4 ms·

graphite might look similar to lead, but it's not really plausible that anyone would mistake it for lead, except at first glance. Its physical properties are co

graphite might look similar to lead, but it's not really plausible that anyone would mistake it for lead, except at first glance. Its physical properties are completely different.

munificent 3y ago
> Its physical properties are completely different. Graphite and diamonds have completely different physical properties too, yet both are carbon. They didn't think graphite was literally equivalent to lead. They thought it was another form of lead.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Did they already understand allotropy?
  - roywiggins 3y ago
    Atomic theory was just barely beginning to be invented at the beginning of the 19th century. Apparently graphite was discovered to be carbon (and not lead) in 1779: http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/discovery-of-carbon.shtml http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/d...
- gweinberg 3y ago
  That doesn't make a lot of sense. People understandably though graphite and diamonds were different, because they seemed so different. Assuming 2 things are fundamentally different because they differ in all observable properties makes sense. Assuming 2 things are fundamentally the same because they are they same color but in no other way similar really doesn't.
  - roywiggins 3y ago
    I am not sure that the ideas about substances being fundamentally the same were very well developed at the time. Atomic theory didn't exist. What counted as "fundamental" and "the same" was not very well understood or, I'd eager, even broadly agreed upon. Turning lead into gold was considered a genuine possibility for a long time.
    - toast0 3y ago
      > Turning lead into gold was considered a genuine possibility for a long time. And much later, it was found to be a genuine possibility with terrible economics. Just need a particle accelerator, and a lot of patience.
dec0dedab0de 3y ago
Noone can mistake chilli peppers for peppercorn, but they named it that anyway.

graphite might look similar to lead, but it's not really plausible that anyone would mistake it for lead, except at first glance. Its physical properties are completely different.

munificent 3y ago

> Its physical properties are completely different. Graphite and diamonds have completely different physical properties too, yet both are carbon. They didn't think graphite was literally equivalent to lead. They thought it was another form of lead.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Did they already understand allotropy?
- roywiggins 3y ago
  Atomic theory was just barely beginning to be invented at the beginning of the 19th century. Apparently graphite was discovered to be carbon (and not lead) in 1779: http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/discovery-of-carbon.shtml http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/d...
gweinberg 3y ago
That doesn't make a lot of sense. People understandably though graphite and diamonds were different, because they seemed so different. Assuming 2 things are fundamentally different because they differ in all observable properties makes sense. Assuming 2 things are fundamentally the same because they are they same color but in no other way similar really doesn't.
- roywiggins 3y ago
  I am not sure that the ideas about substances being fundamentally the same were very well developed at the time. Atomic theory didn't exist. What counted as "fundamental" and "the same" was not very well understood or, I'd eager, even broadly agreed upon. Turning lead into gold was considered a genuine possibility for a long time.
  - toast0 3y ago
    > Turning lead into gold was considered a genuine possibility for a long time. And much later, it was found to be a genuine possibility with terrible economics. Just need a particle accelerator, and a lot of patience.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago

Noone can mistake chilli peppers for peppercorn, but they named it that anyway.