Michael Faraday: His Life and Work, by Silvanus P. Thompson

He experimented, in January, 1832, on the currents produced by the earth’s rotation—on the 10th at the round pond in Kensington Gardens, and on the 12th and 13th at Waterloo Bridge.

“This evening,” he writes in his notebook under date February 8, “at Woolwich, experimenting with magnet,38 and for the first time got the magnetic spark myself. Connected ends of a helix into two general ends, and then crossed the wires in such a way that a blow at a b would open them a little [Fig. 10]. Then bringing a b against the poles of a magnet, the ends were disjoined, and bright sparks resulted.”

From succeeding with a steel magnet it was but a short step to succeed when a natural loadstone was used. The next day we find this entry:—“At home succeeded beautifully with Mr. Daniell’s magnet. Amalgamation of wires very needful. This is a natural loadstone, and perhaps the first used for the spark.”

He sent to the Royal Society an account of these and the earlier experiments; his paper on terrestrial magneto-electric induction, and on the force and direction of magneto-electric induction, received the distinction of being read as the Bakerian lecture of the year.

The following summary of this second paper is from the pen of Professor Tyndall:—

He placed a bar of iron in a coil of wire, and lifting the bar into the direction of the dipping needle, he excited by this action a current in the coil. On reversing the bar, a current in the opposite direction rushed through the wire. The same effect was produced, when, on holding the helix in the line of dip, a bar of iron was thrust into it. Here, however, the earth acted on the coil through the intermediation of the bar of iron. He abandoned the bar, and simply set a copper plate spinning in a horizontal plane; he knew that the earth’s lines of magnetic force then crossed the plate at an angle of about 70°. When the plate spun round, the lines of force were intersected and induced currents generated, which produced their proper effect when carried from the plate to the galvanometer. “When the plate was in the magnetic meridian, or in any other plane coinciding with the magnetic dip, then its rotation produced no effect upon the galvanometer.”

At the suggestion of a mind fruitful in suggestions of a profound and philosophic character—I mean that of Sir John Herschel—Mr. Barlow, of Woolwich, had experimented with a rotating iron shell. Mr. Christie had also performed an elaborate series of experiments on a rotating iron disc. Both of them had found that when in rotation the body exercised a peculiar action upon the magnetic needle, deflecting it in a manner which was not observed during quiescence; but neither of them was aware at the time of the agent which produced this extraordinary deflection. They ascribed it to some change in the magnetism of the iron shell and disc.

But Faraday at once saw that his induced currents must come into play here, and he immediately obtained them from an iron disc. With a hollow brass ball, moreover, he produced the effects obtained by Mr. Barlow. Iron was in no way necessary; the only condition of success was that the rotating body should be of a character to admit of the formation of currents in its substance; it must, in other words, be a conductor of electricity. The higher the conducting power, the more copious were the currents. He now passes from his little brass globe to the globe of the earth. He plays like a magician with the earth’s magnetism. He sees the invisible lines along which its magnetic action is exerted, and, sweeping his wand across these lines, he evokes this new power. Placing a simple loop of wire round a magnetic needle, he bends its upper portion to the west; the north pole of the needle immediately swerves to the east; he bends his loop to the east, and the north pole moves to the west. Suspending a common bar magnet in a vertical position, he causes it to spin round its own axis. Its pole being connected with one end of a galvanometer wire, and its equator with the other end, electricity rushes round the galvanometer from the rotating magnet. He remarks upon the “singular independence” of the magnetism and the body of the magnet which carries it. The steel behaves as if it were isolated from its own magnetism.

And then his thoughts suddenly widen, and he asks himself whether the rotating earth does not generate induced currents as it turns round its axis from west to east. In his experiment with the twirling magnet the galvanometer wire remained at rest; one portion of the circuit was in motion relatively to another portion. But in the case of the twirling planet the galvanometer wire would necessarily be carried along with the earth; there would be no relative motion. What must be the consequence? Take the case of a telegraph wire with its two terminal plates dipped into the earth, and suppose the wire to lie in the magnetic meridian. The ground underneath the wire is influenced, like the wire itself, by the earth’s rotation; if a current from south to north be generated in the wire, a similar current from south to north would be generated in the earth under the wire; these currents would run against the same terminal plate, and thus neutralise each other.

