3. Aspectos Operativos del Servicio
3.11 Actividad de lavado de vías y áreas públicas
While Kremers was attempting to find relationships between groups of triads, John Hall Gladstone reviewed the evidence for himself. He began in a somewhat different fashion, by arranging all of the elements in order by their atomic weight; according to Venable, he was the first to do so.113 Not seeing any obvious relationships, Gladstone then arranged the elements into groups according to their chemical relationships, as shown in Gmelin’s Handbook of Chemistry (Fig.
2).114 After replacing the element symbols with their weights, he discerned some relationships, but they were largely the same triads that had already been noted by others. “Why should this numerical relation always give us triads?,” he wondered.
He could offer only speculations but he did assert that it was “against all probability that, by mere chance, whenever, with one exception, close analogy of properties exist, there exists also numerical relationship.”115
Figure 2.2: Gmelin's Groups (1849)
113 Venable, Development, 39.
114 Gmelin arranged the elements “in groups according to their physical and chemical relations,” and noted that “[t]he only way of making a satisfactory
arrangement would be to dispose the elements, not on a plane surface, but within an envelope of three dimensions.” Leopold Gmelin, Hand-‐‑Book of Chemistry, vol. 2, trans. Henry Watts (London, 1849), 1,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015067141054.
115 Gladstone, "On the Relations," 319, 320.
SPECIAL CHEMISTRY,
OB
THEOBY OF THE AFFINITY OF INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANCES.
SECTION II.
Chemistry of Ponderable Bodies.
The number of undecomposed ponderable substances atpresent known to exist is 61. These bodies may be divided into Metalloids or Non-metallic Elements, and Metals.
12 Non-metallic Elements: Oxygen, Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, Iodine, Selenium, Sulphur, Phosphorus, Boron, Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen.
4y*Metals: Potassium, Sodium, Lithium, Barium, Strontium, Calcium, Magnesium, Lanthanum, Didymium, Cerium, Yttrium, Erbium, Terbium, Glucinum, Aluminum, Thorinum, Zirconium, Silicium, Titanium, Tan-talium, Niobium, Pelopium, Tungsten, Molybdenum, Vanadium, Chro mium, Uranium, Manganese, Arsenic, Antimony, Tellurium, Bismuth, Zinc, Cadmium, Tin, Lead, Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Mercury, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium, Iridium, Ruthenium, and Osmium.
No exact line of demarcation can be drawn between metals and metalloids ; silicium is sometimes regarded as a non-metallic body; and iodine and bromine as metals.
The elementary bodies may be arranged in groups according to their physical and chemical relations ; andthese groups may be again arranged according to their more general resemblances. The following is an imperfect attempt of this kind. The only way of making a satisfactory arrangement would be to dispose the elements, not on a plane surface, but within an envelope ofthree dimensions.
O N H
* Orperhaps 51,—the existence oftwo other metals, Norium and Ilmenium, having lately been shown to be probable. This would make the totJnumber of elements f'3, instead of61. [W.]
VOL. lI. I!
The American chemist Josiah P. Cooke, Jr., was also looking at a larger picture than mere triads – he was looking for a classification system for the elements. The classification most commonly used by chemists was a seemingly simple one,
elements were either metalloids (non-‐‑metallic elements) or they were metals. This system was based on only one set of properties and sometimes caused confusion as a handful of elements were counted as metals by one chemist but as metalloids by another. As Gmelin noted in his Handbook that, “[n]o exact line of demarcation can be drawn between metals and metalloids,”116 Cooke, too, found such a system
somewhat ridiculous: “For a zoölogist to separate the ostrich from the class of birds because it cannot fly, would not be more absurd, than it is for a chemist to separate two essentially allied elements, because one has a metallic lustre and the other has not.”117 Just as biologists and zoologists categorized animals or plants based on more than its appearance, chemists should not rely only on appearance but rather other characteristics. Cooke realized that a “correct” classification system would need to be based on a “fundamental property common to all the elements, the law of whose variation was known.” Such a property was, however, yet unknown.118
In his search for a better classification than a not-‐‑so-‐‑simple divide between metals and metalloids, Cooke had found that, “[a]ll the elements may be classified into six series, in each of which this number is different, and may be said to
116 Gmelin, Handbook, 1.
117 Josiah P. Cooke, “The Numerical Relation Between the Atomic Weights, With Some Thoughts on the Classification of the Chemical Elements,” Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, new ser., 5 (1855): 237-‐‑238,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25058181.
