Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestley Both Test the Befuddling Phlogiston Theory

2013 ◽  
pp. 45-60
Author(s):  
Gary G. Tibbetts
Keyword(s):  
Phlogiston Theory ◽  
Joseph Priestley

scholarly journals Eight sages over five centuries share oxygen's discovery

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 370-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Severinghaus
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Circulation ◽  
Pure Water ◽  
Phlogiston Theory ◽  
Joseph Priestley

During the last century, historians have discovered that between the 13th and 18th centuries, at least six sages discovered that the air we breathe contains something that we need and use. Ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288) in Cairo and Michael Servetus (1511–1553) in France accurately described the pulmonary circulation and its effect on blood color. Michael Sendivogius (1566–1636) in Poland called a part of air “the food of life” and identified it as the gas made by heating saltpetre. John Mayow (1641–1679) in Oxford found that one-fifth of air was a special gas he called “spiritus nitro aereus.” Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1742–1786) in Uppsala generated a gas he named “fire air” by heating several metal calcs. He asked Lavoisier how it fit the phlogiston theory. Lavoisier never answered. In 1744, Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) in England discovered how to make part of air by heating red calc of mercury. He found it brightened a flame and supported life in a mouse in a sealed bottle. He called it “dephlogisticated air.” He published and personally told Lavoisier and other chemists about it. Lavoisier never thanked him. After 9 years of generating and studying its chemistry, he couldn't understand whether it was a new element. He still named it “principe oxigene.” He was still not able to disprove phlogiston. Henry Cavendish (1731–1810) made an inflammable gas in 1766. He and Priestley noted that its flame made a dew. Cavendish proved the dew was pure water and published this in 1778, but all scientists called it impossible to make water, an element. In 1783, on June 24th, Lavoisier was urged to try it, and, when water appeared, he realized that water was not an element but a compound of two gases, proving that oxygen was an element. He then demolished phlogiston and began the new chemistry revolution.

Book Review - Science, medicine and dissent: Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) (papers celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Priestley together with a catalogue of an exhibition held at the Royal Society and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine)

1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-276
Keyword(s):  
History Of Medicine ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Science Museum ◽  
Phlogiston Theory ◽  
250Th Anniversary ◽  
History Of ◽  
Joseph Priestley ◽  
Book Deal

Science, medicine and dissent: Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) (papers celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Priestley together with a catalogue of an exhibition held at the Royal Society and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine) , edited by R. G. W. Anderson & C. Lawrence (pp. ix + 105). Published by Wellcome Trust and Science Museum, London, 1987, £9.95. The contents of this book are described accurately by a title of 18th- century amplitude. Priestley is remembered by chemists as the man who did most to establish the technique of pneumatic chemistry, for his discovery of ‘dephlogisticated air’ or oxygen, and for his refusal to abandon the phlogiston theory when confronted with Lavoisier’s revolution. He is occasionally remembered by physicists for his interest in electricity and optics. He was, however, a man of many other parts and the essays in this book deal, almost entirely, with these other aspects of his thought. Perhaps their scope is best illustrated by brief quotations from each of them since these are sometimes more revealing, in both substance and style, than the titles. They are as follows: C. Lawrence, ‘In this paper I shall outline Priestley’s biography and point to some areas in it where medicine was of importance.’ J. H. Brooke, ‘The paper had its origin in the realisation that I had been studying Whewell and Priestley, with different objects in view, and largely disregarding the stereotypes to which they have often been assimilated. It occurred to me that, despite the obvious problem of chronology, a comparison between their respective apologias for science might be instructive,...’.

Carl Wilhelm Scheele, the discoverer of oxygen, and a very productive chemist

2014 ◽  
Vol 307 (11) ◽  
pp. L811-L816 ◽  
Author(s):  
John B. West
Keyword(s):  
First Person ◽  
Phlogiston Theory ◽  
Royal Swedish Academy ◽  
Important Place ◽  
True Nature ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
Académie Des Sciences ◽  
History Of ◽  
Joseph Priestley ◽  
Respiratory Gases

Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1742–1786) has an important place in the history of the discovery of respiratory gases because he was undoubtedly the first person to prepare oxygen and describe some of its properties. Despite this, his contributions have often been overshadowed by those of Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, who also played critical roles in preparing the gas and understanding its nature. Sadly, Scheele was slow to publish his discovery and therefore Priestley is rightly recognized as the first person to report the preparation of oxygen. This being said, the thinking of both Scheele and Priestley was dominated by the phlogiston theory, and it was left to Lavoisier to elucidate the true nature of oxygen. In addition to his work on oxygen, Scheele was enormously productive in other areas of chemistry. Arguably he discovered seven new elements and many other compounds. However, he kept a low profile during his life as a pharmacist, and he did not have strong links with contemporary prestigious institutions such as the Royal Society in England or the French Académie des Sciences. He was elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Science but only attended one meeting. Partly as a result, he remains a somewhat nebulous figure despite the critical contribution he made to the history of respiratory gases and his extensive researches in other areas of chemistry. His death at the age of 43 may have been hastened by his habit of tasting the chemicals that he worked on.

The “New Empire of Common Sense”

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Atlantic World ◽  
Thomas Reid ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
Joseph Priestley ◽  
Common Sense Philosophy

Although the rise of Scottish common sense philosophy was one of the most important intellectual developments of the Enlightenment, significant gaps remain in our understanding of the reception of Scottish common sense philosophy in the Atlantic world during the second half of the eighteenth century. This chapter focuses on the British context in the period 1764–93, and examines published responses to James Oswald, James Beattie, and, especially, Thomas Reid. The chapter contextualizes the polemics of Joseph Priestley against the three Scots and argues that it was Joseph Berington rather than Priestley who was the first critic to claim that the appeal to common sense was the defining feature of “the Scotch school” of philosophy. It also shows that Reid was widely acknowledged to be the founder and most accomplished exponent of the “school”, whereas Beattie and Oswald were typically dismissed as being derivative thinkers.

scholarly journals James Keir of the Lunar Society

1967 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-154 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Significant Part ◽  
Phlogiston Theory ◽  
Short Account ◽  
Modern Chemistry ◽  
Lunar Society Of Birmingham

THE long career of James Keir (born in Edinburgh on 20 September 1735, elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on 8 December 1785, died at West Bromwich on 11 October 1820) effectively covered the period of the scientific revolution out of which modern chemistry evolved. Keir himself played a significant part in that revolution, as writer, experimenter, and industrialist—and, by no means least, as a frequent ‘chairman’ at meetings of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, which he helped to hold together by his tact and force of character. Although there are frequent references to Keir in books and articles dealing with the period (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), he remains relatively unknown, partly because he was overshadowed by men like Priestley and Watt, partly because he adhered too long to the phlogiston theory, and perhaps also because of his own modesty. A short account of his life, and an appreciation of his contributions to science and technology, may therefore not be out of place, particularly in view of the marked revival of interest in the Lunar Society in recent years.

Richard Kirwan's Phlogiston Theory: Its Success and Fate

Ambix ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seymour Mauskop
Keyword(s):  
Phlogiston Theory
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document