ON CHEMICAL ATTR>CTlON. }gj 



particles cannot be what are termed integrant ; the constitti- 

 ent partiicles of a compoonfl are therefore made to approach - 

 by the agency of the fofrce of cohesion, JDst'in the same 

 manner as by chemical attraction. Where then is the dis- 

 tinction between these two powers? To rne it appears, that 

 there is no distinction whatever; but that, in fact, ag-grega- 

 tion and combination are both the effects of the mutual at- 

 traction of heterogeneous particles. In the compound A B, 

 eac*^. particle of A is probably attracted by every other par- 

 ticle of A, and b\ every particle of B. Now the first of 

 these attractions is homogeneous ; the second heterogeneous. 

 It is therefore probable, that the particles of every compound 

 unite and adhere by the agency of both tliese kinds of at- 

 traction ; it is surely improper to assert, that they unite by 

 the agency of one attraction, hut adhere by the influence of 

 the other. 



It is proper to observe, tliat the change, which is here sug- 

 gested with regard to our opinions of the attractions of co- 

 hesion and of combination, is not so singular as at first view- 

 it may be supposed to be, A change precisely analogous has 

 been proposed, relative "to the operation of affinity between 

 two or more compounds. Formerly it was supposed, that, 

 when two binary compounds, for example, are submitted to 

 mutnal action, the energy exerted in their union subsisted 

 between the integrant or homogeneous particles of these 

 compounds. A view of the subject, very different, has 

 however been given by Berthollet. He supposes, that two 

 compounds act on each other by an affinity resulting from 

 the united energies of their constituent elementary particles. 

 A change precisely similar is here suggested relative to the 

 attraction of aggregation in a compound body. The pre- 

 vailing opinion is, as it was formerly with respect to chemi- 

 cal affinity, that the attraction is exerted between compound 

 particles. I suggest, that, as in affinity, the powers may be 

 exerted between constituent and elementary particles. Both 

 powers may with equal propriety be termed resulting attrac* 

 tions. 



If this opinion concerning chemical attraction be correct. Consequences 

 certain consequences will necessarily follow, which it may °^ ^^^^ opini' 

 be proper to point out. 1st, Those compounds, the constif 



tuents 



