native lime tungstate (a rare mineral). To produce it, one part lime tungstate and four parts potassium carbonate are fused together, dissolved in water, and then the tungstic acid can be precipitated using nitric acid. There is a less common oxide that is black or dark brown; Berzelius reduced the yellow oxide to a flea-brown color by passing hydrogen gas through it in a glass tube heated to red-hot. 100 parts of this oxide burned yield 107 parts of yellow oxide. Therefore, 100 parts of the metal must combine with about 16½ or 17 parts oxygen to create this oxide, which is two-thirds of what is found in the yellow or tungstic acid. Overall, it doesn't seem unlikely, given the high specific gravity of this metal, that it forms three oxides and that the acid or yellow oxide is the third. Thus, the atomic weight of tungsten must be 84, that of the protoxide 91, the deutoxide 98, and the tritoxide or tungstic acid 105. The native lime tungstate, if pure, would then consist of 81.4 parts acid and 18.6 parts lime, which is close to Klaproth’s analysis; he found 18.7 parts lime in one specimen, and Berzelius found 80.4 parts tungstic acid and 19.4 parts lime in 99.8 parts lime tungstate.[15]

There is another view however, which would accord with the experiments and perhaps will be found preferable in other respects; that is, to suppose the tungstic acid to be composed of 1 atom deutoxide and 1 atom protoxide united; in this case the atom of tungsten = 42, that of the protoxide = 49, that of the deutoxide = 56, and the tungstic acid = 105 as before.

There’s another perspective, though, that aligns with the experiments and might be more favorable in other ways; that is, to assume that tungstic acid is made up of 1 atom of deutoxide and 1 atom of protoxide combined. In this scenario, the atom of tungsten equals 42, the atom of protoxide equals 49, the atom of deutoxide equals 56, and the tungstic acid equals 105, just like before.

27. Oxides of titanium.

Nothing certain is known respecting the oxides of titanium. An observation of Richter, quoted by Berzelius (An. of Philos. 3—251), if it could be relied upon, furnishes an important fact, namely, that a [Pg 92] solution of muriate of titanium containing 84.4 oxide, gave 150 muriate of silver. Now 150 muriate of silver contain 28 acid; hence 28 acid must have combined with 84.4 oxide; but if 28 ∶ 84.4 ∷ 22 ∶ 66 nearly for the weight of an atom of the oxide. This would indicate 59 for an atom of the metal.

Nothing certain is known about titanium oxides. An observation by Richter, mentioned by Berzelius (An. of Philos. 3—251), if it can be trusted, provides an important fact: a solution of titanium chloride containing 84.4% oxide produced 150 parts of silver chloride. Since 150 parts of silver chloride contain 28 parts of acid, this means 28 parts of acid must have reacted with 84.4% oxide. If you consider the ratio 28:84.4 as being comparable to 22:66, that would give an approximate weight for an atom of the oxide. This suggests that the atomic weight of the metal could be around 59.

28. Oxides of columbium.

The white oxide or acid of columbium is found in combination with the oxides of iron and manganese in proportion nearly as 4 of the acid to 1 of the aggregate oxides. The two minerals, columbite and tantalite, though yielding these substances nearly in the same proportions, are found to differ remarkably in specific gravity, the former being about 5.9 and the latter about 7.9. Dr. Wollaston concludes however, from the agreement of the white oxides extracted, that they must be the same. The white oxide of columbium is insoluble in the mineral acids; it unites with potash by fusion, and may be precipitated by most acids. Some of the vegetable acids, the oxalic, the tartaric, and the citric dissolve the white oxide. When the alkaline solution of columbium previously neutralized by an acid is treated with infusion of galls, an [Pg 93] orange precipitate is produced which is characteristic of columbium. Nothing certain has been determined respecting the proportions of metal and oxygen; but from the great proportion of the columbic acid found with the oxides of iron and manganese, together with the great sp. gravity of the compound, one may pretty clearly infer the great weight of the atom of columbium. Supposing the white oxide or acid to consist of 1 atom metal + 3 oxygen and that the columbite is formed by 1 atom of acid to 1 of oxide, we should have 128 acid + 32 oxide. This would give 107 for the weight of an atom of metal, and 128 for that of the tritoxide or columbic acid; but it is unnecessary to dwell upon such conjectures.

The white oxide or acid of columbium is found combined with the oxides of iron and manganese in a ratio of about 4 parts acid to 1 part total oxides. The two minerals, columbite and tantalite, yield these substances in nearly the same proportions, but they have a significant difference in specific gravity, with columbite being about 5.9 and tantalite around 7.9. Dr. Wollaston concludes that since the white oxides extracted are consistent, they must be the same. The white oxide of columbium is insoluble in mineral acids; it combines with potash when heated and can be precipitated by most acids. Some organic acids, like oxalic, tartaric, and citric acid, can dissolve the white oxide. When an alkaline solution of columbium, previously neutralized by an acid, is treated with an infusion of galls, an orange precipitate forms, which is indicative of columbium. Nothing conclusive is known about the ratios of metal to oxygen; however, due to the high proportion of columbic acid found with the oxides of iron and manganese, along with the high specific gravity of the compound, it's reasonable to infer that the atom of columbium is quite heavy. If we assume the white oxide or acid consists of 1 atom of metal and 3 atoms of oxygen, and that columbite is made up of 1 atom of acid and 1 atom of oxide, we would have 128 for the acid and 32 for the oxide. This would suggest 107 for the weight of an atom of metal, and 128 for that of the trioxide or columbic acid, but it’s not necessary to dwell on such speculation.

In a recent memoir of Messrs. Gahn, Berzelius, and Eggertz (An. de Chimie, Octo. 1816), it is maintained as probable that there is only one oxide of columbium or tantalum, and that 100 metal take 5.485 oxygen, or 121 metal take 7 oxygen. If this be correct, the atom of columbium must be 121 and the protoxide 128.

In a recent memoir by Messrs. Gahn, Berzelius, and Eggertz (An. de Chimie, Octo. 1816), it is suggested that there is likely only one oxide of columbium or tantalum, and that 100 grams of metal combine with 5.485 grams of oxygen, or 121 grams of metal combine with 7 grams of oxygen. If this is accurate, the atomic weight of columbium must be 121 and the protoxide would be 128.

(See also An. de Chimie, 43—271; Philos. Trans. 1802; Nichols. Journ. 2—129; ibid. 3—251; ibid. 25—23). [Pg 94]

(See also An. de Chimie, 43—271; Philos. Trans. 1802; Nichols. Journ. 2—129; ibid. 3—251; ibid. 25—23). [Pg 94]

29. Oxides of cerium.

The mineral cerite is of the sp. gr. 4.53, and constituted of 50 or 60 per cent. of oxide of cerium, with silex, lime, and iron. This mineral being calcined and dissolved in nitro-muriatic acid, the solution is to be neutralized by caustic potash, and then treated with tartrate of potash. The precipitate, well washed and afterwards calcined, is pure oxide of cerium. This oxide, which is white, when calcined in the open air becomes red and acquires more oxygen. These oxides, particularly the white, are soluble in most acids; the red oxide with muriatic acid gives oxymuriatic acid.

The mineral cerite has a specific gravity of 4.53 and consists of 50 to 60 percent cerium oxide, along with silica, lime, and iron. When this mineral is heated and dissolved in hydrochloric acid, the solution should be neutralized with caustic potash and then treated with potassium tartrate. The resulting precipitate, once thoroughly washed and then heated again, is pure cerium oxide. This oxide is white, but when heated in open air, it turns red and gains more oxygen. These oxides, especially the white one, dissolve in most acids; the red oxide reacts with hydrochloric acid to produce chlorine gas.

The experiments hitherto made on this subject scarcely enable us to decide respecting the proportions of metal and oxygen, nor the relative weights of these oxides.

The experiments done so far on this topic hardly allow us to determine the ratios of metal to oxygen, or the relative weights of these oxides.

Both Vauquelin[16] and Hisinger[17] agree that the protocarbonate of cerium, when exposed to a red heat, yields [Pg 95] 57 or 58 oxide, which the former says is the red oxide, being changed by the calcination. Hisinger finds the percarbonate to consist of 36.2 acid and 63.8 oxide: also that the muriate of cerium consists of 100 acid and 197.5 oxide; but Vauquelin remarks that the sulphate, nitrate, and muriate of cerium are always more or less acid, however dried; and he found the protoxalate of cerium to yield 45.6 red oxide by calcination, on a mean of 3 experiments not much differing from each other. Supposing all these facts accurate, they may be reconciled by a few suppositions by no means improbable. Let the atom of cerium be 22, the protoxide 29, and the red oxide 32½ (that is, 1 oxy. + 2 protox. = 65); and let the protocarbonate be 1 atom of acid, 1 of oxide, and 1 of water; the percarbonate, 1 acid 1 oxide; the oxalate, 1 acid (40) and 1 oxide; and the muriate, saturated with base, 3 oxide and 2 acid. Then it will be found that,

Both Vauquelin[16] and Hisinger[17] agree that when protocarbonate of cerium is heated to a red heat, it produces [Pg 95] 57 or 58 oxide, which Vauquelin identifies as the red oxide, due to calcination. Hisinger finds that the percarbonate is made up of 36.2% acid and 63.8% oxide; he also states that the muriate of cerium consists of 100% acid and 197.5% oxide. However, Vauquelin notes that the sulphate, nitrate, and muriate of cerium are always somewhat acidic, even when dried. He discovered that the protoxalate of cerium produces 45.6% red oxide through calcination, based on an average of three similar experiments. Assuming all these findings are correct, they can be explained by a few reasonable assumptions. Let the atom of cerium be 22, the protoxide 29, and the red oxide 32½ (that is, 1 oxygen + 2 protoxides = 65); and let the protocarbonate consist of 1 atom of acid, 1 of oxide, and 1 of water; the percarbonate of 1 acid and 1 oxide; the oxalate of 1 acid (40) and 1 oxide; and the muriate, fully saturated, of 3 oxides and 2 acids. Then it will be found that,

  • The decomposed protocarbonate will yield 57.5 red oxide;
  • The decomposed percarbonate will yield, 36.7 acid, 63.3 oxide;
  • The decomposed oxalate will yield 47 red oxide; and
  • The muriate will yield 100 acid (22), and 197.7 oxide.

All of which agree very nearly with the results above obtained. [Pg 96]

All of this closely matches the results obtained above. [Pg 96]

Hence it appears to me very probable that the several atoms of the metal and the oxides are as stated above; and that,

Hence, it seems very likely to me that the various atoms of the metal and the oxides are as mentioned above; and that,

100 cerium   +   31.8 oxygen   =   131.8 protoxide, white.
———   +   47.7 ——   =   147.7 intermediate, red.

Hisinsger, from some of the same data united to other hypothetical facts than those assumed above, deduces the two oxides very different; viz. 100 metal + 17.4 oxygen for the protoxide, and 100 + 26.1 for the peroxide.

Hisinsger, using some of the same data along with other hypothetical facts that differ from those assumed above, concludes that the two oxides are quite different; specifically, 100 metal + 17.4 oxygen for the protoxide, and 100 + 26.1 for the peroxide.


SECTION 14.
Earthy, alkaline, and metallic sulfides.

The sulphurets exhibit a very important class of combinations of two elements. Many of the metals are found chiefly in the state of native sulphurets, and are extracted by particular processes. Artificial combinations of sulphur and the metals, and of sulphur and the earths and alkalies are commonly practised, and are found useful in chemical [Pg 97] investigations. The alkaline and earthy sulphurets will scarcely be allowed perhaps to be combinations of two elements only; but their analogy with the other compounds is such as to induce us to treat of them under this head, especially as they are agents occasionally in the formation of metallic sulphurets, and these cannot be so well understood without some knowledge of the other. For like reasons the compounds of three elements, sulphur, metal, and oxygen, called sulphuretted oxides, and sulphuretted sulphites, and those of four elements, sulphur, metal, oxygen and hydrogen, called hydrosulphurets, may be considered at the same time, having an intimate relation with the sulphurets strictly so called, or the compounds formed with sulphur and the undecompounded bodies.

The sulfides represent a significant group of combinations of two elements. Many metals are primarily found in their native sulfide form and are extracted using specific methods. Creating artificial combinations of sulfur with metals, as well as with earths and alkalis, is commonly done and is useful in chemical research. The alkaline and earthy sulfides might not strictly be considered combinations of only two elements; however, their similarities to other compounds lead us to discuss them here, especially since they sometimes play a role in forming metallic sulfides, which are better understood with some knowledge of the other groups. Similarly, the compounds of three elements—sulfur, metal, and oxygen—known as sulfuretted oxides and sulfuretted sulfites, along with those of four elements—sulfur, metal, oxygen, and hydrogen—called hydrosulfides, can also be discussed at the same time, as they are closely related to the sulfides in the strict sense, or the compounds created with sulfur and the uncombined elements. [Pg 97]

Sulphur may be combined with the earths, alkalies and metals, by heat, of various degrees according to the nature of the subjects. The union is attended in many cases with a glowing ignition, indicating the evolution of heat. The metallic oxides and sulphur when heated together commonly produce a sulphuret of the metal, whilst the oxygen escapes with part of the redundant sulphur in the form of sulphurous acid, and the rest of the sulphur sublimes. [Pg 98]

Sulfur can be combined with earths, alkalis, and metals by applying heat, which varies depending on the substances involved. In many cases, this union results in a bright ignition, indicating the release of heat. When metallic oxides and sulfur are heated together, they usually produce a sulfide of the metal, while the oxygen escapes along with some excess sulfur as sulfurous acid, and the remaining sulfur sublimates. [Pg 98]

In the humid way sulphur may be combined with earths, alkalies, and metals, by means of sulphuretted hydrogen, hydrosulphurets (that is, sulphuretted hydrogen united to other alkaline or earthy bases), and hydroguretted sulphurets (a name given to certain earthy and alkaline sulphurets formed mostly by boiling mixtures of the respective bases and sulphur in water.) The sulphuretted hydrogen may be used in this state of gas or combined with water; the hydrosulphurets and hydroguretted sulphurets are best applied in their watery solutions. The metals are to be used in this case in the state of salts, that is, oxides united to acids, and in solution; or their oxides may in some instances be precipitated previously to the addition of the sulphur compound; the alkalies and earths are sometimes directly sulphurized in the state of hydrates, and at other times by double affinity, in the state of salts or combined with acids. The phenomena in the case of sulphurets formed in the humid way, are various and often complicated, and the true results are not always to be obtained without considerable difficulty and uncertainty. [Pg 99]

In the humid method, sulfur can be combined with earths, alkalis, and metals through sulfur hydrogen, hydrosulfides (sulfur hydrogen bonded with other alkaline or earthy bases), and hydrogen sulfides (a term used for certain earthy and alkaline sulfides mainly formed by boiling mixtures of the respective bases and sulfur in water). The sulfur hydrogen can be used as a gas or mixed with water; hydrosulfides and hydrogen sulfides work best in their watery solutions. The metals should be used in the form of salts, meaning oxides combined with acids, and in solution; in some cases, their oxides can be precipitated before adding the sulfur compound. The alkalis and earths are sometimes sulfurized directly in the form of hydrates, and at other times by double affinity, as salts or combined with acids. The results from sulfides formed in the humid method are varied and often complex, and achieving accurate outcomes can be quite challenging and uncertain. [Pg 99]

1. Sulphurets of lime.

When pounded lime and sulphur are mixed together, and heated in a crucible scarcely any union takes place; the sulphur sublimes or burns away and leaves the lime unaltered. If for lime we substitute carbonate of lime, it also remains unaltered. But if hydrate of lime and sulphur are heated together in equal weights, the hydrate is decomposed, and the lime unites to a portion of the sulphur, whilst the excess of sulphur sublimes or burns and escapes at a low red heat. The residue, about 60 per cent. of the original weight, is a yellowish white powder, composed of sulphur and lime. If this be again treated with sulphur and heated, it undergoes no material change; the last sulphur entirely escaping, leaves the sulphuret unaltered, and hence shews that it must be a true chemical compound.

When you mix powdered lime and sulfur together and heat them in a crucible, they hardly combine at all; the sulfur either sublimates or burns away, leaving the lime unchanged. If you replace lime with calcium carbonate, it also stays the same. However, if you heat the hydrate of lime and sulfur together in equal weights, the hydrate breaks down, and the lime connects with some of the sulfur, while the excess sulfur sublimates or burns off at a low red heat. The leftover material, about 60 percent of the original weight, is a yellowish-white powder made up of sulfur and lime. If you treat this again with sulfur and heat it, there’s no significant change; the remaining sulfur completely escapes, leaving the sulfur compound unchanged, indicating that it must be a genuine chemical compound.

Now if 32 parts hydrate of lime, which consist of 24 lime and 8 water, be mixed with 32 sulphur and heated as above, they will yield 38 parts sulphuret, which must be composed of 24 lime and 14 sulphur, or sulphur [Pg 100] and water; but it appears from the analysis hereafter to be given, that the whole of this last part is sulphur; therefore the compound is formed of 1 atom of lime, and 1 of sulphur, and is the protosulphuret of lime.

Now, if you mix 32 parts of hydrated lime, which consists of 24 parts lime and 8 parts water, with 32 parts sulfur and heat it as described above, you will get 38 parts of sulfide, which should be made up of 24 parts lime and 14 parts sulfur, or sulfur and water. However, as will be shown in the analysis that follows, all of this last part is sulfur. Therefore, the compound is made up of 1 atom of lime and 1 atom of sulfur, and it is the protosulfide of lime. [Pg 100]

When 32 parts of common hydrate of lime and 56 sulphur, are boiled together in 1000 parts water for half an hour, or more, occasionally adding water to supply the waste, a fine yellow liquid is obtained, with a few grains of residuum containing both lime and sulphur nearly in the original proportion with a few grains of alumine. This liquid of course contains in solution, a combination of 1 atom of lime, or perhaps hydrate of lime, and 4 atoms of sulphur; and may therefore be called a quadrisulphuret of lime. If more sulphur or lime than the above proportion be used, the surplus will remain in the residuum uncombined, shewing that by this process no other than a quadrisulphuret can be formed. A similar solution may be obtained in cold water by frequent agitation; but it is much slower in producing the effect. The strength of liquid quadrisulphuret depends upon the relative quantity of the ingredients. I have boiled it down till the water was only 5 times the other materials, which appears to be its [Pg 101] maximum strength in the common temperature; its specific gravity was 1.146; but in general I have used it of less than 1.07 density. It may be proper to remark here that I find the decimals multiplied by 4 express very nearly the number of grains of lime in 1000 grains measures of the solution, and multiplied by 9 those of the sulphur; on this account a solution of the sp. gravity 1.06 facilitates the calculations, as 100 measures of it contain 2.4 grains of lime, and 5.4 or 5.6 of sulphur nearly.

When you boil 32 parts of common hydrated lime and 56 parts of sulfur together in 1000 parts of water for half an hour or more, while occasionally adding water to replace what evaporates, you get a fine yellow liquid, along with a few grains of residue that contains both lime and sulfur almost in the original ratio, along with a few grains of alumina. This liquid contains dissolved a combination of 1 atom of lime, or maybe hydrated lime, and 4 atoms of sulfur; so it can be called a quadrisulphuret of lime. If you use more sulfur or lime than this ratio, the excess will remain in the residue uncombined, showing that this process only forms a quadrisulphuret. You can also get a similar solution in cold water by shaking it frequently, but it's a lot slower. The strength of the liquid quadrisulphuret depends on how much of each ingredient you use. I've boiled it down until the water was only 5 times the amount of the other materials, which seems to be its maximum strength at regular temperature; its specific gravity was 1.146; but generally, I've used it at a density of less than 1.07. It's worth mentioning that I found that multiplying the decimals by 4 gives you almost the exact number of grains of lime in 1000 grains of the solution, and multiplying by 9 gives you the amount of sulfur; for this reason, a solution with a specific gravity of 1.06 makes calculations easier since 100 measures of it contain about 2.4 grains of lime and 5.4 or 5.6 of sulfur.

It is rather surprising that no bisulphuret nor trisulphuret of lime should be formed this way. One would suppose that the sulphuret of lime in its progressive changes would have passed through the forms of bisulphuret, &c. till it had obtained its maximum of sulphur when that was in excess; but, as has been observed, the quadrisulphuret is the only one formed, whatever may be the proportions of the ingredients. I imagine the reason to be, that the sulphur has to decompose the hydrate of lime, and that no fewer than 4 atoms of sulphur are adequate to that effect; it is known that water adheres so strongly to lime as to require a red heat to separate it. When therefore we mix lime water with quadrisulphuret of lime, it must be considered as a mere mixture of the two, and that the lime does not divide the sulphur equally. [Pg 102] Consistently with this reasoning, whenever the lime is in excess in forming quadrisulphuret of lime, we ought to consider the liquid solution as lime water holding quadrisulphuret of lime. This distinction will be of some importance when the solution is weak, because then the lime in the lime water will be considerable, compared with the lime combined with sulphur.

It's quite surprising that neither bisulfide nor trisulfide of lime is formed this way. One would think that as lime sulfide undergoes changes, it would pass through the forms of bisulfide, etc., until it reaches its maximum sulfur content when sulfur is in excess. However, as noted, quadrisulfide is the only compound formed, regardless of the ingredient proportions. I believe this is because sulfur needs to break down the lime hydrate, and four atoms of sulfur are necessary for that. It's known that water clings so tightly to lime that it requires red heat to separate them. Therefore, when we mix lime water with quadrisulfide of lime, it should be seen as just a mixture of the two, and the lime doesn’t evenly distribute the sulfur. [Pg 102] Following this logic, whenever lime is in excess while forming quadrisulfide of lime, we should consider the liquid solution as lime water containing quadrisulfide of lime. This distinction will matter when the solution is weak, because then the lime in the lime water will be significant compared to the lime combined with sulfur.

1. Protosulphuret. The properties of this compound are;—about 1 grain is soluble in 1000 water; this water, as well as the powder itself, tastes like the white of an egg; salts of lead are thrown down black by the solution; weak nitric and muriatic acids dissolve the lime, and leave the sulphur; 100 parts of test acid require 19 of the powder, and yield 7 of sulphur; indicating the compound to be 12 lime and 7 sulphur. The same conclusion may be obtained by means of a solution of lead; if water containing 1.9 grains of the powder be precipitated by nitrate of lead, it will require 7 grains of the salt = 2.2 acid and 4.8 oxide, or 4.5 lead, and about 5 or 5½ grains of sulphuret of lead will be formed, and the liquid will contain 3.4 grains of neutral nitrate of lime.

1. Protosulphuret. The properties of this compound are as follows: about 1 grain dissolves in 1000 parts of water; this water, as well as the powder itself, has a taste similar to egg white; lead salts form a black precipitate with the solution; weak nitric and hydrochloric acids dissolve the lime, leaving behind the sulfur; 100 parts of test acid need 19 parts of the powder, producing 7 parts of sulfur, indicating that the compound consists of 12 parts lime and 7 parts sulfur. The same conclusion can be reached using a solution of lead; if water containing 1.9 grains of the powder is treated with lead nitrate, it will require 7 grains of the salt, which equals 2.2 parts acid and 4.8 parts oxide, or 4.5 parts lead, and about 5 to 5½ grains of lead sulfide will be formed, with the liquid containing 3.4 grains of neutral nitrate of lime.

2. Quadrisulphuret. This combination has been long known, and [Pg 103] some of its properties observed; but I have not found in authors any determination of its proportions. It is of a beautiful yellow or orange colour, and 1 grain imparts very sensible colour to 1000 of water; it has a disagreeable bitter taste; when evaporated down, it crystallizes or rather perhaps solidifies into a yellowish mass; but its properties are affected by the process from the acquisition of oxygen. This mass when dried, burns with a blue flame and loses 40 per cent.; the remainder is a white powder, a mixture of sulphite and protosulphuret of lime. Liquid quadrisulphuret exposed to the atmosphere soon becomes covered with a white film which arises from the sulphur displaced by oxygen gas; this film being broken subsides, and another is formed, and so on successively till at length the acquisition of oxygen ceases with the deposition of sulphur, and the liquid remains quite colourless. It is intensely bitter, and contains lime, sulphur and oxygen in proportions to be presently determined. This colourless liquor undergoes a gradual change by being kept for years in a bottle with a common cork; a deposition of some sulphur and sulphate of lime takes place, but whether from a further acquisition of oxygen gas or from some internal chemical action, I have not had an opportunity of observing. [Pg 104]

2. Quadrisulphuret. This combination has been known for a long time, and [Pg 103] some of its properties have been observed; however, I haven't found any authors who have specified its proportions. It has a beautiful yellow or orange color, and 1 grain of it gives a noticeable color to 1000 parts of water; it has an unpleasant bitter taste. When it’s evaporated, it crystallizes, or perhaps solidifies, into a yellowish mass; but its properties are altered during the process due to exposure to oxygen. This mass, when dried, burns with a blue flame and loses 40 percent; what’s left is a white powder made up of a mixture of sulphite and protosulphuret of lime. Liquid quadrisulphuret that is exposed to the air quickly develops a white film, which comes from the sulphur being replaced by oxygen gas; when this film is broken, it settles, and a new one forms, continuing this cycle until the oxygen uptake stops with the deposition of sulphur, and the liquid becomes completely colorless. It is extremely bitter and contains lime, sulphur, and oxygen in proportions that will be defined later. This colorless liquid undergoes a gradual change when kept for years in a bottle with a regular cork; some sulphur and sulfate of lime start to deposit, but whether this happens due to additional oxygen absorption or from some internal chemical reaction, I haven't had the chance to observe. [Pg 104]

From the above observations it is obvious that to form pure quadrisulphuret of lime the atmospheric air should be excluded, as the agitation by ebullition would promote the oxidizement of the compound. I mixed 168 grains of sublimed sulphur with 96 hydrate of lime, which by previous trials I had found to consist of 70 lime including 2 or 3 grains of alumine, and 26 water; the mixture was put into a small florence flask, which was then filled with water up to the neck and loosely corked. This was immersed in a pan of water and boiled for 2 or 3 hours, the flask was continually turned round to agitate the mixture and promote the solution. After the undissolved part had subsided the clear liquor was decanted and found to be 2800 grain measures of the sp. gr. 1.056; the residuum moderately dried weighed 34 grains; it was found to contain 8 of lime and alumine, and 25 of sulphur. Hence the liquid contained 62 lime and 143 sulphur, or 2.2 lime and 5.1 sulphur per cent.; that is, after the rate of 24 lime to 56 sulphur, or 1 atom of lime to 4 of sulphur, and its weight = 80, the atom of sulphur being supposed 14. Here then we have a synthetic proof of the composition being a quadrisulphuret. Innumerable other experiments, though made [Pg 105] with less rigid accuracy, had convinced me that the liquid is essentially the same whatever the proportions of the ingredients, and that the residuum only varies in such cases.

From the observations above, it's clear that to create pure quadrisulphuret of lime, you need to keep air out, as boiling will lead to oxidation of the compound. I mixed 168 grains of sublimed sulfur with 96 grains of hydrated lime, which previous tests had shown to consist of 70 grains of lime (including 2 or 3 grains of alumina) and 26 grains of water. The mixture was placed into a small Florence flask, which was then filled with water up to the neck and loosely corked. This was immersed in a water bath and boiled for 2 to 3 hours, while the flask was continuously rotated to agitate the mixture and enhance the solution process. After the undissolved parts settled, the clear liquid was poured off and measured at 2800 grain measures with a specific gravity of 1.056; the dried residue weighed 34 grains and contained 8 grains of lime and alumina, and 25 grains of sulfur. Therefore, the liquid held 62 grains of lime and 143 grains of sulfur, or 2.2% lime and 5.1% sulfur; that is, based on a ratio of 24 parts lime to 56 parts sulfur, or 1 atom of lime to 4 of sulfur, with a total weight of 80, assuming the sulfur atom is 14. This provides synthetic evidence of the composition being quadrisulphuret. Numerous other experiments, though conducted with less precise methods, have convinced me that the liquid is essentially the same regardless of the proportions of the ingredients, and that the residue only varies in such cases. [Pg 105]

I have made many experiments occasionally since 1805, on the quantities of oxygen absorbed and sulphur deposited by quadrisulphuret of lime. They all concur in establishing the same conclusion; namely, that each atom of the compound takes 2 of oxygen and deposits 2 of sulphur, in its transformation from the yellow to the colourless state. For instance, 100 measures of the above 1.056 took 900 of oxygen gas = 1.22 grains, and let fall 2 grains of sulphur, besides a small portion which adhered to the bottle, which was estimated at a few tenths of a grain. The method is to put 100 measures into a graduated and well stoppered bottle filled with oxygen; to agitate briskly for half an hour, occasionally opening the stopper a little under water to admit its entrance into the place of the oxygen absorbed. Whenever the agitation has been continued for five minutes without any sensible increase in absorption, and the liquor, after standing to let the sulphur subside, appears colourless, the experiment is finished. This new combination then consists of 1 atom lime, 2 sulphur, and 2 oxygen = 66; it will be [Pg 106] necessary to give it a name: I propose calling it sulphuretted sulphite of lime, as it is an atom of sulphur united to sulphite of lime; and the rather, as it will appear in the sequel that other neutral salts do combine occasionally with an atom of sulphur. This sulphuretted sulphite may be boiled down to the sp. gr. 1.1 before it precipitates: the liquid then contains about 12 per cent. of the salt, or 5 sulphur, 2½ oxygen, and 4½ lime. The salt precipitates from the liquid by evaporation in the form of a white powder; it burns with a feeble blue flame, and loses about 20 per cent.; the remainder is sulphite of lime. When 100 grain measures of the liquid sulphuretted sulphite (1.1) are saturated with oxymuriate of lime, they acquire 5 grains of oxygen, and then yield 12½ grains of sulphuric acid (containing 5 sulphur and 7½ oxygen), as may be found by the barytic tests. The point of saturation is known by the smell of oxymuriatic acid being given out permanently.

I have conducted many experiments since 1805 on the amounts of oxygen absorbed and sulfur deposited by calcium tetrasulfide. All the results point to the same conclusion: each atom of the compound takes in 2 atoms of oxygen and releases 2 atoms of sulfur during its change from a yellow to a colorless state. For example, 100 measures of this compound (1.056) absorbed 900 measures of oxygen gas, which is equal to 1.22 grains, and released 2 grains of sulfur, plus a small amount that stuck to the bottle, estimated at a few tenths of a grain. The method involves placing 100 measures into a graduated, well-stoppered bottle filled with oxygen, then shaking it vigorously for half an hour, occasionally opening the stopper slightly under water to let water replace the oxygen that was absorbed. When the shaking has continued for five minutes without any noticeable increase in absorption, and the liquid appears colorless after sitting to allow the sulfur to settle, the experiment is complete. This new combination consists of 1 atom of lime, 2 atoms of sulfur, and 2 atoms of oxygen, totaling 66; so we need to give it a name: I suggest calling it sulfurated lime sulfite, since it consists of an atom of sulfur bonded to lime sulfite. This is especially true because it will become clear later that other neutral salts occasionally combine with an atom of sulfur. This sulfurated lime sulfite can be boiled down to a specific gravity of 1.1 before it precipitates: the liquid then contains about 12 percent of the salt, or 5 sulfur, 2.5 oxygen, and 4.5 lime. The salt precipitates from the liquid during evaporation as a white powder; it burns with a faint blue flame and loses about 20 percent of its mass, with the remaining substance being lime sulfite. When 100 grain measures of the liquid sulfurated lime sulfite (1.1) are saturated with calcium hypochlorite, they absorb 5 grains of oxygen and then produce 12.5 grains of sulfuric acid (which contains 5 sulfur and 7.5 oxygen), as can be confirmed using barium tests. The saturation point is indicated by the continuous release of the smell of hypochlorous acid. [Pg 106]

If however we oxidize the quadrisulphuret of lime by oxymuriate of lime, the results are somewhat different. As soon as an atom of the quadrisulphuret has received two atoms of oxygen it becomes colourless as before, but ¾ of the sulphur is thrown down instead of ½; and when [Pg 107] more oxymuriate is added, so as to impart 3 atoms of oxygen to one of the salt, a complete sulphate of lime is formed. The point of saturation is determined by adding a small portion of muriatic acid to the liquid, which develops the oxymuriatic acid as soon as it becomes in excess. This method excels in the analysis of the alkaline and earthy sulphurets in general.

If we oxidize calcium tetrasulfide with calcium hypochlorite, the results are somewhat different. As soon as one molecule of calcium tetrasulfide takes in two molecules of oxygen, it turns colorless again, but ¾ of the sulfur precipitates instead of ½. When more hypochlorite is added to give 3 oxygen molecules to each molecule of the salt, a complete calcium sulfate is formed. The saturation point is identified by adding a small amount of hydrochloric acid to the solution, which produces hypochlorous acid as soon as it is in excess. This method is particularly effective for analyzing alkaline and earthy sulfides in general.

When quadrisulphuret of lime is treated with an alkaline carbonate, a reciprocal change takes place; the carbonic acid takes the lime, and the alkali the sulphur, leaving however 1 atom of sulphur with the carbonate which precipitates. Hence a sulphuretted carbonate of lime is obtained and a trisulphuret of the alkali. The sulphur burns off from the carbonate below a red heat and leaves 75 per cent. of carbonate of lime; this affords an excellent analysis of quadrisulphuret of lime as far as lime is the object. Thus 540 of the above 1.056 quadrisulphuret took 100 test carbonate of potash (1.25), and gave a precipitate of 29 grains, which burned blue and left 22 grains = 12 lime, and 10 acid; but if 540 ∶ 12 ∷ 100 ∶ 2.2, as above determined synthetically: moreover, 12 lime, 10 acid, and 7 sulphur, are as 24 lime, 20 acid, and [Pg 108] 14 sulphur; the composition of an atom of sulphuretted carbonate of lime, which is analogous to the sulphuretted sulphite of lime, as found above.

When calcium tetrasulfide is combined with an alkaline carbonate, a reciprocal reaction occurs; carbonic acid takes the calcium, and the alkali takes the sulfur, leaving 1 atom of sulfur with the carbonate that precipitates. As a result, a sulfur-containing calcium carbonate is produced along with a trisulfide of the alkali. The sulfur burns off from the carbonate below a red heat, leaving 75 percent of calcium carbonate; this provides an excellent analysis of calcium tetrasulfide as far as the calcium is concerned. Thus, 540 of the 1.056 calcium tetrasulfide reacted with 100 parts of test potassium carbonate (1.25) and yielded a precipitate of 29 grains, which burned blue and left 22 grains, equivalent to 12 calcium and 10 acid; if 540 : 12 :: 100 : 2.2, as previously established synthetically: furthermore, 12 calcium, 10 acid, and 7 sulfur correspond to 24 calcium, 20 acid, and [Pg 108] 14 sulfur; this is the composition of one atom of sulfur-containing calcium carbonate, which is similar to the sulfur-containing calcium sulfite mentioned earlier.

When quadrisulphuret of lime is treated with as much sulphuric acid as is sufficient for the lime, the sulphur is in part precipitated, but it is in union with the sulphate of lime, or at least they are not separable by mechanical means. This compound is sold in the shops under the name of precipitated sulphur. It is about one half sulphate of lime, and the other half sulphur. The nitric and muriatic acids precipitate the sulphur partially from quadrisulphuret, but the sulphur assumes a viscid form and exhales sulphuretted hydrogen, and the proportion of the elements of quadrisulphuret are not easily obtained by any of these acids.

When lime quadrisulphide is treated with enough sulfuric acid to react with the lime, some of the sulfur gets precipitated, but it combines with the sulfate of lime, making them inseparable by physical means. This mixture is available in stores as precipitated sulfur. It consists of about half sulfate of lime and half sulfur. Nitric and hydrochloric acids can partially remove sulfur from quadrisulphide, but the sulfur becomes sticky and releases hydrogen sulfide gas, and it’s difficult to separate the components of quadrisulphide using these acids.

The mutual action of quadrisulphuret of lime, and the metallic salts is curious and interesting; for instance, with nitrate of lead. Let a solution of nitrate of lead, containing 97 oxide, be treated with a solution of quadrisulphuret of lime by degrees, as long as a black precipitate appears, marking the exact point of saturation; this will be found when 36 parts of lime have entered, and 84 of sulphur; the sulphuret of lead will fall, and when dried will weigh 145 parts, and [Pg 109] contain 90 lead, and 55 sulphur; that is, 1 atom of lead, and 4 of sulphur, and is consequently a quadrisulphuret of lead. The liquid remains clear and colourless, and contains the nitric acid, lime, oxygen of the lead, and ⅓ of the sulphur; each atom of nitric acid combines with one of lime, which retains one of the 4 atoms of sulphur, forming a sulphuretted nitrate of lime, consisting of 45 acid, 24 lime, and 14 sulphur; the 7 parts of oxygen unite with 7 of sulphur to form sulphurous acid, which require 12 parts of lime to saturate them and 7 of sulphur, forming a sulphuretted sulphite of lime: hence we see that 28 parts of sulphur remain in the liquor, and the rest (56) unite with the lead. If now we add gradually more nitrate of lead, a silvery white precipitate appears, increasing till half the original quantity is added, and then the liquid is saturated. This white precipitate is sulphuretted sulphite of lead; when heated it soon grows black and loses 15 or 20 per cent., being then a protosulphuret of lead. The liquid now contains sulphuretted nitrate and simple nitrate of lime; nitrate of lead has no effect, but nitrate of mercury precipitates a black sulphuret.

The interaction between calcium tetrasulfide and metallic salts is fascinating. For example, with lead nitrate. If you treat a solution of lead nitrate with 97% lead oxide gradually using a calcium tetrasulfide solution, a black precipitate will form, indicating the exact point of saturation. This occurs when 36 parts of lime and 84 parts of sulfur have been added. At this point, lead sulfide will precipitate and weigh 145 parts when dried, containing 90 parts lead and 55 parts sulfur—which means 1 atom of lead and 4 atoms of sulfur, making it a lead tetrasulfide. The solution remains clear and colorless and holds nitric acid, lime, lead oxide, and one-third of the sulfur; each nitric acid atom combines with one lime atom that retains one of the four sulfur atoms, forming a sulfurous nitrate of lime, consisting of 45 parts acid, 24 parts lime, and 14 parts sulfur. The 7 parts of oxygen combine with 7 parts of sulfur to form sulfurous acid, which requires 12 parts of lime and 7 parts of sulfur for saturation, creating a sulfured sulfite of lime. Therefore, 28 parts of sulfur will remain in the solution while the remaining 56 parts combine with lead. If more lead nitrate is added gradually, a silvery white precipitate will form and increase until half of the original amount is added, at which point the solution becomes saturated. This white precipitate is lead sulfured sulfite; upon heating, it quickly turns black and loses 15 to 20 percent of its weight, becoming lead monosulfide. The remaining solution contains sulfured nitrate and simple nitrate of lime; lead nitrate has no effect, but mercury nitrate will precipitate a black sulfide.

Quadrisulphuret of lime saturated with oxygen, as has been observed, [Pg 110] contains sulphuretted sulphite of lime in solution, and deposits sulphur: the liquid treated with nitrate of lead, gives as above the white, silvery sulphuretted sulphite of lead as a precipitate, and holds nitrate of lime in solution.

Quadrisulphate of lime saturated with oxygen, as noted, [Pg 110] contains sulfured sulfite of lime in solution and deposits sulfur; the liquid treated with lead nitrate produces the white, silvery sulfured lead sulfite as a precipitate and keeps nitrate of lime in solution.

Hydrosulphuret of lime. This compound may be formed by passing sulphuretted hydrogen into lime water; the water assumes a brownish colour, but the point of saturation is not easily found, as the lime water is not neutralized so as to shew by the colour test, and water of itself absorbs above twice its volume of the gas. By means of a neutral solution of nitrate of lead it may be found that 1000 lime water in volume, require about 600 sulphuretted hydrogen, because then a mutual saturation is observed by double affinity; that is, sulphuret of lead and neutral nitrate of lime are formed; but otherwise the liquid remaining is either acid or alkaline. Hydrosulphuret of lime, as well as the other hydrosulphurets, has a peculiar bitter taste. It forms a useful reagent in regard to metals, but is apt to be spoiled by keeping, owing to the acquisition of oxygen. [Pg 111]

Hydrosulphuret of lime. This compound can be created by introducing sulphuretted hydrogen into lime water; the water turns a brownish color, but finding the exact point of saturation isn’t straightforward since the lime water isn’t neutralized to reveal the color test, and water can absorb more than twice its volume of the gas on its own. Using a neutral solution of lead nitrate, it can be determined that 1000 volumes of lime water require about 600 volumes of sulphuretted hydrogen, as a mutual saturation occurs through double affinity; that is, sulphuret of lead and neutral nitrate of lime are produced. Otherwise, the remaining liquid is either acidic or alkaline. Hydrosulphuret of lime, like other hydrosulphurets, has a distinct bitter taste. It serves as a useful reagent for metals but tends to degrade over time due to the absorption of oxygen. [Pg 111]

2. Sulphuret of magnesia.

I have not succeeded in endeavouring to combine sulphur and magnesia in the dry way; but a liquid sulphuret is easily formed by the action of double affinity.

I haven't been successful in trying to combine sulfur and magnesium in a dry form; however, a liquid sulfide can be easily created through the process of double affinity.

Let a quantity of the liquid quadrisulphuret of lime be treated with a solution of sulphate of magnesia, so that the sulphuric acid may be sufficient for the lime; by digesting in a moderate heat, the sulphate of lime is precipitated, carrying with it one fourth of the sulphur, and a trisulphuret of magnesia remains in solution. I have not observed any remarkable feature of distinction between this sulphuret and that of lime, except as above noticed in the proportions of their compounds.

Let a quantity of liquid calcium quadrisulphide be mixed with a solution of magnesium sulfate, ensuring that there’s enough sulfuric acid for the calcium. By warming it gently, calcium sulfate will precipitate, taking along a quarter of the sulfur, while a magnesium trisulfide will remain dissolved. I haven’t noticed any significant differences between this sulfide and that of calcium, except for the previously mentioned differences in the proportions of their compounds.

Hydrosulphuret of magnesia. This compound may be formed by pouring sulphuretted hydrogen water into recently precipitated magnesia; it does not differ much from that of lime. One atom of sulphuretted hydrogen (15), combines with one of magnesia (17), and the compound is soluble in water. [Pg 112]

Hydrosulphuret of magnesia. This compound can be created by adding hydrogen sulfide water to freshly precipitated magnesia; it’s quite similar to that of lime. One atom of hydrogen sulfide (15) combines with one of magnesia (17), and this compound is soluble in water. [Pg 112]

3. Sulphuret of barytes.

Protosulphuret. The protosulphuret of barytes may be procured the same way as that of lime, by heating hydrate of barytes and sulphur till the mixture becomes red. It is very little soluble in water, and accords in other respects with the like compound of lime. It consists of 68 barytes and 14 sulphur, or 100 barytes and 20½ sulphur.

Protosulphuret. You can obtain the protosulphuret of barytes in the same way as the one from lime, by heating barytes hydrate and sulfur until the mixture turns red. It is barely soluble in water and shares similar properties with the lime compound. It consists of 68 barytes and 14 sulfur, or 100 barytes and 20½ sulfur.

Quadrisulphuret. The quadrisulphuret of barytes may be formed the same way as quadrisulphuret of lime, by boiling the hydrate of barytes and sulphur together. A yellow solution of the compound is formed, not distinguishable in appearance from that of lime; and it appears to be analogous to it in most of its properties. By acquiring oxygen it becomes colourless sulphuretted sulphite of barytes, and crystalizes in needles; in this last respect it differs from that of lime. The maximum density of liquid quadrisulphuret I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining; it is 1.07 or upwards; that of the liquid sulphuretted sulphite is much less than that of lime; the crystals are found in a liquid so low as 1.004 sp. gr. They have a fine silky lustre [Pg 113] when dry, and a yellowish colour; heated they burn with a blue flame and leave a white mass of sulphate preserving the same crystalline appearance as before, and lose about 20 per cent. of weight. Ten grains of the crystals of sulphuretted sulphite, when treated with liquid oxymuriate of lime to saturation, require 2+ grains of oxygen and yield 8 grains of sulphate of barytes, together with an excess of sulphuric acid which with muriate of barytes gives 8 grains more of sulphate. From these facts it may be concluded that the sulphuretted sulphite consists of one atom barytes, 2 sulphur, 2 oxygen, and 2 water, and that 4 more of oxygen are derived from the oxymuriatic acid to convert the sulphurous oxide into sulphuric acid. The sulphuretted sulphite of barytes seems to pass into sulphate by length of time. The weight of the atom of quadrisulphuret of barytes is 124; the compound in mass consists of 100 barytes and 82 sulphur.

Quadrisulphuret. The quadrisulphuret of barytes can be made in the same way as the quadrisulphuret of lime, by boiling the hydrate of barytes and sulfur together. A yellow solution of the compound is formed, which looks just like that of lime; it seems to be similar to it in most of its properties. When it gains oxygen, it turns into colorless sulphuretted sulphite of barytes and crystallizes in needle shapes; this is how it differs from lime. I haven’t had the chance to determine the maximum density of liquid quadrisulphuret; it is 1.07 or more. The density of the liquid sulphuretted sulphite is much lower than that of lime; the crystals can be found in a liquid with a specific gravity as low as 1.004. They have a fine silky shine when dry, and a yellowish tint; when heated, they burn with a blue flame and leave behind a white mass of sulfate, retaining the same crystalline look as before, and lose about 20 percent of their weight. Ten grains of the crystals of sulphuretted sulphite, when treated with liquid oxymuriate of lime until saturated, require over 2 grains of oxygen and produce 8 grains of sulfate of barytes, along with an excess of sulfuric acid which, in conjunction with muriate of barytes, yields an additional 8 grains of sulfate. From these observations, it can be concluded that the sulphuretted sulphite is made up of one atom of barytes, 2 sulfur, 2 oxygen, and 2 water, and that 4 additional oxygen atoms come from the oxymuriatic acid to turn the sulfite into sulfuric acid. The sulphuretted sulphite of barytes seems to convert into sulfate over time. The weight of one atom of quadrisulphuret of barytes is 124; the compound in total consists of 100 barytes and 82 sulfur.

Hydrosulphuret of barytes. This compound may be formed in the same manner as that of lime, and is found to have similar properties. The proportions for mutual saturation are, I find, as in the case of lime, 15 sulphuretted hydrogen to 68 barytes by weight, or one atom of each. [Pg 114]

Hydrosulfide of barium. This compound can be created in the same way as lime and is found to have similar properties. The proportions for mutual saturation are, as with lime, 15 parts of hydrogen sulfide to 68 parts of barium by weight, or one atom of each. [Pg 114]

4. Sulphurets of strontites.

The protosulphuret and quadrisulphuret of strontites may be formed in the same way as those of lime and barytes. From a few experiments made on these compounds I have not observed any remarkable feature of distinction between them and the corresponding ones of the other earths.

The protosulphuret and quadrisulphuret of strontium can be created in the same way as those of lime and barytes. Based on a few experiments I conducted on these compounds, I haven't noticed any significant differences between them and the similar compounds of the other earths.

Hydrosulphuret of strontites. This compound may be formed in the same way as that of lime; the proportions to produce mutual saturation will be 1 atom of each, or 15 parts sulphuretted hydrogen, to 46 strontites by weight.

Hydrosulphuret of strontites. This compound can be created in the same way as lime; the proportions needed for complete saturation are 1 atom of each, or 15 parts of hydrogen sulfide to 46 parts of strontium by weight.

5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Sulphurets of alumine, silex,
yttria, glucine
, and zircone.

I made several unsuccessful attempts to combine alumine and sulphur. When alumine and sulphur mixed together are heated, the sulphur sublimes chiefly, and leaves the alumine with traces of sulphate of alumine.

I tried several times to mix alumina and sulfur without success. When alumina and sulfur are heated together, the sulfur mostly vaporizes, leaving behind the alumina with some traces of alumina sulfate.

In the humid way, recently precipitated and moist alumine mixed with [Pg 115] sulphur and boiled in water, give a liquid with some traces of sulphuric acid, but no sulphuret of alumine; the sulphur and alumine both subside, and when the sulphur is either sublimed or burnt, the alumine remains much the same as at first. When a solution of alum is treated with sulphuret of lime, sulphate of lime is precipitated along with the greatest part of the sulphur in a kind of feeble union rather than mechanical mixture, it should seem; the alumine is at the same time precipitated probably in mechanical mixture; there remain in solution a little sulphuret of potash and sulphate of lime.

In a humid environment, recently precipitated and damp alumina mixed with sulfur and boiled in water produces a liquid with some traces of sulfuric acid, but no sulfur-alumina compound; both the sulfur and alumina settle, and when the sulfur is either sublimed or burned, the alumina stays pretty much the same as it was initially. When a solution of alum is treated with calcium sulfide, calcium sulfate is precipitated along with most of the sulfur in what seems to be a weak union rather than a mechanical mixture; the alumina is likely precipitated in a mechanical mixture as well. A little potassium sulfide and calcium sulfate remain in solution.

Sulphuret of silex is not known, I apprehend, to exist. When silicated potash in solution is treated with quadrisulphuret of lime, a copious dark brown or black precipitate instantly appears; the liquid when filtered is of a pale yellow colour, and seems to contain about one half of the sulphur and potash, whilst the other half is thrown down in union with the lime and silex. This black compound is probably 1 atom of lime, 2 of sulphur, 2 of potash, and 2 of silex; it cannot therefore be accounted a sulphuret of silex.

Sulfur silicate is not known to exist, as far as I can tell. When you treat a solution of silicated potash with calcium tetrasulfide, a large dark brown or black precipitate appears immediately. The liquid, when filtered, is a pale yellow color and seems to contain about half of the sulfur and potash, while the other half settles down combined with the lime and silica. This black compound likely consists of 1 atom of lime, 2 atoms of sulfur, 2 atoms of potash, and 2 atoms of silica; therefore, it cannot be classified as a sulfur silicate.

Sulphurets of yttria, glucine, and zircone, are as yet, I presume, unknown. [Pg 116]

Sulfur compounds of yttrium, beryllium, and zirconium are still, I believe, unknown. [Pg 116]

10. Sulphurets of potash.

Potash has a strong affinity for sulphur and unites with it in various ways and proportions.

Potash has a strong attraction to sulfur and combines with it in different ways and amounts.

1st. In the dry way by heat. When either pure potash or the carbonate (salt of tartar) is heated in a covered crucible with sulphur, a chemical union of the two principles takes place. Eight parts of dried hydrate of potash unite to six or seven of sulphur: a heat of 4 or 500° of Fahrenheit is convenient for the purpose. If the carbonate of potash be used, then 12 parts dried in a low red heat will require 8 of sulphur for their complete saturation: in this case a higher degree of heat is requisite in order to expel the carbonic acid; a low red heat seems sufficient from my trials. When the heat does not exceed 3 or 400° a partial union takes place; the carbonate of potash, without losing any acid, unites to ⅓ of the sulphur, and the rest of the sulphur remains uncombined; when intermediate degrees of heat are used, I have found the result a mixture of the pure sulphuret and the carbonated sulphuret, with more or less of sulphate of potash. A high degree of heat and exposure to the atmosphere produces a sulphate [Pg 117] instead of a sulphuret. The sulphurets obtained this way are in fusion till poured out and cooled; they are of a liver colour, and hence were formerly called livers of sulphur. They are largely soluble in water, and give a brownish yellow solution.

1st. In the dry way by heat. When either pure potash or the carbonate (cream of tartar) is heated in a covered crucible with sulfur, a chemical reaction occurs between the two substances. Eight parts of dried potash hydrate combine with six or seven parts of sulfur; a temperature of 400 or 500°F is suitable for this process. If using the carbonate of potash, then 12 parts dried at a low red heat will require 8 parts of sulfur for complete saturation: in this case, a higher temperature is needed to remove the carbonic acid; a low red heat seems adequate based on my tests. When the heat doesn’t exceed 300 or 400°F, a partial reaction occurs; the carbonate of potash, without losing any acid, combines with ⅓ of the sulfur, leaving the rest of the sulfur unreacted. When intermediate temperatures are applied, I found the result to be a mixture of pure sulfide and carbonated sulfide, along with varying amounts of potassium sulfate. A high temperature and exposure to air yield a sulfate instead of a sulfide. The sulfides produced in this manner are molten until poured out and cooled; they have a liver color, which is why they were historically referred to as livers of sulfur. They are highly soluble in water, yielding a brownish yellow solution.

2d. In the humid way by solution. Pure caustic potash in solution when boiled with sulphur dissolves it largely, 42 parts of real potash being saturated with about 56 of sulphur. If we boil a solution of carbonate of potash with sulphur, for an hour or more, a brown liquor is obtained, which consists of 60 parts carbonate of potash and 14 sulphur in chemical union.—It has already been observed that a trisulphuret of potash may be obtained by double affinity from quadrisulphuret of lime and carbonate of potash, together with sulphuretted carbonate of lime.

2d. In the humid way by solution. Pure caustic potash dissolved in water, when boiled with sulfur, dissolves a significant amount of it, with 42 parts of real potash being saturated by about 56 of sulfur. If we boil a solution of potassium carbonate with sulfur for an hour or more, we get a brown liquid that contains 60 parts of potassium carbonate and 14 parts of sulfur in a chemical bond. It has already been noted that a potassium trisulfide can be produced through double affinity from calcium quadrisulfide and potassium carbonate, along with sulfuretted calcium carbonate.

From what has been stated we may infer at least three varieties in the compounds of sulphur and potash, viz.

From what has been said, we can infer at least three types of compounds made from sulfur and potash, namely:

1st. Sulphuretted carbonate of potash. This consists of 1 atom carbonate of potash (61) with 1 atom of sulphur (14). Its analysis may be effected as follows: the quantity of carbonic acid may be found by the lime water necessary to saturate it; the potash may be known from [Pg 118] the quantity previously entering into the mixture; and the sulphur in the same manner, or from the quantity of sulphuretted carbonate of lead that it forms.—The sulphur may also be known, from the quantity of oxygen it requires by means of oxymuriate of lime to produce saturation; this I find to take place when the oxygen is half the weight of the sulphur, or one atom to one of sulphur; it soon happens, that one atom of sulphur deprives two others of their oxygen, and sulphuric acid is formed whilst the other two atoms of sulphur join the carbonate of lime and are precipitated along with it. As it may frequently happen, that the sulphuretted carbonate is mixed with common carbonate of potash, the proportions may be found by means of nitrate of lead, which being cautiously dropped into the solution, lets fall first the brown sulphuretted carbonate of lead, and then the common white carbonate of lead.

1st. Sulphuretted carbonate of potash. This is made up of 1 atom of carbonate of potash (61) combined with 1 atom of sulphur (14). You can analyze it like this: determine the amount of carbonic acid by the lime water needed to saturate it; measure the potash from the amount that was already in the mixture; and find the sulphur in a similar way, or by the quantity of sulphuretted carbonate of lead it produces. — The sulphur can also be determined by the amount of oxygen it needs from oxymuriate of lime to achieve saturation; I observe that this occurs when the oxygen is half the weight of the sulphur, or one atom for each atom of sulphur; it soon happens that one atom of sulphur takes away the oxygen from two others, leading to the formation of sulphuric acid while the other two atoms of sulphur combine with the carbonate of lime and get precipitated with it. Since it often occurs that sulphuretted carbonate is mixed with regular carbonate of potash, the proportions can be identified using nitrate of lead, which, when carefully added to the solution, will first produce brown sulphuretted carbonate of lead and then the common white carbonate of lead.

The sulphuretted carbonate of potash absorbs oxygen and precipitates metals much the same in appearance as the other sulphurets; but essential distinctions are observable, some of which are noticed above, and others will appear in the sequel.

The sulfuretted carbonate of potash absorbs oxygen and causes metals to precipitate in a way that's quite similar to the other sulfides; however, there are important differences that can be seen, some of which are mentioned above, and others will be discussed later.

2 and 3. The trisulphuret and quadrisulphuret of potash [Pg 119] so nearly resemble the quadrisulphuret of lime in their properties, as not to require any additional remarks.

2 and 3. The trisulphuret and quadrisulphuret of potash [Pg 119] are so similar to the quadrisulphuret of lime in their properties that no further comments are needed.

Hydrosulphuret of potash. This combination, when duly proportioned, consists of 15 parts sulphuretted hydrogen, and 42 potash by weight, or one atom of each. It may be formed by directly uniting the two elements, or by decomposing hydrosulphuret of lime by carbonate of potash. Its properties agree with those of the other hydrosulphurets.

Hydrosulfuret of potash. This compound, when properly balanced, is made up of 15 parts hydrogen sulfide and 42 parts potash by weight, or one atom of each. It can be created by directly combining the two elements, or by breaking down hydrosulfuret of lime with carbonate of potash. Its properties are similar to those of other hydrosulfurets.

11. Sulphurets of soda.

I have repeated most of the experiments on the sulphurization of potash with soda, and have not found anyone remarkable feature of distinction, besides those which arise from the weights of the atoms.

I have repeated most of the experiments on the sulfurization of potash with soda, and I haven't found any significant distinguishing features, apart from those that come from the weights of the atoms.

1. Sulphuretted carbonate of soda consists of 1 atom of carbonate of soda united to 1 of sulphur; or of 47 parts of the former and 14 of the latter.

1. Sulphuretted carbonate of soda is made up of 1 atom of carbonate of soda combined with 1 atom of sulphur; this equals 47 parts of the former and 14 parts of the latter.

2. Trisulphuret of soda consists of 1 atom soda (28) and 3 of sulphur (42).

2. Trisulphuret of soda is made up of 1 atom of soda (28) and 3 atoms of sulphur (42).

3. Quadrisulphuret of soda consists of 1 atom soda (28) and 4 atoms of sulphur (56).

3. Quadrisulphuret of soda is made up of 1 atom of sodium (28) and 4 atoms of sulfur (56).

Hydrosulphuret of soda. This compound consists of one atom of [Pg 120] each of the elements, or 15 sulphuretted hydrogen, and 28 soda. In other respects it agrees with hydrosulphuret of potash.

Sodium hydrosulphide. This compound consists of one atom of [Pg 120] each of the elements, or 15 hydrogen sulfide, and 28 sodium. In other respects, it is similar to potassium hydrosulphide.

12. Sulphuret of ammonia.

The best way which I have found of procuring sulphuret of ammonia, is to treat quadrisulphuret of lime with the carbonate of ammonia as long as any precipitate takes place; the precipitate is sulphuretted carbonate of lime, 3 atoms of sulphur to 1 of carbonate of lime. The liquid is of a pale yellow, and contains ammonia and sulphur united in the ratio of 1 atom (of 6) to 1 of sulphur: it may therefore be denominated the protosulphuret of ammonia.

The best method I've discovered to obtain ammonium sulfide is by treating calcium tetrasulfide with ammonium carbonate until no more precipitate forms. The precipitate consists of calcium sulfide carbonate, which has 3 sulfur atoms for every 1 calcium carbonate. The resulting liquid is a pale yellow color and contains ammonia and sulfur combined in a ratio of 1 atom (of 6) to 1 sulfur atom; it can therefore be called ammonium sulfide.

The carbonate of ammonia is best procured by heating the common subcarbonate of ammonia, first pulverized, in a temperature of 100° for half an hour, or exposing it for a few days to the atmosphere. What remains of the salt is almost without smell; it should consist of 19 parts acid, 6 ammonia, and 8 water nearly: the ammonia is usually however a small degree in excess.

The carbonate of ammonia is best obtained by heating common ammonium subcarbonate, which should be ground up, at a temperature of 100° for half an hour, or by leaving it out in the air for a few days. What is left of the salt has almost no smell; it should contain about 19 parts acid, 6 parts ammonia, and nearly 8 parts water: however, the ammonia is usually a little bit more than this.

Hydrosulphuret of ammonia. This compound may be formed in the [Pg 121] dry state by combining the two gases of sulphuretted hydrogen and ammonia over mercury; it is of a white crystalline appearance, and very soluble in water, and forms a fuming liquor of a very pungent smell. It may also be obtained by passing sulphuretted hydrogen into a vessel containing liquid ammonia. I find about 110 or 120 measures of sulphuretted hydrogen require 100 of ammoniacal gas. Hence it is 1 atom of sulphuretted hydrogen (15), that unites to 1 of ammonia (6).

Ammonium hydrosulfide. This compound can be created in the [Pg 121] dry form by combining the gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia over mercury; it appears as a white crystalline substance, is highly soluble in water, and creates a fuming liquid with a very strong odor. It can also be produced by passing hydrogen sulfide into a container of liquid ammonia. I find that about 110 to 120 volumes of hydrogen sulfide are needed for every 100 volumes of ammoniacal gas. Therefore, it is 1 atom of hydrogen sulfide (15) that combines with 1 atom of ammonia (6).

13. Sulphurets of gold.

There exist at least two sulphurets of gold, the nature and proportions of which are easily ascertained; though several authors assert that no combinations of gold and sulphur are known; amongst these it is surprizing to find Proust: indeed most of the others have probably been led by his authority to adopt the opinion without examination. It is not very easy to account for his deception.

There are at least two gold sulfides, the nature and proportions of which can be easily determined; although several authors claim that no combinations of gold and sulfur are known; among these, it's surprising to find Proust. In fact, most of the others have likely been influenced by his authority to accept this opinion without checking it out. It's not very easy to explain his mistake.

Obercampf, in the Annal. de Chimie, tom. 80. 1811, is the first author I have seen who distinctly maintains the existence of one or more sulphurets of gold, though it seems to have been admitted previously by Bucholz. The last author finds 82 gold unite to 18 sulphur, and the former 80 to 20 nearly. [Pg 122]

Obercampf, in the Annal. de Chimie, vol. 80, 1811, is the first author I’ve seen who clearly argues that one or more gold sulfides exist, although Bucholz seems to have acknowledged this earlier. The latter author finds 82 parts of gold combined with 18 parts of sulfur, while the former reports nearly 80 to 20. [Pg 122]

Protosulphuret of gold. This compound is formed whenever a solution of muriate of gold is agitated with sulphuretted hydrogen gas, or with the same united to a base, as lime or alkali. A black or deep brown powder falls down by the addition of more gas, till the whole of the gold is precipitated. The oxide of gold loses one atom of oxygen, and receives one of sulphur in its place, whilst the hydrogen of the gas is carried off along with the oxygen of the oxide. The sulphuret dried and heated, burns with a blue flame, leaving the gold nearly pure. This compound consists, I find, of 81 gold and 19 sulphur per cent.; or 100 gold unite to 23 sulphur.

Gold protosulphide. This compound forms whenever a solution of gold chloride is mixed with hydrogen sulfide gas, or with the same combined with a base like lime or alkali. A black or dark brown powder settles out as more gas is added, until all the gold is precipitated. The gold oxide loses one atom of oxygen and takes in one of sulfur, while the hydrogen from the gas escapes along with the oxygen from the oxide. The dried and heated sulfide burns with a blue flame, leaving the gold nearly pure. This compound, I find, consists of 81% gold and 19% sulfur; or 100 parts gold combined with 23 parts sulfur.

Trisulphuret of gold. This compound is obtained whenever quadrisulphuret of lime is gradually dropped into a solution of muriate of gold; it is a black powder, not quite so deep as the former. Care must be taken to saturate the excess of acid previously by lime water, to prevent any uncombined sulphur precipitating. Trisulphuret of gold being heated, burns with a blue flame, and leaves the gold nearly pure; it loses from 10 to 45 per cent. by the process. It is constituted of 1 [Pg 123] atom gold and 3 sulphur, or 60 gold and 42 sulphur, nearly; or 100 gold combine with 70 sulphur.

Trisulphuret of gold. This compound is formed when quadrisulphuret of lime is slowly added to a solution of gold chloride; it appears as a black powder, not quite as dark as the previous one. It's important to neutralize any excess acid with lime water beforehand to prevent any uncombined sulfur from precipitating. When heated, trisulphuret of gold burns with a blue flame and leaves nearly pure gold behind; it loses between 10 to 45 percent during the process. It consists of 1 atom of gold and 3 atoms of sulfur, or approximately 60 parts gold and 42 parts sulfur; in other terms, 100 parts gold combine with 70 parts sulfur.

From several experiments I am led to conclude that each atom of oxide of gold takes 3 of sulphur, and parts with 1 of oxygen to the remaining sulphur; thus a trisulphuret of gold is formed, and an oxide of sulphur; the liquid, being afterwards treated with oxymuriate of lime, is found to require twice the oxygen of the gold for its saturation, when a corresponding portion of sulphuric acid may be precipitated by muriate of barytes.

From several experiments, I've concluded that each gold oxide atom combines with 3 sulfur atoms and releases 1 oxygen atom to the remaining sulfur. This forms a gold trisulfide and an oxide of sulfur. When the liquid is then treated with calcium oxychloride, it requires twice the amount of oxygen that the gold does for saturation, allowing a corresponding amount of sulfuric acid to be precipitated by barium chloride.

14. Sulphuret of platina.

Sulphur may be combined with platina in several ways, and probably in different proportions; but the combination is not so easily and elegantly effected as with many other metals, and hence some uncertainty still remains on the subject.

Sulfur can be combined with platinum in various ways, likely in different amounts, but the process isn't as straightforward or smooth as it is with many other metals, so there’s still some uncertainty about it.

