Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Joseph Priestley

Joseph Priestley
Joseph Priestley was an important eighteenth-century natural philosopher (and educator and minister and political theorist and philosopher). Most notably, he discovered oxygen. Because Priestley made significant contributions in so many fields, it is difficult to write a succinct article on him; it is also difficult for one editor to write the article. Nevertheless, I have tried. While I have had some assistance, the bulk of the writing and research has been done by myself. Because I am more familiar with the humanities than with the sciences, I would appreciate a check of my descriptions of Priestley's experiments and discoveries. If anyone is suddenly inspired to research Priestley and help me out with this article, that would be wonderful. Awadewit | talk  04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jayron32
I must confess, though I am a chemist by training and an educator by trade, I don't know much about Priestly and his personal life, but I will make comments where I can on the chemistry in the article.
 * For completeness, provide formula of nitric oxide and hydrochloric acid in the Natural philosopher of air section. These are helpful and other compounds have them as well in this section.
 * Added. Awadewit | talk  05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also in the same sentance of that section, some of Priestly's names for his airs are listed in quotes and others not... Why?
 * No reason. Fixed. Awadewit | talk  05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Eudiometry should probably link to eudiometer. Eudiometry is simply the measurement of changing gas volumes in a chemical reaction; it is such a simple concept that it probably doesn't need a separate article from the device.  Not really sure what the nitrous air test is or how it relates to Eudiometry; unless he used eudiometry in this nitrous air test.  This bit is unclear.
 * Apparently he used the "nitrous air" in the eudiometer (fixed link). I take it one can use other gases? I'm just not sure if they did in the eighteenth century. Awadewit | talk  05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A eudiometer is simply a device used to collect gases generated in any chemical reaction, especially for the purpose of measuring the volume of the gas generated. A simply eudiometer would be a graduated cylinder filled with water, and inverted over the chemical reaction where the gas is being generated.  As the reaction occurs, the generated gas will displace water from the cylinder and this will both isolate the gas and allow some crude volume measurements.  Without knowing the details of his experiment, I have no idea how he used it.  I am not sure if he generated nutrous air and trapped it in the eudiometer or did a reaction with the nitrous air and used the eudiometer to trap the products or what.  this link will give you some idea of what a eudiometer may look like.  They are quite varied in design and usage, but they all do the same basic thing: trap gas.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some quotes:
 * "The "Observations" made Priestley a leader of pneumatic chemistry, not only because of the discoveries it announced--and there were many of these:...the development of the nitrous air test (eudiometry)--but also because of the simple apparatus and manipulative techniques he had developed and described." (Schofield 1, 259)
 * "He found he could obtain it [nitrous oxide] 'from' most metals. It did not differ much in specific gravity from common air, did not precipitate lime water, was not inflammable. It preserved animal matter from putrefaction; most significant, when mixed with common air, there was effervescence, red fumes were produced, and common air was reduced in bulk in proportion to its fitness for respiration or combustion. . . . This 'nitrous air test' provided a way of examining airs for their 'degree of goodness' (there being no reaction between 'bad air' and nitrous air) that humanely replaced the mice, which had, anyway, given uncertain results." (Schofield 1, 267).
 * Does this help you figure out what is going on? Awadewit | talk  05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Its kinda vague.  He either used a eudiometer for his nitrous air test OR developed the first eudiometer to do the nitrous air test.  Unfortunately, the text you provided is quite vague on that regard.  I would simply ignore the eudiometry reference.  My best guess from reading that was that he used this nitrous air test was some sort of reaction between nitrous oxide and oxygen, producing nitric oxide... It would make sense since nitrous oxide is in the lower oxidation state; apparently the test was used to test for the presence of "good air" (i.e. oxygen) and replaced the rather inhumane test of using mice to test for its presence.  As I think about it, you could use eudiometry, since the volume air will change by exactly the proportion of the atmosphere is oxygen during the reactions, since the reaction goes like this: 2 N2O + O2 ---> 4NO; Thus in a sample that contained (for example) 2 liters of nitrous oxide and 1 liter of oxygen would result in 4 liters of nitric oxide; an increase of 1 liter, or the same volume as the oxygen that was originally present.  However, GET CONFIRMATION FROM A SOURCE... I am completly riffing on an idea here, this is total OR and I am just guessing on this.  If you can't find a more detailed description of the actual test, simply report that it was a test for "degree of goodness" (i.e. oxygen level) of air, and leave out the eudiometry reference.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except I know he wasn't testing for oxygen as no one had discovered it yet. (They couldn't do your nifty calculation, by the way. Lavoisier hadn't invented the "new chemistry" quite yet.) I'll see what else I can dig up. Awadewit | talk  06:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But your source above implies that the nitrous air test was a surrogate test for breathability of air ("goodness") and thus it would be reasonable to say that it was a test for oxygen, even if he had the time had no idea what oxygen was. He was still testing for its presence even if he didn't know he was.  