Lavoisier's work produced, perhaps, the same revolution in chemistry as the two and a half centuries before Copernicus's discovery in astronomy. Substances that were previously considered elements, as Lavoisier showed, turned out to be compounds, consisting in turn of complex "elements". The discoveries and views of Lavoisier had a tremendous impact not only on the development of chemical theory, but also on the entire system of chemical knowledge. They transformed the very basis of chemical knowledge and language in such a way that the next generations of chemists, in fact, could not understand even the terminology used before Lavoisier. On this basis, they subsequently began to believe that it was impossible to speak of "genuine" chemistry before the discoveries of Lavoisier. At the same time, the continuity of chemical research was forgotten. Only the historians of chemistry began to recreate the really existing laws of the development of chemistry. At the same time, it was found that Lavoisier's "chemical revolution" would have been impossible without the existence of a certain level of chemical knowledge before him.
Lavoisier crowned the development of chemical knowledge with the creation of a new system, which included the most important achievements of chemistry of past centuries. This system, however, in a significantly expanded and corrected form, became the basis of scientific chemistry.
First of all, Lavoisier replaced the outdated concepts of the element with new ones. Advances in experimental and practical chemistry by the time Lavoisier was allowed to abandon the hypothetical elements of Aristotle and the alchemists. After Lavoisier's work, an element began to be called a substance that could not be further decomposed by any chemical means. This definition should not be too strict. After all, Lavoisier still could not know that with the help of special methods and methods in the future it will be possible to separate the "inseparable" substances at that time. Lavoisier's proposed definition of an element was progressive: it gave chemists clear criteria, but did not impose a rigid framework on the use of various methods for studying elements. For the development of chemistry, Lavoisier's definition was extremely fruitful. It stimulated attempts to decompose substances by all available means. This is how most of the chemical elements were discovered in the first half of the 19th century.
With the change in the cornerstone concept of a chemical element, the new chemical system also required a new terminology, in which the names of substances would be simpler and clearer. In addition, the previously existing names of various substances, without reflecting their chemical essence, were so complex and difficult to understand that they were quickly forgotten. In 1787 Lavoisier announced to the Academy of Sciences in Paris the results of the work of a special commission headed by him to create a new chemical nomenclature. The members of the commission - the leading chemists of France - Guiton de Morveaux, Berthollet and Furcroix, gave new names to chemical elements and proposed to compose the names of complex bodies, taking into account the names of the elements that make up their composition. Since then, elements have been called such substances that could not be separated into parts by chemical analysis, for example, metals, phosphorus, sulfur, oxygen and hydrogen. Compounds were considered all substances consisting of two or more elements.
The names of the elements were chosen in such a way that they also reflected the characteristics of the reaction of the given substance. So, the element that John Priestley considered "deflogisticated air", Scheele - "fiery air", and Lavoisier - "vital air", began to be called according to the new nomenclature oxygen (oodupe), since this gas, when burned, converted many substances into "acids". "Combustible air" is called hydrogen because when it burns in oxygen, water is formed. "Choking air", according to the decision of the commission, began to be called nitrogen ("choking substance"), because this gas "choked" combustion and breathing.
Acids got their names from the elements from which they were formed. Therefore, one of the acids, which included sulfur, began to be called now not "vitriol oil", but sulfuric acid. Acids containing phosphorus, the commission decided to call phosphoric acids; an acid containing carbon is carbonic acid.
The new terminology was progressive, because the names of the compounds reflected their composition. This greatly facilitated the systematization of substances, taking into account the data of the latest experimental research.
Lavoisier made a revolutionary revolution in chemistry. But not all chemists of the 18th century were able to understand this. John Priestley, Scheele and Cavendish, who themselves made such an important contribution to the preparation of this "revolutionary coup", remained adherents of the phlogiston theory. They tried to explain their discoveries in the light of outdated theories. Only Lavoisier was able to consider these phenomena from completely different positions. Some chemists, like Gren, have tried to link the two systems together. However, after about two decades, Lavoisier's oxygen theory became generally accepted. At the beginning of the XIX century. it was difficult to find chemists who would use the "language" and concepts of phlogiston theory in their works.
The widespread use of the provisions of the new theory, new concepts and terms designating them made it easier for chemists to explain and understand the results of experimental studies by Wenzel and Richter (carried out during the dominance of the phlogiston theory).
At about the same time, another major problem of chemistry was also solved: it was shown how and in what quantitative relations the elements combine with each other. Proust discovered the law of the constancy of the composition of substances: chemical elements combine with each other in certain (constant) weight ratios. At the same time, John Dalton discovered the law of multiple ratios: the weight ratios of two elements that form different compounds (as, for example, C and O make up CO or CO 2) have the form of prime integers 1: 1, 1: 2, 1: 3 and etc. Widely using in practice the conclusions from this law, Dalton at the beginning of the XIX century. built a new atomistic theory (chemical atomistics), and Jacob Berzelius a little later determined the relative atomic weights [atomic masses] and proposed the designation of elements and their compounds, almost completely preserved to this day. Thus, the most important provisions of classical chemistry were created.
As a result, at the beginning of the XIX century. the place of chemistry among other fields of knowledge and production activity also changed. Chemistry became a completely independent scientific discipline, which played an ever-increasing role in the industrial revolution of the 19th - 20th centuries.
work. Now he collaborated with the famous physicist and mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace. They managed to design a special apparatus with which it was possible to measure the heat released as a result of the combustion of substances. This was the so-called ice calorimeter. The researchers also carried out a detailed study of the heat that living organisms give off. By measuring the amount of exhaled carbon dioxide and the heat released by the body, they proved that food "burns" in the body in a special way. The heat generated by this combustion serves to maintain a normal body temperature.