When a salt of platina is treated with sulphuret or hydrosulphuret of lime, or sulphuretted hydrogen water, the liquid slowly and gradually grows dark brown and finally black; after agitation and standing a few hours, the liquid is semitransparent, and a black flocculent precipitate appears at the bottom. Sometimes after violent agitation, the liquid on standing a few minutes becomes a transparent brown, but [Pg 124] soon grows turbid again. In the course of a few days, and by occasional agitation, the liquid finally becomes clear and nearly free from platina, and the precipitate may be collected on a filter and dried. This circumstance of slow and indolent precipitation cannot be prevented by any means I have found, such as saturating the excess of acid, &c.

When a platinum salt is treated with lime sulfide or hydrosulfide, or water with hydrogen sulfide, the liquid gradually turns dark brown and eventually black. After stirring and letting it sit for a few hours, the liquid becomes semi-transparent and a black fluffy precipitate forms at the bottom. Sometimes, after vigorous stirring, the liquid can turn a transparent brown shortly after sitting for a few minutes, but it quickly becomes cloudy again. Over a few days, with occasional stirring, the liquid eventually becomes clear and nearly free of platinum, and the precipitate can be collected on a filter and dried. This slow and sluggish precipitation process can't be prevented by any method I've tried, such as saturating the excess acid, etc. [Pg 124]

Mr. Edmund Davy, in the 40th Vol. of the Philos. Magazine, has given us the results of his experiments and observations on the sulphurets of platina, containing some useful and original information. He combines platina with sulphur by heating the ammonia-muriate of platina with sulphur; also by heating platina and sulphur in an exhausted tube; and by sending sulphuretted hydrogen gas or water into a solution of muriate of platina; this precipitate he calls hydrosulphuret of platina.

Mr. Edmund Davy, in the 40th Vol. of the Philos. Magazine, has shared the results of his experiments and observations on platinum sulfides, including some useful and original information. He combines platinum with sulfur by heating ammonium chloride of platinum with sulfur; also by heating platinum and sulfur in a vacuum tube; and by introducing hydrogen sulfide gas or water into a solution of platinum chloride; this precipitate he refers to as platinum hydrosulfide.

He has just noticed the precipitate formed by sulphuret of potash with muriate of platina, but gives no opinion as to the compound obtained this way. He determines three sulphurets, namely,

He has just noticed the solid formed by potassium sulfide with platinum chloride, but doesn’t provide any opinion about the compound created this way. He identifies three sulfides, namely,

Subsulphuret,   100   platina   +   19 sulphur
Sulphuret,   100   ——   +   28.2 ——
Supersulphuret,   100   ——   +   38.8 ——

I have obtained the sulphuret of platina in five ways: 1st. By pouring [Pg 125] sulphuret of lime solution by degrees into muriate of platina, and agitating the mixture well or till it grew black each time; after digesting for some days, repeated filtering, and drying, a black powder is obtained: 2. Instead of sulphuret, hydrosulphuret of lime was used; the precipitate was obtained under like circumstances: 3d. Sulphuretted hydrogen water was used, and the precipitate obtained in like manner: 4th. Ten grains of ammonia-muriate of platina were treated with sulphuretted hydrogen water; by continued agitation the yellow powder disappeared, the liquid looked uniformly black, and at length a precipitate was formed; by repeated filtration and addition of sulphuretted hydrogen water, the whole of the platina was thrown down, and the liquid remained colourless; but it is difficult to discover the exact quantity of sulphuretted hydrogen requisite for any weight of the ammonia-muriate from the tediousness of the operation; 6 grains of well dried black powder were obtained, besides perhaps 1 grain of loss on the filters: 5th. Ammonia-muriate of platina was heated in a covered crucible along with sulphur till it was judged that all the uncombined sulphur was sublimed or dissipated. [Pg 126]

I have obtained platinum sulfide in five ways: 1st. By slowly pouring a solution of calcium sulfide into platinum chloride and mixing it well until it turned black each time; after digesting for a few days, filtering repeatedly, and drying, a black powder is produced: 2. Instead of sulfide, I used calcium hydrosulfide; the precipitate was obtained under similar conditions: 3rd. I used sulfurated hydrogen water, and the precipitate was obtained in the same way: 4th. Ten grams of platinum ammonium chloride were treated with sulfurated hydrogen water; with ongoing agitation, the yellow powder vanished, the liquid turned uniformly black, and eventually a precipitate formed; by repeated filtration and adding sulfurated hydrogen water, all of the platinum was collected, while the liquid remained clear; however, it is challenging to determine the exact amount of sulfurated hydrogen needed for any weight of the ammonium chloride due to the complexity of the process; I obtained 6 grams of well-dried black powder, plus possibly 1 gram lost on the filters: 5th. Platinum ammonium chloride was heated in a covered crucible with sulfur until it was believed that all the uncombined sulfur had vaporized.

All these sulphurets appear to me to be the same when dried in a moderate heat. When exposed to a low red heat they yield water and sulphurous acid, and lose about ⅖ of their weight.

All these sulfides seem to me to be the same when dried at a moderate heat. When exposed to a low red heat, they release water and sulfurous acid, losing about ⅖ of their weight.

The subject however, requires further investigation. The sulphurets of platina appear of a complex nature, and the proportions of their elements are not yet determined with precision.

The subject, however, needs more investigation. The platinum sulfides seem to be complex, and the proportions of their elements haven't been precisely determined yet.

15. Sulphurets of silver.

Silver combines with sulphur in two different proportions, and forms two sulphurets, both of them black or dark brown.

Silver combines with sulfur in two different ratios, creating two sulfides, both of which are black or dark brown.

1. Protosulphuret of silver. This may be formed either by the dry or humid way: if thin lamina of silver be heated with sulphur, they combine and form this sulphuret; a higher degree of heat expels the sulphur again. It is formed too by passing sulphuretted hydrogen or a hydrosulphuret through a solution of silver in nitric or other acids. The atom of silver unites with that of sulphur, whilst the hydrogen unites with the oxygen. Of course this compound is composed of 90 silver, and 14 sulphur, and the atom weighs 104; or 100 silver unite with 15.5 sulphur. Klaproth finds 100 silver and 17.6 sulphur; Wenzel [Pg 127] 100 silver, and 14.7 sulphur; Berzelius 100 silver, and 14.9 sulphur; and Vauquelin 100 silver, and 14 sulphur.

1. Protosulphide of silver. This can be created either through dry or wet methods: when thin sheets of silver are heated with sulfur, they combine to form this sulfide; applying higher heat will drive the sulfur off again. It can also be produced by passing hydrogen sulfide or a hydrosulfide through a solution of silver in nitric acid or other acids. The silver atom combines with the sulfur atom, while the hydrogen combines with the oxygen. This compound consists of 90% silver and 14% sulfur, with a combined atomic weight of 104; or 100 parts of silver combine with 15.5 parts of sulfur. Klaproth finds 100 parts silver and 17.6 parts sulfur; Wenzel finds 100 parts silver and 14.7 parts sulfur; Berzelius finds 100 parts silver and 14.9 parts sulfur; and Vauquelin finds 100 parts silver and 14 parts sulfur.

Trisulphuret of silver. This compound is formed whenever neutral nitrate of silver is dropped into a solution of quadrisulphuret of lime or alkali. Mutual saturation seems to take place when eight atoms of nitrate meet with seven of quadrisulphuret. Trisulphuret of silver is constituted of 90 silver, and 42 sulphur; or of 100 silver, and 46.5 sulphur. Its colour is not so dark as that of the protosulphuret. The residuary liquid contains sulphurous acid, which is easily converted into sulphuric by the addition of a portion of lime; and the quantity of acid may then be determined by muriate of barytes.

Silver trisulfide. This compound is formed whenever neutral silver nitrate is added to a solution of calcium quadrisulfide or alkali. A mutual reaction seems to happen when eight atoms of nitrate interact with seven of quadrisulfide. Silver trisulfide consists of 90 parts silver and 42 parts sulfur, or 100 parts silver and 46.5 parts sulfur. Its color is not as dark as that of silver sulfide. The remaining liquid contains sulfurous acid, which can easily be converted into sulfuric acid by adding a bit of lime; then the amount of acid can be measured using barium chloride.

16. Sulphurets of mercury.

Mercury combines readily with sulphur both in the dry and humid way, and that in several proportions, as under: namely,

Mercury easily combines with sulfur in both dry and wet conditions, and in various proportions, as follows:

1. Protosulphuret of mercury. This is most conveniently formed by passing sulphuretted hydrogen gas through a solution of the protonitrate of mercury, or by pouring hydrosulphuret of lime, &c. into the same solution. The protosulphuret falls down in the state of a [Pg 128] black powder. It consists of 167 mercury, and 14 sulphur; or of 100 mercury, and 8.4 sulphur. The theory of its formation is the same as that of silver.

1. Protosulphuret of mercury. This is easiest to create by passing hydrogen sulfide gas through a solution of mercury nitrate or by adding lime sulfide, etc., into the same solution. The protosulphuret forms as a black powder. It is made up of 167 parts mercury and 14 parts sulfur; or 100 parts mercury and 8.4 parts sulfur. The theory of how it forms is the same as that of silver. [Pg 128]

2. Deutosulphuret of mercury. This is formed in the humid way whenever sulphuretted hydrogen or a hydrosulphuret in excess is mixed with the deutonitrate or deutomuriate of mercury (corrosive sublimate); a brown powder is precipitated which is the deutosulphuret. If the sulphuretted hydrogen be only one half what is sufficient to form the deutosulphuret, then we obtain no sulphuret, but instead of it a protonitrate or protomuriate, as was first intimated by Proust; I find however, the atom of sulphur adheres to the atom of salt, and that it is therefore a sulphuretted protonitrate or muriate, whilst 1 atom of oxygen unites with the hydrogen. The brown precipitate does not change to yellow, orange, and red, when left undisturbed for a few days, in my experience; though this is stated to have been observed by Mr. Accum. Notwithstanding the difference in colour, this deutosulphuret must be the same nearly as the cinnabar and vermillion of commerce, if Proust and others are right in their analysis of these articles. The combination of the elements of sulphur and mercury when intended to [Pg 129] form cinnabar is made in the dry way by trituration, and a moderate heat: the compound, at first black, is afterwards sublimed by a duly regulated heat and becomes red. This compound must consist of 100 mercury and 17 sulphur nearly.

2. Deutosulphuret of mercury. This is created in a moist environment whenever there’s an excess of hydrogen sulfide or a hydrosulphuret mixed with the deutonitrate or deutomuriate of mercury (corrosive sublimate); a brown powder is formed, which is the deutosulphuret. If the hydrogen sulfide is only half of what’s needed to create the deutosulphuret, then we get no sulfuret, but instead a protonitrate or protomuriate, as first noted by Proust; however, I find that the sulfur atom attaches to the salt atom, making it a sulfur-containing protonitrate or muriate, while one atom of oxygen combines with the hydrogen. In my experience, the brown precipitate does not change to yellow, orange, and red when left undisturbed for a few days, although Mr. Accum has reported this to occur. Regardless of the color difference, this deutosulphuret must be nearly the same as the cinnabar and vermilion found commercially, if Proust and others are correct in their analysis of these substances. The combination of sulfur and mercury to create cinnabar is done in a dry manner through trituration and moderate heat: the compound, initially black, is then sublimed with controlled heat and turns red. This compound must consist of roughly 100 parts mercury and 17 parts sulfur.

3. Quadrisulphuret of mercury. This compound is formed when a solution of protonitrate of mercury is treated with quadrisulphuret of lime, added by degrees till the clear liquid no longer gives a dark coloured precipitate. The oxygen of the mercurial salt unites, it should seem, to part of the sulphur, and forms sulphuric acid, whilst the rest of the sulphur unites to the mercury. This sulphuret is a black or dark brown powder, and when heated burns with a blue flame. It consists of 100 mercury, and 33 or 34 sulphur, as appears to me from the synthesis.

3. Quadrisulphuret of mercury. This compound is created when a solution of protonitrate of mercury is treated with quadrisulphuret of lime, added gradually until the clear liquid stops producing a dark-colored precipitate. The oxygen from the mercurial salt seems to bond with some of the sulfur, forming sulfuric acid, while the remaining sulfur combines with the mercury. This sulfide appears as a black or dark brown powder, and when heated, it burns with a blue flame. It consists of 100 parts mercury and 33 or 34 parts sulfur, based on my observations from the synthesis.

When the insoluble muriate of mercury (calomel), is triturated in liquid quadrisulphuret of lime, it is soon decomposed; quadrisulphuret of mercury is formed, with muriate of lime and sulphuric or sulphurous acid.

When the insoluble muriate of mercury (calomel) is ground up in liquid quadrisulphuret of lime, it quickly breaks down; quadrisulphuret of mercury is produced, along with muriate of lime and sulfuric or sulfurous acid.

When the soluble muriate (corrosive sublimate), has quadrisulphuret of lime dropped into it by degrees; at first a yellowish white precipitate is obtained, which increases till it is one half saturated; after this, [Pg 130] by continually adding more sulphuret, the precipitate grows darker, and ends in being quite black. It is at least as high as quadrisulphuret. Much sulphurous acid is found in the liquid.

When the soluble muriate (corrosive sublimate) has quadrisulphuret of lime added gradually, a yellowish-white precipitate forms initially, which increases until it’s half saturated. After that, as more sulphuret is continuously added, the precipitate darkens and eventually turns completely black. It is at least as high as quadrisulphuret. A significant amount of sulphurous acid is present in the liquid. [Pg 130]

The deutonitrate of mercury, produces a copious yellow precipitate with quadrisulphuret of lime. Exposed to the sun, it grows black in a few minutes on the light side, but continues yellow on the opposite side of the jar; at the same time, an effervescence and disengagement of oxygen gas are observed. Finally, the precipitate becomes the common quadrisulphuret, and the liquid contains sulphurous and sulphuric acids.

The mercury deutonitrate creates a large yellow precipitate when mixed with calcium quadrisulphide. When exposed to sunlight, it turns black within minutes on the side facing the light, while staying yellow on the opposite side of the jar; during this process, there's bubbling and release of oxygen gas. Eventually, the precipitate transforms into the regular quadrisulphide, and the liquid contains sulfurous and sulfuric acids.

The recently precipitated and washed oxides of mercury act upon quadrisulphuret of lime. The black oxide seems to take 4 atoms of sulphur and part with its oxygen to another portion of sulphur; but the red oxide becomes light brown and retains the colour when dried. It seems to take the same sulphur as the black, but whether it retains any of the oxygen, I have not ascertained. The action is more slow than when the nitrates are used, and more quadrisulphuret of lime is expedient.

The newly formed and cleaned mercury oxides interact with calcium quadrisulphide. The black oxide appears to absorb 4 atoms of sulfur and transfers its oxygen to another sulfur portion; however, the red oxide turns light brown and maintains that color when dried. It seems to absorb the same sulfur as the black one, but I haven’t determined if it keeps any of the oxygen. The reaction is slower compared to when nitrates are used, and more calcium quadrisulphide is necessary.

Mercury and sulphur combine in the dry way by trituration and by heat, [Pg 131] forming a black powder; but the species of compounds and quantities of the ingredients combining in this mode, have not been ascertained.

Mercury and sulfur combine in a dry process through grinding and heat, [Pg 131] resulting in a black powder; however, the types of compounds and quantities of the ingredients used in this process have not been determined.

17. Sulphuret of palladium.

Berzelius exposed 15 grains of palladium filings mixed with as much sulphur to a heat sufficient to expel the uncombined sulphur. The increase of weight was 28 per cent. upon the palladium: when exposed afresh with sulphur to heat, no addition was made to the weight.

Berzelius heated 15 grains of palladium filings mixed with enough sulfur to drive off the uncombined sulfur. The weight of the palladium increased by 28 percent. When it was heated again with sulfur, there was no further weight gain.

Vauquelin heated 100 parts of the triple salt of palladium with an equal weight of sulphur, and obtained 52 parts of a blueish white sulphuret, very hard, and when broken exhibiting brilliant plates in its fracture. He had previously found that 100 salt contained 40 to 42 of metal: hence 100 metal combined with from 24 to 30 of sulphur. This agrees nearly with the above results of Berzelius. A very high degree of heat expels the sulphur and oxidizes the metal; but a more moderate heat leaves the palladium of a silver white colour and nearly pure. According to this the atom of protosulphuret of palladium must consist of 50 palladium, and 14 sulphur. [Pg 132]

Vauquelin heated 100 parts of the triple salt of palladium with an equal weight of sulfur and produced 52 parts of a bluish-white sulfide that was very hard and, when broken, showed brilliant plates in its fracture. He had previously found that 100 parts of salt contained 40 to 42 parts of metal; therefore, 100 parts of metal combined with 24 to 30 parts of sulfur. This is nearly consistent with Berzelius's earlier findings. A very high degree of heat drives off the sulfur and oxidizes the metal, but a more moderate heat leaves the palladium a silvery-white color and nearly pure. This suggests that the protosulfide of palladium consists of 50 parts palladium and 14 parts sulfur. [Pg 132]

18. Sulphuret of rhodium.

Vauquelin found that 4 parts of the ammonia-muriate of rhodium (containing 28 or 29 per cent. of metal) being mixed with an equal weight of sulphur, and heated, a blueish white button was obtained, weighing 1.4. Hence 100 metal seem to take 25 of sulphur; and allowing this to be the protosulphuret of rhodium, the atom must consist of one rhodium 56, and one sulphur 14, making the whole weight 70.

Vauquelin discovered that mixing 4 parts of the ammonia-muriate of rhodium (which contains 28 or 29 percent metal) with an equal weight of sulfur and heating the mixture produced a bluish-white button weighing 1.4. This suggests that 100 parts of metal require 25 parts of sulfur; if we consider this to be the protosulphuret of rhodium, then the atom must consist of one rhodium (56) and one sulfur (14), adding up to a total weight of 70.

19. Sulphuret of iridium.

According to Vauquelin, 100 parts of the ammonia-muriate of iridium heated with as much sulphur, yield 60 parts of black powder resembling the other metallic sulphurets; but 100 parts of the salt were found to yield from 42 to 45 of metal. Now supposing the last number the most correct, it should seem that 3 parts iridium take 1 sulphur, or 100 take 33⅓. This being supposed the protosulphuret, the atom of iridium must be 42, and that of the sulphuret 56.

According to Vauquelin, when you heat 100 parts of the ammonia-muriate of iridium with an equal amount of sulfur, you get 60 parts of black powder that looks like other metallic sulfides. However, 100 parts of the salt were found to produce between 42 and 45 parts of metal. Assuming the higher number is the most accurate, it appears that 3 parts of iridium react with 1 part of sulfur, or that 100 parts of iridium would react with about 33⅓ parts of sulfur. Based on this assumption, if this is the protosulfide, then the atomic weight of iridium must be 42 and that of the sulfide must be 56.

20. Sulphuret of osmium.

It is as yet unknown whether any combination of sulphur and osmium exists. [Pg 133]

It is still unknown whether any combination of sulfur and osmium exists. [Pg 133]

21. Sulphurets of copper.

Copper readily unites with sulphur both in the dry and humid way. When 3 parts of copper filings are mixed with 1 part of sulphur, and heat applied, a brilliant combustion ensues, which indicates the union of the two bodies. Copper leaf burns in the fumes of sulphur, as Berzelius has observed, with great brilliancy.

Copper easily combines with sulfur both in dry and wet conditions. When 3 parts of copper filings are mixed with 1 part of sulfur and heated, a vivid combustion occurs, showing the union of the two substances. Copper leaf burns brightly in sulfur fumes, as Berzelius noted.

The protosulphuret of copper obtained by these similar methods, when pulverized, is black or dark coloured; it has been analyzed by various authors, who nearly agree in their results. Proust finds 100 copper unite with 28 sulphur; Wenzel, 100 copper and 25 sulphur; Vauquelin, 100 copper and 27 sulphur; and Berzelius 100 copper and 25 sulphur.

The copper protosulphide produced by these similar methods turns black or dark when ground up. Various authors have analyzed it, and their findings are pretty consistent. Proust found that 100 parts of copper combine with 28 parts of sulfur; Wenzel found 100 parts of copper and 25 parts of sulfur; Vauquelin found 100 parts of copper and 27 parts of sulfur; and Berzelius found 100 parts of copper and 25 parts of sulfur.

If the atom of copper be 56, and that of sulphur 14, the atom of protosulphuret of copper will be 70; which gives just 100 copper and 25 sulphur.

If the atomic weight of copper is 56 and that of sulfur is 14, then the atomic weight of copper(I) sulfide will be 70, resulting in 100 parts copper and 25 parts sulfur.

The protosulphuret may also be formed in the humid way, by sending sulphuretted hydrogen gas or a hydrosulphuret into a solution of protomuriate of copper, or amongst the recently precipitated protoxide of copper.

The protosulphuret can also be created in a wet process by introducing hydrogen sulfide gas or a hydrosulphuret into a solution of copper(I) chloride, or into the freshly precipitated copper(I) oxide.

Deutosulphuret of copper. This compound is formed whenever [Pg 134] sulphuretted hydrogen gas or a hydrosulphuret is sent into a solution of salt containing the deutoxide, or into the deutoxide just precipitated from any acid. It is a dark brown powder not differing much in appearance from the protosulphuret. It consists of 100 copper and 50 sulphur; the weight of the atom is 84.

Deutosulphuret of copper. This compound is created whenever hydrogen sulfide gas or a hydrosulfide is introduced into a salt solution that contains the deutoxide, or into the deutoxide that has just been precipitated from any acid. It appears as a dark brown powder that looks quite similar to protosulphuret. Its composition is 100 parts copper and 50 parts sulfur; the weight of the atom is 84.

Quadrisulphuret of copper. This compound is formed by mixing quadrisulphuret of lime with a salt of the deutoxide of copper, and diluting the solution. A light brown precipitate falls immediately, which is the quadrisulphuret of copper. It burns with a blue flame, and leaves the protosulphuret. The atom consists of 56 copper and 56 sulphur, or weighs 112; and hence the sulphuret consists of equal parts copper and sulphur.

Quadrisulphuret of copper. This compound is created by combining quadrisulphuret of lime with a salt of the deutoxide of copper and diluting the solution. A light brown precipitate forms right away, which is the quadrisulphuret of copper. It burns with a blue flame and leaves behind the protosulphuret. The atom is made up of 56 copper and 56 sulphur, or weighs 112; thus, the sulphuret consists of equal parts copper and sulphur.

The blue hydrate of copper recently precipitated from a salt of copper and washed, acts upon quadrisulphuret of lime; the results, according to my experience, is quadrisulphuret of copper, and the oxygen unites with the sulphur remaining in the liquor.

The blue hydrate of copper that was recently formed from a copper salt and washed reacts with calcium tetrasulfide; in my experience, this results in copper tetrasulfide, and the oxygen combines with the sulfur left in the solution.

22. Sulphurets of iron.

Sulphur may be united to iron either by the dry or humid way, and that in various proportions. [Pg 135]

Sulfur can be combined with iron using either the dry method or the wet method, and in different amounts. [Pg 135]

Protosulphuret of iron. This compound may be formed by passing a hydrosulphuret into a solution of the green oxide in any acid. It is a black powder. It may also be formed by rubbing a highly heated bar of iron with a roll of sulphur; the two unite in a fluid form and soon congeal into a brownish black mass. It is too a natural production, though not very common; excellent analyses of it, as well as of the common pyrites, were some time ago given by Mr. Hatchett. (See Nicholson’s Journ. Vol. 10.) The protosulphuret is magnetic in a considerable degree; it is soluble in acids, and yields sulphuretted hydrogen. It is proper to notice that the sulphuret of iron is not precipitated from solutions by sulphuretted hydrogen simply or without a base. According to Mr. Hatchett this sulphuret consists of 100 iron, and 57 sulphur, which corresponds with 1 atom iron 25, and 1 of sulphur, 14, nearly.

Protosulphuret of iron. This compound can be created by adding a hydrosulphuret to a solution of green oxide in any acid. It appears as a black powder. It can also be made by rubbing a hot iron bar with a piece of sulfur; the two melt together and soon solidify into a brownish-black mass. It also occurs naturally, though it's not very common; thorough analyses of it, along with common pyrites, were provided some time ago by Mr. Hatchett. (See Nicholson’s Journ. Vol. 10.) The protosulphuret is significantly magnetic; it dissolves in acids, producing hydrogen sulfide. It's important to note that the sulfide of iron is not precipitated from solutions by hydrogen sulfide alone or without a base. According to Mr. Hatchett, this sulfide consists of 100 parts iron and 57 parts sulfur, which nearly corresponds to 1 atom of iron (25) and 1 atom of sulfur (14).

Deutosulphuret of iron. This is a natural production frequently met with, and in various forms; it is called pyrites, or iron pyrites; it is a yellowish mineral and often appears when broken, of a radiated texture, but sometimes it is crystallized in cubes or dodecahedrons. Acids have little effect upon it, except the nitric, which when diluted [Pg 136] attacks both the sulphur and iron; much nitrous gas is produced, the iron is dissolved, and the sulphur chiefly converted into sulphuric acid. This sulphuret consists, according to Proust, of 100 iron, and 90 sulphur, and with this Bucholz recently agrees (Nichols. 27—356); but Hatchett makes it 100 iron, and 112 sulphur. From an experiment of my own on the radiated pyrites, I found nearly equal parts of iron and sulphur. One atom of iron (25,) and two of sulphur (28,) would give 100 to 112; but if the atom of sulphur be only 13, it gives 100 iron to 104 sulphur. Mr. Hatchett unfortunately calculating the proportions of the ingredients in 100 sulphuret, instead of on 100 iron, did not notice that the sulphur in the common pyrites is just double of that in the magnetic pyrites.

Deutosulphuret of iron. This is a natural occurrence found in various forms; it’s called pyrites, or iron pyrites. It’s a yellowish mineral that often has a radiated texture when broken, but sometimes it crystallizes in cubes or dodecahedrons. Acids have little effect on it, except for nitric acid, which when diluted, attacks both the sulfur and iron, producing a lot of nitrous gas. The iron dissolves, and most of the sulfur is converted into sulfuric acid. According to Proust, this sulfide consists of 100 parts iron and 90 parts sulfur, which Bucholz recently agrees with (Nichols. 27—356); however, Hatchett claims it’s 100 parts iron and 112 parts sulfur. In my own experiment with the radiated pyrites, I found nearly equal amounts of iron and sulfur. One atom of iron (25) and two atoms of sulfur (28) would give 100 to 112; but if the sulfur atom is only 13, it gives 100 parts iron to 104 parts sulfur. Unfortunately, Mr. Hatchett calculated the proportions of the ingredients in 100 sulfide instead of on 100 iron, failing to notice that the sulfur in common pyrites is exactly double that in magnetic pyrites.

Quinsulphuret of iron. This combination consisting of 5 atoms of sulphur with 1 of iron, is formed by mixing a solution of green sulphate of iron with quadrisulphuret of lime in due proportion. I found 50 measures sulphate 1.168 saturate 310 of 1.05 sulphuret diluted so as to become 6 oz.; this yielded 14 grs. dried sulphuret of iron = 3.6 iron, known to be in the sulphate, and 10.4 sulphur; the liquid contained 2+ sulphur combined with the lime and oxygen of the oxide; [Pg 137] for it took 2.3 oxygen by means of oxymuriate of lime to convert the sulphur into sulphuric acid together with 1+ from the oxide, making 3+ oxygen, which unites to 2+ sulphur to constitute 5+ sulphuric acid; and this quantity of acid was found to exist by muriate of barytes together with five more brought in by the sulphate of iron. This sulphuret is a yellowish brown powder; it readily exhales sulphur by heat and is reduced to the protosulphuret; but in the open air it burns with a blue flame and leaves the protosulphuret partially, as I apprehend, oxidized. The theory of the formation of quinsulphuret seems to be this: 3 atoms of quadrisulphuret of lime are requisite to saturate 2 of sulphate of iron; the 2 atoms of sulphuric acid seize 2 of lime, three fourths of the sulphur unite to the iron, and one fourth to its oxygen, forming 2 atoms of oxide of sulphur, which attack the 3d atom of sulphuret and decompose it, giving its sulphur to the iron, and neutralizing the lime (for the liquid is found neutral). In this way 10 atoms of sulphur are united to 2 of iron, and 2 of sulphur to 2 of oxygen, with one of lime, which last compound remains in solution, and the oxide of sulphur may be converted into sulphuric acid immediately by the application of oxymuriate of lime. [Pg 138]

Quinsulphuret of iron. This compound, made up of 5 atoms of sulfur and 1 atom of iron, is created by mixing a solution of green iron sulfate with quadrisulfur lime in the correct amounts. I found that 50 measures of sulfate 1.168 saturate 310 of 1.05 sulfide diluted to become 6 oz.; this produced 14 grams of dried iron sulfide, which equals 3.6 grams of iron known to be in the sulfate, and 10.4 grams of sulfur; the liquid contained 2+ grams of sulfur combined with the lime and oxygen from the oxide; [Pg 137] because it required 2.3 grams of oxygen through oxychloride of lime to turn the sulfur into sulfuric acid alongside 1+ from the oxide, totaling 3+ grams of oxygen, which combines with 2+ grams of sulfur to form 5+ grams of sulfuric acid; and this amount of acid was detected by barium chloride alongside five more introduced by the iron sulfate. This sulfide appears as a yellowish-brown powder; it quickly releases sulfur when heated and is reduced to the protosulfide; however, in open air, it burns with a blue flame and leaves the protosulfide partially, as I believe, oxidized. The theory behind the formation of quinsulphuret seems to be this: 3 atoms of quadrisulfur lime are needed to saturate 2 atoms of iron sulfate; the 2 atoms of sulfuric acid react with 2 of lime, three-quarters of the sulfur bond with the iron, and one-quarter with its oxygen, forming 2 atoms of sulfur oxide, which attack the 3rd atom of sulfide and break it down, transferring its sulfur to the iron and neutralizing the lime (since the liquid is found to be neutral). In this manner, 10 atoms of sulfur bond with 2 of iron, and 2 of sulfur bond with 2 of oxygen, along with one of lime, the latter compound remaining dissolved, and the sulfur oxide can be quickly turned into sulfuric acid with the addition of oxychloride of lime. [Pg 138]

It is remarkable that neither the green nor the yellow oxides of iron, even when recently precipitated and not dried, seems capable of decomposing quadrisulphuret of lime.

It’s surprising that neither the green nor the yellow iron oxides, even when freshly precipitated and still wet, appear to be able to break down quadrisulphuret of lime.

It is probable that trisulphuret and quadrisulphuret of iron may be formed; but I have not ascertained the truth of this opinion.

It’s likely that iron trisulfide and iron tetrasulfide can form, but I haven’t confirmed this belief.

23. Sulphurets of nickel.

Protosulphuret. According to Proust, nickel unites to sulphur by heat, so that 100 take 46 or 48; the sulphuret is of the colour of common pyrites. (Journ. de Physique, 63 and 80). According to Mr. Ed. Davy 100 nickel take 54 sulphur. By saturating a solution of nitrate of nickel with hydrosulphuret of lime I obtained 40 grains from 33 protoxide or 26 metal. This was evidently the protosulphuret; it was a fine black powder, and consists of 100 metal and 54 sulphur.

Protosulphuret. According to Proust, nickel combines with sulfur when heated, so that 100 parts nickel reacts with 46 or 48 parts sulfur; the resulting sulfide is similar in color to common pyrite. (Journ. de Physique, 63 and 80). According to Mr. Ed. Davy, 100 parts nickel react with 54 parts sulfur. By saturating a nickel nitrate solution with calcium hydrosulfide, I obtained 40 grains from 33 parts protoxide or 26 parts metal. This was clearly the protosulphuret; it was a fine black powder made up of 100 parts metal and 54 parts sulfur.

Quinsulphuret. This compound may be obtained from nitrate of nickel and quadrisulphuret of lime, in the same manner as that of iron. It is a deep black powder, and consists of 100 nickel, and 215 sulphur. By exposure to heat, the greatest part of the sulphur burns off, and the rest may be expelled by an increase of temperature. [Pg 139]

Quinsulphuret. This compound can be obtained from nickel nitrate and lime quadrisulphide, similar to how it's done with iron. It is a deep black powder, consisting of 100 parts nickel and 215 parts sulfur. When heated, most of the sulfur burns off, and the remainder can be removed by increasing the temperature. [Pg 139]

Probably intermediate sulphurets may be formed; but I have not pursued the investigation.

Probably intermediate sulfides may be formed; but I have not followed up on the investigation.

24. Sulphurets of tin.

Sulphur and tin unite both in the dry and humid way, and in various proportions.

Sulfur and tin can combine both in dry and wet conditions, and in different proportions.

Protosulphuret. This may be readily formed in the dry way as follows; let 100 grains of tin be fused in a small iron ladle and heated to 6 or 8 hundred degrees Fahrenheit; let then small pieces of sulphur of 10 or 20 grains be successively dropped into the fused metal: a copious blue flame will instantly arise each time, and a glowing heat will take place, when the sulphur and tin are in contact; as soon as this ceases, another fragment of sulphur must be dropped in, and this two or three times repeated, heating it at last to a perfect red; the mass may then be taken out and pounded in a mortar; a great part of it will be a pulverulent powder, but some portions of malleable metal will still be mixed with it, which may be separated by a sieve. This must be again heated and treated with sulphur as before, and the whole mass will be converted to a sulphuret. I find that 100 parts of tin become in this way 127 grains; which is the due proportion of 52 tin and 14 sulphur, so that no loss of tin is sustained by the process [Pg 140] when duly managed. According to Wenzel, 100 tin take 18 sulphur; Bergman, 25; Pelletier, 15 to 20; Proust, 20; but Dr. John Davy and Berzelius find nearly 27 as above stated, and I have no doubt it is near the truth.

Protosulphuret. This can be easily made in a dry process as follows: Take 100 grains of tin and melt it in a small iron ladle, heating it to between 600 and 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, drop small pieces of sulfur weighing 10 or 20 grains into the melted metal one at a time. Each time you do this, a bright blue flame will appear, and there will be intense heat when the sulfur and tin touch. Once this reaction stops, drop in another piece of sulfur, repeating this two or three times, and then heat it until it turns a deep red. After that, you can remove the mixture and grind it in a mortar; most of it will become a fine powder, but some malleable metal will still remain, which can be separated using a sieve. This should be reheated and treated with sulfur again, and the entire mixture will turn into a sulfide. I observe that 100 parts of tin turn into 127 grains this way, which is the correct ratio of 52 tin to 14 sulfur, meaning there’s no loss of tin in the process when done properly. According to Wenzel, 100 parts of tin require 18 sulfur; Bergman suggests 25; Pelletier says 15 to 20; Proust recommends 20; but Dr. John Davy and Berzelius find it to be nearly 27 as previously mentioned, and I believe this is close to the truth. [Pg 140]

The protosulphuret of tin is a dark grey shining powder, with a streak like molybdena or plumbago; it is not much different in colour and appearance from native sulphuret of antimony, only less blue. It is soluble in muriatic acid by heat, and yields sulphuretted hydrogen and protomuriate of tin.

The protosulphuret of tin is a shiny dark grey powder with a streak similar to molybdenum or graphite; it looks pretty much like natural antimony sulfide, just a bit less blue. It dissolves in hydrochloric acid when heated and produces hydrogen sulfide and tin(II) chloride.

Deutosulphuret. This compound is better known than the former: it may be formed in various ways; one is by heating a mixture of deutoxide of tin and sulphur in a retort almost to a red heat; sulphur sublimes and sulphurous acid is disengaged, and there remains a yellow, light shining, flaky mass at the bottom of the retort which is the sulphuret. It was formerly called aurum musivum or mosaic gold. Pelletier and Proust were of opinion that this product is a sulphuretted oxide of tin; but Dr. John Davy and Berzelius have rendered it more probable that it is a true deutosulphuret, consisting of 100 tin and 54 sulphur. It is insoluble in muriatic or nitric acid, but slowly soluble by the compound of the two acids; it is also soluble [Pg 141] in potash by heat. By exposing it to a bright red heat, it burns with a blue flame and leaves a yellowish powder which dues not seem to differ much from protosulphuret.

Deutosulphuret. This compound is better known than the previous one: it can be created in several ways; one method involves heating a mixture of tin dioxide and sulfur in a retort until almost red hot. Sulfur sublimates, and sulfurous acid is released, leaving a yellow, shiny, flaky mass at the bottom of the retort, which is the sulfide. It was previously called aurum musivum or mosaic gold. Pelletier and Proust believed this product is a sulfur-containing oxide of tin, but Dr. John Davy and Berzelius have made it more likely that it is a true deutosulphuret, made up of 100 parts tin and 54 parts sulfur. It is insoluble in hydrochloric or nitric acid but slowly dissolves when the two acids are mixed; it is also soluble in potash when heated. When exposed to a bright red heat, it burns with a blue flame and leaves a yellowish powder that doesn’t seem to differ much from protosulphuret.

Berzelius distilled a mixture of protosulphuret and sulphur at a low red heat, and obtained a mass of a yellow grey colour and metallic lustre, which consisted of 100 tin, and 14 sulphur, which is just the mean sulphur between the other two. This would seem to indicate that a compound of the two sulphurets, 1 atom to 1, is capable of being formed.

Berzelius heated a mixture of protosulphuret and sulfur at a low red heat and got a mass that was yellow-gray and shiny, made up of 100 parts tin and 14 parts sulfur, which is exactly the average amount of sulfur between the other two. This suggests that a compound of the two sulphurets, 1 atom to 1, can be formed.

Hydrosulphuret of tin minor. This compound is formed according to Proust, when sulphuretted hydrogen, or an alkaline or earthy hydrosulphuret is passed into a solution of protomuriate of tin. It is of a brown or dark coffee colour when precipitated, and black when dried. By heat it yields water and protosulphuret. From some experiments I am inclined to believe, that it is formed of 1 atom protosulphuret and 1 of water: or, which is the same, 1 atom protoxide of tin and 1 of sulphuretted hydrogen. If this be right it may be said to be a compound of 100 tin, 27 sulphur and 15 water. [Pg 142]

Hydrosulphuret of tin minor. This compound is created, according to Proust, when hydrogen sulfide or an alkaline or earthy hydrosulphuret is introduced into a solution of tin(II) chloride. It appears brown or dark coffee-colored when precipitated and black when dried. When heated, it releases water and tin(II) sulfide. Based on some experiments, I suspect that it is made up of 1 atom of tin(II) sulfide and 1 atom of water; or, equivalently, 1 atom of tin(II) oxide and 1 atom of hydrogen sulfide. If this is correct, it can be described as a compound containing 100 tin, 27 sulfur, and 15 water. [Pg 142]

Hydrosulphuret of tin major. This name is given by Proust to the yellow compound thrown down by sulphuretted hydrogen or by hydrosulphurets from solutions of the deutoxide of tin. When dried moderately, the precipitate is of a dull yellow colour, and vitreous fracture, but I find it is almost black, dried in a heat of 150° or upwards. By moderate heat it yields water, sulphurous acid, sulphur, and the residue is deutosulphuret of tin according to Proust. I heated 4 parts of the above previously dried so as to become a black vitreous powder; it burned feebly with a blue flame, and after being made moderately red, left nearly 3 parts exactly resembling the artificial protosulphuret. I believe the dried precipitate will be found to be constituted of 1 atom tin, 2 sulphur and 1 water; that is, 100 tin, 54 sulphur and 15 water = 169 by weight; and that it loses 27 sulphur and 15 water by a red heat, which reduces the weight just one fourth.

Hydrosulphuret of tin major. Proust gives this name to the yellow compound that forms when hydrogen sulfide or hydrosulphurets react with solutions of tin dioxide. When dried moderately, the precipitate appears dull yellow and has a glassy texture, but I’ve found that when dried at 150° or higher, it turns almost black. At moderate heat, it releases water, sulfur dioxide, and sulfur, leaving behind deutosulphuret of tin according to Proust. I heated 4 parts of the above, previously dried until it became a black glassy powder; it burned faintly with a blue flame, and after being heated to a moderate red, it left nearly 3 parts that looked just like artificial protosulphuret. I believe the dried precipitate consists of 1 atom of tin, 2 atoms of sulfur, and 1 molecule of water; that is, 100 tin, 54 sulfur, and 15 water = 169 by weight, and it loses 27 sulfur and 15 water when subjected to red heat, reducing the weight by exactly one fourth.

Quinsulphuret of tin. This is obtained in the humid way, by first precipitating the oxide, and then putting quadrisulphuret of lime or potash to the liquid containing the precipitate, till the liquid after agitation and subsidence of the precipitate continues of a yellowish colour. I found that 31 measures of protomuriate of tin of [Pg 143] 1.377 = 7 grains acid, 7.5 tin and 1 oxygen, precipitated by 10 oz. lime water, required 450 measures of 1.40 sulphuret of lime, containing 16 sulphur and 7.2 lime, for their saturation. The residuary liquid was nearly colourless, and the precipitate dried in an oven of 100° or more, for 10 hours, weighed 17 grains besides loss in the operation. It was a yellow, vitreous mass, and when pulverized and heated, burned with a blue flame, and lost 40 per cent. in weight; the residue was a yellow grey colour, and seemed to be like the intermediate sulphuret of Berzelius; it would not give sulphuretted hydrogen by hot muriatic acid. Now if 52 (1 atom tin) ∶ 70 (5 atoms sulphur) ∷ 7.5 tin ∶ 10+ sulphur; hence the sulphuret should have weighed 17.5 grains, which was the observed weight, allowing ½ grain for loss. According to this, 100 tin combine with 135 sulphur, and when burnt, the 235 are reduced to 140, the weight observed by Berzelius in the instance alluded to. The liquid required 5 grains of oxygen from oxymuriate of lime, to convert the sulphur into sulphuric acid, and the weight of this acid, found by muriate of barytes, was 11 grains, indicating 4.4 sulphur. It may be observed that the 4.4 grains, and 10 grains, do not make up the whole [Pg 144] (16) of the sulphuret of lime; but the reason I apprehend was, that the quadrisulphuret was old, and did not contain the full share of sulphur, it being usual for a small part to fall by time.

Quinsulphuret of tin. This is obtained through a wet process, first by precipitating the oxide and then adding quadrisulphuret of lime or potash to the liquid with the precipitate until the liquid remains yellow after mixing and settling. I found that 31 measures of protomuriate of tin of 1.377 = 7 grains acid, 7.5 tin, and 1 oxygen, precipitated by 10 oz. of lime water, needed 450 measures of 1.40 sulphuret of lime, which contained 16 sulphur and 7.2 lime, to fully saturate it. The leftover liquid was almost colorless, and the precipitate dried in an oven at 100° or higher for 10 hours weighed 17 grains, excluding losses during the process. It was a yellow, glassy mass, and when ground and heated, it burned with a blue flame and lost 40 percent of its weight; the remaining residue was a yellow-grey color and resembled the intermediate sulphuret of Berzelius; it did not yield hydrogen sulfide with hot muriatic acid. Now if we consider 52 (1 atom of tin) : 70 (5 atoms of sulfur) :: 7.5 tin : 10+ sulfur; thus, the sulphuret should weigh 17.5 grains, which matches the observed weight when accounting for a half grain loss. This means 100 parts of tin combine with 135 parts of sulfur, and when burned, the 235 parts are reduced to 140, which is the weight noted by Berzelius in the mentioned case. The liquid needed 5 grains of oxygen from oxymuriate of lime to turn the sulfur into sulfuric acid, and the weight of this acid, determined using barium chloride, was 11 grains, indicating 4.4 sulfur. It is worth noting that the 4.4 grains and 10 grains do not total the entire 16 of the sulphuret of lime; the likely reason is that the quadrisulphuret was older and did not contain its full sulfur content, as it is common for a small amount to degrade over time.

The deutomuriate of tin, precipitating the oxide in like manner, yielded a sulphuret rather lighter yellow than the above; about 10 tin gave 25 grains of sulphuret dried in a temperature of 80 to 100°. This compound still contained water, and I suspect it will be found constituted of 1 atom tin, 5 sulphur, and 2 water.

The deutomuriate of tin, which precipitated the oxide similarly, produced a sulfide that was a bit lighter yellow than the previous one; about 10 tin produced 25 grains of sulfide dried at a temperature of 80 to 100°. This compound still had water in it, and I suspect it will be found to consist of 1 atom of tin, 5 atoms of sulfur, and 2 molecules of water.

25. Sulphurets of lead.

Lead combines with sulphur in various proportions, some of which are natural productions of great purity.

Lead combines with sulfur in different amounts, some of which are naturally occurring and very pure.

Protosulphuret. This is a natural production which is called galena; it is of lead grey colour and metallic appearance, and is found both in masses and crystallized; its sp. gr. is about 7.5. It may be formed artificially by heating lead or its oxide with sulphur; also by treating a solution of lead with sulphuretted hydrogen or with a hydrosulphuret. Authors are well agreed as to the proportions of the ingredients; 100 lead combine with from 15 to 16 sulphur. That is, 90 lead with 14 sulphur; or 1 atom of lead with 1 of sulphur. [Pg 145]

Protosulphuret. This is a natural substance known as galena. It has a lead gray color and a metallic look, and can be found both in large chunks and in crystal form; its specific gravity is about 7.5. It can also be made artificially by heating lead or its oxide with sulfur, or by treating a lead solution with hydrogen sulfide or a hydrosulfide. Authors generally agree on the proportions of the components; 100 parts of lead combine with 15 to 16 parts of sulfur. That means 90 parts of lead combine with 14 parts of sulfur, or 1 atom of lead combines with 1 atom of sulfur. [Pg 145]

Deutosulphuret. Dr. Thomson mentions a natural production or species of galena which contains twice the quantity of sulphur of that above. I have reason to believe that this compound is easily formed in the humid way, by treating the precipitated oxide with the due quantity of quadrisulphuret of lime.

Deutosulphuret. Dr. Thomson talks about a natural type of galena that has twice the amount of sulfur compared to the one mentioned earlier. I believe this compound can be easily created through a wet process by treating the precipitated oxide with the appropriate amount of quadrisulphuret of lime.

Trisulphuret and quadrisulphuret. These compounds, I find, may be formed by means of quadrisulphuret of lime or potash. When a solution of any salt of lead or the recently precipitated and moist oxide, is treated with the requisite quantity of quadrisulphuret of lime, a combination consisting of 1 atom of lead and 3 of sulphur is formed. It is a black powder not differing much in appearance from the protosulphuret; it is lighter and more spongy. It consists of 100 lead and 46 or 47 sulphur. The due proportions of the elements to form the above compound are, lead 100 parts in solution, and sulphur, 62 parts; ¼ of the sulphur is retained by the lime, and may be converted into sulphuric acid instantly by the addition of as much oxymuriate of lime as contains oxygen equal in weight to the sulphur, as it has already as much oxygen as converts it into sulphurous oxide, derived from the oxide of lead. [Pg 146]

Trisulphuret and quadrisulphuret. I’ve discovered that these compounds can be created using quadrisulphuret of lime or potash. When you treat a solution of any lead salt or the freshly precipitated moist oxide with the right amount of quadrisulphuret of lime, you get a combination made up of 1 atom of lead and 3 atoms of sulphur. This results in a black powder that looks quite similar to protosulphuret; however, it’s lighter and more spongy. It consists of 100 parts lead and 46 or 47 parts sulphur. To form this compound, the correct proportions are 100 parts lead in solution and 62 parts sulphur; a quarter of the sulphur is held by the lime, and it can be quickly converted into sulphuric acid by adding enough oxymuriate of lime to provide oxygen equal in weight to the sulphur, since it already contains enough oxygen to turn it into sulphurous oxide from the lead oxide. [Pg 146]

Quadrisulphuret of lead is to be obtained in the same way; only we must have an excess of the sulphuret of lime, or more than 80 sulphur for 100 lead in solution, as ⅕ part of the sulphur at least is retained by the lime. The quadrisulphuret is a black powder like the others; it burns with a blue flame and loses nearly 40 per cent., the residue being still black. It consists of 100 lead and 62 sulphur.

Quadrisulphuret of lead can be made in the same way; we just need to use more than 80 parts sulfur for every 100 parts lead in the solution since at least ⅕ of the sulfur is absorbed by the lime. The quadrisulphuret is a black powder like the others; it burns with a blue flame and loses almost 40 percent of its mass, leaving a residue that is still black. It’s made up of 100 parts lead and 62 parts sulfur.

I have not ascertained whether any higher sulphuret of lead is capable of being formed this way.

I haven't figured out if any higher lead sulfide can be created this way.

It has been already noticed (page 109), that a beautiful white, silvery sulphuretted sulphite of lead is formed and gradually precipitated, when nitrate of lead is dropped into a solution where as much black quadrisulphuret of lead has been just thrown down as the sulphuret of lime can form.

It has already been observed (page 109) that a beautiful white, silvery lead sulfide is created and slowly settles out when lead nitrate is added to a solution where an equal amount of black lead quadrisulphide has just been precipitated as can be formed by lead sulfide.

26. Sulphurets of zinc.

Zinc and sulphur are scarcely to be united directly by heat; but by heating the oxide of zinc and sulphur together, a combination is effected; part of the sulphur carries off the oxygen in sulphurous acid, and part combines with the zinc. Mineralogists give the name of [Pg 147] blende to a mineral which is chiefly the protosulphuret of zinc: its colour is yellowish, brown, or black almost like galena: its specific gravity is usually 3.9 or 4.

Zinc and sulfur can hardly be combined directly through heat; however, when you heat zinc oxide and sulfur together, a reaction occurs. Some of the sulfur pulls away the oxygen, forming sulfurous acid, while the rest combines with the zinc. Mineralogists refer to a mineral primarily made up of zinc protosulphide as blende; its colors are yellowish, brown, or black, similar to galena. Its specific gravity typically ranges from 3.9 to 4. [Pg 147]

Protosulphuret. The above artificial compound, or the mineral, may be taken as examples of the union of 1 atom zinc and 1 sulphur. But the most correct and convenient way of forming it for the purpose of chemical investigation is, to drop a given portion of some salt of zinc into a dilute hydrosulphuret. A white precipitate falls, which when dried becomes a dark cream colour. It is found to consist of 2 parts zinc and 1 of sulphur nearly; that is, of 29 parts zinc and 14 sulphur.

Protosulphuret. The artificial compound mentioned above, or the mineral, can be seen as an example of the combination of 1 atom of zinc and 1 atom of sulfur. However, the most accurate and convenient method for creating it for chemical research is to add a specific amount of a zinc salt to a dilute hydrosulfide solution. A white precipitate forms, which, when dried, turns a dark cream color. It’s found to be made up of nearly 2 parts zinc and 1 part sulfur, which translates to 29 parts zinc and 14 parts sulfur.

Deutosulphuret, trisulphuret, &c. of zinc. These combinations may be made, up to the 5th or quinsulphuret, in the humid way by quadrisulphuret of lime, &c. The oxide may be first precipitated by lime water, or not, as we please, and then treated with quadrisulphuret according to the degree of sulphuration required. I found 100 measures of 1.29 nitrate of zinc with 2500 of 1.026 sulphuret of lime yield 40 grs. dry sulphuret zinc, of a yellowish white colour; the liquid was found to retain 13 or 14 grains of sulphur, by [Pg 148] converting it into sulphuric acid by means of oxymuriate of lime. The nitrate contained 11½ zinc and 2.8 oxygen; so that about 28 sulphur had combined with the zinc, and about 14 remained in solution, or ⅓ of the whole, as has been already explained. By proportion, if 11½ ∶ 28 ∷ 29 ∶ 70; or 1 atom of zinc (29) combines with 5 atoms of sulphur (70). The intermediate combinations I have not particularly examined; they do not differ much in appearance from the one just described; they burn blue and are reduced by it to the protosulphuret; and they give sulphuretted hydrogen by muriatic acid.

Deuterium sulfide, trisulfur, etc., of zinc. These combinations can be made, up to the fifth or quintuple sulfide, using the wet method with quadrisulfide of lime, etc. The oxide can be first precipitated with lime water, or not, depending on our preference, and then treated with quadrisulfide according to how much sulfurization is needed. I found that combining 100 measures of 1.29 nitrate of zinc with 2500 of 1.026 sulfide of lime produced 40 grams of dry zinc sulfide, which was a yellowish white color; the liquid retained 13 or 14 grains of sulfur, which was converted into sulfuric acid using oxymuriate of lime. The nitrate contained 11.5 zinc and 2.8 oxygen; thus, about 28 sulfur combined with the zinc, leaving about 14 in solution, or ⅓ of the total, as previously explained. By proportion, if 11.5 : 28 :: 29 : 70; or 1 atom of zinc (29) combines with 5 atoms of sulfur (70). I have not specifically examined the intermediate combinations; they do not differ much in appearance from the one just described; they burn blue and are reduced to protosulfide; they also produce hydrogen sulfide when treated with hydrochloric acid.

27 and 28. Sulphurets of potassium
and sodium.

According to Davy and Gay Lussac, potassium and sodium unite with sulphur by heat with vivid combustion. The compounds appear to be protosulphurets, that of potash being nearly as 35 potassium to 14 sulphur, and that of sodium as 21 sodium to 14 sulphur. When potassium and sodium are heated along with sulphuretted hydrogen, an union likewise takes place; two atoms of gas unite to one of the metals, except that 1 atom of hydrogen is liberated, corresponding of course in [Pg 149] quantity to that liberated by treating them with water. When the compound thus formed is treated with muriatic or sulphuric acid, the same quantity of sulphuretted hydrogen nearly is liberated that was originally combined. So that the compound may be regarded as sulphuretted hydrogen united to the protosulphurets. The colour of these sulphurets varies from grey to yellow or reddish.

According to Davy and Gay Lussac, potassium and sodium react with sulfur when heated, resulting in a bright combustion. The compounds formed are likely protosulfides, with potash consisting of approximately 35 parts potassium to 14 parts sulfur, and sodium consisting of 21 parts sodium to 14 parts sulfur. When potassium and sodium are heated with hydrogen sulfide, a reaction occurs where two gas atoms combine with one metal atom, while one hydrogen atom is released, which is equivalent to the amount released when reacting them with water. When the resulting compound is treated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, a similar amount of hydrogen sulfide is released as was originally combined. Therefore, the compound can be viewed as hydrogen sulfide bonded to the protosulfides. The color of these sulfides ranges from gray to yellow or reddish.

29. Sulphurets of bismuth.

Protosulphuret. Bismuth combines with sulphur by heat, in the manner already described in the account of tin sulphurets. I found 100 parts bismuth in this way combine with 22 sulphur after 4 operations: this is therefore the protosulphuret or 1 atom bismuth (62) with 1 of sulphur (14). It may also be formed by substituting the oxide of bismuth for the metal. It has a dark brown or black metallic appearance, much like that of tin. It yields sulphuretted hydrogen in heated muriatic acid.

Protosulphuret. Bismuth reacts with sulfur when heated, similar to what was described in the section on tin sulfides. I found that 100 parts of bismuth combine with 22 parts of sulfur after four processes; this is thus the protosulphuret, which consists of 1 atom of bismuth (62) and 1 atom of sulfur (14). It can also be made by using bismuth oxide instead of the metal. It has a dark brown or black metallic look, similar to tin. It produces hydrogen sulfide when treated with heated hydrochloric acid.

Hydrosulphuret of bismuth. When a solution of bismuth in nitro-muriatic acid is dropped into hydrosulphuret of lime, a black powder precipitates, which, when dried in the common temperature, appears to be hydrosulphuret of bismuth, or one atom sulphuretted [Pg 150] hydrogen and one oxide of bismuth. It yields sulphuretted hydrogen by cold muriatic acid. But if the precipitate be dried in a heat of about 200°, the atom of water seems to be expelled, and there remains only the protosulphuret. Thus I found 69 parts oxide of bismuth unite to 15 sulphuretted hydrogen to form 84 hydrosulphuret of bismuth, when dried in the air; but upon being heated a little, it lost 8 parts of water and was reduced to the protosulphuret, retaining in great part the same appearance as before.

Hydrosulphuret of bismuth. When you add a solution of bismuth in nitro-muriatic acid to hydrosulphuret of lime, a black powder forms that, when dried at room temperature, looks like hydrosulphuret of bismuth, which consists of one atom of sulphuretted hydrogen and one oxide of bismuth. It releases sulphuretted hydrogen when exposed to cold muriatic acid. However, if you dry the precipitate at around 200°F, the water molecule appears to be removed, resulting in only the protosulphuret remaining. I discovered that 69 parts of bismuth oxide combine with 15 parts of sulphuretted hydrogen to create 84 parts of hydrosulphuret of bismuth when dried in air; but when heated slightly, it lost 8 parts of water and was reduced to protosulphuret, while largely maintaining its previous appearance.

Deutosulphuret and trisulphuret of bismuth with oxygen. When nitro-muriate of bismuth is thrown into water the oxide is precipitated; if the acid water be decanted, quadrisulphuret of lime be put to the moist oxide and due agitation be used, the oxide abstracts sulphur from the lime so as to obtain 2 or 3 atoms for each one, if the sulphur be sufficient in quantity. To 6 oz. water I put 100 grain measures of 1.286 nitro-muriate, which I knew from its formation contained 20 oxide; after the precipitate had subsided I poured off 5 oz. of acid water, and to the remaining precipitate diluted with water I put 300 of 1.056 sulphuret of lime and agitated for 10 minutes. There were obtained 33 grains of brownish black sulphuret of bismuth dried for [Pg 151] some hours in a temperature of 120°. I put the above 33 grains into a gas bottle with 100 muriatic acid and boiled it; there were obtained only 2 or 3 cubic inches of sulphuretted hydrogen, the oxide was dissolved and sulphur liberated; the sulphur collected and dried weighed 9 grains, and the oxide precipitated again from the muriatic acid by water and dried, weighed 17 grains, besides loss. From this it is evident the oxygen of the oxide must have been chiefly retained in the compound, and must have united to 2, and in great part to 3, atoms of sulphur. For 20 oxide would require 12 sulphur to form trisulphuretted oxide; and there was evidence of its having nearly, if not wholly, that quantity.

Deuterosulfide and trisulfide of bismuth with oxygen. When nitromuriate of bismuth is added to water, the oxide precipitates. If the acidic water is poured off, and quadrisulfide of lime is added to the wet oxide with proper stirring, the oxide absorbs sulfur from the lime, obtaining 2 or 3 atoms for each one, given that there is enough sulfur present. To 6 ounces of water, I added 100 grain measures of 1.286 nitromuriate, which I knew contained 20 oxide due to its formation. After the precipitate settled, I poured off 5 ounces of acidic water, and to the remaining precipitate, diluted with water, I added 300 of 1.056 sulfide of lime and stirred for 10 minutes. This yielded 33 grains of brownish-black bismuth sulfide, which was dried for several hours at 120°. I placed the 33 grains into a gas bottle with 100 muriatic acid and boiled it; only 2 or 3 cubic inches of hydrogen sulfide were produced, the oxide dissolved, and sulfur was released. The collected and dried sulfur weighed 9 grains, and the oxide that was precipitated again from the muriatic acid with water and dried weighed 17 grains, aside from loss. This indicates that the oxygen in the oxide must have been primarily retained in the compound and must have bonded with 2, and largely with 3, atoms of sulfur. For 20 oxide, 12 sulfur would be needed to form trisulfide oxide; there was evidence suggesting it nearly, if not completely, contained that amount.

30. Sulphurets of antimony.

Protosulphuret. This is a natural production, and found in the state of a dark grey mineral of metallic appearance, and of the sp. gr. 4.2. It may also be formed artificially by uniting metallic antimony and sulphur by heat. Most authors nearly concur in assigning to it 74 parts antimony and 26 sulphur, per cent. That is, 1 atom antimony (40) and 1 of sulphur (14). It yields sulphuretted hydrogen by muriatic [Pg 152] acid and heat, and a solution of the metallic oxide is obtained.

Protosulphuret. This is a natural substance that appears as a dark grey mineral with a metallic look, and has a specific gravity of 4.2. It can also be created artificially by combining metallic antimony and sulfur with heat. Most authors generally agree that it consists of 74 parts antimony and 26 parts sulfur by weight. In other words, it contains 1 atom of antimony (40) and 1 atom of sulfur (14). It produces hydrogen sulfide when treated with hydrochloric acid and heat, and a solution of the metallic oxide is formed. [Pg 152]

Hydrosulphuret. When antimony is precipitated from a solution, by sulphuretted hydrogen or a hydrosulphuret, or from an alkaline solution of the sulphuret by an acid, it appears in the form of an orange yellow powder, denominated golden sulphuret. It is constituted of 1 atom sulphuretted hydrogen and 1 of protoxide of antimony; it readily yields sulphuretted hydrogen by muriatic acid, and the oxide combines with this acid. Exposed to heat, water is expelled and protosulphuret left. It is constituted of 40 antimony, 7 oxygen, 14 sulphur and 1 hydrogen; or of 54 protosulphuret and 8 water.

Hydrosulphuret. When antimony is separated from a solution using hydrogen sulfide or a hydrosulphuret, or from an alkaline solution of the sulfide with an acid, it shows up as an orange-yellow powder known as golden sulfide. It's made up of 1 atom of hydrogen sulfide and 1 atom of antimony(II) oxide; it easily produces hydrogen sulfide when treated with hydrochloric acid, and the oxide reacts with this acid. When heated, it loses water and leaves behind protosulfide. Its composition includes 40 antimony, 7 oxygen, 14 sulfur, and 1 hydrogen; or it consists of 54 protosulfide and 8 water.

Bisulphuretted, trisulphuretted and quadrisulphuretted oxide of antimony. When crystallized muriate of antimony is agitated along with dilute quadrisulphuret of lime, an orange yellow compound is formed, consisting of the oxide and sulphur. To 350 quadrisulphuret of lime, diluted with lime water, I put 22 grains moist crystals of muriate, and agitated well for some time. Got 26 grains dry yellow sulphuret, which heated burned blue, and left from 13 to 14 black grey sulphuret, equal to 10 antimony nearly; hence it must have [Pg 153] been a quadrisulphuret, or rather sulphuretted oxide; for, by heating this compound in muriatic acid, a solution is obtained and sulphur liberated without the extrication of gas. Less of the sulphuret of lime would have produced a sulphuret of the same colour, but containing less of sulphur; so that it is evident various proportions may exist in combination. Instead of the crystallized muriate, the recently precipitated oxide, nearly free from acid, may be used to produce these compounds.

Bisulphurated, trisulphurated, and quadrisulphurated oxide of antimony. When crystallized antimony chloride is mixed with dilute quadrisulphide of lime, an orange-yellow compound forms, consisting of the oxide and sulfur. To 350 of quadrisulphide of lime, diluted with lime water, I added 22 grains of moist crystallized antimony chloride and mixed it well for a while. I obtained 26 grains of dry yellow sulfide, which burned blue when heated and left behind 13 to 14 grains of black-gray sulfide, almost equal to 10 of antimony; therefore, it must have been a quadrisulphide, or rather a sulfurized oxide; because, by heating this compound in hydrochloric acid, a solution is obtained, and sulfur is released without gas being produced. Using less lime sulfide would have resulted in a sulfide of the same color but with less sulfur; thus, it's clear that various proportions can exist in combination. Instead of crystallized antimony chloride, freshly precipitated oxide, nearly free from acid, can be used to create these compounds.

31. Sulphuret of tellurium.

Tellurium unites with nearly its weight of sulphur, by heat, according to Davy. It is probable that as usual in such cases, a protosulphuret is formed. This would lead to the conclusion that the atom of tellurium is only equal in weight to that of sulphur; which does not accord with results from the other combinations of tellurium, and hence the above fact may not perhaps be sufficiently ascertained.

Tellurium combines with almost its weight in sulfur when heated, according to Davy. It's likely that, as is often the case, a protosulfide is formed. This suggests that a tellurium atom weighs the same as a sulfur atom, which doesn't align with findings from other tellurium compounds. Therefore, this fact may not be fully confirmed.

32. Sulphurets of arsenic.

Arsenic may be combined with sulphur by exposing a mixture of the metal [Pg 154] and sulphur or of the white oxide and sulphur, to a heat approaching to redness. In the latter case more sulphur is required, because the oxygen is carried off in the shape of sulphurous acid. Three parts of arsenic with two, three or more of sulphur may be used; the heat should be less if a greater proportion of sulphur is intended to be united. As both the elements are volatile in a moderate heat, and that in unequal degrees, considerable difficulty occurs in ascertaining by the synthetic mode, the proportions of the elements combined; if too little heat be used, only a mechanical mixture is obtained, of any proportions we please; if too much heat be used, part of the arsenic as well as part of the sulphur sublimes, and the sulphuret itself sublimes at a heat not much exceeding that required for their union. Hence in a great measure we have the discordant results of those who have taken the synthetic method. The analytic method is to be preferred, and those who have taken it have succeeded the best; but even this is attended with greater difficulties than with most of the other sulphurets.

Arsenic can be combined with sulfur by heating a mixture of the metal and sulfur, or the white oxide and sulfur, until it's nearly red hot. In the second case, you'll need more sulfur because the oxygen is released as sulfur dioxide. You can use three parts of arsenic with two, three, or more parts of sulfur; the heat should be lower if you want to use a larger proportion of sulfur. Since both elements are volatile at moderate heat, and they vaporize at different rates, it can be quite difficult to determine the proportions of the elements combined using the synthetic method. If you apply too little heat, you'll just get a mechanical mix of any proportions you want; if you use too much heat, some arsenic and sulfur will vaporize, and the compound itself also evaporates at a heat that’s not much higher than that needed for their combination. This is largely why there's such a wide range of results from those using the synthetic method. It's better to use the analytic method, as those who have done so tend to be more successful; however, this method also comes with more challenges than most other sulfides.

The artificial sulphurets of arsenic constitute two varieties chiefly, and these are also found native in various parts of the earth.