This inference appears inevitable, but his profound vision perceived its possible invalidity. He saw that it was at least possible that the difference of conducting power between the earth and the wire might give one an advantage over the other, and that thus a residual or differential current might be obtained. He combined wires of different materials, and caused them to act in opposition to each other, but found the combination ineffectual. The more copious flow in the better conductor was exactly counterbalanced by the resistance of the worst. Still, though experiment was thus emphatic, he would clear his mind of all discomfort by operating on the earth itself. He went to the round lake near Kensington Palace, and stretched 480 feet of copper wire, north and south, over the lake, causing plates soldered to the wire at its ends to dip into the water. The copper wire was severed at the middle, and the severed ends connected with a galvanometer. No effect whatever was observed. But though quiescent water gave no effect, moving water might. He therefore worked at Waterloo Bridge for three days, during the ebb and flow of the tide, but without any satisfactory result. Still he urges, “Theoretically it seems a necessary consequence, that where water is flowing there electric currents should be formed. If a line be imagined passing from Dover to Calais through the sea and returning through the land, beneath the water, to Dover, it traces out a circuit of conducting matter, one part of which, when the water moves up or down the Channel, is cutting the magnetic curves of the earth, whilst the other is relatively at rest.... There is every reason to believe that currents do run in the general direction of the circuit described, either one way or the other, according as the passage of the waters is up or down the Channel.” This was written before the submarine cable was thought of, and he once informed me that actual observation upon that cable had been found to be in accordance with his theoretic deduction.

It may here be apposite to discuss a fundamental question raised in these researches. In Faraday’s mind there arose the conviction of a connection between the induction of currents by magnets and the magnetic lines which invisibly fill all the space in the neighbourhood of the magnet. That relation he discovered and announced in the following terms:—

“The relation which holds between the magnetic pole, the moving wire or metal, and the direction of the current evolved—i.e. the law which governs the evolution of electricity by magneto-electric induction, is very simple, though rather difficult to express. If in Fig. 11, P N represent a horizontal wire passing by a marked [i.e. ‘north-seeking’] magnetic pole, so that the direction of its motion shall coincide with the curved line proceeding from below upwards; or if its motion parallel to itself be in a line tangential to the curved line, but in the general direction of the arrows; or if it pass the pole in other directions, but so as to cut the magnetic curves39 in the same general direction, or on the same side as they would be cut by the wire if moving along the dotted curved line; then the current of electricity in the wire is from P to N. If it be carried in the reverse direction, the electric current will be from N to P. Or if the wire be in the vertical position, figured P´ N´, and it be carried in similar directions, coinciding with the dotted horizontal curve so far as to cut the magnetic curves on the same side with it, the current will be from P´ to N´.”

When resuming the research in December, Faraday investigated the point whether it was essential or not that the moving wire should, in “cutting” the magnetic curves, pass into positions of greater or lesser magnetic force; or whether, always intersecting curves of equal magnetic intensity, the mere motion sufficed for the production of the current. He found the latter to be true. This notion of cutting the invisible magnetic lines as the essential act necessary and sufficient for induction was entirely original with Faraday. For long it proved a stumbling-block to the abstract mathematicians, since there was, in most cases, no direct or easy way in which to express the number of magnetic lines that were cut. Neither had any convention been adopted up to that time as to how to reckon numerically the number of magnetic lines in any given space near a magnet. Later, in 1851, Faraday himself gave greater precision to these ideas. He found that the current was proportional to the velocity, when the conductor was moving in a uniform magnetic field with a uniform motion. Also, that the quantity of electricity thrown by induction into the circuit was directly proportional to the “amount of curves intersected.” The following passage, from Clerk Maxwell’s article on Faraday in the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” admirably sums up the matter:—