118 Cooke, “Numerical Relation,” 238.
characterize its series.”119 The elements in each series formed similar compounds and produced similar reactions, they had the same crystalline forms, and “many of their properties vary in a regular manner as we descend in the series.”120 Cooke had developed a “simple algebraic formula” to express atomic weight: a+nb. The
formula for specific gravity was pa+npb. In each series, p represented a relationship between atomic weight and specific gravity, so that, for example, in the Nine Series where p=1 the specific gravities of the elements were the same at the atomic weights, whereas in the Six Series where p=2 the specific gravities were twice the atomic weights (Fig. 3).121
Figure 2.3: Two of Cookes's Series (1855)
Like Cooke, the British chemist William Odling was not keen on the usual classifications that were in use:
… although the groupings of the elements are as real and certain as the natural families of plants and animals, yet we find constantly, in our systematic treatises, that bodies manifesting the strongest analogies are
119 Cooke, “Numerical Relation,” 235-‐‑236.
120 Cooke, “Numerical Relation,” 239.
121 Cooke, “Numerical Relation,” 252, 253.
widely separated from one another, while bodies belonging to very different groups are conventionally associated.122
While Cooke hoped to show that “[t]he doctrine of triads is … a partial view of this subject,”123 Odling took triads as the starting point for his classification, arguing that,
“[i]n attempting a natural classification of the elements, we must have regard, though not an equal regard, to all the properties they manifest.”124 He arranged the elements into 13 groups, each of which consisted of one of the recognized triads, generally with the addition of one or more elements that Odling believed shared important properties. Unlike Cooke, Odling did not develop an algebraic formula for his classification, rather he emphasized the use of “fundamental” characteristics rather than “superficial” ones.125
Most of the chemists investigating the relationships between the elements agreed that there must be some underlying law that applied to the relationships.
Statistically, as Gladstone noted, it was highly unlikely that the mathematical
relationships between the atomic weights of the elements were entirely by chance.
Cooke believed it was time to look past mere triads. Odling suggested that while
“certain elements have certain properties in common is now a time-‐‑honoured doctrine in chemical science,” it was time to “investigate the extent of the association” and consider it “as a means of classification.”126 It was time to “be
122 William Odling, “On the Natural Groupings of the Elements,” Philosophical Magazine, 4th ser., 13 (1857): 424,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101076464641?urlappend=%3Bseq=441.
123 Cooke, “Numerical Relation,” 235.
124 Odling, “On the natural,” 424.
125 Odling, “On the natural,” 425.
126 Odling, “On the Natural Groupings,” 423-‐‑424.
guided by the totality of their characters,” rather than by only one,127 or perhaps even only by mathematics.
Visualizing Elemental Relationships
Venable stated that by the time of the Karlsruhe Congress in 1860, “[t]he craze for searching out regularities … seems to have largely subsided.” There is at this point, “mainly a striving after classification, not disjointed triads, nor
unconnected families, but a continuous series of some sort.”128 It is clear that in the mid-‐‑ to late-‐‑1850s Cooke and Odling, among others, were already striving towards a classification system for all of the elements rather than finding new triads or, like Kremers, creating sets of conjugated triads. Another change that also occurred after 1860 is the increased use of tables to illustrate the process of developing
classifications and the classifications themselves.
This change applies to all scientists, not just to chemists. According to communications specialists Alan G. Gross, Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael Reidy, as the nineteenth century progressed, papers shifted from description to explanation, which increased the complexity of arguments as well as the number of
visualizations. By the end of the nineteenth century, the number of tables and figures per paper had risen considerably and was close to that of articles in the twentieth century. Visuals were used to embody and suggest explanations, support
127 Odling, “On the Natural Groupings,” 424.
128 Venable, Development, 65.
theories, depict law-‐‑like relationships, support modifications to laws, and suggest new theoretical directions and research programs.129
This trend can be seen in Odling’s papers regarding the classification of the elements. In his 1857 paper on the natural groupings of the elements, there was a significant amount of text with quite a bit of chemical and mathematical formulae, but few tables. Seven years later, however, his paper on the proportional numbers of the elements was about equal in terms of text and tables and less heavy on the formulae.130 The tables were used to illustrate different relationships that Odling had found between the elements based on their atomic weights. They served to take the place of explanations that previously were made with words. The tables were preceded by phrases such as, “as shown below,” and “as shown in the following table,” leaving the tables to take the place of text. But as other phrases such as, “is shown still more strikingly below,” and “In looking over the above tables, we can scarcely help noticing,” would seem to indicate that seeing the relationships made a stronger impact than merely reading about them. A table, if not worth a thousand words, could take the place of dozens and make a point more clearly.
Having such visual impacts was also useful in illustrating where nothing currently was, or where something could possibly be. In several of his tables, Odling utilized the right-‐‑hand quotation mark (”) to show where currently undiscovered
129 Alan G. Gross, Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael Reidy, Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), chapter 7, esp. 148-‐‑156.
