4 ms·
It really seems like had a rationale: "We suppose as aforesaid, That Electrical Fire is a common Element, of which every one of the three Persons abovementione
by akira2501 2y ago
It really seems like had a rationale:
"We suppose as aforesaid, That Electrical Fire is a common Element, of which every one of the three Persons abovementioned has his equal Share before any Operation is begun with the Tube. A who stands on Wax, and rubs the Tube, collects the Electrical Fire from himself into the Glass; and his Communication with the common Stock being cut off by the Wax, his Body is not again immediately supply’d. B, who stands upon Wax likewise, passing his Knuckle along near the Tube, receives the Fire which was collected by the Glass from A; and his Communication with the common Stock being likewise cutt off, he retains the additional Quantity received. to C, standing on the Floor, both appear to be electrised; for he having only the middle Quantity of Electrical Fire receives a Spark on approaching B, who has an over-quantity, but gives one to A, who has an under-quantity. If A and B touch each other, the Spark between them is stronger, because the Difference between them is greater. After such Touch, there is no Spark between either of them and C; because the Electrical Fire in all is reduced to the original Equality. If they touch while Electrising, the Equality is never destroyed, the Fire only circulating. Hence have arisen some new Terms among us. We say B (and other Bodies alike circumstanced) are electrised positively; A negatively: Or rather B is electrised plus and A minus. And we daily in our Experiments electrise Bodies plus or minus as we think proper. These Terms we may use till your Philosophers give us better. To electrise plus or minus, no more needs to be known than this; that the Parts of the Tube or Sphere, that are rub’d, do, in the Instant of the Friction, attract the Electrical Fire, and therefore take it from the Thing rubbing: the same Parts immediately, as the Friction upon them ceases, are disposed to give the Fire they have received, to any Body that has less. Thus you may circulate it, as Mr. Watson has shewn; You may also accumulate or subtract it upon, or from any Body, as you connect it with the Rubber or with the Receiver; the Communication with the common Stock being cut off."
from Benjamin Franklin's letter to Peter Collison, May 25, 1747.
- throwway120385 2y agoBut his choice of "positive" or "negative" are entirely a convention of how he wanted to think about things. There's nothing special about the sign other than it made it easier for him to reason about what was happening.
- wycy 2y agoIt’s really strange reading the words of such an intelligent person beginning to understand something back then that is so fundamental today that even laypeople understand it more scientifically. Really weird, but really cool to get a peek back into a scientific mind in the 1700s.
- jstanley 2y ago> even laypeople understand it more scientifically Laypeople use more scientific-sounding words, sure, but what more scientific way is there to understand something than to have discovered it yourself through experiment?
- utensil4778 2y agoExperimentation brings knowledge, not understanding. Franklin did not understand electricity, but merely observed it. It wasn't until we discovered the electron proper and Maxwell did his work that we-- anyone-- understood electricity. Understanding comes from scientific and academic rigor after the discovery.
- OJFord 2y agoOr just separately from, like Higgs understanding and theorising a boson years before it was actually 'discovered'/detected experimentally.
- neuralRiot 2y ago> It wasn't until we discovered the electron proper I’d even say that we don’t yet fully understand the electron!
- detourdog 2y agoI often prefer the original language of discovery. My favorite is the term accumulator compared to battery.
- somat 2y ago
- card_zero 2y agoHmm. "We rub our Tubes with Buck Skin", he says in the same letter. I was trying to work out whether the tube gets a positive or negative charge. I think it depends on what material is being rubbed with what: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triboelectric-series_EN.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triboelectric-series_EN.s... The tube is glass, but is the buckskin fur, or slightly furry, or leathery? That would seem to alter the charge it gets.
- doodlebugging 2y ago>We say B (and other Bodies alike circumstanced) are electrised positively; A negatively: Or rather B is electrised plus and A minus. And we daily in our Experiments electrise Bodies plus or minus as we think proper. These Terms we may use till your Philosophers give us better. Sounds like he leaves it open for future "Philosophers" to update the convention as our understanding of the phenomena that he had documented improved. Smart guy in not assuming that he got it right the first time. Franklin sounds like he wasn't a "my way or the highway" type of guy.
- dahart 2y ago“These Terms we may use till your Philosophers give us better.” Yes he had a rationale, the question is why it didn’t change once we knew better; he even called for it. I mean, I think I know why it didn’t change at any given point - the standard was already in place and it always looks too difficult. But in retrospect, the effort in the 1800s would have been small compared to the effort 100 years later. Maybe it’s still true that we should change the convention starting now, because the confusion and cost of not changing it in the future will continue to grow?
- lupire 2y agoThere's no rationale, merely a decision. He chose Earth as the source of electric fire, instead of a sink. It's a completely arbitrary choice, as light source vs dark sucker.
- scotty79 2y agoHe could have thought instead that A is collecting Electric Fire from the glass rod. And when B touches the rod they recharge it losing some of their Electric Fire.
- dilippkumar 2y agoI had ChatGPT-4o translate this to contemporary english > We assume, as stated earlier, that electrical fire is a common element, equally shared among the three mentioned individuals before any operation with the tube begins. Person A, who stands on wax and rubs the tube, transfers the electrical fire from his body into the glass tube. Since his connection to the common stock is cut off by the wax, his body is not immediately replenished. Person B, also standing on wax, passes his knuckle near the tube and receives the electrical fire collected by the glass from A. B’s connection to the common stock is also cut off, so he retains the additional amount received. To person C, who is standing on the floor, both A and B appear electrified. C, having the normal amount of electrical fire, gets a spark when approaching B, who has an excess, and gives a spark to A, who has a deficit. If A and B touch, the spark between them is stronger because the difference in their electrical fire is greater. After they touch, there is no spark between either of them and C, as the electrical fire in all three is equalized. If they touch while being electrified, the equality is maintained, and the fire circulates continuously. > This has led to new terms. We say B and similar bodies are positively electrified, and A is negatively electrified; or rather, B is electrified plus, and A minus. In our experiments, we electrify bodies as plus or minus as needed. These terms are used until philosophers provide better ones. To electrify plus or minus, it’s essential to know that the parts of the tube or sphere being rubbed attract the electrical fire from the rubbing object during friction. Once friction stops, these parts are ready to give the received fire to any body with less. Thus, the fire can be circulated, as Mr. Watson demonstrated, or accumulated or subtracted from any body, depending on the connection with the rubber or receiver, while cutting off communication with the common stock.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> electrised How did we wind up with electrified? Where did the f come from? EDIT: I guess this [1]. [1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/-fy#etymonline_v_38227 https://www.etymonline.com/word/-fy#etymonline_v_38227