Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Romans inventing the lightbulb - true?

I read this in an article of New Scientist last week - anyone know if it's true?

--
BK

Are you unable of posting a link to the article?

If you need help using Ctr-C / Ctrl-V just ask for help.

Hi Bonsaikitten:

There are some that contend the ancient Egyptians had a form of electric light bulbs.

http://www.unsolved-mysteries.net/english/earchiv/e8archivobj005.htm

It is always a surprize to me how up tight some people get when exposed to ideas like this. The Web has some curious debates on the subject. This was a long time before the Romans went a-roamin'. Google "egyptian lights".
jjw

Hi guys,

If you think about it the first battery introduced by Alessandro Volta in 1799 was nothing more than a stack of coins separated by bits of brine soaked cloth. At any point in history anyone might have stumbled onto this trick.

The effect of an electrolyte on dissimiliar metals, as used in Volta's pile, was known at least since Roman. The trick is to place two different coins on the tongue. This produces a tingling sensation or a strange taste. (Pliny the elder in 1st cen. AD wrote of this as an old trick.)

Who knows what some ancient tinkerer might have come up with!

I would be curious to see some better references.


Dr. R.

DrR wrote:
"If you think about it the first battery introduced by Alessandro Volta in 1799...."

Well not exactly. We do know for a fact that the Egyptians had batteries and used them to perform gold plating of jewelry.

The issue around light bulbs is one of being able to obtain a noble gas such as argon or neon to use as an environment that does not support combustion. It is there that I would seriously question the ability of anyone to do more than create a spark. And even that assumes a lot of ability with respect to transformers, capacitors, etc. for which there is no evidence.

Hi DA,

I'm not really sure "for a fact" that the ancient Egyptians did have batteries used for electroplating. I have seen a few articles with photos (sorry I don't recall where, perhaps Science of SciAm) purporting to show Egyptian electrical artifacts. As I recall they said that the function of these were not known and it was only assumed that they functioned electrically. As for Egyptian or Roman lightbulbs, I tend to agree with you. I would not say that it would have been impossible - just unlikely. Note that inert gases, transformers and capacitors are not strictly require to make a light with electricity. These things are more about economical and practical issues.

The main problem with historical artifacts is that "obvious function" may, in fact not be so obvious. A few thousand years in the future a hulla-hoop may be thought of as a religous talisman or who knows what. Some artifact dug up in modern times have no readily discernable function, if they ever had one.

That aside, Volta's invention was the first documented electrical machine for producing steady current in the scientific liturature. It is not that Volta was drop-dead first on the scene - it is that his work was a first in Science and had an enormous impact on later work. In chemistry Carlisle, Davy and Berzelius made important advances base on Volta's pile. Of course Faraday gave us his laws of electrolysis. Volta's pile gave many investigators a tool of discovery. A few names that come to mind are Oersted, Ampere, Biot and Savart. These researchers could make their discoveries because they had a steady current at their disposal. This is significant enough to give Volta the real credit over some unknown ancient that may or may not have used electricity for whatever.

Dr. R.

Here are a few things that may be of interest though I haven't the time, right now, to track them down to what I would call an "authoritative" source.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/sciencemedicine/qt/1stBattery.htm
http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/a/244272.htm
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/copper/overview.php
http://www.selah.k12.wa.us/SOAR/SciProj2005/DerekL.html

I especially like the last one.

But in general I agree with what you wrote. The reason I reference gold plating is that sans a battery ... there is no other conceivable way Egyptians, or others, could have created plated jewelry.

Hi Again DA,

There are several ways to apply gold to a surface other than by means of electroplating. Most of these were known to the Sons of Hermes, i.e., Alchemist. A solution of gold in aqua regia (a fuming mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids) was applied to silver. Gold chloride can also be used when suspended in a liquid like paint. Also an amlgam of mercury and gold can be used to coat surfaces. In expert hands such techniques are very effective and could fool (some) experts.

The alchemical methods have existed since ancient Egyptian time. In fact the term alchemy comes from the Arabic for "The Black". Egypt was once called the black land because of the rich black soil surrounding the Nile. Hence, alchemy is the black art.

Depending on who you read alchemy had its start about 300 BC. The black art was a combination of practical arts (dye making) and medicine (pharmacology) borrowed from the Greeks. This was combined with mysticism and hoopla to get alchemy. Not every alchemist was a flim-flam artist, e.g., Isaac Newton. There is a core of chemical and physical fact in alchemy.

My thinking is that if the alchemista had not been so much into mysticism, obscure arcana, secret codes and what not, we might see that some of them probably had a fair grasp of chemistry as such.

There is another proposed alternative use for the Baghdad battery in addition to electroplating. I think this is a more likely scenario:

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Batteries/historyold.htm

In this idea the battery is used as a medical treatment. This theory makes more sense to me, in light of the ancient interest in pharmacology and the long tradition dating (5th century BC) from the Hippocratic Corpus.

By the way Derek's science project is really nice. Its better than the one I used in school!

Dr. R.

Aqua regia that many thousand years ago? I am trying to imagine how they could have made either nitric or hydrochloric acids of sufficient strength and I fail. Any ideas?

Had they done so I'd have thought it would have quickly become the thermonuclear weapon of their time.

Hi DA,

As far as I know aqua regia was first desribed and used by the great arab alchmist Geber (Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan) in about 800 AD.

He first made hydrochloric acid by combining salt and vitriol. Vitriol is sulfuric acid. This acid was well known for centuries before Geber. The hydrochloric acid was used with nitric acid (aqua fortis), also well known before Geber, to make the aqua regia.

He commented on its use in gold plating. The alchemical pursuit of changing base metals into gold had lots to do with an arcane theory of coluration. Changing the colors of substances was a major concern of alchemists. Especially when it came to gold or something that might be transformed into gold.

To be sure many of the works attributed to Geber were in fact not entirely penned by him. His followers wrote most of the manuscripts and used his name for the authority it would bring. In addition to this consideration, some feel that much of what is expressed in the works of Geber is important beyound the individual.

Geber's work stresses physical fact and procedure over mysticism and arcana. This tradition started (continued?) by his school was an important strand contributing to the founding of chemistry as a science.

I think, but cannot prove, that these acids were around for at least 500 years prior to Geber. He was after all reporting, in addition to his own findings, ancient knowledge.

The ancients were quite adept at making and using acids, both mineral and organic. What they were trying to do, their aims, views and methods, were very different than ours. Nevertheless, don't underestimate their intelligence and drive. They had the same desire and need to cure sickness and prolong life as do we. This is what makes me think that the Baghdad battery was a medical device rather than an electrolytic cell. It is just more in keeping with the kind of thing they would worry about.

I am not sure how you make the leap from simple mineral acids to thermonuclear weapons. Exaggeration makes good theater though.

Dr. R.

Interesting: Thanks.