FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243  
244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   >>   >|  
; and, in order to consolidate strata of a porous texture, he supposes water carrying minute bodies of all shapes and sizes, and depositing them in such close contact as to produce solidity and concretion. Now, if Dr Woodward softened stones without a proper cause, M. de Luc, in employing the specious principle of cohesion, has consolidated them upon no better grounds; for, the application of this principle is as foreign to his purpose, as is that of magnetism. Bodies, it is true, cohere when their surfaces are closely applied to each other; But how apply this principle to consolidation?--only by supposing all the separate bodies, of which the solid is to be composed, to be in perfect contact in all their surfaces. But this, in other words, is supposing the body to be solid; and, to suppose the agent, water, capable of thus making hard bodies solid, is no other than having recourse to the fortuitous concourse of atoms to make a world; a thought which this author would surely hold in great contempt. [Note 33: Lettres Physiques et Morales.] He then illustrates this operation of nature by those of art, in building walls which certainly become hard, and which, as our author seems to think, become solid. But this is only an imperfect or erroneous representation of this subject; for, mortar does not become hard upon the principle of petrification adopted by our author. Mortar, made of clay, instead of lime, will not acquire a stony hardness, nor ever, by means of water, will it be more indurated than by simply drying; neither will the most subtile powder of chalk, with water and sand, form any solid body, or a proper mortar. The induration of mortar arises from the solution of a stony substance, and the subsequent concretion of that dissolved matter, operations purely chemical. Now, if this philosopher, in his Theory of Petrifaction, means only to explain a chemical operation upon mechanical principles, why have recourse, for an example in this subject, to mineral bodies, the origin of which is questioned? Why does he not rather explain, upon this principle, the known concretion of some body, from a fluid state, or, conversely, the known solution of some concreted body? If again he means to explain petrifaction in the usual way, by a chemical operation, in that case, the application of his polished surfaces, so as to cohere, cannot take place until the dissolved body be separated from the fluid, by means of which it is tra
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243  
244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
principle
 

bodies

 

explain

 

author

 

surfaces

 

operation

 

mortar

 

chemical

 

concretion

 
application

cohere

 

dissolved

 

contact

 

solution

 

subject

 

proper

 

supposing

 
recourse
 
subtile
 
powder

Mortar

 

adopted

 

petrification

 

imperfect

 

erroneous

 

representation

 

indurated

 

simply

 
drying
 

acquire


hardness
 
purely
 

petrifaction

 
concreted
 
conversely
 
separated
 

polished

 

questioned

 
subsequent
 
matter

operations
 

substance

 

arises

 
induration
 
philosopher
 

Theory

 

mineral

 

origin

 

Petrifaction

 

mechanical