-374 Mr. Fhillips^sA?idli/sisofTartanzedAjitinmii/. [WaV, 



potash, and these were calculated to contain 16 of potash. From 

 these results, M. Thenard concludes, that tartarized antimony is 

 composed of 



Tartaric acid 34 



Potash 16 



Oxide of antimony 38 



Water 8 



Loss 4 



100 



M. Thenard asserts, that bitartrate of potash contains more 

 tartrate of potash than is necessary to saturate the tartrate 

 of antimony, and he states tliat this excess of the salt 

 remains in the mother water. This is certainly a mistake, for 

 crystals of tartarized antimony are procured from almost the last 

 drop of the solution. 



Now if, as already supposed, 2 atoms, or 132 of tartaric acid 

 combine with 1 atom or 48 of potash to form the bitartrate, it 

 is evident that M. Thenard's analysis must be incorrect, for in 

 that we find the quantity to be 34 to 16, or 132 to 62-11 ; 

 nor will the error be rectified by supposing the 4 parts of loss to 

 be tartaric acid, for the proportion even then would be 132 to 

 .55-.37. 



In his Essai sitr la Theorie des Proportions Chimiques, Berze- 

 lius has given the following formula to represent the constitution 



,of what he terms tartras kalico-stibicus, 3 K T^ Aq- + 4 Sb 



y^ Aq\ These symbols I have not attempted to decypher, nor 

 was it necessary to do so, for the composition of the salt is 

 stated in 100 parts as follow : 



Tartaric acid 53-20 



Potash 12-53 



Oxide of antimony 27*10 



Water 7-17 



100-00 



Examining these results on the same principle as the analysis 

 by M. Thenard, it will appear to be also incorrect, for if 132 of 

 tartaric acid combine with 48 of potash, o3-20 should unite with 

 19-34 instead of 12*53 as above quoted ; the quantity of oxide 

 of antimony is also very incorrectly given, and the only statement 

 which approaches exactness is that of the quantity of water. 



Dr. Gobel, in Schweigger's Journal {Annals, vol. viii. p. 15J, 

 N. S.), states the results of his analysis to be, 



