more ions can go into solution unless an equivalent number are removed by voltaic action. On the analogy between this case and that of the interface between two solutions, Nernst has arrived at similar logarithmic expressions for the difference of potential, which becomes proportional to where is taken to mean the osmotic pressure of the cations in the solution, and the osmotic pressure of the cations in the substance of the metal itself. On these lines the equations of concentration cells, deduced above on less hypothetical grounds, may be regained.
Theory of Electrons.—Our views of the nature of the ions of electrolytes have been extended by the application of the ideas of the relations between matter and electricity obtained by the study of electric conduction through gases. The interpretation of the phenomena of gaseous conduction was rendered possible by the knowledge previously acquired of conduction through liquids; the newer subject is now reaching a position whence it can repay its debt to the older.
Sir J. J. Thomson has shown (see Conduction, Electric, § III.) that the negative ions in certain cases of gaseous conduction are much more mobile than the corresponding positive ions, and possess a mass of about the one-thousandth part of that of a hydrogen atom. These negative particles or corpuscles seem to be the ultimate units of negative electricity, and may be identified with the electrons required by the theories of H. A. Lorentz and Sir J. Larmor. A body containing an excess of these particles is negatively electrified, and is positively electrified if it has parted with some of its normal number. An electric current consists of a moving stream of electrons. In gases the electrons sometimes travel alone, but in liquids they are always attached to matter, and their motion involves the movement of chemical atoms or groups of atoms. An atom with an extra corpuscle is a univalent negative ion, an atom with one corpuscle detached is a univalent positive ion. In metals the electrons can slip from one atom to the next, since a current can pass without chemical action. When a current passes from an electrolyte to a metal, the electron must be detached from the atom it was accompanying and chemical action be manifested at the electrode.
Bibliography.—Michael Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity (London, 1844 and 1855); W. Ostwald, Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Chemie, 2te Aufl. (Leipzig, 1891); Elektrochemie (Leipzig, 1896); W. Nernst, Theoretische Chemie, 3te Aufl. (Stuttgart, 1900; English translation, London, 1904); F. Kohlrausch and L. Holborn, Das Leitvermögen der Elektrolyte (Leipzig, 1898); W. C. D. Whetham, The Theory of Solution and Electrolysis (Cambridge, 1902); M. Le Blanc, Elements of Electrochemistry (Eng. trans., London, 1896); S. Arrhenius, Text-Book of Electrochemistry (Eng. trans., London, 1902); H. C. Jones, The Theory of Electrolytic Dissociation (New York, 1900); N. Munroe Hopkins, Experimental Electrochemistry (London, 1905); Lüphe, Grundzüge der Elektrochemie (Berlin, 1896).
Some of the more important papers on the subject have been reprinted for Harper’s Series of Scientific Memoirs in Electrolytic Conduction (1899) and the Modern Theory of Solution (1899). Several journals are published specially to deal with physical chemistry, of which electrochemistry forms an important part. Among them may be mentioned the Zeitschrift für physikalische Chemie (Leipzig); and the Journal of Physical Chemistry (Cornell University). In these periodicals will be found new work on the subject and abstracts of papers which appear in other physical and chemical publications. (W. C. D. W.)
ELECTROMAGNETISM, that branch of physical science which is concerned with the interconnexion of electricity and magnetism, and with the production of magnetism by means of electric currents by devices called electromagnets.
History.—The foundation was laid by the observation first made by Hans Christian Oersted (1777–1851), professor of natural philosophy in Copenhagen, who discovered in 1820 that a wire uniting the poles or terminal plates of a voltaic pile has the property of affecting a magnetic needle[1] (see Electricity). Oersted carefully ascertained that the nature of the wire itself did not influence the result but saw that it was due to the electric conflict, as he called it, round the wire; or in modern language, to the magnetic force or magnetic flux round the conductor. If a straight wire through which an electric current is flowing is placed above and parallel to a magnetic compass needle, it is found that if the current is flowing in the conductor in a direction from south to north, the north pole of the needle under the conductor deviates to the left hand, whereas if the conductor is placed under the needle, the north pole deviates to the right hand; if the conductor is doubled back over the needle, the effects of the two sides of the loop are added together and the deflection is increased. These results are summed up in the mnemonic rule: Imagine yourself swimming in the conductor with the current, that is, moving in the direction of the positive electricity, with your face towards the magnetic needle; the north pole will then deviate to your left hand. The deflection of the magnetic needle can therefore reveal the existence of an electric current in a neighbouring circuit, and this fact was soon utilized in the construction of instruments called galvanometers (q.v.).
Immediately after Oersted’s discovery was announced, D. F. J. Arago and A. M. Ampère began investigations on the subject of electromagnetism. On the 18th of September 1820, Ampère read a paper before the Academy of Sciences in Paris, in which he announced that the voltaic pile itself affected a magnetic needle as did the uniting wire, and he showed that the effects in both cases were consistent with the theory that electric current was a circulation round a circuit, and equivalent in magnetic effect to a very short magnet with axis placed at right angles to the plane of the circuit. He then propounded his brilliant hypothesis that the magnetization of iron was due to molecular electric currents. This suggested to Arago that wire wound into a helix carrying electric current should magnetize a steel needle placed in the interior. In the Ann. Chim. (1820, 15, p. 94), Arago published a paper entitled “Expériences relatives à l’aimantation du fer et de l’acier par l’action du courant voltaïque,” announcing that the wire conveying the current, even though of copper, could magnetize steel needles placed across it, and if plunged into iron filings it attracted them. About the same time Sir Humphry Davy sent a communication to Dr W. H. Wollaston, read at the Royal Society on the 16th of November 1820 (reproduced in the Annals of Philosophy for August 1821, p. 81), “On the Magnetic Phenomena produced by Electricity,” in which he announced his independent discovery of the same fact. With a large battery of 100 pairs of plates at the Royal Institution, he found in October 1820 that the uniting wire became strongly magnetic and that iron filings clung to it; also that steel needles placed across the wire were permanently magnetized. He placed a sheet of glass over the wire and sprinkling iron filings on it saw that they arranged themselves in straight lines at right angles to the wire. He then proved that Leyden jar discharges could produce the same effects. Ampère and Arago then seem to have experimented together and magnetized a steel needle wrapped in paper which was enclosed in a helical wire conveying a current. All these facts were rendered intelligible when it was seen that a wire when conveying an electric current becomes surrounded by a magnetic field. If the wire is a long straight one, the lines of magnetic force are circular and concentric with centres on the wire axis, and if the wire is bent into a circle the lines of magnetic force are endless loops surrounding and linked with the electric circuit. Since a magnetic pole tends to move along a line of magnetic force it was obvious that it should revolve round a wire conveying a current. To exhibit this fact involved, however, much ingenuity. It was first accomplished by Faraday in October 1821 (Exper. Res. ii. p. 127). Since the action is reciprocal a current free to move tends to revolve round a magnetic pole. The fact is most easily shown by a small piece of apparatus made as follows: In a glass cylinder (see fig. 1) like a lamp chimney are fitted two corks. Through the bottom one is passed the north end of a bar magnet which projects up above a little mercury lying in the cork. Through the top cork is passed one end of a wire from a
- ↑ In the Annals of Philosophy for November 1821 is a long article entitled “Electromagnetism” by Oersted, in which he gives a detailed account of his discovery. He had his thoughts turned to it as far back as 1813, but not until the 20th of July 1820 had he actually made his discovery. He seems to have been arranging a compass needle to observe any deflections during a storm, and placed near it a platinum wire through which a galvanic current was passed.
