Peculiar Voltaic Atramements, 145 



't3 



ing to the chemical nature of the fluid into which they are 

 plunged, this change of voltaic character is only apparent 

 and not real, and that it is dependent upon some secondary 

 circumstances which occasion a modification of the surfaces 

 of the metals employed. Having above ventured to start 

 the idea, that many substances, being under ordinary circum- 

 stances altogether chemically indifferent to each other, might 

 become capable of acting upon one another when arranged 

 together in a peculiar manner, and presuming that such a 

 conjecture will be considered by the majority of chemical 

 philosophers as very extravagant and wild, I am desirous to 

 say a few words more on the subject. We know novv-a-days 

 a series of chemical phaenomena called forth not by what we 

 term "affinity," but by the mere presence of certain bodies, 

 by what the French call " action de presence," Berzelius, 

 " force catalytique." The decomposition of peroxide of hydro- 

 gen caused by the precious metals and by their oxides ; the 

 transformation of alcohol into acetal, aldehyde, and acetic acid 

 brought about by the joint action of platina and oxygen; the 

 well-known union of oxygen with hydrogen effected by pla- 

 tina*, are instances of chemical actions occasioned by a force 

 which is altogether unknown to us, and widely different from 

 what we conceive common affinity to be. Now if a substance 

 can cause either the union of bodies with one another, or the 

 decomposition of compounds, without entering into any com- 

 bination with' them, why, I ask, should the case be impossible, 

 that certain substances do only chemically act upon each other, 

 inconsequence oftheir being putin contact with one other in a 

 peculiar way? For myself, 1 do not see any reason why such a 

 thing should be impossible ; at any rate, the fact that in many 

 instances bodies do chemically act upon each other, merely as 

 far as they are arranged in the shape of a circuit, cannot be 

 denied any longer. The question is only how the fact is to 

 be interpreted. Now if we consider the current excited in 

 such cases as being due to chemical action, it seems to 

 me that we cannot avoid arriving at a conclusion like that I 

 have come to. 



Bale, July, 1839. 



* I have reasons to doubt the correctness of the very ingenious account 

 which Dr. Faraday has given of the phaenomena in question, and shall not 

 be long in making them known. 1 also consider the view taken by Mr. 

 De la Hive on the subject as erroneous. 



Phil, Mag. S. 3. Vol. 15. No. 94. Aug, 1839. 



