Faraday to Arthur-Auguste De La Rive   1 March 1854

Royal Institution | 1 March 1854

My dear friend

Your kindness and invitation¹ moves our hearts to great thankfulness youwards: but they cannot roll back the years and give us the strength & ability of former times. We are both changed: my wife even more than I; for she is indeed very infirm in her limbs, nor have I much expectation that in that respect she will importantly improve:- but we are both very thankful for each others company and for the abundant blessing God has granted to us. I do not think it probable that either of us shall cross the sea this year or move a hundred miles from home; but we shall often during the Summer recall to mind your very pleasant invitation.

Your volume² & the new matter I shall look forward to with eagerness. My little report³ I have no doubt you have received ere this, you will there perceive how much the induction you referred to in your letter has to do with the phenomena described[.]

Now in reference to your questions; the first whether I have ever obtained induction currents through liquids not being metals? - I have not worked on the subject since 1832. At that time I obtained no current with a tube of Sulphuric acid (Exp Res. 200⁴) but the current obtained in metals passed through liquids (Exp Res. 20⁵). I should not at all despair of obtaining the current by the use of Electromagnets and thick wire Galvanometers (3178)⁶ but I have never obtained them[.]

With regard to the second question I have never seen any reason to withdraw from the opinion I formed in the year 1834 that water & such liquids could conduct a very feeble portion of electricity without suffering decomposition. I venture to refer you to the paragraphs in the Exp Researches namely 968 to 973, also 1017 and 1032⁷. I have never contested the point because having once advanced it I have not since found any reason to add or alter;- and I left it to make its way. You will find at the end of Par 984⁸ reference to a point which has always had great weight with me. When electrolytes are solid as in the case of nitre or chloride of sodium at common temperatures or water at or below 0˚F and when they according to all appearances cannot conduct as electrolytes, they still can conduct electricity of high tension; as is shown at par: 419 to 430⁹. If they have this power to such a considerable degree with electricity able to open the gold leaves, it is almost certain they have it to a certain degree with electricity of lower tension; and if the solid electrolytes have such power I cannot see any reason why their liquefaction should take it away. It would seem to me rather unphilosophical to admit it for the solid and then, without proof, to assume that it is absent in the liquid: for my part, I think the proof is all the contrary way. The power seems to be present in a very low degree but I think it is there. So much for that matter[.]

If I were in your company I should have a long chat with you about Palagis experiments¹⁰[.] I cannot understand them as to any new principle that is involved in them; and if there be not a new principle I fear they are only mistakes; i.e imperfect forms of old results where the two developed forces are before hand present. I cannot conceive it possible that if a sphere (metallic) of 3 inches diameter be inside a metallic sp<<here>> of 12 feet (or any other) diameter & touching its side, its mere removal into the centre of the large sphere or any other position in it will cause any electricity to appear.

Adieu My dear friend for the present[.]

Ever Affectionately Yours | M. Faraday

Profr. Aug de la Rive | &c &c &c &c

Address: a Monsieur | Monsieur Aug de la Rive | &c &c &c | Geneva | Switzerland