The artificial arsenic sulfides consist of two main types, which are also found naturally in various locations around the world.

Protosulphuret. Native sulphuret of arsenic, called orpiment, [Pg 155] is found in Turkey and elsewhere in considerable masses; when broken it exhibits a foliated structure, somewhat flexible, and of a brilliant golden yellow colour. Its specific gravity is usually about 3.2; at least that was the case with the specimen I used. When heated so as to be near melting, its surface reddens, probably by the loss of sulphur. The same sulphuret is procured artificially in the humid way whenever a solution of the oxide of arsenic in water, &c. is treated with sulphuretted hydrogen, or a hydrosulphuret, and afterwards with an acid; or when this or any other species of sulphuret of arsenic is dissolved in an alkali and the solution treated with an acid. Kirwan in 1796 states, that it is generally thought to consist of 100 arsenic and 11 sulphur, but that Westrumb says it contains 100 arsenic and 400 sulphur, which Kirwan thinks more probable; they are both however very wide of the truth. Thenard, in the 59 Vol. of the An. de Chimie, 1806, asserts that it consists of 100 arsenic and 75 sulphur; but he does not point out the experiments on which this result rests; and it is not very near the truth. Laugier in the same An. Vol. 85, for 1813, in a paper of great merit, finds the native orpiment to contain 38 per cent. of sulphur; his method is to dissolve [Pg 156] the orpiment in warm dilute nitric acid; to precipitate the sulphuric acid by nitrate of barytes, and from the sulphate of barytes infer the sulphur; the rest he considers as arsenic, not knowing how to detach the arsenic acid from the nitric acid so as to determine the arsenic by experiment. I have pursued this method with the advantage of being able to determine the arsenic as well as the sulphur: Ten grains of orpiment in fine powder were dissolved in 100 measures of 1.346 nitric acid diluted with as much water, by digesting in a heat so as to keep a constant moderate effervescence for about 2 hours. The liquid obtained, being diluted, yielded 536 measures of 1.061. By carefully and gradually dropping in muriate of barytes I found 150 measures of 1.162 just sufficient to saturate the sulphuric acid, and the sulphate of barytes produced dry was 28 grains, the loss I estimated 1 grain: now one third part being sulphuric acid, and ⅖ of the acid being sulphur, we have ²/₁₅ of 29 = 3.87, or 3.9 for sulphur. The residuary liquid was then treated with lime water till an excess was manifest, and produced no farther precipitate; the arseniate of lime was collected and dried, and gave 16 grains. Now I had determined by experiments hereafter to be [Pg 157] related, that ⁴/₇ of arseniate of lime are acid and ⅔ of the acid are arsenic; hence ⁸/₂₁ of 16 = 6.1 for the arsenic, which added to 3.9 sulphur, make up the 10 grains of orpiment.

Protosulphuret. Native sulphide of arsenic, known as orpiment, [Pg 155] is found in Turkey and other places in large quantities; when broken, it shows a layered structure, is somewhat flexible, and has a brilliant golden yellow color. Its specific gravity is usually around 3.2; at least that was true for the sample I used. When heated close to melting, its surface turns red, likely due to the loss of sulfur. This same sulfide can be made artificially through a wet method when a solution of arsenic oxide in water, etc., is treated with hydrogen sulfide or a hydrosulfide, and then with an acid; or when this or any other type of arsenic sulfide is dissolved in an alkali and the solution is treated with an acid. Kirwan in 1796 states that it is commonly believed to be made up of 100 parts arsenic and 11 parts sulfur, but Westrumb claims it contains 100 parts arsenic and 400 parts sulfur, which Kirwan finds more plausible; however, both are quite far from the truth. Thenard, in volume 59 of the An. de Chimie in 1806, claims it consists of 100 parts arsenic and 75 parts sulfur; but he doesn’t provide the experiments that support this conclusion, and it’s not very close to the truth. Laugier, in volume 85 of the same journal for 1813, in a highly regarded paper, finds the native orpiment has 38 percent sulfur; his approach is to dissolve the orpiment in warm diluted nitric acid; to precipitate the sulfuric acid with barium nitrate, and from the resulting barium sulfate, infer the sulfur content; he considers the rest as arsenic, not knowing how to separate the arsenic acid from the nitric acid to measure the arsenic experimentally. I have followed this method with the added ability to measure both the arsenic and the sulfur: Ten grains of finely powdered orpiment were dissolved in 100 measures of 1.346 nitric acid diluted with an equal amount of water, by digesting at a consistent moderate heat for about 2 hours, producing a liquid that, when diluted, yielded 536 measures of 1.061. By gradually adding barium chloride, I found that 150 measures of 1.162 were just enough to saturate the sulfuric acid, and the dry barium sulfate produced weighed 28 grains, with an estimated loss of 1 grain: now, since one third of this is sulfuric acid, and ⅖ of that acid is sulfur, we have ²/₁₅ of 29 = 3.87, or 3.9 for sulfur. The remaining liquid was then treated with lime water until excess was evident, producing no further precipitate; the lime arsenate was collected and dried, yielding 16 grains. Now, through experiments I will discuss later, I determined that ⁴/₇ of lime arsenate is acid and ⅔ of that acid is arsenic; thus, ⁸/₂₁ of 16 = 6.1 for the arsenic, which added to 3.9 sulfur totals the 10 grains of orpiment.

When this orpiment is treated with caustic alkali, it is completely dissolved; it is thrown down by acids I find unaltered. If 61 arsenic combine with 39 sulphur, 100 must take 64 nearly; which corresponds with 1 atom of each, or 21 arsenic + 13 or 14 sulphur.

When orpiment is mixed with caustic alkali, it dissolves completely; it precipitates when acids are added and remains unchanged. If 61 parts arsenic combine with 39 parts sulfur, then 100 parts must contain about 64 parts, which matches with 1 atom of each, or 21 parts arsenic and 13 or 14 parts sulfur.

Subprotosulphuret. Sulphur and arsenic are found native in certain places, combined in masses of a brownish red or orange colour and glassy fracture: this combination is called realgar, and is also manufactured in large quantities in Saxony, chiefly for the use of calico-printers. Its constitution and specific gravity vary considerably, owing chiefly I imagine to the greater or less heat to which it is exposed, and to the proportions of the elements in the first mixture. I have specimens of 3.3 and 3.7 sp. gr.; and it is probable these are not the extremes; the heaviest is the darkest colour. Of course the heaviest contains the most arsenic, and I have reason to believe that the sp. gr. is nearly as good a test of the proportions of the elements as chemical analysis. Realga when pulverized is of an orange colour: it is much sooner dissolved in dilute [Pg 158] nitric acid and requires less, than the same weight of orpiment. Caustic alkali dissolves it partially, taking up the protosulphuret and leaving the excess of arsenic, the quantity of which may hence be ascertained. Ten grains of realgar took 80 measures of 1.347 nitric acid, diluted with as much water; digested in a heat of about 150° it was all dissolved in 1½ hour, and yielded 536 liquid of 1.05 sp. gravity. This treated as before gave 24 sulphate of barytes = 3.2 sulphur, and 18 arseniate of lime = 6.9 arsenic. This result agrees nearly with Laugier’s in regard to the sulphur in native realgar: but the artificial realgar, which he made by combining arsenic and sulphur, yielded him 40 per cent. sulphur by my estimation and 42 by his own: the sp. gravity of his artificial realgar is not given. Westrumb estimates realgar at 100 arsenic and 25 sulphur, and Thenard at 100 arsenic and 33 sulphur. But from the above it must be concluded to contain 100 arsenic and 45 to 50 of sulphur. One hundred parts of the same realgar heated in caustic potash were resolved into 78 orpiment taken up by the liquid and 22 arsenic precipitated.

Subprotosulphuret. Sulfur and arsenic are found naturally in certain locations, combined into masses with a brownish-red or orange color and a glassy surface: this combination is called realgar, and it's also produced in large quantities in Saxony, mainly for calico-printing. Its composition and specific gravity vary quite a bit, primarily due to the heat it’s exposed to and the ratios of the elements in the initial mixture. I have specimens with specific gravities of 3.3 and 3.7; it's likely these aren’t the extremes. The heaviest specimen is the darkest in color. Naturally, the heaviest one contains the most arsenic, and I believe that the specific gravity is almost as good a measure of the element ratios as chemical analysis. When ground into powder, realgar is orange: it dissolves much faster in dilute nitric acid and requires less than the same weight of orpiment. Caustic alkali partially dissolves it, absorbing the protosulphuret and leaving behind the excess arsenic, which can then be measured. Ten grains of realgar absorbed 80 measures of 1.347 nitric acid, diluted with an equal amount of water; when heated to about 150°, it completely dissolved in 1½ hours and yielded 536 liquid with a specific gravity of 1.05. This treated similarly resulted in 24 sulfate of barytes = 3.2 sulfur, and 18 arseniate of lime = 6.9 arsenic. This finding aligns closely with Laugier’s regarding the sulfur content in native realgar: however, the artificial realgar he created by combining arsenic and sulfur yielded 40 percent sulfur by my estimate and 42 by his own; the specific gravity of his artificial realgar isn’t provided. Westrumb estimates realgar contains 100 arsenic and 25 sulfur, while Thenard estimates it at 100 arsenic and 33 sulfur. Based on the above, it should be concluded to contain 100 arsenic and 45 to 50 sulfur. One hundred parts of the same realgar heated in caustic potash were broken down into 78 orpiment absorbed by the liquid and 22 arsenic precipitated.

It appears to me most probable that a true subsulphuret would be most [Pg 159] convenient for the printers’ use, or one containing 100 arsenic and 32 sulphur, that is, 2 atoms arsenic and 1 sulphur. The object being to deoxidize indigo and obtain it in solution in a green state, we may suppose that 1 atom arsenic takes the oxygen from the indigo and then forms arseniate of lime which precipitates, whilst the other atom in union with the sulphur, takes the green indigo and unites it to the potash, making a quadruple compound of arsenic, sulphur, green indigo and potash in solution. If this view be right the heaviest and darkest coloured realgar of commerce must be the most advantageous for this purpose. Some printers however prefer the protosulphuret.

It seems likely to me that a true subsulphuret would be the most useful for printers, or one that contains 100 parts arsenic and 32 parts sulfur, which is, 2 atoms of arsenic and 1 atom of sulfur. The goal is to deoxidize indigo and get it in a green solution. We can suppose that 1 atom of arsenic removes the oxygen from the indigo and then forms arseniate of lime, which precipitates, while the other atom combines with the sulfur to take the green indigo and bond it with potash, creating a four-part compound of arsenic, sulfur, green indigo, and potash in solution. If this is correct, the heaviest and darkest colored realgar available commercially must be the best choice for this purpose. Some printers, however, prefer the protosulphuret.

Deutosulphuret. Proust, by heating 100 arsenic with 300 sulphur in one instance got 222 parts, and in another 234 parts of a transparent deep greenish yellow sulphuret, (Jour. de Phys. 59—p. 406. 1804). Now it is very remarkable that if we take the atom of sulphur at 13 and that of arsenic 21, one of this and two of the former will be found as 100 to 124, together 224; but if sulphur be 14, then the proportion will be 100 to 133, together 233. It seems more than probable that Proust had accidentally used that degree of heat in the [Pg 160] combination which is requisite for forming the deutosulphuret. It is probable too that Laugier always used a higher heat, as he uniformly obtained the same (lower) sulphuret whatever were the proportions, the excess of either being sublimed or separated by the heat.

Deutosulphuret. Proust, by heating 100 parts of arsenic with 300 parts of sulfur, managed to obtain either 222 parts or 234 parts of a clear, deep greenish-yellow sulfide (Jour. de Phys. 59—p. 406. 1804). It's quite interesting that if we take the sulfur atom as 13 and the arsenic atom as 21, one part of arsenic and two parts of sulfur will be represented as 100 to 124, totalling 224. But if sulfur is considered as 14, then the ratio becomes 100 to 133, totalling 233. It seems likely that Proust accidentally used the right amount of heat needed to create the deutosulphuret. It’s also likely that Laugier consistently used higher heat, as he always obtained the same (lower) sulfide regardless of the proportions, with any excess being sublimed or separated by the heat.

Trisulphuret, quadrisulphuret, &c. When a solution of the oxide of arsenic is treated with quadrisulphuret of lime, little precipitate appears; but if muriatic acid be dropped in, a fine yellow precipitate is formed. This I have reason to think is sometimes a trisulphuret, and at other times a quadrisulphuret or higher; but it is difficult to investigate these compounds, and on that account I speak with some uncertainty.

Trisulphuret, quadrisulphuret, etc. When you treat a solution of arsenic oxide with quadrisulphuret of lime, only a small precipitate appears; however, if you add muriatic acid, a fine yellow precipitate forms. I believe this is sometimes a trisulphuret and at other times a quadrisulphuret or a higher compound, but investigating these substances is challenging, and that's why I'm unsure.

33. Sulphuret of cobalt.

Sulphuretted hydrogen does not precipitate cobalt from solutions containing that metal; but hydrosulphurets precipitate it.

Sulfurated hydrogen doesn’t precipitate cobalt from solutions that have that metal; however, hydrosulfides do precipitate it.

Protosulphuret. This compound is obtained whenever a neutral solution of cobalt is treated with hydrosulphuret of lime, &c. or it may be obtained from any acid solution by first precipitating the blue oxide by an alkali, and then introducing sulphuretted hydrogen into the [Pg 161] mixture. By this last method I found a solution previously known to contain 44 parts by weight of protoxide to absorb 15 parts of sulphuretted hydrogen; when filtered and dried in a heat of 100° it yielded 51 parts of protosulphuret. In appearance it resembles many of the other black sulphurets. It consists of 100 cobalt and 38 sulphur; Proust finds 40 sulphur, but he considers it only an approximation.

Protosulphuret. This compound is created whenever a neutral solution of cobalt is treated with calcium hydrosulfide, etc., or it can be produced from any acidic solution by first precipitating the blue oxide with an alkali and then adding hydrogen sulfide to the mixture. Through this last method, I discovered a solution previously known to have 44 parts by weight of oxide that absorbed 15 parts of hydrogen sulfide; when filtered and dried at a temperature of 100°, it yielded 51 parts of protosulphuret. In appearance, it looks similar to many other black sulfides. It consists of 100 parts cobalt and 38 parts sulfur; Proust finds 40 parts sulfur, but he believes it is only an estimate.

The same sulphuret may be formed by heating the oxides of cobalt and sulphur together to a red heat; at least a combination is effected as Proust observed, but I have not investigated the proportions. Sulphur does not seem to combine with the metal in this way.

The same sulfide can be created by heating cobalt oxides and sulfur together until they reach a red heat; a combination occurs, as Proust noted, but I haven't looked into the proportions. Sulfur doesn’t appear to combine with the metal this way.

Deutosulphuret ... dodecasulphuret. When the recently precipitated and moist oxide of cobalt, the neutral muriate, or acid muriate of cobalt, as well as other salts of the same, are treated with dilute quadrisulphuret of lime, sulphurets of cobalt are formed in various proportions according to the ingredients, from the deutosulphuret to the dodecasulphuret: these precipitates are all black and not easily distinguished in appearance; but there is reason to believe they are true chemical compounds. [Pg 162]

Deutosulphuret ... dodecasulphuret. When the freshly precipitated and damp cobalt oxide, the neutral muriate, or acid muriate of cobalt, along with other related salts, are treated with diluted quadrisulphuret of lime, different cobalt sulfides form in varying amounts based on the ingredients, from deutosulphuret to dodecasulphuret: these precipitates are all black and hard to distinguish from one another; however, there is reason to believe they are genuine chemical compounds. [Pg 162]

34. Sulphurets of manganese.

Though sulphur and manganese do not unite directly, they can be brought into union by intermediate bodies, both in the dry and humid way.

Though sulfur and manganese don't combine directly, they can be brought together through intermediary substances, both in dry and humid conditions.

Protosulphuret. This compound may be formed by heating to a low red, a mixture of the oxide of manganese and sulphur, or of the white carbonate of manganese and sulphur; or it may be formed by treating a solution of manganese by a hydrosulphuret, (sulphuretted hydrogen not producing any precipitate); this last method seems to produce a dry hydrosulphuret of manganese, which being heated to red nearly, parts with water and a little sulphur and there remains the protosulphuret. The protosulphuret is of a snuff brown colour; but the hydrosulphuret, when recently precipitated is of a light drab colour, which grows deeper when exposed to the air, and when dried becomes brown like the protosulphuret; when heated, the colour is not much changed. The hydrosulphuret of manganese gives sulphuretted hydrogen by cold muriatic acid, and the protosulphuret gives the same by the acid heated. [Pg 163]

Protosulphuret. This compound can be made by heating a mixture of manganese oxide and sulfur, or manganese carbonate and sulfur, until it's a low red color. Alternatively, it can be produced by treating a manganese solution with a hydrosulphuret (sulphuretted hydrogen does not cause any precipitation). This last method seems to create a dry hydrosulphuret of manganese, which, when heated to almost red, loses water and a bit of sulfur, leaving behind the protosulphuret. The protosulphuret is a snuff brown color; however, the hydrosulphuret, when freshly precipitated, is light drab, which darkens when exposed to air, and when dried, it becomes brown like the protosulphuret. When heated, the color doesn't change much. The hydrosulphuret of manganese releases sulphuretted hydrogen when treated with cold muriatic acid, while the protosulphuret releases the same gas when the acid is heated. [Pg 163]

The proportion of the elements in the protosulphuret may be inferred from the fact that the black oxide yields its own weight of protosulphuret; that is, 156 grains, composed of 100 metal and 56 oxygen give 156 of sulphuret; hence the atom of metal, 25, unites with one of sulphur, 14. I found 32 of the protoxide in solution unite to 15 of sulphuretted hydrogen to form 47 hydrosulphuret dried in 100°. This lost about 8 parts or rather upwards by heat.

The ratio of the elements in the protosulphuret can be determined by the fact that the black oxide produces its own weight of protosulphuret; that is, 156 grains, made up of 100 parts metal and 56 parts oxygen, gives 156 parts of sulphuret. Therefore, an atom of metal, 25, bonds with one atom of sulphur, 14. I found that 32 parts of the protoxide in solution combine with 15 parts of sulphuretted hydrogen to create 47 parts of hydrosulphuret, which were dried at 100°. This lost about 8 parts, or a bit more, due to heat.

Deutosulphuret, trisulphuret and quadrisulphuret. These may be formed by treating neutral solutions of manganese, or the recently precipitated oxide, by quadrisulphuret of lime. They are formed somewhat slowly and by considerable agitation with a smaller or greater proportion of the lime sulphuret. They are all light drab, and are reduced to the protosulphuret by heat.

Deutosulphuret, trisulphuret, and quadrisulphuret. These can be created by treating neutral solutions of manganese, or the recently precipitated oxide, with quadrisulphuret of lime. They form relatively slowly and require a fair amount of agitation with various amounts of lime sulphuret. All of them are light gray and can be converted to protosulphuret through heating.

35. Sulphuret of chromium.

I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining whether chromium or its oxides combine with sulphur or not, though several attempts were made for that purpose. [Pg 164]

I haven't had a chance to find out if chromium or its oxides combine with sulfur, although I made several attempts to do so. [Pg 164]

36. Sulphuret of uranium.

From the experiments of Bucholz it would seem that uranium may be combined with sulphur, but the proportions have not been ascertained. (An. de Chimie. 56—142.)

From Bucholz's experiments, it seems that uranium can be combined with sulfur, but the exact proportions haven't been determined. (An. de Chimie. 56—142.)

37. Sulphuret of molybdenum.

From Bucholz and Klaproth’s analyses of molybdena it would seem that the native sulphuret consists of 60 metal and 40 sulphur; but it does not appear whether this should be considered as the protosulphuret or the deutosulphuret. If it is the protosulphuret the atom of molybdenum weighs 21, but if the deutosulphuret, the atom of metal weighs 42; and the atom of the sulphuret or molybdena must weigh either 35 or 70.

From Bucholz and Klaproth’s analyses of molybdena, it seems that the natural sulfide consists of 60% metal and 40% sulfur; however, it's not clear whether this should be classified as the protosulfide or the deutosulfide. If it is the protosulfide, the atom of molybdenum weighs 21, but if it is the deutosulfide, the atom of metal weighs 42; and the atom of the sulfide or molybdena must weigh either 35 or 70.

38. Sulphuret of tungsten.

According to Berzelius, a sulphuret of tungsten may be obtained, by heating a mixture of tungstic acid and sulphuret of mercury in the proportion of 1 to 4, in a crucible. The mixture in his experiment was [Pg 165] covered with charcoal and the crucible inclosed in another containing charcoal; the whole was then exposed to the heat of a furnace for half an hour. The sulphuret obtained was a greyish black powder; it was found to consist of 100 metal and 33¼ sulphur, or about 3 metal to 1 sulphur. Hence this must be the deutosulphuret if we consider the atom of tungsten to be 84; but considering the high degree of heat to which it was exposed, it would seem more likely to be the protosulphuret; if so, the atom of tungsten must be considered as 42 only, or half of the other number.

According to Berzelius, you can get a tungsten sulfide by heating a mixture of tungstic acid and mercury sulfide in a ratio of 1 to 4 in a crucible. In his experiment, the mixture was covered with charcoal and the crucible was placed inside another one that also contained charcoal; everything was then put in a furnace for half an hour. The resulting sulfide was a grayish-black powder, which was found to be made up of 100 parts metal and 33¼ parts sulfur, or about 3 parts metal to 1 part sulfur. Therefore, this should be the deutosulfide if we consider the atomic weight of tungsten to be 84; however, given the high heat it was subjected to, it seems more probable that it is the protosulfide; if that's the case, then the atomic weight of tungsten should be considered as only 42, or half of the other number.

39. Sulphuret of titanium.

No compound of titanium and sulphur has been formed.

No titanium and sulfur compound has been created.

40. Sulphuret of columbium.

This combination is unknown.

This combo is unknown.

41. Sulphuret of cerium.

This combination is also unknown.

This combo is also unknown.


[Pg 166]

[Pg 166]

SECTION 15.
Earthy, alkaline, metallic, and other phosphides.

Phosphorus like sulphur is capable of being combined with several of the earths and metals as well as with other bodies; but the combination is not so easily effected, and the products are less interesting than those of sulphur: from considerations of these circumstances together with those of the expence and danger in making experiments on phosphorus we may account for, this class of bodies being as yet imperfectly known.

Phosphorus, like sulfur, can combine with various elements and metals, as well as with other substances; however, the combination process is not as straightforward, and the resulting products are less intriguing than those formed with sulfur. Given these factors, along with the costs and risks involved in experimenting with phosphorus, we can understand why this group of substances remains not fully understood.

Margraf in 1740 attempted to combine phosphorus with many of the metals; but his experiments were mostly unsuccessful.

Margraf in 1740 tried to combine phosphorus with various metals, but his experiments were mostly unsuccessful.

Gengembre in 1783 endeavoured to unite phosphorus with the alkalies; in this he failed of success, but discovered the phosphuret of hydrogen, or the spontaneously inflammable gas now denominated phosphuretted hydrogen. (Journal de Physique, 1785.)

Gengembre in 1783 tried to combine phosphorus with alkalis; he wasn't successful, but he discovered phosphuret of hydrogen, the spontaneously flammable gas now called phosphine. (Journal de Physique, 1785.)

In 1786 Mr. Kirwan published some experiments on phosphuretted [Pg 167] hydrogen, (Philos. Trans.); he ascertained that water impregnated with this gas had the property of precipitating various metals from their solutions.

In 1786, Mr. Kirwan published some experiments on phosphoretted hydrogen, [Pg 167] and found that water infused with this gas could cause different metals to precipitate from their solutions.

The ingenious and indefatigable Pelletier has more merit than any other person in his investigations of the phosphurets. An important memoir of his on the manufacture of phosphorus in the large, is given in the Journal de Physique for 1785; in this he states that 4 or 5 lbs. sulphuric acid are commonly requisite for 6 lbs. calcined bones; and that from 18 lbs. calcined bones he obtained by the usual process, 12 oz. of phosphorus. In 1788 he read an essay on the phosphurets of gold, platina, silver, copper, iron, lead and tin. (An. de Chimie, 1—106). In 1790 he published an essay on the combinations of phosphorus with sulphur. (Ibid. 4—1). An additional memoir was published in 1792 on the same metallic phosphurets; and another on the phosphurets of mercury, zinc, bismuth, antimony, cobalt, nickel, manganese, arsenic and the other metals.

The clever and tireless Pelletier has more recognition than anyone else for his research on phosphides. He published an important paper on large-scale phosphorus production in the Journal de Physique in 1785, where he states that 4 to 5 pounds of sulfuric acid are usually needed for 6 pounds of calcined bones. From 18 pounds of calcined bones, he obtained 12 ounces of phosphorus using the standard process. In 1788, he presented an essay on the phosphides of gold, platinum, silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin (An. de Chimie, 1—106). In 1790, he published an essay on the combinations of phosphorus and sulfur (Ibid. 4—1). An additional paper on the same metallic phosphides was published in 1792, along with another on the phosphides of mercury, zinc, bismuth, antimony, cobalt, nickel, manganese, arsenic, and other metals.

M. Raymond in the An. de Chimie, 1791, recommends, instead of potash, moist hydrate of lime and phosphorus in order to obtain phosphuretted hydrogen with greater facility; and in the same Annals for 1800 he [Pg 168] asserts that water absorbs a considerable portion of phosphuretted hydrogen, and becomes capable of precipitating metals from their solutions in acids, and of forming phosphurets, in this respect resembling sulphuretted hydrogen.

M. Raymond in the Ann. de Chimie, 1791, suggests using moist hydrated lime and phosphorus instead of potash to produce phosphuretted hydrogen more easily. In the same Annals for 1800, he [Pg 168] claims that water absorbs a significant amount of phosphuretted hydrogen, which allows it to precipitate metals from their solutions in acids and to form phosphurets, similar to sulphuretted hydrogen.

Mr. Tennant discovered in 1791 that carbonic acid combined with the earths and alkalies is capable of decomposition by phosphorus, in a red heat; and Dr. Pearson, following up the discovery, found that pure or caustic lime may be united to phosphorus by heat so as to form phosphuret of lime; and that this dry compound when put into water is decomposed and gives out bubbles of phosphuretted hydrogen gas, which as usual explode spontaneously on reaching the surface of the water and coming into contact with the air.

Mr. Tennant found out in 1791 that carbonic acid mixed with earths and alkalis can decompose when heated with phosphorus. Following this discovery, Dr. Pearson discovered that pure or caustic lime can be combined with phosphorus through heat to create phosphuret of lime. This dry compound, when placed in water, breaks down and releases bubbles of phosphuretted hydrogen gas, which, as usual, explode spontaneously when they reach the surface and come into contact with the air.

In 1810 I published the method of analysing phosphuretted hydrogen by Volta’s eudiometer; having found that this gas and oxygen may be mixed together in a narrow tube without explosion and afterwards exploded as other similar mixtures by an electric spark.

In 1810, I published the method for analyzing phosphuretted hydrogen using Volta’s eudiometer. I discovered that this gas and oxygen can be combined in a narrow tube without causing an explosion, and can later be ignited like other similar mixtures with an electric spark.

Dr. Thomson published an essay on phosphuretted hydrogen in the Annals of Philosophy for August, 1816. He agrees with me very nearly as to the constitution and properties of this gas, as far as I have gone; but he [Pg 169] has ascertained several additional properties of the gas, which I shall advert to in the sequel.

Dr. Thomson published an essay on phosphine in the Annals of Philosophy for August, 1816. He largely agrees with me about the composition and properties of this gas, based on my findings so far; however, he has identified several additional properties of the gas, which I will mention later. [Pg 169]

Sir H. Davy and Gay Lussac have investigated several compounds of phosphorus, particularly with muriatic and oxymuriatic acids, and with the new metals potassium and sodium, which I shall have to notice in their proper places.

Sir H. Davy and Gay Lussac have studied several compounds of phosphorus, especially with hydrochloric and chlorine acids, as well as with the new metals potassium and sodium, which I will mention in their proper context.

Other authors have written on phosphurets besides those I have mentioned, but they do not require to be particularly distinguished in this enumeration. We shall therefore proceed to describe the phosphurets more particularly.

Other authors have written about phosphurets besides the ones I've mentioned, but they don't need to be specifically highlighted in this list. So, let's move on to describe the phosphurets in more detail.

1. Phosphuret of hydrogen.

From recent experiments which I have made on phosphuretted hydrogen gas, I find the account already given (Vol. 1. page 456) is deficient, and in several respects inaccurate; I shall therefore substitute the following, as more perfect and correct.

From recent experiments I've conducted on phosphuretted hydrogen gas, I find that the account already provided (Vol. 1 page 456) is lacking and inaccurate in several ways; I will therefore replace it with the following, which is more complete and accurate.

Phosphuretted hydrogen may be obtained nearly pure, by the methods recommended by Dr. Thomson. Phosphuret of lime that has been carefully secluded from the atmosphere, may be put into a small phial filled with [Pg 170] water, acidulated by muriatic acid; into this a cork with a bent tube must be immediately put under water, so that the phial and tube are both full of water; gas soon begins to appear, which rising to the top of the phial, expels a corresponding portion of water, and in due time the gas itself comes over and may be received as usual: if the phial in which the gas is generated be warmed to 140 or 150°, the gas is given out more readily. A half ounce phial with 20 grains of phosphuret in small lumps, will produce 3 or 4 cubic inches of gas. If the phosphuret of lime has been previously exposed for a few hours to the atmosphere, the gas is more abundant, but consists chiefly of hydrogen, mixed with a little phosphuretted hydrogen.

Phosphine can be produced almost pure using the methods suggested by Dr. Thomson. Phosphide of lime that has been carefully kept away from the air can be placed in a small vial filled with [Pg 170] water, which is acidified with hydrochloric acid; a cork with a bent tube must then be quickly put in under water, ensuring both the vial and tube are full of water. Gas will start to be released, and as it rises to the top of the vial, it will push out an equal amount of water. Eventually, the gas itself comes out and can be collected as usual. If the vial where the gas is generated is warmed to 140 or 150°F, the gas is released more easily. A half-ounce vial with 20 grains of phosphide in small pieces will generate 3 to 4 cubic inches of gas. If the phosphide of lime has been exposed to the air for a few hours prior, the gas production increases, but it mainly consists of hydrogen mixed with some phosphine.

Pure phosphuretted hydrogen is distinguished by the following properties: 1. It explodes when coming into the atmosphere in bubbles, and a white ring of smoke subsequently ascends: 2. It is unfit for respiration, and for supporting combustion: 3. Its specific gravity is 1.1 nearly, that of atmospheric air being unity: 4. Water absorbs fully ⅛ of its bulk of this gas, which is expelled again by ebullition or by agitation with other gases, but not without some loss: 5. A small [Pg 171] portion being electrified for some time, deposits abundance of phosphorus, and expands from one volume to 1⅓ nearly, which is found to be pure hydrogen: 6. Liquid oxymuriate of lime absorbs phosphuretted hydrogen, converting it into phosphoric acid and water, and leaves any free hydrogen that may be present; hence we are enabled to ascertain the proportion of free hydrogen in any such mixture, an important point as far as regards this gas: 7. One volume of pure phosphuretted hydrogen, requires two volumes of oxygen for its complete combustion by an electric spark, in Volta’s eudiometer; (the gases must be previously mixed in a tube not more than ³/₁₀ of an inch in diameter, to prevent an explosion in the act of mixing, after which they may safely be transferred into any other vessel); the result of the combustion is phosphoric acid and water: 8. One volume of phosphuretted hydrogen, mixed with from 2 to 6 volumes of nitrous gas, may be exploded by electricity in Volta’s eudiometer; or it may be exploded by sending up a bubble of oxygen, without electricity; in like manner, may the mixtures of phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen be exploded by a bubble of nitrous gas: 9. One volume of phosphuretted hydrogen, mixed with 4, [Pg 172] less or more, of nitrous oxide, is also explosive by electricity, but the mixture undergoes no change without electricity, at least in a day: 10. Mixtures of phosphuretted hydrogen and nitrous gas have a slow chemical action, by which in from 1 to 12 hours, the phosphuretted hydrogen is burnt and the nitrous gas decomposed into nitrous oxide and azotic gas: 11. According to Sir H. Davy and Dr. Thomson, phosphuretted hydrogen gas being heated along with sulphur in a dry tube, the gas is decomposed and a new gas, sulphuretted hydrogen, is formed, and the phosphorus unites with the sulphur. Davy says the gas is doubled in volume by this operation; but Thomson says it remains the same; some doubt therefore exists respecting this fact: 12. When phosphuretted hydrogen gas is let up to oxymuriatic acid gas, a quick combustion with a yellow flame is observed, and the result varies according to the proportions: when one volume phosphuretted hydrogen is put to 3 or 4 of acid gas, both of the gases disappear, and muriatic and phosphoric acids are produced.

Pure phosphine has the following characteristics: 1. It explodes when it hits the atmosphere in bubbles, creating a white smoke ring that rises; 2. It is not safe to breathe and doesn’t support combustion; 3. Its specific gravity is about 1.1, while that of air is 1.0; 4. Water can absorb up to ⅛ of its volume in this gas, which can be released again through boiling or mixing with other gases, though some loss occurs; 5. A small amount, when electrified for a time, deposits a lot of phosphorus and expands from one volume to nearly 1⅓, which is shown to be pure hydrogen; 6. Liquid chlorine gas absorbs phosphine, transforming it into phosphoric acid and water, leaving any free hydrogen that may be present; this allows us to determine the proportion of free hydrogen in such mixtures, which is important for this gas; 7. One volume of pure phosphine requires two volumes of oxygen for complete combustion with an electric spark in Volta’s eudiometer. (The gases need to be mixed in a tube no wider than ³/₁₀ of an inch to prevent an explosion during mixing, after which they can be safely moved to another container.) The combustion results in phosphoric acid and water; 8. One volume of phosphine mixed with 2 to 6 volumes of nitrous gas can be detonated by electricity in Volta’s eudiometer, or it can be exploded by introducing a bubble of oxygen without electricity. Similarly, mixtures of phosphine and oxygen can be detonated by introducing a bubble of nitrous gas; 9. One volume of phosphine, mixed with about 4 volumes of nitrous oxide, can also be detonated by electricity, but the mixture doesn’t change without electricity for at least a day; 10. Mixtures of phosphine and nitrous gas undergo a slow chemical reaction, whereby within 1 to 12 hours, the phosphine burns and the nitrous gas breaks down into nitrous oxide and nitrogen gas; 11. According to Sir H. Davy and Dr. Thomson, if phosphine is heated with sulfur in a dry tube, the gas decomposes and a new gas, hydrogen sulfide, forms, with phosphorus combining with sulfur. Davy states the gas doubles in volume through this process, but Thomson claims it stays the same, leading to some uncertainty about this fact; 12. When phosphine is introduced to chlorine gas, a rapid combustion occurs with a yellow flame, and the outcome depends on the proportions: when one volume of phosphine is combined with 3 or 4 volumes of chlorine gas, both gases vanish, resulting in hydrochloric and phosphoric acids.

As these properties differ in many respects from those hitherto assigned to this gas, it will be necessary to enlarge upon them. The sp. gr. of this gas has already been adverted to, (Vol. 1.), and its great variation from .3 to .85; more recently Dr. Thomson finds [Pg 173] it about .9. In all these instances it was, I have no doubt, contaminated with less or more of hydrogen; at least it was so in my own instance; for, I have the proportion of oxygen which it required for its complete combustion, both before and after it was weighed. It was what I then thought pure gas: that is, 100 volumes required nearly 150 of oxygen; but I am now convinced that gas of this description contains ⅓ of its volume of free hydrogen; hence the correction of the sp. gravity. Davy estimates the sp. gr. of the gas which he denominates hydrophosphoric at .87 or 12 times that of hydrogen; this gas, as will appear from this and other properties, is in all probability phosphuretted hydrogen gas, nearly pure.

As these properties are different in many ways from what has been previously assigned to this gas, it will be necessary to expand on them. The specific gravity of this gas has already been mentioned (Vol. 1), and its significant variation from .3 to .85; more recently, Dr. Thomson found it to be around .9. In all these cases, I have no doubt it was contaminated with varying amounts of hydrogen; at least it was so in my own case, as I have the proportion of oxygen it needed for complete combustion, both before and after it was measured. I initially thought it was pure gas: that is, 100 volumes required almost 150 of oxygen; but I am now convinced that gas of this type contains ⅓ of its volume in free hydrogen, hence the adjustment of the specific gravity. Davy estimates the specific gravity of the gas he calls hydrophosphoric to be .87, which is 12 times that of hydrogen; this gas, as will be evident from this and other properties, is most likely phosphuretted hydrogen gas, nearly pure.

The absorption of this gas by water, has been stated variously. In 1799 M. Raymond found that water absorbs rather less than ¼ of its volume of this gas: in 1802, Dr. Henry rates its absorption at ¹/₄₇ only; in 1810 I found it ¹/₂₇; in 1812, Davy found it (hydrophosphoric gas) to be ⅛; in 1816, Dr. Thomson found it to be ¹/₄₇; I now estimate it as stated above at ⅛. These enormous differences may be partly accounted for by varieties in the gas; and partly from the theory of the absorption not [Pg 174] being understood; but these are scarcely sufficient excuses in all the cases. I find that my early experiments on the absorption of phosphuretted hydrogen by water, were made prior to the discovery of the method of analysing the gas by electric combustion; consequently they were deficient in regard to the quality of the gas, both before and after agitation; the best gas that ever I had, was such as took 150 oxygen per cent. for its combustion, exclusive of any common air; and it was often such as to require considerably less. The bottle which I used for the purpose in 1810 contains 2700 grains of water; at first I charged water with hydrogen: into this 120 grain measures of phosphuretted hydrogen were put, and the whole well agitated: there were left 98 measures;—this proved that the gas was more absorbable than hydrogen: into the same water were put 98 more phosphuretted hydrogen and agitated; out, 80; this confirmed the proof: Into the same water were put 97 hydrogen and agitated well; out 105: This shewed that the hydrogen had expelled a part of the gas again, and was less absorbable of the two. As the phenomena were much the same as if oxygen had been used instead of phosphuretted hydrogen, it was concluded to have the same absorbability. [Pg 175]

The absorption of this gas by water has been reported in different ways. In 1799, M. Raymond discovered that water absorbs a little less than a quarter of its volume of this gas. In 1802, Dr. Henry measured its absorption at only 1/47; in 1810, I found it to be 1/27; in 1812, Davy reported it (referring to hydrophosphoric gas) as 1/8; and in 1816, Dr. Thomson also measured it at 1/47. I now estimate it, as mentioned earlier, at 1/8. These significant differences can be partly explained by variations in the gas and partly due to the absorption theory being misunderstood. However, these reasons might not fully justify all cases. I realize that my early experiments on the absorption of phosphuretted hydrogen by water were conducted before the method of analyzing the gas through electric combustion was discovered; therefore, they lacked accuracy regarding the gas quality both before and after agitation. The best gas I ever examined required 150 percent oxygen for combustion, not counting any common air, and it often needed significantly less. The bottle I used for this experiment in 1810 contained 2700 grains of water. Initially, I charged the water with hydrogen, then added 120 grain measures of phosphuretted hydrogen and mixed it well. Afterward, 98 measures remained, proving that this gas is more absorbable than hydrogen. I then added 98 more measures of phosphuretted hydrogen to the same water and mixed it again, resulting in 80 measures left, which confirmed the result. Then, I added 97 measures of hydrogen and mixed it well; afterward, 105 measures remained. This showed that the hydrogen had pushed some of the gas out and was less absorbable than the phosphuretted hydrogen. Since the results were quite similar to what would occur if oxygen had been used instead of phosphuretted hydrogen, it was concluded that they have the same absorbability.

In the present instance, however, I have been more circumstantial; after repeatedly agitating water with pure azotic gas, so as to saturate it and expel the oxygen, I then put in 110 grain measures of phosphuretted hydrogen composed of 100 pure gas, 5 hydrogen, and 5 azotic gas or rather atmospheric air. After due agitation, all was absorbed but 35; this was mixed with a known portion of oxygen and exploded; the diminution was 19 measures; the oxygen remaining was determined by hydrogen; from which it appeared that 10 combustible gas had taken 9 oxygen. Now 10 being ²/₇ of 35, we may consider the water as ²/₇ impregnated with the phosphuretted hydrogen, and ⁵/₇ with azote; but as there were 105 combustible gas and only 10 left, 95 must have entered the water and caused it to be ²/⁷ charged with the gas; whence we may infer that 332 gas would have been a full charge for 2700 water, which is almost exactly ⅛, as stated above. Other experiments gave corresponding results. On admitting 51 azotic gas to the water, and agitating it a good deal for 4 or 5 minutes, there came out 51 measures or the same volume: this was found in the same way to consist of 43 azote and 8 combustible, which took 10 oxygen. Again 51 azote was [Pg 176] agitated in the water, and there came out 51, of which 5 + were combustible and took 9 oxygen. After this the bottle of water was put into a pan of water which was raised to the boiling heat, a bent tube filled with water being adapted to the water bottle, and having its end immersed in water: by this operation gas was expelled from the water, and caught in the neck of the bottle; when it amounted to 22 grain measures it was transferred and was found to consist of 17 azote + 5 + combustible, which took 10 oxygen. By these experiments we see that the gas is expelled again from the water, both by ebullition and by other gases, nearly the same in quality, but much diminished in quantity, the reason of which is not very obvious. The liquid now required 30 measures of oxymuriate of lime, equivalent to 100 measures of oxygen, before it was saturated; that is, there appeared to be 50 phosphuretted hydrogen remaining in the water. Adding a little lime water threw down a very sensible quantity of phosphate of lime.

In this case, I've been more detailed; after repeatedly mixing water with pure nitrogen gas to saturate it and remove the oxygen, I then added 110 grain measures of phosphine made up of 100 pure gas, 5 hydrogen, and 5 nitrogen or rather atmospheric air. After proper mixing, 35 measures remained. I combined this with a known amount of oxygen, which caused an explosion; the decrease was 19 measures, and the leftover oxygen was measured using hydrogen. This showed that 10 combustible gas used up 9 oxygen. Since 10 is ²/₇ of 35, we can say that the water was ²/₇ infused with phosphine and ⁵/₇ with nitrogen. However, since there were 105 combustible gas and only 10 left, 95 must have entered the water, making it ²/₇ charged with the gas; thus, we can conclude that 332 gas would be a full charge for 2700 water, which is almost exactly ⅛, as mentioned earlier. Other experiments produced similar results. When 51 nitrogen gas was added to the water and mixed for 4 or 5 minutes, 51 measures of the same volume were released: this was found to consist of 43 nitrogen and 8 combustible, which took 10 oxygen. Again, 51 nitrogen was mixed in the water, and 51 came out, of which 5+ were combustible and took 9 oxygen. After this, the water bottle was placed in a pan of water heated to boiling, with a bent tube filled with water connected to the bottle, its end submerged in water: this operation expelled gas from the water, which was collected in the bottle’s neck; when it reached 22 grain measures, it was transferred and found to consist of 17 nitrogen + 5 + combustible, which took 10 oxygen. Through these experiments, we observe that gas is expelled from the water both through boiling and with other gases, almost the same in quality but significantly less in quantity, the reason for which isn't very clear. The liquid now needed 30 measures of lime chloride, equivalent to 100 measures of oxygen, before it became saturated; that is, there appeared to be 50 phosphine remaining in the water. Adding a little lime water precipitated a noticeable amount of calcium phosphate.

The expansion of phosphuretted hydrogen by electricity is a subject on which there has been as much diversity as on its absorption. In 1797, Dr. Henry found that it expanded “equally with carbonated hydrogen.” [Pg 177] (Philos. Trans.). In 1800, Davy states that phosphuretted hydrogen was not altered in volume by electricity. (Researches, page 303.) In 1810, my experiments led me to adopt the same conclusion. In 1811, Gay Lussac found (Recherches, page 214), that potassium heated in phosphuretted hydrogen gas, expanded 100 volumes to 146; he infers that the true expansion ought to have been to 150. In 1812, Davy observes, that when electric sparks are passed through gases of this kind, “usually there is no change of volume.” (Elements of Chem. Philos. p. 294.) But he adds that when a gas (sp. gr. 6, hyd. being 1) was heated with zinc filings over mercury, there was an expansion of volume of more than ⅓. Also potassium heated in it, made 2 parts become 3 or 3, parts rather more than 4, (1810); the residual gas in these cases was pure hydrogen. Hydrophosphoric gas (sp. gr. 12) yielded 2 volumes of hydrogen, by heating potassium in it. In 1816, Dr. Thomson found that by electric sparks phosphorus was deposited, and hydrogen remained “exactly equal to the original bulk of the phosphuretted hydrogen.” Lastly, in 1817, I found by two experiments, that by electrifying 30 grain measures of phosphuretted hydrogen in a tube over water, uninterruptedly for nearly [Pg 178] 2 hours, I produced an expansion of ⅕, or the gas became 36 measures; originally the gas contained 2½ common air, and the rest was combustible so that 100 measures took 190 oxygen. By exploding the residue with oxygen, I found that ¹/₁₅ or ¹/₂₀ of the phosphuretted hydrogen still remained undecomposed. Taking these observations into consideration along with the fact, that 1 volume of the purest gas requires 2 of oxygen for its combustion, I conclude that the true expansion should be ⅓, or 3 volumes of gas should become 4, and then it will be found that ⅓ of the oxygen is joined to the hydrogen and ⅔ to the phosphorus, which accords with what appears to me the only correct view of the constitution of phosphoric acid, namely, 2 atoms of oxygen to 1 of phosphorus.

The expansion of phosphuretted hydrogen through electricity is a topic with as much debate as its absorption. In 1797, Dr. Henry discovered that it expanded “equally with carbonated hydrogen.” [Pg 177] (Philos. Trans.). In 1800, Davy noted that phosphuretted hydrogen wasn't affected in volume by electricity. (Researches, page 303.) In 1810, my experiments led me to the same conclusion. In 1811, Gay Lussac found (Recherches, page 214) that potassium heated in phosphuretted hydrogen gas expanded from 100 volumes to 146; he inferred that the true expansion should have reached 150. In 1812, Davy observed that when electric sparks were passed through gases of this type, “usually there is no change of volume.” (Elements of Chem. Philos. p. 294.) However, he added that when a gas (sp. gr. 6, hyd. being 1) was heated with zinc filings over mercury, there was an expansion of over ⅓. Additionally, potassium heated in it increased from 2 parts to 3 or slightly more than 4 (1810); the leftover gas in these instances was pure hydrogen. Hydrophosphoric gas (sp. gr. 12) produced 2 volumes of hydrogen when potassium was heated in it. In 1816, Dr. Thomson found that electric sparks caused phosphorus to be deposited, and hydrogen remained “exactly equal to the original bulk of the phosphuretted hydrogen.” Finally, in 1817, I found through two experiments that by electrifying 30 grain measures of phosphuretted hydrogen in a tube over water continuously for nearly [Pg 178] 2 hours, I produced an expansion of ⅕, bringing the gas to 36 measures; originally, the gas contained 2½ parts common air, and the remainder was combustible, so that 100 measures consumed 190 oxygen. By igniting the residue with oxygen, I found that ¹/₁₅ or ¹/₂₀ of the phosphuretted hydrogen remained undecomposed. Considering these observations along with the fact that 1 volume of the purest gas requires 2 volumes of oxygen for combustion, I conclude that the true expansion should be ⅓, or that 3 volumes of gas should become 4, which indicates that ⅓ of the oxygen binds with the hydrogen and ⅔ with the phosphorus. This aligns with what seems to be the only accurate view of the composition of phosphoric acid: namely, 2 atoms of oxygen for every 1 atom of phosphorus.

The action of oxymuriatic acid, whether free or combined, on phosphuretted hydrogen, is curious and interesting; in both cases it effects a complete and instantaneous combustion of both phosphorus and hydrogen; when the acid is put to in the state of gas, it not only burns the phosphuretted hydrogen, but any free hydrogen that may be present; but this has a limit: if the phosphuretted hydrogen be largely diluted (90 per cent.) with hydrogen, this last is wholly left; the [Pg 179] reason seems to be, the phosphuretted hydrogen burns at a lower temperature; and hence probably it is, that liquid oxymuriate of lime burns the phosphuretted hydrogen, but not the hydrogen gas.

The effect of oxymuriatic acid, whether it's in its free form or combined, on phosphuretted hydrogen is both fascinating and noteworthy; in both scenarios, it leads to a complete and instant combustion of phosphorus and hydrogen. When the acid is introduced as a gas, it not only ignites the phosphuretted hydrogen but also any free hydrogen that might be present. However, this has its limits: if the phosphuretted hydrogen is significantly diluted (90 percent) with hydrogen, the latter is completely unaffected. The reason seems to be that phosphuretted hydrogen ignites at a lower temperature, which likely explains why liquid oxymuriate of lime can burn the phosphuretted hydrogen but not the hydrogen gas. [Pg 179]

The quantity of oxygen necessary to saturate a given volume of phosphuretted hydrogen is easily found. Oxygen gas containing a known per centage of azotic gas, must be used in some excess, mixed with a due portion of the gas. After exploding the mixture, the loss must be observed, and then the remaining oxygen must be found by exploding it with hydrogen. Hence the true volume of oxygen spent by the first explosion, and that of the combustible gas are both determined. The due proportion of oxygen is so nearly 2 to 1, that I have not been able to determine on which side the truth lies. Dr. Thomson says that when phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen are mixed, two volumes to one, a white smoke takes place, the volume of oxygen gradually disappears, and there remains behind a quantity of hydrogen exactly equal to the original volume of the phosphuretted hydrogen. I have observed nothing at all like this. A mixture of phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen stood 24 hours without sensible diminution, and afterwards being exploded, [Pg 180] 2 volumes of oxygen disappeared for 1 of phosphuretted hydrogen, the same as would have done at the moment of mixing. Perhaps the temperature may have some influence; mine was about 55°.

The amount of oxygen needed to fully saturate a specific volume of phosphuretted hydrogen is straightforward to determine. Oxygen gas with a known percentage of nitrogen gas must be used in slight excess, combined with the appropriate amount of the gas. After igniting the mixture, the loss should be noted, and then the remaining oxygen can be measured by igniting it with hydrogen. This way, the exact volume of oxygen consumed in the first explosion and the volume of the combustible gas are both calculated. The correct ratio of oxygen is so close to 2 to 1 that I haven't been able to clarify which side is accurate. Dr. Thomson states that when phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen are mixed in a 2:1 ratio, a white smoke forms, the volume of oxygen steadily decreases, and what remains is a quantity of hydrogen equal to the original volume of the phosphuretted hydrogen. I haven't seen anything like that at all. A mixture of phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen stood for 24 hours with no noticeable decrease, and when it was ignited later, 2 volumes of oxygen vanished for every 1 of phosphuretted hydrogen, just as would occur at the moment of mixing. Perhaps the temperature might play a role; mine was around 55°.

I have tried the minimum of oxygen that will consume or dissipate phosphuretted hydrogen gas. It may be exploded with about ¼ of its volume of oxygen, with the same phenomena as Davy observed of the hydrophosphoric gas. Phosphorus is thrown down and a volume of combustible gas is left about 10 per cent. greater than the original volume of phosphuretted hydrogen. This gas is nearly pure hydrogen. Hence the whole gas may be dissipated at 2 successive explosions, by rather less than an equal volume of oxygen. If phosphuretted hydrogen be exploded with an equal volume of oxygen, phosphorous acid, water and a little phosphoric acid are formed, and some hydrogen remains.

I have tested the minimum amount of oxygen needed to either consume or dissipate phosphuretted hydrogen gas. It can be detonated with about ¼ of its volume of oxygen, producing the same effects that Davy noted with hydrophosphoric gas. Phosphorus precipitates, and a volume of combustible gas is left that is about 10 percent greater than the original volume of phosphuretted hydrogen. This gas is nearly pure hydrogen. Therefore, the entire gas can be dissipated in two successive explosions using slightly less than an equal volume of oxygen. When phosphuretted hydrogen is exploded with an equal volume of oxygen, phosphorous acid, water, and a small amount of phosphoric acid are produced, with some hydrogen remaining.

One of the most remarkable properties of phosphuretted hydrogen, is that announced by Dr. Thomson, namely, its combustion with nitrous gas by electricity; and the slow combustion by the same gas, which I have mentioned above is a fact still more difficult to explain. I tried the combustion of phosphuretted hydrogen by nitrous gas and electricity [Pg 181] in 1810, but did not succeed. The reason was, the gas was not sufficiently pure. No phosphuretted hydrogen that is not 70 or 80 per cent. pure, can, I imagine, be exploded by nitrous gas; even the purest requires sometimes more than one spark, when mixed in the most favourable proportions; and I have known instances in which the mixture has exploded after electrification for a few minutes. An excess or defect of nitrous gas, occasions oxygen or hydrogen to be found in the residual gas, just as when we explode with oxygen. One volume of phosphuretted hydrogen requires, as nearly as I can find, 3½ of nitrous gas for mutual saturation. The azote developed amounts to 1¾ volumes or rather less, (due allowances in all such cases being made for that already existing in the two gases.)

One of the most impressive characteristics of phosphuretted hydrogen is what Dr. Thomson pointed out: its ability to burn with nitrous gas through electricity, and the slow combustion with the same gas that I mentioned earlier is an even more puzzling phenomenon. I attempted to ignite phosphuretted hydrogen with nitrous gas and electricity in 1810, but I wasn't successful. The issue was that the gas wasn't pure enough. I believe that no phosphuretted hydrogen that isn't at least 70 or 80 percent pure can be detonated by nitrous gas; even the purest sometimes requires more than one spark when mixed under the best conditions. I've observed cases where the mixture exploded after being electrified for just a few minutes. An excess or shortage of nitrous gas results in finding oxygen or hydrogen in the remaining gas, similar to when we explode with oxygen. One volume of phosphuretted hydrogen needs approximately 3½ volumes of nitrous gas for complete saturation. The nitrogen produced amounts to about 1¾ volumes or slightly less, (with proper adjustments in mind for what is already present in the two gases.)

The mutual action of nitrous gas and phosphuretted hydrogen without electricity exhibits one of the most singular phenomena we have in chemistry. Nitrous gas seems constantly to be decomposed, one part producing nitrous oxide and another part azote, even though an excess of nitrous gas remain undecomposed in the mixture, and both the phosphorus and hydrogen are completely burnt; but if the nitrous gas be deficient, then nitrous oxide, azote, and some of the phosphuretted [Pg 182] hydrogen are found in the residue, and the rest of the phosphuretted hydrogen is completely burnt or converted into phosphoric acid and water; here appears no preference of phosphorus to hydrogen in this case, nor any partial combustion. From an attentive consideration of the results of several experiments, I am inclined to offer the following solution of this remarkable case: One atom of phosphuretted hydrogen attacks 5 of nitrous gas at the same instant; the atom of phosphorus takes 2 of oxygen, and gives the corresponding 2 of azote to the two of nitrous gas, and thus makes two atoms of nitrous oxide, while the hydrogen takes 1 of oxygen from the fifth atom and liberates the azote; thus 2 measures of nitrous oxide are formed along with 1 of azote; and they are generally found in the residue in that ratio. The azote does not seem to pass through the intermediate state of nitrous oxide; for, as soon as the nitrous gas ceases to exist, there is an end of the combustion.

The interaction between nitrous gas and phosphuretted hydrogen without electricity shows one of the most unique phenomena in chemistry. Nitrous gas appears to be constantly decomposed, with part of it producing nitrous oxide and the other part turning into nitrogen, even when there's excess nitrous gas left in the mixture and both phosphorus and hydrogen are fully burned. However, if there's not enough nitrous gas, then nitrous oxide, nitrogen, and some of the phosphuretted hydrogen are present in the leftover material, and the rest of the phosphuretted hydrogen is completely burned or turned into phosphoric acid and water. In this situation, there's no preference for phosphorus over hydrogen, nor any incomplete combustion. After carefully analyzing the results of several experiments, I’d like to propose the following explanation for this unusual case: One molecule of phosphuretted hydrogen reacts with five molecules of nitrous gas at the same time; the phosphorus atom takes two oxygen molecules, giving two nitrogen molecules back to the two nitrous gas molecules, thus forming two molecules of nitrous oxide, while the hydrogen takes one oxygen from the fifth molecule and releases nitrogen; as a result, two parts of nitrous oxide are produced along with one part of nitrogen, and they are usually found in that ratio in the leftover material. The nitrogen doesn't seem to convert into nitrous oxide first; as soon as the nitrous gas is gone, the combustion stops.

It may be proper to advert more particularly to the hydrophosphoric gas of Davy. That this gas is the same as that we have been describing, can hardly admit of a doubt. Their near agreement in sp. gr., in their absorbability by water, in the quantity of oxygen requisite for their [Pg 183] combustion, in their moderate expansion by burning with a minimum of oxygen and in their combustibility by oxymuriatic acid, are circumstances sufficient to warrant their identity. It is said that by heating potassium in this gas, one volume yields two of hydrogen; but it has not been found to yield two volumes by electricity, the more accurate criterion. Besides, both Davy and Gay Lussac find that potassium heated in the more common phosphuretted hydrogen expands it from 1 to 1⅓ or 1½ volume, which common electricity will not do; it is presumed therefore that the potassium in some way conduces to the production of a portion of the hydrogen. Spontaneous ignition or explosion is, I believe, no distinctive mark of variety in phosphuretted hydrogen; when this gas is produced, it is usually explosive from the uncombined phosphorus which it elevates; but the best and purest phosphuretted hydrogen loses the property wholly or partially by standing a while over water, though it loses no sensible part of its phosphorus.

It might be appropriate to focus more specifically on Davy's hydrophosphoric gas. There’s little doubt that this gas is the same as the one we've been discussing. Their close similarities in specific gravity, how easily they can be absorbed by water, the amount of oxygen needed for their combustion, their moderate expansion when burned with minimal oxygen, and their combustibility with oxymuriatic acid are enough to confirm their identity. It's said that by heating potassium in this gas, one volume produces two volumes of hydrogen; however, it hasn't been shown to yield two volumes through electricity, which is the more precise measure. Additionally, both Davy and Gay Lussac observed that potassium heated in the more common phosphuretted hydrogen expands it from 1 to 1⅓ or 1½ volumes, which ordinary electricity won't achieve; thus, it’s assumed that the potassium somehow helps produce a portion of the hydrogen. Spontaneous ignition or explosion, I believe, isn’t a distinguishing feature of different types of phosphuretted hydrogen; when this gas is created, it is usually explosive due to the uncombined phosphorus it carries, but the best and purest phosphuretted hydrogen loses this property completely or partially after standing for a while over water, even though it doesn’t lose any noticeable amount of phosphorus.

It is commonly stated that phosphuretted hydrogen deposits phosphorus by long standing. This seems to be true; but the deposition is slower than I imagined. Seven years ago I set aside a bottle of impure [Pg 184] phosphuretted hydrogen which I then labeled, 10 combustible take 14.6 oxygen; this bottle has not been preserved with special care to seclude the atmosphere; notwithstanding that, it is now such, that 10 combustible take 6.7 oxygen, and hence it still contains some genuine phosphuretted hydrogen.

It’s often said that phosphuretted hydrogen collects phosphorus over time. This seems to be true, but the process is slower than I thought. Seven years ago, I set aside a bottle of impure phosphuretted hydrogen that I labeled, 10 combustible take 14.6 oxygen; this bottle hasn’t been stored with special care to keep out the air; still, it’s now at a point where 10 combustible take 6.7 oxygen, which means it still contains some real phosphuretted hydrogen.

2 and 3. Phosphurets of
carbone and sulphur.

See Vol. 1. page 464.

See Vol. 1. p. 464.

4. Phosphuret of lime.

This compound may be formed by subliming phosphorus in a glass tube containing small fragments of recently calcined lime, heated to a low red. The sublimed phosphorus coming into contact with the hot lime, the two unite with a vivid glow, and in due time mutual saturation is produced. The result is a dry, hard compound of a deep brown or reddish colour, which on cooling must be put into a bottle and well corked, if not intended for immediate use, as it soon changes by the action of atmospheric air and moisture. With this precaution, I have reason to think it may be kept unimpaired for years. [Pg 185]

This compound can be made by heating phosphorus in a glass tube that contains small pieces of freshly calcined lime, heated to a low red. When the sublimed phosphorus touches the hot lime, they react with a bright glow, and over time, they become fully saturated. The outcome is a dry, hard compound that is deep brown or reddish in color. Once it cools, it should be stored in a bottle and tightly sealed if it’s not going to be used right away, as it quickly deteriorates when exposed to air and moisture. With this care, I believe it can be preserved for years without any changes. [Pg 185]

As far as I know, no experiments have been published relating to the proportion in which phosphorus and lime unite. M. Dulong, in a valuable paper on the combinations of phosphorus and oxygen, in the Memoires de la Société d’Arcueil, Vol. 3. (1817,) has given some account of his experiments on the earthy phosphurets; but it is to be regretted that he has given none on the proportions of their elements.

As far as I know, there haven't been any studies published regarding the ratio in which phosphorus and lime combine. M. Dulong, in a valuable paper on the combinations of phosphorus and oxygen, in the Memoires de la Société d’Arcueil, Vol. 3. (1817), has provided some details about his experiments on the earthy phosphurets; however, it's unfortunate that he hasn’t provided any on the proportions of their elements.

In order to ascertain the phosphorus, I put 10 grains of well preserved phosphuret of lime, into 1000 grains of liquid oxymuriate of lime, such that by previous trials I knew would impart 3.5 grains of oxygen; to this mixture a quantity of muriatic acid was put, sufficient to engage the lime; the phosphuretted hydrogen disengaged, was of course made to pass through the liquid as it was generated, and became oxidized, so as to lose its gaseous form; the surplus gas was prevented from escaping by an inclination of the bottle; it was 45 grain measures only, and of this 30 were found to be pure hydrogen, and the rest atmospheric air detached from the water; these 30 measures were the free hydrogen, which would have been mixed with the phosphuretted hydrogen, in the ordinary way. In due time, the whole of the phosphuret of lime [Pg 186] was dissolved. The liquid was strongly acid, and manifested no smell of oxymuriatic acid, a proof that it was all decomposed. To this were added 70 more of the oxymuriate of lime before the smell of it was permanently developed. The liquid was next saturated with lime water, and the phosphate of lime carefully collected and dried; when heated to a low red it weighed 12 grains, and consisted, according to my estimate of this compound, of 6— grains of phosphoric acid and 6 + grains of lime. The 6— grains of acid contained 2.4 phosphorus and 3.5 of oxygen. It must be remembered that 10 grains of phosphuret yield about 500 measures of phosphuretted hydrogen, and these contain 650 measures of hydrogen, which last is also oxidized at the expence of the oxymuriatic acid; but then there is an equivalent of oxygen from the water, so that this does not influence the calculation for oxygen. There appears then to be only an excess of .24 grains of oxygen unaccounted for, (arising from the additional 70 of oxymuriate of lime), which is as little as can be expected in such an experiment. If the phosphorus amount to 24 per cent. we may reasonably infer that the remainder (76) is mostly lime, though I have not been able to detect [Pg 187] above 60. Now if an atom of phosphorus weigh 9⅓ and one of lime 24, the due proportion of the protophosphuret of lime would be 28 phosphorus and 72 lime; but when the article is made for sale, it is more likely to find a defect than an excess of phosphorus.

To determine the phosphorus content, I placed 10 grains of well-preserved phosphuret of lime into 1000 grains of liquid oxymuriate of lime, which past tests indicated would release 3.5 grains of oxygen. I then added enough muriatic acid to react with the lime. The phosphuretted hydrogen produced was directed through the liquid as it formed and oxidized, losing its gaseous state; I prevented excess gas from escaping by tilting the bottle. The total was just 45 grain measures, with 30 of those identified as pure hydrogen and the remainder, atmospheric air released from the water. These 30 measures were the free hydrogen, which would normally mix with the phosphuretted hydrogen. Eventually, all of the phosphuret of lime dissolved. The liquid was highly acidic and had no smell of oxymuriatic acid, indicating complete decomposition. I added 70 more grains of oxymuriate of lime before a permanent scent developed. The liquid was then saturated with lime water, and the phosphate of lime was carefully collected and dried; when heated to a low red, it weighed 12 grains and I estimated that this compound contained 6— grains of phosphoric acid and 6 + grains of lime. The 6— grains of acid included 2.4 phosphorus and 3.5 oxygen. It's important to note that 10 grains of phosphuret yield about 500 measures of phosphuretted hydrogen, which in turn contains 650 measures of hydrogen. This hydrogen is also oxidized at the expense of the oxymuriatic acid, but there's an equivalent amount of oxygen from the water, so this doesn’t affect the oxygen calculation. Thus, there seems to be only .24 grains of oxygen that isn’t accounted for, likely arising from the extra 70 grains of oxymuriate of lime, which is minimal for such an experiment. Assuming the phosphorus is 24 percent, we can reasonably conclude that the rest (76) is mostly lime, although I have not detected more than 60. If one atom of phosphorus weighs 9⅓ and one of lime weighs 24, the correct proportion of protophosphuret of lime should be 28 phosphorus and 72 lime; however, in commercially available forms, it's more likely to find a deficiency rather than an excess of phosphorus.