The Lavoisier-Laplace ice calorimeter made it possible in the 18th century to measure the heat capacities of many solids and liquids, as well as the heats of combustion of various fuels and the heat released by living organisms. For example, the heat given off by an animal (or other object) in the inner chamber was used to melt ice in the inner “ice jacket”. The outside served to keep the temperature of the inside constant. The released heat was measured by weighing the melt water flowing into the vessel.
Essay on the general history of chemistry [From ancient times to the beginning of the 19th century] Figurovsky Nikolai Alexandrovich
"CHEMICAL REVOLUTION"
"CHEMICAL REVOLUTION"
By issuing the "Elementary Course in Chemistry", Lavoisier believed that he thereby completely completed the "chemical revolution." He had known grounds for such confidence, especially since he alone, without allies, had for a number of years been conducting polemics with authoritative representatives of phlogistic chemistry, withstanding their attacks. True, already in the eighties, some prominent scientists in France, who worked mainly with Lavoisier, sympathized with oxygen theory and new ideas in chemistry. Lavoisier wrote: “Chemists ... will easily see that ... I used almost only my own experiments. If in some places it can happen that I cite, without indicating the source, the experiences or views of Berthollet, Furcroix, Laplace, Monge, and in general those who accepted the same principles as me, then this is a consequence of our communication, mutual exchange of thoughts, observations views, thanks to which we have established a certain commonality of views, in which we ourselves often found it difficult to figure out who actually belongs to what ”(63).
However, the official recognition of the teachings of oxygen theory named in this passage took place only in 1785–1786, namely: on August 6, 1785, Berthollet was the first to declare his recognition of the principles of new chemistry. A year later, in June 1786, Furcroix followed his example, and in 1787 - Guiton de Morveaux, who came to Paris from Dijon. Thus, Lavoisier, speaking of the like-mindedness of some chemists with him, apparently meant joint work with them to create a new chemical nomenclature.
In alliance with these prominent chemists, as well as some physicists and mathematicians, Lavoisier continued to fight the phlogiston theory much more effectively. In 1787, a book by the prominent phlogistic chemist Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) "An Essay on Phlogiston and the Constitution of Acids" (64) was published in England. In this work, Kirwan opposed the basic provisions of oxygen theory and defended phlogistic views, based on the recognition of hydrogen as a phlogiston. Lavoisier and his allies very cleverly repelled these attacks. Kirwan's book was translated (by Marie Lavoisier) into French (66) and published, with refutations of phlogistic doctrines written at the end by Lavoisier, Berthollet, de Morveaux, Fourcroix, and Montge.
Kirwan, however, did not immediately give up. Only in 1796 did he lay down his arms.
The stronghold of the phlogists in France was still the Journal de Physique, published by La Mettrie (1743–1817), a French natural scientist and physicist. To counter the influence of this journal, Lavoisier, together with his associates, founded the journal Annales de Chimie, which began to appear in April 1789.
In the struggle for new chemistry, Lavoisier and his supporters strove not to miss a single essential detail, which could at least to some extent turn out to be a pivotal point for the supporters of the phlogiston theory. The book "Method of chemical nomenclature", which was already mentioned above, was accompanied by a memoir by Gassenfratz and Ade, dedicated to chemical symbols and designations of substances. The new symbols had only a very distant resemblance to the previous ones inherited from the alchemical period, but they favorably differed from them, since they represented a system of designations. Therefore, let us dwell on them in a few words.
Gassedfratz and Ade proceeded from two principles when developing a system of symbolic designations of substances. They proposed to introduce symbols as common for each class of substances in the form of simple geometric shapes... Secondly, they used letter designations placed inside such geometric figures as symbols of individual representatives of a particular class of compounds, as well as straight lines drawn in different directions to denote "true elements" - light, caloric, and also elementary gases - oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen.
To designate the metals, Gassenfratz and Ade adopted a circle as a class symbol, inside which was placed the first letter (sometimes two letters, the second lowercase being "consonant") of the French name of the metal ...
…. Flammable substances were indicated by a semicircle in different positions. The acid radicals had a common sign - a square…. Base radicals (alkali oxides) were denoted by triangles, angled up, earth - triangles, angled down. Chemical compounds such as salts were depicted as signs, acid radicals and base radicals, put together .... The principles of designation of Gassenfratz and Ade were later used by Berzelius to develop a system of chemical symbolism, which is basically preserved in modern chemistry.
With such a systematic approach and comprehensive argumentation of the main theses of new chemistry on the part of Lavoisier and his closest collaborators and supporters, new ideas naturally spread rapidly in Europe. They soon went over to Lavoisier's side: in England - J. Black, in Germany, in the homeland of the phlogiston theory - M. G. Klaproth. The latter in 1792 publicly demonstrated at a meeting of the Berlin Academy of Sciences the most important experiments of Lavoisier, as a result of which both Klaproth himself and the entire academy recognized the validity of Lavoisier's theory.
Only one Priestley did not want to recognize the new teaching and remained a zealous phlogist until the end of his life. According to Cuvier, “without losing heart or retreating, he saw how the most skillful fighters of the old theory went over to the side of its enemies. And when Kirwan, after all, betrayed phlogiston, Priestley was left alone on the battlefield and sent a new challenge to his opponents in a memoir addressed to them to the first French chemists ”(66).
