398 -On the Ef eel of EkElncH^ upon Water ^ isfc. 



Having thus, In a seneral way, pointed out the confufion which obfcures and depre- 

 ciates philofophy in confequence of employing words without ideas, and of admitting 

 certain agents as fimple principles which probably are compounds, without deigning to 

 (C onGder whether they are fo or not, even though the moft palpable a.bfurdities attend the 

 admiflion ; permit me to make a few critical remarks updii th?;|>ap«f iaqueftion. 



Dr. Pearfon explains the produ61ion of the gazes frpjto jwffter, by fuppofing that the 

 denfe electric fire, at the moment of diftufion, interpofes betwixt the conftituent clement^ 

 •f water, and places them beyond the fphere of attraclsion for each other, when each 

 ultimate particle of the oxygen and hydrogen unites with a determinate quantity of fire, 

 and they form hydrogen gaz and oxygen gaz. 



It appears, tlien, that ele£tric fire forcibly deftroys the chemical union between oxygen 

 and hydrogen ; and that then a portion of it aflumes the ftate of caloric, attaches itlelf to» 

 the particles of oxygen and hydrogen, and counteracts their chemical union, by keeping 

 them diftant from each other in the ftate of gaz. 



Dr. Pearfon then proceeds to explain In what manner thefe two gazes arc made to re- 

 eombine, and form water, by means of the ele<Slric fire or caloric. He firfl. points out the 

 manner in v/hieh he fuppofes the caloric ails in thefe words : — " I conceive its agency to 

 be merely dimlniihlug or deflroying the powers which counteraft chemical union j" and 

 then proceeds to apply his theory to the explanation of the produftion of water from 

 hydrogen gaz, and oxygen gaz, by the agency of caloric, in thefe words : — " Accordingly, 

 when an ele£l:ric fpark, or the fmalleft particle of flame, or of an ignited fubftance, is 

 applied to the gaz produced in the above procefs, or to the mixture of hydrogen and 

 oxygen gaz, the ultimate particles of thefe gazes neareft to the flame are driven from it in 

 all dire<Slions, as from a centre, by the iiiterpofition of fire, or of caloric and light ; fo 

 (hat they are brought within the fphere of their chemical attraftion for the ultimate par- 

 ticles of the gafes at a certain diflance from the centre of application of fire, which there- 

 fore unites," &c. Now, I muft take the liberty to fay, that I think this no explanation 

 •whatever. The conclufion appears to me to be drawn from premifes which neither war- 

 rant fuch conclufion, nor make it either probable or conceivable. 



According to Dr. Pearfon's own theory and explanation, caloric counterafts the chemi- 

 cal union betwixt oxygen and hydrogen, and holds them in the ftate of gas j and, accord- 

 ing to his own principles, he ought to have explained \\\ wh.it manner the caloric of an ig- 

 nited body diminilhes, or deftroys, the fpheres of caloric which countera£t their chemical 

 anion -, inftead of which he only tells us, that caloric drives the ultimate particles of thofe 

 gazes, neareft to it, in all directions, which, therefore, combine with other particles at a 

 diftance ; but gives no idea wliatfoever of the manner in which that flame, or that caloric, 

 flowing ofi"from an ignited boay, diminifties or deftroys the caloric which is already attached 

 to the particles of oxygen and hydrogen, and counterafts their chemical affinity or union. 

 Ih ihort, if caloric adtually is attached to the difuiiited particles of oxygen and hydrogen, 

 and prevents their chemical union, nothing that Dr. Pearfon has faid tends, in the lead, to 

 ihow how the acceftion of ftill more caloric can either diminifli, or deftroy, the caloric 

 already attached to them, In fufficient quantity to prevent their union. 



Much might be faid upon a fubje£t like this ; but, as. I wiftj not to take up too much of 

 |our time, I fliall not proceed fvtrther with my remarks at prefent. What I have already 



advanced 