According to Dulong, when the earthy phosphurets are decomposed by water, phosphuretted hydrogen and subphosphorous acid are formed. I believe this determination is right; for I find at most only ⅓ of the above proportion of phosphorus in the phosphuretted hydrogen yielded by 10 grains of the phosphuret of lime; the remaining ⅔ seem to rest in the liquid in combination with the oxygen and lime; that is, 1 atom of hydrogen combines with 1 of phosphorus, and 1 of oxygen with 2 of phosphorus. Notwithstanding this, the phosphoric acid produced from the residue by means of oxymuriate of lime, does not in general correspond to the above quantity. Perhaps this loss may be owing to the phosphorus carried over in mechanical suspension by the gas.

According to Dulong, when earthy phosphates are broken down by water, phosphine and subphosphorous acid are created. I believe this finding is correct; since I find that at most only ⅓ of the expected amount of phosphorus is present in the phosphine produced by 10 grains of lime phosphide; the remaining ⅔ seems to be combined in the liquid with oxygen and lime; specifically, 1 atom of hydrogen combines with 1 atom of phosphorus, and 1 atom of oxygen with 2 atoms of phosphorus. Despite this, the phosphoric acid produced from the remaining material using calcium oxychloride generally doesn't match the expected quantity. This loss might be due to phosphorus being carried over in mechanical suspension by the gas.

M. Dulong observes, that even the earthy subphosphites are very soluble; this did not appear to me to be the case with that of lime: 10 grains of phosphate of lime, that had been exposed for 20 minutes to [Pg 188] the air, were put into a gas bottle filled with 400 grains of water; this was kept at nearly the boiling heat for an hour, when 725 grain measures of gas were produced, and some phosphorus was carried over with it into the receiving bottle and bason of water. The gas being analysed, was found to consist of 62 per cent. phosphuretted hydrogen, 33 hydrogen and 5 common air. The 400 grains of water in the gas bottle treated with oxymuriate of lime, and then with lime water, scarcely gave any appreciable quantity of phosphate of lime. The insoluble residue when dried yielded 9 grains. This dissolved in muriatic acid left a fraction of a grain of dirty yellow powder, which indicated some phosphorus; and the muriate of lime indicated about 6 grains of lime.

M. Dulong notes that even earthy subphosphites are quite soluble; however, this didn’t seem true for lime. Ten grains of phosphate of lime, which had been exposed to air for 20 minutes, were placed in a gas bottle containing 400 grains of water. This was kept at nearly boiling heat for an hour, producing 725 grain measures of gas, and some phosphorus was carried over with it into the receiving bottle and basin of water. When analyzed, the gas was found to consist of 62 percent phosphine, 33 percent hydrogen, and 5 percent ordinary air. The 400 grains of water in the gas bottle, treated with oxymuriate of lime and then with lime water, yielded almost no measurable quantity of phosphate of lime. The insoluble residue, when dried, produced 9 grains. This dissolved in hydrochloric acid, leaving a trace of dirty yellow powder that indicated some phosphorus, and the calcium chloride showed about 6 grains of lime.

5. Phosphuret of barytes.

The combination of phosphorus and barytes may be effected in the same way as the foregoing, and the compound has the same appearance. According to Dulong, who has examined this phosphuret with particular attention, it gives out phosphuretted hydrogen when dropped into water, the same as that of lime. When the gas ceases to be given out, a powder [Pg 189] remains completely insoluble in water, of a variable colour, yellow, grey or brown. It is not altered by the air; but it gives out a slight phosphoric flame when heated. Dilute nitric or muriatic acid, dissolves nearly the whole with a trace of phosphuretted hydrogen, and leaves only a few atoms of greenish yellow powder, soluble in oxymuriatic acid. The part dissolved by the acids being precipitated by ammonia, gives phosphate of barytes. From these facts he infers that the residue insoluble in water, consists of a small portion of phosphuret of barytes with excess of base, and phosphate of barytes. The water in which the phosphuret was decomposed, contains most of the barytes; carbonic acid produces a slight precipitate, and then leaves a neutral liquid containing the subphosphate of barytes, which appears to be a very soluble salt. Sulphuric acid throws down the barytes and leaves the subphosphorous acid in the liquid.

The combination of phosphorus and barytes can be done in the same way as before, and the compound looks the same. According to Dulong, who studied this phosphuret closely, it releases phosphuretted hydrogen when dropped in water, similar to lime. Once the gas stops being released, a powder [Pg 189] remains completely insoluble in water, with colors varying from yellow, grey, to brown. It’s not affected by air but gives off a slight phosphoric flame when heated. Dilute nitric or muriatic acid dissolves almost everything, leaving behind a trace of phosphuretted hydrogen and only a few bits of greenish-yellow powder, which are soluble in oxymuriatic acid. The part that the acids dissolve, when precipitated by ammonia, forms phosphate of barytes. From these findings, he concludes that the residue insoluble in water consists of a small amount of phosphuret of barytes with an excess of base, and phosphate of barytes. The water in which the phosphuret was broken down holds most of the barytes; carbonic acid causes a slight precipitate and then leaves a neutral liquid containing subphosphate of barytes, which seems to be a highly soluble salt. Sulphuric acid causes the barytes to precipitate while leaving subphosphorous acid in the liquid.

Nothing certain is determined from experiment respecting the proportion of phosphorus and barytes which combine; but from analogy it is probable that they combine atom to atom, or 68 parts barytes with 9 of phosphorus; or 100 parts of the compound contain 88 of barytes and 12 of phosphorus. [Pg 190]

Nothing specific has been established from experiments regarding the ratio of phosphorus to barytes in their combination; however, based on analogy, it is likely that they combine atom for atom, with 68 parts of barytes to 9 parts of phosphorus. In other words, 100 parts of the compound consist of 88 parts barytes and 12 parts phosphorus. [Pg 190]

6. Phosphuret of strontites.

Phosphuret of strontites may be formed as the two preceding articles. It is in all respects similar to the phosphuret of barytes according to Dulong, and its properties therefore need not be particularized.

Phosphuret of strontium can be created in the same way as the two previous substances. It is, in every way, similar to phosphuret of barium, according to Dulong, so there’s no need to go into detail about its properties.

From analogy, I should apprehend, it must be constituted of 46 strontites and 9 phosphorus, or one atom of strontites to one of phosphorus; that is, 100 parts of phosphuret should contain 83 strontites and 17 phosphorus.

From analogy, I understand that it must consist of 46 strontium atoms and 9 phosphorus atoms, or one atom of strontium for one of phosphorus; that is, 100 parts of phosphide should contain 83 strontium and 17 phosphorus.

Combinations of the other earths and phosphorus have not yet been effected. Neither have the alkalies been combined with phosphorus; the hydrates of these as well as those of the earths, yield phosphuretted hydrogen when heated with phosphorus, and probably a phosphate or subphosphate of the base. M. Sementini of Rome is said to have succeeded in combining potash and phosphorus by means of alcohol. His experiments, however, appear to me too indefinite to warrant the conclusion. (See An. of Philos.—7. p. 280). The compounds of phosphorus with potassium and sodium are described in the sequel, amongst the metallic phosphurets. [Pg 191]

Combinations of other earth elements and phosphorus have not been achieved yet. Additionally, phosphorus has not been combined with alkalis; the hydrates of these, along with those of the earth elements, produce phosphine when heated with phosphorus, likely resulting in a phosphate or subphosphate of the base. M. Sementini from Rome is said to have successfully combined potash and phosphorus using alcohol. However, his experiments seem too vague to support that conclusion. (See An. of Philos.—7. p. 280). The compounds of phosphorus with potassium and sodium are described later, among the metallic phosphides. [Pg 191]

7. Phosphuret of gold.

M. Pelletier heated together in a crucible, half an ounce of pure gold, one ounce of phosphoric glass and ⅛ of an ounce of powdered charcoal, the heat was raised sufficiently to fuse the gold. Phosphoric fumes arose, but the whole of the phosphorus was not dissipated. The gold remaining was whiter than natural, and brittle under the hammer. Exposed to a very high heat it lost ¹/₂₄ of its weight, and resumed the ordinary characters of gold.

M. Pelletier combined half an ounce of pure gold, one ounce of phosphoric glass, and ⅛ of an ounce of powdered charcoal in a crucible and raised the heat enough to melt the gold. Phosphoric fumes came off, but not all the phosphorus evaporated. The gold that was left was whiter than usual and brittle when struck. When exposed to very high heat, it lost ¹/₂₄ of its weight and returned to the typical properties of gold.

The same chemist heated 100 grains of pure gold in filings to a bright red; he then projected small fragments of phosphorus amongst the gold successively till after it had entered into fusion. The gold preserved its colour, but became brittle under the hammer and granular in the fracture; it had increased 4 in weight.

The same chemist heated 100 grains of pure gold in filings until it was bright red; then he added small pieces of phosphorus to the gold one after another until it melted. The gold kept its color, but it became brittle when hammered and had a granular texture when broken; it had increased by 4 in weight.

Mr. Edmund Davy, by heating in a tube deprived of air, finely divided gold and phosphorus, effected a combination of them. It had a grey colour and metallic lustre. The heat of a spirit lamp was sufficient to [Pg 192] decompose it. It contained about 14 per cent. of phosphorus. (Davy’s Chemistry, page 448—An. 1812).

Mr. Edmund Davy, by heating finely divided gold and phosphorus in a vacuum tube, successfully combined them. The result had a gray color and a metallic shine. The heat from a spirit lamp was enough to break it down. It contained about 14 percent phosphorus. (Davy’s Chemistry, page 448—An. 1812).

Oberkampf and Thomson have successively observed the precipitation occasioned by water impregnated with phosphuretted hydrogen, in solutions of muriate of gold. The former of these has some interesting remarks on the phenomena. When a current of this gas is passed through a dilute solution of muriate of gold for a time, and then suddenly discontinued, the solution becomes brown and passes soon to a fine deep purple. A yellowish brown precipitate is obtained, which is metallic gold, and the liquid, now become yellow again, contains muriate of gold and phosphoric acid. The experiment may be continued with the like results. But if the liquid be saturated with gas before any precipitate is suffered to subside, a black powder is obtained which does not seem to contain any metallic gold, and the liquor ceases to have any colour. This black powder is the phosphuret of gold; exposed to heat it inflames and leaves metallic gold, but its elements are not separable by mechanical means. (An. de Chimie, 80—146, for 1811).

Oberkampf and Thomson have recorded the precipitation caused by water mixed with phosphuretted hydrogen in solutions of gold chloride. The former shares some interesting observations about the phenomena. When a stream of this gas is bubbled through a dilute solution of gold chloride for a while and then suddenly stopped, the solution turns brown and soon shifts to a rich deep purple. A yellowish-brown precipitate forms, which is metallic gold, and the liquid, now yellow again, contains gold chloride and phosphoric acid. The experiment can be repeated with similar results. However, if the liquid is saturated with gas before any precipitate has time to settle, a black powder forms that appears to contain no metallic gold, and the liquid loses all color. This black powder is the gold phosphide; when heated, it ignites and leaves behind metallic gold, but its components cannot be separated by mechanical means. (An. de Chimie, 80—146, for 1811).

Water impregnated with the gas was found to have like effects as the [Pg 193] gas itself. Whence Oberkampf concludes that as long as an excess of gold remains in solution, the phosphuretted hydrogen precipitates the metal only; but when the gas is in excess, the phosphorus leaves the hydrogen and unites with the precipitated gold.

Water mixed with the gas showed similar effects as the gas itself. Therefore, Oberkampf concludes that as long as there's extra gold dissolved, the phosphuretted hydrogen only causes the metal to be precipitated; but when there's too much gas, the phosphorus separates from the hydrogen and combines with the precipitated gold.

I should rather suppose that the precipitation of the gold may be, in part at least, owing to the free hydrogen which we now know accompanies the phosphuretted hydrogen largely, in the manner in which this gas was formerly procured; however that may be, I find that water, impregnated with the purest phosphuretted hydrogen, has the property of precipitating the black phosphuret of gold from the muriate of that metal, in such manner as to effect complete mutual saturation, leaving nothing in the liquid but the muriatic acid. Let a solution containing a known quantity of gold be gradually dropped into water, containing a known quantity of phosphuretted hydrogen, as long as any black precipitate is formed. The point of saturation will be found when 60 parts by weight of gold have united to 9 of phosphorus, nearly; or when one atom of gold has united to one of phosphorus. Hence it may be concluded that 100 grains of the phosphuret of gold contain 13 or 14 of [Pg 194] phosphorus, which agrees very nearly with the results of Mr. Edmund Davy abovementioned.

I would rather think that the precipitation of gold may be, at least in part, due to the free hydrogen that we now know often accompanies phosphine, similar to how this gas was obtained in the past; however, regardless of that, I find that water, infused with the purest phosphine, can precipitate the black phosphide of gold from its chloride, resulting in complete saturation and leaving only muriatic acid in the solution. Let a solution with a known amount of gold be slowly added to water containing a known amount of phosphine until no more black precipitate forms. The saturation point will be reached when approximately 60 parts by weight of gold have combined with about 9 parts of phosphorus, or when one atom of gold has combined with one atom of phosphorus. Thus, we can conclude that 100 grains of phosphide of gold contain about 13 or 14 grains of phosphorus, which closely aligns with the findings of Mr. Edmund Davy mentioned earlier.

8. Phosphuret of platina.

M. Pelletier succeeded in combining platina with phosphorus by the same methods as with gold. By projecting phosphorus on grains of platina heated to a strong red, the latter acquired an increase of weight of 18 on the hundred; but this was probably an excess, as some vitreous phosphoric acid was found mixed with the mass.

M. Pelletier managed to combine platinum with phosphorus using the same methods as with gold. By applying phosphorus to platinum grains heated to a strong red, the platinum gained an increase of 18 percent in weight; however, this was likely an overestimate, as some glassy phosphoric acid was found mixed in with the substance.

In the Philos. Magazine, Vol. 40, Mr. E. Davy has related some experiments made with a view to combine platina and phosphorus; he effected it by heating platina and phosphorus together in an exhausted tube; the union commenced below a red heat and was attended with vivid ignition and flame. The compound was of a blueish grey colour and consisted of 82½ platina and 17½ phosphorus according to his estimate. Also by heating the ammonia-muriate of platina with ⅔ of its weight of phosphorus in a retort over mercury, muriatic gas was liberated, and muriate of ammonia and phosphorus were sublimed, but there remained at [Pg 195] dull red heat an iron black or dark grey mass at the bottom, of the sp. gr. 5.28. It was estimated to consist of 70 platina and 30 phosphorus; but I doubt whether it could consist of these two elements only.

In the Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 40, Mr. E. Davy described some experiments aimed at combining platinum and phosphorus. He achieved this by heating platinum and phosphorus together in an evacuated tube; the combination started below red heat and was accompanied by bright ignition and flame. The resulting compound was a bluish-grey color and was estimated to contain 82½ platinum and 17½ phosphorus. Additionally, by heating the ammonium chloride of platinum with ⅔ of its weight in phosphorus in a retort over mercury, hydrochloric gas was released, and ammonium chloride and phosphorus were vaporized. However, at dull red heat, there was a black or dark grey mass at the bottom, with a specific gravity of 5.28. It was estimated to be composed of 70 platinum and 30 phosphorus, but I doubt that it consisted solely of these two elements.

Phosphuretted hydrogen water scarcely has any effect on muriate of platina. After some time a very light flocculent matter appears, as Dr. Thomson has observed; but this seems to me to be nothing but a slight precipitation of phosphorus alone; I apprehend the gas unites with the platina, but the compound remains in solution somewhat in the same manner as platina and sulphuretted hydrogen. The platina may be precipitated from the clear liquid by muriate of tin, much the same in appearance as if no phosphuretted hydrogen were present.

Phosphine water has little effect on platinum chloride. After a while, a very light, fluffy substance appears, as Dr. Thomson noted; however, I think this is just a slight precipitation of phosphorus by itself. I suspect the gas combines with the platinum, but the compound stays dissolved similarly to how platinum and hydrogen sulfide behave. The platinum can be separated from the clear liquid using tin chloride, looking much like it would if there were no phosphine present.

9. Phosphuret of silver.

When pieces of phosphorus are dropped amongst silver heated to red in a crucible, the two unite and enter into fusion, according to Pelletier; when the metal is saturated with phosphorus the whole continues in a state of tranquil fusion; but being withdrawn from the fire, at the [Pg 196] moment of congelation, a quantity of phosphorus becomes suddenly volatile and burns vividly, and the surface of the metal becomes uneven. The metal on being cooled, is found to have gained from 12 to 15 per cent.; and he apprehends that when fluid it contains 10 per cent. more, making in all 25 phosphorus to 100 silver.

When pieces of phosphorus are added to silver heated to a red glow in a crucible, they combine and melt together, according to Pelletier. When the metal has absorbed enough phosphorus, it remains in a calm molten state. However, when it is removed from the heat at the moment it begins to solidify, some of the phosphorus suddenly vaporizes and burns brightly, causing the surface of the metal to become rough. Once cooled, the metal is found to have increased in weight by about 12 to 15 percent; he believes that while liquid, it contains an additional 10 percent, resulting in a total of 25 percent phosphorus to 100 percent silver.

The phosphuret of silver is white and crystalline, brittle under the hammer, but capable of being cut with a knife. By a strong heat the phosphorus is dissipated and leaves the silver pure.

The silver phosphide is white and crystalline, brittle when struck, but can be cut with a knife. When heated strongly, the phosphorus is released, leaving behind pure silver.

Both Raymond and Thomson observe that phosphuretted hydrogen water precipitates silver from its solutions of a black colour. I find that a solution of sulphate of silver containing one grain of the metal, requires water containing 90 grain measures of phosphuretted hydrogen to saturate it; the whole of the silver falls readily and leaves nothing but the acid in the water. Now the weight of 90 measures of this gas is nearly ⅑ of a grain; hence the proportions of metal and phosphorus are as 10 to 1, which shows that they combine atom to atom, or 90 silver to 9⅓ phosphorus. This is somewhat less of phosphorus than is determined above by Pelletier. [Pg 197]

Both Raymond and Thomson note that phosphine water precipitates silver from its solutions, resulting in a black color. I find that a solution of silver sulfate containing one grain of silver requires water with 90 grain measures of phosphine to saturate it; all the silver falls out easily, leaving only the acid in the water. The weight of 90 measures of this gas is about ⅑ of a grain; therefore, the ratio of metal to phosphorus is 10 to 1, indicating that they combine atom for atom, or 90 parts silver to 9⅓ parts phosphorus. This is slightly less phosphorus than what Pelletier determined earlier. [Pg 197]

10. Phosphuret of mercury.

M. Pelletier made several attempts to combine phosphorus and mercury. He seems to have succeeded best, by exposing mercury in an extreme state of division, to phosphorus under water in a moderate heat. The phosphuret is a black compound, which is resolved again into its elements by distillation.

M. Pelletier made several attempts to combine phosphorus and mercury. He seems to have had the most success by exposing mercury in a finely divided state to phosphorus underwater at a moderate heat. The phosphuret is a black compound that can be broken back down into its elements through distillation.

When nitrate of mercury is treated with phosphuretted hydrogen water, a copious dark brown or black precipitate is instantly formed, as Raymond and Thomson have observed. This black precipitate, Raymond adds, soon becomes white and crystalline in passing from phosphuret to phosphate, by attracting oxygen.

When mercury nitrate is mixed with phosphuretted hydrogen water, a large dark brown or black precipitate forms immediately, as noted by Raymond and Thomson. This black precipitate, Raymond adds, quickly turns white and crystalline as it transitions from phosphuret to phosphate by attracting oxygen.

I have found the black powder when dried in a moderate heat to abound in small shining globules, which have all the appearance of revived mercury. However this may be, I find that a certain weight of mercurial salt requires a certain portion of gas to saturate it, so as that the whole mercury shall be precipitated. One grain of mercury requires rather more than ¹/₁₈ of its weight or 50 grain measures of the gas for [Pg 198] its saturation. This proves the combination to be the most simple, or atom to atom; that is, 167 mercury take 9⅓ phosphorus; or 100 mercury take 5½ phosphorus nearly.

I found that when the black powder is dried with moderate heat, it consists of small shiny globules that look like revived mercury. Whatever the case may be, I noticed that a specific weight of mercurial salt needs a certain amount of gas to completely saturate it so all the mercury is precipitated. One grain of mercury requires just over ¹/₁₈ of its weight or 50 grain measures of gas for saturation. This shows that the combination is the simplest form, or atom to atom; that is, 167 parts of mercury combine with 9⅓ parts of phosphorus; or about 100 parts of mercury combine with 5½ parts of phosphorus. [Pg 198]

11. Phosphuret of palladium.

When nitrate of palladium is dropped into phosphuretted hydrogen water, a copious black flocculent precipitate is immediately formed, which doubtless consists of palladium and phosphorus.

When palladium nitrate is added to phosphine water, a large amount of black, fluffy precipitate forms right away, which is definitely made up of palladium and phosphorus.

Into 800 grains of phosphuretted hydrogen water containing 20 grain measures of gas, were put by degrees, 22 grain measures of muriate of palladium (sp. gr. 1.01) containing .12 acid and .14 oxide, corresponding to .12+ metal; mutual saturation was produced, and a finely distinct black powder precipitated, leaving the water clear and colourless, which was found by lime water to contain .12 parts of a grain of muriatic acid. The black powder collected and dried, corresponded as nearly as could be determined in weight to the ingredients. Now 20 measures of gas would weigh .025 of a grain, of which .0025 would be hydrogen and .0225 phosphorus; whence we have .12+ [Pg 199] metal joined to .0225 phosphorus or 50 to 9 nearly, indicating one atom of each. Hence 100 palladium would take 18 or 19 phosphorus.

In 800 grains of phosphuretted hydrogen water, which contained 20 grain measures of gas, 22 grain measures of muriate of palladium (specific gravity 1.01) that had 0.12 acid and 0.14 oxide were gradually added. This led to mutual saturation and the formation of a finely distinct black powder, leaving the water clear and colorless. Lime water analysis showed this water contained 0.12 parts of a grain of muriatic acid. The collected and dried black powder weighed as closely as possible to the original ingredients. Therefore, 20 measures of gas would weigh 0.025 of a grain, which breaks down to 0.0025 hydrogen and 0.0225 phosphorus. This gives us 0.12+ [Pg 199] metal combined with 0.0225 phosphorus, or roughly a ratio of 50 to 9, suggesting one atom of each. Thus, 100 palladium would react with 18 or 19 phosphorus.

12. Phosphuret of copper.

M. Pelletier combined copper and phosphorus by the same means as the preceding compounds. One hundred grains of copper united by heat with 15 of phosphorus; the fused mass when cooled was white and very hard. As part of the copper gets oxidized during the process he thinks it probable, with M. Sage, that copper may acquire 20 per cent. of phosphorus.

M. Pelletier combined copper and phosphorus in the same way as the earlier compounds. One hundred grains of copper melted together with 15 grains of phosphorus; the fused mass, when cooled, was white and very hard. Since some of the copper gets oxidized during the process, he believes, along with M. Sage, that copper could take on about 20 percent phosphorus.

In the 3d Vol. of Memoirs of the Society of Arcueil, page 432, M. Dulong converts fine copper wire into phosphuret by heating it to a low red, and passing the vapour of phosphorus over it in hydrogen gas. In the sequel he observes that 10 grammes of phosphuret of copper contained 1.97 of phosphorus; that is, the copper was to the phosphorus as 8.03 ∶ 1.97, or as 100 ∶ 24.5. This exceeds much Pelletier’s result, and is, I think, too high. For, he found that the above phosphuret converted into phosphate of copper by nitric acid yielded 14.44 [Pg 200] grammes. Now supposing the atom of phosphorus to weigh 9⅓, that of phosphoric acid 23⅓, and that of the black oxide of copper 70, we have an atom of phosphate of copper = 93⅓: and if 93⅓ ∶ 9⅓ ∷ 14.44 ∶ 1.444, for the phosphorus in 10 grammes; and hence the copper would be 8.556: this would give 100 copper to 17 phosphorus nearly, which would accord well with Pelletier’s determination, and very nearly agree with the theoretic result of 100 copper to 16⅔ phosphorus.

In the 3rd Vol. of Memoirs of the Society of Arcueil, page 432, M. Dulong turns fine copper wire into phosphuret by heating it to a low red and passing phosphorus vapor over it in hydrogen gas. He later notes that 10 grams of copper phosphuret contained 1.97 grams of phosphorus; that is, the ratio of copper to phosphorus was 8.03 ∶ 1.97, or 100 ∶ 24.5. This is significantly higher than Pelletier’s result, which I think is too much. He found that this phosphuret, when converted into copper phosphate by nitric acid, yielded 14.44 [Pg 200] grams. Assuming that the atomic weight of phosphorus is 9⅓, that of phosphoric acid is 23⅓, and that of black copper oxide is 70, we determine that one atom of copper phosphate weighs 93⅓. Therefore, the ratio 93⅓ ∶ 9⅓ is equivalent to 14.44 ∶ 1.444, for the phosphorus in 10 grams; hence the copper would be 8.556. This would suggest a ratio of nearly 100 copper to 17 phosphorus, which aligns well with Pelletier’s findings and closely matches the theoretical ratio of 100 copper to 16⅔ phosphorus.

Both Raymond and Thomson remark that phosphuretted hydrogen water produces a black or dark brown precipitate in sulphate of copper. I have not found any precipitate from any of the salts of copper by the same means. But if the blue hydrate be first precipitated by lime water, and then the phosphuretted hydrogen water admitted, the hydrate is immediately converted into a dark olive, which in all probability is a phosphuret of copper. From some experiments I am inclined to believe that this compound is the deutophosphuret, or two atoms of phosphorus to one of copper; and hence the copper is to the phosphorus as 100 ∶ 33⅓. [Pg 201]

Both Raymond and Thomson note that phosphuretted hydrogen water creates a black or dark brown precipitate when mixed with copper sulfate. I haven’t seen any precipitate from the other copper salts using the same method. However, if you first precipitate the blue hydrate using lime water and then introduce the phosphuretted hydrogen water, the hydrate rapidly transforms into a dark olive color, which is likely a copper phosphide. Based on some experiments, I suspect this compound is the deutophosphide, meaning there are two atoms of phosphorus for every one of copper; therefore, the ratio of copper to phosphorus is 100 ∶ 33⅓. [Pg 201]

13. Phosphuret of iron.

M. Pelletier formed a phosphuret of iron by both the methods above described for gold. He describes the phosphuret as very hard, of a white colour, striated and magnetic. He estimates, with some uncertainty, that 100 iron may combine with 20 phosphorus.

M. Pelletier created a phosphide of iron using both methods mentioned earlier for gold. He describes the phosphide as very hard, white in color, striated, and magnetic. He estimates, though with some uncertainty, that 100 parts of iron can combine with 20 parts of phosphorus.

Berzelius produced a phosphuret of iron by reducing the phosphate of the metal by charcoal and heat. (An. de Chimie, July 1816). He describes it as having the colour of iron, brittle and slightly acted upon by the magnet. By his analysis it was constituted of 100 iron and 30 phosphorus. The true proportion probably would be one atom to one, or 25 iron to 9⅓ phosphorus; that is, 100 iron to 37 phosphorus.

Berzelius created a phosphide of iron by reducing the metal's phosphate with charcoal and heat. (An. de Chimie, July 1816). He describes it as being iron-colored, brittle, and only slightly affected by magnetism. His analysis showed it was made up of 100 parts iron and 30 parts phosphorus. The actual ratio was likely one atom of iron to one atom of phosphorus, or 25 parts iron to 9⅓ parts phosphorus; that is, 100 parts iron to 37 parts phosphorus.

Both Raymond and Thomson found that sulphate of iron yields no precipitate by phosphuretted hydrogen water; and I may add, that the precipitated oxide or hydrate is also unaffected by the same.

Both Raymond and Thomson discovered that iron sulfate doesn’t produce a precipitate with phosphuretted hydrogen water; and I should note that the precipitated oxide or hydrate is also not affected by it either.

14. Phosphuret of nickel.

By projecting phosphorus amongst red hot nickel, Pelletier united 20 parts of the former to 100 of the latter. A part of the combined [Pg 202] phosphorus, he observes, flies off on cooling, so that the above proportion may perhaps be too low. Theoretically one atom of nickel should combine with one of phosphorus; that is, 26 with 9⅓, or 100 with 36.

By combining phosphorus with red-hot nickel, Pelletier mixed 20 parts of phosphorus with 100 parts of nickel. He notes that some of the combined phosphorus escapes during cooling, which means the mentioned ratio might actually be lower than it should be. Theoretically, one atom of nickel should bond with one atom of phosphorus; that means 26 should combine with 9⅓, or 100 should combine with 36. [Pg 202]

I find that neither the nitrate of nickel nor the hydrate are affected by phosphuretted hydrogen water.

I find that neither nickel nitrate nor hydrate is affected by phosphine water.

15. Phosphuret of tin.

Margraff was the first who combined phosphorus and tin by fusing the metal along with fusible salt from urine (phosphate of ammonia). Pelletier succeeded also in this way, as well as by the direct one of projecting phosphorus into melted tin. The compound was of a white colour; it gained 12 per cent. of weight; but as part of the tin was oxidized and adhered to the crucible in form of glass, he conjectures that tin would take from 15 to 20 per cent. of phosphorus. The atom of tin being 52, and that of phosphorus 9⅓, the due proportion would be 100 tin to 18 phosphorus.

Margraff was the first to combine phosphorus and tin by melting the metal together with fusible salt from urine (ammonium phosphate). Pelletier also achieved this, both by the same method and by directly adding phosphorus to melted tin. The result was a white compound that increased in weight by 12 percent; however, since some of the tin oxidized and stuck to the crucible as glass, he speculated that tin could absorb between 15 and 20 percent phosphorus. With the atomic weight of tin at 52 and that of phosphorus at 9⅓, the correct ratio would be 100 parts tin to 18 parts phosphorus.

Phosphuretted hydrogen water does not seem to precipitate tin from solutions, nor yet to act upon the precipitated oxide. [Pg 203]

Phosphuretted hydrogen water doesn’t seem to remove tin from solutions, nor does it affect the precipitated oxide. [Pg 203]

16. Phosphuret of lead.

Lead combines with phosphorus by the same methods as tin; but it is difficult to ascertain the proportions, according to Pelletier, from the oxidation and vitrification of part of the lead. Muriate of lead distilled with fusible salt of urine, also yielded phosphuret of lead. He conjectures the increase by phosphorus to be 12 or 15 per cent.; but by theory it should only be 10 or 11 per cent.

Lead combines with phosphorus using the same methods as tin, but it's hard to determine the proportions, according to Pelletier, because part of the lead gets oxidized and vitrified. Lead chloride distilled with fusible salt from urine also produced lead phosphide. He guesses that the increase from phosphorus is 12 or 15 percent, but theoretically it should only be 10 or 11 percent.

Raymond says that the nitrate of lead is decomposed by phosphuretted hydrogen water, but with less force than salts of silver and mercury; and that a phosphuret of lead is formed, of which he gives no character, except that it becomes in time a phosphate. Thomson says a slight white powder is formed by the mixture. This was the case with me; but I suspected that the white powder was merely a little sulphate of lead, arising from the impurity of the (rain) water; and this was found to be the fact; for the milkiness was just the same with like water unimpregnated with the gas. Besides, after the phosphuretted hydrogen water has been saturated with nitrate of lead till no more effect is produced, still the water retains its peculiar smell, and a [Pg 204] copious black precipitate is instantly produced by nitrate of silver or mercury. It appears then that phosphuret of lead cannot be formed this way. Neither does phosphuretted hydrogen water seem to have any effect on the recently precipitated oxide of lead.

Raymond states that lead nitrate is broken down by phosphuretted hydrogen water, but not as strongly as silver and mercury salts; and that a lead phosphide is created, though he doesn’t describe it apart from saying it eventually turns into a phosphate. Thomson mentions that a slight white powder is produced by the mixture. I experienced the same, but I suspected that the white powder was just a bit of lead sulfate from the rainwater impurities; and this turned out to be true, as the cloudiness was identical with the same water that hadn't been infused with gas. Moreover, even after saturating the phosphuretted hydrogen water with lead nitrate until no further reaction occurs, the water still keeps its distinctive smell, and a large black precipitate forms immediately when nitrate of silver or mercury is added. It seems then that lead phosphide cannot be produced this way. Phosphuretted hydrogen water also doesn't seem to affect the freshly precipitated lead oxide.

17. Phosphuret of zinc.

Both zinc and its oxide seem to combine with phosphorus, according to Pelletier; but the proportions were not ascertained. By theory, zinc should take 32 per cent. of phosphorus.

Both zinc and its oxide seem to bond with phosphorus, according to Pelletier; however, the exact proportions weren't determined. Theoretically, zinc should contain 32 percent phosphorus.

18. Phosphuret of potassium.

Some account was given by Davy, of the combination of potassium and phosphorus in essays from 1807 to 1810; and by Gay Lussac and Thenard in others from 1808 to 1811. According to Davy, when potassium and phosphorus are heated together, they combine in one uniform ratio of 8 to 3 nearly; and the compound, when acted upon by muriatic acid, gives out from .8 to 1 cubic inch of phosphuretted hydrogen gas, resulting [Pg 205] from one grain of the former and ⅜ of a grain of the latter substances combined. Also be observed that half a grain of potassium decomposed nearly 3 cubic inches of phosphuretted hydrogen, and set free more than 4 cubic inches of hydrogen; the phosphuret seemed to be of the same kind as the former, or that by direct combination of the two elements.

Davy provided some information about the combination of potassium and phosphorus in studies from 1807 to 1810, along with Gay Lussac and Thenard in others from 1808 to 1811. Davy noted that when potassium and phosphorus are heated together, they combine in a close ratio of about 8 to 3. When the compound is treated with hydrochloric acid, it produces between 0.8 to 1 cubic inch of phosphine gas from one grain of potassium and ⅜ of a grain of phosphorus combined. It was also observed that half a grain of potassium decomposed nearly 3 cubic inches of phosphine and released more than 4 cubic inches of hydrogen; the phosphide appeared to be similar to the previous one formed by the direct combination of these two elements. [Pg 205]

Gay Lussac and Thenard combined the elements by heat; the potassium is scarcely fused till the phosphuret is formed. The excess of phosphorus sublimes, and the phosphuret is always of a chocolate colour; the proportions were not ascertained. By treating this phosphuret with warm water, a quantity of phosphuretted hydrogen was uniformly given out, about 40 per cent. more than the hydrogen which would have been yielded by the potassium alone in water. But if the phosphuret was treated with dilute acid instead of water, then less gas was given out than otherwise; and the stronger the acid the less gas, so as sometimes to reduce the gas in volume to that yielded by potassium alone. They also found, as Davy had done, that potassium heated in phosphuretted hydrogen decomposed it, uniting with the phosphorus and producing the same compound as in the direct way. [Pg 206]

Gay Lussac and Thenard combined the elements by heating them; the potassium barely melts before the phosphuret is created. The excess phosphorus vaporizes, and the phosphuret always has a chocolate color; the exact proportions were not determined. When this phosphuret is treated with warm water, it releases a significant amount of phosphuretted hydrogen, about 40% more than the hydrogen produced by potassium alone in water. However, if the phosphuret is treated with dilute acid instead of water, it releases less gas than before; the stronger the acid, the less gas is produced, sometimes reducing the volume to match that produced by potassium alone. They also discovered, as Davy had, that potassium heated in phosphuretted hydrogen breaks it down, combining with the phosphorus and creating the same compound as when done directly. [Pg 206]

The results of Davy and the French chemists appear to be discordant; but I apprehend they may be reconciled. It appears probable from both, that the phosphuret of potassium must be a compound of one atom of each, or 35 potassium and 9⅓ phosphorus; that is, 100 potassium and 27 phosphorus nearly. Now in Davy’s method of treating the compound with acid, it is most probable that the atom of potassium takes one of oxygen to form potash, and the atom of phosphorus takes one of hydrogen to form one of phosphuretted hydrogen; but 3 volumes of pure phosphuretted hydrogen contain 4 volumes of hydrogen, (see page 178); and Davy obtained nearly ¾ of the volume of gas which the potassium alone would have produced, which therefore accounts for the fact as stated by him.

The results of Davy and the French chemists seem to conflict; however, I believe they can be reconciled. It seems likely from both that potassium phosphide must be a compound of one atom of each, or 35 potassium and 9⅓ phosphorus; that is, 100 potassium and about 27 phosphorus. Now, in Davy’s method of treating the compound with acid, it’s most likely that the potassium atom picks up one atom of oxygen to create potash, while the phosphorus atom picks up one atom of hydrogen to form phosphine. However, 3 volumes of pure phosphine contain 4 volumes of hydrogen (see page 178); and Davy obtained nearly ¾ of the gas volume that the potassium alone would have produced, which explains the fact as stated by him.

On the other hand, the French chemists by treating the phosphuret with hot water, probably determined the resolution in this way: the potassium resolved the water into oxygen and hydrogen the last of which was liberated in a free state, and of course produced the usual volume; the phosphorus also resolved the water into oxygen and hydrogen, one half of it taking the oxygen to form phosphorous acid, and the other [Pg 207] half taking the hydrogen to form phosphuretted hydrogen, which of course would produce phosphuretted hydrogen amounting to ⅜ of the volume of free hydrogen or 38 per cent. nearly, which would make up the volume of gas to 138, or nearly 140, as observed by them. It is not unlikely that 2 or 3 per cent. of hydrogen might be added by the further decomposition of water by the phosphorous acid, in order to make it into phosphoric acid.

On the other hand, the French chemists treated the phosphuret with hot water and likely figured out the breakdown this way: potassium split the water into oxygen and hydrogen, with the latter being released in a free state, resulting in the usual volume. Phosphorus also broke down the water into oxygen and hydrogen, with half of it using the oxygen to create phosphorous acid, and the other half utilizing the hydrogen to form phosphine, which would generate phosphine amounting to about ⅜ of the volume of free hydrogen, or nearly 38 percent. This adds up to a total gas volume of 138, or almost 140, as they observed. It's also possible that an additional 2 or 3 percent of hydrogen could come from the further breakdown of water by phosphorous acid to convert it into phosphoric acid.

19. Phosphuret of sodium.

No particular experiments having been detailed of this compound, we must infer it is similar to the last mentioned, and consists of one atom of sodium, 21, and one atom of phosphorus, 9⅓; that is, 100 sodium and 44 phosphorus nearly.

No specific experiments have been described for this compound, so we can assume it is similar to the one mentioned before, consisting of one sodium atom (23) and one phosphorus atom (31); that is, roughly 100 sodium and 44 phosphorus.

20. Phosphuret of bismuth.

If we may judge from M. Pelletier’s experiments, bismuth has but a weak affinity for phosphorus. By projecting portions of phosphorus amongst melted bismuth, he succeeded in uniting some of it to the metal; he [Pg 208] estimates the quantity at 4 per cent.; whereas by theory it ought to be 15 per cent. supposing them to unite atom to atom.

If we can judge from M. Pelletier's experiments, bismuth has a weak attraction to phosphorus. By introducing bits of phosphorus into melted bismuth, he was able to bond some of it with the metal; he estimates the amount at 4 percent, whereas theoretically, it should be 15 percent if they were to combine atom for atom. [Pg 208]

I do not find that the salts or oxide of bismuth are materially affected by phosphuretted hydrogen water.

I don't think that the salts or oxide of bismuth are significantly impacted by phosphuretted hydrogen water.

21. Phosphuret of antimony.

Phosphorus may be combined with antimony, according to Pelletier, by the same means as with the other metals. The phosphuret has a white, metallic appearance and lamellar fracture. The ratio of the elements was not determined. By theory supposing one atom to unite with one, it would be 40 to 9⅓, or 100 antimony to 23 phosphorus nearly.

Phosphorus can be combined with antimony, as Pelletier suggested, in the same way as with other metals. The resulting phosphuret has a white, metallic look and a layered structure. The exact ratio of the elements wasn’t established. Theoretically, if we assume one atom combines with one, the ratio would be about 40 to 9⅓, or roughly 100 parts antimony to 23 parts phosphorus.

Phosphuretted hydrogen water seems to have no effect on the salts or oxide of antimony.

Phosphine water doesn’t seem to affect the salts or oxides of antimony.

22. Phosphuret of arsenic.

From the experiments of Margraff and Pelletier, it seems probable that phosphorus unites both with arsenic and its oxide. By distilling a mixture of equal parts of arsenic and phosphorus in a carefully regulated heat, Pelletier obtained a residuum of a black shining [Pg 209] substance, containing a good proportion of phosphorus. The same was obtained in the humid way, by keeping phosphorus in fusion on arsenic under water for some time. The phosphuretted oxide may be obtained by distilling phosphorus and the white oxide of arsenic together, the phosphuretted oxide sublimes mixed with arsenic and phosphorus in a separate state. It is of a red colour. The proportions in neither case were ascertained. It is probable that the compounds are of the most simple kind, or one atom to one; in that case we shall have 21 arsenic and 9⅓ phosphorus, or 100 arsenic and 44 phosphorus for phosphuret of arsenic; and 28 oxide and 9⅓ phosphorus, or 100 oxide and 33 phosphorus for phosphuretted oxide.

From the experiments by Margraff and Pelletier, it seems likely that phosphorus combines with both arsenic and its oxide. By heating a mixture of equal parts arsenic and phosphorus at a carefully controlled temperature, Pelletier obtained a leftover black, shiny substance that contained a good amount of phosphorus. The same result was achieved through a wet method, by keeping melted phosphorus on arsenic underwater for some time. Phosphuretted oxide can be produced by distilling phosphorus and white arsenic oxide together; the phosphuretted oxide sublimes together with arsenic and phosphorus separately. It has a red color. The exact proportions in both cases were not determined. It's likely that the compounds are quite simple, with a one-to-one ratio; in that case, we would have 21 arsenic and 9⅓ phosphorus, or 100 arsenic and 44 phosphorus for phosphuret of arsenic; and 28 oxide and 9⅓ phosphorus, or 100 oxide and 33 phosphorus for phosphuretted oxide.

No precipitation is occasioned by phosphuretted hydrogen water in solutions of arsenic.

No precipitation occurs with phosphuretted hydrogen water in arsenic solutions.

23. Phosphuret of cobalt.

Cobalt unites with phosphorus in the direct way as well as by being heated with phosphoric glass. The colour of the compound is a blueish white; it is brittle and crystalline in the fracture. The metal [Pg 210] acquires 7 per cent.; this is below the theoretic quantity, which is 25 per cent. if the atom of cobalt be 37.

Cobalt combines with phosphorus both directly and by being heated with phosphoric glass. The color of the compound is a bluish white; it is brittle and has a crystalline fracture. The metal [Pg 210] contains 7 percent; this is below the theoretical amount, which is 25 percent if the cobalt atom is 37.

Solutions of cobalt give no precipitate by phosphuretted hydrogen water.

Solutions of cobalt do not produce a precipitate with phosphine water.

24. Phosphuret of manganese.

This compound may be formed like the preceding ones. It is of a white colour, brittle and of a granular texture. It is not liable to be altered by the air like the pure metal. The proportions of the compound Pelletier did not determine. Reasoning from theory, it should consist of 25 metal and 9⅓ phosphorus; or 100 metal and 37 phosphorus.

This compound can be made in a similar way to the ones mentioned earlier. It’s white, brittle, and has a granular texture. Unlike pure metal, it doesn't change when exposed to air. Pelletier didn't find out the exact proportions of the compound. Based on theory, it should be made up of 25 parts metal and 9⅓ parts phosphorus, or 100 parts metal and 37 parts phosphorus.

The salts and oxide of manganese are not sensibly affected by phosphuretted hydrogen water.

The salts and oxides of manganese are not noticeably affected by phosphine water.


The combinations of the remaining metals with phosphorus can scarcely be said to have been investigated.

The combinations of the other metals with phosphorus have hardly been studied.


[Pg 211]

[Pg 211]

SECTION 16.
CARBURETORS.

On the supposition that metals combine with charcoal, the appropriate names for the compounds would be carburets of the respective metals. This combination, if it exist at all, seems very rare, that with iron being the only one generally acknowledged. No combinations of carbone with the earths and alkalies, have, as far as I know, been noticed; and those with the elements oxygen, hydrogen, sulphur and phosphorus have been described in the former volume. Since that was printed an ingenious experimental essay on the “Sulphuret of carbon or alcohol of sulphur,” has been published by Berzelius and Dr. Marcet. Some account of this compound, under the name carburetted sulphur, has been given (Vol. 1. page 462); but the additional information is of sufficient importance to require notice here. The pure liquid is of sp. gr. 1.272; and the elasticity of its vapour at 66° is equal to 10.76 inches. It burns with a blue flame [Pg 212] and sulphureous odour, without sensibly depositing water on cold glass exposed to the fumes. It has an acrid, pungent taste, and a nauseous smell, differing from sulphuretted hydrogen. By various experiments it was found to consist of sulphur and carbone in the ratio of 85 to 15 nearly; that is, 2 atoms of sulphur to 1 of carbone. From other experiments it did not appear to contain any hydrogen.

Assuming that metals combine with charcoal, the appropriate names for the compounds would be carburets of the respective metals. This combination, if it exists at all, seems very rare, with iron being the only one commonly recognized. As far as I know, no combinations of carbon with earths and alkalies have been observed; those with the elements oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus were described in the previous volume. Since that was published, an innovative experimental essay on “Sulphuret of carbon or alcohol of sulfur” has been released by Berzelius and Dr. Marcet. Some information about this compound, referred to as carburetted sulfur, was provided (Vol. 1 page 462); however, the new findings are significant enough to warrant attention here. The pure liquid has a specific gravity of 1.272, and the vapor pressure at 66° is equal to 10.76 inches. It burns with a blue flame [Pg 212] and a sulfurous odor, without noticeably depositing water on cold glass exposed to the fumes. It has a sharp, pungent taste and a nauseating smell, which is different from hydrogen sulfide. Various experiments found it to consist of sulfur and carbon in a ratio of almost 85 to 15; that is, 2 atoms of sulfur to 1 of carbon. Other experiments suggested it does not contain any hydrogen.

From some experiments I made in June 1818, on the combustion of the vapour of carburet of sulphur in oxygen gas, I was led to suspect at least, that an atom of hydrogen attaches to the two of sulphur and one of carbone in its constitution. But not having an opportunity to pursue the subject, I merely make the observation for future experience to determine upon the question.

From some experiments I conducted in June 1818 on burning the vapor of carbon disulfide in oxygen gas, I began to suspect that one hydrogen atom attaches to two sulfur atoms and one carbon atom in its structure. However, without the chance to explore the topic further, I only note this observation for future experiments to clarify the issue.

1. Carburets of iron.

There are three distinct substances which are now commonly believed to be constituted of carbone and iron, known by the names of Plumbago, or black lead, Cast Iron and Steel.

There are three distinct substances that are now commonly thought to be made of carbon and iron, known by the names of Plumbago, or black lead, Cast Iron, and Steel.

Plumbago is a natural production, found in greatest perfection in the [Pg 213] Borrowdale mine, near Keswick, Cumberland. It is chiefly used in making pencils.—It seems to be constituted of carbone and iron by the concurrent experience of all who have examined it: but the proportions are not uniform, some having found 10 and others only 5 per cent. of iron in it. From this circumstance it would seem doubtful whether iron is an essential element. As carbone is known to be exhibited in various forms of aggregation, it is not improbable that plumbago may be one of those forms; it is evidently not a mere mixture of common charcoal and iron, or its oxide.

Plumbago is a natural substance that is found in its highest quality at the [Pg 213] Borrowdale mine, near Keswick, Cumberland. It's mainly used for making pencils. It seems to be made up of carbon and iron, according to everyone who has studied it; however, the proportions vary, with some people finding 10% iron and others only 5%. Because of this, it seems uncertain whether iron is a necessary part of it. Since carbon is known to exist in different forms, it's likely that plumbago is one of those forms; it clearly isn't just a mix of regular charcoal and iron or its oxide.

Cast iron or crude iron is the metal when first extracted from the ore; it usually contains carbone, oxygen, phosphorus and silica, in small proportions, with perhaps other earths occasionally. It cannot be considered as having these elements united in definite proportions; for they vary much, and probably give to crude iron its several modifications. Cast iron contains about 80 per cent. of its weight of iron in a state capable of solution in dilute sulphuric acid, and yielding a corresponding quantity of hydrogen gas. The residue, in a specimen I examined, was nearly as magnetic as iron itself. When treated with boiling muriatic acid, the insoluble part was reduced to [Pg 214] 2½ per cent. upon the original weight of the iron, and some hydrogen gas given out. It was then about as magnetic as the common black oxide of iron; when heated it assumed a glowing red and lost nearly ½ grain; it was still magnetic, and boiling muriatic acid extracted more iron from it.

Cast iron or crude iron is the metal that's first extracted from the ore. It usually contains carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, and silica in small amounts, along with possibly other earth elements here and there. It can't be seen as having these elements combined in fixed proportions because they vary greatly, likely giving crude iron its different forms. Cast iron has about 80 percent of its weight made up of iron that can dissolve in dilute sulfuric acid, producing a corresponding amount of hydrogen gas. In a sample I looked at, the residue was almost as magnetic as iron itself. When treated with boiling hydrochloric acid, the insoluble part dropped to 2½ percent of the original weight of the iron, also releasing some hydrogen gas. It was then about as magnetic as common black iron oxide; when heated, it glowed red and lost nearly ½ grain; it remained magnetic, and boiling hydrochloric acid extracted more iron from it.

The hydrogen gas from dilute sulphuric acid and cast iron contains no carbonic acid in my experience; neither does it yield any when exploded with pure oxygen gas.

The hydrogen gas generated from diluted sulfuric acid and cast iron doesn't contain any carbon dioxide in my experience; nor does it produce any when it reacts explosively with pure oxygen gas.

The small residuum after treating cast iron with acids was found by Bergman and others to resemble plumbago, being constituted chiefly of carbone and iron.

The small leftover material after treating cast iron with acids was discovered by Bergman and others to be similar to graphite, mainly made up of carbon and iron.

From the above it would seem that cast iron consists chiefly of pure iron, with the addition of very small proportions of oxygen and carbone; the oxygen may be about 1 per cent. and the carbone about 2. These proportions, though sufficient to modify the properties of iron to a certain extent, can scarcely be considered as constituting cast iron a homogeneous mass.

From the above, it seems that cast iron mainly consists of pure iron, with very small amounts of oxygen and carbon added; the oxygen might be around 1 percent and the carbon about 2 percent. While these amounts can change the properties of iron to some degree, they hardly make cast iron a uniform material.

Steel. This most important modification of iron has engaged the attention of many chemists and metallurgists. It may be procured, but not equally pure, by different methods. One is to keep the cast iron [Pg 215] for a considerable time in fusion and in a very high degree of heat; whilst its surface is covered with melted scoriæ, so as to preclude the contact of the atmosphere with the iron. This, it is conceived, gives time for the carbone and oxygen to combine and escape in the form of carbonic acid. This steel is of inferior purity.

Steel. This key modification of iron has captured the interest of many chemists and metallurgists. It can be obtained, though not always equally pure, through various methods. One way is to keep cast iron molten for an extended period at a very high temperature, while covering its surface with melted slag to prevent the atmosphere from coming into contact with the iron. This process is believed to allow time for carbon and oxygen to combine and escape as carbon dioxide. However, this steel is of lower purity.

Steel of cementation is made by stratifying bars of pure iron with charcoal powder in large earthen crucibles, carefully closed up with clay. These are exposed to a high degree of heat in a furnace for 8 or 10 days. This is called blistered steel, from the appearance of blisters on its surface.

Steel of cementation is created by layering bars of pure iron with charcoal powder in large clay crucibles, which are then tightly sealed with clay. These are heated in a furnace at high temperatures for 8 to 10 days. This is known as blistered steel, due to the blisters that form on its surface.

Cast steel is made from blistered steel by breaking the bars and putting them into a large crucible with pounded glass and charcoal. The crucible is closed with a lid of the same ware and placed in an air furnace. When the fusion is complete the metal is cast into ingots. This is the most valuable and probably the purest steel.

Cast steel is made from blistered steel by breaking the bars and putting them into a large crucible with ground glass and charcoal. The crucible is sealed with a lid made of the same material and placed in an air furnace. Once the melting is complete, the metal is poured into ingots. This is the most valuable and likely the purest steel.

When steel is heated red and plunged into cold water, it is hardened; that is, it becomes much harder than iron or than steel without this operation. Hardened steel is brittle, and cannot be extended by the hammer or corroded by a file till it is again softened [Pg 216] by being heated and then gradually cooled.

When steel is heated until it’s red and then dropped into cold water, it gets hardened; in other words, it becomes significantly harder than iron or steel that hasn’t gone through this process. Hardened steel is brittle and can’t be shaped with a hammer or filed down until it’s softened again by heating and then cooling it slowly. [Pg 216]

One of the most remarkable properties of hardened steel is that of being tempered, as it is called; by which it is adapted to the different purposes of the manufacturing artists. Tempering consists in heating the hardened steel till it acquires a straw colour for edge tools, a blue colour for watch springs, and elastic articles in general; &c. &c.

One of the most remarkable features of hardened steel is that it can be tempered, which allows it to be suited for various purposes in manufacturing. Tempering involves heating the hardened steel until it reaches a straw color for edge tools, a blue color for watch springs, and for elastic items in general; etc. etc.

Hardened steel is qualified to acquire magnetism, and to retain it so as to become a permanent magnet. This power of retaining magnetism distinguishes steel from pure iron.

Hardened steel is capable of gaining magnetism and holding onto it, making it a permanent magnet. This ability to retain magnetism sets steel apart from pure iron.

From the above account of steel, it is evident there is an essential difference between it and pure iron. That difference consists, according to the common opinion, in steel being a carburet of iron, or carbone and iron united. The fact of the union of carbone and iron in the formation of steel does not seem to me satisfactorily proved. Mr. Collier asserts that iron gains about ¹/₁₈₀th of its weight by being converted into steel.[18] But Mr. Mushet found that though steel gains weight upon the iron when [Pg 217] copiously imbedded in charcoal, yet it loses weight if the charcoal is only ¹/₉₀ or ¹/₁₀₀ of the weight of the iron.[19] The same ingenious gentleman seems to estimate the carbone in cast steel, from synthetic experiments, to be ¹/₁₀₀th of its weight.

From the above account of steel, it's clear that there is a fundamental difference between it and pure iron. This difference, according to popular belief, is that steel is a carburet of iron, or carbon and iron combined. However, I don’t find the evidence for the combination of carbon and iron in the creation of steel to be convincing. Mr. Collier claims that iron gains about ¹/₁₈₀th of its weight when it’s turned into steel.[18] But Mr. Mushet found that while steel gains weight when iron is heavily embedded in charcoal, it actually loses weight if the charcoal is only ¹/₉₀ or ¹/₁₀₀ of the iron's weight.[19] This same clever gentleman appears to estimate the carbon in cast steel, based on synthetic experiments, to be ¹/₁₀₀th of its weight.

From analytic experiments, however, there does not appear reason to believe that steel contains so much, if any charcoal. Pure steel dissolved in dilute sulphuric acid gives hydrogen gas containing no carbonic acid nor oxide, neither is there any appreciable residuum of any kind in general.

From analytical experiments, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think that steel contains much, if any, charcoal. Pure steel dissolved in dilute sulfuric acid produces hydrogen gas that has no carbon dioxide or oxide, and generally, there isn’t any noticeable residue of any kind.

On considering all the circumstances, I am inclined to believe, that the properties which distinguish steel from iron are rather owing to a peculiar crystallization or arrangement of the ultimate particles of iron, than to their combination with carbone or any other substance. In all cases where steel is formed, the mass is brought into a liquid form, or nearly approaching to it, a circumstance which allows the particles to be subject to the law of crystallization. We see that great change is made in steel by the mere tempering of it, which cannot be ascribed to the loss or gain of any substance, but to some [Pg 218] modification of the internal arrangement of its particles. Why then may not its differences from iron be ascribed to the same cause? It is allowed that steel, by being repeatedly heated and hammered, becomes iron: that is, it should seem, the change of figure disturbs the regular arrangement of the particles. And it may be further observed, in corroboration of the opinion that cast iron is capable of being made permanently magnetic, from its having been in fusion more probably than from its near approximation to steel in its component parts. The most powerful artificial magnets, after being forged of steel, are said to undergo the operation of steelifying again, before they are hardened finally to receive the magnetic virtue.

Considering all the circumstances, I believe that the properties that set steel apart from iron are more due to a unique crystallization or arrangement of the tiny particles of iron, rather than their combination with carbon or any other substance. Whenever steel is created, it’s heated until it’s liquid or almost liquid, which allows the particles to follow the rules of crystallization. We notice that steel undergoes significant changes just by being tempered, which can't be attributed to the loss or gain of any substance, but rather to some alteration in the internal arrangement of its particles. So why can’t we say that its differences from iron come from the same reason? It’s understood that steel can turn into iron when it’s heated and hammered repeatedly. This suggests that changing its shape disrupts the regular arrangement of the particles. Additionally, it can be noted that cast iron likely becomes permanently magnetic due to its time spent in a molten state more so than its similarity to steel in its components. The strongest artificial magnets, after being forged from steel, are said to go through a process called steelifying again before they are hardened to finally gain magnetic properties.


SECTION 17.
Metal Alloys.

When two or more metals of different specific gravities are melted together and intimately mixed, they frequently enter into chemical union and form a new compound, called an alloy of the metals. These [Pg 219] alloys often possess important properties which their constituents singly do not, and hence become valuable acquisitions to the arts. The metals thus combined may be fused together in any proportion; but if one of them greatly exceed the other in specific gravity, their intimate union is sometimes rendered difficult and even impracticable, partly from the weak affinity and partly from the gravitating principle causing the metal of least specific gravity to arise to the surface.

When two or more metals with different densities are melted together and thoroughly mixed, they often chemically combine to create a new substance called an alloy. These alloys can have significant properties that their individual components do not have, making them valuable for various applications. The metals can be fused together in any ratio; however, if one metal is significantly denser than the other, forming a uniform mixture can be challenging or even impossible. This is partly due to weak attraction between the metals and partly because the less dense metal tends to rise to the surface. [Pg 219]

Notwithstanding this union of metals in seemingly indefinite proportions, there are only a few proportions in which the alloys possess peculiar excellences so as to entitle them to the attention of artists. These proportions have in many instances been discovered by experience; and it only remains for theory to point out the reason for such proportions, and to suggest other proportions which may bid fair to possess desirable qualities, and thereby diminish the unsuccessful attempts for improvement in these combinations.

Despite the combination of metals in seemingly endless ratios, only a few of these mixtures have unique qualities that make them noteworthy for artists. Many of these ratios have been found through experience, and it's the job of theory to explain why these ratios work and to propose other combinations that might also have desirable properties, thus reducing the failed attempts to enhance these mixtures.

That the metals thus alloyed constitute true chemical compounds and not merely mechanical mixtures, may be inferred from the change made in their primary qualities; such as [Pg 220]

That the metals mixed together form real chemical compounds and not just mechanical mixtures can be understood from the change in their fundamental qualities; such as [Pg 220]

1. Tenacity, hardness, &c. Some alloys are much superior to their ingredients in tenacity and hardness, whilst others affect a kind of medium between them. This last is often the case too in regard to ductility and malleability.

1. Tenacity, hardness, &c. Some alloys are significantly better than their components in strength and hardness, while others fall somewhere in between. This is also often true for ductility and malleability.

2. Fusibility. Several alloys fuse at temperatures intermediate between the fusing temperatures of their ingredients, but mostly lower than the mean; there are others which fuse below the temperature of the lowest, and few if any require a temperature above the mean for their fusion.

2. Fusibility. Many alloys melt at temperatures that are between the melting points of their components, usually lower than the average; some even melt below the lowest temperature, and very few, if any, need a temperature higher than the average to melt.

3. Colour. In many cases the colour of alloys is such as would be produced by the mixture of the colours of the metals; but in others, remarkably different; for instance, the alloys of copper and zinc,—forming the various kinds of brass.

3. Color. In many cases, the color of alloys is similar to what you would get by mixing the colors of the metals; but in other cases, it can be quite different. For example, the alloys of copper and zinc create the different types of brass.

4. Specific gravity. This is not always what might be inferred from a mixture of the two ingredients. Sometimes it is greater and other times less; but this is not a decisive mark of chemical union, as the same metal varies in specific gravity, by hammering, rolling, tempering, &c. very considerably. Besides, it is more than probable that the differences said to have been observed, have in some instances arisen from inaccurate experiments; as it is a delicate operation to find the specific gravity of small pieces of metal with sufficient precision for comparisons of this kind.

4. Specific gravity. This isn't always what you might expect from a mixture of the two ingredients. Sometimes it's higher and other times lower; but this isn't a definitive indicator of chemical bonding, as the same metal can change in specific gravity through processes like hammering, rolling, tempering, etc. Moreover, it's likely that the differences claimed to have been observed in some cases are due to inaccurate experiments, as measuring the specific gravity of small pieces of metal accurately enough for these comparisons is quite challenging.

[Pg 221] Many of the simple metals, when fused and exposed to the air for some time, without a covering of charcoal, or some similar principle, acquire less or more of oxygen, and retain it even in a fluid state, as is proved from Mr. Lucas’s interesting communication in the 3d Vol. of the Manchester Society’s Memoirs (new series). Hence by frequent fusions of the same metal its quality becomes impaired in regard to tenuity and other properties.

[Pg 221] Many basic metals, when melted and left exposed to the air for a while, without being covered with charcoal or something similar, absorb varying amounts of oxygen and hold onto it even when they're still molten. This is supported by Mr. Lucas’s fascinating contribution in the 3rd Volume of the Manchester Society’s Memoirs (new series). As a result, frequent melting of the same metal can degrade its quality in terms of thinness and other characteristics.

This is more eminently the case with regard to alloys. Thus, zinc at the temperature in which brass melts is combustible; and hence a portion of it escapes by combustion. Hence the proportions of brass are changed less or more at each fusion, unless fresh zinc be added. The same observation applies to alloys of copper and tin with regard to the tin. The mixtures of lead, tin, bismuth and other soft and easily fused metals, are still more remarkable in this respect. They should be fused under a cover of oil or tallow in order to keep them of the same [Pg 222] proportions; otherwise, some of them, particularly the tin, is liable to great oxidation, and no two successive fusions will present the same alloy. Hence in some degree the use of fluxes in metallurgy which serve to cover the surface of the metals and prevent oxidation from the atmosphere.

This is especially true for alloys. For example, zinc is flammable at the temperature where brass melts, so some of it gets lost to combustion. This means that the ratios of brass change slightly each time it's melted unless new zinc is added. The same goes for copper and tin alloys regarding the tin content. The mixtures of lead, tin, bismuth, and other soft, easily melted metals are even more notable in this aspect. They should be melted with a layer of oil or grease to maintain the same proportions; otherwise, some of them, especially tin, can oxidize a lot, and no two melts will produce the same alloy. This is part of why fluxes are used in metallurgy; they help cover the surfaces of the metals to prevent oxidation from the air. [Pg 222]

When an alloy is made, it seldom happens that the metal is perfect and compact the first fusion; it is more or less porous, especially when the two metals fuse at very different temperatures. By a second fusion, which usually takes place at a much lower temperature than that requisite for the first, the metal becomes compact and free from pores. This is particularly the case with speculum metal; and I have little doubt it is so with regard to many other alloys.

When an alloy is created, it's rare for the metal to be perfect and compact after the first melting; it tends to be somewhat porous, especially when the two metals melt at very different temperatures. During a second melting, which typically occurs at a much lower temperature than the first, the metal becomes compact and free of pores. This is especially true for speculum metal, and I have little doubt that the same applies to many other alloys.

Alloys of Gold with other Metals.

Gold unites with many of the metals by heat, and forms various alloys, on which it may be proper to make a few remarks.

Gold combines with several metals when heated, creating different alloys, which I think is worth commenting on.

1. Gold with platina. Platina in a small proportion changes the colour of gold towards white. 1 part to 20 gold makes it much paler. 1 [Pg 223] to 11 gives it the colour of tarnished silver. 1 part with 4 of gold has much the appearance of platina. The colour of gold does not predominate till it becomes ⁸/₉ of the alloy. The alloy of 1 platina and 11 gold is very ductile, and elastic when hammered. Lewis. Klaproth. Vauquelin.

1. Gold with platinum. A small amount of platinum changes the color of gold to a whiter shade. Mixing 1 part platinum with 20 parts gold makes it much lighter. A ratio of 1 to 11 gives it the color of tarnished silver. When there’s 1 part platinum to 4 parts gold, it closely resembles platinum. The gold color doesn't dominate until it makes up ⁸/₉ of the alloy. The alloy consisting of 1 part platinum and 11 parts gold is very ductile and elastic when hammered. Lewis. Klaproth. Vauquelin.

2. Gold with silver. These two metals may be combined in almost any proportion by fusion and proper treatment. Homberg found that when equal parts of gold and silver are kept in fusion for a quarter of an hour and then cooled, there were two masses, the uppermost pure silver, the undermost an alloy of 5 parts gold and 1 silver. 1 part silver to 20 gold produces a sensible whiteness in the alloy. 2 parts gold and 1 of silver are stated to form the alloy of greatest hardness; this will consist of 3 atoms of gold to 1 of silver.

2. Gold with silver. These two metals can be mixed in nearly any ratio by melting and proper processing. Homberg discovered that when equal amounts of gold and silver are melted together for fifteen minutes and then cooled, there are two layers: the top layer is pure silver, and the bottom layer is an alloy of 5 parts gold and 1 part silver. An alloy made with 1 part silver to 20 parts gold shows a noticeable whiteness. An alloy consisting of 2 parts gold to 1 part silver is said to be the hardest, consisting of 3 atoms of gold for every 1 atom of silver.

