214 REPORT—1840. 
possible, and indeed it was the first view I took of the case. 
The following reasons, however, seem to speak against the cor- 
rectness of such a supposition. As chemically pure water (or 
what we take as such), mixed with sulphuric, nitric, and phos- 
phoric acids, with potash and many oxi-salts, yields the odori- 
ferous principle, we must conclude that the latter proceeds 
from water, and not from the other substances. Now what 
secondary product does water allow to be formed at the positive 
electrode? The oxygen being eliminated at the latter, might 
certainly combine with some water, and produce peroxide of 
hydrogen. But this compound is not gaseous at the common 
temperature, and its vapour is wholly inodorous. I have be- 
sides observed, that platina enveloped with a film of peroxide 
of hydrogen, is positive to common platina. From these facts 
it follows, that the odoriferous principle cannot be peroxide of 
hydrogen. Or does another perhaps exist, consisting of hydro- 
gen and oxygen, and containing more of the latter element 
than the peroxide does? Are perhaps even chlorine and bro- 
mine compounds of a similar description? The peroxides of 
manganese, lead, and silver, exhibit the same voltaic properties 
as chlorine and bromine, both groups of bodies being emi- 
nently electro-negative. Such a strong analogy, does it not 
indicate a similarity as to their chemical constitution? I do 
not venture to answer any of these questions. ‘The present 
state of chemical science does not yet warrant us to speak of 
chlorine and bromine as of compounds, and I shall therefore 
consider the odoriferous principle as an elementary body, and 
call it “‘ Ozone,”’ on account of its strong smell. 
Now if we take it for granted that ozone is an elementary 
substance, and knowing that it originates in water, we must 
conclude that this fluid is made up of two electrolytes, one 
consisting of hydrogen and oxygen, the other of ozone and 
some electro-positive body. When a current is made to pass 
through such a fluid, both electrolytic compounds are decom- 
posed, their anions, oxygen and ozone, being evolved at the 
positive electrode, their cations at the negative,one. As to 
these cations, we know well enough that one of them is hydro- 
gen. But is ozone also, like oxygen, united with hydrogen? 
All the experiments I have hitherto made with the view of dis- 
covering in the gas evolved at the negative electrode something 
besides hydrogen, have led to negative results, a circumstance 
which seems to prove that ozone, as met with in water, is com- 
bined with hydrogen. 
I do not, however, yet consider this point as definitively 
settled. That (what we call) pure hydrogen is capable of ren- 