So, Lavoisier's oxygen theory and the new chemistry developed on its basis have won a complete victory. However, this victory did not mean that the "chemical revolution" really ended with the publication of Lavoisier's "Elementary Course in Chemistry". Of course, if you look at this question only formally and consider a revolution only the very fact of replacing one theory prevailing in science with another, then such a revolution in chemistry really took place in the eighties of the eighteenth century. However, as BN Menshutkin correctly notes, “from a historical perspective, the chemical revolution does not seem as complete and complete as A. Lavoisier portrayed it” (67).
Indeed, the essence of the chemical revolution was not only the replacement of phlogiston by its antipode - oxygen - in the explanation of various processes. The meaning of the revolution that took place in chemistry at the end of the 18th century was, first of all, in the denial of reactionary teachings inherited from alchemists and iatrochemists, in replacing these teachings with rational ones, based on experimental facts and given explanations of chemical phenomena.
By the time of Lavoisier, in chemistry, the doctrine of the four elements of Aristotle and the three principles of alchemists was still preserved in both open and veiled form. We have seen that many of Lavoisier's predecessors and contemporaries, in their teachings on the "principles" that make up complex substances, simply combined the elements of Aristotle with those of the alchemists. In this way, they tried to eliminate the contradictions between the old teachings about the foundations of bodies and the new data obtained by analytical chemists as a result of studying the composition of salts and minerals. Lavoisier was required to take a decisive step towards a complete rejection of such traditional concepts, towards the replacement of elements-qualities with real elements of bodies.
Lavoisier took this step very hesitantly, it is better to say, he took only half a step, having reserved the possibility of retreating to the old positions. So, rejecting phlogiston, he did not dare to abandon weightless fluids in general, leaving light and caloric (Aristotle's veiled “fire”) as the main “true” elementary substances. Further, refuting the phlogistic doctrine of the complexity of the composition of metals and acid-forming substances, such as sulfur, phosphorus and others, he did not dare to class them as "true" elements and considered them only "simple bodies." We have already seen how he understood these "simple bodies". "The day will surely come," he wrote, "when these substances, which are simple for us, will be decomposed."
The reasons for such inconsistency of Lavoisier, undoubtedly, should be sought in his ignorance of the atomic-molecular doctrine and the consequences following from it. Lavoisier often used the term "molecule" in his writings to denote the primary particles that make up the body. Moreover, he undoubtedly knew about atomic-molecular studies. However, he was not an atomist. That is why he did not notice and did not try to explain the correct weight and volumetric relationships between the substances that make up complex bodies, established both by himself and by his contemporaries. It is interesting to note that many years after the death of Lavoisier, his old colleague and associate C.L.Berthollet, in his polemic with Proust about the constancy of the composition of complex compounds, even tried to defend the idea of \u200b\u200bthe infinite divisibility of matter, in the spirit of the original ideas of R. Descartes.
Lavoisier's ignorance of the doctrine of the atomic-molecular structure of substances led him to an extreme hypertrophy of the role of oxygen in chemical processes. Lavoisier attached exactly the same importance to oxygen in chemical processes as the followers of the phlogiston theory attached to phlogiston. The exaggeration of the role of oxygen in Lavoisier's chemistry cannot be ignored as a consequence of his attraction to the traditional methods used by phlogists in explaining facts and phenomena.
Lavoisier, of course, cannot be accused of not doing something or not doing something. He owes the great and undoubted merit of overthrowing the phlogiston theory and replacing it with the oxygen theory. It is in this sense that one can speak of a "happy revolution in the field of pneumatic chemistry", the main figure of which was Lavoisier. Based on the oxygen theory, Lavoisier developed some important foundations and provisions of new chemistry, in particular, the doctrine of simple bodies, the doctrine of oxidation and reduction, the doctrine of the respiratory mechanism, a new nomenclature chemical compounds etc.
However, the true chemical revolution was just begun by Lavoisier. This revolution was brilliantly continued and developed by the next generations of chemists and was completed by the introduction of atomic-molecular doctrine into chemistry.
From the book Forbidden Archeology author Cremo Michel A From the book The Great Trench War [Positional Massacre of the First World War] the author Ardashev Alexey NikolaevichThe chemical warfare of Gaza cannot be phased out. As for the refusal to use poisonous gases, it should be remembered that not a single powerful weapon was ever left without use, since its strength was proved, and it continued
From the book Creating the Foundation of the Socialist Economy in the USSR (1926-1932) the author The team of authorsChemical industry V. I. Lenin classified the chemical industry as one of the most important branches providing the material basis for large-scale industry. The chemical industry, transforming the foundations of industrial production, opening up new sources and types
From the book of the Fuhrer as a commander the author Degtev Dmitry Mikhailovich"The sensation of the year could be chemical war" As the Eastern campaign dragged out and the plans for a blitzkrieg were thwarted, the Germans themselves began to periodically think about the possibility of using chemical weapons at a crucial moment. In this regard, a diary entry is characteristic.