The magnitude and originality of Faraday’s achievement may be estimated by tracing the subsequent history of his discovery. As might be expected, it was at once made the subject of investigation by the whole scientific world, but some of the most experienced physicists were unable to avoid mistakes in stating, in what they conceived to be more scientific language than Faraday’s, the phenomena before them. Up to the present time the mathematicians who have rejected Faraday’s method of stating his law as unworthy of the precision of their science, have never succeeded in devising any essentially different formula which shall fully express the phenomena without introducing hypotheses about the mutual action of things which have no physical existence, such as elements of currents which flow out of nothing, then along a wire, and finally sink into nothing again.

After nearly half a century of labour of this kind, we may say that, though the practical applications of Faraday’s discovery have increased and are increasing in number and value every year, no exception to the statement of these laws as given by Faraday has been discovered, no new law has been added to them, and Faraday’s original statement remains to this day the only one which asserts no more than can be verified by experiment, and the only one by which the theory of the phenomena can be expressed in a manner which is exactly and numerically accurate, and at the same time within the range of elementary methods of exposition.

In the year 1831, which witnessed this masterpiece of scientific research, Faraday was busy in many other ways. He was still undertaking chemical analyses and expert work for fees, as witness his letter to Phillips on p. 62. He was also, until November, on the Council of the Royal Society. To the “Philosophical Transactions” he contributed a paper “On Vibrating Surfaces,” in which he solved a problem in acoustics which had previously gone without explanation. It had long been known that in the experiments of obtaining the patterns called “Chladni’s figures,” by strewing powders upon vibrating plates, while the heavier powders, such as sand, moved into the nodal lines, lighter substances, such as lycopodium dust, collected in little circular heaps over the parts where the vibration was most energetic. Faraday’s explanation was that these lighter powders were caught and whirled about in little vortices which formed themselves at spots where the motions were of greatest amplitude.

He also wrote a paper “On a Peculiar Class of Optical Deceptions,” dealing with the illusions that result from the eye being shown in successive glimpses, as between the teeth of a revolving wheel, different views of a moving body. This research was, in effect, the starting point of a whole line of optical toys, beginning with the phenakistiscope or stroboscope, which developed through the zoetrope and praxino-scope into the kinematograph and animatograph of recent date.

He gave four afternoon lectures at the Royal Institution and five Friday evening discourses. These were on optical deceptions, on light and phosphorescence, being an account of experiments recently made by Mr. Pearsall, chemical assistant in the Institution; on oxalamide, then recently discovered by M. Dumas; on Trevelyan’s experiments about the production of sound by heated bodies; and on the arrangements assumed by particles upon vibrating surfaces.

In 1832 he gave five Friday evening discourses, four of which related to his own researches. In August he entered upon the third series of “Experimental Researches in Electricity,” which was devoted to the identity of electricities derived from different sources, and on the relation by measure of common [i.e. frictional] and voltaic electricity. He did not like any doubt to hang about as to whether the electricity obtained from magnets by induction was really the same as that obtainable from other sources. Possibly he had in his mind the difficulties which had arisen thirty years before over the discoveries of Galvani and Volta, when it was so far doubted whether the electricity in currents from piles and batteries of cells was the same as the electricity evoked by friction, that the distinctive and misleading name of “galvanism” was assigned to the former. He commented on the circumstance that many philosophers—and he included Davy by name in an explicit reference—were vainly drawing distinctions40 between electricities from different sources, or at least doubting whether their identity were proven. His first point was to consider whether “common electricity,” “animal electricity,” and “magneto-electric currents” could, like “voltaic electricity,” produce chemical decompositions. He began by demonstrating that an ordinary electric discharge from a friction machine can affect a suitably disposed galvanometer. One of his instruments of sufficient sensitiveness was surrounded by an enclosing cage of double metal foil and wire-work, duly connected to “earth,” so as to render it independent of all disturbances by external electric charges in its neighbourhood. His “earth” for this purpose consisted of a stout metal wire connected through the pipes in the house to the metallic gas-pipes belonging to the public gas works of London, and also with the metallic water-pipes of London—an effectual “discharging train.” He used a friction electric machine with a glass plate 50 inches in diameter, and a Leyden-jar battery of fifteen jars, each having about 84 square inches of coated glass. This battery of jars was first charged from the machine and then discharged through a wet thread four feet long, and through the galvanometer to earth viâ the “discharging train.” Having by this means satisfied himself that these electric discharges could deflect a galvanometer, whether through the wet thread, a copper wire, or through water, or rarefied air, or by connection through points in air, he went on to the question of chemical decomposition. Dipping two silver wires into a drop of solution of sulphate of copper, he found that one of them became copper-plated by the electricity that was evolved by 100 or 200 turns of the disc machine. He bleached indigo, turned starch purple with iodine liberated from iodide of potassium, exactly as might have been done by a “volta-electric current” from a battery of cells. He also decomposed water, giving due recognition to the antecedent experiments of Van Troostwyk, Pearson, and Wollaston.

