Greetings Beautiful people of the CS art, Let use now fast forward again to Jan 9th of 1834.
We find Michael Farraday in his lab, trying to express his findings in such a way that others who read his writings will understand what he is saying. He is looking to find a natural reference for his work. Let us read what Farraday has writen in his lab notebook. Seventh Series, Chapter 11, note 661: The theory which I believe to be a true expression of the facts of electo-chemical decomposition, and which I have therefore detailed in a former series, is so much at variance with those previously advanced, that I find the greatest difficulty in stating results, as I think, correctly, whilist limited to the use of terms which are current with a certain accepted meaning. Of this kind is the term *pole*, with its prefixes of positive and negative, and the attached ideas of attraction and repulsion. The general phraseology is that the positive pole *attracts* oxygen, acids, &c., or more cautiously, that it *determines* their evolution upon its surface; and that the negative pole acts in an equal manner upon hydrogen, combustibles, metals, and bases. According to my view, the determining force is *not* at the poles, but *within* the body under decomposition; and the oxygen and acids are rendered at the *negative * extremity of that body, whilst hydrogen, metals, &c., are evolved at the *positive* extremity. Note 662: To avoid, therefore, confusion and circumlocution, and for the sake of greater precision of expression than I can otherwise obtain, I have deliberately considered the subject with two friends,(A note here: Whewell, British scholar and John Tyndall) and with their assistance and concurrence in framing them, I purpose henceforward using certain other terms, which I will now define. The *poles*, as they are usually called, are only the doors or ways by which the electric current passes into or out of the decomposing body; and they of course, when in contact with that body, are the limits of its extent in the direction of the current.The term has been generally applied to the metal surfaces in contact with the decomposing substance; but whether philosophers generally would also apply it to the surfaces of air and water, against which I have effected electro-chemical decomposition, is subject to doubt. In place of the term pole, I propose using that of *electrode*, and I mean thereby that substance, or rather surface, whether of air, water, metal or any other body, which bounds the extent of the decomposing matter in the direction of the electric current. Note 663: The surfaces at which, according to common phraseology, the electric current enters and leaves a decomposing body, are most important places of action, and require to be distinguished apart from the poles, with which they are mostly, and the electrodes, with which they are always, in contact. Wishing for a natural standard of electrical direction to which I might refer these, expressive of their difference and at the same time free from all theory, I have thought it might be found in the earth. If the magnetism of the earth be due to electric currents passing around it, the latter must be in a constant direction, which, according to present useage of speech, would be from east to west, or, which will strengthen this help to the memory, that in which the sun appears to move. (A note here:The north magnetic pole was established by Gilbert and direction of current flow in the earth was established by Ampere, Arago and Oersted). If in any case of electro-decomposition we consider the decomposing body as placed so that the current passing through it shall be in the same direction, and parallel to that supposed to exist in the earth, then the surfaces at which the electricity is passing into and out of the substance would have an invariable reference, and exhibit constantly the same relations of powers. Upon this notion we purpose calling that toward the east (upward,the way the sun rises) the ANODE, and that toward the west (downward, the way the sun sets) the CATHODE, and whatever changes may take place in our views of the nature of electricity and electrical action, as they must affect the *natural standard* referred to, in the same direction, and to an equal amount with any decomposing substances to which these terms may at any time be applied, there seems no reason to expect that they will lead to confusion, or tend in any way to support false views. (A note here: All of Farradays experiments were conducted in long troughs which were orientated east and west, to agree with the earths current. We see that Farraday based his standard on Gilberts standard, and we still use it to this day.) The *anode* is therefore that surface at which the electric current, according to our present expression, enters: it is the *negative* extremity of the decoposing body; is where oxygen, chlorine, acids, &c., are evolved; and is against or opposite the positive electrode. The *cathode* is that surface at which the current leaves the decomposing body, and is its *positive* extremity; the combustible bodies, metals, alkalies, and bases, are evolved there, and it is in contact with the negative electrode. To be continued Bless you Bob Lee -- oozing on the muggy shore of the gulf coast l...@fbtc.net -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@id.net>