From the book Three revolutions [draft of the book The Great Russian Revolution, 1905-1922] the author Lyskov Dmitry Yurievich6. Permanent revolution and world revolution Lenin went, it seemed, on the unthinkable: due to the special specifics of Russia's development, the driving force, the leader of the revolution, he declared the proletariat - "the only revolutionary class to the end." He did not proclaim the revolution itself
author Suggs HenryCHAPTER 13 MATHEMATICS AND ASTRONOMY, MEDICINE, CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, ARTS What I liked the most was Sir J. Ent [President of the College of Physicians] respiration; which is unknown to this day, and there is no agreement among doctors about how
From the book The Greatness of Babylon. History ancient civilization Mesopotamia author Suggs HenryChemical Technology Technical knowledge, like religious rituals, was a closely guarded secret. The colophon to the texts dealing with technical issues says: “Let the initiate show the initiate, the uninitiated should not use it. This belongs to
From the book Completion of the socialist transformation of the economy. The victory of socialism in the USSR (1933-1937) the author The team of authors6. Chemical industry The second five-year plan set the chemical industry to achieve decisive shifts in development, “ensuring widespread chemicalization of all industries national economy and strengthening the country's defense ”443. Along with
From the book Moscow Modern in Persons and Fates the author Sokolova Lyudmila AnatolyevnaChemical laboratory of the Imperial Technical School at 2-nd Baumanskaya Street, No. 10 (1898-1899) There are just a few words about this building: it's just a painfully old photograph (on the left) that is wonderful. Rather, what is depicted on it. Imagine, this is an elegant building -
From the book Economy of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) the author Chadaev Yakov ErmolaevichChemical industry Most of the chemical plants from the very first days of the war were transferred to the production of products for military industry... However, at the beginning of the war, due to the temporary occupation of a large territory of the country, the chemical industry
From the book History Civil War author Rabinovich S§ 1. The October Revolution is a Socialist Revolution The Great Socialist Revolution in Russia in October 1917 marked the beginning of the world proletarian revolution. It was directed against the bourgeoisie of town and country. Its main, main goal was to overthrow
From the book Soviet Economy on the Eve and During the Great Patriotic War the author The team of authors7. Chemical industry During the Great Patriotic War, the chemical industry was one of the branches of industry, the development of which was necessary for the uninterrupted supply of the military industry. From the very first days of the war, all branches of the chemical
From the book Anarchy Works the author Gelderloos Peter6. Revolution In order to end all hierarchies of subordination, to clear the space for horizontal organization and a free society, people must cope with state repressive bodies, capitalist, patriarchal institutions, structures
the authorCHEMICAL AND CRAFTING TECHNOLOGY AMONG THE ASIAN AND AFRICAN PEOPLES BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW ERA (7) Chemical and practical knowledge reached a significantly higher level in the slave-owning society. In this era, handicraft industries arose, were mastered
From the book Essay on the General History of Chemistry [From ancient times to the beginning of the 19th century.] the author Figurovsky Nikolay AlexandrovichCHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING IN INDIA AND CHINA IN THE FIRST CENTURIES OF THE NEW ERA In Asian countries that almost did not participate in political eventsthat took place in the West, and economically little connected with Western Europe, development of chemical and chemical-practical knowledge at the beginning
From the book Essay on the General History of Chemistry [From ancient times to the beginning of the 19th century.] the author Figurovsky Nikolay AlexandrovichTHE TEACHING ON SIMPLE BODIES AND ELEMENTS. NEW CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE ELEMENTARY COURSE OF CHEMISTRY LAVOISIER As we have seen, R. Boyle back in 1661 gave a new definition of the concept of "element", or "simple body", which for that time was equivalent. Although Boyle, who put forward a new
CHEMICAL REVOLUTION
FRENCH BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION AND SCIENCE
The revolution in chemistry, associated with the overthrow of the phlogiston theory, coincided in time with the French bourgeois revolution. This fact, of course, cannot be considered accidental. The chemical revolution was largely the result of socio-economic changes and shifts in the mental life of society. F. Engels characterized these phenomena in the following words: “The great people who in France enlightened the heads for the approaching revolution, themselves acted extremely revolutionary. They did not recognize any external authorities of any kind. Religion, understanding of nature, society, political system - all this was subjected to the most ruthless criticism; everything had to appear before the judgment of reason and either justify its existence or abandon it ... All previous forms of society and state, all traditional ideas were recognized as unreasonable and discarded like old rubbish; the world until now has been guided by prejudices alone, and the entire past is worthy only of regret and contempt ”1.
The chemical revolution was also part of profound changes in science, primarily in chemistry and physics.
Many French scientists took a direct part in social and political activities in the era of the revolution (G. Monge, L. Carnot, F. Furcroix, and others). On their proposals, a complete reform of education in the country was carried out. The universities of pre-revolutionary France were completely under the influence of the Catholic clergy, teaching in them according to the outdated system. There were no connections between universities and the country's industry. The Paris Academy of Sciences and other scientific institutions were also virtually cut off from life. As a result of the proposals of scientists, the Convention in 1793 approved new system organization high school... In 1794, the Normal School was established to teach the art of teaching, and the Polytechnic School was opened to train civil engineers. Other special educational establishments... The old Royal Botanic Gardens has been converted into the Natural History Museum. The National Conservatory (repository) of Sciences and Crafts was founded. All these measures were aimed at bringing science and education closer to the demands of life and production.
Epoch bourgeois revolution was marked by the flourishing of science in France. At the end of the 18th century. in France advanced
many talented scientists (J. Lagrange, G. Monge, N. Carnot, P. Laplace) and a galaxy of outstanding chemists and biologists.
A. L. LAVOISIER
A.L. Lavoisier played the most prominent role in the development of chemistry in the era of the French bourgeois revolution. Outstanding scientific activity this scientist was combined with dark financial transactions typical of the big bourgeois. Socio-political views of A. Lavoisier cannot be called progressive and corresponding to his innovative scientific activity.
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier was born on August 26, 1743. He received legal education, but was interested in natural sciences, especially chemistry, was also engaged in literature. After graduating from the university, A. Lavoisier gave up his legal career and focused on work in the field of natural science. He made several mineralogical excursions, during which he was interested in chemical composition a number of minerals and drinking water sources.