In the paper which he drew up he compares these results with others made with electric discharges from an electric kite and with those of the torpedo and other electric fishes. He recapitulates the properties of magneto-electricity and the proofs now accumulating that it can decompose water. He drew up a schedule of the different effects which electricity can produce, and of the different sources of electricity, showing in tabular form how far each so-called kind of electricity had been found to produce each effect. The conclusion was that there is no philosophical difference between the different cases; since the phenomena produced by the different kinds of electricity differ not in their character but only in degree. “Electricity, whatever may be its source, is identical in its nature.” On comparing the effects produced by different discharges, he concludes that “if the same absolute quantity41 of electricity pass through the galvanometer, whatever may be its intensity, the deflecting force upon the magnetic needle is the same.” He was then able to go on to a quantitative comparison between the “quantity” of electricity from different sources, and came to the conclusion that both in magnetic deflection and in chemical force the current of electricity given by his standard battery for eight beats of his watch was equal to that of the friction machine evolved by thirty revolutions; further, that “the chemical power, like the magnetic force, is in direct proportion to the absolute quantity of electricity which passes.”

This series of researches was published in January, 1833. In April of the same year he sent to the Royal Society another paper—the fourth series—on electric conduction. It arose from the surprising observation that, though water conducts, ice acts as a complete non-conductor. This led to an examination of the conducting power of fusible solids in general. He found that as a rule—excepting on the one hand the metals, which conduct whether solid or liquid, and on the other hand fatty bodies, which are always non-conductors—they assume conducting power when liquefied, and lose it when congealed. Chloride of lead, of silver, of potassium, and of sodium, and many chlorates, nitrates, sulphates, and many other salts and fusible substances were found to follow this rule. All the substances so found to act were compound bodies, and capable of decomposition by the current. When conduction ceased, decomposition ceased also. An apparent exception was found in sulphide of silver, which, when heated, acquired conducting powers even before it assumed the liquid state, yet decomposed in the solid state. This led him on to study electro-chemical decompositions more closely. Here he was following directly in the footsteps of his master Davy, whose discovery of the decomposition of potash and soda by the electric current had been one of the most prominent scientific advances resulting from the invention of the voltaic cell. The fifth series of researches, published in June, 1833, embodies the work. He first combats the prevailing opinion that the presence of water is necessary for electro-chemical decomposition; then analyses the views of various philosophers—Grotthuss, Davy, De la Rive, and others—who had discussed the question whether the decompositions are due to attractions exercised by the two poles of the electric circuit. This he contests in the most direct manner. Already he has reason to believe that for a given quantity of electricity passed through the liquid the amount of electro-chemical action is a constant quantity, and depends in no way on the distance of the particles of the decomposable substance from the poles. He regards the elements as progressing in two streams in opposite directions parallel to the current, while the poles “are merely the surfaces or doors by which the electricity enters into or passes out of the substance suffering decomposition.”

Amongst the laboratory notes of this time are many which were never published in the “Experimental Researches,” or of which only brief abstracts appeared. Some of these are of great interest.