But still, there should be some more on this SOMEWHERE.  Does the Joe Jackson book contain anything on it?  I have not read it myself, but i have read good things about it... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Priestley actually was testing for oxygen (and the other gases in the air we breathe), but I think that the article should say what he and others thought they were doing, since it is a historical piece. By the way, the Joe Jackson book is terrible. Of all of the biographies, that is the worst. It is redolent with factual errors and wild speculation. I wouldn't bother with it, if I were you. Like I said, I will keep looking. Awadewit | talk  06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe he should stick to singing classic new wave pop songs (ok, I know its not the same guy, but I have been singing "Is she really going out with him" since mentioning the book). But keep digging.  This test, if important enough, should be somewhere.  A google search turned up some interesting stuff: .  Dig through that google search and you may find more interesting stuff.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Undent, same topic)... BTW, we don't use any other components of air besides oxygen. Air is roughly 78% nitrogen (inert), 1% argon (inert) and 20% oxygen (which our bodies use when we breathe).  The other 1% is everything else, which includes mostly CO2 and Water Vapor, neither of which are utilized by animal respiration.  We only use the oxygen when we breathe. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  07:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be, but I think that in a history of science article, it is really important to discuss topics in historical terms. Anachronism is death! Here is another quotation:
 * Priestley here [reference to a quotation from the "Observations"] suggests the basis of a method of Eudiometry, or method of measuring the goodness of air, which in his hands, but more especially in those of Cavendish, led to most important results. The quantitative analysis of the air may be said to have taken its rise from the publication of Priestley's paper." (Thorpe, 182) - Do you think this means JP invented eudiometry, kinda sorta? Awadewit | talk  07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does read that way! It looks like the methods of eudiometry were invented by Priestly specifically for the nitrous air test, and expanded by Cavendish for wider applications.  That is how I read that. Also check out the google search I gave above, and the google books reference.  There's some good stuff there too...--Jayron32| talk | contribs  07:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad the book you linked to has so many pages missing! This site, however, suggests that the test was also useful to Lavoisier for something with acids. Can you parse that? Awadewit | talk  07:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: "Testing for the "goodness of air", Priestley applied the principles of his "nitrous air test" while contributing to the development of eudiometry." Awadewit | talk  18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that captures the basics of it. May need some tweaking for language (two gerund phrases in a single sentance make it hard to parse.  Maybe "Priestly developed the "nitrous air test", which tested for the "goodness of air", a benchmark in the development of the field of eudiometry.  We may want to add a parenthetical on what is meant by "goodness of air".  I think this sentance is easier to parse.  And I've changed my mind about eudiometry.  I think we have found enough to create a decent stub article; maybe even DYK material on it... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have inserted your version with a red-link for eudiometry. Awadewit | talk  09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * About Lavoisier elucidating the "structure" of oxygen... mmm, not really. Poor word choice. Atoms were not even proposed until John Dalton published his Atomic Theory some 10 years after Lavoisier was decapitated; even then proper atomic structure was not really accepted until Prout's Hypothesis was disproven; that wasn't really even done until the late 1890's-early 1900's.  The other meaning of structure; that of molecular structure (that oxygen forms Diatomic molecules) also would have to wait for some time; Amedeo Avogadro and Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac did some seminal work in this area in the early 1800's; though it wasn't until probably the 1860's and Stanislao Cannizzaro that it was really understood.  As far as I remember, Lavoisier did important work on oxygen's role in combustion, and really was the first to recognize it as an "element" (think of Priestly as "Columbus" and Lavoisier as "Vespucci" in this regard).
 * How about: Such dating is significant as Lavoisier and Swedish pharmacist Carl Wilhelm Scheele both have strong claims to the discovery of oxygen as well, Scheele having been first to isolate the gas (although he published after Priestley) and Lavoisier having been first to properly understand that it was an element. Awadewit | talk  05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds better. Probably use a different word than understand; but that better captures the idea of Lavoisier's role in the history...--Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "grasp"? Awadewit | talk  05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking more like "describe as"... understand or grasp gets to internal thought processes... I would want to use language that focuses on actions and not on thoughts... You know, "first to describe oxygen as an element"...--Jayron32| talk | contribs 06:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Awadewit | talk  06:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope that was of some help.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Awadewit | talk  05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)