In 1764 A. Lavoisier took part in a competition announced by the Paris Academy for the best way of street lighting. When developing new types of lamps, he showed great perseverance and received a gold medal. In 1768 A. Lavoisier was elected an adjunct of the Academy of Sciences and at the same time became a shareholder in the collection of taxes from the population. Receiving huge profits, the buyout shareholders were surrounded by the general hatred of the people. In 1771 he married the daughter of a wealthy tax farmer - Anna Maria Polz.
In 1775 A. Lavoisier was appointed manager of gunpowder and saltpeter business in France. He moved to Arsenal and set up a well-equipped laboratory at his own expense. Here, for 15 years, he conducted intense experimental research and constantly participated in various scientific commissions.
The revolution that began in 1789 tore A. Lavoisier away from
scientific work in chemistry. In the early years of the revolution, he dealt with economic problems, was a member of the Commission on Weights and Measures, Commissioner of the National Treasury, etc. He soon began to take a negative attitude towards the revolution.
In 1792, due to connections with the royalists, he was relieved of his post as manager of the gunpowder business. In March 1792, the ransom was abolished by decree of the National Assembly. In August 1793, the Academy of Sciences was closed, and in October of the same year, the Convention decided to arrest the former tax farmers. After the investigation, 28 former tax farmers, including A. Lavoisier, were sentenced to death by the revolutionary tribunal. On May 8, 1794, Lavoisier was guillotined.
Some scientists (J. Priestley, S. Blagden, J. Watt and others) disputed the priority of a number of his major discoveries. It should be noted, however, that the ongoing debate around the name of Lavoisier is bourgeois-nationalistic.
OXYGEN COMBUSTION THEORY
One of the first publications by A. Lavoisier was his memoir On the Nature of Water (1769). The work was devoted to the question of the possibility of transforming water into earth. For 101 days A. Lavoisier heated water in a glass vessel "pelican" and discovered (like K. Scheele) the formation of grayish earth leaves in the water. Unlike K. Scheele, A. Lavoisier did not perform a chemical analysis of this land, but by weighing a vessel and dried leaves, he established that they are obtained as a result of glass dissolution.
Having thus solved the problem that occupied scientists at that time, A. Lavoisier outlined the study "On the nature of air." Having studied and analyzed the data on the absorption of air in various chemical processes, he drew up an extensive research plan: “The operations by which, - he wrote, - it is possible to achieve binding of air, the essence: the growth of plants, the respiration of animals, under some circumstances - firing, finally some others) chemical reactions... I admitted that I must start with these experiments. "
In the second half of 1772, A. Lavoisier was already busy with experiments on the combustion of various substances, primarily phosphorus. He found that a large amount of air is required to completely burn phosphorus. The explanation of this fact, given by him, was still phlogistic. However, he soon presented a memoir to the Academy of Sciences, in which he wrote: “... I discovered that during combustion, sulfur does not lose weight at all, but, on the contrary, increases, that is, much more can be obtained from 1 pound of sulfur than 1 a pound of vitriolic acid ... the same can be said of phosphorus;
this increase is due to the enormous amount of air that is bound during combustion ”1. Further, A. Lavoisier suggests that the increase in the mass of metals during calcination is also explained by the absorption of air.
The following year, A. Lavoisier set up research on the calcination of metals. He also reports on further experiments on the absorption of air in combustion processes and expresses (not yet in a categorical form) about the substance contained in the air and binds to burning substances during combustion. Describing the experiments on the calcination of metals, A. Lavoisier confirmed the fact that air was absorbed in this case.
For a comprehensive study of combustion processes and the effect of high temperatures on various substances, A. Lavoisier built a large incendiary machine with two large lenses, with the help of which he burned diamond. The results of all these studies were in complete contradiction with the phlogiston theory. A. Lavoisier had to be extremely careful in his conclusions. But he continued to work according to the planned plan, more and more convinced of the complete groundlessness of the phlogiston theory. In 1774 A. Lavoisier launched a direct attack on this theory. Analyzing the results of his experiments on the combustion of various substances, he soon came to the conclusion that air is not a simple body, as the scientists of the 18th century thought, but a mixture of gases with different properties. One part of the mixture kept burning. Empirically A. Lavoisier rejected the assumption that this is Black's "fixed air", on the contrary, he argued that this part is "most comfortable for breathing."
At this time (70s), the discovery of oxygen "was in the air" and became inevitable. Indeed, K. Scheele discovered oxygen in 1772, and J. Priestley - in 1774. A. Lavoisier did not immediately come to the discovery of oxygen. Studying the calcination of metals with the formation of "lime", he believed that the "most suitable for breathing" part of the air can be obtained from metallic "lime", that is, from oxides of any metals. However, his attempts were not crowned with success, and only in November 1774 (after a meeting with J. Priestley) he switched to experiments with mercury oxide.
A. Lavoisier performed these experiments in two ways. He calcined the mercury oxide with coal and got Black's "fixed air", and also simply heated the mercury oxide. The resulting gas was, in his opinion, the cleanest part of the air. A. Lavoisier also came to the conclusion that "fixed air" is a combination of "clean" air with coal. In his report to the academy, he called “the cleanest
part of the air "is also" very breathable "or" life-giving air. "
Important conclusions were formulated by A. Lavoisier in his memoir "Experiments on the respiration of animals": 1. When breathing, interaction occurs only with the pure "most suitable for breathing" part of the atmospheric air. The rest of the air is just an inert environment that does not change with breathing. 2. The properties of the spoiled air remaining in the retort after the calcining of metals do not differ in any way from the properties of the air in which the animal has been for some time.
