SS4 Ohervaiions on My, Klaprotlfs Analysis [Feb* 



water, precipitated the earths by carbonated alkali, converted 

 them into sulphates, separated the sulphate of magnesia from 

 the sulphate of lime by means bi the greater solubility of the 

 former, reprecipitated the magnesia in order to recombine it 

 with muriatic acid, and from the quantity of this regenerated 

 mqriate of magnesia inferred that of the mmriate of lime. The 

 mass insoluble in alcohol was, of course, assumed to be muriate 

 of soda. The salts in these various processes are stated to have 

 been evaporated to dryaessy dried^ or in one instance well dried; 

 but the mode or degree of desiccation is not mentioned. 



I leave it to you, Sir, and to your readers, to decide which of 

 these methods appears the most simple, the most direct, and the 

 most likely to be accurate; but there is one circumstance in Mr* 

 K/s animadversions on my analysis which is too singular to be 

 allowed to pass unnoticed. Indeed, it will at once show you 

 that he had either only seen some erroneous abstract of my 

 paper, or that he had totally overlooked some of its principal 

 contents. After relating that I found 24*6 parts of saline matter 

 in 100 of the water, he adds, " This estimate does not, how- 

 ever, accord with Dr. M.'s original statement, that 20 grs. of 

 water leave a residuum of 7*7 g^s* of dried salt. To' make them 

 agree, 100 grs. must have furnished 38*5 grs. of salt." Now 

 the fact is, that 1 state distinctly, in my paper (p. 306) that the 

 residue in question dried at 1 80° weighed, whilst still warm, 

 8*2 grs. ; and that the same saline mass being afterwards exposed 

 in a sand-bath to the temperature of 2i2^, was reduced to 

 7*7 gJ's." From which I conclude, in the next paragraph, that 

 " 100 parts of the Dead Sea water yield 41 of salts dried at 

 180°, and 38*5 dried at 212°;" which is the exact conclusion 

 the supposed want of which induced Mr. Klaproth to re-examine 

 the water of the Dead Seal As to the reduced proportion ©f 

 24'G parts of salts in 100 of the water, which is stated as my 

 ultimate result, it is, of course, fully and distinctly explained 

 in the eoiu'se of the paper (seep. 311), that this proportion 

 applies to the case of perfect desiccation. 



It is clear., therefore, that if Mr. Klaproth had read the whole 

 paper, he would have seen that our results, as to the sum total 

 of the salts contained in the water of the Dead Sea, far from 

 being incompatible, may agree perfectly, since he found in 100 

 parts of water 42*5 parts of salts (dried at a temperature which 

 he does not specify),* whilst my specimen of water yielded 41 

 parts dried at 180°. 



* The accojjct says, " dried upon a sand-bath till they no longer lost any 

 weight," a latitude which may extend from the heat of the body, or even less, 

 to that of iDcipieiit. igriition. Mr. K. foiind the specific gravity of the water 

 somewhat higher than I did j and he justly observes, that various speciaiens may 

 vary a little in this respect? but from the circiumstaBce of his specimen of water 



G 



