Method ef encrenfing the Pottirr »f ek^rkal Batterni. 5^7 



^thought of dirtying his battery jars, as he only mentions trying two fmall bottles, wHofc 

 charging property was very differently increafed by his method of dirtying. 



Some time afterwards, in the year 1792, 1 happened cafually to difeover that a coated jaf, 

 when it was a little dampiih in the infide above the coating {which is always the cafe when a 

 jar isfrefli coated), would take a higher charge than it would do after it had been coated for foma 

 time, and was quite dry in the infide ; and alfo, if tlie atmofphere was in a moid ftate, and 

 the jar not dryed in the infide, it would take an equally high charge. From this it appeared 

 evident to me, that if I could, by any means, render the infide of jars damp, it would anfwer 

 the fame purpofe. Breathing into a jar was trysd, and the fucccfs was fuch, that it would re- 

 ceive an<l retain nearly double the quantity of electric fluid it could retain when dry ; and in 

 trying to fufe wire with the charge of one jar in a dry flate» no more than 5 inches ceuld bc 

 fufed, though after breathing into it, i % inches were fufcd. 



This method appeared at firfk. fight to have increafed the force to more than double ; but 

 notwithftanding fo evident and Itr'iking an effetl:, I did not think of trying what would bc 

 the refult of charging a battery, after the jars had been breathed into ; being deterred, as I 

 fiippofe, from the idea of its being fo contradictory to the common method of ufmg battcriesj 

 which was never attempted to be done, but when the atmofphere was in a tolerably dry Hate, 

 and the jars previoufly cleaned. But in March 1 796, being engaged in a courfe of experiments, 

 when the atmofphere was fo very dry, that a fpontancous difcharge always took place before 

 J had a fuiEcient force to anfwer my purpofe, it then occurred to me to try what the cffeft 

 of breathing into the jars of the battery would be. In this trial, or refearch, it became ne- 

 ceflary firil, to afcertain the real charge that the battery was capable of receiving, before i 

 voluntary explofion took place. This battery contained 1 7 fquare feet of coated glafs, and 

 was compofed of 15 jars: it was found in the then ftate of the atmofphere to be incapable of 

 fufing a greater length of wire than 18 inches. But after breathing into each jar through a 

 glafs tube, it took a charge Ns'hich fufed 60 inches, to my very great furprife and fatisfaftion, 

 as I then thought I had obtained a method of making one battery perform the fundtlon of 

 three ; becaufe three times the quantity of wire was fufed, as Appears by comparing this 

 ■with what had been performed, by increa fing the furface of batteries by former electricians. 

 This notion fecmed to be juftified, by obfcrving in Dr. van Marum's works, that I had en«> 

 larged his batteries at three different times ; his firft contained 135 fquare feet coating, tlic 

 fecond 225 fquare feet, and the third 550 ; and the higheft charge of the firft was juft fuf- 

 ficient to fufe 180 inches of iron wire of tto of an inch diameter, or 6 inches of iron 

 wire of ^'^ of an inch diameter ; the higheft charge of the fecond fufed 300 inches of the firft- 

 inentloned wire, or 10 inches of the laft-mentloned; the higheft charge of the third fufed 25 

 inches. We find that thefe batteries increafed in power in the fame proportion as the coated 

 furface was increafed. I was prcfent when the wire v.-as fufed by the two f.rft-n\entioned 

 ^J»5rtteries, but at the third not •, ho^vever, we have no reafon to doubt Dr. van Marum's re- 

 port. Thefe experiments fupported me in my firft notion, that I had difcovered a new 

 method of increafing the force of a battery to three times its ufual power ; but being unable 

 to account for it to my own fatisfa£lion, I refolved to make a tourfe of experiments, in order 

 to throw fomc light on the fubject. 



3 Y a Tke 