Beginning in 1777, A. Lavoisier came out openly against the phlogiston theory. In one of his memoirs, he wrote: “Chemists have made from phlogiston a vague principle, which is not precisely defined and which is therefore suitable for any explanations in which they want to introduce it. Sometimes this beginning is significant, sometimes it is not; sometimes it is a free fire, sometimes it is fire combined with an earthy element; sometimes it passes through the pores of the vessels, sometimes they are impenetrable for him. It explains both alkalinity and neutrality, transparency and opacity, color and lack of color; this is a real Proteus, who changes his appearance every moment. "
It is interesting that these words of A. Lavoisier resemble the formulations of M. V. Lomonosov, who wrote in 1744 about “fiery matter” that sometimes enters the pores of bodies, “... as if attracted by some love potion, then violently leaves them, as if enveloped in horror ”1 2.
In his memoir "On combustion in general" (1777) A. Lavoisier gave the following description of the phenomena of combustion: "1. With any combustion there is a release of "fiery matter" or light. 2. Bodies can burn only in very few types of air, or rather, combustion can take place only in one type of air, which Priestley called phlogistoneless and which I will call "clean" air. The bodies, which we call combustible, not only do not burn in emptiness, or any other air, but there they extinguish as quickly as if they were immersed in water ... 3. With any combustion, destruction occurs, or decomposition of "pure »Air, and the weight of the burnt body increases exactly by the amount of absorbed air. 4. With any combustion, the burning body turns into acid ... so if sulfur is burned under the bell, then the combustion product will be sulphuric acid... "3.
Based on the latter position, A. Lavoisier creates a theory of acids that are formed when an acid is combined
of the developing beginning with combustible substances. In connection with this, he gave the name "oxygen" to this acid-forming principle (giving birth to acid, or oxygen). The theory of acids by A. Lavoisier, however, turned out to be inconsistent with many known facts. So, hydrochloric acid is formed without any participation of oxygen. A. Lavoisier in this case was forced to resort to fantasy to explain the composition of this acid. He admitted that hydrochloric acid contains a special simple body - murium, which is in acid in an oxidized state. Therefore, until recently, pharmacists called hydrochloric acid muric acid.
Contradicted the theory of Lavoisier's acids and the fact of the formation of water during the combustion of hydrogen. For several years, Lavoisier tried unsuccessfully to find traces of acid in the water. At the same time, he even established the volumetric ratio of hydrogen and oxygen in water (12: 22.9, that is, almost like 1: 2). However, he did not attach importance to this result. During the decomposition of water, he, acting on water with iron filings, received hydrogen. These studies were the final part of a planned series of experiments aimed at overthrowing the phlogiston theory.
Let us mention that the claims of some scientists on the priority of A. Lavoisier's discoveries turned out to be unfounded. Indeed, the discovery of oxygen essentially belongs to A. Lavoisier, and not to K. Scheele and J. Priestley, who remained, in the words of F. Engels, “in captivity of phlogistic categories” and did not understand what exactly they discovered. “And even if,” Engels wrote further, “A. Lavoisier did not give a description of oxygen, as he later asserted, simultaneously with others and independently of them, nevertheless, in essence, he discovered oxygen, and not the two, who only described it, without even knowing what exactly they were describing "
LAVOISIER ELEMENTARY CHEMISTRY COURSE
In the process of developing the foundations of the antiphlogistic oxygen theory of combustion and respiration, A. Lavoisier had no shortage of critics of his new views. In connection with this criticism, he had to stage new experiments, express new generalizations, and step by step prove the inconsistency of the objections raised. At the same time, he solved various issues that were not directly related to the planned research plan. So, he had to refute the explanation of G. Cavendish on the mechanism of hydrogen formation under the action of dilute acids on the metal. A. Lavoisier pointed out that in this case, hydrogen is released not as a result of the decomposition of the metal, but as a result of the decomposition of water diluting the acid (acid oxides were considered acid at that time).
among the questions that aroused controversy in the explanation of the phenomena of combustion was the question of the nature of heat. A. Lavoisier was well known kinetic theory heat, but he was not an atomist and therefore remained in the position of calorific matter in contrast to MV Lomonosov. At the same time, he considered caloric to be one of the elementary fluids, and, thus, in this matter, his position coincided with the position of orthodox phlogists.
A. Lavoisier is credited with pioneering the thermal effects of reactions. Together with P. Laplace, he designed a calorimeter and for 15 years worked on the determination of thermal effects, thereby laying the foundation for thermochemistry. A. Lavoisier is also credited with establishing the characteristics of the composition of organic substances. Based on analyzes, he found that organic matter is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Then nitrogen and phosphorus were added to these simple bodies.
Lavoisier considered the principle of the indestructibility of matter to be one of the most important provisions of chemistry. Phlogists have been known to ignore this principle, for example, when explaining the increase in the mass of metals npnf calcined. Having formulated this principle, A. Lavoisier illustrated it with an example of the formation of alcohol as a result of the fermentation of grape juice:
grape juice \u003d carbonic acid + alcohol.
Around 1785, A. Lavoisier had the idea to systematically present the new facts and explanations he discovered various phenomena from the point of view of oxygen theory in the short "Elementary course of chemistry". In preparing this course, he had to further investigate and solve several fundamental issues related, in particular, to the development of the doctrine of principles, or simple substancesah, with the creation of a chemical nomenclature and with the formulation of new problems in chemistry that arose on the basis of oxygen theory.
In his “Preliminary Reasoning” for the course, A. Lavoisier says about simple bodies: “So, chemistry goes to its goal, to its perfection, dividing, subdividing and still subdividing bodies, and we do not know what the limit of its success will be. Therefore, we cannot say that what is recognized today as simple is really simple. We can only say that this or that substance is only the divisibility limit by means of chemical analysis and that it cannot be further separated at current state our knowledge "1.