26 Feb. 1833.

Chloride Magnesium.—When solid and wire fuzed in non-conductor—When fuzed conducted very well and was decomposed A and P Pole much action and gas—chlorine? At N Pole Magnesium separated and no gas. Sometimes Magnesium burnt flying off in globules burning brilliantly. When wire at that pole put in water or white M A [muriatic acid] matter round it acted powerfully evolving hydrogen and forming Magnesia; and when wire and surrounding matter heated in spirit lamp Magnesium burnt with intense light into Magnesia. VERY GOOD EXPT.

This recalls the “capital experiment” entry which Sir Humphry Davy wrote after the account of his decomposition of caustic potash. On the 7th of April we come to a marvellous page of speculations. He has seen that liquids, both solutions and fused salts, can be decomposed by the current, and that at least one solid is capable of electrolysis. But he finds that alloys and metals are not decomposed. He finds that electrolysis is easiest for those compounds that consist of the most diverse elements, and is led on to speculate as to the possible constitution of those conductors that the current does not decompose. This may involve a recasting of accepted ideas; but from such a step he does not shrink, as the following extracts show:—

Metals may not be compounds of elements most frequently combined, but rather of such as are so similar to each other as to pass out of the limit of voltaic decomposition.

13th April (same page).

If voltaic decomposition of the kind I believe then review all substances upon the new view to see if they may not be decomposable, &c. &c. &c.

He has now found that the facts observed do not admit of being explained on the supposition that the motion of the ions is due to the attraction of the poles, and accordingly there follows the entry:—

(Ap. 13, 1833.)

A single element is never attracted by a pole, i.e. without attraction of other element at other pole. Hence doubt Mr. Brande’s Expts on attraction of gases and vapours. Doubt attraction by poles altogether.

To this subject he returned in 1834; an intervening memoir—the sixth—being taken up with the power of metals and solids to bring about the combination of gaseous bodies. In the seventh series, published in January, 1834, his first work is to explain the new terms which he has adopted, on the advice of Whewell, to express the facts. The so-called poles, being in his view merely doors or ways by which the current passes, he now terms electrodes, distinguishing the entrance and exit respectively as anode and cathode,42 while the decomposable liquid is termed an electrolyte, and the decomposing process electrolysis. “Finally,” he says, in a passage (here italicised) worthy to be engraved in gold for the essential truth it enunciates on a question of terminology, “I require a term to express those bodies which can pass to the electrodes, or, as they are usually called, the poles. Substances are frequently spoken of as being electronegative, or electropositive, according as they go under the supposed influence of a direct attraction to the positive or negative pole. But these terms are much too significant for the use to which I should have to put them; for though the meanings are perhaps right, they are only hypothetical, and may be wrong; and then, through a very imperceptible but still very dangerous, because continual, influence, they do great injury to science, by contracting and limiting the habitual views of those engaged in pursuing it. I propose to distinguish such bodies by calling those anions which go to the anode of the decomposing body; and those passing to the cathode, cations; and when I shall have occasion to speak of these together, I shall call them ions.43 Thus, the chloride of lead is an electrolyte, and when electrolyzed evolves the two ions, chlorine and lead, the former being an anion and the latter a cation.” In Faraday’s own bound volume of the “Experimental Researches” he has illustrated these terms by the sketch here reproduced. (Fig. 12.)

Faraday’s letter to Whewell when he consulted him as to the new words has not been preserved. He discarded, when the paper was printed, the terms he had first used. Whewell’s replies of April 25th and May 5th, 1834, have been preserved and are printed in Todhunter’s biography of Whewell. From the later of the two the following passage is extracted:—

[Whewell to Faraday], May 5, 1834.

If you take anode and cathode, I would propose for the two elements resulting from electrolysis the terms anion and cation, which are neuter participles signifying that which goes up, and that which goes down; and for the two together you might use the term ions.... The word is not a substantive in Greek, but it may easily be so taken, and I am persuaded that the brevity and simplicity of the terms you will thus have will in a fortnight procure their universal acceptation. The anion is that which goes to the anode, the cation is that which goes to the cathode. The th in the latter word arises from the aspirate in hodos (way), and therefore is not to be introduced in cases where the second term has not an aspirate, as ion has not.

