3 ms·
Thoroughly entertaining read. This article does not cover the history of scientific theory around fire, which is quite fascinating too. Scientists in the 17th
by nishs 10y ago
Thoroughly entertaining read.
This article does not cover the history of scientific theory around fire, which is quite fascinating too. Scientists in the 17th century theorized (incorrectly, of course) that fire was an intrinsic property of "phlogisticated" materials [0], which could be burnt to release the phlogiston contained in them. The theory prevailed for over 100 years, until Lavoisier proved that a gas (oxygen) must be present for combustion by measuring the increased weight of phosphorus upon burning [1].
[0] Phlogiston theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
[1] Oxygen theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Oxygen_theory_of_combustion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Oxygen_theor...
- roywiggins 10y agoI just made the connection between phlogiston and the "magic smoke" theory of electrical devices :)
- hexane360 10y agoI love the sheer inertia that theory showed. Even after we knew burning added mass, many scientists believed that it didn't disprove phlogiston, only prove that phlogiston has negative mass.
- jcranmer 10y agoIt should be noted that, for a time, the phlogiston theory survived even after Lavoisier's experiments. It only showed that phlogiston had negative weight, what's wrong with that? :-)