130 William Odling, “On the Proportional Numbers of the Elements,” Quarterly Journal of Science 1 (1864): 642-‐‑648,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015013721371?urlappend=%3Bseq=694.
elements might be located. He noted that “the discovery of intermediate elements in the case of some or all of the other pairs, is not by any means improbable.”131 If such elements were found, they would easily slide into his table. Echoing Gladstone’s conclusion a decade earlier, Odling concluded: “Doubtless some of the arithmetical relations exemplified in the foregoing tables and remarks are simply accidental; but taken altogether, they are too numerous and decided not to depend upon some hitherto unrecognized general law.”132 It is telling that Odling seemed to give equal weight to tables and text in declaring there must be a law upon which the
relationships between the elements is based.
The vis tellurique of the French geologist Alexandre-‐‑Émile Béguyer de
Chancourtois is a case in which seeing the relationships as opposed to reading about them made all the difference. In 1862, de Chancourtois presented a series of papers before the French Académie des Sciences on the natural classification of the
elements he had developed.133 This classification was represented in three
131 Odling, “On the Proportional,” 644.
132 Odling, “On the Proportional,” 648.
133 Béguyer de Chancourtois, “Mémoire sur un classement naturel des corps simple ou radicaux appelé vis tellurique,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 54 (1862): 757-‐‑761,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822009518911?urlappend=%3Bseq=763; “Sur un classement des corps simples ou radicaux appelé vis tellurique: addition au Mémoire présenté à la séance du 7 avril,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 54 (1862): 840-‐‑843,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822009518911?urlappend=%3Bseq=846; “Sur un classement des corps simples ou radicaux appelé vis tellurique – Addition au Mémoire présenté à la séance du 7 avril,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 54 (1862): 967-‐‑971, htt
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822009518911?urlappend=%3Bseq=973;
“Tableau du classement naturel des corps simples, dit vis tellurique,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 55 (1862): 600-‐‑601, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822009249673?urlappend=%3Bseq=606.
dimensions as a cylinder, meant to be rotated on a circular base. The elements were placed on the cylinder such that they formed a helix, which he called the vis
tellurique, translated variously as the telluric screw or telluric helix.134 Chancourtois arranged the elements in order of their atomic weight (Fig. 4).135 Unlike Gladstone, who had done the same in 1853 and not seen anything of note, Chancourtois came to the conclusion that “[t]he properties of the bodies are the properties of the numbers.”136 In essence, Chancourtois tied the properties of an element to its atomic weight.
This insight should have attracted at least some attention from chemists, particularly as it would seem to fulfill the function of Cooke’s as-‐‑yet-‐‑unknown
“fundamental property common to all the elements.” However, Chancourtois’s classification received little notice. Twenty-‐‑five years later, the British chemist P. J.
Hartog blamed this on the fact that Chancourtois’s “style was heavy and at times obscure,” leaving his ideas to be “presented in a way most unattractive to
chemists.”137 French chemists Boisbaudran and Lapparent also referred to
134 The library of the École des mines de Paris, where Chancourtois was a professor of geology, has a copy of the vis tellurique; it can be seen on their web site at
https://patrimoine.mines-‐‑paristech.fr/document/Vis_tellurique.
135 Lecoq de Boisbaudran, et A. de Lapparent, “Sur une réclamation de priorité en faveur de M. de Chancourtois, relativement aux rélations numériques des poids atomiques,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 112 (1891): 80,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822009517608?urlappend=%3Bseq=85.
136 Béguyer de Chancourtois, “Suite du Mémoire de la vis tellurique, du 7 avril 1860, adressé à propos du thallium,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 56 (1863): 482,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.c080928393?urlappend=%3Bseq=483; “Les propriétés des corps sont les propriétés des nombres.”
137 P. J. Hartog, “A First Foreshadowing of the Periodic Law,” Nature 41 (1889): 188., doi:10.1038/041186a0
Chancourtois’s writing style as a reason for the neglect of his vis tellurique, but they also blamed the fact that a copy of the helix was not included in the Comptes Rendus, although he had presented the Académie with a copy in October 1862, and that the pamphlet he produced in 1863138 was not widely distributed.139 Hartog claimed the visual representation of Chancourtois’s helix to be “absolutely essential to the comprehension” of it.140
Figure 2.4: Representation of Chancourtois's vis tellurique (1862)
138 A. E. Béguyer de Chancourtois, Vis Tellurique: Classement naturel des corps simples ou radicaux, obtenu au moyen d'un système de classification helicoïdal et numérique (Paris: Mallet-‐‑Bachelier, 1863).