Speaking further about the elements, A. Lavoisier does not give an unambiguous definition of this concept: “So, I will say that if the name of the elements denotes the simple or indivisible molecules that make up the body, then we probably do not know them; if, on the contrary, we connect with the name of the elements, or beginnings, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe last limit reached by analysis, then all substances that we have not yet been able to decompose in any way are elements for us ”2.
This definition essentially coincides with Boyle's.
Another question that arose before A. Lavoisier while working on the "Elementary Course in Chemistry" was the development of a chemical nomenclature. In the alchemical period, when symbolism and the desire to encrypt the usual names of substances were widespread, many substances received random and often different names from different authors. The tradition of assigning random names to newly discovered substances continued in the future. Under such conditions, no system of chemical nomenclature could be created.
In the XVIII century. even the chemical industry felt an urgent need for a system of chemical nomenclature, since the number of known substances increased rapidly in the second half of the century. One of the prominent phlogistic chemists, Guiton de Morveaux (p. 68), as early as 1782, began developing a system of chemical nomenclature based on the phlogiston theory. A. Lavoisier, busy with the same problem, made efforts to attract de Morveau to his side, which he succeeded in 1786. Somewhat earlier, one of the most prominent chemists of that time, C.L. Berthollet, joined A. Lavoisier (p. 68) , and after him - A. Furcroix.
In alliance with these scientists, A. Lavoisier organized a nomenclature commission Paris Academy, which began to work in 1786. A year later, the developed nomenclature was published. It was based on the names of simple bodies, the list (and classification) of which was compiled by A. Lavoisier himself. Among the new names, the commission approved names for oxygen (oxygen), hydrogen (hydrogen) and nitrogen. The latter name, which differs from the international "nitrogenium", was proposed by A. Lavoisier and adopted, despite the fact that
In the introduction to the "Elementary Course in Chemistry" A. Lavoisier wrote: "The absence of initial course The chemistry of the chapter on the constituent and elementary parts of bodies will inevitably cause surprise, but I will allow myself to note here that the desire to consider all bodies of nature consisting of only three or four elements comes from a prejudice that has passed down to us from the Greek philosophers. "
To address the issue of elementary constituent parts bodies A. Lavoisier did not have the necessary factual data and was forced to rely mainly on the results of his own research. This is probably why his views are characterized by uncertainty and inconsistency.
the members of the commission considered it unsuccessful and suggested the name "nitrogen". "Saltitrogen", "alkaligen". The word "nitrogen" at the suggestion of A. Lavoisier is translated by the word "lifeless". This translation, however, is incorrect. In fact, the word "nitrogen", which does not exist in Greek, is taken from the alchemical vocabulary, where it meant "philosophical mercury."
The names of complex substances (acids, alkalis, salts, etc.) were established as derivatives from simple bodies. The names of acids and salts were modified (in the endings) depending on the oxidation state of the acid-forming element (sulfate, sulfite, sulfide, etc.). Nitric acid salts, contrary to the name of the element, were called nitrates.
In connection with the new nomenclature, A. Lavoisier's "Elementary Course" contains classification tables of acids, salts and other compounds according to the oxidation states of acid-forming elements. The appendix to the "Chemical Nomenclature" contains the symbols of simple bodies proposed by chemists P. A. Ade (1763-1834) and J. A. Gassenfratz (1755-1827), which, however, did not receive recognition.
As for the simplest bodies, in the "Elementary Course" A. Lavoisier gave a list of them, highlighting the following four groups:,
1. Simple substances, represented in all three kingdoms of nature, which can be considered as elements of bodies: light, caloric, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen.
2. Simple non-metallic substances that oxidize and give acids: sulfur, phosphorus, coal, muric acid radical, hydrofluoric acid radical, boric acid radical.
3. Simple metallic substances, oxidizable and giving acids: antimony, silver, arsenic, bismuth, cobalt, copper, tin, iron, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, gold, platinum, lead, tungsten, zinc.
4. Simple substances, salt-forming and earthy: lime, magnesia, barite, alumina, silica.
In a note to this table, A. Lavoisier noted that he did not include "permanent" (caustic) alkalis in the list of simple substances, since these substances are apparently of complex composition.
Table A. Lavoisier contains 23 simple bodies, 3 radicals, 2 acids, 5 earths and 2 weightless fluids. The table has
there are obvious inconsistencies. In addition to the introduction of weightless fluid, "earths" appear in it as simple substances and, finally, metals are classified in accordance with the general theory of acid - t\u003e t to the number of acid-forming elements. This table was a breakthrough attempt in the history of science to "classify simple bodies.
A. Lavoisier's "Elementary Course in Chemistry" with beautifully executed illustrations by his wife (M. Lavoisier) appeared in 1789, almost simultaneously with the beginning of the French bourgeois revolution. The emergence of this course actually marked the chemical revolution, as pointed out in the course by A. Lavoisier himself. True, there were still quite a few opponents of the new chemistry, such as J. Priestley, who actively advocated the theory of phlogiston. But the number of opponents dwindled rapidly. So, ^ "English scientist-phlogistic R. Kirvan (1733-1812) published yes in 1787 the book" Essay on phlogiston and the constitution of acids. "A. Lavoisier and his associates responded to the publication of this book in the following way: the book by R. Kirwana was translated into French and published with commentaries on each chapter written by A. Lavoisier, C. Berthollet, G. de Morveaux, A. Fourc-foix and G. Monge. In these commentaries, all the main provisions of R. Kirwan were subjected to In the end, he was forced to admit the erroneousness of his views and joined the oxygen theory in 1796 c, /: Despite, however, the objections of representatives of the phlohiston theory, belonging to the older generation of chemists, the oxygen theory and the new chemistry built on its basis won a major victory, and yet it cannot be said that the “chemical revolution” was completed, as A. Lavoisier himself thought, the release of the “Elementary Course of Chemistry.” New views were discerned. whites and received a fairly complete completion of the subsequent by the 4th generation of chemists only after the introduction of atom-g, sticks into chemistry.
