[1] A. VOLTA, "On the Electricity Excited by the Mere Contact of
Conducting Substances of Different Kinds," _Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London_ (1800), vol. 90,
pp. 403-431.
[2] Some little-known but delightful observations in the prehistory
of electromagnetism are described in a letter written by G. W.
SCHILLING from London to the Berlin Academy on July 8, 1769,
published as "Sur les phénomènes de l'Anguleil Tremblante"
[_Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et
Belles-Lettres_, 1770 (Berlin, 1772), pp. 68-74], translated to
French from the original German. The letter recounts a multitude
of experiments with various electric eels. The two observations
of electromagnetic interest are that a piece of iron held by the
hand in the eel's tank could be felt quivering even when the
fish was stationary several inches away, and a compass needle
showed a deflection, both in the water near the fish, and
outside the tank, also with the fish stationary.
[3] ABRAHAM BENNET, _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London_ (1787), p. 26.
[4] Op. cit. (footnote 1), p. 403.
[5] _Philosophical Magazine_ (1800), vol. 7, pp. 289-311. [For a
facsimile reprint, see _Galvani-Volta_ (Bern Dibner's Burndy
Library Publication No. 7), Norwalk, Connecticut, 1952.]
[6] MICHAEL FARADAY, _Experimental Researches in Electricity_, vol. 1
(London, 1839), paragraph 739, dated January 1834.
[7] Ibid., sec. 741.
[8] JAMES CUMMING, "On the Application of Magnetism as a Measure of
Electricity," _Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society_ (1821), vol. 1, pp. 282-286. [Also published in
_Philosophical Magazine_ (1822), vol. 60, pp. 253-257.]
[9] H. C. OERSTED, _Experimenta Circa Effectum Conflictus Electrici in
Acum Magneticam_ (Copenhagen, July 21, 1820).
[10] Full details of Oersted's work and publications are in _Oersted
and the Discovery of Electromagnetism_ (Bern Dibner's Burndy
Library Publication No. 18), Norwalk, Connecticut, 1961. The
original Latin version and first English translation are
reproduced in _Isis_ (1928), vol. 34, pp. 435-444.
[11] A. M. AMPÈRE, _Annales de Chimie et de Physique_ (1820), vol. 15,
p. 67. The word "galvanometer" had been used much earlier by
BISCHOF, "On Galvanism and its Medical Applications," _The
Medical and Physical Journal_ (1802), vol 7, p. 529, for a form
of goldleaf electroscope shown here in figure 2, but this use of
the word does not seem to have been adopted by others.
[12] Op. cit. (footnote 6), paragraph 283, dated January 1833. A
similar attitude was expressed in the same year by CHRISTIE,
_Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London_
(1833), vol. 123, p. 96: "I adopt the word current as a
convenient mode of expression, ... but I would not be considered
as adopting any theoretical views on the subject...."
[13] Some prominent examples of this brevity of treatment are in E.
HOPPE, _Geschichte der Elektrizität_ (Leipzig, 1884); O. MAHR,
_Geschichtliche Einzeldarstellungen aus der Elektrotechnik_
(Berlin, 1941); R. S. WHIPPLE, "The Evolution of the
Galvonometer," _Journal of Scientific Instruments_ (1934), vol.
7, pp. 37-43; WILLIAM STURGEON, _Scientific Researches_ (Bury,
1850); A. W. HUMPHREYS, "The Development of the Conception and
Measurement of Electric Current," _Annals of Science_ (1937),
vol. 2, pp. 164-178.
[14] M. SPETER, "Klärung der Multiplikator-Prioritätsfrage
Schweigger-Poggendorf," _Zeitschrift für Instrumentenkunde_
(1937) vol. 57, pp. 29-32.
[15] T. SEEBECK, "Über den Magnetismus der Galvanischen Kette,"
_Abhandlungen der Koenigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin_ (1820-1821), pp. 289-346. The phrase "Schweigger's
multiplier" is used on page 319. The many experiments described
in this paper added little or nothing to contemporary
appreciation of the multiplier as an instrument.
[16] J. S. C. SCHWEIGGER, _Journal für Chemie und Physik_ (1821), vol.
31, pp. 1-18, 35-42. Pages 1-6 are the paper presented in Halle
on September 16, 1820; pages 7-18 are the paper presented in
Halle on November 4, 1820, and pages 35-42 are "a few additional
words." The preface to the whole volume is dated January 1,
1821. A somewhat earlier public announcement referring to
Schweigger's discovery appeared in the _Allgemeine
Literatur-Zeitung_ (November 1820), no. 296, cols. 622-624, but
this was lacking in detail and seems not to have been noticed by
any scientists.
[17] P. ERMAN, _Umrisse zu den physischen Verhältnissen des von Herrn
Prof. Oersted entdeckten elektro-chemischen Magnetismus_
(Berlin, 1821). Hoppe (footnote 13) states that Erman's book was
published in May; however, it is referred to in a letter dated
April 3, 1821, by RASCHIG, _Annalen der Physik_ (1821), vol. 67,
pp. 427-436.
[18] Op. cit. (footnote 16), vol. 32, pp. 38-50.
[19] _Annalen der Physik_ (1821), vol. 67, pp. 382-426, and footnote
on pages 429-430 of same volume. The footnote accompanies the
article by Raschig mentioned in footnote 17.
[20] H. C. OERSTED, "Sur le Multiplier electro-magnetique de M.
Schweigger, et sur quelques applications qu'on en a faites,"
_Annales de Chimie et de Physique_ (1823), vol. 22, pp. 358-365.
[21] "Versuche mit dem electrisch-magnetischen Multiplicator,"
_Annalen der Physik_ (1821), vol. 67, pp. 427-436.
[22] _Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society_ (1821),
vol. 1, pp. 269-278.
[23] Op. cit. (footnote 8).
[24] The German word _Kette_ has been translated as "circuit"
throughout. Although the equivalence of these words is clear,
for example, in Ohm's work of 1826, the context in which _Kette_
is sometimes used in 1820 and 1821 indicates that the concept of
a "circuit," in the sense of the wiring external to the source
of electricity, has not been established. The wiring is regarded
more as something incidental, used to "close" the cell, the cell
being considered essentially the whole of the apparatus. This
view underlies the many attempts to correlate the Oersted
phenomena with cell materials and design, and with the use of
such terms as "chemical magnetism" by Erman and others.
[25] The reference here is to the Oersted-type experiments described
in two papers by authors other than Schweigger on pages 19 to 34
of the volume.
[26] Op. cit. (footnote 19), pp. 422-426.
[27] One "line" seems to have been about 1/12 inch.
[28] J. G. POGGENDORF, "Physisch-chemische Untersuchungen zur näheren
Kenntniss des Magnetismus der voltaischen Säule," _Isis von
Oken_ (1821), vol. 8, pp. 687-710. Most of Poggendorf's
numerical data is also in C. H. PFAFF, _Der Elektromagnetismus_
(Hamburg, 1824), along with some of Pfaff's own work.
[29] Reported in _Annales de Chimie et de Physique_ (1820), vol. 15,
pp. 222-223.
[30] "On the Development of Electro-Magnetism by Heat," _Transactions
of the Cambridge Philosophical Society_ (1823), vol. 2, pp.
47-76.
[31] "Account of the New Galvano-Magnetic Condenser invented by M.
Poggendorf of Berlin," _Edinburgh Philosophical Journal_ (July
1821), vol. 5, pp. 112-113.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes.
The following assumed typographical errors have been corrected:
Page 125: J. B. [Johann Bartholomacus] Tromsdorff--should
be Johann Bartholomäus Trommsdorff?