3. Gold with mercury. See amalgams.

3. Gold with mercury. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

4. Gold with copper. Gold and copper form an alloy by fusion together. 11 parts gold and 1 copper form the alloy used for gold coin. The copper heightens the colour of the gold, and makes it harder and less liable to wear. The current gold coin, however, usually contains both silver and copper, but the weight of both does not much exceed one [Pg 224] twelfth of the whole. According to Muschenbroeck the maximum of hardness is when 7 parts of gold and 1 part of copper are united. This corresponds nearly to 6 atoms of gold and 1 of copper, the atom of gold being estimated at 66 and that of copper at 56.

4. Gold with copper. Gold and copper create an alloy by melting them together. An alloy made from 11 parts gold and 1 part copper is used for gold coins. The copper enhances the color of the gold and makes it tougher and less prone to wear. However, current gold coins usually contain both silver and copper, but their combined weight is not much more than one [Pg 224] twelfth of the total. According to Muschenbroeck, the hardest alloy occurs when 7 parts of gold are combined with 1 part of copper. This is roughly equivalent to 6 atoms of gold and 1 atom of copper, with the atom of gold estimated at 66 and that of copper at 56.

Other alloys of gold besides the above standard is that for watch cases, which must contain at least ¾ pure gold. Watch chains, and trinkets, are usually made of inferior alloy, called jewellers gold, which is under no control. It rarely contains less than 30 per cent. of pure gold.

Other alloys of gold, aside from the standard mentioned above, are used for watch cases, which must have at least ¾ pure gold. Watch chains and trinkets are typically made from a lower quality alloy known as jeweler's gold, which isn't regulated. This usually contains no less than 30 percent pure gold.

5. Gold with iron. Gold and iron may be united by fusion in various proportions. 11 parts gold and 1 iron form a ductile alloy which may be rolled and stamped into coin. Its specific gravity is 16.885. The colour is a pale yellowish gray approaching to white. The alloy is harder than gold. When the iron is three or four times the weight of gold, the alloy has the colour of silver. This last compound is constituted of 1 atom of gold and 8 of iron nearly. Lewis. Hatchett.

5. Gold with iron. Gold and iron can be combined through melting in different ratios. An alloy made of 11 parts gold and 1 part iron creates a flexible metal that can be shaped and stamped into coins. Its specific gravity is 16.885. The color is a light yellowish gray that is almost white. This alloy is tougher than gold. When the iron's weight is three or four times that of the gold, the alloy has a silver-like color. This last combination consists of 1 atom of gold and approximately 8 atoms of iron. Lewis. Hatchett.

6. Gold with nickel. Mr. Hatchett fused 11 parts gold and 1 nickel together, and obtained a brittle alloy of the colour of fine brass. [Pg 225]

6. Gold with nickel. Mr. Hatchett combined 11 parts gold with 1 part nickel to create a brittle alloy that resembled fine brass. [Pg 225]

7. Gold with tin. Gold combines with tin and forms a brittle alloy. 10 parts gold and 1 tin form a pale alloy and less ductile than gold. One fiftieth of tin does not materially injure the ductility. Heat, up to a visible red, does not impair the alloy; but beyond that the tin fuses and the alloy falls to pieces. Hatchett.

7. Gold with tin. Gold mixes with tin to create a brittle alloy. A mixture of 10 parts gold and 1 part tin results in a pale alloy that is less ductile than gold. Adding one fiftieth of tin doesn't significantly affect the ductility. Heating it to a visible red doesn’t damage the alloy; however, if heated beyond that, the tin melts and the alloy breaks apart. Hatchett.

8. Gold with lead. The effect of uniting even a very small proportion of lead to gold is remarkable. When the alloy contains ¹/₂₀₀₀ part of lead, it is brittle like glass. The vapour of fused lead in close vessels is sufficient to injure gold. ibid.

8. Gold with lead. The impact of combining even a tiny amount of lead with gold is striking. When the mixture has ¹/₂₀₀₀ part of lead, it becomes as brittle as glass. The vapor from melted lead in sealed containers is enough to harm gold. ibid.

9. Gold and zinc. These two metals combine in almost any proportion. When 11 parts gold and 1 zinc are alloyed, the compound is of a pale greenish yellow like brass, and very brittle. Equal parts of these metals form a very hard, white alloy, susceptible of a fine polish. ibid. & Hellot.

9. Gold and zinc. These two metals can mix in just about any ratio. When you combine 11 parts gold with 1 part zinc, the result is a pale greenish-yellow compound that looks like brass and is quite brittle. When mixed in equal parts, these metals create a very hard, white alloy that can be polished to a fine shine. ibid. & Hellot.

10. Gold and bismuth. Gold unites with bismuth, but the colour is injured and the ductility of the alloy destroyed by a very small portion of the latter metal, the same as with lead. ibid.

10. Gold and bismuth. Gold combines with bismuth, but even a tiny amount of bismuth damages the color and reduces the ductility of the alloy, just like with lead. ibid.

11. Gold and antimony. These metals combine and produce a brittle alloy, much of the same kind as those with bismuth and lead. ibid. [Pg 226]

11. Gold and antimony. These metals merge and create a brittle alloy, similar to those made with bismuth and lead. ibid. [Pg 226]

12. Gold and arsenic. There seems a considerable affinity between gold and arsenic, but the volatility of arsenic in the fusing temperature of gold renders it difficult to bring them into contact. A very small proportion of arsenic makes the alloy brittle, and this property increases with the arsenic. Hatchett.

12. Gold and arsenic. There appears to be a significant connection between gold and arsenic, but the fact that arsenic vaporizes at the melting point of gold makes it challenging to mix them. Even a tiny amount of arsenic makes the alloy brittle, and this brittleness increases with more arsenic. Hatchett.

13. Gold with cobalt. These unite and form a brittle alloy, even when the cobalt only makes ¹/₆₀ of the compound. ibid.

13. Gold with cobalt. These combine to create a brittle alloy, even when cobalt makes up just ¹/₆₀ of the compound. ibid.

14. Gold and manganese. Gold and manganese may be united, and the alloy is very hard and less fusible than gold. One alloy was found to consist of 7 or 8 parts of gold and 1 of manganese. ibid.

14. Gold and manganese. Gold and manganese can be combined, resulting in an alloy that is very hard and less meltable than gold. One alloy was discovered to be made up of 7 or 8 parts of gold and 1 part of manganese. ibid.

Alloys of Platina with other Metals.

1. Platina and silver. It does not appear very clear that these two metals combine by fusion; at least if they do, the difference in their specific gravities is sufficient to overcome their affinity.

1. Platinum and silver. It’s not very clear that these two metals combine by melting; at least, if they do, the difference in their specific gravities is enough to overpower their attraction.

2. Platina and mercury. See amalgams.

2. Platinum and mercury. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

3. Platina and copper. These two metals unite with difficulty by a strong heat and form a malleable alloy. This alloy has been preferred [Pg 227] for specula for telescopes, as it is hard, polishes well, and is not liable to tarnish. Lewis.

3. Platina and copper. These two metals combine with some effort when heated and create a malleable alloy. This alloy is favored for telescope mirrors because it is durable, polishes nicely, and doesn't easily tarnish. Lewis.

4. Platina and iron. Platina and soft or pure iron do not seem to be easily combined by heat, by reason of the infusibility of iron. But it combines with cast iron and steel by heat. The alloy is very hard, and in some decree ductile when the iron forms ¾ of the alloy. ibid.

4. Platinum and iron. Platinum and soft or pure iron don't seem to easily combine through heat, due to the fact that iron doesn't melt easily. However, it does combine with cast iron and steel when heated. The resulting alloy is very hard and somewhat ductile when iron makes up ¾ of the alloy. ibid.

5. Platina and tin. Equal parts of platina and tin unite by fusion, and form a dark coloured brittle alloy. But when the platina falls short ⁷/₉ of the alloy, the ductility and whiteness proportionally increase. ibid.

5. Platinum and tin. Equal parts of platinum and tin melt together to create a dark-colored, brittle alloy. However, when the platinum is less than ⁷/₉ of the alloy, the ductility and whiteness increase proportionally. ibid.

6. Platina and lead. These two metals may be combined in various proportions by heat; but the compounds are not stable, part of the platina falling down, when the alloy is subsequently melted. ibid.

6. Platinum and lead. These two metals can be mixed in different amounts using heat; however, the resulting compounds are not stable, and some of the platinum separates out when the alloy is melted again. ibid.

7. Platina and zinc. Platina may be combined with zinc, by being exposed to the fumes of the metal as reduced from its ore. Three parts of platina become four of alloy. It is hard, brittle, of a blueish white colour, and easily fusible. ibid.

7. Platinum and zinc. Platinum can be mixed with zinc by being exposed to the fumes from the metal as it’s extracted from its ore. Three parts of platinum combine with four parts of alloy. It’s hard, brittle, has a bluish-white color, and melts easily. ibid.

8. Platina and bismuth. Platina and bismuth combine readily in a high temperature in almost any proportions. The alloys are brittle. ibid. [Pg 228]

8. Platinum and bismuth. Platinum and bismuth easily combine at high temperatures in almost any proportions. The alloys are brittle. ibid. [Pg 228]

9. Platina and antimony. Platina easily combines with antimony by heat. The alloy is brittle. ibid.

9. Platinum and antimony. Platinum easily combines with antimony when heated. The alloy is brittle. ibid.

10. Platina and arsenic. When white oxide of arsenic is projected upon strongly heated platina, an imperfect union takes place with a partial fusion of the mass; it is brittle, of a greyish colour and a loose granulated texture. Lewis.

10. Platina and arsenic. When white arsenic oxide is applied to strongly heated platinum, a partial fusion occurs resulting in an imperfect bond; the outcome is brittle, grayish in color, and has a loose granulated texture. Lewis.

Alloys of Silver with other Metals.

1. Silver with mercury. See amalgams.

Silver with mercury. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

2. Silver with copper. Silver and copper are easily alloyed in any proportion by fusion. The compound is harder than silver, and retains its white colour when the copper is half of the alloy or more.—The silver coin is a compound of 12⅓ silver and 1 copper, which nearly corresponds to 8 atoms of silver and 1 of copper. The hardest alloy is said to be when 5 silver unite to 1 copper; that is, 3 atoms of silver and 1 of copper.

2. Silver with copper. Silver and copper can be easily mixed together in any amount by melting them down. The resulting compound is tougher than silver and keeps its white color when there’s half or more copper in the mix. The silver coin is made up of 12⅓ parts silver and 1 part copper, which is roughly equal to 8 atoms of silver and 1 atom of copper. The hardest alloy is thought to form when 5 parts silver combine with 1 part copper; in terms of atoms, that’s 3 atoms of silver and 1 atom of copper.

3. Silver with iron. The alloys of silver and iron have not been very minutely examined. The two metals are said to unite by fusion, but the iron still retains its magnetism. The alloy is of a white colour, [Pg 229] hard and ductile. When kept in fusion for some time the two metals separate, but not entirely. These circumstances shew the affinity between silver and iron to be weak.

3. Silver with iron. The alloys of silver and iron haven't been studied in detail. It's said that the two metals combine by melting, but the iron still keeps its magnetism. The alloy is white, hard, and ductile. When melted for a while, the two metals separate, but not completely. These conditions indicate that the connection between silver and iron is weak. [Pg 229]

4. Silver with tin. Silver and tin form a hard brittle alloy, which is of little if any use. The modifications arising from various proportions have not been particularly investigated.

4. Silver with tin. Silver and tin create a hard, brittle alloy that has little to no practical use. The changes that occur from different ratios haven't been thoroughly explored.

5. Silver and lead. Silver and lead unite in any proportion and form a brittle alloy of a lead colour. The union is not very intimate; for when urged by heat the lead parts from the silver, as in the process of cupellation.

5. Silver and lead. Silver and lead can combine in any amount to create a brittle, lead-colored alloy. The bond isn’t very strong; when heated, the lead separates from the silver, similar to what happens in cupellation.

6. Silver and zinc. These two unite and form a brittle alloy of a blueish white colour. The proportions have not been particularly noticed.

6. Silver and zinc. These two combine to create a brittle alloy that is bluish-white in color. The specific proportions have not been particularly recorded.

7. Silver and bismuth. Silver and bismuth readily unite by heat. The alloy is brittle and its colour inclines to that of bismuth.

7. Silver and bismuth. Silver and bismuth easily combine with heat. The alloy is brittle and its color tends to resemble that of bismuth.

8. Silver and antimony. These metals unite by fusion and form a brittle alloy, which does not seem possessed of any remarkable properties.

8. Silver and antimony. These metals combine through melting and create a fragile alloy that doesn't seem to have any extraordinary properties.

9. Silver and arsenic. These two metals unite according to Bergman, the fused silver taking up ¹/₁₄ of its weight of arsenic; the [Pg 230] alloy corresponds nearly to 3 atoms silver and 1 arsenic. It is brittle and of a yellowish colour.

9. Silver and arsenic. According to Bergman, these two metals combine, with the melted silver absorbing ¹/₁₄ of its weight in arsenic; the [Pg 230] alloy is roughly made up of 3 atoms of silver and 1 atom of arsenic. It is brittle and has a yellowish color.

Alloys of Mercury and other Metals: Amalgams.

The alloys of Mercury with the various metals have been commonly denominated amalgams.

The mixtures of mercury with different metals are commonly called amalgams.

1. Mercury and gold. Gold amalgamates pretty easily with mercury and forms an alloy much used in gilding metals. For this purpose six parts of mercury may be heated nearly to the ebullition of the liquid, and one part of pure gold in thin plates may be gradually added. In a few minutes the whole becomes one fluid mass of a yellowish white colour. It is constituted of 1 atom of gold and 2 of mercury. By squeezing it through leather one half of the mercury is separated nearly pure, and the other remains combined with the gold, and forms a soft white mass, consisting of 1 part gold and 2½ mercury nearly, which is the alloy of 1 atom to 1, and may be subsequently used for gilding. A ready way of making this amalgam I find is to put 3 parts of gold, [Pg 231] precipitated by green sulphate of iron, to 8½ or 9 parts of mercury; by a few minutes trituration the whole becomes a fine crystalline amalgam.—When this amalgam of gold is exposed to a heat just below red, the mercury sublimes and leaves the gold; hence its use in gilding.

1. Mercury and gold. Gold easily combines with mercury to create an alloy commonly used for gilding metals. For this process, heat six parts of mercury until it's almost boiling, then gradually add one part of pure gold in thin plates. In just a few minutes, everything turns into a smooth, yellowish-white liquid. This mixture consists of 1 atom of gold and 2 atoms of mercury. By pressing it through leather, about half of the mercury is separated, nearly pure, while the remaining mercury stays mixed with the gold, forming a soft white mass made up of nearly 1 part gold and 2½ parts mercury. This alloy is essentially a 1-to-1 atom ratio and can then be used for gilding. A simple way to create this amalgam is to combine 3 parts of gold, precipitated using green sulfate of iron, with 8½ or 9 parts of mercury; after a few minutes of grinding, it becomes a fine crystalline amalgam. When this gold amalgam is heated just below red, the mercury evaporates, leaving behind the gold, which is why it's used for gilding.

2. Mercury and platina. These two metals may be combined, but not very easily, as little affinity seems to exist betwixt them. This is manifest from the circumstance that platina wire may be long immersed in mercury without any sensible effect. An union may be produced by immersing thin platina foil into boiling mercury for some time; also by triturating the ammonio-muriate of platina with mercury and exposing it to a due heat. The proportions have not been determined.

2. Mercury and platinum. These two metals can be combined, but it's not easy, as they don't seem to have much attraction for each other. This is evident because platinum wire can be soaked in mercury for a long time without any noticeable effect. A bond can be formed by placing thin platinum foil in boiling mercury for a while; it can also happen by grinding platinum ammonium chloride with mercury and heating it appropriately. The exact proportions haven't been figured out.

3. Mercury and silver. Silver and mercury have a considerable affinity and are easily combined by putting lamina of silver into heated mercury and agitating the mixture. When 1 part silver and 2 mercury are mixed as above, a fluid mass is obtained which being heated to the temperature of boiling mercury, a little mercury evaporates and the remainder crystallizes into a soft white mass, which in time grows [Pg 232] hard and brittle. A higher heat than boiling mercury expels the mercury. Hence this amalgam may be used for giving a thin coating of silver to the surface of metals, like that of gold. The compound is evidently one atom of silver (90) with one of mercury (167).

3. Mercury and silver. Silver and mercury have a strong attraction for each other and can be easily combined by placing silver sheets into heated mercury and stirring the mixture. When 1 part silver and 2 parts mercury are combined this way, a fluid mass forms that, when heated to the boiling point of mercury, causes some mercury to evaporate while the remaining substance crystallizes into a soft white mass that eventually hardens and becomes brittle over time. Higher temperatures than boiling mercury will drive off the mercury. Because of this, this amalgam can be used to create a thin layer of silver on the surface of other metals, similar to gold plating. The compound clearly consists of one atom of silver (90) and one atom of mercury (167). [Pg 232]

4. Mercury and copper. I have made several unsuccessful attempts to combine mercury and copper.

4. Mercury and copper. I've made several failed attempts to combine mercury and copper.

When a plate of copper is kept immersed in mercury for some time, the mercury adheres to its surface in a small degree and is not easily rubbed off; the plate is rendered brittle by it and the fracture has a brilliant mercurial appearance; but a low red heat expels the mercury and the copper resumes its colour and tenacity, with scarcely any loss of weight, being only about 5½ per cent. in two or three trials.

When a copper plate is soaked in mercury for a while, the mercury sticks to its surface a little and isn't easy to wipe off; the plate becomes brittle from it, and the break has a shiny, metallic look. However, heating it to a low red temperature drives out the mercury, and the copper goes back to its original color and strength, losing hardly any weight—only around 5½ percent after two or three tests.

Recently precipitated copper in powder, dried and triturated with mercury, produced no union. Neither did Dutch-leaf (which is copper with a very little zinc) unite with mercury by trituration. Mercury precipitated from deutonitrate by a plate of copper gave pure running liquid. The plate of copper appeared as if it had been immersed in [Pg 233] mercury, was brittle with a shining fracture, but recovered its colour and texture by heat, and lost scarcely any weight.

Recently, copper powder that was precipitated, dried, and ground with mercury didn't combine. The same happened with Dutch-leaf (which is mostly copper with a bit of zinc) when mixed with mercury. Mercury that was precipitated from deutonitrate using a copper plate produced pure liquid. The copper plate looked like it had been dipped in mercury; it was brittle with a shiny fracture but regained its color and texture when heated and lost very little weight.

The method recommended by Boyle was tried: 2½ parts of crystallized verdigris, 2 parts of mercury and 1 of common salt, were triturated together till the mercury disappeared, the powder was then digested awhile with vinegar over a fire and frequently stirred. The mass was then put on a filter and dried. It contained a little fluid mercury, but was chiefly composed of acetate of copper and oxide or muriate of mercury. The liquid contained acetate of copper and muriate of soda.

The method suggested by Boyle was tested: 2½ parts of crystallized verdigris, 2 parts of mercury, and 1 part of common salt were ground together until the mercury was no longer visible. The powder was then heated with vinegar and stirred frequently. The mixture was placed on a filter and dried. It had some fluid mercury but was mainly made up of copper acetate and mercury oxide or muriate. The liquid contained copper acetate and sodium muriate.

From the above it is manifest that mercury has some chemical action upon copper; but it has not yet been found, I apprehend, that the two metals unite so as to form a proper amalgam.

From the above, it is clear that mercury has some chemical effect on copper; however, it hasn’t been discovered, I believe, that the two metals combine to form a true amalgam.

5. Mercury and iron. These two metals have little if any affinity for each other. I do not know that any chemical combination of them has ever been formed.

5. Mercury and iron. These two metals have little to no attraction to each other. I'm not aware of any chemical compounds being formed between them.

6. Mercury and tin. These two metals readily combine, especially if assisted by heat. I heated 52 parts of tin and 167 of mercury together, that is, 1 atom of each, till they united in a fluid mass. [Pg 234] The amalgam crystallized in about 180°. By hard pressure in the hand nearly 50 parts of fluid mercury were separated from the amalgam when cool, containing in appearance very little tin. After this an amalgam was formed of 104 parts of tin and 167 mercury (2 atoms tin to 1 mercury); this congealed about 230°, and remained a hard, dry, crystalline substance, agreeing in appearance with that which adheres to mirrors. For the purpose of silvering mirrors however much more mercury is employed than is indicated by the above proportion; but after the glass is slid upon the tinfoil previously covered with mercury, a great pressure is applied, which expels the superfluous mercury nearly in a state of purity.

6. Mercury and tin. These two metals easily combine, especially when heated. I heated 52 parts of tin and 167 parts of mercury together, which is 1 atom of each, until they formed a liquid mixture. The amalgam started to crystallize at about 180°. When I applied pressure by hand after it cooled, nearly 50 parts of liquid mercury separated from the amalgam, looking like it had very little tin. After that, an amalgam was made with 104 parts of tin and 167 parts of mercury (which is 2 atoms of tin to 1 of mercury); this solidified at about 230° and became a hard, dry, crystalline material that looks like what sticks to mirrors. To silver mirrors, however, much more mercury is used than what the above ratio suggests; but after the glass slides onto the tinfoil previously coated with mercury, a lot of pressure is applied, which forces out the excess mercury nearly in a pure state. [Pg 234]

7. Mercury and lead. To 90 parts of lead I put 167 of mercury (1 atom of each); they united in a moderate heat and crystallized in about 180°. In a few days the mercury partly separated from the amalgam, and 56 parts were squeezed out, the whole was then put together with 90 parts more of lead (now 2 atoms lead to 1 mercury), and fused together; the amalgam crystallized in about 200°, and remained in a solid uniform mass.

7. Mercury and lead. I combined 90 parts of lead with 167 parts of mercury (1 atom of each); they came together with moderate heat and crystallized at about 180°. After a few days, some of the mercury separated from the amalgam, and I squeezed out 56 parts. I then mixed it back with 90 more parts of lead (making it 2 atoms of lead to 1 atom of mercury) and melted them together; the amalgam crystallized at about 200° and stayed as a solid, uniform mass.

8. Mercury and zinc. When 29 parts zinc and 167 mercury (1 atom to 1) are heated together, they combine and form an amalgam which [Pg 235] crystallizes about 200°. A little of the mercury may be squeezed out when cold. By putting 29 parts more of zinc (2 atoms to 1) we obtain an amalgam which fuses considerably above 200°, and when cooled becomes a permanent hard crystalline mass.

8. Mercury and zinc. When you heat 29 parts of zinc and 167 parts of mercury (1 atom to 1), they combine to form an amalgam that crystallizes at around 200°. Some of the mercury might leak out when it cools. By adding another 29 parts of zinc (2 atoms to 1), you get an amalgam that melts at a much higher temperature than 200°, and when it cools, it turns into a solid, hard crystalline mass. [Pg 235]

9. Mercury and bismuth. When 62 parts bismuth are fused with 167 mercury (1 atom to 1), the compound remains fluid at common temperature, but crystallizes partially by standing; about ⅓ of the weight may be poured off like fluid mercury. If we put 62 bismuth more to the whole (so as to be 2 atoms to 1), the fluid amalgam crystallizes about 150 or 180°: the mass is soft however and by pressure one may squeeze out about 20 per cent. of a fluid amalgam. If we put 62 more bismuth (so as to be 3 atoms to 1), then the compound crystallizes between 200 and 300° into a darkish coloured granular soft mass which continues without any change. Higher than this of bismuth I have not examined.

9. Mercury and bismuth. When you fuse 62 parts of bismuth with 167 parts of mercury (1 atom to 1), the mixture stays liquid at room temperature but partially crystallizes if left to sit; about ⅓ of the weight can be poured off like liquid mercury. If we add 62 more parts of bismuth (making it 2 atoms of bismuth to 1 atom of mercury), the liquid amalgam starts to crystallize around 150 to 180°; however, the mass is still soft, and you can squeeze out about 20% of a liquid amalgam by applying pressure. If we add 62 more parts of bismuth (making it 3 atoms of bismuth to 1 atom of mercury), then the mixture crystallizes into a dark, granular, soft mass between 200 and 300°, which remains unchanged. I haven't studied bismuth beyond this amount.

10. Mercury and antimony. Antimony is said to form a feeble union with mercury, which is soon loosened by time. I made several unsuccessful trials to combine these two metals, which it seems unnecessary to detail, as the compound when formed is no ways interesting. [Pg 236]

10. Mercury and antimony. Antimony is said to create a weak bond with mercury that quickly falls apart over time. I made several unsuccessful attempts to combine these two metals, which I don't think are worth detailing, as the resulting compound is not particularly interesting. [Pg 236]

11. Mercury and arsenic. On the authority of Lewis an amalgam of mercury and arsenic may be made by keeping them over the fire for some time and constantly agitating the mixture. It is grey-coloured, and composed of 5 parts of mercury and 1 of arsenic.

11. Mercury and arsenic. According to Lewis, you can create an amalgam of mercury and arsenic by heating them together for a while and constantly stirring the mixture. It has a grey color and consists of 5 parts mercury and 1 part arsenic.

Most of the other metals are incapable, as far as is known, of combination with mercury, excepting potassium and sodium considered as metals, which combine with mercury; but these alloys are of little interest, and the proportions have not been particularly investigated.

Most of the other metals are believed to be unable to combine with mercury, except for potassium and sodium, which are regarded as metals and do form alloys with mercury. However, these alloys are not very interesting, and their ratios haven't been studied in detail.

Triple, quadruple, &c. Amalgams.

Besides those amalgams which are formed of mercury and each single metal, there are others formed of mercury and alloys of two or more metals, which in some instances possess properties differing essentially from mere mixtures.

Besides the amalgams made of mercury and each individual metal, there are others made of mercury and alloys of two or more metals, which in some cases have properties that are fundamentally different from simple mixtures.

1. Mercury with bismuth and lead. When the amalgam formed of 2 atoms bismuth and 1 of mercury is mixed with that formed by 1 atom of [Pg 237] lead and 1 of mercury, in such proportion that the mercury is the same in both, the two powders, though dry and crystalline at first, soon become a permanently fluid amalgam by trituration. The liquid in running along drags a tail after it, and is disposed to separate into portions less and more fluid, but the most fluid part is much inferior to pure mercury in this respect. Specific gravity of the amalgam, 11.

1. Mercury with bismuth and lead. When the mixture made up of 2 atoms of bismuth and 1 atom of mercury is combined with a mixture of 1 atom of lead and 1 atom of mercury, ensuring that the amount of mercury is the same in both, the two powders, although dry and crystalline at the start, quickly turn into a permanently liquid amalgam through grinding. The liquid, as it flows, pulls a tail behind it and tends to separate into thicker and thinner parts, but the thinner part is significantly less effective than pure mercury in this regard. The specific gravity of the amalgam is 11.

2. Mercury with fusible metal composed of 7 bismuth, 5 lead and 3 tin. A mixture of 4 parts fusible metal with 5 parts mercury compose the most fusible amalgam with a minimum of mercury that I have found. It is formed of 2 atoms bismuth, 1 lead, 1 tin and 2 mercury. Its specific gravity is 12.

2. Mercury with fusible metal made of 7 bismuth, 5 lead, and 3 tin. A mix of 4 parts fusible metal and 5 parts mercury creates the most fusible amalgam with the least amount of mercury I've found. It's made up of 2 atoms of bismuth, 1 of lead, 1 of tin, and 2 of mercury. Its specific gravity is 12.

3. Mercury, zinc and tin. This amalgam is found the most effectual for the excitation of electric machines. Mr. Cuthbertson recommends 1 part zinc, 1 tin and 2 of mercury for the plate machine amalgam. But for a cylinder the best amalgam I have made contains more than twice the above portion of mercury. I form an alloy of 58 parts zinc and 52 tin, (2 atoms to 1). To this alloy I add 250 mercury, and fuse the mixture; the liquid mass crystallizes about 222° into a white, moderately hard amalgam. This is pulverized in a mortar and mixed up [Pg 238] with ¹/₁₂ of its weight of hog’s lard. A small portion then is spread upon a piece of leather and applied to the machine when in action. It is probable however that a harder and less unctuous amalgam may be better adapted to the plate machine. This amalgam of mine consists of 4 atoms of zinc, 2 of tin and 3 of mercury.

3. Mercury, zinc, and tin. This mixture is the most effective for powering electric machines. Mr. Cuthbertson recommends using 1 part zinc, 1 part tin, and 2 parts mercury for the plate machine amalgam. However, for a cylinder, the best mixture I’ve created contains more than double the amount of mercury. I make an alloy of 58 parts zinc and 52 parts tin (2 atoms of zinc to 1 of tin). To this alloy, I add 250 parts mercury and melt the mixture; the liquid turns into a solid around 222° into a white, moderately hard amalgam. This is ground in a mortar and combined with ¹/₁₂ of its weight in hog’s lard. A small amount is then spread on a piece of leather and applied to the machine while it’s running. However, it seems that a harder and less greasy amalgam might work better for the plate machine. My amalgam consists of 4 atoms of zinc, 2 of tin, and 3 of mercury.

I have tried the amalgams of zinc and tin separately and find that they answer for electric excitation as well as when combined. They ought to be formed of 2 atoms zinc and 1 of mercury (58 parts to 167), and of 2 atoms tin and 1 of mercury (104 parts to 167). If we choose to combine them, we have only to take 2 parts of the zinc amalgam and 1 of the tin amalgam and triturate them together.

I have tested the mixtures of zinc and tin separately and found that they work just as well for electric excitation as when combined. They should consist of 2 atoms of zinc and 1 atom of mercury (58 parts to 167), and 2 atoms of tin and 1 atom of mercury (104 parts to 167). If we decide to combine them, we just need to take 2 parts of the zinc mixture and 1 part of the tin mixture and grind them together.

Bismuth amalgam is not good for electric excitation; lead amalgam is better; but they are much inferior to those of tin and zinc.

Bismuth amalgam isn't great for electric excitation; lead amalgam is better; however, they are both far less effective than those made of tin and zinc.

Alloys of Copper with other Metals.

1. Copper and iron. These two metals may be united with difficulty by heat; but the compound possesses no useful property. [Pg 239]

1. Copper and iron. These two metals can be fused together with difficulty using heat; however, the resulting compound has no practical use. [Pg 239]

2. Copper and nickel. A white, hard, brittle alloy is said to be formed by combining these two metals. The alloy is scarcely known.

2. Copper and nickel. A white, hard, and brittle alloy is said to be formed by combining these two metals. The alloy is not widely known.

3. Copper and tin. The metals of copper and tin, may be fused together and united in almost any proportion by skilful treatment; but it is found that only a few of the proportions constitute alloys possessing properties eminently valuable to the arts.

3. Copper and tin. Copper and tin can be melted together and combined in almost any ratio with skilled handling; however, only a few of these ratios create alloys with particularly valuable properties for various industries.

The alloys of copper and tin are commonly called bell-metal; but they receive more particular names according to the purposes for which they are destined, as bronze, speculum metal, gun-metal, &c. those of them which are yellow are frequently confounded in common language with brass, as brass guns, &c. Indeed the ancient Greeks and Romans seem to have been in possession of these two alloys, under one and the same name. The χαλκος of the Greeks, being used for cutting-instruments, must have signified bell-metal, or the alloy of copper and tin as well as brass, as indeed is proved by the analysis of them. The æs of the Romans seems also to have included the same compound. Ancient copper coins too are usually found to contain tin.

The alloys of copper and tin are commonly called bell-metal; however, they are given more specific names depending on their intended use, such as bronze, speculum metal, and gun-metal, etc. Those that are yellow are often mixed up in everyday language with brass, like in the term brass guns, etc. In fact, the ancient Greeks and Romans seemed to refer to both alloys under the same name. The χαλκος of the Greeks, used for cutting tools, likely referred to bell-metal, or the copper and tin alloy, as well as brass, which is supported by their analysis. The æs of the Romans also appears to have included the same material. Ancient copper coins are often found to contain tin.

Tin united to copper in certain proportions gives a surprising degree [Pg 240] of hardness and tenacity to the alloy, much superior in these respects to either of the ingredients. In other proportions it makes the compound highly sonorous, as in bell-metal properly so called. Tin also increases the fusibility of the compound in proportion as it abounds, being itself fusible at the low temperature of 440° Fahrenheit.

Tin combined with copper in specific proportions creates an alloy that is surprisingly hard and strong, far better in these aspects than either metal alone. In other ratios, it produces a compound that is very resonant, as seen in what’s known as bell-metal. Additionally, tin enhances the meltability of the mixture according to how much is present, since it melts at a relatively low temperature of 440° Fahrenheit. [Pg 240]

The principal varieties in the alloys of copper and tin are enumerated below, beginning with those in which the copper is most abundant. The atom of copper is taken at 56 and that of tin at 52 weight, the hardness of these metals is denoted by 7.5 and 6 respectively, by Kirwan.

The main types of copper and tin alloys are listed below, starting with those where copper is the most prevalent. The weight of a copper atom is considered to be 56, while that of a tin atom is 52. According to Kirwan, the hardness of these metals is measured at 7.5 for copper and 6 for tin.

(a). Gun-metal. The alloy for brass guns or cannon is made of 100 parts of copper and 11 or 12 of tin. A small portion of iron is found to improve the metal; this is best added in the state of tin-plate, as it more readily fuses and unites with the metal.[20] This compound is hard and extremely tenacious, exceeding in this respect any [Pg 241] other alloy of the two metals. The addition or subtraction of 1 or 2 parts of tin materially impairs the tenacity of the alloy. It is constituted of 8 atoms of copper and 1 of tin.

(a). Gun-metal. The alloy used for brass guns or cannons is made up of 100 parts copper and 11 or 12 parts tin. A small amount of iron improves the metal, and it's best added as tin-plate since it fuses and combines more easily with the metal.[20] This mixture is hard and very strong, surpassing any other alloy of the two metals in this aspect. Adding or removing 1 or 2 parts of tin significantly weakens the strength of the alloy. It consists of 8 atoms of copper and 1 atom of tin.

(b). Alloy for edge tools, printers’ cylinders, &c. The best proportion for this compound seems to be 100 parts copper and 15 or 16 tin. When hammered and tempered duly it is fit for making edge tools not inferior to some kinds of steel. It is a compound of greater density than the preceding, though containing more tin; the grain is fine and the metal free from blisters and suited for turning in the lathe. It seems to be the best alloy of the kind for printers’ cylinders; but an analysis which I lately made of some turnings from one of these cylinders gave me much less tin than the above proportion. The alloy (b) is constituted of 6 atoms of copper and 1 of tin.

(b). Alloy for edge tools, printers’ cylinders, etc. The ideal ratio for this mixture appears to be 100 parts copper and 15 or 16 parts tin. When hammered and appropriately tempered, it is suitable for making edge tools that are comparable to some types of steel. This compound is denser than the previous one, despite containing more tin; it has a fine grain, is free from blisters, and is suitable for lathe work. It seems to be the best alloy for printers’ cylinders, but a recent analysis I did of some shavings from one of these cylinders showed significantly less tin than the ratio mentioned above. The alloy (b) is made up of 6 atoms of copper and 1 atom of tin.

(c). Alloy for the Chinese gong, cymbals, &c. An alloy formed of 100 parts copper and 23 tin, appears from Dussaussoy’s experiments to form the compound of minimum density. It is used for making cymbals; and nearly accords with the composition of the Chinese gong. It is formed of 4 atoms of copper and 1 of tin. The Chinese gong [Pg 242] analysed by Klaproth was composed of 100 copper and 28.2 tin; that by Dr. Thomson of 100 copper and 23.4 tin.

(c). Alloy for the Chinese gong, cymbals, etc. An alloy made of 100 parts copper and 23 parts tin, based on Dussaussoy's experiments, forms the compound with the lowest density. It is used to create cymbals and closely matches the composition of the Chinese gong. It consists of 4 atoms of copper and 1 atom of tin. The Chinese gong analyzed by Klaproth was made of 100 copper and 28.2 tin; that analyzed by Dr. Thomson was made of 100 copper and 23.4 tin.

(d). Common bell-metal used for casting bells. This alloy is commonly made of 3 parts copper and 1 of tin; but to be in due proportion for 3 atoms of copper and 1 of tin, it should be formed of 100 copper and 31 tin. It is hard, of a white colour, less malleable than the preceding alloys, and more sonorous. A specimen I analysed consisted of 100 copper and 36 tin. The exact proportion of 100 copper and 31 tin is not essential to produce a sonorous alloy.

(d). Common bell metal used for casting bells. This alloy is typically made of 3 parts copper and 1 part tin; however, to achieve the correct ratio of 3 atoms of copper to 1 atom of tin, it should consist of 100 parts copper and 31 parts tin. It is hard, has a white color, is less malleable than the previous alloys, and is more resonant. A sample I analyzed had 100 parts copper and 36 parts tin. The exact ratio of 100 parts copper and 31 parts tin isn't crucial for creating a resonant alloy.

(e). Speculum metal. This compound has been investigated with great care by opticians. According to Mr. Mudge the best proportion is 32 parts copper to 14.5 tin, but Mr. Edwards finds 15 parts tin, 1 brass, 1 silver and 1 arsenic. The slightest variation in the proportions of copper and tin impairs the metal. The alloy is white, hard and close grained; it takes a beautiful polish. The use of the minute portions of zinc, silver and arsenic is perhaps to correct the colour of the alloy; though it seems in several alloys that very minute portions of metals apparently foreign to the alloy, improve the density and texture of the metal. It is remarkable with what precision [Pg 243] this alloy accords with the atomic combinations of 2 copper with 1 tin. By calculation 32 copper would require 14.8 tin. Mr. Mudge finds 32 copper to 14½ tin, and observes that if ½ a part more of tin be added the metal is too hard. Mr. Edwards indeed says 32 copper and 15 tin; but then he adds 1 part brass, which containing ⅔ of a part of copper, it reduces his proportion to 32 copper and 14.7 tin, almost exactly that required by the theory. When 32 copper and 13½ tin are combined, Mr. Mudge asserts the metal is too soft.[21]

(e). Speculum metal. This compound has been studied rigorously by opticians. Mr. Mudge suggests that the ideal ratio is 32 parts copper to 14.5 parts tin, while Mr. Edwards finds a mix of 15 parts tin, 1 part brass, 1 part silver, and 1 part arsenic. Even the slightest change in the amounts of copper and tin can weaken the metal. The alloy is white, hard, and has a fine grain, and it can achieve a beautiful polish. The small amounts of zinc, silver, and arsenic are likely added to adjust the color of the alloy; additionally, it seems that tiny quantities of metals that normally wouldn’t be part of the alloy can enhance the density and texture. It's impressive how precisely this alloy aligns with the atomic ratios of 2 copper to 1 tin. By calculation, 32 parts copper would require 14.8 parts tin. Mr. Mudge notes the combination of 32 copper to 14.5 tin, and observes that if an additional half part of tin is added, the metal becomes too hard. Mr. Edwards indeed states 32 copper and 15 tin; however, he also includes 1 part brass, which has ⅔ of a part of copper, thus effectively making his ratio 32 copper to 14.7 tin, which is nearly ideal according to the theory. When 32 copper and 13.5 tin are mixed, Mr. Mudge claims the metal becomes too soft.[21]

(f). Copper and tin, equal parts. This alloy is of blueish white colour, and of no particular use that I am acquainted with. It consists of the union of 1 atom of copper with 1 of tin.

(f). Copper and tin, equal parts. This alloy has a bluish-white color and isn’t really useful, as far as I know. It’s made by combining 1 atom of copper with 1 atom of tin.

The other alloys of copper with a higher proportion of tin appear to be uninteresting, and have not been objects of much attention.

The other copper alloys with a higher percentage of tin seem to be unremarkable and haven't received much attention.

Not having an opportunity of forming these alloys synthetically, I contented myself with the analysis of several of them. [Pg 244]

Not having the chance to create these alloys artificially, I settled for analyzing several of them. [Pg 244]

The mode of analysis I adopted with compounds of copper and tin, is simple and easy. The alloy is treated with nitric acid, which dissolves the copper, and on being diluted with water throws down the tin in the state of deutoxide. This last is collected on a filtre, dried, and heated to a low red; then ²⁶/₃₃ of this is allowed for the tin (the other 7 parts being oxygen); and the rest of the alloy may be considered as copper. But if thought proper the copper may be thrown down by immersing a plate of lead in the solution, which succeeds better than a plate of iron in nitric solutions of copper.

The method I used to analyze copper and tin compounds is straightforward and easy. The alloy is treated with nitric acid, which dissolves the copper. When this solution is diluted with water, it precipitates the tin as deutoxide. The precipitate is collected on a filter, dried, and heated to a low red temperature; then ²⁶/₃₃ of this is considered as the tin (with the other 7 parts being oxygen), and the remaining portion of the alloy is regarded as copper. However, if preferred, the copper can be recovered by placing a lead plate in the solution, which works better than using an iron plate in nitric solutions of copper.

4. Copper and lead. Copper unites with boiling lead and forms a grey brittle alloy of granular texture. This alloy being heated above the melting point of lead, causes the last metal to run off, leaving the copper nearly pure. The alloy is scarcely of any use.

4. Copper and lead. Copper combines with boiling lead to create a gray, brittle alloy with a granular texture. When this alloy is heated above the melting point of lead, the lead melts away, leaving the copper almost pure. The alloy is hardly useful.

5. Copper and zinc. Copper and zinc combined form brass, one of the most useful of all alloys. Though this is a general name for such combinations, yet several of the proportions form compounds to which peculiar names are given, some of which will be noticed below. [Pg 245]

5. Copper and zinc. When copper and zinc are mixed, they create brass, one of the most valuable alloys. While this is a broad term for these mixtures, certain ratios produce specific compounds with unique names, some of which will be mentioned below. [Pg 245]

It may be proper to remark that copper is estimated by Mr. Kirwan at 7½° in hardness, whilst zinc is 6½. The former metal is highly tenacious and malleable; the latter is brittle and malleable only in a small degree. According to Lewis a very small proportion of zinc dilutes the colour of copper and renders it pale; when the copper has imbibed ¹/₁₂ of its weight, the colour inclines to yellow. The yellowness increases with the zinc till the weight of that metal in the alloy equals the copper. Beyond this point if the zinc be increased the alloy becomes paler and paler and at last white, like zinc.

It’s worth noting that Mr. Kirwan rates copper's hardness at 7½°, while zinc is at 6½°. Copper is very tough and malleable, whereas zinc is brittle and only slightly malleable. Lewis states that even a tiny amount of zinc can lighten the color of copper, making it appear pale; once copper absorbs ¹/₁₂ of its weight in zinc, its color tends to shift to yellow. The yellowness intensifies with the amount of zinc until the weight of zinc in the mixture equals that of copper. If the zinc continues to increase beyond this point, the mixture becomes progressively lighter, eventually turning white, like zinc.

The tenacity of brass is greater than that of either copper or zinc according to Muschenbroek. His experiments give brass nearly twice as strong as copper, and 18 times as strong as zinc. It seems to me most probable that the tenacity of brass increases with the increase of zinc in the alloy to a certain proportion, when it becomes a maximum, and thence diminishes with the further increase of zinc, but experiments are yet wanting, I presume, to ascertain what proportion of the two metals must be taken to form the alloy of greatest tenacity. The same observation may be made as to the maximum hardness; it is not improbable that the two maxima may be found in different kinds of brass. [Pg 246]

The strength of brass is greater than that of either copper or zinc, according to Muschenbroek. His experiments show that brass is nearly twice as strong as copper and 18 times as strong as zinc. It seems to me very likely that the strength of brass increases with the amount of zinc in the alloy up to a certain point, after which it reaches its peak and then decreases with more zinc. However, I assume more experiments are needed to determine the right proportion of the two metals to create the strongest alloy. The same can be said for the maximum hardness; it’s possible that the two peaks could be found in different types of brass. [Pg 246]

The point of temperature at which copper fuses is stated to be 27° of Wedgwood’s thermometer, whilst that of zinc is much lower, namely, 680° of Fahrenheit. Common brass is stated to melt at 21° of Wedgwood. It is very probable that all kinds of brass melt at temperatures intermediate between those of copper and zinc; and that the more of zinc the lower will be the fusing temperature; but there have not been direct experiments to ascertain the degrees, as far as I know.

The temperature at which copper melts is reported to be 27° on Wedgwood’s thermometer, while zinc melts at a much lower temperature, specifically 680° Fahrenheit. Common brass is said to melt at 21° on Wedgwood’s scale. It’s likely that all types of brass melt at temperatures between those of copper and zinc, and that the more zinc there is, the lower the melting point will be. However, as far as I know, there haven't been direct experiments to determine the exact temperatures.

In enumerating the different proportions of such alloys as have come under my notice I shall begin with that containing the maximum of copper, and proceed in gradation to that with the maximum of zinc.

In listing the various proportions of alloys I've observed, I'll start with the one that has the highest copper content and move gradually to the one with the highest zinc content.

(a). Brass for the manufacture of plated goods. This alloy is composed, judging from one specimen I analysed, of 12 atoms of copper and 1 of zinc; or of nearly 28 parts of copper by weight and 1 of zinc. The atom of copper is here estimated at 56 and that of zinc at 29, or very nearly ½ that of copper. This alloy had much the same qualities apparently as copper itself, only a little more yellow.

(a). Brass for making plated goods. This alloy is made up, based on one sample I analyzed, of 12 atoms of copper and 1 atom of zinc; or about 28 parts copper by weight and 1 part zinc. The copper atom is estimated at 56 and the zinc atom at 29, which is almost half the weight of copper. This alloy seems to have very similar properties to copper itself, just a bit yellower.

(b). Dutch gold, gilding metal. This is the alloy which [Pg 247] may be beaten out into thin leaves, after the manner of gold leaf. I have not been able to find any proportions for this compound in books. It seems to have been kept as a secret by the manufacturers. By analysis however I find it composed of 6 atoms of copper and 1 of zinc, or nearly 12 parts copper and 1 zinc by weight. This alloy is probably the most malleable of all the kinds of brass. A leaf containing 12 square inches weighs about ⁷/₁₀ of a grain. The colour, as is well known, makes a good approach to that of gold. It is the composition used for making articles to be gilt, as buttons, &c.

(b). Dutch gold, gilding metal. This is the alloy that can be hammered into thin sheets, similar to gold leaf. I haven't been able to find any proportions for this mixture in any books. It seems to have been kept secret by the manufacturers. However, through analysis, I found it consists of 6 atoms of copper and 1 atom of zinc, or about 12 parts copper to 1 part zinc by weight. This alloy is likely the most malleable of all types of brass. A sheet measuring 12 square inches weighs about ⁷/₁₀ of a grain. The color, as is well known, closely resembles that of gold. It is the composition used for creating items to be gilded, like buttons, etc.

(c). Dipping metal for stamped brass goods. This is a well known article of Birmingham manufacture. It is an alloy both tenacious and malleable, as is manifest from the perfection of the articles. It possesses a beautiful gold colour. A specimen was composed, by my analysis, of 4 atoms of copper to 1 of zinc; or of 8 lbs. of copper and 1 of zinc; or of 4 lbs. copper and 3 of common brass; but it is varied according to the colour wanted.

(c). Dipping metal for stamped brass goods. This is a well-known product made in Birmingham. It’s an alloy that is both strong and flexible, as shown by the quality of the items. It has a lovely gold color. My analysis found that a sample was made up of 4 atoms of copper to 1 of zinc; or 8 lbs. of copper and 1 lb. of zinc; or 4 lbs. of copper and 3 lbs. of standard brass; but it can be adjusted based on the desired color.

(d). Soft, fine coloured brass. According to M. Sage, a very fine kind of brass may be made by mixing oxide of copper, calamine, black-flux and charcoal powder together and fusing the [Pg 248] mixture in a crucible till the blue flame disappears. The brass is found to weigh ⅙ more than the copper resulting from the weight of oxide. He says when the copper retains ⅕ of zinc the colour is not so fine; and the excess of zinc will be burned off by heat, but the zinc cannot be reduced by burning below ⅙; so that this appears to be a natural limit. Hence this compound, being formed of 6 parts copper and 1 of zinc, must be constituted of 3 atoms of copper and 1 of zinc.

(d). Soft, fine-colored brass. According to M. Sage, a very fine type of brass can be created by mixing copper oxide, calamine, black flux, and charcoal powder together and melting the mixture in a crucible until the blue flame goes away. The brass is found to weigh ⅙ more than the copper from the weight of the oxide. He states that when the copper contains ⅕ zinc, the color isn’t as fine; and the extra zinc will burn off with heat, but the zinc can’t be reduced by burning to less than ⅙, indicating this is a natural limit. Therefore, this compound, made up of 6 parts copper and 1 part zinc, must consist of 3 atoms of copper and 1 atom of zinc.

(e). Soft brass preferred for watch movements. There is a kind of brass greatly preferred by watch-makers on account of its working well with steel. I have not met with a specimen; but Dr. Thomson has analysed one and found it to consist of 2 atoms of copper and 1 of zinc;[22] or 4 parts copper and 1 of zinc by weight nearly.

(e). Soft brass preferred for watch movements. There's a type of brass that watchmakers really like because it works well with steel. I haven't come across an example myself, but Dr. Thomson analyzed one and found it to be made up of 2 atoms of copper and 1 atom of zinc;[22] or about 4 parts copper to 1 part zinc by weight.

(f). Common hard brass. This constitutes the great bulk of brass, as manufactured in the large way. It is made by exposing granulated copper, calamine, that is, a native oxide of zinc, and powdered charcoal in mixture to a red heat for some hours, and then [Pg 249] increasing the heat so as to melt the compound of copper and zinc, the charcoal having carried away the oxygen of the calamine. The metal is then cast into ingots or plates as may be required. This is called brass of cementation as distinguished from the other species, which are usually made from this by fusion with copper or zinc as the case requires.

(f). Common hard brass. This makes up the majority of brass produced on a large scale. It's created by heating a mix of granulated copper, calamine (a natural zinc oxide), and powdered charcoal to a red heat for several hours. Then, the heat is increased to melt the copper and zinc compound, with the charcoal removing the oxygen from the calamine. The molten metal is then cast into ingots or plates as needed. This type is known as cementation brass, in contrast to other types that are typically made by fusing copper or zinc, depending on the requirement. [Pg 249]

It is found that 40lbs. of copper with 60lbs. of calamine yield 60 lbs. of brass; hence a great part of the zinc burns away during the process. The brass thus resulting, consisting of 2 parts of copper and 1 of zinc, is of course constituted of 1 atom of each metal united together.

It is found that 40 lbs. of copper mixed with 60 lbs. of calamine produces 60 lbs. of brass; therefore, a significant amount of zinc is lost during the process. The resulting brass, made up of 2 parts copper and 1 part zinc, is composed of 1 atom of each metal bonded together.

Common brass is malleable, when cold, like the preceding species; but probably does not possess that property in so high a degree. It seems better adapted for turning in the lathe than any other kind of brass. The specific gravity of this brass before it is hammered or rolled is generally about 8.1 or 8.2 by my experience. When rolled it receives a great increase of density, amounting to .5 according to M. Dussaussoy[23], so that what is 8.2 when cast will be 8.7 when rolled; or [Pg 250] it is condensed nearly ¹/₁₆ of its volume by the operation of rolling. The same author finds that brass is hardened very considerably by rolling, but rendered less tenacious; however by being heated and consequently softened after rolling, it becomes stronger than ever, and nearly of an intermediate specific gravity between cast and rolled brass.

Common brass is malleable when cold, similar to the previous type; however, it likely doesn't have that quality to the same extent. It appears to be better suited for lathe work than any other type of brass. Based on my experience, the specific gravity of this brass before it's hammered or rolled is usually around 8.1 or 8.2. When rolled, it significantly increases in density, rising by 0.5 according to M. Dussaussoy[23], so that what is 8.2 when cast will be 8.7 when rolled; or [Pg 250] it is compressed to nearly ¹/₁₆ of its volume through the rolling process. The same author notes that brass becomes much harder when rolled, but is less tough; however, when it’s heated and thus softened after rolling, it becomes stronger than before, and approaches an intermediate specific gravity between cast and rolled brass.

(g). Prince’s metal, pinchbeck, &c. This compound, as far as I can learn, is usually formed by combining equal weights of copper and zinc, or by fusing together 3 parts of common brass with 1 of zinc. According to Lewis the yellow colour of brass is a maximum in this proportion. The alloy is brittle, or at least much less malleable than common brass. I find the composition of spelter solder, as it is called, or that used for soldering both brass and copper, to be nearly equal parts of copper and zinc. Hence it appears that 1 atom of copper unites to 2 of zinc to form this alloy.

(g). Prince’s metal, pinchbeck, etc. This compound, as far as I can tell, is usually made by combining equal amounts of copper and zinc, or by melting together 3 parts of regular brass with 1 part of zinc. According to Lewis, the yellow color of brass is most intense in this ratio. The alloy is brittle, or at least much less flexible than regular brass. I find the composition of spelter solder, as it is called, or that used for soldering both brass and copper, to be almost equal parts of copper and zinc. So it seems that 1 atom of copper combines with 2 atoms of zinc to create this alloy.

The other alloys of copper and zinc in which the zinc [Pg 251] gradually exceeds the copper, become gradually paler in colour and more brittle. They do not promise to be of much utility in the arts, and have not therefore been very particularly investigated by metallurgists.

The other copper-zinc alloys where the amount of zinc gradually exceeds the copper become lighter in color and more brittle. They don't seem to be very useful in practical applications, so metallurgists haven't studied them in detail.

Besides the binary combinations of copper and zinc and copper and tin, there are ternary combinations of these metals, namely, alloys of copper, zinc and tin. For instance, the metal of which common white buttons are made. I had occasion to analyse a specimen of this metal and found it to be constituted of 4 parts copper, 1 of zinc and 1 of tin; or 4 atoms of copper, 2 of zinc and 1 of tin.

Besides the binary combinations of copper and zinc and copper and tin, there are ternary combinations of these metals, specifically alloys of copper, zinc, and tin. For example, the metal used to make everyday white buttons. I had the opportunity to analyze a sample of this metal and found it to be made up of 4 parts copper, 1 part zinc, and 1 part tin; or 4 atoms of copper, 2 of zinc, and 1 of tin.

It will be proper to subjoin the methods of analysis which I adopted in regard to brass. Twenty grains, more or less, of the particular articles were dissolved in nitric acid, and the metals were precipitated in the state of sulphurets by hydrosulphuret of lime. The copper is thrown down in the state of a black powder, and the zinc in that of a white powder turning to grey. Great care was taken to add the precipitating liquor gradually in order that the copper might be [Pg 252] obtained distinctly from the zinc. The whole of the copper is thus thrown down before any of the zinc precipitate appears. The precipitates were collected and dried in a temperature not exceeding 150°, and then weighed. In both cases one third of the weight was allowed for sulphur, and the remaining two thirds were estimated to be metal; which is agreeable to the known constitutions of these sulphurets. Another method I sometimes practised, which also answers very well; namely, to throw down the whole or greatest part of the copper by a plate of lead, then to throw down the lead by sulphuric acid; after this the liquor was tested by hydrosulphuret of lime to precipitate the copper remaining, if any; and lastly to throw down the zinc by hydrosulphuret of lime.

It’s appropriate to add the methods of analysis I used for brass. I dissolved about twenty grains of the specific articles in nitric acid, and the metals were precipitated as sulfides using calcium hydrosulfide. The copper settled as a black powder, while the zinc formed a white powder that turned gray. Great care was taken to gradually add the precipitating solution to ensure the copper could be distinctly separated from the zinc. All the copper is precipitated before any zinc appears. The precipitates were collected and dried at a temperature not exceeding 150°, then weighed. In both cases, one third of the weight was accounted for as sulfur, and the remaining two thirds was considered to be metal, which aligns with the known properties of these sulfides. I also sometimes used another method that works well; I would precipitate most or all of the copper using a lead plate, then precipitate the lead using sulfuric acid. After this, the solution was tested with calcium hydrosulfide to precipitate any remaining copper; lastly, the zinc was precipitated with calcium hydrosulfide. [Pg 252]

6. Copper and bismuth. The alloy is brittle and of a pale colour. It is not much known.

6. Copper and bismuth. The alloy is brittle and has a light color. It's not very well-known.

7. Copper with antimony. Copper and antimony unite by fusion and form a violet coloured, brittle alloy.

7. Copper with antimony. Copper and antimony combine through melting to create a brittle, violet-colored alloy.

8. Copper and arsenic. These metals unite by fusion in a close crucible, the surface of the mixture being covered with common salt to prevent the oxidizement of the arsenic. The alloy is white and brittle, [Pg 253] and is known by the names of white copper, and white tombac.

8. Copper and arsenic. These metals combine by melting in a tightly sealed crucible, with the surface of the mixture covered in common salt to stop the arsenic from oxidizing. The alloy is white and brittle, [Pg 253] and is called white copper and white tombac.

9. Copper and manganese. These may be united by fusion, and form a red coloured, malleable alloy, according to Bergman.

9. Copper and manganese. These can be combined through melting and create a red-colored, malleable alloy, according to Bergman.

10. Copper and molybdenum. These metals may be alloyed in various proportions, but the compounds exhibit nothing peculiarly remarkable.

10. Copper and molybdenum. These metals can be combined in different proportions, but the compounds don't show anything particularly noteworthy.

Alloys of Iron with other Metals.

1. Iron with tin. These two metals are alloyed with some difficulty by fusion in a close crucible. The difficulty seems to arise from the very unequal temperatures at which the metals individually fuse. Bergman always found two alloys when the metals were fused together; the one composed of 21 parts tin and 1 of iron, that is, 10 atoms of tin to 1 of iron; and the other of 2 parts iron, and 1 of tin; that is, 4 atoms of iron and 1 of tin. The first was very malleable, harder than tin and not so brilliant; the second but moderately malleable and too hard to yield to the knife. [Pg 254]

1. Iron with tin. These two metals can be combined into an alloy, but it's a bit tricky to do so by melting them together in a tight crucible. The challenge seems to come from the different temperatures at which each metal melts. Bergman consistently found two distinct alloys when he melted the metals together: one made of 21 parts tin and 1 part iron, which is 10 atoms of tin for every 1 atom of iron; and the other made of 2 parts iron and 1 part tin, or 4 atoms of iron to 1 atom of tin. The first alloy was very malleable, harder than tin, but not as shiny; the second was only moderately malleable and too hard to cut with a knife. [Pg 254]

The formation of common tin-plate is a proof of the affinity of tin and iron. Thin plates of iron, thoroughly cleaned, are dipped into melted tin, when the tin adheres to the surface of the iron, forming with that metal a true chemical union.

The creation of common tin-plate shows the bond between tin and iron. Cleaned thin iron plates are dipped into molten tin, allowing the tin to stick to the iron's surface, forming a true chemical bond with the metal.

2. Iron and lead, &c. Iron combines by fusion more or less perfectly with lead, zinc, bismuth, antimony, arsenic, cobalt, manganese, &c. but the proportions have in few instances been ascertained, and the compounds are generally of little importance.

2. Iron and lead, etc. Iron fuses more or less effectively with lead, zinc, bismuth, antimony, arsenic, cobalt, manganese, etc., but in only a few cases have the proportions been determined, and the compounds are usually of minor significance.

Alloys of Nickel and other Metals.

Nickel and arsenic. As nickel and arsenic are naturally found in combination, though mostly along with small quantities of other bodies, it is to be presumed that an affinity subsists between them; but I do not know that the proportions have been ascertained in which they unite, or the nature of the alloys.

Nickel and arsenic. Since nickel and arsenic are naturally found together, often with small amounts of other substances, we can assume there’s a connection between them. However, I'm not aware if the specific proportions in which they combine or the characteristics of the alloys have been determined.

Alloys of Tin with other Metals.

1. Tin with lead. Tin and lead unite by fusion in any proportion. This alloy, according to Muschenbroek, is harder and much [Pg 255] more tenacious than either tin or lead, especially when 3 parts tin and 1 lead are its constituents.

1. Tin with lead. Tin and lead combine by melting together in any ratio. This alloy, according to Muschenbroek, is harder and significantly more durable than either tin or lead, especially when it consists of 3 parts tin and 1 part lead. [Pg 255]

I fused various proportions of tin and lead together, as per the following table, in order to find some of the more prominent characteristics of the several alloys. The specific gravity of the tin was 7.2, that of the lead was 11.23; and the portions taken were such as to combine, 1, 2, or more atoms of tin with 1 of lead. The several metals were melted and the compounds formed under a few drops of tallow, otherwise the oxidation is so rapid that the proportions are disturbed and the quantity of pure alloy is not equal to the weight of the ingredients. Without this precaution it is no uncommon occurrence in small experiments to obtain only 3 parts of fusible alloy from 4 of metal.

I mixed different amounts of tin and lead according to the following table to determine some of the main characteristics of the various alloys. The specific gravity of the tin was 7.2, while lead had a specific gravity of 11.23, and I combined either 1, 2, or more atoms of tin with 1 atom of lead. The metals were melted together, and the compounds formed with a few drops of tallow; otherwise, oxidation happens too quickly, throwing off the proportions and resulting in the amount of pure alloy being less than the weight of the ingredients. Without this step, it's common in small experiments to end up with only 3 parts of fusible alloy from 4 parts of metal.

Atoms. Weights Sp. Gr. by
 calculation. 
 Sp. Gr. by 
experim.
 Fusing 
Point.
Tin.   Lead. Tin.   Lead.      
1   +   1  .58   +   1 9.32 9.17  430°
2   +   1 1.16   +   1 8.64 8.79 350
3   +   1 1.73   +   1 8.25 8.49 340
4   +   1 2.3    +   1 8.00 8.10 345
5   +   1 2.9    +   1 7.93 8.00 350
6   +   1 3.47   +   1 7.81 7.90 360

From the above table it appears that when 1 atom of tin is united to 1 [Pg 256] of lead there is an expansion of volume; but when more than 1 of tin are combined to 1 of lead there is a contraction of volume, or the density is above that by calculation. This increase of density is greatest when 3 atoms of tin are combined with 1 of lead; and it is not improbable the tenacity may then be a maximum; though Muschenbroek finds it more tenacious when 3 parts tin are united to 1 of lead, which answers more nearly to 4 atoms tin and 1 of lead; this opinion is countenanced by the fact that tin is much the most tenacious of the two metals taken singly.

From the table above, it seems that when 1 atom of tin is combined with 1 atom of lead, the volume expands; but when more than 1 atom of tin is mixed with 1 atom of lead, the volume contracts, meaning the density is higher than what calculations suggest. This increase in density is highest when 3 atoms of tin are combined with 1 atom of lead; it's possible that the strength is also at its peak then. However, Muschenbroek observes that the material is stronger when 3 parts of tin are combined with 1 part of lead, which is closer to 4 atoms of tin and 1 of lead. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that tin is significantly more tenacious than lead when considered individually.

It is remarkable that the fusing point of these alloys is below those of either tin or lead. The lowest of all (340°) is when 3 atoms of tin are alloyed with 1 of lead.

It’s amazing that the melting point of these alloys is lower than that of either tin or lead. The lowest point, at 340°, occurs when 3 atoms of tin are combined with 1 atom of lead.

Common pewter, I find, is an alloy of 4 atoms of tin and 1 of lead nearly, and fuses about 345 or 350°. This is perhaps the best proportion; it is hard, tenacious and of a good colour. More of lead would impair the colour, and more of tin would impair the tenacity and increase the expence, though it might improve the colour.

Common pewter, I find, is an alloy made up of 4 parts tin and nearly 1 part lead, and it melts at around 345 or 350°. This seems to be the best ratio; it's hard, durable, and has a nice color. Adding more lead would ruin the color, while increasing the tin would make it less durable and raise the cost, even if it might enhance the color.

Certain articles for family use, such as tea-pots, spoons, &c. are made of white metal, which commonly, though I apprehend improperly, goes by the name of tutenag. This metal in colour approaches more to [Pg 257] silver than pewter does. A spoon of this description I found to be pure tin.

Certain household items, like teapots, spoons, etc., are made of white metal, which is often referred to, though I think incorrectly, as tutenag. This metal is closer in color to silver than pewter. I discovered that a spoon of this kind is actually made of pure tin.

2. Tin and zinc. This alloy is easily made by fusion. The metals seem to unite in any proportion. I melted together 29 parts zinc and 52 tin (1 atom of each), and obtained a white hard alloy of about 6.8 specific gravity. When 2 atoms tin and 1 zinc are united the specific gravity is 6.77, which is below the mean. The alloy appears to be very hard and tenacious; and probably might be put to some use.

2. Tin and zinc. This alloy is easy to create by melting the metals together. They seem to combine in any ratio. I melted 29 parts of zinc with 52 parts of tin (1 atom of each) and got a white, hard alloy with a specific gravity of about 6.8. When 2 atoms of tin are combined with 1 atom of zinc, the specific gravity is 6.77, which is lower than the average. The alloy looks very hard and tough, and it could probably be useful for something.

3. Tin and bismuth. These metals readily combine by fusion in any proportion. When 52 parts tin and 62 bismuth are fused together (1 atom to 1), a fine, smooth, hard but brittle alloy is obtained of the specific gravity 8.42. It fuses at 260°. Two atoms tin and 1 bismuth give an alloy of 8 specific gravity, which fuses about 320°. The alloy of 1 atom tin and 2 of bismuth is of 8.67 specific gravity, and fuses about 260°. The alloy of 3 atoms tin and 1 bismuth is of 7.73 specific gravity, and fuses at 350°. The alloy of 1 atom tin and 3 bismuth is of specific gravity 9.14, and fuses at 330°.

