Chemistry has not yet unveiled any of the numerous mysteries of the insalubrity of the air; it has only taught us, that we are ignorant of things, with which fifteen years ago we believed we were acquainted, thanks the dreams of ancient eudiometry.Alexander Humboldt, Personal narrative of travels the equinoctial regions of the new continent, during the years 1799-1804.'1. INTRODUCTIONIn his 1772 article Observations on different kinds of for which he was awarded the Copley Medal the following year,2 Joseph Priestley noted that of the most conspicuous properties of [nitrous air] is the great diminution of any of common with which it is mixed. The contraction in aerial volume was accompanied by pungent odours, a turbid red, or deep orange colour, and a considerable heat. He confessed his surprise at quantity of air, which, it were, devours a of another kind of ... and yet is so far from gaining any addition its bulk, that it is considerably diminished by it.3 Priestley never lost tone of bewilderment. In the last 1790 edition of his Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, which was designed to new model the whole work, [rather] than reprint the former volumes, the description of the experiment was faithfully reproduced. Yet one of the major changes the chapter on nitrous in edition can be gleaned from its opening section, now retided Of nitrous Air the Test of the of respirable Air.4 Even though the substance of the section remained largely unchanged, which had been mentioned in former editions part of a train of observations, had now been singled out an independent subject. Between 1772 and 1790 the use of nitrous (nitric oxide) as the Test of the Purity of and the atmosphere had evolved into an independent research programme that came be known eudiometry - an influential and controversial field of inquiry at the intersection of chemical, medical, experimental, and technological concerns. Following an extraordinary ascent in popularity, which peaked around the turn of the decade, nitrous eudiometry became increasingly controversial through the 1780s, until it was all but abandoned in the 1790s. In what follows I chart the climactic rise and demise of instrument and technology, while assessing the reasons for its remarkable success and failure, which I link Enlightenment ideals like social and scientific control through quantification, on the one hand, and various challenges in oentemporary experimental philosophy and practice, on the other.The first volume of Fredrick Accum's System oftheoretical and practical chemistry (1803),5 one of the major chemistry textbooks appear in the post-Lavoisierian era, features chapters on the history of geology, physical attraction, chemical affinities, and substances like sulphur, diamond, and phosphorus. Most of the book, however, is dedicated pneumatic chemistry: discussions on heat (caloric), light, and various gases. The better part of the chapter on air is taken up by an entry on eudiometry, or the methods of ascertaining the purity of atmospheric air. Accum presented in section seven different eudiometers, which he distinguished by the names of their inventors and listed according an approximate chronological order, from Priesdey, through Scheele, De Marti, Humboldt, Seguin and Berthollet, Davy.6 In reference Priestley's pioneering nitrous eudiometer Accum concluded that this method of analyzing by means of nitrous gas is liable errors. When compared the other six instruments,7 Priestley's eudiometer was depicted the most problematic and much the least accurate.Accum's view was not singular; other authors expressed similar views. Arthur Aikin's Dictionary of mineralogy and chemistry (1807), for example, described in detail the many anomalies and uncertainties that now attend [the eudiometer's] use. …
Read full abstract