1822 superscience

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Anthony

1822 predates thermodynamics as a field; you need concepts such as conservation of energy before that discussion even makes sense (once they had the concept, it became quickly obvious that there was a problem with the energy source for the sun).

To put that in context, Count Rumford's calculations about the heat produced when boring cannon refuted the caloric theory of heat in 1798, but the equivalence of work and heat was not formulated until the early 1840s (by Julius von Mayer and James Joule), nor widely accepted until 1845.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

A chemist in 1822 would be familiar with cobalt. Now imagine a modern person sets a large chunk of cobalt down and tells him, "This is magic cobalt. It's cursed. If you stand close to it for long, you will sicken and die as some of it turns spontaneously into nickel. But until it turns into nickel the magic cobalt will behave just like ordinary cobalt if you test it in your lab."

That is more poor wording than anything else. "This cobalt has a miasma that makes you sick and can eventually kill you if you stay around it too long. This miasma has the side effect of causing it to change into nickel."

The first part was well within 1822 science. The second less so.

[TGLS]

You know, if you supplied a chemist from the period cobalt-60, I'm willing to be that they'd figure out what's causing the "miasma" (i.e. it's unusual atomic weight), and then go off in some crazy direction as to why that causes a miasma.

[Inky]

Actually, speaking of miasmas, another thing that might be superscience - depending who you asked - was germ theory and everything that followed from it. Apparently it was around by then, but was being dismissed as a crank theory, with miasma theory being the leading theory. (I'm not sure I don't remember hearing that surgeons in that era considered that copious amounts of pus were a natural part of the healing process and that it was a worrying sign if a wound wasn't producing pus!)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by TGLS

You know, if you supplied a chemist from the period cobalt-60, I'm willing to be that they'd figure out what's causing the "miasma" (i.e. it's unusual atomic weight), and then go off in some crazy direction as to why that causes a miasma.

If they've got cobalt-60 that's pure enough to measure its density, it's also pure enough that it's going to glow in the dark and be warm to the touch, both of which are clues that Something Is Not Right.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by maximara

That is more poor wording than anything else. "This cobalt has a miasma that makes you sick and can eventually kill you if you stay around it too long. This miasma has the side effect of causing it to change into nickel."

The first part was well within 1822 science. The second less so.

In 1822, the chemical elements were seen as immutable. Which they are, chemically. But it was believed in 1822 that they were fundamental building blocks, that the idea of any element turning into any other element was discredited magical thinking, alchemy rather than science. This was seen as being as well established then as relativity or QM are now.

So it was impossible for that chunk of cobalt to turn into nickel.

Except, of course, that that the accepted and tested foundations of science at the time were wrong and/or incomplete. You can never know what you don't know.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Inky

Actually, speaking of miasmas, another thing that might be superscience - depending who you asked - was germ theory and everything that followed from it. Apparently it was around by then, but was being dismissed as a crank theory, with miasma theory being the leading theory. (I'm not sure I don't remember hearing that surgeons in that era considered that copious amounts of pus were a natural part of the healing process and that it was a worrying sign if a wound wasn't producing pus!)

Paul de Kruif 1926 Microbe Hunters can serve as a rough blueprint as to when ideas became accepted — germ theory goes all the way back to Girolamo Fracastoro and 1546 for example but it wasn't until the 1850s that it started to get acceptance.

Microbe Hunters is interesting because trapped like a fly in amber is this:

"At once Pasteur jumped to a fine idea: "If the harmless bugs from the air choke out the anthrax bacilli in the bottle, they will do it in the body too! It is a kind of dog-eat-dog!" shouted Pasteur, and at once he put Roux and Chamberland to work on the fantastic experiment of giving guinea-pigs anthrax and then shooting doses of billions of harmless microbes into them—beneficent germs which were to chase the anthrax bacilli round the body and devour them—they were to be like the mongoose which kills cobras...

Pasteur gravely announced: "That there were high hopes for the cure of disease from this experiment," but that is the last you hear of it, for Pasteur was never a man to give the world of science the benefit of studying his failures."

However according to Shama G (September 2016). "La Moisissure et la Bactérie: Deconstructing the fable of the discovery of penicillin by Ernest Duchesne". Endeavour. 40 (3): 188–200. this 1877 development it was a mold (supposedly Penicillium notatum) not other microbes.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If they've got cobalt-60 that's pure enough to measure its density, it's also pure enough that it's going to glow in the dark and be warm to the touch, both of which are clues that Something Is Not Right.

Considering that cobalt-60 has a half-life of only 5.2713 years and is turning into Nickel would be another Something Is Not Right clue.

Research notes: "It was pure when I got this thing and yet now 1.56% of it is now Nickel in only three months. I am thankful that the person that gave me a lead lined suit and box to protect from miasma given what is happening to the mice brought into contact with it. Their hair falls out along with the most horrible burns I have ever seen. Then they die and from what I have seen it is not a painless death. Whatever this miasma is it is the most potent I have ever studied."

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by TGLS

You know, if you supplied a chemist from the period cobalt-60, I'm willing to be that they'd figure out what's causing the "miasma" (i.e. it's unusual atomic weight), and then go off in some crazy direction as to why that causes a miasma.

I think 1822 is too early for atomic weight. Dalton published the idea in 1808 but had the details wrong, and I don’t think the lab techniques to accurately determine how many moles of cobalt you had in a sample existed then. Remember that isotopes weren’t discovered until 1911.

In fact, 1822 might be too early for chemists….

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by maximara

Research notes: "It was pure when I got this thing and yet now 1.56% of it is now Nickel in only three months. "

How would you do that assay in 1822?