3. Tin and bismuth. These metals easily combine through melting in any ratio. When 52 parts of tin and 62 parts of bismuth are melted together (1 atom to 1), a fine, smooth, hard but brittle alloy is produced with a specific gravity of 8.42. It melts at 260°C. Two atoms of tin and 1 atom of bismuth create an alloy with a specific gravity of 8 that melts at around 320°C. The alloy made of 1 atom of tin and 2 atoms of bismuth has a specific gravity of 8.67 and melts at about 260°C. The alloy of 3 atoms of tin and 1 atom of bismuth has a specific gravity of 7.73 and melts at 350°C. The alloy with 1 atom of tin and 3 atoms of bismuth has a specific gravity of 9.14 and melts at 330°C.

4. Tin with antimony. This compound is said to be white and [Pg 258] brittle when formed of equal parts. I did not succeed in uniting the two metals by fusion on a small scale.

4. Tin with antimony. This combination is said to be white and [Pg 258] brittle when made of equal parts. I wasn't able to melt the two metals together on a small scale.

5. Tin with arsenic. When 15 parts of tin and 1 of arsenic are fused together the alloy crystallizes in large plates like bismuth, according to Bayen. It is brittle and less fusible than tin. This alloy must be composed of 5 atoms of tin and 1 of arsenic, that is, 312 tin and 21 arsenic.

5. Tin with arsenic. When 15 parts of tin are fused with 1 part of arsenic, the alloy forms large plates similar to bismuth, according to Bayen. It's brittle and not as easy to melt as tin. This alloy should consist of 5 atoms of tin and 1 atom of arsenic, meaning 312 parts of tin and 21 parts of arsenic.

Alloys of Lead with other Metals.

1. Lead and zinc. These two metals seem to have a weak affinity. They are easily united, or rather mixed, in any proportion by fusion under a little tallow. But however they may be mixed there is a strong tendency to separate again, which no doubt is occasioned in part by their great difference in specific gravity.

1. Lead and zinc. These two metals appear to have a weak attraction to each other. They can easily combine, or rather mix, in any proportion by melting them together with a bit of tallow. However, regardless of how they're mixed, they have a strong tendency to separate again, which is likely due in part to their significant difference in specific gravity.

I have fused lead and zinc together in various proportions, from 6 parts lead to 1 of zinc, to 1 part lead to 2 of zinc. The compound usually gives a specific gravity rather greater than the mean; but upon being broken the fracture is often like that of zinc in one part and [Pg 259] not so in another; and the analysis of fragments proves that a great difference exists in their composition. Subsequent fusion sometimes improves the combination and at other times the contrary. Six parts lead and 1 of tin gave a compound as nearly uniform as any. It was 11 specific gravity, harder and whiter than lead and had much the appearance of pewter, that is, the alloy of tin and lead.

I combined lead and zinc in different ratios, from 6 parts lead to 1 part zinc, to 1 part lead to 2 parts zinc. The compound usually has a specific gravity that's a bit higher than average; however, when broken, the fracture often resembles zinc in one area and not in another. The analysis of the fragments shows that there is a significant difference in their composition. Occasionally, re-fusing can improve the mixture, while at other times it has the opposite effect. A combination of six parts lead and 1 part tin resulted in a compound that was as nearly uniform as any. It had a specific gravity of 11, was harder and whiter than lead, and resembled pewter, which is the alloy of tin and lead. [Pg 259]

2. Lead and bismuth. These metals alloy well. Three parts lead and 2 of bismuth unite by fusion and form a tenacious alloy which fuses about 340°. Muschenbroek found it ten times stronger than lead. It grows dark coloured soon by keeping. Its specific gravity by my observation is 10.85, which is rather greater than the mean. It is constituted of 1 atom of each metal, or 62 bismuth to 90 lead.

2. Lead and bismuth. These metals mix well. Three parts lead and two parts bismuth melt together to create a strong alloy that fuses at about 340°. Muschenbroek found it to be ten times stronger than lead. It quickly darkens in color when stored. Based on my observations, its specific gravity is 10.85, which is slightly above average. It consists of 1 atom of each metal, or 62 parts bismuth to 90 parts lead.

Three parts lead and 4 bismuth (1 atom lead to 2 bismuth) fuses at 250°. This is the lowest temperature at which any alloy of two metals fuses. With a little tin it makes the triple alloy which fuses lower than any other metallic compound, without mercury, as will be shown in the sequel. The specific gravity of this alloy of lead and bismuth is 10.7, which is greater than the mean. [Pg 260]

Three parts lead and 4 parts bismuth (1 atom of lead to 2 atoms of bismuth) melt at 250°. This is the lowest temperature at which any alloy of two metals melts. By adding a little tin, it creates a triple alloy that melts at a lower temperature than any other metallic compound, without mercury, as will be explained later. The specific gravity of this lead and bismuth alloy is 10.7, which is higher than the average. [Pg 260]

The alloy of 1 part lead and 2 bismuth (1 atom of lead and 3 bismuth), fuses at 280°, and is of 10.1 specific gravity, or rather less than the mean.

The mixture of 1 part lead and 2 parts bismuth (1 atom of lead and 3 atoms of bismuth) melts at 280° and has a specific gravity of 10.1, which is slightly below the average.

The alloy of three parts lead and 1 bismuth (2 atoms of lead and 1 of bismuth) fuses at 450°. The specific gravity is 11, or rather greater than the mean.

The mixture of three parts lead and one part bismuth (2 atoms of lead and 1 atom of bismuth) melts at 450°. Its specific gravity is 11, or slightly more than the average.

3. Lead and antimony. These two metals combine by fusion in any proportion. The alloy is of a fine grain and is brittle or flexible as the antimony or lead prevails. The principal use of this alloy, I believe, is in the formation of printers’ types. The small types require a harder alloy or one with more antimony; the large types have a greater share of lead as being less expensive. On examination of the different types I find 3 proportions of the alloy principally in use. The smallest types are cast from a mixture which very nearly corresponds with 40 parts of antimony to 90 of lead (or 1 atom to 1). It is hard, has a fracture like steel and is of the specific gravity 9.4 or 9.5 nearly, and fuses about 480 or 500°. The proportions were determined both by analysis and by inference from the specific gravity of the metal.

3. Lead and antimony. These two metals combine by melting in any ratio. The alloy has a fine grain and can be brittle or flexible depending on whether antimony or lead is more dominant. The main use of this alloy, I believe, is in making printer types. Smaller types require a harder alloy or one with more antimony; larger types have more lead since they are cheaper. When I examined the different types, I found three main proportions of the alloy in use. The smallest types are cast from a mixture that closely matches 40 parts of antimony to 90 parts of lead (or 1 atom to 1). It is hard, has a fracture similar to steel, and has a specific gravity of about 9.4 or 9.5, melting around 480 or 500°. These proportions were determined based on both analysis and deduction from the specific gravity of the metal.

The middle sized types are made of metal composed of 1 atom of antimony [Pg 261] and 2 of lead, or 40 parts antimony and 180 of lead. This alloy fuses about 450° or 460° and has the specific gravity of 10 nearly.

The medium-sized types are made of a metal that consists of 1 atom of antimony [Pg 261] and 2 atoms of lead, or 40 parts antimony and 180 parts lead. This alloy melts at around 450° or 460° and has a specific gravity of nearly 10.

The largest types or letters of 2 or 3 inches diameter are made of metal composed of 1 atom antimony and 3 of lead, or 40 parts to 270. This alloy also fuses about 450 or 460°, which is a very remarkable fact. Its specific gravity is usually 10.22. After several trials I could not determine whether the fusing point of this or the preceding alloy was lower; and equal parts of the two alloys fused together were liquified at the same temperature of 450 or 460°.

The largest types or letters with diameters of 2 or 3 inches are made of a metal that consists of 1 part antimony and 3 parts lead, or 40 parts to 270. This alloy melts at around 450 or 460°, which is quite remarkable. Its specific gravity is typically 10.22. After several tests, I couldn't figure out whether the melting point of this or the previous alloy was lower; and equal parts of the two alloys melted together at the same temperature of 450 or 460°.

All the intermediate sizes of types appear to be made of one or other of the three preceding proportions or of mixtures of them, the smaller the type the more of antimony being required to give the requisite hardness. The largest types might, I conceive, be made with a much greater proportion of lead.

All the intermediate sizes of type seem to be made from one of the three previous proportions or combinations of them. The smaller the type, the more antimony is needed to achieve the necessary hardness. I believe the largest types could be made with a much higher proportion of lead.

When 40 antimony and 360 lead (1 atom to 4) are fused together, the melting point is about 470°. The specific gravity was found 10.4, but probably too low from blisters or air bubbles. The alloy was more flexible than the preceding, but brittle with a fine grained fracture. [Pg 262]

When 40 parts antimony and 360 parts lead (in a 1 to 4 ratio) are fused together, the melting point is around 470°. The specific gravity measured at 10.4, but it was likely underestimated due to blisters or air bubbles. The alloy was more flexible than the previous one, but it was brittle with a fine-grained fracture. [Pg 262]

Forty parts antimony with 450 lead (1 atom to 5) fused at 490°, and gave 11 specific gravity. This alloy bends and breaks with a fine grained fracture.

Forty parts of antimony mixed with 450 parts of lead (1 atom to 5) melted at 490°, resulting in an alloy with a specific gravity of 11. This alloy bends and breaks with a fine-grained fracture.

Forty parts antimony with 540 lead (1 atom to 6) fused at 510°, and gave 10.8 specific gravity, which in all probability was owing to air bubbles. Now the alloy soft and malleable.

Forty parts antimony mixed with 540 parts lead (1 atom to 6) melted at 510°, resulting in a specific gravity of 10.8, likely due to air bubbles. The alloy is now soft and malleable.

4. Lead and arsenic. When lead is fused in contact with the white oxide of arsenic under a film of tallow and stirred frequently, an union of the two metals takes place and the excess of white oxide is partially converted into arsenic and partly driven off, seemingly taking with it a portion of the lead. A considerable portion of the mass assumes the form of a black spongy compound infusible at the temperature. It contains a portion of the lead and is probably a compound of the metals with oxygen. The fusible alloy has the appearance of lead, but is brittle, breaks without bending and exhibits a fracture like that of antimony and lead. The specific gravity of the alloy is 10.6, or more if not saturated with lead. By treating it with an excess of nitric acid it is dissolved, and the lead may be thrown down by sulphuric acid, and the arsenic acid or oxide by lime. In this [Pg 263] way I find the alloy is composed of about 9 parts of lead with 2 of arsenic, or 1 atom of each of the metals. The spongy mass treated with nitric acid yields a similar solution, accompanied with a precipitation of oxide of arsenic.

4. Lead and arsenic. When lead is melted together with white arsenic oxide while covered with a layer of tallow and stirred frequently, the two metals combine. Some of the excess white oxide is turned into arsenic, and part of it seems to be driven off, taking away some lead with it. A significant part of the mixture transforms into a black, spongy compound that doesn’t melt at this temperature. This compound contains some lead and is likely a mix of the metals with oxygen. The resulting alloy looks like lead, but it's brittle, breaks without bending, and has a fracture similar to that of antimony and lead. The specific gravity of the alloy is 10.6, or higher if it isn't saturated with lead. When treated with extra nitric acid, it dissolves, and the lead can be precipitated using sulfuric acid, while arsenic acid or oxide can be precipitated using lime. In this way, I find that the alloy is made up of about 9 parts lead to 2 parts arsenic, or 1 atom of each metal. The spongy mass treated with nitric acid gives a similar solution, along with a precipitation of arsenic oxide. [Pg 263]

5. Lead and cobalt. The alloy of these two metals is not easily obtained, probably from the great difference of the temperature at which they fuse. Gmelin fused 1 part cobalt with 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 parts of lead respectively. Alloys were obtained of the specific gravities 8.12, 12.28 (query 8.28?), —, 9.65 and 9.78 respectively. From these specific gravities it is plain the lead had been in great part dissipated by the heat. For the last or greatest specific gravity corresponds nearly to 2 parts lead and 1 of cobalt. (An. de Chimie, 19—357.)

5. Lead and cobalt. The alloy of these two metals is not easily made, likely due to the significant difference in the temperatures at which they melt. Gmelin melted 1 part cobalt with 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 parts of lead, respectively. The resulting alloys showed specific gravities of 8.12, 12.28 (maybe 8.28?), —, 9.65, and 9.78, respectively. From these specific gravities, it’s clear that much of the lead was lost due to the heat. The last or highest specific gravity corresponds closely to 2 parts lead and 1 part cobalt. (An. de Chimie, 19—357.)

Triple Alloys, Solders; Fusible Metal, &c.

Though it may seem premature to treat of triple compounds in the present chapter, which professedly is limited to compounds of two elements, yet as the triple alloys are few and so immediately connected with the preceding, it will scarcely require an apology for introducing them here. [Pg 264]

Though it might seem a bit early to discuss triple compounds in this chapter, which is specifically focused on compounds of two elements, the fact that there are only a few triple alloys and they are so closely related to what we've just covered makes it unnecessary to apologize for bringing them up here. [Pg 264]

Soft solders. Solders for plumbers and tin-workers, are required to melt easily, and yet not too low, as they should withstand a heat greater than boiling water. The fusing point of the soft solders is usually between 300-400°. Plumbers’ solder I believe is commonly formed by mixing equal parts of tin and lead. I procured a specimen of 8.9 specific gravity, and its fusing point was 380°. Probably a more perfect compound would be formed by mixing 104 parts tin with 90 lead (2 atoms to 1), which would give a specific gravity of 8.8 and the fusing point 350°.

Soft solders. Solder used by plumbers and tin workers needs to melt easily, but not too easily, as it must withstand temperatures higher than boiling water. The melting point of soft solders typically ranges from 300 to 400°. Plumbers' solder is usually made by combining equal parts of tin and lead. I got a sample with a specific gravity of 8.9, and its melting point was 380°. A better mix might result from combining 104 parts tin with 90 parts lead (2 atoms of tin to 1 of lead), which would yield a specific gravity of 8.8 and a melting point of 350°.

Tin workers’ solder is made rather more fusible than that of the plumbers. A specimen I got from the workmen was 8.87 specific gravity and fused at 345°. A mixture of 3 parts tin and 2 of lead would have formed an alloy of the same fusibility, but the specific gravity would have been 8.6 or 8.7 only. Probably a rather less proportion of tin with a little bismuth entered into the composition.

Tin workers’ solder is produced to be more fusible than that of plumbers. A sample I obtained from the workers had a specific gravity of 8.87 and melted at 345°. A mixture of 3 parts tin and 2 parts lead would create an alloy with the same fusibility, but the specific gravity would only be 8.6 or 8.7. It's likely that a slightly lower proportion of tin, along with some bismuth, was included in the mixture.

Fusible Metal. Tin, bismuth and lead are metals which melt at comparatively low temperatures; and it has been shewn that the alloys of any two of them usually melt at lower temperatures than the mean, or [Pg 265] even than the lower extreme. By analogy it might be inferred that an alloy of tin and lead fused with one of tin and bismuth, would melt below either of the two ingredients. It has been shewn that proportions of bismuth and lead of easiest fusion are 2 atoms bismuth with one of lead; this alloy melts at 250°. An alloy of 2 atoms of bismuth and 1 of tin melts at 260°; and so does that of 1 atom bismuth and 1 tin. These alloys being much more easily fused than any other proportions of these metals, it is from their combinations we are to expect a still further reduction of the fusing point. In fact, a combination of either of the tin and bismuth alloys, with the lead and bismuth alloy, produces almost exactly the same reduction of the fusing temperature.

Fusible Metal. Tin, bismuth, and lead are metals that melt at relatively low temperatures. It has been shown that the alloys of any two of these metals typically melt at temperatures lower than the average, or even lower than the minimum temperature. By analogy, one might infer that an alloy of tin and lead combined with one of tin and bismuth would melt at a temperature lower than either of the two components. It has been demonstrated that the proportions of bismuth and lead that fuse most easily are 2 atoms of bismuth with 1 atom of lead; this alloy melts at 250°. An alloy of 2 atoms of bismuth and 1 atom of tin melts at 260°; the same goes for an alloy of 1 atom of bismuth and 1 atom of tin. These alloys are significantly easier to fuse than any other proportions of these metals, so we can expect even further reductions in the melting point from their combinations. In fact, combining either of the tin and bismuth alloys with the lead and bismuth alloy yields almost the same decrease in melting temperature.

Thus if 4 atoms of bismuth, 1 of tin and 1 of lead be fused together, the compound melts in boiling water or below 212°. It is equally the case if 3 atoms bismuth, 1 of tin and 1 of lead, are fused together.

Thus, if 4 atoms of bismuth, 1 of tin, and 1 of lead are fused together, the compound melts in boiling water or below 212°F. The same is true if 3 atoms of bismuth, 1 of tin, and 1 of lead are fused together.

The double alloy next to those above mentioned in regard to easy fusion is that of 2 atoms tin, and 1 bismuth. It fuses at 320°. This alloy, united to the one of 2 atoms bismuth and 1 lead, gives a compound of 3 [Pg 266] atoms bismuth, 2 tin and 1 lead, which fuses very nearly at the same temperature as the above triple alloys.

The next alloy that's easy to melt consists of 2 atoms of tin and 1 atom of bismuth. It melts at 320°. This alloy, combined with the one made of 2 atoms of bismuth and 1 atom of lead, creates a mix of 3 atoms of bismuth, 2 atoms of tin, and 1 atom of lead, which melts at almost the same temperature as the triple alloys mentioned above. [Pg 266]

In reference to weights, the above proportions for the most fusible metals will nearly be,

In terms of weights, the proportions mentioned above for the most easily melted metals will be about,

Bismuth 14 parts - Lead 5 — tin 3
——— 10 - 5 —— 3
———  5 - —— 3

Most of the elementary books have given the proportions of 8 bismuth, 5 lead and 3 tin; or 5 bismuth 2 lead and 3 tin, which nearly agree with some of the above, and give an alloy fusing below 212°.

Most of the basic books have provided the proportions of 8 bismuth, 5 lead, and 3 tin; or 5 bismuth, 2 lead, and 3 tin, which are quite similar to some of the above and produce an alloy that melts below 212°.

Wishing to investigate this subject more fully, and it being obvious from the preceding facts that there are only two proportions of tin and lead to be united with bismuth, to produce the desired effect, namely, either 1 atom of tin with 1 of lead, or 2 atoms of tin with 1 of lead, I proceeded as follows:

Wishing to explore this topic further, and it being clear from the earlier information that there are only two ratios of tin and lead that can be combined with bismuth to achieve the desired result, either 1 atom of tin with 1 of lead, or 2 atoms of tin with 1 of lead, I moved forward as follows:

1 atom tin (52) + 1 atom lead (90) + 1 atom bismuth (62), were fused together; the fusing point was 270°. The alloy was flexible to a certain degree; and the fracture very small grained. To this alloy 31 grains of bismuth were added successively till it was evident the alloy was growing less fusible; the results were as follows: [Pg 267]

1 atom of tin (52) + 1 atom of lead (90) + 1 atom of bismuth (62) were fused together; the melting point was 270°. The alloy was flexible to some extent, and the fracture was very fine-grained. To this alloy, 31 grains of bismuth were added one after another until it was clear that the alloy was becoming less fusible; the results were as follows: [Pg 267]

1 atom tin   +   1 lead   +   1 bismuth; fuses at 270°   semi fluid.
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   —— —— 235°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   2 —— —— 205°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   —— —— 200°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   3 —— —— 197°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   —— —— 200°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   4 —— —— 220°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   —— —— 205°
1 ———   +   1 ——   +   5 —— —— 240° semi fluid.
but it retains a little fluidity down to nearly 200°  

From this it appears that 3 parts by weight of tin, 5 of lead, and any proportion of bismuth from 7 to 14 will produce an alloy fusing below 212°; but of these the best is 10 or 11 parts.

From this, it seems that 3 parts by weight of tin, 5 of lead, and any amount of bismuth between 7 and 14 will create an alloy that melts below 212°; however, the best options are 10 or 11 parts.

Again, 2 atoms of tin were combined with 1 of lead and 3 of bismuth, by gradually adding one half of the tin. The several alloys fused without any material difference at or below 200°. A further addition of tin impaired the property as in the above case with bismuth. I did not think it important to mix 2 atoms of tin and 1 of lead with any other proportion than 3 atoms of bismuth.

Again, 2 atoms of tin were mixed with 1 of lead and 3 of bismuth by gradually adding half of the tin. The different alloys melted without any significant difference at or below 200°. Adding more tin reduced the properties, similar to what happened with bismuth. I didn’t think it was necessary to mix 2 atoms of tin and 1 of lead with any other amount than 3 atoms of bismuth.


[Pg 268]

[Pg 268]

APPENDIX.

Since the publication of the second part of the first volume, (1810) some important essays on the subject of heat have appeared, which have a direct bearing upon some points of the doctrine on that subject inculcated in the said volume. It may be proper to state the results, with such remarks and reflections as have occurred in the consideration of them.

Since the release of the second part of the first volume in 1810, several important essays on heat have been published that directly relate to certain aspects of the theory discussed in that volume. It seems fitting to present the findings along with any thoughts and reflections that have come to mind while considering them.

In the Annales de Chimie for January 1813, also in the Annals of Philosophy, vol. 2, we find a Memoir on the specific heat of different gases, by M. M. De la Roche and Berard. This exhibits a most laborious and refined series of experiments on this most difficult subject. Great merit seems to be due to them, both for invention and execution.

In the Annales de Chimie for January 1813, as well as in the Annals of Philosophy, vol. 2, there is a report on the specific heat of various gases by M. M. De la Roche and Berard. This work presents a highly detailed and sophisticated series of experiments on this challenging topic. They deserve significant credit for both the ideas and the execution.

It is unnecessary to describe the particulars of the apparatus and the mode of conducting the experiments, as a description may be found as above referred. It is sufficient to observe that the calorimeter used was a copper cylinder of 3 inches diameter and 6 in length, filled with water, and having a serpentine tube 5 feet in length, running through the interior and opening at both ends on the outside of the vessels. By means of this tube a regular current of any gas of a given [Pg 269] temperature (212°) might be passed through the vessel so as to part with its excess of temperature to the water. The quantity of water and the capacity of the vessel for heat were previously determined; and the quantity of heated gas passed through the calorimeter was determinable at any time, as well as the temperature of the water, from the judicious arrangements.

There's no need to go into detail about the equipment and how the experiments were conducted, as a description can be found as mentioned above. It's enough to note that the calorimeter used was a copper cylinder with a diameter of 3 inches and a length of 6 inches, filled with water, and had a 5-foot long serpentine tube running through the interior, opening on both ends outside the containers. With this tube, a steady flow of any gas at a specified temperature (212°) could be passed through the vessel, allowing it to release its excess heat to the water. The amount of water and the vessel's heat capacity were determined beforehand; additionally, the amount of heated gas flowing through the calorimeter could be measured at any time, along with the water's temperature, thanks to the thoughtful arrangements.

It is easy to see that when an apparatus of this kind is at work, the gas will impart heat, more or less according to its capacity, to the water; and that the temperature of the calorimeter will gradually ascend till it arrives at a maximum; that is, till the refrigerating effect of the surrounding atmosphere upon the calorimeter is equal to the heating effect of the current of gas.

It’s clear that when a device like this is running, the gas will transfer heat to the water to varying degrees based on its capacity. The temperature of the calorimeter will slowly rise until it reaches a peak; that is, until the cooling effect of the surrounding air on the calorimeter is equal to the heating effect of the gas flow.

The following Table exhibits the results of their experiments.

The table below shows the results of their experiments.

  Specific Heat
   Of the same bulk.   Of the same weight. 
Air 1.0000 1.0000
Hydrogen 0.9033 12.3401 
Carbonic Acid 1.2583 0.8280
Oxygen 0.9765 0.8848
Azote 1.0000 1.0318
Nitrous Oxide 1.3503 0.8878
Olefiant Gas 1.5530 1.5763
Carbonic Oxide 1.0340 1.0805
Aqueous Vapour   1.9600   3.1360[24]

[Pg 270] They found the specific heats of equal volumes of air of the pressures 29.2 and 41.7 inches of mercury to be nearly as 1 ∶ 1.2396, differing from the ratio of the pressures or densities, which is 1: 1.358.

[Pg 270] They determined the specific heats of equal volumes of air at pressures of 29.2 and 41.7 inches of mercury to be about 1:1.2396, which differs from the ratio of the pressures or densities, which is 1:1.358.

The above table of the specific heat of the permanent gases (excluding aqueous vapour) was corroborated by the results of another series of experiments in which the principle was varied a little: namely, to find how many cubic inches of each gas at a given temperature were required to raise the temperature of the calorimeter a given number of degrees, and inferring the capacities for heat to be inversely as the quantities of gas employed. The differences in the results were from 1 to 10 per cent., which may be considered small, in experiments of such delicacy.

The table above showing the specific heat of permanent gases (excluding water vapor) was supported by the results of another set of experiments where the principle was slightly adjusted. Specifically, the goal was to determine how many cubic inches of each gas at a certain temperature were needed to increase the calorimeter's temperature by a specific number of degrees, leading to the conclusion that heat capacity is inversely related to the amounts of gas used. The differences in the results ranged from 1 to 10 percent, which can be considered small given the delicate nature of such experiments.

The ratios of the specific heats of several gases being found, it was highly expedient to find the ratio of the specific heat of water, and that of some one gas, as common air. This was effected by passing a small current of hot water through the calorimeter, and comparing the effect of this current with that of the larger one of air, the requisite care being taken to ascertain the quantity of water passing in a given time and its temperature at the ingress. The result of this [Pg 271] experiment was that the specific heat of water is to that of common air as 1 ∶ .25 nearly. By two other experiments, varied from the above, results not much differing were obtained, so that the average of the three gave, water to air, as 1 ∶ .2669.

The specific heat ratios of several gases were determined, so it was important to also find the specific heat ratio of water compared to a common gas like air. This was done by sending a small flow of hot water through the calorimeter and comparing the effect of this flow with that of a larger flow of air. Care was taken to measure the amount of water flowing in a set time and its temperature as it entered. The result of this [Pg 271] experiment showed that the specific heat of water is approximately 1 to 0.25 when compared to common air. Two other experiments, which varied from the first, yielded similar results, giving an average of the three experiments showing that the ratio of water to air is about 1 to 0.2669.

Reducing the specific heats of the gases to the standard of water as unity, we have the following Table of the specific heats of equal weights of the respective bodies:

Reducing the specific heats of the gases to the standard of water as one, we have the following table of the specific heats of equal weights of the respective substances:

Water 1.0000
Air 0.2669
Hydrogen 3.2936
Carbonic Acid 0.2210
Oxygen 0.2361
Azote 0.2754
Nitrous Oxide 0.2369
Olefiant Gas 0.4207
Carbonic Oxide 0.2884
Aqueous Vapour   0.8474

Before we animadvert upon these results, it will be expedient to give an abstract of the not less interesting experiments of Messrs. Dulong and Petit, on heat, as given in the Annales de Chimie and de Physique, vol. 7 and 10.

Before we comment on these results, it will be helpful to provide a summary of the equally interesting experiments conducted by Messrs. Dulong and Petit on heat, as presented in the Annales de Chimie and de Physique, vol. 7 and 10.

These gentlemen begin by an investigation of the expansion of air by heat. The absolute expansion of air from freezing of water to boiling [Pg 272] had been previously determined by Gay Lussac and myself to be from 8 to 11 nearly: they however extended the enquiry above and below these points of temperature, namely to those of freezing and boiling mercury. From the temperature of freezing mercury or thereabouts, to that of boiling water, they find the expansion of air to keep pace with that of mercury, as indicated by the common thermometer; but from the boiling point of water to that of mercury, the latter expands somewhat more in a proportion gradually increasing: as by the following Table.

These gentlemen start by investigating how air expands with heat. The absolute expansion of air from the freezing point of water to its boiling point was previously determined by Gay Lussac and me to be roughly from 8 to 11. However, they extended their inquiry to temperatures above and below these points, specifically to the freezing and boiling points of mercury. They found that from the freezing point of mercury and around that point to the boiling point of water, the expansion of air matches that of mercury, as shown by the standard thermometer; but from the boiling point of water to the boiling point of mercury, mercury expands slightly more, with the difference gradually increasing, as shown in the following Table.

TABLE I.

TABLE I.

Temperature by
Mercurial
Thermometer.
Corresponding
 volume of a given 
mass of air.
 Temperature by an 
air Thermometer,
corrected for
expansion of glass.
 Fahrenheit.  Centigrade.   Centigrade.
  -33° -36° 0.8650 -36.8
 32 0 1.0000 0
212 100 1.3750 100  
302 150 1.5576 148.70
392 200 1.7389 197.05
482 250 1.9189 245.05
572 300 2.0976 292.70
680  M. boil 360 2.3125 350.00

The absolute dilatation of mercury claims their attention. They quote nine authorities for the expansion from freezing to boiling water temperatures; the extremes of these nine are, Casbois ¹/₆₇ of original [Pg 273] volume, and mine ¹/₅₀ of the same. They determine it to be ¹/₅₅.₅. By doubling and tripling the elevation of the temperature, they made observations from which are deduced the results of the following Table. The dilatations are for each degree of the thermometer centigrade, to which I have added the corresponding ones for Fahrenheit’s.

The absolute expansion of mercury draws their interest. They reference nine sources for the expansion from freezing to boiling water temperatures; the range among these nine is Casbois at 1/67 of the original volume, and mine at 1/50 of the same. They conclude it to be 1/55.5. By doubling and tripling the temperature increases, they made observations that led to the results listed in the following Table. The expansions are given for each degree of the centigrade thermometer, to which I have added the corresponding values for Fahrenheit.

TABLE II.

TABLE II.

 Temperature by an 
air Thermometer.
 Mean absolute 
dilatations
of mercury.
Temperatures indicated
 by dilatation of mercury, 
supposed uniform.[25]
Fahr. Cent. Fahr. Cent. Fahr. Cent.
  32°    0° 0 0  32°  0°
212 100 ¹/₉₉₉₀ ¹/₅₅₅₀ 212  100  
392 200 ¹/₉₉₄₅ ¹/₅₅₂₅ 400.3 204.61
572 300 ¹/₉₅₄₀ ¹/₅₃₀₀ 597.5 314.15

By a series of observations on the apparent dilatation of mercury in glass vessels, compared with the results in the above tables, they deduce the absolute dilatation of glass for each degree of the thermometer, and the temperature that would be indicated by supposing [Pg 274] the uniform expansion of a glass rod adopted as the measure of temperature as under:

By observing how mercury expands in glass containers and comparing it to the data in the tables above, they determine the exact expansion of glass for each degree on the thermometer, as well as the temperature that would be shown if a uniformly expanding glass rod was used as the standard for measuring temperature, as follows: [Pg 274]

TABLE III.

TABLE 3.

Temperature by
 an air Thermom. 
Mean apparent
 dilatation of 
mercury
in glass.
Absolute
 dilatation of 
glass in
volume.
 Temperature by 
a Thermometer
made of glass.
Fahr. Cent. Fahr. Cent. Fahr. Cent. Fahr. Cent.
 212°  100° ¹/₁₁₆₆₄ ¹/₆₄₃₀ ¹/₆₉₆₆₀ ¹/₃₈₇₀₀ 212   100  
392 200 ¹/₁₁₄₃₀ ¹/₆₃₇₈ ¹/₆₅₃₄₀ ¹/₃₆₃₀₀ 415.8 213.2
572 300 ¹/₁₁₃₇₂ ¹/₆₃₁₈ ¹/₅₉₂₂₀ ¹/₃₂₀₀₀ 667.2 352.9

The absolute dilatations of iron, copper, and platina were investigated with great address, from 0° to 100° and from 0° to 300° centigrade; and were found as per Table below, for each degree of the centigrade thermometer.

The absolute expansions of iron, copper, and platinum were examined with considerable skill, from 0° to 100° and from 0° to 300° Celsius; and were recorded as shown in the table below, for each degree on the Celsius thermometer.

TABLE IV.

TABLE IV.

  • (A) = Temp. by the air Therm.
  • (B) = Mean dilatation of iron, in volume.
  • (C) = Temp. by iron rod Therm.
  • (D) = Mean dilatation of copper in volume.
  • (E) = Temp. by copper rod Therm.
  • (F) = Mean dilatation of platina in volume.
  • (G) = Temp. by platina rod Therm.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)
Cent.            
  100°     ¹/₂₈₂₀₀     100°     ¹/₁₉₄₀₀     100°     ¹/₃₇₇₀₀     100°  
300  ¹/₂₂₇₀₀  372.6 ¹/₁₇₇₀₀  328.8 ¹/₃₆₃₀₀  311.6

Connected with this subject was another important enquiry, whether the capacities of bodies for heat remain constant at different temperatures, or whether they diminish or increase as the temperature [Pg 275] advances. In other words, does a body that requires a certain quantity of heat to raise it from 0° to 100° centigrade, require the same quantity to raise it from 100° to 200°, and from 200 to 300°, &c.; or does it require less or more as we ascend? This enquiry involves that of the measure of temperature. They adopt the uniform expansion of air, or the air thermometer, as the proper measure, and find the capacity of iron,

Connected to this topic was another important question: do the heat capacities of substances stay the same at different temperatures, or do they decrease or increase as the temperature rises? In other words, does a substance that needs a specific amount of heat to increase its temperature from 0° to 100° Celsius require the same amount to go from 100° to 200° and from 200° to 300°, etc.? Or does it need less or more as the temperature goes up? This question is related to how we measure temperature. They use the uniform expansion of air, or the air thermometer, as the right measure, and determine the heat capacity of iron, [Pg 275]

From 0° to 100° = .1098
to 200  = .1150
to 300  = .1218
to 350  = .1255

the capacity of an equal weight of water being 1.

the capacity of an equal weight of water is 1.

The following Table exhibits the capacities of seven other bodies according to their results.

The following table shows the capacities of seven other bodies based on their results.

TABLE V.

TABLE V.

   Mean capacity 
between 0°
and 100°
 Mean capacity 
between 0°
and 300°
Mercury .0330 .0350
Zinc .0927 .1015
Antimony   .0507 .0549
Silver .0557 .0611
Copper .0949 .1013
Platina .0335 .0355
Glass .1770 .1900

[Pg 276] According to this table the capacities of bodies increase with the temperature in a small degree: and the increase, though it would still exist, would be less, if the common mercurial thermometer were the measure of temperature.

[Pg 276] This table shows that the capacities of materials rise slightly with temperature; and while the increase would still occur, it would be smaller if we used a standard mercury thermometer to measure temperature.

Also supposing that thermometers made of these bodies and graduated by immersion in freezing and boiling water into 100°; if these were all immersed in a fluid in which an air thermometer stood at 300°. Then the relative temperatures of the several thermometers would be as under, if measured by the absolute quantity of heat acquired, namely,

Also assuming that thermometers made of these materials and calibrated by immersion in freezing and boiling water to 100°; if all these were immersed in a fluid where an air thermometer read 300°. Then the relative temperatures of the different thermometers would be as follows, if measured by the total amount of heat gained, namely,

Iron 322.2°
Silver 329.3
Zinc 328.5
Antimony   324.8
Glass 322.1
Copper 320.0
Mercury 318.2
Platina 317.9

From these observations they infer that the law which has been promulgated for the refrigeration of bodies, cannot be strictly true: namely, that bodies part with heat in proportion as their temperature exceeds that of the surrounding medium.

From these observations, they conclude that the law established for cooling bodies can’t be entirely accurate: specifically, that bodies lose heat in relation to how much their temperature is above that of the surrounding environment.

Some animadversions on the general laws relative to the phenomena of heat, announced in my elements of Chemical Philosophy (page 13) then [Pg 277] follow, together with a table drawn up to show the discordance between the air thermometer and the mercurial thermometer, both being graduated in the manner I proposed in the said elements. On these points I may have to remark in the sequel.

Some comments on the general laws related to the phenomena of heat, presented in my elements of Chemical Philosophy (page 13) then [Pg 277] follow, along with a table created to illustrate the differences between the air thermometer and the mercury thermometer, both calibrated according to the method I suggested in those elements. I may need to discuss these points further later on.

The first part of the Essay concludes with some remarks to shew why a preference should be given to the air thermometer, or more strictly, the thermometer whether of mercury or any other body, supposed to be graduated so as to correspond with an air thermometer of equal degrees.

The first part of the Essay concludes with some comments to show why preference should be given to the air thermometer, or more specifically, the thermometer—whether it uses mercury or another substance—assumed to be calibrated to match an air thermometer with equal degrees.

The Second Part of the Essay is on

The Second Part of the Essay is on

The Laws of Refrigeration.

Adopting the air thermometer as the most eligible measure of temperature, Messrs. Dulong and Petit proceed to investigate the laws of the refrigeration of bodies, under a great variety of circumstances, in vacuo and in air or gases of different kinds and densities. The inquiry abounds with experiments and observations evincing great skill and acuteness; but which it will not suit our purpose to detail. It may suffice for us to give a general summary of the Laws deduced by them from their experiments, at the same time recommending all those who feel sufficient interest in the subject to peruse the essay at large, which exhibits a profound philosophical train of experiments, [Pg 278] the results of which are illustrated by the aid of mathematical generalization.

Using the air thermometer as the best way to measure temperature, Dulong and Petit went on to explore the cooling laws of substances under various conditions, both in a vacuum and in different types and densities of air or gases. Their research is filled with experiments and observations that show remarkable skill and insight; however, we won't delve into the details here. Instead, we’ll provide a general summary of the laws they derived from their experiments, while encouraging anyone interested in the topic to read the full essay, which presents a thorough philosophical approach to experimentation, with results supported by mathematical generalization. [Pg 278]

Law 1. If one could observe the cooling of a body placed in a vacuum, and surrounded by a vessel absolutely destitute of heat, or otherwise deprived of the power of radiating heat, the velocities of cooling would decrease in geometrical progression when the temperatures diminished in arithmetical progression.”

Law 1. If you could watch how a body cools down when it's in a vacuum, surrounded by a container that has no heat at all or is unable to radiate heat, the rates of cooling would slow down in a geometric pattern as the temperatures dropped in a linear pattern.

Law 2. The temperature of a vessel containing a vacuum being constant, and a body being placed in it to cool, the velocities of cooling for excesses of temperature in arithmetical progression, decrease as the terms of a geometrical progression diminished by a constant number. The ratio of this progression is the same for the cooling of all kinds of bodies, and is equal to 1.0077.”

Law 2. When the temperature of a vessel with a vacuum remains constant, and an object is placed inside to cool, the cooling rates for temperature differences in arithmetic progression decrease like the terms of a geometric progression reduced by a constant number. The ratio of this progression is the same for the cooling of all types of objects, and it equals 1.0077.”

Law 3. The velocity of cooling in a vacuum for the same excess of temperature, increases in geometrical progression, the temperature of the vessel circumscribing the vacuum increasing in an arithmetical progression. The ratio of the progression is the same as above, namely 1.0077 for all kinds of bodies.”

Law 3. The speed of cooling in a vacuum for the same temperature difference increases in a geometric progression, while the temperature of the container around the vacuum increases in an arithmetic progression. The ratio of the progression remains the same, which is 1.0077 for all types of bodies.”

Law 4. The velocity of cooling due to the sole contact of a gas is entirely independent of the nature of the surface of the cooling bodies.” [Pg 279]

Law 4. The rate at which something cools when it only touches a gas doesn’t depend at all on what the surface of the cooling objects is like. [Pg 279]

Law 5. The velocity of cooling due to the sole contact of a gaseous fluid varies in a geometrical progression, while the excess of temperature itself varies in a geometrical progression. If the ratio of this second progression be 2, that of the first is 2.35, whatever be the nature of the gas and its elastic force.”

Law 5. The rate of cooling from the direct contact with a gas follows a geometric progression, and the excess temperature also follows a geometric progression. If the ratio of this second progression is 2, the ratio of the first is 2.35, regardless of the type of gas or its pressure.”

“This Law may be likewise announced by saying that the quantity of heat carried off by a gas is in all cases proportional to the excess of the temperature of the heated body raised to the power whose index is 1.233.”

“This Law can also be stated as follows: the amount of heat removed by a gas is always proportional to the difference between the temperature of the heated object raised to the power of 1.233.”

Law 6. The cooling power of a gaseous fluid diminishes in a geometrical progression, when its tension itself diminishes in a geometrical progression. If the ratio of this second progression is 2, the rate of the first is 1.366 for atmospheric air; 1.301 for hydrogen; 1.431 for carbonic acid; and 1.415 for olefiant gas.”

Law 6. The cooling ability of a gas decreases in a geometrical sequence when its pressure decreases in a geometrical sequence. If the ratio of the second sequence is 2, the rate of the first is 1.366 for atmospheric air; 1.301 for hydrogen; 1.431 for carbon dioxide; and 1.415 for ethylene.

“This law may also be presented as follows: The cooling power of a gas, all other things being alike, is proportional to a certain power of the pressure. The exponent of this power depends on the nature of the gas, and is for air 0.45; for hydrogen 0.315; for carbonic acid 0.517; and for olefiant gas 0.501.”

“This law can also be stated like this: The cooling power of a gas, assuming all other factors are the same, is proportional to a specific power of the pressure. The exponent of this power varies with the type of gas: it's 0.45 for air, 0.315 for hydrogen, 0.517 for carbon dioxide, and 0.501 for ethylene.”

Law 7. The cooling power of a gas varies with its temperature in such a manner that if the gas can dilate so as to preserve the same uniform tension, the cooling power will be as much diminished by the [Pg 280] rarefaction of the gas, as it is increased by its augmentation of temperature; so that definitively it depends only on its tension.”

Law 7. The cooling effect of a gas changes with its temperature in such a way that if the gas can expand to maintain the same uniform pressure, the cooling effect will be reduced by the thinning of the gas, just as it is increased by its rise in temperature; thus, in the end, it relies solely on its pressure. [Pg 280]


Another ingenious Essay was published by Messrs. Dulong and Petit, in the Annal. de chimie et de physique, vol. 10, namely, “Researches on some important points of the theory of heat.”—One object is to ascertain the specific heats of bodies with superior precision. A table of the specific heats of certain metals, found by their method, is given, together with the weights of the atoms of those metals, and the products of the specific heats and weights of the atoms, as under:

Another clever essay was published by Dulong and Petit in the Annal. de chimie et de physique, vol. 10, titled “Researches on some important points of the theory of heat.” One goal is to determine the specific heats of bodies with greater accuracy. A table of the specific heats of certain metals, discovered by their method, is included, along with the atomic weights of those metals and the results of multiplying the specific heats by the atomic weights, as follows:

   Specific heats, 
that of water
being 1
Weights of the
atoms, that of
 oxygen being 1 
Product of the
weight of each
atom by the
 corresponding 
capacity.
Bismuth 0.0288 13.300 0.3830
Lead 0.0293 12.950 0.3794
Gold 0.0298 12.430 0.3704
Platinum 0.0314 11.160 0.3740
Tin 0.0514  7.350 0.3779
Silver 0.0557  6.750 0.3759
Zinc 0.0927  4.030 0.3736
Tellurium   0.0912  4.030 0.3675
Copper 0.0949  3.957 0.3755
Nickel 0.1035  3.690 0.3819
Iron 0.1100  3.392 0.3731
Cobalt 0.1498  2.460 0.3685
Sulphur 0.1880  2.011 0.3780

[Pg 281] The inference intended from this Table is pretty obvious, namely, that the atoms or ultimate particles of the above bodies contain or attach to themselves the same quantity of heat, or have the same capacity. This principle the authors think will apply to the simple atoms of all bodies, whether solid, liquid, or elastic; but they hold it does not apply to compound atoms. It differs therefore essentially from a suggestion of mine, made eighteen years ago, (see Vol. I. page 70,) that the quantity of heat belonging to the ultimate particles of all elastic fluids, must be the same under the same pressure and temperature. They seem to apprehend, from experience, that a very simple ratio exists between the capacities of compound atoms and that of the elementary atoms. They draw another inference from their researches, that the heat developed at the instant of the combination of bodies, has no relation to the capacity of the elements; this loss of heat, they argue, is often not followed by any diminution in the capacity of the compounds. They seem to think that electricity developes heat in the act of combination; but they do not deny that a change of capacity may sometimes ensue, and heat be developed from this cause. [Pg 282]

[Pg 281] The conclusion drawn from this table is fairly clear: the atoms or basic particles of the bodies mentioned hold or have the same amount of heat, or have the same capacity for heat. The authors believe this principle applies to the simple atoms of all substances, whether they are solid, liquid, or gaseous; however, they argue that it does not apply to compound atoms. This is fundamentally different from a suggestion I made eighteen years ago, (see Vol. I. page 70,) that the amount of heat associated with the basic particles of all gases must be the same under the same pressure and temperature. They seem to observe, based on experience, that a straightforward ratio exists between the capacities of compound atoms and those of the basic atoms. They also make another point from their studies: that the heat generated at the moment of combining substances does not relate to the capacities of the individual elements; they argue that this heat loss is often not accompanied by any decrease in the capacity of the compounds. They suggest that electricity generates heat during the process of combination; however, they do not dismiss the possibility that a change in capacity might occur sometimes, leading to heat being produced as a result. [Pg 282]

Remarks on the above Essays.

Results nearly agreeing with those of De la Roche and Berard, on the capacity of certain elastic fluids for heat, were about the same time obtained by M. M. Clement and Desormes. (See Journal de Physique, Vol. 89—1819.) Such results, impugning some of the most plausible doctrines of heat, could not be admitted but upon very good authority. I remained doubtful, in some degree, till satisfied by my own experience. I procured a calorimeter of the construction of De la Roche’s, and to simplify the experiment, instead of forcing a given volume of hot air through the calorimeter to impart heat to the water, I drew, by means of an air-pump, a certain volume of atmospheric (or other air) of the common temperature, through the calorimeter filled with hot water, in order to find how much this process would accelerate the cooling. From several experiments of this kind, I am convinced that the capacity of common air for heat is very nearly such as the above ingenious French chemists have determined. That is, it is about ¹/₇ part only of [Pg 283] what Dr. Crawford deduced from his experiments, and nearly the same part of what I inferred from my theoretic view of the specific heats of elastic fluids. (See Vol. I. pages 62 and 74.)

Results that closely matched those of De la Roche and Berard regarding the ability of certain gases to hold heat were also achieved around the same time by M. M. Clement and Desormes. (See Journal de Physique, Vol. 89—1819.) Such findings, which challenged some of the most convincing theories about heat, could only be accepted based on strong evidence. I remained somewhat skeptical until I was convinced by my own experiments. I got a calorimeter designed by De la Roche, and to streamline the experiment, instead of forcing a specific amount of hot air through the calorimeter to heat the water, I used an air pump to draw a certain volume of air at room temperature through the calorimeter filled with hot water, to see how much this would speed up the cooling process. After several experiments, I am convinced that the heat capacity of regular air is very similar to what those innovative French chemists found. Specifically, it’s about one-seventh of what Dr. Crawford concluded from his experiments and nearly the same fraction of what I deduced from my theoretical understanding of the specific heats of gases. (See Vol. I. pages 62 and 74.)

Indeed M. M. De la Roche and Berard appear to have been puzzled with the admission of their own results. The combined heats of oxygen and hydrogen gases give only .6335 for the specific heat of water; whereas by experiment the heat of water is found to be 1, notwithstanding an immensity of heat is evolved during the combination of these gases.[26]

Indeed, M. M. De la Roche and Berard seem to have been confused by their own findings. The combined heats of oxygen and hydrogen gases only amount to .6335 for the specific heat of water; however, experiments show that the specific heat of water is actually 1, despite a massive amount of heat being released during the combination of these gases.[26]

“It is necessary therefore,” they observe, “to abandon the hypothesis which ascribes the evolution of heat in cases of combination to a diminution of specific heat in the bodies combined, and admit with Black, Lavoisier, and Laplace, and many other philosophers, the existence of caloric in a state of combination in bodies.” I am not aware of any writer that denies the existence of caloric in a state of combination of bodies. Dr. Crawford, who would be thought the most [Pg 284] likely to err in this respect, maintains, “that elementary fire is retained in bodies partly by its attraction to those bodies and partly by the action of the surrounding heat,” and that “its union with bodies will resemble that particular species of chemical union wherein the elements are combined by the joint forces of pressure and of attraction.” (On animal heat, 2d edition, page 436.) He is perhaps somewhat unfortunate in his instance in the combination of carbonic acid and water; muriatic acid or ammonia and water would have been more in point.

“They note, therefore, that it’s necessary to discard the idea that the heat generated in combination comes from a decrease in specific heat of the substances involved, and instead accept, alongside Black, Lavoisier, Laplace, and many other thinkers, that caloric exists in a state of combination within substances.” I’m not aware of any writer who disputes the presence of caloric in a combined state in substances. Dr. Crawford, who might seem the most likely to be mistaken in this regard, argues that “elementary fire is held in substances partly due to its attraction to them and partly due to the influence of surrounding heat,” and that “its combination with substances is similar to a specific type of chemical union where elements are bonded by both pressure and attraction.” (On animal heat, 2d edition, page 436.) He may have chosen an unfortunate example with the combination of carbonic acid and water; using muriatic acid or ammonia and water would have been more relevant.

The truth is, these important experiments shew that in elastic fluids the increments of temperature are not proportional to the whole heat, compared with the like increments of temperature and whole heat in those bodies when in the liquid and solid states.

The truth is, these important experiments show that in elastic fluids, the increases in temperature are not proportional to the total heat, when compared to similar increases in temperature and total heat in those substances when they are in liquid and solid states.

The specific heats of bodies, it is well known, are determined by means of the relative quantities of heat necessary to raise the temperature of those bodies a certain number of degrees. They are expressed by the ratios of those quantities. If the capacities of the same bodies for heat were permanent at all temperatures, then these ratios would also express those of the whole quantities of heat in bodies. In fact, most [Pg 285] authors represent the specific heats as expressing both the ratio of the total quantities of heat in bodies, and of the relative quantities to raise their temperature a given number of degrees; but it is the latter only which they accurately represent, and the former only hypothetically.

The specific heats of substances are defined by the amounts of heat needed to raise their temperatures by a certain number of degrees. They are represented by the ratios of these amounts. If the heat capacities of these substances were constant at all temperatures, these ratios would also reflect the total amounts of heat in the substances. In reality, most [Pg 285] authors indicate that specific heats show both the ratio of the total heat amounts in substances and the relative amounts needed to raise their temperature by a set number of degrees; however, they accurately represent only the latter and only hypothetically imply the former.

In regard to bodies in the solid and liquid forms, all experience shews that their capacities for heat are nearly if not accurately constant within the common range of temperature; it seems therefore not unreasonable to infer that the whole quantity of heat in each is proportional to their increments. When, however, a solid body by an increase of temperature assumes a fluid form, and absorbs heat without any increase of its temperature, its total quantity of heat is thus increased; and it is contended by the writers on capacity, that the increments of heat afterwards are increased in the same proportion as the total quantities. This is probable enough; but it ought to be proved in several instances by direct experiment before it can safely be admitted as a general principle; more especially now since the analogy in the case of a liquid becoming an elastic fluid is found to [Pg 286] fail in this particular. As an instance of uncertainty, the capacity of ice to water has been found as 9 to 10 by one person, and as 7.2 to 10 by others; such wide difference in the results shows there must be a difficulty in determining the specific heat of ice, and that it may even be doubted whether the specific heat of ice or water is greatest.

Regarding solid and liquid bodies, all experience shows that their ability to hold heat is nearly constant within the common temperature range; therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the total amount of heat in each is proportional to their increases. However, when a solid body turns into a liquid form due to an increase in temperature and absorbs heat without an increase in its temperature, its total heat quantity increases. Writers on heat capacity argue that the increases in heat afterwards are proportional to the total quantities. This seems likely, but it should be proven in several cases through direct experiments before being accepted as a general principle; especially now, since the analogy in the case of a liquid turning into a gas appears to fail in this regard. For instance, the capacity of ice compared to water has been measured as 9 to 10 by one person and as 7.2 to 10 by others; such a wide range in results indicates there is difficulty in determining the specific heat of ice, and it may even be questioned whether ice or water has the greater specific heat.

From the foregoing detail of experiments on elastic fluids, it appears evident that such fluids exhibit matter under a form in which it has the greatest possible capacity for heat, when capacity is understood to denote the total quantity of heat connected with the fluid; but if the capacity or specific heat is meant to denote the quantity of heat necessary to raise the body a given number of degrees of temperature, then the elastic fluid form of matter is that which has the least capacity for heat of any known form of the same matter. When therefore we use the terms specific heat as applied to elastic fluids we should henceforward carefully distinguish in what sense they are used; but the terms may still be indifferently used in the one or the other sense as applied to liquids and solids, till some more decisive experiments shew that a distinction is required. Probably the anomalies [Pg 287] that have occurred in investigations of the zero of cold, or point of total privation of heat, are in part due to the want of accordance between the ratio of the total quantities of heat in bodies, and the ratio of the quantities producing equal increments of temperature.

From the detailed experiments on gases, it’s clear that these fluids hold heat in a way that maximizes their overall capacity for heat, when we consider capacity as the total amount of heat associated with the fluid. However, if we define capacity or specific heat as the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of a substance by a certain number of degrees, then gases have the lowest capacity for heat compared to any known form of the same substance. Therefore, when we refer to specific heat in relation to gases, we should make sure to clarify the meaning; however, the term can still be used interchangeably in reference to liquids and solids until further experiments indicate that a distinction is necessary. The inconsistencies observed in studies of absolute zero or the complete absence of heat might partly stem from the mismatch between the total heat content in substances and the amounts necessary to create equal temperature changes. [Pg 287]

The greatest possible quantity of heat which a given weight of elastic fluid can contain is when the dilatation of the fluid is extreme. For, condensation, whether arising from mechanical pressure or from increased attraction of the atoms of matter for each other, tends to dissipate the heat, by increasing its elasticity. Hence increase of temperature, at the same time that on one account it increases the absolute quantity of heat in an elastic fluid, diminishes the quantity on another account by an increase of pressure, if the fluid be not suffered to dilate. This is well known from the fact that condensation produces increase of temperature in elastic fluids.

The maximum amount of heat that a specific weight of gas can hold occurs when the gas is fully expanded. When gas condenses—either from mechanical pressure or from a stronger attraction between its atoms—it tends to lose heat by becoming more elastic. Therefore, while an increase in temperature raises the total heat in a gas, it reduces the amount due to increased pressure if the gas is not allowed to expand. This is evident because condensation causes an increase in temperature in gases.

When it is considered that all elastic fluids expand the same quantity by the same increase of temperature, it might be imagined that all of them would have the same capacity, or require the same quantity of heat [Pg 288] to produce that expansion. The results of De la Roche and Berard do not seem to admit of this supposition, though the differences of the capacities of elastic fluids of equal volumes are not very great. There is a remarkable difference too between their results and those of Clement and Desormes, in regard to hydrogen gas: namely, .9033 and .6640; also in carbonic acid gas, 1.2583 and 1.5. The subject deserves further investigation.

When you consider that all gases expand the same amount with an increase in temperature, it might seem logical to think they would all have the same capacity or require the same amount of heat [Pg 288] to achieve that expansion. However, the findings of De la Roche and Berard don’t support this idea, even though the differences in the capacities of gases with equal volumes are not very significant. There’s also a notable discrepancy between their findings and those of Clement and Desormes regarding hydrogen gas: .9033 and .6640; and also for carbon dioxide, 1.2583 and 1.5. This topic warrants further exploration.

In reference to the experiments of Dulong and Petit, on the relative expansions of air and mercury by heat, I have no doubt their results are good approximations to the truth. My former experiments were chiefly made in temperatures between 32° and 212°, and I found, as General Roi had done, the expansion of air to be somewhat greater in the lower half than in the upper half of that interval, compared with mercury. On a repetition of the experiments, I think the difference is less than I concluded it to be, and I find that the like coincidence of the air scale and mercurial, continues down to near freezing mercury; at least the difference will not be so great as my new table of [Pg 289] temperature makes it at page 14. I have made some experiments on the expansions of air above 212°, which lead me to adopt the results of Dulong. On a comparison of the air and mercurial thermometer upon the laws which I pointed out, namely, the former expanding in geometrical progression to equal intervals of temperature, and the latter expanding as the square of the temperature reckoned from its freezing point, it appears that in the long range of 600° from freezing water to boiling mercury, the greatest deviation of the two thermometers does not exceed 22°. However, the great deviation of the scales between the temperatures of freezing water and freezing mercury, is sufficient to shew, as Dulong and Petit have observed, that their coincidence is only partial. Like the scales of air and mercury, which are so nearly coincident from -40° to 212° that scarcely any difference is sensible, though no one doubts of its existence; yet afterwards the differences become obvious enough, and the greater the farther we advance.

Referring to the experiments by Dulong and Petit on how air and mercury expand with heat, I have no doubt their findings are solid approximations of the truth. My previous experiments were mostly conducted at temperatures between 32° and 212°, and I observed, as General Roi did, that air expands a bit more in the lower half of that range compared to mercury. On repeating the experiments, I believe the difference is smaller than I initially thought, and I see that the agreement between the air and mercury scales continues down to nearly freezing mercury; at least, the difference won’t be as significant as my new temperature table suggests at page 14. I've also conducted some experiments on air expansion above 212°, which led me to agree with Dulong’s results. When comparing the air thermometer with the mercury thermometer based on the principles I pointed out—specifically, the air expanding in a geometric progression for equal temperature intervals, and the mercury expanding as the square of the temperature starting from its freezing point—it seems that over a range of 600° from freezing water to boiling mercury, the maximum difference between the two thermometers doesn’t exceed 22°. However, the significant difference between the scales at the freezing points of water and mercury is enough to show, as Dulong and Petit noted, that their overlap is only partial. Much like the air and mercury scales, which are almost identical from -40° to 212° to the point that the difference is hardly detectable, even though its existence is not questioned; afterward, the differences become quite clear, increasing the further we go.

Expansion of Mercury. See page 34, vol. I. I have overrated the expansion of glass bulbs (as will be seen presently,) and hence that of mercury; my expansion of mercury corrected on account of the glass, [Pg 290] will be ¹/₅₃ nearly, which leaves it still greater than Dulong’s. The 2nd table of Dulong is valuable, on account of its affording us information of the rate of expansion in the higher degrees of temperature, from a given or standard air thermometer.

Expansion of Mercury. See page 34, vol. I. I have overestimated the expansion of glass bulbs (as will be shown shortly), and therefore that of mercury; my corrected expansion of mercury, taking into account the glass, will be about ¹/₅₃, which is still greater than Dulong’s. The 2nd table of Dulong is useful because it provides information on the rate of expansion at higher temperatures, based on a standard air thermometer. [Pg 290]

Iron, Copper, and Platina.

Expansion of Glass.—By the 3rd Table of Dulong and Petit, it appears these ingenious chemists found the expansion of glass for 180°, or from 32° to 212°, very nearly the same as had been determined previously by Smeaton and others. It also expands increasingly with the temperature, whether it is estimated by the air or mercurial standard. This was observed by Deluc, but more extensively by the present authors. The expansions of iron, copper, and platina, from 32° to 212° as detailed in the 4th table, agree nearly with the results of others; but the expansions in the higher part of the scale manifest some remarkable facts not before known. Platina not only expands the least of the above bodies, but its expansion is almost equable; iron expands more than glass and less than copper, but the most unequally of any one, the expansion increasing rapidly as the temperature advances. [Pg 291] These facts explain some others which have fallen under my observation. I was formerly surprised to find glass and iron expand so nearly alike (see vol. I. page 31); but it now appears that iron increases more slowly in proportion than glass about the freezing point. More recently I procured a small thermometrical vessel of platina to contain water like those described at page 31, vol. I, and having filled it and treated it as the other metallic vessels, I was again surprised to find that the apparent greatest density of water in this vessel was at 43°, whereas I expected to have found it below 42°, the point for glass vessels. This observation, in conjunction with Dulong’s, shews, that platina expands more than iron at low temperatures, though for a range of 300° the whole expansion of the platina is to that of the iron as 2 to 3 nearly. Hence the error (for I now consider it as such) which I was led into with respect to the expansion of glass bulbs, (see vol. I. page 32) and subsequently into that of the expansion of mercury abovementioned. It is not the expansion of glass which approaches that of iron, but it is the reverse, which occasions the two bodies to meet so nearly in the table, page 31. This consideration will affect the [Pg 292] point of greatest density of water also; for, the less the expansion of iron and glass, the nearer will be the points of real and apparent greatest density of water, contained in vessels of those materials. My observations on brown earthenware are scarcely to be relied upon from the difficulty of making such vessels water tight: but the common white ware I have verified repeatedly since the publication of that table, and am satisfied the point of apparent greatest density, is at or near 40° in such vessels; hence the real maximum density of water must be below 40°. I am inclined to adopt 38° as the most proximate degree.

Expansion of Glass.—According to the 3rd Table of Dulong and Petit, these clever chemists discovered that the expansion of glass for 180°, or from 32° to 212°, is almost the same as what had been found earlier by Smeaton and others. It also expands more with increasing temperature, whether measured by air or mercury standards. Deluc observed this, but it's been explored more thoroughly by the current authors. The expansions of iron, copper, and platinum, from 32° to 212°, as detailed in the 4th table, are closely aligned with other results; however, the expansions at the higher end of the scale reveal some notable facts that were previously unknown. Platinum not only expands the least among these materials but also does so quite uniformly; iron expands more than glass but less than copper, and it has the most uneven expansion, rapidly increasing as the temperature rises. [Pg 291] These facts clarify some other observations I've made. I was previously surprised to see how closely glass and iron expand (see vol. I. page 31); but it now seems that iron's expansion is slower relative to glass around the freezing point. More recently, I obtained a small platinum thermometric vessel to hold water, similar to those described on page 31, vol. I, and after filling it and handling it like the other metal vessels, I was again surprised to find that the apparent maximum density of water in this vessel was at 43°, while I expected it to be below 42°, the point for glass vessels. This finding, along with Dulong’s observations, shows that platinum expands more than iron at low temperatures, though over a range of 300°, the total expansion of platinum is nearly to that of iron as 2 to 3. Thus, the error (which I now see as an error) regarding the expansion of glass bulbs (see vol. I. page 32) and subsequently regarding the expansion of mercury relates to this. It’s not the expansion of glass that closely matches that of iron, but rather the opposite, which is what causes the two substances to appear so similar in the table on page 31. This consideration will also affect the [Pg 292] point of greatest density of water; because the less the expansion of iron and glass, the closer the real and apparent points of maximum density of water contained in those materials will be. My observations on brown earthenware are not very reliable due to the difficulty of making such vessels watertight; however, I have repeatedly verified that the common whiteware holds the apparent maximum density at or near 40° in such vessels, implying that the real maximum density of water must be below 40°. I lean towards adopting 38° as the most accurate degree.

Capacities of bodies for heat. In the 5th table of Dulong, we have the specific heats of glass and of six metals, determined between freezing and boiling water: that of iron is given before. So far the question does not involve that of the measure of temperature. Their results afford no striking differences from those previously determined; however, it is desirable to find a greater accordance amongst philosophers in this respect. The experiments which give the specific heats between 0° and 300° centigrade, are original and interesting. The results go to shew that the capacities of bodies increase in a small degree with the temperature. But supposing that [Pg 293] these results may be relied upon as accurate (which can scarcely be affirmed of any former ones) still the character of them may be changed by adopting a different measure of temperature.

Capacities of bodies for heat. In the 5th table of Dulong, we have the specific heats of glass and six metals, measured between the freezing and boiling points of water: the specific heat of iron has been mentioned earlier. At this point, the discussion doesn't involve how temperature is measured. Their findings show no significant differences from previous measurements; however, it's important to find more agreement among scientists on this topic. The experiments that measure specific heats between 0° and 300° Celsius are original and intriguing. The results indicate that the heat capacities of materials increase slightly with temperature. But assuming these results can be considered accurate (which can hardly be said for earlier ones), the nature of these results could change if a different temperature scale is used.

The Essay of M. M. Dulong and Petit, in the 10th vol. of the An. de chimie (see An. of Philosophy, vol. 14th, 1819) manifests great ingenuity. It does not appear, however, so fortunate either in theory or experiment as the former one. It would be difficult to convince any one, either by reasoning or by experience that a number of particles of mercury at the temperature of -40°, whether in the solid,, liquid, or elastic state, have all the same capacity for heat. Indeed the experiments of De la Roche and Berard, if they are to be credited, demonstrate the inferior capacity of condensed air to rarefied air; and if the same body changes its capacity in the elastic form, it may well be concluded that all the three forms have not the same capacity. M. M. Dulong and Petit have themselves shewn, in their former essay, (see page 276) that solid bodies vary in their capacities for heat, and that scarcely any two bodies, vary alike; hence it is impossible that the product of the weight of the atom and specific heat of the body should [Pg 294] be a constant quantity. Their specific heat of certain metals differ greatly from what is found by others. For instance, they make the specific heat of lead .0293; the lowest authority I have seen is Crawford, .0352, and the highest Kirwan .050; from repeated trials I have lately found it, upon an average, .032. The weights of some of the atoms in their table, differ materially from what are commonly received; for instance, bismuth is 13.3 instead of 9; also copper, silver, and cobalt, are only half the weights of some authors. The gases too are unfortunate examples. Oxygen gas gives a product of .236 instead of .375; azotic gas gives a product .1967, if oxygen be to azote as 7 to 5, but a product of .393 if oxygen be to azote as 7 to 10: by Dr. Thomson’s ratio of oxygen to azote, 4 to 7, the product will be .482, very different from .375. Hydrogen will give a product of .47 or .41 instead of .375. All these differences, it may be said, are occasioned by errors in the specific heats of the gases; but if errors of this magnitude can still subsist after all the care that has been taken, we shall scarcely know what to trust in experimental philosophy.

