1821.] Atomic Weight of various Metals and Acids. 121 



I propose, in the present essay, to give an account of the 

 experiments which appear to me to determine the exact atomic 

 weight of 12 other bodies, some of which are metallic, and others 

 acids. I shall begin, as I have hitherto done, by exhibiting in 

 a table the atomic weights of these bodies as already laid down 

 by Berzelius, the only other person who has published experi- 

 ments to determine the weights of these bodies. Beside the 

 numbers of Berzelius, I shall place those which I have obtained 

 by my own experiments. 



Berzelius. 



Bismuth 17-738 , 



Tin 14-7058 . 



Antimony 16-1290 , 



Mercury 25-3160 . 



Arsenious acid. 12-4077 , 

 Boracic acid . . 26-965 

 Oxalic acid. .. 27*106 



Tartaric acid . . 83449 , 



Citric acid .... 7-2785 . 



Benzoic acid .. 15-0955 , 



Succinic acid . 6-2785 .... 6-25 



Acetic acid. .. 6-4112 6-25 



Several of Berzelius's numbers require to be divided by 2 in 

 order to be compared with mine. The result of this division will 

 be seen in the third column of the table ; and it will there appear 

 that his numbers for bismuth, tin, and mercury, differ but little 

 from mine. The difference in the number for antimony and 

 arsenious acid is greater. In both of these I suspect that Ber- 

 zelius was misled by theoretical considerations ; at least I 



men in their experiment was a mixture of equal volumes of these two gases. Suppos- 

 ing their gas to have been pure phosphuretted hydrogen at first, if it was left standing on. 

 water for a day or two, it would be partly converted into bihydroguret of phosphorus. 



If M. Oay-Lussac will take the trouble to repeat the experiments which I have 

 related in the paper above referred to, if he peruse what I have said on the subject in 

 the Annals of Philosophy, xvi. 261, andi. (second series)p. 9, I flatter myself that any 

 doubts which he may still retain will be removed. 



I cannot avoid noticing here, though not exactly the proper place, a remark of 

 M. Gay-LilMac upon my analysis ofsubbichloride of sulphur, an abstract of which he 

 h:is done me the honour to translate and to publish in the Ann. de Chim. ct de Phys. 

 xiv. 822. He says that I have greatly underrated the quantity of sulphur, as sulphuric 

 acid must have been formed during the action of water on the subbichloride in consider- 

 able quantity. Had he taken the trouble to peruse my analysis, he would have seen 

 I mixed the aqueous solution with nitrate of barytes, that no immediate precipitate 

 fell, but that in 84 hours I obtained a quantity of white powder weighing two grains. 

 This I consider a sufficient proof that no sulphuric acid was contained in the liquid. 

 M. Oay-Lussac might have attacked the explanation which I gave of the phenomena; 

 but die analysis is quite independent of that explanation, and was completed before I 

 thought of theorising on the subject I still consider my explanation as the true one; 

 but whether it be so or not, the analysis shows, I conceive, that the liquid examined was 

 •i compound of two atoms bulphur and one atom chlorine. 