[Faraday to Whewell.]

I have taken your advice and the names, and use anode, cathode, anions, cations and ions; the last I shall have but little occasion for. I had some hot objections made to them here, and found myself very much in the condition of the man with his Son and Ass, who tried to please everybody; but when I held up the shield of your authority it was wonderful to observe how the tone of objection melted away. I am quite delighted with the facility of expression which the new terms give me, and shall ever be your debtor for the kind assistance you have given me.

As though to prepare the way for a still further cutting of himself adrift from the slavery of using terms that might be found misleading, he added the following note:—

It will be well understood that I am giving no opinion respecting the nature of the electric current now, beyond what I have done on former occasions; and that though I speak of the current as proceeding from the parts which are positive to those which are negative, it is merely in accordance with the conventional, though in some degree tacit, agreement entered into by scientific men, that they may have a constant, certain, and definite means of referring to the direction of the forces of that current.

The “former occasions” is a reference to an earlier suggestion that a current might mean anything progressive, whether a flow in one direction or two fluids moving in opposite directions, or merely vibrations, or, still more generally, progressive forces. He had expressly said that what we call the electric current “may perhaps best be conceived of as an axis of power having contrary forces, exactly equal in amount, in contrary directions.”

He then suggests as a measurer of current the standard form of electrolytic cell ever since known as the voltameter. He preferred that kind in which water is decomposed, the quantity of electricity which had flowed through it being measured by the quantity of the gas or gases evolved during the operation. Before adopting this he undertook careful experiments in which his fine manipulative skill, no less than his chemical experience, was called into service to verify the fact that the quantity of water decomposed was really proportionate to the quantity of electricity which has been passed through the instrument. Having this standard, he investigated numerous other cases of decomposition by the current, and so arrived at a substantial basis for the doctrine of definite electro-chemical action. Speaking of the substances into which electrolytes are divided by the current, and which he had called ions, he says: “They are combining bodies; are directly associated with the fundamental parts of the doctrine of chemical affinity; and have each a definite proportion, in which they are always evolved during electrolytic action.... I have proposed to call the numbers representing the proportions in which they are evolved electro-chemical equivalents. Thus hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, iodine, lead, tin are ions; the three former are anions, the two metals cations, and 1, 8, 36, 125, 104, 58, are their electro-chemical equivalents nearly.”

This fundamental law being set upon an impregnable basis of facts, he goes on to speculate upon the absolute quantity of electricity or electric power belonging to different bodies; a notion which only within the last few years has found general acceptance.

According to it [i.e. this theory], the equivalent weights of bodies are simply those quantities of them which contain equal quantities of electricity, or have naturally equal electric powers; it being the ELECTRICITY which determines the equivalent number, because it determines the combining force. Or, if we adopt the atomic theory or phraseology, then the atoms of bodies which are equivalents to each other in their ordinary chemical action, have equal quantities of electricity naturally associated with them. But I must confess I am jealous of the term atom....

Here we find the modern doctrine of electrons or unitary atomic charges, clearly formulated in 1834. In the course of this speculation he remarks that “if the electrical power which holds the elements of a grain of water in combination, or which makes a grain of oxygen or hydrogen in the right proportions unite into water when they are made to combine, could be thrown into the condition of a current, it would exactly equal the current required for the separation of that grain of water into its elements again.” And all this years before there was any doctrine of the conservation of energy to guide the mind of the philosopher! The passage just cited contains the germs of the thermodynamic theory of electromotive forces worked out a dozen years later by Sir William Thomson (now Lord Kelvin), by which theory we can predict the electromotive forces of any given chemical combination from a knowledge of the heat evolved by a given mass of the product in the act of combining.