The essay by M. M. Dulong and Petit in volume 10 of the An. de chimie (see An. of Philosophy, vol. 14, 1819) shows great creativity. However, it doesn’t seem as successful in theory or experimentation as the previous one. It would be hard to convince anyone, through reasoning or experience, that a collection of mercury particles at -40°, whether in solid, liquid, or gas form, all have the same heat capacity. In fact, the experiments by De la Roche and Berard, if reliable, demonstrate that condensed air has a lower capacity than rarefied air; and if the same substance changes its capacity in gas form, it’s reasonable to conclude that the three forms do not share the same capacity. M. M. Dulong and Petit themselves have shown in their earlier essay, (see page 276) that solid bodies vary in their heat capacities, and that very few bodies vary in the same way; thus, it’s impossible for the product of an atom's weight and a body’s specific heat to be a constant value. Their specific heat for certain metals differs significantly from what others have found. For example, they report lead's specific heat as .0293; the lowest figure I’ve seen is Crawford’s .0352, and the highest is Kirwan’s .050; based on recent trials, I’ve found an average around .032. The weights of some atoms in their table differ considerably from widely accepted values; for instance, they list bismuth as 13.3 instead of 9, and copper, silver, and cobalt weigh only half of what some authors report. The gases also present unfortunate discrepancies. Oxygen gas yields a product of .236 instead of .375; nitrogen gas gives a product of .1967 if the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen is 7 to 5, but a product of .393 if the ratio is 7 to 10. According to Dr. Thomson’s ratio of oxygen to nitrogen at 4 to 7, the product is .482, which is very different from .375. Hydrogen shows a product of .47 or .41 instead of .375. All these differences might be attributed to errors in the specific heats of the gases; however, if such significant errors remain despite all the efforts made, we will find it hard to know what to trust in experimental science.

If M. Dulong would assume all his simple elements in an elastic state [Pg 295] and under one uniform pressure, the hypothesis would then make a part of mine (vol. 1. page 70), and there is great reason to believe it would be either accurately true or a good approximation; but to suppose that some of the bodies should be in a solid state, having their particles united by various degrees of attraction, others fluid, and others in the elastic state, without any material modifications of their heat arising from these circumstances, appears to me to be in opposition to some of the best established phenomena in the mechanical philosophy.

If M. Dulong were to consider all his simple elements in an elastic state [Pg 295] and under one consistent pressure, then this hypothesis would align with mine (vol. 1, page 70), and there's good reason to think it would be either completely accurate or a close approximation. However, to assume that some of the substances are in a solid state, with their particles bonded by varying degrees of attraction, while others are fluid, and yet others in an elastic state, without any significant changes in their heat due to these conditions, seems to contradict some of the most well-established principles in mechanical philosophy.

Their observations on the specific heat of compound elements, on the relation of the heat developed by combination, as compared with the heat of the elements before and after the combination, &c., are not supported by a detail of actual experience. Heat given out by chemical changes they suppose not to have been previously in a state of combination with the elements. As an argument, the heat given out by charcoal kept in a state of ignition, by a current of galvanic fluid, is adduced. It is true this case is most easily explained, by allowing that the galvanic fluid is in such circumstances converted into heat. But the charcoal does not undergo any chemical change, and therefore this is not a case in point. [Pg 296]

Their observations on the specific heat of compound elements, the heat produced during a reaction compared to the heat of the elements before and after the reaction, etc., aren't backed up by actual experience. They assume that heat released during chemical reactions wasn’t previously combined with the elements. They use the example of heat released by charcoal that is kept burning by an electrical current. While it’s true this situation can be easily explained by saying the electrical current is turned into heat, the charcoal doesn’t undergo any chemical change, so it doesn't really apply. [Pg 296]

All modern experience concurs in shewing that the heat of combustion is primarily dependent on the quantity of oxygen combining. The heat evolved by the combustion of phosphorus and hydrogen is very nearly, if not accurately, in proportion to the oxygen spent. The heat by the combustion of charcoal is not in a much less ratio: and I find the heat in burning carbonic oxide, carburetted hydrogen and olefiant gas is the same as in burning hydrogen gas, provided the combining oxygen is the same.

All modern experience shows that the heat of combustion primarily depends on the amount of oxygen involved. The heat produced by the combustion of phosphorus and hydrogen is very close, if not exactly proportional, to the oxygen used. The heat generated by burning charcoal is in a similar range; and I find that the heat produced from burning carbon monoxide, methane, and ethylene is the same as that from burning hydrogen gas, as long as the amount of combining oxygen is the same.

One difficulty seems to have occurred to M. M. Dulong and Petit. They all along conceive that the specific heats of bodies, that is, the heats producing equal increments of temperature, must necessarily be proportionate to their whole heat. This is purely hypothetical, till established by experiment. The generality of writers on specific heat had conceived it almost confirmed by experiment. The results of Delaroche and Berard have shewn that in elastic fluids the increments of heat are not proportional to the whole quantities, but on the contrary are less when a body is elastic than when liquid. Indeed some writers have argued this should be the case; because a body nearly [Pg 297] saturated with another has less affinity for it left.[27] It is plain then that oxygen gas or any other elastic fluid, may have a small specific heat in the sense above defined, and yet have an almost unlimited quantity of heat. I am not aware of any one established fact that does not admit of an explanation upon the hypothesis that heat exists in definite quantities in all bodies, and is incapable of any change, except perhaps into one of the other equally imponderable bodies, light or electricity. [Pg 298]

One issue seems to have occurred to M. M. Dulong and Petit. They have always believed that the specific heats of substances, meaning the heats that produce equal temperature increases, must be proportional to their total heat. This is purely speculative until proven by experiment. Most writers on specific heat have thought it was nearly confirmed by experimental evidence. The findings of Delaroche and Berard have shown that in elastic fluids, the heat increments are not proportional to the total quantities; rather, they are lower in an elastic body than in a liquid one. In fact, some authors have argued that this should be the case because a body that is nearly saturated with another has less affinity for what remains. It is clear, then, that oxygen gas or any other elastic fluid may have a low specific heat as defined above and still possess an almost unlimited amount of heat. I am not aware of any established fact that cannot be explained by the hypothesis that heat exists in definite quantities in all bodies and cannot change, except possibly into one of the other equally weightless entities, light or electricity.

NEW TABLE OF THE
Forces of Vapours in Contact with the
Generating Liquids at Different Temperatures.

NEW TABLE OF
Forces of Vapors in Contact with the
Generating Liquids at Different Temperatures.

  • (A) = Temperatures by the common thermometer.
  • (B) = Ether vapour, ratio 2 Spec. Gravity .72
  • (C) = Sulphuret of carbon vapour, ratio 1.978
  • (D) = Alcohol vapour, ratio 2.7 Spec. Gravity .82
  • (E) = Acetic acid vapour, ratio 2.57
  • (F) = Water, ratio 2.602()
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
    Inches  
of M.
  Inches  
of M.
  Inches  
of M.
  Inches  
of M.
  Inches  
of M.
  7°   3.75  3.134   .193   .11
 35   7.5  6.20   .560   .27 .29
 65+  15. 12.26  1.51   .69 .75
 97  30 24.26  4.07  1.77 1.95
133  60 48. 11.00  4.54  5.07
173 120   29.70 11.7 13.18
220 240   80.2 30. 34.2 
272         88.9 
340           231  

This is an improved and extended table of the force of vapour, similar to that at page 14, vol. I. It shews that the different vapours increase inforce in geometrical progression, to certain intervals of temperature, the same to most or all liquids. These intervals of temperature were presumed in the former table, to be in reality equal to one another; but the accuracy of this last notion has been questioned. [Pg 299]

This is an updated and expanded table of vapor pressure, similar to the one on page 14, vol. I. It shows that various vapors increase in pressure in a geometric progression over certain temperature ranges, which is true for most or all liquids. In the previous table, these temperature ranges were assumed to be equal, but the validity of that assumption has been challenged. [Pg 299]

TABLE
Shewing the expansion of air, and the elastic
force of aqueous and ethereal vapour,
at different temperatures.

TABLE
Showing the expansion of air and the elastic force of water and gas vapors at different temperatures.

TABLE III.

TABLE 3.

 Temperat.   Vol. of 
air.
  Utmost force of    Weight of 100 
cubic inches
of aqueous
vapour.
Aqueous
vapour.
Ethereal
vapour.
  -28° 420 Inches of Inches of  
-20 428 Merc. Merc.  
-10 438     Grains.
0 448 .08    
10 458 .12    
20 468 .17    
30 478 .24    
  32° 480 .26  7.00 .178
33 481 .27  7.18 .184
34 482 .28  7.36 .191
35 483 .29  7.54 .197
36 484 .30  7.73 .203
37 485 .31  7.92 .209
38 486 .32  8.11 .216
39 487 .33  8.30 .222
40 488 .34  8.50 .229
41 489 .35  8.70 .235
42 490 .37  8.90 .245
43 491 .38  9.10 .255
44 492 .40  9.31 .267
45 493 .41  9.52 .275
46 494 .43  9.74 .284
47 495 .44  9.96 .293
48 496 .46 10.18 .303
49 497 .47 10.41 .313
50 498 .49 10.64 .323
51 499 .50 10.87 .329
52 500 .52 11.10 .341
53 501 .54 11.34 .354
54 502 .56 11.59 .366 [Pg 300]
55 503 .58 11.85 .378
56 504 .59 12.12 .384
57 505 .61 12.39 .396
58 506 .62 12.66 .402
59 507 .64 12.94 .414
60 508 .65 13.22 .420
61 509 .67 13.51 .432
62 510 .69 13.80 .444
63 511 .71 14.10 .456
64 512 .73 14.41 .468
65 513 .75 14.72 .480
66 514 .77 15.04 .492
67 515 .80 15.36 .509
68 516 .82 15.68 .521
69 517 .85 15.90 .539
70 518 .87 16.23 .551
71 519 .90 16.56 .569
72 520 .92 17.00 .580
73 521 .95 17.35 .598
74 522 .97 17.71 .610
75 523 1.00  18.08 .627
76 524 1.03  18.45 .645
77 525 1.06  18.83 .662
78 526 1.09  19.21 .680
79 527 1.12  19.60 .700
80 528 1.16  20.00 .721

Applications of the above Table.

Uses of the above Table.

These tables will be found of great use in reducing volumes of air from one temperature or pressure to any other given one: also in determining the specific gravities of dry gases from experiments on those saturated with or containing given quantities of aqueous or other vapours.

These tables will be very helpful in converting volumes of air from one temperature or pressure to any other specified value: they are also useful for determining the specific gravities of dry gases based on experiments with those that are saturated with or contain certain amounts of water vapor or other vapors.

As several writers, and some of considerable eminence, have given erroneous or imperfect formulæ on these subjects, more particularly with [Pg 301] regard to the effect of aqueous vapour in modifying the weights and volumes of gases, it has been thought proper to subjoin the following precepts and examples for the use of those who are not sufficiently conversant in such calculations.

As several writers, including some quite notable, have provided incorrect or incomplete formulas on these topics, especially concerning how water vapor affects the weights and volumes of gases, it seems appropriate to add the following guidelines and examples for those who aren't well-versed in these calculations. [Pg 301]

The 5th column of the above table, or weight of aqueous vapour, is new, and may therefore require explanation. Gay Lussac is considered the best authority in regard to the specific gravity of steam; but it would be well if his results were confirmed or corrected, as they are of importance. According to his experience, the specific gravities of common air and of pure aqueous vapour, of the same temperature and pressure, are as 8 to 5, or as 1 to .625. Now I assume that 100 cubic inches of common air, free from moisture, of the temperature 60° and the pressure of 30 inches of mercury, weigh 31 grains nearly. It is an extraordinary fact that philosophers are not agreed upon the absolute weight of a given volume of common air. Most authors now assume the weight of 100 inches = 30.5 grains, whilst according to my experience it is more than 31 grains. If common air be assumed 31 grains, steam would be 19⅜ grains for 100 cubic inches, at the same temperature and pressure, could it subsist; but as it cannot sustain [Pg 302] that pressure at the temperature of 60° we must deduct according to the diminished pressure, the utmost force of steam at 60° being .65 parts of an inch of mercury, we have 30 inches ∶ 19⅜ grains ∷ .65 ∶ .420 grains = the weight of 100 cubic inches of aqueous vapour at 60° and pressure .65 parts of an inch; which is the number given above in the table. The like calculation is required for any other pressure: but in addition to this, there is to be an allowance for the temperature from the 2d column: Thus, let the weight of 100 cubic inches of steam at 32° be required. We have 30 inch. ∶ 19⅜ grs. ∷ .26 inch. ∶ .1679 grs.; the weight of 100 inches of steam at 60°; then if 480 ∶ 508 ∷ .1679 ∶ .178 grs. = weight of 100 cubic inches of steam at 32° and pressure .26 parts of an inch, the tabular number required.

The 5th column of the table above, which shows the weight of water vapor, is new and may need some explanation. Gay Lussac is regarded as the top expert on the specific gravity of steam, but it would be beneficial if his findings were validated or revised, as they are significant. Based on his findings, the specific gravities of common air and pure water vapor at the same temperature and pressure are in the ratio of 8 to 5, or 1 to 0.625. I assume that 100 cubic inches of dry common air at 60°F and a pressure of 30 inches of mercury weighs nearly 31 grains. It’s a surprising fact that experts don’t agree on the exact weight of a specific volume of common air. Most authors currently say that the weight of 100 inches is 30.5 grains, while my experience suggests it is over 31 grains. If we take common air to be 31 grains, then steam would weigh 19⅜ grains for 100 cubic inches at the same temperature and pressure, if it could exist at that pressure. However, since it cannot sustain that pressure at 60°F, we need to adjust for the reduced pressure. The maximum steam pressure at 60°F is 0.65 inches of mercury, so we calculate: 30 inches ∶ 19⅜ grains ∷ 0.65 ∶ 0.420 grains, giving us the weight of 100 cubic inches of water vapor at 60°F and 0.65 inches of pressure, which is the figure shown in the table. The same calculation is necessary for any other pressure, along with an adjustment for temperature from the 2nd column. For example, if we need the weight of 100 cubic inches of steam at 32°F, we have 30 inches ∶ 19⅜ grains ∷ 0.26 inches ∶ 0.1679 grains—the weight of 100 inches of steam at 60°F. Then, using the ratio 480 ∶ 508 ∷ 0.1679 ∶ 0.178 grains gives us the weight of 100 cubic inches of steam at 32°F and 0.26 inches of pressure, which is the number listed in the table.

Examples.

Examples.

1. How many cubic inches of air at 60° are equivalent in weight to 100 cubic inches at 45°?

1. How many cubic inches of air at 60° weigh the same as 100 cubic inches at 45°?

By the column headed volume of air we have this proportion, if 493 ∶ 508 ∷ 100 inch. ∶ 103.04 inches, the volume required.

By the column headed volume of air we have this proportion, if 493 ∶ 508 ∷ 100 inch. ∶ 103.04 inches, the volume needed.

2. How many cubic inches of air with the barometer at 30 inches height, are equal in weight to 100 cubic inches when the barometer stands at 28.9 inches? [Pg 303]

2. How many cubic inches of air at a barometric pressure of 30 inches is equal in weight to 100 cubic inches when the barometric pressure is at 28.9 inches? [Pg 303]

Rule. The volume of air being inversely as the pressure, we have, 30 ∶ 28.9 ∷ 100 inches ∶ 96⅓ inches the answer.

Rule. The volume of air is inversely related to the pressure, so we have, 30 : 28.9 :: 100 inches : 96⅓ inches as the result.

3. How many cubic inches of dry air are there in 100 inches saturated with aqueous vapour, at the temperature of 50°, and pressure 30 inches of mercury?

3. How many cubic inches of dry air are in 100 inches saturated with water vapor at a temperature of 50° and a pressure of 30 inches of mercury?

Here the formula

Here's the formula

(p - f)
p

applies, where p denotes the atmospheric pressure at the time, and f denotes the utmost force of vapour in contact with water at the temperature. Hence p = 30, f = .49 per table, and we have

applies, where p represents the atmospheric pressure at that time, and f signifies the maximum vapour force in contact with water at the given temperature. Therefore, p = 30, f = .49 per table, and we have

(p - f)   =   (30 - .49)   =   29.51   =  98¹¹/₃₀, or
p 30 30
 
98¹¹/₃₀ percent dry air.
&  1¹⁹/₃₀ vapour.
100  

If the vapour of ether is assumed, then f = 10.64, and we have

If we assume the vapor of ether, then f = 10.64, and we have

(p - f)   =   (30 - 10.64)   =   19.36   =  .645, or ...
p 30 30
 
64½ per cent dry air.[28]
35½ per cent ethereal vapour.
100  

4. Suppose we find by trial the weight of 100 cubic inches of common air saturated with vapour at 60°, the barometer standing at 30 inches [Pg 304] to be 30.5 grains, and the weight of hydrogen gas in like circumstances to be 2.118 grains; query the weights of 100 cubic inches of each gas free from vapour, and their specific gravities, the temperature and pressure being as above?

4. Suppose we determine through experimentation that 100 cubic inches of common air saturated with vapor at 60°, with the barometer at 30 inches, weighs 30.5 grains, while the weight of hydrogen gas under the same conditions is 2.118 grains. What are the weights of 100 cubic inches of each gas free from vapor, and what are their specific gravities, given the temperature and pressure are as stated? [Pg 304]

If 30.5 ∶ 2.118 ∷ 1 ∶ .0694 = sp. gr. of vapourized hydrogen, that of vapourized air being 1. Subtracting .42 grs. (weight of vapour per table) from 30.5 grs., leaves 30.08 grains; and subtracting .65 parts of an inch from 30 inches, leaves 29.35 inches. Hence 100 cubic inches of dry air at the pressure of 29.35 inches, weigh 30.08 grains; and we have 29.35 ∶ 30 ∷ 30.08 ∶ 30.746 grains, the weight of 100 inches of dry air. Again, subtracting .42 grs. from 2.118, leaves 1.698 grains = weight of 100 cubic inches of hydrogen of 60° and sustaining the pressure of 29.35 inches; whence if 29.35 ∶ 30 ∷ 1.698 ∶ 1.736 grains, weight of 100 inches of dry hydrogen; and 30.746 ∶ 1.736 ∷ 1 ∶ .05645 = sp. gr. of dry hydrogen, that of dry air being unity. Or the results may be exhibited as under:

If 30.5 : 2.118 :: 1 : .0694 equals the specific gravity of vaporized hydrogen, while that of vaporized air is 1. Subtracting .42 grams (the weight of vapor per the table) from 30.5 grams leaves 30.08 grains; and subtracting .65 inches from 30 inches leaves 29.35 inches. Thus, 100 cubic inches of dry air at a pressure of 29.35 inches weigh 30.08 grains; and we have 29.35 : 30 :: 30.08 : 30.746 grains, which is the weight of 100 inches of dry air. Again, subtracting .42 grams from 2.118 leaves 1.698 grains, which is the weight of 100 cubic inches of hydrogen at 60° and under a pressure of 29.35 inches; therefore, if 29.35 : 30 :: 1.698 : 1.736 grains is the weight of 100 inches of dry hydrogen; and 30.746 : 1.736 :: 1 : .05645 equals the specific gravity of dry hydrogen, where the specific gravity of dry air is one. Alternatively, the results can be presented as follows:

Weight of 100 cubic inches. Sp. Gravities.
Vap. air 30.5 grains 1 14.4
Vap. hydrogen    2.118 .0694  1
 
Dry air 30.746   grains 1 17.7
Dry hydrogen  1.736 .05645  1

[Pg 305]

[Pg 305]

FORMULÆ FOR DETERMINING THE
PROPORTIONS OF COMBUSTIBLE GASES
IN MIXTURES.

It frequently happens, especially in the decomposition of vegetable substances by heat, that the product consists of several combustible gases in mixture, and it is desirable to determine the proportions of each of those which collectively constitute the mixture. The following forms will be found useful for this purpose.

It often occurs, especially when heating plant materials, that the result is a mix of several flammable gases, and it's important to find out the proportions of each gas in that mixture. The following forms will be useful for this purpose.

1. Carbonic oxide and hydrogen.

Let x = the volume of carbonic oxide, y = that of hydrogen, w = that of mixture, and a = that of carbonic acid, produced by exploding the mixed gases with oxygen over mercury.

Let x = the volume of carbon monoxide, y = the volume of hydrogen, w = the volume of the mixture, and a = the volume of carbon dioxide produced by igniting the mixed gases with oxygen over mercury.

Then the carbonic oxide, or  x = a,
and the hydrogen, or  y = w - a.

Then carbon monoxide is represented as x = a,
and hydrogen is represented as y = w - a.

2. Sulphuretted hydrogen and hydrogen.

Let x = the volume of sulphuretted hydrogen, y = that of hydrogen, w = that of the mixture, and g = the oxygen spent in the combustion of w.

Let x = the volume of hydrogen sulfide, y = the volume of hydrogen, w = the volume of the mixture, and g = the oxygen used in the combustion of w.

  • Then because x + y = w,
  • and 1½x + ½y = g;
  • we have x = g - ½w,
  • and y = 1½w - g.

[Pg 306]

[Pg 306]

3. Phosphuretted hydrogen and hydrogen; also
carburetted hydrogen and hydrogen, and
carburetted hydrogen and carbonic oxide.

The notation being as above, we have x + y = w, and 2x + ½y = g (see page 171): and,

The notation as stated, we have x + y = w, and 2x + ½y = g (see page 171): and,

x 2g - w ,   and  y 4w - 2g .
3 3

4. Olefiant gas and carburetted hydrogen.

The notation being as above, we have

The notation being as above, we have

  • x + y = w, and
  • 3x + 2y = g; whence
  •   x = g - 2w and
  •   y = 3w - g.

5. Carburetted hydrogen, carbonic oxide and hydrogen.

Let x = carburetted hydrogen, y = carbonic oxide, z = the hydrogen, g = the oxygen spent in the combustion of w volumes of mixed gas, and a = the carbonic acid produced.

Let x = hydrocarbon, y = carbon monoxide, z = hydrogen, g = the oxygen used in burning w volumes of mixed gas, and a = the carbon dioxide produced.

Then x + y + z   =   w,
x + ½y + ½z   =   g,
and 2x + y   =   a.

whence we have

from where we have

x 2g - w ,  y 3a - 2g + w
3 3

and z = w - a.

and z = w - a.

6. Olefiant gas, carburetted hydrogen and carbonic oxide.

Let a = the olefiant gas, y = the carburetted hydrogen, and z = equal the carbonic oxide, g = the oxygen entering [Pg 307] into combination, and a = the carbonic acid produced; also w = the whole volume as before.

Let a = the olefiant gas, y = the carburetted hydrogen, and z = the carbon monoxide, g = the oxygen that combines, and a = the carbon dioxide produced; also w = the total volume as before. [Pg 307]

Then we have x + y + z   =   w,
3x + 2y + ½z   =   g,
and 2x + y + z   =   a.
Whence x = a - w,
  y = 4w - 5a + 2g,
  3
and z = ⅔(w + a - g).

7. Superolefiant gas,[29] carburetted hydrogen, and carbonic oxide.

7. Superolefiant gas,[29] carburetted hydrogen, and carbon monoxide.

Let x = volume of superolefiant, y = volume of carburetted hydrogen, z = volume of carbonic oxide, g = the oxygen combining, a = carbonic acid produced, and w = volume of mixed gas.

Let x = volume of superolefiant, y = volume of carburetted hydrogen, z = volume of carbonic oxide, g = oxygen combined, a = carbonic acid produced, and w = volume of mixed gas.

Thenx + y + z   =   w,
x + 2y + ½z   =   g,
and 3x + y + z   =   a.
Whence x a - w
2
y 3w - 4a + 2g
3
and z 3w - 4g + 5a
6

[Pg 308]

[Pg 308]

8. Superolefiant gas, carburetted hydrogen,
carbonic oxide, and hydrogen.

This is the mixture of gases obtained by a red heat from coal and oil, after being freed from carbonic acid, &c., by the usual means.

This is the mix of gases produced by heating coal and oil until red hot, after being purified from carbon dioxide, etc., using the usual methods.

This mixture requires a very complicated formula, in consequence of the specific gravities of the gases entering into the calculus. The importance of the subject however may be an apology for the labour.

This mixture needs a very complex formula due to the specific gravities of the gases involved in the calculations. However, the significance of the topic may justify the effort.

Let x = vol. of superolefiant,  S its sp. gr.
y = vol. of carb. hydrogen, f its sp. gr.
z = vol. of carbonic oxide, c its sp. gr.
& u = vol. of hydrogen,   s its sp. gr.

C = specific gravity of the mixture, g = oxygen, a = carbonic acid, and w = whole volume of mixture as before.

C = specific gravity of the mixture, g = oxygen, a = carbon dioxide, and w = total volume of the mixture as before.

Then we have x + y + z + u = w
x + 2y + ½z + ½u = g
3x + y + z = a
and Sx + fy + cz + su = Cw.
 
Whence u =  
 
(3S + 5c - 8f)a - (4c - 4f)g - (3S + 6C - 6f - 3c)w
8f + c - 3S - 6s.

The value of the hydrogen being obtained, it may be subtracted from w, and the remainder will be best divided into three portions, by the preceding formula. [Pg 309]

The value of the hydrogen obtained can be subtracted from w, and the remainder should be divided into three parts using the previous formula. [Pg 309]

HEAT PRODUCED BY THE
COMBUSTION OF GASES.

Subsequent experience to that detailed at page 77, Vol. 1. has furnished the following more correct results of the heat produced by the combustion of pure gases.

Subsequent experience to that detailed on page 77, Vol. 1, has provided the following more accurate results of the heat produced by the combustion of pure gases.

Hydrogen, combustion of it raises an equal volume of water  
Carbonic Oxide
Carburetted Hydrogen, or Pond Gas 18
Olefiant Gas 27
Coal Gas (varies with the gas from 10° to) 16
Oil Gas (varies also with the gas from 12° to) 20

Generally the combustible gases give out heat nearly in proportion to the oxygen they consume. See note at the end of Vol. 4, new series of the Manchester memoirs.

Generally, combustible gases release heat almost in proportion to the oxygen they use up. See note at the end of Vol. 4, new series of the Manchester memoirs.

ABSORPTION OF GASES
BY WATER, &c.

This curious subject has attracted much less attention than it deserves. Very little has been published relating to it since the time of Dr. Henry’s essays and my own, now more than twenty years ago. The only author I remember is M. Saussure of Geneva, who published a similar essay about twelve years afterwards. See Thomson’s Annals of [Pg 310] Philosophy, Vol. 6. He investigates the quantities of gases absorbed by various solid bodies, in a manner which I do not fully comprehend; he then treats of the absorption of gases by liquids, adverting at the same time to Dr. Henry’s experiments and mine. My enquiries were principally confined to one liquid, water; but I made a few trials with others, such as weak aqueous solutions of salts, alcohol, &c., and observing no remarkable differences, I concluded somewhat too hastily that “most liquids free from viscidity, such as acids, alcohol, &c., absorb the same quantity of gases as pure water.” Manchester memoirs, new series, Vol. 1. M. Saussure however asserts that there are considerable differences in liquids in this respect. He finds sulphuretted hydrogen to be more absorbable by water than Dr. Henry and I did; in this I find he is right. Water takes about 2½ its bulk of this gas when pure; and it seldom had been obtained unmixed with hydrogen when Dr. Henry and I made our experiments upon its absorption. In regard to carbonic acid, nitrous oxide, and olefiant gas, M. Saussure nearly agrees with us; but his results with oxygen gas, carbonic oxide, carburetted hydrogen, hydrogen and azote, would prove [Pg 311] that water absorbs twice the quantities of each that we have assigned. I have no doubt he is wrong in the less absorbable gases. In the case of absorption of mixed gases, Saussure has given four examples, in which he finds the results to militate against my theoretic view, as stated at page 201, Vol. 1.; namely, that water takes the same quantity of each in a mixed state as it would do if they were separate, and in other respects in like circumstances. But I have shewn in the Annals of Philos. Vol. 7, 1816, that his results coincide as near as any one can expect with the views which I have all along taken of this subject.

This interesting topic has received far less attention than it deserves. Very little has been published about it since Dr. Henry’s essays and my own, which were written over twenty years ago. The only author I recall is M. Saussure from Geneva, who published a similar essay about twelve years later. See Thomson’s Annals of [Pg 310] Philosophy, Vol. 6. He examines the amounts of gases absorbed by various solid materials in a way that I don’t fully understand; he then discusses the absorption of gases by liquids, referencing Dr. Henry’s experiments and mine. My studies were mainly focused on one liquid, water; however, I did a few tests with others, like weak salt solutions, alcohol, etc., and noticing no significant differences, I too quickly concluded that “most non-viscous liquids, like acids, alcohol, etc., absorb the same amount of gases as pure water.” Manchester memoirs, new series, Vol. 1. M. Saussure, however, claims that there are significant differences among liquids in this regard. He finds that water absorbs more hydrogen sulfide than Dr. Henry and I thought; I find his conclusion to be correct. Water can absorb about 2½ times its volume of this gas when it’s pure; and it had rarely been obtained without being mixed with hydrogen when Dr. Henry and I conducted our absorption experiments. As for carbonic acid, nitrous oxide, and olefiant gas, M. Saussure largely agrees with us; but his findings for oxygen gas, carbon monoxide, methane, hydrogen, and nitrogen suggest that water absorbs twice the amounts we recorded. I’m confident he is incorrect regarding the less soluble gases. In the matter of absorbing mixed gases, Saussure provided four examples where he believes his results contradict my theoretical perspective, as stated on page 201, Vol. 1; namely, that water absorbs the same quantity of each gas in a mixture as it would if they were separate, under similar conditions. However, I demonstrated in the Annals of Philos. Vol. 7, 1816, that his results align quite closely with the views I’ve consistently held on this subject.

It will be seen, page 173, that another gas has been found to coincide with olefiant gas in absorbability; namely, phosphuretted hydrogen.

It will be seen, page 173, that another gas has been discovered to match olefiant gas in how well it can be absorbed; namely, phosphuretted hydrogen.

FLUORIC ACID.—DEUTOXIDE OF HYDROGEN.

In treating of Fluoric acid, (Vol. 1, page 277) we came to the conclusion that this acid was probably constituted of two atoms of oxygen, and one of hydrogen, and have figured it accordingly (Plate 5, fig. 38). Subsequent experience however has shewn that deutoxide of hydrogen, though it can be formed synthetically, is not the same thing [Pg 312] as fluoric acid. We are indebted to M. Thenard for the discovery of this curious compound, the deutoxide of hydrogen or oxygenated water. An ingenious memoir on the subject was published by him in 1818, in which the formation and the properties of this compound are fully detailed. I had no small satisfaction in 1822, when at Paris, in being obligingly favoured by M. Thenard with a view of the process of the formation, and of the more distinguishing properties of this singular liquid.

In discussing fluoric acid (Vol. 1, page 277), we concluded that this acid probably consists of two atoms of oxygen and one atom of hydrogen, and we've illustrated it accordingly (Plate 5, fig. 38). However, later experiences have shown that deutoxide of hydrogen, although it can be made synthetically, is not the same as fluoric acid. We owe the discovery of this interesting compound, deutoxide of hydrogen or oxygenated water, to M. Thenard. He published an insightful paper on the topic in 1818, detailing the formation and properties of this compound. I experienced great satisfaction in 1822 while in Paris when M. Thenard kindly showed me the process of its formation and the distinct properties of this unusual liquid.

The nature of fluoric acid is still enveloped in obscurity. My experience led me to adopt the composition of fluate of lime to be 40 acid and 60 lime per cent. I had not then seen Scheele’s admirable essay on the subject. From the 5th section of his 2d. essay on fluor mineral, 1771, it may be deduced that fluate of lime is composed of 72.5 lime and 27.5 acid per cent. In 1809 Klaproth, and near the same time, Dr. Thomson found about 67½ lime and 32½ acid per cent. in fluor spar. They both erred, no doubt, as I did, by not repeating the treatment of the mineral with sulphuric acid often enough. Since then most authors, as Davy, Berzelius, Thomson, &c., agree with Scheele [Pg 313] nearly, in assigning 27.5 acid, and 72.5 lime, in 100 parts of fluate of lime. My experience in 1820 gave me 1 per cent. less of lime; and Dr. Thomson now finds about 1 per cent. more of lime than Scheele’s analysis gives.

The nature of fluoric acid is still somewhat unclear. Based on my experience, I suggested that the composition of fluate of lime is 40% acid and 60% lime. At that time, I hadn’t seen Scheele’s excellent essay on the topic. From the 5th section of his 2nd essay on fluor mineral, published in 1771, it can be inferred that fluate of lime consists of 72.5% lime and 27.5% acid. In 1809, Klaproth and around the same time, Dr. Thomson found about 67.5% lime and 32.5% acid in fluor spar. They both likely made the same mistake I did by not treating the mineral with sulfuric acid frequently enough. Since then, most authors, like Davy, Berzelius, and Thomson, have mostly agreed with Scheele, attributing 27.5% acid and 72.5% lime in 100 parts of fluate of lime. My findings in 1820 showed 1% less lime, while Dr. Thomson now finds about 1% more lime than Scheele’s analysis indicates. [Pg 313]

If we estimate the atom of lime at 24, that of fluoric acid must be about 9, according with the above proportion; this is much below 15, the weight of an atom of deutoxide of hydrogen.

If we consider the weight of a lime atom to be 24, then the weight of a fluoric acid atom should be around 9, following the same ratio. This is significantly lower than 15, which is the weight of a deutoxide of hydrogen atom.

Should Sir H. Davy’s view of fluate of lime be found correct, its atomic constitution would be one atom of calcium, the metallic substance of which lime is the protoxide, and one atom of fluorine, the name he has assigned to the other element, which with hydrogen is supposed to constitute the fluoric acid. The atom of fluor spar would then be 1 atom of calcium, 17, united to one atom of fluorine 16.

Should Sir H. Davy’s view of calcium fluoride be found correct, its atomic structure would consist of one atom of calcium, the metallic component of which lime is the oxide, and one atom of fluorine, the name he has given to the other element, which along with hydrogen is thought to make up hydrofluoric acid. The atom of fluorspar would then be 1 atom of calcium, 17, combined with one atom of fluorine, 16.

MURIATIC ACID.—OXYMURIATIC ACID, &c.

From the articles muriatic acid and oxymuriatic acid in the former volume, published now 16 years ago, as well as from the appendix to said volume, in which sundry animadversions are found on the fluctuating opinions entertained in regard to these acids, the [Pg 314] reader will not be surprised to find some further addition.

From the articles muriatic acid and oxymuriatic acid in the previous volume, which was published 16 years ago, along with the appendix to that volume that contains various comments on the changing views about these acids, the [Pg 314] reader shouldn't be surprised to see some additional information.

Three notions have been submitted to the public in the last twenty years in regard to the nature of muriatic acid. First, the gas detached from common salt by sulphuric acid has been thought to be the acid in a state of purity, and constituted of a certain base or radical united to oxygen; this was the notion inculcated in the articles alluded to above. Second,—it is stated as a fact that when oxymuriatic acid and hydrogen in equal volumes are united by the electric spark, a volume of muriatic acid gas is the result equal to the sum of both the other volumes, and that this gas perfectly agrees with the gas obtained from common salt by sulphuric acid; this suggested the idea that muriatic acid gas is a compound of what has been called real or dry muriatic acid one atom, and water one atom. And, third, it is argued, that the element we have called oxymuriatic acid gas, is, for aught that appears, a simple body, and consequently, that muriatic acid gas is the real acid, and is constituted as above, of one atom of hydrogen, and one atom of oxymuriatic acid (now called chlorine.) It is not intended here to enter into a discussion of [Pg 315] the arguments and facts adduced in support of the different conclusions. More experience must be had before all the doubts and difficulties are removed from the subject. But it will be proper to illustrate these different positions by an example. For instance, common salt, muriate of soda or chloride of sodium. By the first notion 50 parts of dry common salt will consist of one atom of muriatic acid gas, 22, and one atom of caustic soda, 28. By the second notion the same salt will be formed of 30 parts of muriatic acid gas, and 28 of caustic soda; but 8 parts of water evaporate when the salt is dried. By the third view common salt consists of oxymuriatic acid, or chlorine and sodium, or the metal of which caustic soda is the protoxide; and 50 parts of salt will consist of 29 chlorine and 21 sodium, or one atom of each.

In the last twenty years, three ideas have been presented to the public regarding the nature of hydrochloric acid. First, it was believed that the gas released from common salt by sulfuric acid is the pure acid itself, made up of a certain base or radical combined with oxygen; this was the idea emphasized in the articles mentioned earlier. Second, it is said that when equal volumes of chlorine gas and hydrogen are combined using an electric spark, the result is a volume of hydrochloric acid gas equal to the sum of both substances, and that this gas matches perfectly with the gas produced from common salt through sulfuric acid; this led to the notion that hydrochloric acid gas is a combination of what has been referred to as "real" or "dry" hydrochloric acid (one atom) and water (one atom). Third, it is argued that the element we called chlorine gas is, for all we can tell, a simple substance, and therefore, hydrochloric acid gas is the "real acid," made up of one atom of hydrogen and one atom of chlorine. This text does not aim to dive into the arguments and evidence supporting these various conclusions. More experience is needed before all the uncertainties and complexities surrounding this topic can be resolved. However, it will be useful to illustrate these different positions with an example. For instance, common salt, or sodium chloride. According to the first idea, 50 parts of dry common salt consists of one atom of hydrochloric acid gas (22) and one atom of caustic soda (28). In the second idea, the same salt would be made up of 30 parts of hydrochloric acid gas and 28 parts of caustic soda; however, 8 parts of water evaporate when the salt is dried. In the third perspective, common salt is made of chlorine and sodium (the metal that forms caustic soda as its oxide); thus, 50 parts of salt will consist of 29 parts chlorine and 21 parts sodium, or one atom of each.

NITRIC ACID—COMPOUNDS OF AZOTE AND OXYGEN.

Since the account of nitric acid (Vol. 1, page 343) was printed, a change has universally taken place in estimating the weight of the nitric acid atom, and of the proportion of azote and oxygen in the same. This has been effected chiefly by a more correct analysis of nitre than existed at that time. Nitre is now found to consist nearly [Pg 316] of 52 parts acid and 48 parts potash per cent. Hence if the atom of potash be 42, that of nitric acid must be 45; for, 48 ∶ 52 ∷ 42 ∶ 45, nearly. That is, the nitric acid atom consists of 10 azote + 35 oxygen by weight; or of 2 atoms of azote (according to my estimate) and 5 of oxygen. There appear to be two nitrous acids; namely, the one which I have designated by that name, which may now be called subnitrous, or as Gay Lussac terms it pernitrous; and the other what I considered as nitric acid in the former volume, composed of 1 atom azote, and 2 of oxygen.

Since the description of nitric acid (Vol. 1, page 343) was published, there has been a universal shift in how we estimate the weight of the nitric acid atom, as well as the ratio of nitrogen and oxygen in it. This change is mainly due to a more accurate analysis of nitre than what was available at that time. Nitre is now understood to consist of nearly 52 parts acid and 48 parts potash by percentage. Therefore, if the atom of potash is 42, then the atom of nitric acid must be 45; because 48 ∶ 52 ∷ 42 ∶ 45, approximately. This means the nitric acid atom is made up of 10 nitrogen and 35 oxygen by weight; or 2 atoms of nitrogen (according to my estimate) and 5 of oxygen. It seems there are two types of nitrous acids; the one I’ve named, which can now be referred to as subnitrous, or as Gay Lussac calls it pernitrous; and the other, what I previously considered to be nitric acid in the first volume, which is made up of 1 atom of nitrogen and 2 of oxygen.

Real nitric acid then is that combination which is effected by uniting oxygen with a minimum of nitrous gas; or 1 measure of oxygen with 1.3 nitrous gas, (See Vol. 1, page 328). The oxynitric acid, which I was led to infer from the last mentioned combination, (1 azote with 3 oxygen) does not appear to exist. The Table of nitric acid (Vol. 1, page 355) will require some correction. An increase of about 4 per cent. should be made, I apprehend, on the quantities of acid corresponding to the several specific gravities.

Real nitric acid is the result of combining oxygen with a small amount of nitrous gas; specifically, it’s 1 part oxygen with 1.3 parts nitrous gas (See Vol. 1, page 328). The oxynitric acid that I thought might come from this combination (1 part nitrogen with 3 parts oxygen) doesn’t seem to actually exist. The Table of nitric acid (Vol. 1, page 355) will need some updating. I think we should increase the quantities of acid corresponding to the different specific gravities by about 4 percent.

Since my former volume of Chemistry was printed, several essays on the compounds of azote and oxygen have been published, with some new and [Pg 317] some additional experiments, the chief of which may be seen in Sir H. Davy’s Elements of Chemical Philosophy, the Annales de chimie et de physique, Vol. 1; Annals of philosophy, Vol. 9 and 10; and the Manchester Society’s Memoirs, Vol. 4, second series; also Dr. Thomson’s first principles of Chemistry. Notwithstanding all that has been written on the subject, there still appears uncertainty as to the number of combinations formed by these two elements, their relative weights, and the number of atoms in the several compounds.

Since my previous book on Chemistry was published, several essays about the compounds of nitrogen and oxygen have come out, including some new and additional experiments. The main ones can be found in Sir H. Davy’s Elements of Chemical Philosophy, the Annales de chimie et de physique, Vol. 1; Annals of philosophy, Vol. 9 and 10; and the Manchester Society’s Memoirs, Vol. 4, second series; as well as Dr. Thomson’s First Principles of Chemistry. Despite all the writing on this topic, there still seems to be some uncertainty regarding the number of combinations formed by these two elements, their relative weights, and the number of atoms in the various compounds.

The results of an experiment I lately made on the decomposition of nitrate of potash by heat seem to be worthy of record, as I am not acquainted with those of any other person who has pursued the experiment to the same extent.—I took an iron retort of 6 cubic inches capacity, and cleaned it as well as I could from carbonaceous matter which it had previously contained, first by heating nitre to redness for an hour or more in it, and then washing it repeatedly with water till the liquid came out tasteless, and only mixed with a little red rust; I then put in 480 grains of purified nitre, and having secured a copper tube to the retort so as to be air tight, the retort was put into a fire and gradually raised to a red heat, and the fire was [Pg 318] occasionally urged with a pair of bellows, in order to keep up a glowing red on the retort for nearly two hours; the air was received over water in jars; the first 4 or 5 inches were thrown away, and the rest was preserved and transferred to a graduated jar; the products were examined in successive portions as under, namely,

The results of an experiment I recently conducted on the decomposition of potassium nitrate by heat seem worth noting, as I'm not familiar with anyone else's findings on this experiment to the same degree. I used a 6-cubic-inch iron retort and cleaned it as thoroughly as possible from any carbon residue it had prior, first by heating nitrate until it was red-hot for an hour or more, and then washing it multiple times with water until the liquid came out tasteless, only mixed with a bit of red rust. I then added 480 grains of purified nitrate, secured a copper tube to the retort to ensure it was airtight, and placed the retort in a fire, gradually raising it to a red heat. I occasionally used a pair of bellows to keep the retort glowing red for nearly two hours; the air was collected over water in jars, discarding the first 4 or 5 inches, and then the rest was preserved and transferred to a graduated jar. The products were examined in successive portions as follows, namely,

Inches.
1 produce, 85 cubic inches, 83  per cent. pure   =   70.5
2    5   77     =    3.85
3   25   50     =   12.5
4    6   30     =    1.8
  Total 121     Oxygen 88.65
  Oxygen  88.65 = 30 grains.
  Residue  32.35 = 10 grains.

About 1 per cent. on the whole gas was carbonic acid, the rest oxygen and azote, the weights of which would be nearly as above.

About 1 percent of the gas was carbon dioxide, while the rest was oxygen and nitrogen, with their weights being roughly as stated above.

Towards the last the gas came very slowly, and being of inferior quality, the operation was discontinued.

Towards the end, the gas came out very slowly, and since it was of poor quality, the operation was stopped.

The remaining contents of the retort were diluted with water, and well washed till the water ceased to shew alkali; the liquid was then concentrated and gave 1600 water grain measures of the sp. gr. 1.153. There were obtained also 64 grains of red oxide of iron from the washing of the retort, containing 19 grains of oxygen. [Pg 319]

The leftover contents of the retort were diluted with water and thoroughly washed until the water no longer showed any alkali. The liquid was then concentrated and produced 1600 water grain measures with a specific gravity of 1.153. Additionally, 64 grains of red oxide of iron were obtained from washing the retort, which contained 19 grains of oxygen. [Pg 319]

The liquid was divided into portions and examined; the original nitre consisted of 250 grains of nitric acid united to 230 of potash = 480 grains. After the process there appeared to be,

The liquid was split into portions and analyzed; the original nitrate was made up of 250 grains of nitric acid combined with 230 grains of potash, totaling 480 grains. After the process, there seemed to be,

10 grains of carbonic acid united to 21 grains potash.
62 grains of subnitrous acid to 84   ”
134 grains nitric acid to 125   ”""
    230  

The quantity of carbonic acid was determined by lime water: the quantity of potash uncombined with nitric acid was found by precipitating it by tartaric acid, and manifested 105 grains of potash in the bitartrate = that combined with the carbonic and subnitrous acids; from which subtracting 21, it was inferred the remainder 84 must have been in union with subnitrous acid, or else with nitrous acid; the rest of the potash, not being acted upon by tartaric acid, was understood to be combined with nitric acid.

The amount of carbonic acid was measured using lime water. The amount of potash that wasn’t combined with nitric acid was determined by precipitating it with tartaric acid, which showed 105 grains of potash in the bitartrate, equal to what was combined with the carbonic and subnitrous acids. Subtracting 21 from this, it was concluded that the remaining 84 must have been combined with either subnitrous acid or nitrous acid. The rest of the potash, which didn't react with tartaric acid, was understood to be combined with nitric acid.

The quantity of subnitrous acid given above, appeared somewhat hypothetical, till it was confirmed by treating a portion of the liquid with oxymuriate of lime solution of known strength; it was found that 32 grains of oxygen were required to be combined with the subnitrous acid, in order to restore it to the state of nitric acid; that is, when [Pg 320] oxymuriate of lime, containing that quantity of oxygen, was added to the liquid, and this was afterwards rendered acidulous by the addition of sulphuric acid, neither nitrous vapour nor oxymuriatic gas was perceptible; but a greater or less quantity of the oxymuriate being applied, and the liquid made acidulous, the fumes of the one or the other were abundantly manifest.

The amount of subnitrous acid mentioned earlier seemed a bit speculative until it was verified by treating a portion of the liquid with a solution of oxymuriate of lime of known strength. It was discovered that 32 grains of oxygen were needed to combine with the subnitrous acid to convert it back into nitric acid. In other words, when oxymuriate of lime, which contained that amount of oxygen, was added to the liquid and then made acidic with the addition of sulfuric acid, there was no visible nitrous vapor or oxymuriatic gas. However, when a larger or smaller quantity of the oxymuriate was used and the liquid was made acidic, the fumes from either one or the other were clearly noticeable.

It remains to account for the oxygen. There were 250 grains of nitric acid at first in the nitre; of which 200 grains were oxygen and 50 azote, nearly. One-fifth part of the oxygen = 40 grains, corresponds to 1 atom of oxygen. Now the whole of the oxygen derived from the nitre in the course of the experiment, seems to be 30 grains in gas, 7 grains in the carbonic acid, and 19 grains in the iron oxide, together equal to 56 grains. Now the azote and oxygen in the gas collected, were very nearly in the proportion of those elements in nitric acid; so that a portion of the acid (about ⅙) might be considered as completely decomposed, whilst the rest was only losing a small part of its oxygen: this is remarkable, and I think indicates that the carbonic acid (formed from the carbon of the retort, or from the adhering carbon) unites to the potash, expelling the nitrous acid, which is [Pg 321] immediately decomposed into its elements azote and oxygen. This would not however account for the whole of the azote: for, 40 grains of nitric acid would be united to 37 potash; whereas we find only 21 potash with carbonic acid; and I cannot believe that an error in the estimate of carbonate of potash could exist to that amount. The fact, however, was, that the elements of 40 grains of nitric acid were found in the evolved gas, and hence we have to account for the remainder 210 grains. From this there appears to have been expelled 26 grains of oxygen, nearly 19 and 7 as related above; of which the 19 grains cannot be correctly estimated by reason of the uncertainty as to the real quantity of oxide formed during the operation: there might be some left adhering to the retort, or on the other hand there might be more than the due share, derived from former experiments. Supposing then, that 26 grains of oxygen were extracted from the nitric acid, the remaining acid would require the same to be added to re-form the nitric; but by the experiments with oxymuriate of lime it seemed to require 32 grains of oxygen. This difference wants an explanation; I believe the greater [Pg 322] error must belong to the 26 grains; perhaps the truth might be approximated best by supposing both to be 30 grains.

It’s time to consider the oxygen. Initially, there were 250 grains of nitric acid in the nitre, which consisted of about 200 grains of oxygen and 50 grains of nitrogen. One-fifth of the oxygen, or 40 grains, corresponds to 1 atom of oxygen. The total amount of oxygen from the nitre during the experiment appears to be 30 grains in gas, 7 grains in carbon dioxide, and 19 grains in iron oxide, adding up to 56 grains. The nitrogen and oxygen in the collected gas were almost in the same ratio as those elements in nitric acid; therefore, a portion of the acid (around ⅙) can be seen as completely decomposed, while the rest only lost a small amount of oxygen. This is interesting and suggests that the carbon dioxide (formed from the retort's carbon or leftover carbon) combines with the potash, releasing the nitrous acid, which then decomposes into its nitrogen and oxygen elements. However, this doesn't explain all the nitrogen; 40 grains of nitric acid would combine with 37 grains of potash, yet we only find 21 grains of potash with carbon dioxide. I can't believe there's a significant error in the estimate of potassium carbonate. The fact is, the elements of 40 grains of nitric acid were found in the gas produced, so we need to account for the remaining 210 grains. It seems that around 26 grains of oxygen were released—nearly 19 and 7 as mentioned earlier; the 19 grains cannot be accurately measured due to uncertainty about the actual amount of oxide formed during the process: some might be stuck to the retort, or there could be more than expected from previous experiments. Assuming 26 grains of oxygen were removed from the nitric acid, the leftover acid would need that amount added to regenerate the nitric acid; however, experiments with oxymuriate of lime suggested it required 32 grains of oxygen. This discrepancy needs an explanation; I believe the larger error likely rests with the 26 grains; perhaps the more accurate assumption would be that both are around 30 grains.

When the liquid decomposed nitre is treated with any acid, a gas is instantly expelled which produces red fumes in the air; it is pure nitrous gas, which joining with the oxygen of the atmosphere, generates nitrous acid vapour. At the same time, no doubt, the subnitrous acid is disengaged from the potash, but that part of it which is real nitrous acid (1 atom azote to 2 of oxygen) is retained by the water, whilst the other part, (1 atom azote and 1 of oxygen) assumes the gaseous form. In order to be satisfied respecting this point, I made several experiments with the liquid over mercury: taking a given portion of the liquid, and sending it to the top of a graduated tube filled with mercury, I passed up as much muriatic acid as was sufficient to engage the potash; immediately there was a disengagement of nitrous gas and carbonic acid gas, and afterwards a slow evolution of gas, evidently arising from the liquid in contact with the mercury. Wishing to ascertain the quantities, I sent up 25 grain measures of liquid, and to that nearly half its bulk of muriatic acid; in 2 or 3 minutes there was, [Pg 323]

When decomposed nitre is mixed with any acid, it quickly releases a gas that creates red fumes in the air; this gas is pure nitrous gas, which combines with the oxygen in the atmosphere to form nitrous acid vapor. At the same time, it's likely that subnitrous acid is released from the potash, but the part that is actual nitrous acid (1 nitrogen atom to 2 oxygen atoms) is absorbed by the water, while the other part (1 nitrogen atom and 1 oxygen atom) turns into gas. To investigate this, I conducted several experiments with the liquid over mercury: I took a specific amount of liquid and transferred it to a graduated tube filled with mercury. I added enough muriatic acid to react with the potash; immediately, nitrous gas and carbonic acid gas were released, followed by a slow release of gas that clearly came from the liquid in contact with the mercury. To determine the quantities, I introduced 25 grain measures of liquid, and added nearly half that amount of muriatic acid; within 2 or 3 minutes, there was, [Pg 323]

1.1 cubic inch of gas. H. M.
1.4   in   0 45
1.5   1  5
1.7   2 45
1.75   7 45
1.78   9 45

The gas was washed in lime water, and lost .33 parts of an inch of carbonic acid; the rest, 1.45 cubic inch, was nitrous gas. It is obvious that ½ of the nitrous gas, together with the carbonic acid, was liberated instantly; the rest of the nitrous gas was due to the nitrous acid, slowly acting upon the mercury. At the end of the process, there was a little black oxide floating upon the mercury. Calculating from this, the whole quantity of nitrous gas would be 31 or 32 grains, whereas it ought to have been 48 grains to constitute 62 of subnitrous acid. It is probable that whilst a portion of the subnitrous acid is oxidizing the mercury, another portion may be forming nitric acid and dissolving the oxide.

The gas was treated with lime water and lost 0.33 inches of carbonic acid; the remaining 1.45 cubic inches was nitrous gas. It's clear that half of the nitrous gas, along with the carbonic acid, was released immediately; the remaining nitrous gas was the result of the nitrous acid gradually reacting with the mercury. By the end of the process, a little black oxide was floating on the mercury. Based on this, the total amount of nitrous gas would be 31 or 32 grains, while it should have been 48 grains to amount to 62 of subnitrous acid. It's likely that while some of the subnitrous acid is oxidizing the mercury, another part may be turning into nitric acid and dissolving the oxide.

From some trials, I have reason to think that even carbonic acid will expel nitrous gas from the liquid sub-nitrite of potash.

From some tests, I have reason to believe that even carbon dioxide will push nitrous gas out of the liquid potassium sub-nitrite.

In the essay of Dr. Henry, already alluded to, published in the 4th Vol. of the Manchester Society’s Memoirs, a new and interesting [Pg 324] discovery is made; namely, that a mixture of nitrous and olefiant gases, though not explosive by an electric spark, may still be exploded by the more powerful impetus of a shock from a charged jar. Dr. Henry has adduced the results obtained in this way, as corroboratory of those which shew the constitution of nitrous gas to be 1 volume of azote and 1 of oxygen united to form 2 volumes of nitrous gas. (See page 507 of the Memoirs.)

In Dr. Henry's essay, which has already been mentioned, published in the 4th Volume of the Manchester Society’s Memoirs, a new and intriguing discovery is presented; specifically, that a mixture of nitrous and olefiant gases, while not explosive when triggered by an electric spark, can still be detonated by the stronger force of a shock from a charged jar. Dr. Henry has provided the results obtained this way as evidence supporting those that show the composition of nitrous gas to be 1 volume of nitrogen and 1 volume of oxygen combining to form 2 volumes of nitrous gas. (See page 507 of the Memoirs.)

Some time ago in repeating these experiments of Dr. Henry, I found some extraordinary circumstances attending them. After determining that 1 volume of olefiant gas may be fired with from 6 to 10 volumes of nitrous, I found a shock from a jar sometimes inadequate to fire the mixture, which, however, when repeated a second or third time, succeeded. This is not a novelty; for, mixtures of olefiant gas as well as other gases and vapours, with a minimum of oxygen, frequently require several sparks before the explosion: but this case occurs at times with nitrous and olefiant gas, when they are mixed in the most favourable proportions for exploding. The most remarkable circumstance, however, was, that when a phial was filled with the mixture of the two gases in the proportion of 1 volume olefiant to 6 or 7 nitrous, [Pg 325] (exclusive of small portions of azote), the decomposition of the nitrous gas and the combustion of the olefiant were scarcely ever perfect; and what increased the perplexity more, was, the results obtained from the same mixture scarcely ever agreed one with the other. After about 30 experiments, I was inclined to adopt the conclusion, that the uncertainty was occasioned by the oblong form of the eudiometer. The spark or shock, in my eudiometer, is imparted at one extremity of a column of air, which is often 10 times as much in length as in diameter: it mostly was found that the larger the quantity of mixture exploded at once, the more imperfect and incomplete was the combustion. I imagine the intensity of heat is not sufficient to carry on the combustion through the length of the column, owing, perhaps, to the cooling power of the sides of the tube. Hence it was, I apprehend, that in one or two instances, when a small quantity of gas was used, I got nearly complete results, as Dr. Henry reports his; but in the majority both gases were found in the residue after the explosion.

Some time ago, while repeating Dr. Henry's experiments, I noticed some surprising circumstances. After finding that 1 volume of olefiant gas can ignite with 6 to 10 volumes of nitrous gas, I discovered that a shock from a jar was sometimes insufficient to ignite the mixture. However, when I tried it a second or third time, it worked. This isn't new; mixtures of olefiant gas and other gases and vapors with minimal oxygen often need several sparks before they explode. But in this case with nitrous and olefiant gas, it happened even when they were mixed in the best proportions for an explosion. The most noteworthy aspect was that when a vial was filled with the gas mixture in the ratio of 1 volume olefiant to 6 or 7 of nitrous (not counting small amounts of nitrogen), the breakdown of the nitrous gas and the burning of the olefiant were rarely complete. What added to the confusion was that the results from the same mixture rarely matched. After about 30 experiments, I leaned towards the conclusion that this uncertainty was caused by the long shape of the eudiometer. The spark or shock in my eudiometer happens at one end of a column of air, which is often 10 times longer than it is wide. It was mostly observed that the larger the amount of mixture that exploded at once, the more incomplete the combustion was. I suspect that the heat intensity isn't enough to sustain combustion through the length of the column, possibly due to the cooling effect of the tube's sides. That’s why, in one or two cases where I used a small amount of gas, I got nearly complete results, like Dr. Henry's reports; but in most cases, both gases were found in the residue after the explosion.

In pursuing this enquiry into the decomposition of nitrous gas by combustible gases, I found that it might be effected by any combustible gas or vapour: at least it succeeded in all I tried. The method I [Pg 326] pursued, and which was suggested by the known properties of phosphuretted hydrogen, is this: it has been shewn (page 181) that a mixture of phosphuretted hydrogen and nitrous gas exploded by an electric spark, the former gas being completely burned in case the proportions are duly adjusted; now, it occurred to me, that as the above combustible gas is usually a mixture of pure phosphuretted hydrogen and of hydrogen, and that the latter of these is also burned as well as the former, the effect must be produced through the heat occasioned by the combustion of the former. Having some old phosphuretted hydrogen by me, at the time, which on examination, I found to be 91 per cent. combustible gas, and 9 azote; and the 91 combined with 156 of oxygen, consequently was 74 pure, and 17 hydrogen; I tried this mixture with nitrous gas, when it exploded by the spark, as usual; but on trying it with an excess or defect of nitrous gas, the spark was inefficient, but the shock instantly fired the mixture. As there did not appear to be any of the pure hydrogen left unburned in these experiments, I proceeded to mix the old phosphuretted hydrogen with hydrogen; and then this new mixture with nitrous gas. The first [Pg 327] experiment was made with 4 parts of old phosphuretted hydrogen + 16 hydrogen + 36 nitrous gas = 56 total. On this mixture the spark, of course, had no effect; but it exploded the first trial by the jar, and left 20 measures, of which 2 were found to be oxygen, and the rest azote. This experiment succeeding so well, I next tried mixtures of phosphuretted hydrogen, with carbonic oxide, carburetted hydrogen, and ether vapour successively, along with nitrous gas; and found that all these mixtures refused combustion by the spark, but were instantly exploded by the shock, yielding carbonic acid and water, the same as if the combustion had been effected by free oxygen. In some instances the combustion was complete, leaving neither combustible gas nor nitrous gas; but generally there was a residue of one or both of the gases.

In my investigation into breaking down nitrous gas using combustible gases, I discovered that it could be done with any combustible gas or vapor; at least, it worked with everything I tried. The method I used, inspired by the well-known properties of phosphine, is as follows: it's been shown (page 181) that when phosphine and nitrous gas are mixed and ignited by an electric spark, the phosphine completely burns if the proportions are right. It occurred to me that since this combustible gas is typically a mix of pure phosphine and hydrogen, and both gases can be burned, the effect must come from the heat produced by burning the phosphine. I had some old phosphine that I found to be 91% combustible gas and 9% nitrogen upon examination; with 91 combining with 156 of oxygen, it resulted in 74% pure and 17% hydrogen. I tried this mixture with nitrous gas, and it exploded as expected, but when I adjusted the amounts of nitrous gas, the spark was ineffective; however, the shock immediately ignited the mixture. Since there seemed to be no unburned pure hydrogen left in these trials, I decided to mix the old phosphine with hydrogen and then combine this new mix with nitrous gas. My first experiment involved 4 parts of old phosphine, 16 parts hydrogen, and 36 parts nitrous gas, for a total of 56 parts. This mixture didn't respond to the spark but did explode on the first trial with the jar, leaving 20 measures behind, of which 2 were oxygen and the rest nitrogen. Since this experiment went so well, I next tried mixing phosphine with carbon monoxide, methane, and ether vapor, one after the other, along with nitrous gas. I found that none of these mixtures ignited with the spark but exploded immediately under shock, producing carbon dioxide and water, just as if the combustion had occurred with free oxygen. In some cases, the combustion was complete, leaving no combustible gas or nitrous gas behind; however, generally, there was some residue of one or both gases.

From these experiments it may be concluded that the heat, produced by the combustion of phosphuretted hydrogen and nitrous gas or oxygen gas, disposes other gases, accidentally in the mixture, to chemical changes. In conformity with this view, I mixed phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen, in the proportion of mutual saturation; and taking a small proportion of this mixture, and as much ammoniacal gas as would saturate the phosphoric acid to be formed, I found that causing an [Pg 328] explosion over mercury, the phosphoric acid combined with the ammonia, and nearly the whole gas disappeared. In this case, the heat was not sufficient to decompose the ammonia. But in another experiment, with a portion of the same explosive mixture and a less proportion of ammonia, after the firing a residue of azote and hydrogen was found, amounting nearly to the quantity due from the decomposition of the ammonia. Here the heat produced, had evidently decomposed the ammonia.

From these experiments, it can be concluded that the heat generated by burning phosphuretted hydrogen and nitrous gas or oxygen gas causes other gases that are accidentally mixed in to undergo chemical changes. To test this, I mixed phosphuretted hydrogen and oxygen in their saturation ratio, and took a small amount of this mixture along with enough ammoniacal gas to saturate the phosphoric acid that would form. I found that when I caused an [Pg 328] explosion over mercury, the phosphoric acid reacted with the ammonia, and nearly all of the gas disappeared. In this case, the heat was not enough to break down the ammonia. However, in another experiment, using a portion of the same explosive mixture and a smaller amount of ammonia, a residue of nitrogen and hydrogen was discovered after the explosion, amounting nearly to the quantity expected from the breakdown of the ammonia. Here, the heat produced clearly decomposed the ammonia.

ON AMMONIA.

The constitution of ammonia still remains undecided. The latest experiments on this article are those of Dr. Henry, in his essay on the analysis of the compounds of nitrogen. (Memoirs of the Manchester Society, vol. 4, 1824.) By electrifying ammoniacal gas over mercury, as carefully as could be devised, Dr. Henry found results as under:

The structure of ammonia is still not settled. The most recent experiments on this topic are by Dr. Henry, in his paper on analyzing nitrogen compounds. (Memoirs of the Manchester Society, vol. 4, 1824.) By electrifying ammoniacal gas over mercury as carefully as possible, Dr. Henry found the following results:

1st experiment  44 measures became  88+
2d   157   320
3d    60   122
4th   120   240

The evolved gases carefully analysed by combustion with oxygen, were [Pg 329] found to consist of 3 volumes of hydrogen and 1 of azote. The analysis of ammonia was also effected by exploding it with nitrous oxide, with the requisite precautions. The results confirmed the previous ones by electricity, both in regard to doubling the volume of ammonia, and establishing the ratio of 3 to 1 in the volume of hydrogen and azote.—These experiments are highly interesting as far as regards the question of ammonia, as they exhibit the latest investigations of one who has previously shewn uncommon skill and perseverance in this kind of analysis. (See Philos. Transact. 1809, &c.)

The gases evolved from combustion with oxygen were carefully analyzed and found to consist of 3 volumes of hydrogen and 1 volume of nitrogen. The analysis of ammonia was also carried out by detonating it with nitrous oxide, following the necessary safety precautions. The results confirmed the earlier findings from electrical experiments, both in terms of doubling the volume of ammonia and establishing the 3 to 1 ratio of hydrogen to nitrogen. These experiments are very interesting regarding ammonia, as they demonstrate the latest research from someone who has previously shown exceptional skill and determination in this type of analysis. (See Philos. Transact. 1809, &c.) [Pg 329]

Dr. Henry’s analysis of ammonia, in 1809, has been adverted to in our article on the subject, vol. 1, page 429. The results of that Essay are given in a tabular form; and the mean of six experiments was nearly as we have stated, namely, that ammonia consists of 27¼ measures of azote, and 72¾ hydrogen. To this it may be proper to add, that the two extremes were, 26.1 azote and 73.9 hydrogen, and 28.2 azote with 71.8 hydrogen; also that a small error has crept into the table, which being corrected, the average results are reduced to 27 and 73, very nearly. Subsequently, both Dr. Henry and Sir H. Davy concurred in assigning 26 [Pg 330] and 74 for the most approximating numbers. (See Nicholson’s Journal, 25, page 153). The true quantity of gases procured by the decomposition of ammoniacal gas by electricity, was concluded by both these authorities, to be 180 for each 100 of ammonia, when the requisite precautions were taken, as we have related in vol. 1.

