Phlogiston Theory
In his
awesome history of chemistry, Mendeleyev’s
Dream,
Paul Strathern has a chapter on phlogiston theory. In the 1600’s, Johann Becher
postulated that all solids had 3 constituents: terra fluida (fluid component),
terra lapida (solidifying element), and terra pinguis (combustible component).
As per his theory, when wood is burnt, terra pinguis is released, leaving the
ash.
Georg
Stahl extended the theory to state that terra pinguis could move from one thing
to another, not just out of a substance during combustion. He also renamed it
“phlogiston”. He said phlogiston explained combustion, smelting and rusting.
Critics
pointed out that combustion happened only in the presence of air, so why
shouldn’t air be considered key to explaining combustion instead of this
mysterious phlogiston? No, said Stahl, air was only the carrier of phlogiston
from one thing to another. Others asked why phlogiston exchange caused fire
during combustion but not during rusting? Stahl countered that the speed at
which phlogiston escaped mattered: during combustion, it escaped fast, and
heated the air and became visible as a flame. More problematic was the question
of why some substances upon combustion gained
weight? Surely, if they were releasing phlogiston, they should lose weight upon combustion. Stahl’s
supporters tenuously argued that there were two types of phlogiston: one with
positive weight, the other with negative weight. Sure, we snigger today, but:
“The caliber and
ingenuity of the arguments over phlogiston theory indicate the sophisticated
level to which chemistry had risen. This was now a full-fledged science, with
all its findings and theories open to rational debate.”
As has
been the trend in science, despite its apparent flaws, phlogiston theory was
accepted by most because “it explained too much for it to be abandoned”. But
nobody had ever isolated this phlogiston. And then Henry Cavendish noticed that
the gas produced when certain metals reacted with acids was inflammable.
Cavendish mistakenly assumed that this “inflammable air” came from the metal
(rather than the acid). And thus he concluded that he had isolated phlogiston!
What he had really isolated was a gas later named by Lavoisier as… hydrogen.
Meanwhile,
Joseph Priestley, during his experiments with gases, stumbled upon a gas in
whose presence a candle burned with “an amazing strength of flame”, and in
whose presence a mouse lived far, far longer than just normal air. Yes, he had
found oxygen. But Priestley didn’t know that. Further, he believed in
phlogiston theory. So he concluded that if things burnt faster/stronger in the
presence of this gas, it implied the gas itself had no/little phlogiston which
is why phlogiston flowed fastest into it from things being burnt. Thus he named
the gas “dephlogisticated air”.
Enter
Lavoisier. Via other experiments, he had realized that combustion involved a
component of air, not phlogiston that lay within the thing being burnt. And so
when Priestley brought his “dephlogisticated air” to Paris, Lavoisier was
curious: what had Priestley really brought given that he had proven there was
no such thing as phlogiston?!
Lavoisier
did other experiments and realized that “dephlogisticated air” was present in
all air. Then he did a simple experiment: he placed a burning candle on a bowl of
water. He placed an inverted glass jar on the candle. The flame died and the water level rose in the jar. By a fixed
amount (one-fifth of the height of the jar). This meant one-fifth of the gas in
the jar had been consumed during combustion. Ergo, he concluded:
“The one-fifth
which was used in combustion was Priestley’s so-called “dephlogisticated air”.
Ta da!
“Lavoisier now
realized that what actually took place during combustion was very much the
opposite of phlogiston theory. When something burned, it didn’t release some
mythical phlogiston, but rather combined with the so-called “dephlogisticated
air”, which made up one fifth of the air.”
Lavoisier
named that gas “oxygen”. And with that, the phlogiston theory was “finally
exploded”.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI know the history of physics and the history of mathematics fairly well. History of chemistry seems charming too!
How we move from lower/more-erroneous understanding to higher/closer-to-truth understanding is coming out from the blog narration. Sciences offer the best ground for that.