The eighth series of the researches, which was read in June, 1834, deals chiefly with voltaic cells and batteries of cells. He is now applying to the operations inside the primary cell the electrochemical principles learned by the study of electrolysis in secondary cells. His thoughts have been incessantly playing around the problem of electrolytic conduction. He was convinced that the forces which shear the anions from combination with the cations and transfer them in opposite directions must be inherent before the circuit is completed, and therefore before any actual transfer or movement takes place. “It seems to me impossible,” he says, “to resist the idea that it [the “transfer,” or “what is called the voltaic current”] must be preceded by a state of tension in the fluid. I have sought carefully for indications of a state of tension in the electrolytic conductor; and conceiving that it might produce something like structure, either before or during its discharge, I endeavoured to make this evident by polarised light.” He used a solution of sulphate of soda, but without the slightest trace of optical action in any direction of the ray. He repeated the experiment, using a solid electrolyte, borate of lead, in its non-conducting state, but equally without result.

During the time of these electrochemical researches in 1833 and 1834, Faraday’s activities for the Royal Institution were undiminished. In 1833 he gave seven Friday discourses, three of them on the researches in hand, one on Wheatstone’s investigation of the velocity of the electric spark, and one on the practical prevention of dry rot in timber, which was afterwards republished as a pamphlet, and ran to two editions. In 1834 he gave four Friday discourses; two on his electrochemical researches, one on Ericsson’s heat-engine, and the other on caoutchouc.

The ninth series of electrical researches occupied the autumn of 1834. In it he returns to the study of the magnetic and inductive actions of the current, investigating the self-induced spark at the break of the circuit, to which his attention had been directed by Mr. W. Jenkin. Several points in this research are little known even now to electricians, the laboratory notes being much more detailed than the published paper. He describes an exceedingly neat high-speed break for producing rapid interruptions, using for that purpose stationary ripples on the surface of a pool of mercury. In a wonderful day’s work on 13th November, filling thirty-four pages of the laboratory book, illustrated with numerous unpublished sketches, he tracks out the properties of self-induction. He proves that the spark (on breaking circuit) from a wire coiled up in a helix is far brighter than that from an identical wire laid out straight. He finds that a non-inductive and, therefore, sparkless coil can be made by winding the wire in two opposite helices. “Thus the whole [inductive] effect of the length of wire was neutralised by the reciprocal and contrary action of the two halves which constituted the helices in contrary directions.” The next day he writes: “These effects show that every part of an electric circuit is acting by induction on the neighbouring parts of the same current, even in the same wire and the same part of the wire.”

On 22nd November he is trying another set of experiments, also never fully published. They relate to the diminution of self-induction of a straight conductor by dividing it into several parallel strands at a small distance apart from one another. The note in the laboratory book runs thus:—

Copper wire 1/23 of inch in diameter. Six lengths of five feet each, soldered at ends to piece of copper plate so as form terminations, and these amalgamated. When this bundle was used to connect the electro-motor it gave but very feeble spark on breaking contact, but the spark was sensibly better when the wires are held together so as to act laterally than when they were opened out from each other, thus showing lateral action.

Made a larger bundle of the same fine copper wire. There were 20 lengths of 18 feet 2 inches each and the thick terminal pieces of copper wire 6 inches long and ⅓ of inch thick.

This bundle he compared with a length of 19 feet 6 inches of a single copper wire ⅕ inch in diameter, having about equal sectional area. The latter gave decidedly the largest sparks on breaking circuit.