Ever since humanity first appeared on this planet, it has led a relatively calm and stable lifestyle, consuming the same foods, drawing water from the same sources and breathing the same air. Until recently, there was a delicate balance between us and the rest of nature, and with any kind of change in the environment or climate, the balance of power was leveled again thanks to the non-stop course of evolution.
Due to the presence of mental abilities and a certain share of the endurance of our body, humans, as a biological species, have developed the ability to interfere with nature and change the environment. The creation of tools, the discovery of fire, the domestication of animals, the domestication of wild plants, the formation of the first settlements were all the first steps on the path to progress and civilization.
This was important for people, but all this was weak attempts, for a person could not cause severe harm, since a small population of people was wholly and completely dependent on the forces of nature and trembled at the slightest of its whims. Over time, the increasing concentration of people, their invasions became not only more persistent, but also more constant, the nature of these invasions became even more directed. This led to the fact that, in the end, in the second half of the last century, the ability of people to speed up processes changed so much that "the speed of our own development" began to threaten us.
The brainchild of the Wachowski brothers comes to mind - "The Matrix", where, ironically, machines created by people began to use people themselves as biologically beneficial fuel. The current reality pushes to thoughts, so colorfully depicted in the aforementioned blockbuster: people have long been sophisticated in inventing many mechanisms, machines and substances, justifying all this with the desire to "improve" their own lives, that is, to become civilized.
For greater clarity, let us turn to the history of chemical "inventions" and, as already mentioned, look at the second half of the last century in numbers. The graph illustrates the rise in chemical inventions in the second half of the twentieth century. As you can see, since the 50s of the last century, a real boom in the chemical industry began, and by 1975, statistics recorded 1,000,000 synthetic chemical materials. Further "successes" of chemists in various countries were characterized by the addition of about 1000 new chemicals annually. By the end of the last millennium, humanity is "in use", ie in widespread use, there were more than 60,000 artificial chemicals.
The largest number of "inventions" of this kind concerns the weakest links in the human life support chain, namely:
production of commonly used materials
- fabrics
- insulators
- coverings
production and consumption of the most commonly consumed foods
- nutritional supplements
- substances used in processing and storage
- substances used in medicines
use of common and available energy sources and media
- land
- air
This chemical cycle we have created is already part of our lives; and we, like any species, must use it, adapt to it, or, least of all, avoid it in order to survive. This concept can be understood if we accept the fact of our own participation, yes, namely participation, in this continuous process - on the one hand, we are producers, and on the other hand, we are a product of this circulation. Therefore, any turn of our own development or our knowledge is locked on ourselves.
At times, our experiments were beneficial to us, as was the case with penicillin, which saved more than one million lives in wars and in peacetime. And there are those that even their discoverers themselves would like to forget - it is appropriate to recall one of the most powerful weapons of mass destruction, the Zarin gas (which was discovered by a fatal accident by German chemists who were trying to make pesticides more effective, just on the eve of World War II) ... The nature of the third discoveries is not clear to us, as well as our own, since they simply change ourselves: there is probably no need to give examples of the effect of drugs on the human body. Although at the dawn of pharmacy in the Old World, and then in other parts of the world, they were served as medicines that people needed.
It would seem that if some substance was invented with the thought of the welfare of people, then why after this "emerge" some facts, the existence of which we did not even suspect? In practice, everything is quite simple - the danger of artificial substances lies precisely in the fact that we do not know anything with any reliable accuracy about their influence on what they come into contact with, throughout their uncontrolled existence.
This can be shown with an elementary example: we have long known, as it seems to us, everything about oxygen. Oxygen is extremely critical for our body, but pure oxygen can kill us. Since oxygen is not found in nature without impurities, we are not able to consume it in this form. As you can see, we participate in the chains of life in exactly the way that Nature has taught us; and any deviation (and here we tried to improve the substance we need) turns out to be fatal. There is only one conclusion: what we can be absolutely sure about any substance is that we do not know how long its potentially harmful effect may not manifest itself.
One of the inherent attributes of the revolution, which we are also witnessing with growing concern today, is the unspoken prohibition on freedom of information regarding invented products, ingredients, formulations and their labeling. Although more and more countries are introducing mandatory requirements for the presentation of information on the composition of food, medicine, clothing, etc., it is still almost impossible to determine in a domestic environment what, for example, your washing powder, paint, plastic product, yes anything! The most challenging in this regard is the concealment of persons who are directly involved in the establishment of this secrecy regime.
The excess of unnecessary chemicals has already become so obvious that no one is thrilled with the invention of a new material, polymer or substitute. The main confirmation of this is the growing desire of people for environmentally friendly products. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” this is how one could say about the path that all people need to go in order to prevent the “victory of the chemical revolution”.
Recent trends in scientific achievements testify to a greater shift towards biology, genetics and everything “green”. Most likely, people will "open their eyes" to the endless possibilities of nature outside of chemistry and nuclear energy, and they will come to the conclusion that if the stock of something is not renewable, then there is probably no point in making long-term plans for this finite element.