Dr. Henry's analysis of ammonia in 1809 has been mentioned in our article on the subject, vol. 1, page 429. The results of that essay are presented in a table; the average of six experiments was almost as we stated, specifically that ammonia consists of 27¼ parts nitrogen and 72¾ parts hydrogen. It should be noted that the two extremes were 26.1 nitrogen and 73.9 hydrogen, and 28.2 nitrogen with 71.8 hydrogen. Also, a small error made its way into the table, which, when corrected, reduces the average results to about 27 and 73. Later on, both Dr. Henry and Sir H. Davy agreed on assigning 26 and 74 as the closest numbers. (See Nicholson’s Journal, 25, page 153). The accurate quantity of gases obtained from the decomposition of ammoniacal gas by electricity was determined by both of these experts to be 180 for every 100 of ammonia, when the necessary precautions were taken, as we outlined in vol. 1.

From what is stated above, it is evident the subject is one which requires extraordinary skill and attention. This I can attest from my own experience, which has been frequently renewed and varied; but the results have not been sufficiently accordant to yield me satisfaction.

From what’s been said above, it’s clear that this topic requires exceptional skill and focus. I can confirm this from my own experience, which has been both frequent and diverse; however, the outcomes have not been consistent enough to give me satisfaction.

About ten years ago, I made several experiments on the decomposition of ammonia, which, though they are not convincing, deserve, perhaps, to be recorded in their results.—Some more recent experiments are incorporated with them.

About ten years ago, I conducted several experiments on the breakdown of ammonia, which, although they aren't conclusive, might be worth noting for their findings. —Some more recent experiments are included with them.

Decomposition of ammonia by nitrous oxide.—I made many experiments, by exploding mixtures of nitrous oxide and ammoniacal gases over mercury. The excess of gas was mostly on the side of ammonia, but the proportions were varied in the different experiments, [Pg 331] from 10 vol. nitrous oxide to 11 ammonia or to 5, which are about the extremes capable of being fired by the electric spark.

Breaking down ammonia using nitrous oxide.—I conducted several experiments by igniting mixtures of nitrous oxide and ammonia gases over mercury. The extra gas was mostly on the side of ammonia, but the ratios varied across different experiments, [Pg 331] ranging from 10 volumes of nitrous oxide to 11 volumes of ammonia or down to 5, which are roughly the limits that can be ignited by an electric spark.

When 10 parts nitrous oxide and 5 of ammonia are exploded over mercury, the residuary gas contains some free oxygen and some nitrous acid derived from the decomposition of the excess of nitrous oxide used; with 6 parts of ammonia there is rarely any free oxygen. When 10 parts of nitrous oxide, and 7 of ammonia are fired, I never found any free oxygen or hydrogen; but when the ammonia is at or near 8 parts, I find from ¹/₂₀ to ⅒ of the hydrogen from the ammonia in the residuary gases. The two gases appear to be completely decomposed; the oxygen of the nitrous oxide, as far as it can, unites with the hydrogen of the ammonia, without forming any portion of nitrous acid or of free oxygen, and the residue contains the azote of both gases, and the unburnt hydrogen from the ammonia, as Dr. Henry first observed. This continues to be the case till the ammonia becomes 11 parts, when the hydrogen amounts to about ⅓ of the whole quantity which the ammonia yields.

When 10 parts of nitrous oxide and 5 parts of ammonia are set off over mercury, the leftover gas contains some free oxygen and some nitrous acid from the breakdown of the excess nitrous oxide used; with 6 parts of ammonia, free oxygen is rarely present. When 10 parts of nitrous oxide and 7 parts of ammonia are ignited, I have never found any free oxygen or hydrogen; but when the ammonia is at or near 8 parts, I find between ¹/₂₀ and ⅒ of the hydrogen from the ammonia in the leftover gases. The two gases seem to be completely broken down; the oxygen from the nitrous oxide, as much as it can, combines with the hydrogen from the ammonia, without forming any nitrous acid or free oxygen, and the residue contains the nitrogen from both gases and the unburnt hydrogen from the ammonia, as Dr. Henry first noted. This remains true until the ammonia reaches 11 parts, when the hydrogen accounts for about ⅓ of the total amount that the ammonia produces.

From the above it would seem that the proportions for mutual saturation must be 10 nitrous oxide with from 7 to 8 parts of ammonia. This agrees [Pg 332] with the deduction in Dr. Henry’s first essay that 13 nitrous oxide require 10 of ammonia; or that 10 require 7.7: but according to the theory of volumes 10 would require 6⅔; and Dr. Henry recommends in his late essay 10 nitrous oxide to 7.7 or 8⅓ parts of ammonia, in order to secure a small excess of the last, and consequently some free hydrogen after the explosion. The former of these proportions would have nearly ⅐ of the residue hydrogen, and the latter nearly ⅕, supposing the gases pure originally. This gives more hydrogen than I have ever found; but the azote in my experience nearly agrees with the doctrine of multiple volumes.

From what we've seen, it looks like the right proportions for mutual saturation should be 10 parts nitrous oxide to between 7 and 8 parts ammonia. This matches Dr. Henry’s initial findings that 13 parts nitrous oxide require 10 parts ammonia; or that 10 parts require 7.7. However, based on the volume theory, 10 parts would need 6⅔. Additionally, Dr. Henry suggests in his recent essay using 10 parts nitrous oxide with 7.7 or 8⅓ parts ammonia to ensure a slight excess of the latter, allowing for some free hydrogen after the explosion. The first proportion would yield almost ⅐ of the remaining hydrogen, while the latter would produce nearly ⅕, assuming the gases were pure to start with. This produces more hydrogen than I have ever found; however, the nitrogen content in my experience aligns closely with the multiple volumes theory.

Decomposition of ammonia by nitrous gas.—About 30 experiments carefully made on mixtures of nitrous gas and ammoniacal gas gave very discordant results. At one time 10 parts nitrous gas with 14 ammonia gave ⅓ of hydrogen in excess, and another time 10 nitrous with 12 ammonia gave excess of hydrogen = ⁹/₂₀; generally 10 parts with 6 or less gave oxygen, and 10 with 8 or more gave hydrogen in the residue.

Decomposition of ammonia by nitrous gas.—About 30 carefully conducted experiments on mixtures of nitrous gas and ammonia produced very inconsistent results. One time, mixing 10 parts nitrous gas with 14 parts ammonia resulted in ⅓ of hydrogen in excess, while another time, 10 parts nitrous with 12 parts ammonia yielded an excess of hydrogen = ⁹/₂₀; generally, 10 parts with 6 or fewer produced oxygen, and 10 with 8 or more resulted in hydrogen in the leftover.

Decomposition of ammonia by oxygen.—The limiting proportions of oxygen and ammonia which I have fired, are 10 oxygen to 4 ammonia for the minimum, and 10 oxygen to 22 ammonia for the maximum. When 10 oxygen [Pg 333] were fired with 4 ammonia, there were ²⁵/₃₇ of the oxygen left, and there was a deficiency of azote amounting to ¹/₁₂ of what was expected from the ammonia, owing no doubt to nitrous acid generated by the explosion. When 10 oxygen to 1.8, or from that to 2.2 ammonia are used, there is a surplus of about ¼ or ⅓ of the hydrogen contained in the ammonia, left in the residue of the gas. When the ammonia is between 13 and 14 there is usually a trace of oxygen or hydrogen as it approaches either of these limits. By the theory of volumes, 10 oxygen should saturate 13⅓ of ammoniacal gas. I have not any instance of hydrogen being left when 14 ammonia were used, though there ought to be ¹/₂₀ of the whole left; and much smaller quantities than that are appreciable by well known methods. The azote resulting from the decomposition of ammonia is usually very nearly ½ the volume of the ammonia.

Decomposition of ammonia by oxygen.—The limiting ratios of oxygen and ammonia that I've tested are 10 parts oxygen to 4 parts ammonia for the minimum, and 10 parts oxygen to 22 parts ammonia for the maximum. When 10 parts oxygen were reacted with 4 parts ammonia, there were ²⁵/₃₇ of the oxygen remaining, and there was a deficiency of nitrogen amounting to ¹/₁₂ of what was expected from the ammonia, likely due to nitrous acid produced by the explosion. When using 10 parts oxygen to 1.8, or between 2.2 parts ammonia, there is a surplus of about ¼ or ⅓ of the hydrogen contained in the ammonia left in the gas residue. When the ammonia is between 13 and 14 parts, there is usually a trace of oxygen or hydrogen as it approaches either of these limits. According to the theory of volumes, 10 parts oxygen should saturate 13⅓ parts of ammoniacal gas. I have not encountered a case of hydrogen being left when 14 parts ammonia were used, although there should be ¹/₂₀ of the total remaining; and much smaller quantities than that are detectable by well-known methods. The nitrogen produced from the decomposition of ammonia is typically very close to ½ the volume of the ammonia.

On the whole the results from firing ammonia and oxygen gas appear to me more satisfactory than those obtained from nitrous oxide and nitrous gas, as they are more simple and less perplexed with any theoretic views.

Overall, the results from burning ammonia and oxygen gas seem to me more satisfying than those from nitrous oxide and nitrous gas, as they are simpler and less complicated by any theoretical perspectives.

It may be proper to remind the reader that when we speak of 10 parts of [Pg 334] one gas uniting with 8, 10, or more, of another in the above and other cases, it is to be understood of gases absolutely pure; not that we ever obtain them in that state, but approximating as near as we can to it, we mix given portions of such gases as we can obtain, and then in our calculations of results deduct for the impurities.

It’s worth reminding the reader that when we talk about 10 parts of one gas combining with 8, 10, or more of another gas in the situations mentioned above and others, we mean gases that are completely pure; not that we actually obtain them in that state, but as close as we can get to it, we mix specified amounts of the gases we can get our hands on, and then in our calculations, we subtract for the impurities.

One source of uncertainty in these experiments on firing mixtures of ammonia, is that the real quantity of ammoniacal gas operated upon is not known. If a certain measure of ammonia be transferred through mercury ever so dry, some portion of it gets entangled in the mercury, and 100 measures become perhaps 95: now in the explosion it is a question whether any part of the 5 measures absorbed is decomposed. I have marked this attentively, and am persuaded that generally speaking, little if any of that portion is decomposed; but some trace of it appears mostly afterwards in the residue as it is liberated from the pressure of its own kind of gas, and hence easily rises into the gaseous mixture. Notwithstanding, when the loss of gas by transfer amounts to 10 or 20 per cent., I have reason to believe that some part of it suffers combustion occasionally. [Pg 335]

One source of uncertainty in these experiments on firing mixtures of ammonia is that we don’t actually know the exact amount of ammoniacal gas being used. If a certain amount of ammonia is transferred through completely dry mercury, some of it gets stuck in the mercury, so 100 measures may only turn into about 95. When the explosion happens, it’s uncertain if any of the 5 measures that got absorbed are decomposed. I’ve observed this closely and I’m convinced that generally, not much, if any, of that amount is decomposed; however, some trace of it often shows up later in the residue as it escapes the pressure of the gas, and then it easily mixes back into the gaseous mixture. Still, when the gas loss during transfer is 10 or 20 percent, I believe there’s a chance that some of it does combust occasionally. [Pg 335]

Volume of gases from the decomposition of ammonia.—It has been observed (vol. 1. Ammonia) that Sir H. Davy obtained 180 measures of gases, by means of electricity, from 100 of ammonia as the maximum when the operation was performed with great care, and Dr. Henry in like circumstances, produced 181, whilst I found 187 measures; since that, as has been related, Dr. Henry has found 200 measures. It is not easy to account for these differences; I am inclined to the opinion that the volume of gases is very nearly doubled, but probably rather less than more. I find the experiments on the rapid combustion of ammonia agree best with that opinion.

Volume of gases from the decomposition of ammonia.—It has been noted (vol. 1. Ammonia) that Sir H. Davy obtained 180 measurements of gases using electricity from 100 of ammonia as the maximum when the operation was conducted with great care, and Dr. Henry, under similar conditions, produced 181, while I found 187 measurements; since then, as mentioned, Dr. Henry has found 200 measurements. It’s not easy to explain these differences; I tend to think that the volume of gases is very nearly doubled, but probably just a bit less than more. The experiments on the rapid combustion of ammonia best support that opinion.

Decomposition of ammonia by a red heat.—A short time since I repeated the decomposition of ammonia by passing the gas through a red hot copper tube. The proportion of azote to hydrogen, due allowance being made for a minute portion of atmospheric air, was upon the average of a number of experiments, 26 of the former to 74 of the latter.

Decomposition of ammonia using red heat.—Recently, I repeated the breakdown of ammonia by passing the gas through a red-hot copper tube. The average ratio of nitrogen to hydrogen, after accounting for a small amount of atmospheric air, was about 26 parts nitrogen to 74 parts hydrogen across several experiments.

Decomposition of ammonia by oxymuriatic acid.—I have made several experiments on this mode of decomposition since the results published in vol. 1, page 435. It is well known that a solution of oxymuriate of lime decomposes ammoniacal salts; water and muriatic acid [Pg 336] are produced, azote liberated, and the acid previously combined with the ammonia is evolved. But this is not all; an excessively pungent gas or perhaps vapour is produced, exciting sneezing, and inducing catarrh; the constitution of this vapour is not well understood; it is never formed, as far as I know, without the presence of both oxymuriatic acid and ammonia. The results of such mixtures are of course complicated and likely to be unsatisfactory; it may notwithstanding be useful to relate some of them.

Decomposition of ammonia by oxymuriatic acid.—I have conducted several experiments on this method of decomposition since the findings published in vol. 1, page 435. It is widely known that a solution of oxymuriate of lime breaks down ammoniacal salts; water and muriatic acid [Pg 336] are produced, nitrogen is released, and the acid that was previously combined with the ammonia is given off. However, that's not all; a very strong gas or possibly vapor is created, causing sneezing and leading to colds; the nature of this vapor is not well understood; it is never formed, as far as I know, without the presence of both oxymuriatic acid and ammonia. The outcomes of such mixtures are, of course, complicated and likely to be uncertain; it may still be helpful to share some of them.

When clear oxymuriate of lime solution, and a salt of ammonia are mixed together with a little excess of oxymuriate, the ammonia is mostly decomposed, the oxymuriate being converted into muriate of lime by the hydrogen of the ammonia, whilst the azote is evolved, and the acid previously combined with the ammonia is liberated; hence oxymuriatic acid gas is also liberated along with the azote; and it is required to be taken out before the azote can be estimated. This circumstance may be obviated by previously adding the requisite quantity of pure potash or soda, to engage the acid, or by leaving a little undissolved lime in the oxymuriatic solution. I could never obtain a volume of azote equal [Pg 337] to half that of the ammonia (supposed to be in a gaseous state) though it is universally allowed not to be less than that, if the whole of the azote be evolved; on one occasion only I got so much as ¹⁴/₁₅ of that quantity. The residue of liquid has the extremely pungent smell; but the azotic gas after passing through pure water has no smell. When this experiment is made over mercury, the oxymuriatic acid acts upon it, and hence the excess of oxymuriate should be such as to leave a portion of that undecomposed at the conclusion.

When a clear solution of calcium hypochlorite is mixed with an ammonia salt and a little extra hypochlorite, most of the ammonia breaks down. The hypochlorite turns into calcium chloride due to the hydrogen from the ammonia, while nitrogen is released, and the acid that was previously combined with ammonia is freed. As a result, hypochlorous acid gas is also released along with the nitrogen, and it must be removed before measuring the nitrogen. To avoid this issue, you can either add the right amount of pure potash or soda to capture the acid or leave a small amount of undissolved lime in the hypochlorite solution. I could never measure a volume of nitrogen equal to half that of the ammonia (assumed to be in a gaseous state), even though it’s generally accepted that it should be at least that much if all the nitrogen is released; only once did I get about 14/15 of that amount. The leftover liquid has a very strong smell, but the nitrogen gas, after passing through pure water, is odorless. When this experiment is conducted over mercury, the hypochlorous acid reacts with it, so the excess hypochlorite should be enough to leave some of it undecomposed at the end.

When the object is to ascertain the hydrogen in ammonia, a portion of salt known to contain a given weight of ammonia is to be treated with oxymuriate of lime solution, the strength of which is accurately determined by means of green sulphate of iron, or otherwise. The ammoniacal salt in solution is then to be mixed with a moderate redundance of the oxymuriate liquid, and with a few drops of caustic potash, and the mixture must be repeatedly agitated for some time. At length the liquid must be tested by the green sulphate of iron, and hence the quantity of acid spent upon the ammonia will be determined. I have mostly found the hydrogen this way below the common estimate, allowing the ammoniacal salts to be correctly determined. [Pg 338]

When the goal is to find the hydrogen in ammonia, take a sample of salt that is known to contain a specific weight of ammonia and treat it with a solution of lime chloride, the strength of which should be accurately measured using green iron sulfate or another method. Mix the ammoniacal salt solution with a bit more of the lime chloride solution and a few drops of caustic potash, and then stir the mixture thoroughly for a while. Finally, check the liquid with green iron sulfate to determine the amount of acid used up by the ammonia. I have generally found that the hydrogen content is often lower than the usual estimate, assuming the ammoniacal salts are correctly measured. [Pg 338]

SULPHURET OF CARBON.

Since the article at page 462, vol. 1, was written, an excellent essay on the sulphuret of carbon has been published in the Philosophical Transactions, (1813) by Professor Berzelius and Dr. Marcet. After an extensive series of experiments, they infer the atom of the sulphuret to consist of 2 atoms sulphur and 1 of carbon. The investigation did not seem to warrant their including hydrogen in the atom. I have made several experiments on the combustion of the vapour of sulphuret of carbon in oxygen gas by electricity. My method generally was, to vapourize a given portion of atmospheric air over mercury, taking care that the vapour was below the maximum for the temperature; this is easily effected by putting the liquid into a phial of air, drop by drop, and inverting it over mercury till the liquid is evaporated. This vapourized air, I find may be transferred through mercury with very little loss, and even through water several times, without a total condensation of the vapour. The vapour of ether is much more condensible by water than that of sulphuret of carbon. A given portion of this vapourized air is to be mixed with oxygen gas, in Volta’s [Pg 339] eudiometer, and then exploded by the electric spark over mercury. One volume of vapour combines with nearly 3½ of oxygen, and therefore requires 4 or 5 times its bulk of that gas before firing, in order that the combustion may be complete. The results of the combustion are carbonic acid and sulphurous acid; and I suspect a small portion of water; though Professor Berzelius and Dr. Marcet could not detect any.

Since the article on page 462 of volume 1 was written, an excellent essay on carbon disulfide has been published in the Philosophical Transactions (1813) by Professor Berzelius and Dr. Marcet. After a series of extensive experiments, they concluded that the molecule of carbon disulfide consists of 2 sulfur atoms and 1 carbon atom. Their investigation didn’t seem to support including hydrogen in the molecule. I conducted several experiments on the combustion of carbon disulfide vapor in oxygen gas using electricity. My usual method was to vaporize a specific amount of atmospheric air over mercury, ensuring that the vapor stayed below the maximum for the temperature; this is easily done by placing the liquid into a vial of air drop by drop and inverting it over mercury until the liquid has evaporated. This vaporized air can be transferred through mercury with minimal loss, and even through water multiple times, without completely condensing the vapor. The vapor of ether is much more easily condensed by water than that of carbon disulfide. A specific amount of this vaporized air is mixed with oxygen gas in Volta’s [Pg 339] eudiometer and then ignited by an electric spark over mercury. One volume of vapor combines with nearly 3½ volumes of oxygen, so it requires 4 or 5 times its volume of gas before firing to ensure complete combustion. The products of combustion are carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, and I suspect there may be a small amount of water; however, Professor Berzelius and Dr. Marcet could not detect any.

By evaporating a given weight of the sulphuret of carbon, in a given volume of atmospheric air, at the temperature of 60°, I find the specific gravity of the vapour to be 2.75 nearly, air being 1. Now if we assume the atom of vapour to be nearly of the same volume as that of hydrogen, and to consist of 1 atom hydrogen, 2 sulphur, and 1 carbon, it will require 7 atoms of oxygen to form water, sulphurous acid, and carbonic acid, which will accord very well with my experience. When vapourized hydrogen gas is electrified for some time, there is no change of volume, though there is some appearance of decomposition. Probably the hydrogen of the sulphuret is liberated. It is difficult to conceive how so volatile a liquid as the one in question, could be constituted out of sulphur and carbon without the addition of hydrogen. [Pg 340]

By evaporating a certain amount of carbon disulfide in a specific volume of air at a temperature of 60°F, I found that the specific gravity of the vapor is about 2.75, with air being 1. Now, if we assume the atom of vapor has a volume similar to that of hydrogen, and consists of 1 atom of hydrogen, 2 atoms of sulfur, and 1 atom of carbon, it would require 7 atoms of oxygen to form water, sulfurous acid, and carbonic acid, which matches my observations closely. When hydrogen gas vapor is electrified for a while, there’s no change in volume, although some signs of decomposition occur. It’s likely that the hydrogen from the sulfide is released. It’s hard to imagine how such a volatile liquid could be made from sulfur and carbon without including hydrogen. [Pg 340]

POTASSIUM, SODIUM, &c.

Two views of the nature of these bodies have been given in vol. 1, (see pages 260, and 484, &c.). In the former they are considered as simple metals; in the latter, as compound bodies resulting from the abstraction of oxygen from the hydrates of potash and soda; or as being constituted of 1 atom of hydrogen united to 1 atom of pure potash or soda respectively. Those who have had the most experience on these elements, Sir H. Davy, and M. M. Gay Lussac and Thenard, seem now to concur in the former view, and it has been adopted by most chemists. Part of the objections which we made to this view have been obviated, it should seem, by establishing the fact, that oxymuriatic gas and hydrogen gas united, form muriatic acid gas. There are still, however, difficulties to remove before this view can be considered perfectly satisfactory; but they are not greater perhaps than would attach to any other explanation of the facts connected with the subject. Besides potassium and sodium, experience as well as analogy would seem to render probable, if not to establish, the existence of barium, strontium, and calcium as metals, of which barytes, strontites, and [Pg 341] lime are the protoxides, as potash and soda are of the other two metals; (other oxides of potassium and sodium are stated, see page 55-57); barium has a deutoxide, and probably calcium likewise. The rest of the earths, as magnesia, alumine, silex, &c. are by analogy considered by most chemists as oxides of particular metals, but the proportions of their elements have not been determined.

Two perspectives on the nature of these substances have been presented in vol. 1, (see pages 260, and 484, &c.). In the first view, they are seen as simple metals; in the second, as compound substances resulting from removing oxygen from the hydrates of potash and soda; or as consisting of 1 atom of hydrogen combined with 1 atom of pure potash or soda, respectively. Those with the most experience with these elements, including Sir H. Davy, M. M. Gay Lussac, and Thenard, now seem to agree with the first view, which has been adopted by most chemists. Some of the objections we raised against this view appear to have been addressed by demonstrating that oxymuriatic gas and hydrogen gas combine to form muriatic acid gas. However, there are still challenges to resolve before this view can be considered completely satisfactory; but these challenges might not be more significant than those that would come with any alternative explanation of the related facts. In addition to potassium and sodium, practical experience and analogy suggest the likely existence of barium, strontium, and calcium as metals, with barytes, strontites, and lime serving as their protoxides, just as potash and soda are for the other two metals. (Other oxides of potassium and sodium are mentioned, see page 55-57); barium has a deutoxide, and probably calcium does as well. The remaining earths, such as magnesia, alumine, silex, etc., are considered by most chemists, by analogy, to be oxides of specific metals, although the proportions of their elements remain undetermined.

ALUM.

At page 531, vol. 1, we have given the constitution of this important salt, as under: since that time Mr. R. Phillips has announced another view of it; and Dr. Thomson has published one differing from both of these. They are as follow:

At page 531, vol. 1, we've provided the makeup of this important salt as follows: since then, Mr. R. Phillips has presented a different perspective on it; and Dr. Thomson has released one that contrasts with both. They are as follows:

Dalton 1 atom sulphate of potash.
  4 atoms sulphate of alumine.
  30 atoms water.
 
Phillips 1 atom bisulphate of potash.
  2 atoms sulphate of alumine.
  22 atoms water.
 
Thomson 1 atom sulphate of potash.
  3 atoms sulphate of alumine.
  25 atoms water.

[Pg 342] Notwithstanding these differences, there is a near approximation in all three, in regard to the quantities of acid, alumine, potash, and water in the salt. This is accounted for partly in the different relative weights of the atoms, as estimated by the different analysts, but chiefly in that of alumine.

[Pg 342] Despite these differences, there is a close similarity in all three concerning the amounts of acid, alumina, potash, and water in the salt. This can be partly attributed to the varying relative weights of the atoms, as assessed by different analysts, but mostly due to alumina.

Some very curious results occurred to me about 10 years ago in analysing alum; they were new to me, but I have since found they had been previously discovered by Scheele. (See his essay on silex, clay, and alum, 1776.) As his observations are not to be found in any of our elementary books that I have seen, I shall give the particulars of my own experiments here.

Some very interesting results came to my attention about 10 years ago while analyzing alum; they were new to me, but I later discovered that Scheele had already found them. (See his essay on silex, clay, and alum, 1776.) Since his observations aren’t included in any of the basic texts I’ve seen, I will share the details of my own experiments here.

I take 24 grains of alum and dissolve them in water; of these 8 grains may be allowed for sulphuric acid, ⅕ of which = 1.6 grain = 1.1 grain of lime = 880 grains of lime water, such as I commonly use. To the solution of alum I put 880 grains of lime water; a slight precipitate appears which soon becomes redissolved almost completely. The liquid is then acid by the colour test.

I take 24 grams of alum and dissolve it in water; from this, I can use 8 grams for sulfuric acid, which is 1/5 of that = 1.6 grams = 1.1 grams of lime = 880 grams of lime water, like I usually use. To the alum solution, I add 880 grams of lime water; a small precipitate forms which quickly dissolves almost completely. The liquid then tests acidic based on the color.

To this liquid I put 880 more of lime water, and agitate; a copious precipitate appears and continues; after subsidence the clear liquid is still acid by the colour test. [Pg 343]

I added 880 more of lime water to this liquid and stirred it; a large amount of precipitate formed and kept forming. After settling, the clear liquid still tested acidic by color. [Pg 343]

Another 880 grains are added, and the whole is then well agitated; the agitation is repeated two or three times after the precipitate has partly subsided, so as to diffuse it equally again through the liquid; finally, the clear liquid is found to be neutral by the colour test, and to contain no alumine; for, lime water produces no precipitate when poured into it.

Another 880 grains are added, and the mixture is then stirred well; the stirring is repeated two or three times after the solid has partially settled, to evenly distribute it through the liquid again; finally, the clear liquid is found to be neutral by the color test, and contains no alumina; because lime water does not create any precipitate when added to it.

Another 880 grains being added, and the whole stirred well, the clear liquid after the subsidence of the precipitate is still neutral by the colour test.

Another 880 grains added, and everything stirred well, the clear liquid after the settling of the precipitate is still neutral according to the color test.

The fifth portion of 880 grains being then added, and the mixture well agitated, a considerable portion of the precipitate will evidently disappear, and the mixture become semitransparent; after a time the clear supernatant liquid is found strongly alkaline; a little of it touched with an acid becomes milky, and adding more acid clears it again. The liquid is now 1.0025 sp. gr., or a little heavier than lime water.

The fifth portion of 880 grains is added, and the mixture is stirred well; a significant amount of the precipitate will clearly disappear, making the mixture semi-transparent. After a while, the clear liquid on top is found to be strongly alkaline; a small amount of it mixed with an acid becomes cloudy, and adding more acid clears it up again. The liquid now has a specific gravity of 1.0025, which is slightly heavier than lime water.

The sixth portion of 880 grains being now added to the whole mixture, and agitated, the precipitate rather diminishes, and an increase of specific gravity takes place in the liquid; it is now 1.003. [Pg 344]

The sixth part of 880 grains has now been added to the entire mixture and stirred; the precipitate somewhat decreases, and the specific gravity of the liquid increases to 1.003. [Pg 344]

The seventh and last portion of 880 grains being added to the mixture, and agitation being continued for some time, a dense bulky precipitate is formed, which falls with great celerity, carrying with it the greatest part of the acid, the alumine and the lime, and leaving the liquid of the sp. gr. 1.0012. It is a subsulphate into which acid, potash, lime and alumine enter, as will be shewn.

The seventh and final portion of 880 grains is added to the mixture, and after stirring for a while, a thick, bulky precipitate forms that settles quickly, taking with it most of the acid, alumina, and lime, while leaving behind a liquid with a specific gravity of 1.0012. This is a subsulphate that contains acid, potash, lime, and alumina, as will be shown.

These phenomena appear to me to be best explained by adopting a constitution of alum, such as to make it consist of 1 atom bisulphate of potash and 3 atoms of sulphate of alumine; after which the following explanation will apply.

These phenomena seem to be best explained by using a formula for alum, which consists of 1 atom of potassium bisulphate and 3 atoms of aluminum sulfate; after that, the following explanation will apply.

The first portion of lime water saturates the excess of acid.

The first part of lime water neutralizes the extra acid.

The second portion throws down a correspondent portion of alumine. The clear liquid is acid, because it contains sulphate of alumine, which is essentially acid by the colour test, because alumine is not an alkaline element.

The second part adds a matching amount of alum. The clear liquid is acidic because it contains aluminum sulfate, which is inherently acidic according to the color test, since aluminum is not an alkaline element.

The third portion throws down another portion or atom of alumine; but by continued agitation the two atoms of alumine liberated, join the remaining atom of sulphate of alumine, and the whole compound falls [Pg 345] down, being then the common subsulphate of alum. Hence the liquid, containing nothing but sulphate of lime and sulphate of potash, is neutral by the test, and yields no alumine by the addition of lime water.

The third part releases another piece or particle of aluminum; however, with ongoing stirring, the two freed aluminum particles combine with the remaining particle of aluminum sulfate, causing the entire compound to fall to the bottom, forming the common subsulfate of alum. Thus, the liquid, which contains only calcium sulfate and potassium sulfate, is neutral according to the test and does not produce any aluminum when lime water is added. [Pg 345]

The fourth portion of lime water being put in and duly agitated, the atom of sulphuric acid is drawn from the subsulphate to join the lime, and then the floating subsulphate of alumine becomes pure alumine, and the clear liquor is still neutral.

The fourth part of lime water is added and properly stirred, the atom of sulfuric acid is pulled from the subsulphate to combine with the lime, resulting in the floating subsulphate of alumina becoming pure alumina, and the clear liquid remains neutral.

The fifth portion of lime water tries to decompose the sulphate of potash, but is unable of itself; however, the floating alumine assists it, and by double affinity the potash leaves the acid to join the alumine, and the lime takes the acid. Hence as ⅓ of the alumine enters into solution with the potash, the precipitate is less copious, and the liquid is alkaline; a small portion of acid put into the clear liquid engages the potash, and liberates the alumine, but a larger portion redissolves the alumine also.

The fifth part of lime water attempts to break down the sulfate of potash, but it can’t do it alone; however, the dissolved alumina helps out, and through a double exchange, the potash leaves the acid to combine with the alumina, while the lime takes the acid. Since one-third of the alumina dissolves with the potash, the precipitate is less abundant, and the solution is alkaline. If a small amount of acid is added to the clear liquid, it binds with the potash and releases the alumina, but if a larger amount is added, it also redissolves the alumina.

The sixth portion of lime water seems to complete the effect which the fifth commences, and hence the density of the liquid increases, whilst the precipitate rather diminishes.

The sixth portion of lime water seems to finish the effect that the fifth begins, and as a result, the liquid's density increases while the precipitate somewhat decreases.

The seventh portion of lime, together with the sixth, after due agitation and some time, unite the lime with the alumine, one atom of [Pg 346] each, and form a precipitate which would fall together, were no other compound present, as I found, and Scheele before me; but if sulphate of lime be present, each compound atom of lime and alumine, unites with one of sulphate of lime, and the whole descends together, forming a subsulphate resembling that of alum, only two atoms of lime are found as substitutes for two atoms of alumine. This subsalt is very little soluble in water.

The seventh part of lime, along with the sixth, after being mixed well and given some time, combines the lime with alumina, one atom of each, and creates a precipitate that would settle down if no other compound were present, as I discovered, and Scheele found before me; however, if gypsum is present, each combined atom of lime and alumina connects with one atom of gypsum, and they all settle together, forming a subsulphate similar to that of alum, but instead of two atoms of alumina, there are two atoms of lime. This subsalt is only slightly soluble in water.

According to this view, if 2 atoms of alum were decomposed, 4 atoms of subsulphate would be formed, each consisting of 1 acid, 2 lime, and 1 alumine; also 2 compound atoms of potash and alumine, and 6 atoms sulphate of lime. But in the final arrangement, it would seem, that 2 atoms of sulphate of lime are again decomposed, and sulphate of potash formed, the 2 atoms of lime combining with the 2 of alumine, and then two more atoms of subsulphate are formed, and the final arrangement is 6 atoms subsulphate precipitated, and 2 atoms sulphate of potash, and 2 sulphate of lime remain in solution.

According to this view, if 2 atoms of alum were broken down, 4 atoms of subsulphate would result, each made up of 1 acid, 2 lime, and 1 alumina; as well as 2 compound atoms of potash and alumina, and 6 atoms of sulphate of lime. However, in the final arrangement, it seems that 2 atoms of sulphate of lime are again decomposed, creating sulphate of potash, with the 2 atoms of lime combining with the 2 of alumina, and then two more atoms of subsulphate are formed. The final arrangement results in 6 atoms of subsulphate precipitated, while 2 atoms of sulphate of potash and 2 sulphate of lime remain in solution.

The facts above stated appear to me to place the constitution of alum in a clearer point of view than any other I have seen. They make no difference in the weights of the several elements in 100 grains of the [Pg 347] salt, from what we have given in Vol. 1; only the weight of the atom of alumine is here taken to be 20 instead of 15, and we have 3 atoms of it in 1 of alum, instead of 4, as in the former account.

The facts mentioned above seem to present the constitution of alum more clearly than any other version I've encountered. They don't change the weights of the individual elements in 100 grains of the salt compared to what we provided in Volume 1; the only difference is that the weight of the aluminous atom is considered to be 20 instead of 15, and we have 3 atoms of it in 1 of alum, instead of 4, as stated previously. [Pg 347]

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ATOMIC SYSTEM
OF CHEMISTRY.

It is generally allowed that the great objects of the atomic system are, 1st to determine the relative weights of the simple elements; and 2d to determine the number, and consequently the weight, of simple elements that enter into combination to form compound elements. The greatest desideratum at the present time is the exact relative weight of the element hydrogen. The small weight of 100 cubic inches of hydrogen gas, the important modifications of that weight by even very minute quantities of common air and aqueous vapour, and the difficulties in ascertaining the proportions of air and vapour in regard to hydrogen, are circumstances sufficient to make one distrust results obtained by the most expert and scientific operator. The specific gravity of hydrogen gas was formerly estimated at ⅒ that of common air; it descended to ¹/₁₂.₅, which is the ratio we adopted in the [Pg 348] Table at the end of Vol. 1. it is now commonly taken to be ¹/₁₄.₅, and whether it may not in the sequel be found to be ¹/₁₆.₅ is more than any one at present, I believe, has sufficient data to determine. The other factitious gases have mostly undergone some material alterations in their specific gravities in the last twenty years, several of which I have no doubt are improvements; but when we see these specific gravities extended to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th places of decimals, it appears to me to require a credit far greater than any one of us is entitled to. In the mean time, it may be thought a fortunate circumstance, that the weight of common air has undergone no change for the last thirty or forty years; 100 cubic inches bring estimated to weigh 30.5 grains at the temperature of 60°, and pressure of 30 inches of mercury: (whether this is exclusive of the moisture I do not recollect.) It is also a fortunate circumstance, (provided it be correct) that this weight is nearly free from decimal figures. I may be allowed to add, that according to my experience, the weight of 100 cubic inches of air is more nearly 31 grains than 30.5. I apprehend these observations are sufficient to shew that something more remains [Pg 349] to be done before we obtain a tolerably correct table of the specific gravities of gases; the importance of this object can not be too highly estimated.

It is generally accepted that the main goals of the atomic system are: 1) to determine the relative weights of the simple elements; and 2) to establish the number, and thus the weight, of simple elements that combine to create compound elements. Right now, the biggest challenge is figuring out the exact relative weight of hydrogen. The light weight of 100 cubic inches of hydrogen gas, how that weight changes with even small amounts of common air and water vapor, along with the challenges in measuring the ratios of air and vapor in relation to hydrogen, are enough reasons to make one skeptical of results obtained by even the most skilled and scientific operators. The specific gravity of hydrogen gas was previously estimated to be ⅒ that of common air; it then dropped to ¹/₁₂.₅, which is the ratio we've used in the [Pg 348] Table at the end of Vol. 1. It's now commonly accepted to be ¹/₁₄.₅, and whether it might eventually turn out to be ¹/₁₆.₅ is something no one has enough data to determine right now. Other synthetic gases have also seen some significant changes in their specific gravities over the past twenty years, many of which I believe are improvements; however, when we see these specific gravities extended to the third, fourth, and fifth decimal places, it seems to require a level of precision that none of us are truly qualified for. Meanwhile, it can be considered fortunate that the weight of common air has remained unchanged for the last thirty or forty years; 100 cubic inches are estimated to weigh 30.5 grains at a temperature of 60° and a pressure of 30 inches of mercury: (I can't recall if this includes moisture or not.) It is also lucky (if accurate) that this weight is nearly devoid of decimal figures. Based on my experience, I would argue that the weight of 100 cubic inches of air is closer to 31 grains than 30.5. I believe these observations are enough to suggest that more work needs to be done before we can get a reasonably accurate table of the specific gravities of gases; the significance of this task cannot be overstated.

The combinations of gases in equal volumes, and in multiple volumes, is naturally connected with this subject. The cases of this kind, or at least approximations to them, frequently occur; but no principle has yet been suggested to account for the phenomena; till that is done I think we ought to investigate the facts with great care, and not suffer ourselves to be led to adopt these analogies till some reason can be discovered for them.

The mixtures of gases in equal volumes, and in different volumes, are naturally related to this topic. These situations, or at least similar ones, often happen; however, no principle has been proposed yet to explain the phenomena. Until that happens, I believe we should examine the facts very closely and not rush into accepting these parallels until we find a rationale for them.

The 2d object of the atomic theory, namely that of investigating the number of atoms in the respective compounds, appears to me to have been little understood, even by some who have undertaken to expound the principles of the theory.

The second goal of atomic theory, which is to investigate the number of atoms in different compounds, seems to me to have been poorly understood, even by some who have tried to explain the principles of the theory.

When two bodies, A and B, combine in multiple proportions; for instance, 10 parts of A combine with 7 of B, to form one compound, and with 14 to form another, we are directed by some authors to take the smallest combining proportion of one body as representative of the elementary particle or atom of that body. Now it must be obvious to any one of common reflection, that such a rule will be more frequently wrong than right. For, by the above rule, we must consider the first of [Pg 350] the combinations as containing 1 atom of B, and the second as containing 2 atoms of B, with 1 atom or more of A; whereas it is equally probable by the same rule, that the compounds may be 2 atoms of A to 1 of B, and 1 atom of A to 1 of B respectively; for, the proportions being 10 A to 7 B, (or, which is the same ratio, 20 A to 14 B,) and 10 A to 14 B; it is clear by the rule, that when the numbers are thus stated, we must consider the former combination as composed of 2 atoms of A, and the latter of 1 atom of A, united to 1 or more of B. Thus there would be an equal chance for right or wrong. But it is possible that 10 of A, and 7 of B, may correspond to 1 atom A, and 2 atoms B; and then 10 of A, and 14 of B, must represent 1 atom A, and 4 atoms B. Thus it appears the rule will be more frequently wrong than right.

When two substances, A and B, combine in different ratios—like when 10 parts of A mix with 7 parts of B to form one compound and with 14 parts to make another—some authors suggest we should take the smallest combining proportion of one substance as representative of the basic particle or atom of that substance. However, it's clear to anyone who thinks about it that this rule will often be incorrect. According to this approach, we would assume the first combination has 1 atom of B and the second has 2 atoms of B, along with 1 or more atoms of A. But it's also just as likely that the compounds could consist of 2 atoms of A for every 1 atom of B and 1 atom of A for every 1 atom of B, since the proportions are 10 A to 7 B (or 20 A to 14 B, which is the same ratio) and 10 A to 14 B. Thus, based on this rule, we would consider the first combination to be made up of 2 atoms of A and the second to have 1 atom of A paired with 1 or more of B. This results in an equal chance of being right or wrong. It’s possible, though, that 10 of A and 7 of B correspond to 1 atom of A and 2 atoms of B; correspondingly, 10 of A and 14 of B might represent 1 atom of A and 4 atoms of B. Therefore, it seems this rule will likely be wrong more often than it is right.

It is necessary not only to consider the combinations of A with B, but also those of A with C, D, E, &c.; as well as those of B with C, D, &c., before we can have good reason to be satisfied with our determinations as to the number of atoms which enter into the various compounds. Elements formed of azote and oxygen appear to contain portions of oxygen, as the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, successively, [Pg 351] so as to make it highly improbable that the combinations can be effected in any other than one of two ways. But in deciding which of those two we ought to adopt, we have to examine not only the compositions and decompositions of the several compounds, of these two elements, but also compounds which each of them forms with other bodies. I have spent much time and labour upon these compounds, and upon others of the primary elements carbone, hydrogen, oxygen, and azote, which appear to me to be of the greatest importance in the atomic system; but it will be seen that I am not satisfied on this head, either by my own labour or that of others, chiefly through the want of an accurate knowledge of combining proportions. [Pg 352]

We need to consider not just the combinations of A with B, but also those of A with C, D, E, etc.; as well as the combinations of B with C, D, etc., before we can be confident in our conclusions about the number of atoms in the different compounds. Compounds made up of nitrogen and oxygen seem to contain portions of oxygen in the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, in succession, which makes it very unlikely that the combinations can happen in any way other than one of two methods. However, when deciding which of those two methods we should choose, we need to look at not just the compositions and decompositions of these two elements' compounds, but also the compounds each of them forms with other substances. I have invested a lot of time and effort into studying these compounds, as well as those of the primary elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, which I believe are crucial to the atomic system; but as you'll see, I am not yet satisfied with what I’ve found, either from my own work or from others, mainly because we lack precise knowledge of the combining proportions.

NEW TABLE
OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF ATOMS.

At the close of the last volume, the weights of several principal chemical elements or atoms were given; but as several additions and alterations have been educed from subsequent experience, it has been judged expedient to present a reformed table of weights.

At the end of the last volume, the weights of several key chemical elements or atoms were provided; however, since there have been several updates and changes based on later findings, it has been decided to present a revised table of weights.

SIMPLE ELEMENTS.

BASIC ELEMENTS.

  Weights.
Hydrogen 1
Azote 5±, or 10?
Carbone 5.4
Oxygen 7
Phosphorus 9
Sulphur 13, or 14
Calcium 17?
Sodium 21
Arsenic 21
Molybdenum 21, or 42?
Cerium 22?
Iron 25
Manganese 25
Nickel 26
Zinc 29
Tellurium 29, or 58?
Chromium 32
Potassium 35
Cobalt 37
Strontium 39
Antimony 40
Iridium 42
Palladium 50
Uranium 50, or 100?
Tin 52
Copper 56, or 28?
Rhodium 56
Titanium 59?
Gold 60±
Barium 61
Bismuth 62
Platina 73
Tungsten 84, or 42?
Silver 90
Lead 90
Columbium 107? 121?
Mercury   167, or  84?

SIMPLE OR COMPOUND?

SIMPLE OR COMPOUND?

  Weights.
Fluoric Acid 10? 15?
Magnesia 17
Alumine 20
Glucine 23? 34?
Lime 24
Oxymuriatic Acid (chlorine) 29, or 30
Muriatic Acid 30, or 31
Fuel
Zircone 45
Silex 45?
Yttria 53? 36? 18?

[Pg 353]

[Pg 353]

COMPOUND ELEMENTS.

COMBINED ELEMENTS.

  Weights.
Ammonia 6? 12? 13?
Olefiant Gas 6.4? 12.8?
Carburetted Hydrogen 7.4
or Pond Gas
Water 8
Phosphuretted  Hydrogen 10
Nitrous Gas 12, or 24?
Carbonic Oxide 12.4
Sulphuretted Hydrogen 15
Deutoxide of Hydrogen 15
Nitrous Oxide 17
Nitrous Acid 19, or 38?
Carbonic Acid 19.4
Sulphurous Oxide 21
Phosphoric Acid 23
Sulphurous Acid 28
Protoxide of Arsenic 28
Soda 28
Hydrate of Lime 32
Protoxide of Iron 32
Protoxide of Manganese 32
Protoxide of Nickel 33
Sulphuric Acid 35
Sulphuret of Arsenic (native) 35
Hydrate of Soda 36
Oxide of Zinc 36
Carbonate of Magnesia 36.4
Protosulphuret of Iron 39
Deutoxide of Manganese 39
Oxide of Chromium 39
Muriate of Magnesia 39
Protosulphuret of Nickel 40
Protosulphuret of Lime 41
Carbonate of Lime 43.4
Protoxide of Cobalt 44
Strontites 46
Muriate of Lime 46
Chromic Acid 46
Protoxide of Antimony 47
Carbonate of Soda 47.4
Hydrate of Potash 50
Muriate of Soda 50
Sulphate of Magnesia 52
Sulphuret of Antimony 54
Sulphate of Alumine (simple) 55
Oxide of Palladium 57
Sulphate of Lime 59
Protoxide of Tin  59
Carbonate of Potash 61.4
Hydrosulphuret of Antimony 62
Nitrate of Magnesia 62
Sulphate of Soda 63
Protoxide of Copper 63
Muriate of Potash 64
Deutoxide of Tin 66
Protosulphuret of Tin 66
Oxide of Gold 67
Barytes 68
Muriate of Lime 69
Oxide of Bismuth 69
Deutoxide of Copper 70
Nitrate of Soda 73
Sulphuret of Gold 74
Protosulphuret of Bismuth 76
Sulphate of Potash 77
Oxide of Platina 80?
Nitrate of Potash 87
Carbonate of Barytes 87
Muriate of Barytes 90
Oxide of Silver 97
Protoxide of Lead 97
Minium 98
Sulphate of Barytes 103
Deutoxide of Lead 104
Protosulphurets of Lead and Silver 104
Nitrate of Barytes 113
Protoxide of Mercury 174?
Deutoxide of Mercury 181?
Protosulphuret of Mercury 181
Alum 277

[Pg 354]

[Pg 354]

ADDENDA.

Steel.—Since writing the article at page 214, I have had an opportunity of analysing the crystalline steel, formed by Mr. Macintosh’s process of cementation by means of coal gas. I dissolved 21 grains of this steel in sulphuric acid, with only a very slight excess of acid. The whole was dissolved except about ⅒ of a grain of silvery-like particles. The gas obtained amounted to 29.6 cubic inches. It yielded no trace of carbonic acid. When fired with oxygen it yielded 3 per cent. upon the volume of hydrogen of carbonic acid; and this arose, as I ascertained, from the hydrogen containing 3 per cent of carburetted hydrogen gas: it contained no carbonic oxide. Supposing the carbone to have been combined with the iron, it would amount only to about ⅝ of a grain, to 100 grains of iron. Whether such a quantity can be deemed an essential or an accidental ingredient of steel, may be a subject of consideration. [Pg 355]

Steel.—Since writing the article at page 214, I have had a chance to analyze the crystalline steel produced by Mr. Macintosh’s cementation process using coal gas. I dissolved 21 grains of this steel in sulfuric acid, with only a slight excess of acid. Everything dissolved except for about ⅒ of a grain of silvery particles. The gas collected amounted to 29.6 cubic inches and showed no trace of carbonic acid. When ignited with oxygen, it produced 3 percent, based on the volume of hydrogen, of carbonic acid; this was because the hydrogen contained 3 percent of carburetted hydrogen gas and no carbonic oxide. Assuming the carbon was combined with the iron, it would only be about ⅝ of a grain per 100 grains of iron. Whether this amount is an essential or incidental component of steel is worth discussing. [Pg 355]

By a mistake of the Printer, the following paragraphs were omitted after page 308.

Due to an error by the printer, the following paragraphs were left out after page 308.

EXAMPLE.

EXAMPLE.

According to the following values of the different specific gravities, (of the accuracy of some of which there may be doubts) and referring to my essay on oil gas (Manchester Memoirs, Vol. 4, new series, page 79,) we may take the oil gas, which, when the incombustible portion was abstracted would be nearly .812 sp. gravity, and

According to the following values of different specific gravities (some of which may be questionable), and referencing my essay on oil gas (Manchester Memoirs, Vol. 4, new series, page 79), we can consider the oil gas, which, when the incombustible portion was removed, would have a specific gravity of nearly .812, and

100 pure gas give 152 carb. acid and take 248 oxygen;

100 pure gas gives 152 carbon dioxide and takes 248 oxygen;

Here w = 100, a = 152, g = 248, S = 1.458, f = .555, c = .972 s = .0694 and C = .812. The value of u reduces to the following form;

Here w = 100, a = 152, g = 248, S = 1.458, f = .555, c = .972 s = .0694 and C = .812. The value of u simplifies to the following form;

u 4.7916a - 1⅔g + 1.875w - 6Cw = 24.5
.625

hydrogen per cent. of pure combustible gas.

hydrogen percent of pure combustible gas.

Hence we have 75.5 volumes left for the 3 other ingredients = w of the formula; and abstracting 12 + from the oxygen on account of the hydrogen, g = 236, and a = 152 as above. [Pg 356]

Hence, we have 75.5 volumes remaining for the 3 other ingredients = w of the formula; and removing 12 + from the oxygen because of the hydrogen, g = 236, and a = 152 as stated above. [Pg 356]

Whence x = Superolefiant = 38¼
  y = Carb. hydrg.  = 30.2
and z = Carb. oxide  =   7+
  75.5

These results differ considerably from those deduced in the above essay; probably in part from errors in the above estimates of the specific gravities of one or more of the gases.

These results are quite different from those discussed in the essay above; this is likely partly due to mistakes in the previous estimates of the specific gravities of one or more of the gases.

EXPANSION OF LIQUIDS BY HEAT.

I am not aware of any particular labour that has recently been given to the enquiry how far pure liquids accord with each other in the law which I announced as derived from the experiments on water and mercury, and corroborated by those upon several other liquids. See Vol. 1, Table of temperature, page 14; also page 36, and following.

I don't know of any specific studies that have recently looked into how pure liquids interact with each other based on the principle I introduced from the experiments on water and mercury, which was supported by tests on several other liquids. See Vol. 1, Table of temperature, page 14; also page 36 and following.

Perhaps all liquids should be considered as pure that are subject to uniform congelation at certain temperatures on the one hand, and on the other are capable of being distilled by heat without any alteration in their constitution. Water and mercury will rank in the first place; alcohol of .82 specific gravity and ether of .72; [Pg 357] concentrated sulphuric acid; nitric acid of 1.42 specific gravity: naphtha and oil of turpentine, &c. will probably be thought to claim the next place. It is desirable that the temperatures at which these liquids congeal should be ascertained; also whether any decomposition is effected by the operation. If these expand proportionally to a scale of square numbers for certain given equal or unequal intervals of temperature, it may point out something relative to the collocation of the ultimate particles in liquids. The apparent coincidence of this rate of expansion in liquids, with the geometrical progressive force of steams or vapours creates an additional interest. It may be that most or all of these supposed relations are accidental, and only approximative like that of the rate of expansion of air and mercury, between the temperatures of -40° and 212°; but I cannot think this probable. Even should they be only approximations, they are of sufficient utility to be kept in view.

Perhaps all liquids should be regarded as pure if they freeze uniformly at certain temperatures and can be distilled by heat without changing their structure. Water and mercury would be at the top of the list, followed by alcohol with a specific gravity of .82 and ether with a specific gravity of .72; concentrated sulfuric acid; nitric acid with a specific gravity of 1.42; naphtha and turpentine oil, etc. likely deserve the next spot. It's important to determine the temperatures at which these liquids freeze and whether any decomposition occurs during the process. If these expand in proportion to a scale of square numbers for certain equal or unequal temperature intervals, it could reveal something about the arrangement of the particles in liquids. The apparent alignment of this rate of expansion in liquids with the geometrical progression of steam or vapor adds another layer of interest. It's possible that most or all of these suggested relationships are coincidental and only approximate, similar to the rate of expansion of air and mercury between -40° and 212°; but I find that unlikely. Even if they are merely approximations, they are useful enough to keep in mind.

FINIS.

THE END.

Printed by the Executors of S. Russell

Printed by the Executors of S. Russell


BOOKS, ESSAYS, &c.,

BOOKS, ESSAYS, ETC.,

PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR.


Meteorological Observations and Essays.
4s. 8vo. 1793.

Weather Observations and Essays.
4s. 8vo. 1793.

Elements of English Grammar: or, a new System of Grammatical
Instruction, for the use of Schools and Academies.
2s. 6d. 12mo. 1801.

English Grammar Basics: or, a new system of grammar
instruction for schools and academies.
£2. 6d. 12mo. 1801.

A few Copies of these Works may still be had of the
London Booksellers.

You can still find a few copies of these works at the
London bookstores.

A New System of Chemical Philosophy.
Part I. of Vol. I.  7s. 8vo. 1808.

A New Approach to Chemical Philosophy.
Part I. of Vol. I.  7s. 8vo. 1808.

Published by G. Wilson, Bookseller, Essex Street, Strand, London.

Published by G. Wilson, Bookseller, Essex Street, Strand, London.

ESSAYS, by the same, in the Memoirs of the Literary
and Philosophical Society, Manchester.

ESSAYS, by the same, in the Memoirs of the Literary
and Philosophical Society, Manchester.

Vol. 5. Part 1.—Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours.

Vol. 5, Part 1.—Remarkable facts about color perception.

Part 2.—Experiments and observations to determine whether the quantity of rain and dew is equal to the quantity of water carried off by the rivers, and raised by evaporation; with an enquiry into the origin of springs.

Part 2.—Experiments and observations to find out if the amount of rain and dew matches the amount of water carried away by rivers and evaporated; along with an investigation into the source of springs.

Experiments and observations on the power of fluids, to conduct heat, with reference to Count Rumford’s seventh essay on the same subject.

Experiments and observations on how fluids conduct heat, with reference to Count Rumford’s seventh essay on the same topic.

Experiments and observations on the heat and cold produced by the mechanical condensation and rarefaction of air.

Experiments and observations on the heat and cold generated by the mechanical compression and expansion of air.

Experimental essays on the constitution of mixed gases; on the force of steam or vapour from water and other liquids, in different temperatures, both in a Torricellian vacuum, and in air; on evaporation; and on the expansion of gases by heat.

Experimental essays on the makeup of mixed gases; on the pressure of steam or vapor from water and other liquids at various temperatures, both in a Torricellian vacuum and in air; on evaporation; and on how gases expand when heated.

Meteorological observations made at Manchester,
from 1793 to 1801.

Meteorological observations made in Manchester,
from 1793 to 1801.

Vol. 1. Second series.—Experimental enquiry
into the proportions of the several gases or
elastic fluids constituting the atmosphere.

Vol. 1 Second series.—Experimental investigation
into the ratios of the various gases or
elastic fluids that make up the atmosphere.

On the tendency of elastic fluids to diffusion through each other.

On the tendency of elastic gases to mix with each other.

On the absorption of gases by water and other liquids.

On how gases are absorbed by water and other liquids.

Remarks on Mr. Gough’s two essays on the doctrine of mixed gases; and on Professor Schmidt’s experiments on the expansion of dry and moist air by heat.

Remarks on Mr. Gough’s two essays about the theory of mixed gases; and on Professor Schmidt’s experiments regarding the expansion of dry and moist air when heated.

Vol. 2. On respiration and animal heat.

Vol. 2 On breathing and body temperature in animals.

Vol. 3. Experiments and observations on phosphoric acid and on the salts denominated phosphates.

Vol. 3. Experiments and observations on phosphoric acid and on the salts called phosphates.

Experiments and observations on the combinations of carbonic acid and ammonia.

Experiments and observations on the combinations of carbon dioxide and ammonia.

Remarks tending to facilitate the analysis of spring and mineral waters.

Remarks aimed at making the analysis of spring and mineral waters easier.

Memoir on sulphuric ether.

Memoir on sulfuric ether.

Observations on the barometer, thermometer, and rain, at Manchester, from 1794 to 1818 inclusive.

Observations on the barometer, thermometer, and rain at Manchester, from 1794 to 1818 inclusive.

Vol. 4. On oil, and the gases obtained from it by heat.

Vol. 4. On oil and the gases produced from it by heat.

Observations in Meteorology, particularly with regard to the dew-point, or quantity of vapour in the atmosphere; made on the mountains in the North of England.

Observations in Meteorology, especially regarding the dew-point, or the amount of vapor in the atmosphere; conducted on the mountains in Northern England.

On the saline impregnation of the rain which fell during the late storm, December 5th, 1822—with an appendix to the same.

On the salty absorption of the rain that fell during the recent storm on December 5th, 1822—with an appendix to the same.

On the nature and properties of indigo, with directions for the valuation of different samples.

On the nature and qualities of indigo, with instructions for evaluating different samples.

In the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

In the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

On the Constitution of the Atmosphere.—1826.

On the Constitution of the Atmosphere.—1826.

In Mr. Nicholson’s Philosophical Journal.

In Mr. Nicholson’s Philosophy Journal.

Vol. 5. (Quarto) On the constitution of mixed elastic fluids, and the atmosphere.—1801.

Vol. 5. (Quarto) On the makeup of mixed elastic fluids and the atmosphere.—1801.

Vol. 3. (Octavo) On the theory of mixed gases.

Vol. 3 (Octavo) On the theory of mixed gases.

5. On the zero of temperature.

At absolute zero temperature.

6. Correction of a mistake in Dr. Kirwan’s essay on the state of vapour in the atmosphere.

6. Correction of a mistake in Dr. Kirwan’s essay about the state of vapor in the atmosphere.

8. On chemical affinity as applied to atmospheric air.

8. On chemical affinity as it relates to the atmosphere.

9. Observations on Mr. Gough’s strictures on the theory of mixed gases.

9. Comments on Mr. Gough’s criticisms of the theory of mixed gases.

10. Facts tending to decide at what point of temperature water possesses the greatest density.

10. Facts that help determine the temperature at which water has its highest density.

12. Remarks on Count Rumford’s experiments on the max. density of water.

12. Comments on Count Rumford’s experiments regarding the maximum density of water.

13 & 14. On the max. density of water in reference to Dr. Hope’s experiments.

13 & 14. On the maximum density of water based on Dr. Hope’s experiments.

28. On the signification of the word particle as used by chemists.

28. On the meaning of the word particle as used by chemists.

29. Observations on Dr. Bostock’s review of the atomic principles of chemistry.

29. Thoughts on Dr. Bostock’s review of the atomic principles of chemistry.

In Dr. Thomson’s Annals of Philosophy.

In Dr. Thomson’s Annals of Philosophy.

Vol 1 & 2. On oxymuriate of lime.—1813.

Vol 1 & 2. On oxymuriate of lime.—1813.

3. Remarks on the essay of Dr. Berzelius, on the cause of chemical proportions.

3. Comments on Dr. Berzelius's essay about the cause of chemical proportions.

7. Vindication of the theory of the absorption of gases by water, against the conclusions of M. De Saussure.

7. Defense of the theory that gases are absorbed by water, against the conclusions of M. De Saussure.

9 & 10. On the chemical compounds of azote and oxygen, and on ammonia.

9 & 10. On the chemical compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, and on ammonia.

11. On phosphuretted hydrogen.

11. On phosphine.

12. On the combustion of alcohol, by the lamp without flame.

12. On burning alcohol, using the flameless lamp.

On the vis viva.

On the live force.

In Phillips’s Annals of Philosophy.

In Phillips's Annals of Philosophy.

Vol. 10. (new series). On the analysis of atmospheric air by hydrogen.

Vol. 10 (new series). On analyzing atmospheric air using hydrogen.


Footnotes:

References:

[1] Manchester Memoirs, Vol. II. (second series.)

[1] Manchester Memoirs, Vol. II. (second series.)

[2] 7.9 when duly corrected. Annal. de Chimie, 78—114.

[2] 7.9 when properly corrected. Annal. de Chimie, 78—114.

[3] Memoirs d’Arcueil 2—168.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Memoirs of Arcueil 2—168.

[4] Kirwan’s Mineralogy.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Kirwan's Mineralogy.

[5] Annals of Philosophy, Vol. 3, p. 333.

[5] Annals of Philosophy, Vol. 3, p. 333.

[6] Philos. Trans. 1802.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Philos. Trans. 1802.

[7] Jour. de Physique. 1805.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Journal of Physics. 1805.

[8] Mem. d’Arcueil, Vol. 2. p. 168. 1809.

[8] Mem. d’Arcueil, Vol. 2. p. 168. 1809.

[9] Annals of Philosophy, Vol. 2. p. 48.

[9] Annals of Philosophy, Vol. 2. p. 48.

[10] By nitric acid, the result of 3 experiments all agreeing for the deutoxide; the protoxide is by calculation and less certain. He afterwards adopts 13.6 from Berzelius. Journ. de Phys. Aug. 1814.

[10] Using nitric acid, the results of three experiments all confirmed the deutoxide; the protoxide is based on calculations and is less certain. He later accepts 13.6 from Berzelius. Journ. de Phys. Aug. 1814.

[11] The protoxide from hydrogen by solution; the deutoxide by transmitting steam over the metal at a red heat.

[11] The hydrogen protoxide comes from a solution; the deutoxide is produced by passing steam over the metal when it's heated red hot.

[12] The 2d. by oxydizing the sulphuret of tin by nitric acid; the 1st. by inference only, one half of the oxygen of the 2d.

[12] The 2nd method involves oxidizing tin sulfide with nitric acid; the 1st method is inferred only, taking half of the oxygen from the 2nd.

[13] An. of Philos. 6—198

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ An. of Philos. 6—198

[14] An. of Philos. 3-244

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ An. of Philos. 3-244

[15] An. of Philos. 8—237

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ An. of Philos. 8—237

[16] An. de Chimie, 54—28

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ An. de Chimie, 54-28

[17] An. of Philos.—4—356

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ann. of Philos.—4—356

[18] Manchester Memoirs, Vol. v. page 120.

[18] Manchester Memoirs, Vol. v. page 120.

[19] Philos. Mag. Vol. xiii.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Philos. Mag. Vol. 13.

[20] See a very excellent essay on the alloy of copper and tin by M. Dussaussoy, in the Annales de Chimie & Physique. 5—113.

[20] Check out a great essay about the alloy of copper and tin by M. Dussaussoy in the Annales de Chimie & Physique. 5—113.

[21] This author obtained the Royal Society’s gold medal for his essay on the composition, &c. of specula for telescopes. Philos. Transact. 1787.

[21] This author received the Royal Society’s gold medal for his essay on the composition, etc., of mirrors for telescopes. Philos. Transact. 1787.

[22] An. of Philos. Vol. 12.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Annual of Philosophy Vol. 12.

[23] An. de Chim. & Physique. 5—233.

[23] An. de Chim. & Physique. 5—233.

[24] The result for this last article must be considered more uncertain than any of the previous ones, the experiment being more complicated.

[24] The outcome of this last article should be seen as less certain than any of the previous ones, as the experiment is more complex.

[25] That is, the temperature that would be denoted by mercury inclosed in a vessel having no expansion by heat; or else in one that expanded in the same rate as mercury.

[25] That is, the temperature that would be indicated by mercury contained in a vessel that doesn't expand with heat; or in one that expands at the same rate as mercury.

[26] By recent experiments I find the heat evolved in the union of oxygen and hydrogen, would raise the temperature of the same weight of water 6500°.

[26] From recent experiments, I find that the heat produced when oxygen and hydrogen combine would raise the temperature of the same weight of water by 6500°.

[27] See Dr. Henry’s note, Manch. Memoirs, vol. 5, page 679.

[27] See Dr. Henry’s note, Manch. Memoirs, vol. 5, page 679.

[28] The aqueous vapour in this case maybe considered as insignificant.

[28] The water vapor in this case can be seen as negligible.

[29] A gas found in oil and coal gas. See Manchester Memoirs, vol. 4 (new series), page 73.

[29] A gas that occurs in oil and coal gas. See Manchester Memoirs, vol. 4 (new series), page 73.

Transcriber’s Notes:

Transcriber’s Notes:


Antiquated spellings or ancient words were not corrected.

Antique spellings or old words were not fixed.

The footnotes have been moved so that they do not break up paragraphs and so that they are next to the text they illustrate.

The footnotes have been moved so they don't interrupt paragraphs and are placed next to the text they explain.

Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.

Typographical and punctuation errors have been quietly fixed.


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!