Abstract
EVER since Faraday enunciated the law of electrolysis, that the same quantity of electricity passed when chemically equivalent masses of different substances were produced, it has been a matter of speculation whether this may not be due to atomic charges of electricity. Every one, in describing electrolysis and explaining how the substances evolved appeared at the electrodes with out any apparent action in between them, based his description and explanation upon the supposition of electric charges on the atoms. Some substances, such as hydrogen, were given positive, and some, such as chlorine, were given negative charges, and the electric current through the liquid was explained as due to the convection of these charges by the moving atoms or groups of atoms, and the movements of these were ascribed to the electric force acting on these charges. The amount of the charge on each atom or group of atoms was proportional to its valency, and as this has with good reason always been taken as a whole number, the charges ascribed to the moving elements were all simple multiples of the charge ascribed to a monovalent atom, such as hydrogen or chlorine. All this has naturally led to the hypothesis that electricity itself is atomic. In electrolysis, at least, there is a certain minimum quantity that corresponds to a single atomic bond, and quantities of electricity transferred by electrolysis are always multiples of this unit. It was surely natural, then, to give a name to this important physical unit quantity of electricity, and it has consequently been called an “electron.”
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
G., G. The Theory of Ions . Nature 62, 524–526 (1900). https://doi.org/10.1038/062524d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/062524d0