Faraday did not see fit at this time to accept the idea, suggested indeed by himself in 1831, that these effects of self-induction were the analogue of momentum or inertia. That explanation he set aside on finding that the same wire when coiled had greater self-inductive action than when straight. Had he at that time grasped this analogy, he would have seen that the very property which gives rise to the spark at break of circuit also retards the rapid growth of a current; and then the experiment described above would have shown him that Sir W. Snow Harris was right in preferring flat copper ribbon to a round wire of equivalent section as a material for lightning conductors. He was, however, disappointed to find so small a difference between round wires and parallel strands. The memoir as published contains an exceedingly interesting conclusion:—

Notwithstanding that the effects appear only at the making and breaking of contact (the current, remaining unaffected, seemingly, in the interval,) I cannot resist the impression that there is some connected and correspondent effect produced by this lateral action of the elements of the electric stream during the time of its continuance. An action of this kind, in fact, is evident in the magnetic relations of the parts of the current. But admitting (as we may do for the moment) the magnetic forces to constitute the power which produces such striking and different results at the commencement and termination of a current, still there appears to be a link in the chain of effects—a wheel in the physical mechanism of the action, as yet unrecognised.

The tenth series of researches, on the voltaic battery, though completed in October, 1834, was not published till June, 1835.

The next research, begun in the autumn of 1835, after a lull of about eight months, lasted over two years. It was not completed till December, 1837. This investigation took Faraday away from magnetic and electrochemical matters to the old subject of statical electric charges, a subject hitherto untouched in his researches. But he had long brooded over the question as to the nature of an electric charge. Over and over again, as he had watched the inductive effect of electric currents acting from wire to wire, his mind turned to the old problem of the inductive influence—discovered eighty years before, by John Canton—exerted, apparently at a distance, by electric charges. He had learned to distrust action at a distance, and now the time was ripe for a searching inquiry as to whether electric influence, or induction44 as it was then called, was also an action propagated by contiguous actions in the intervening medium.

Faraday had done no special electric work during the first nine months of 1835. He had worked at a chemical investigation of fluorine through the spring, and in July took a hurried tour in Switzerland, and returned to work at fluorine. Not till November 3rd does he turn to the subject over which he had been brooding. On that date, intercalated between notes of his chemical studies, filling a dozen pages of the laboratory book, are a magnificent series of speculations as to the nature of charges, and on the part played by the electric—or, as we should now say, the dielectric—medium. They begin thus:—

“Have been thinking much lately of the relation of common and voltaic electricity, of induction by the former and decomposition by the latter, and am quite convinced that there must be the closest connection. Will be first needful to make out the true character”—note the phrase—“of ordinary electrical phenomena.” The following notes are for experiment and observation.

“Does common electricity reside upon the surface of a conductor or upon the surface of the [di-]electric in contact with it?”

He goes on to consider the state of a dielectric substance, such as glass, when situated between a positively charged and a negatively charged surface, as in a charged Leyden jar, and argues from analogy thus:—

“Hence the state of the plate [of glass] under induction is the same as the state of a magnet, and if split or broken would present new P[ositive] and N[egative] surfaces before not at all evident.” This speculation was later verified by Matteucci.

“Probable that phenomena of induction prove more decidedly than anything else that the electricity is in the [di-]electric not in the conductor.”

He still worked for a week or two on fluorine, interposing some experiments on the temperature-limit of magnetisation, but on December 4th decides not to go on with fluorine at present. Then, beginning on December 5th, there follow twenty-nine pages of the laboratory diary, illustrated with sketches. He had borrowed from a Mr. Kipp a large deep copper pan thirty-five inches in diameter, and he set to work electrifying it and exploring the distribution of the charges, inside and out, and the inductive effect on objects placed within. Everywhere he is mentally comparing the distribution of the effects with that of the flow of currents in an electrolyte. Before many days he writes:—

“It appears to me at present that ordinary and electrolytic induction are identical in their first nature, but that the latter is followed by an effect which cannot but from the nature and state of the substances take place with the former.” Then comes this pregnant suggestion:—

“Try induction through a solid crystalline body as to the consequent action on polarized light.”

By the end of a week he had begun to suspect that his magnet analogy went farther than he was at first prepared to hold. The action of a magnet was along curved lines of force. So he asks:—

“Can induction through air take place in curves or round a corner—can probably be found experimentally—if so not a radiating effect.”

“Electricity appears to exist only in polarity as in air, glass, electrolytes, etc. Now metals, being conductors, cannot take up that polar state of their own power, or rather retain it, and hence probably cannot retain developed electric forces.