139 Boisbaudran and Lapparent, “Sur une réclamation,” 81; English translation, “A Reclamation of Priority on Behalf of M. de Chancourtois Referring to the Numerical Relations of the Atomic Weights,” Chemical News 63 (1891): 52,
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433062748128?urlappend=%3Bseq=59.
140 Hartog, “First Foreshadowing,” 186.
vistellurique.
(H»D)Hydrogène (HO)Hydrogène
Lithium (GlO)Glucinium
0 2 h 6
(St03)Siirciimi (Diamant)Carbone
Nota.— On a entoure d'un cercle lespoints correspondantaux caractères numériques dits secon ■ daircs.
(')Évidemmentparerreur: ioopour96 = 64 -+-*f;nombre d'ailleursencore tropélevé.
If the visual representation of the vis tellurique was so essential to its understanding, why was it not printed in the Comptes Rendus with one of
Chancourtois’s papers? The chemist and historian J. W. Van Spronsen stated that its
“presentation in print involved great technical difficulties.”141 It would have required a separate plate and, more likely because of the size of the vis tellurique, a fold-‐‑out plate at that. Journals tended to keep such plates to a minimum as it increased both publication time and cost. By privately printing a pamphlet, Chancourtois was able to include as much text and as many representations as he could afford. In fact, his pamphlet contained color reproductions of his system, which was not the norm for any scientific journal of the time.
Another chemist who resorted to private publication for the fullest explanation of his classification scheme was Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs. Like Chancourtois, Hinrichs’s writing was considered difficult to decipher.142 Another difficulty for readers was that his system was based on an extreme form of
Pythagoreanism.143 But the central concept – and the basis for the atomic weights
141 Van Spronsen, The Periodic System, 100.
142 Carl Zapffe described Hinrichs as dressing his ideas “with multilingual
ostentation,” and George Kauffman noted that “Hinrichs was an adept linguist and polyglot, [with] a tendency to coin excessively new words, especially from the Greek.” See Carl A. Zapffe, “Gustavus Hinrichs, Precursor of Mendeleev,” Isis 60 (1969): 464, http://www.jstor.org/stable/229106, and George B. Kauffman,
“American Forerunners of the Periodic Law,” Journal of Chemical Education 46 (1969): 132, doi:10.1021/ed046p128.
143 Scerri, The Periodic Table, 87. Pythagorean principles were not new to the study of relationships between the elements, and Benfey considered Chancourtois and Hinrichs to be “very Pythagorean pioneers of element classification”; O. Theodor Benfey, “Precursors and Cocursors of the Mendeleev Table: The Pythagorean Spirit in Element Classification,” Bulletin for the History of Chemistry 13-‐‑14 (1992-‐‑1993):
66, http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/bulletin_open_access/bull-‐‑
index.php.
he used – was the primary matter that Hinrichs referred to as pantogen, the atoms of which (panatoms) combined in geometrical ways to create the elements. In an 1866 paper, Hinrichs promised that a series of papers would be forthcoming which detailed “the properties of the chemical elements as functions of their atomic weights,”144 an idea similar to that of Chancourtois. This series of papers was never published, but the following year he explained his classification system for the elements in his pamphlet Programme der atomechanik oder die chemie eine mechanik der panatome, referred to more frequently as his Atomechanik or Atomechanics.145
Figure 2.5: Hinrichs's Spiral (1867)
144 Gustavus Hinrichs, “On the Spectra and Composition of the Elements,” American Journal of Science and Arts, 2nd ser., 42 (1866): 368,
https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36817782.
145 Gustav Hinrichs, Programme der atomechanik oder die chemie eine mechanik der panatome (Iowa City: Vereinigte Staaten, N.A., 1867),
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015018048952.
One of the reasons for privately publishing was that the text was hand-‐‑
written, in German, and not type-‐‑set. Also, the graphic representation of his classification system was in the form of a complex spiral,146 containing many lines, dotted lines, and symbols, as well as text and numbers (Fig. 5).147 None of Hinrichs’s other articles or publications contained this representation, including the printed English-‐‑language version.148 Rather, printed publications often included several tables that described the different groups of elements, as well as a tabular
representation of his classification in place of the spiral found in his pamphlet.149 In one such article he explained, “I now submit a tabular view of my classification….
The elements are here arranged in columns in order to facilitate the printing.”150 Although Hinrichs preferred the spiral representation, he was realistic enough to know that a tabular representation was necessary. Such a form was simply more practical, both for printing purposes but also for use in research and education.
The elements are here arranged in columns in order to facilitate the printing.”150 Although Hinrichs preferred the spiral representation, he was realistic enough to know that a tabular representation was necessary. Such a form was simply more practical, both for printing purposes but also for use in research and education.