The Invention Of The Incandescent Lamp - 3

The Invention Of The Incandescent Lamp - 3

These lamps and many others of similar character, ingenious as they were, failed to
become of any commercial value, due, among other things, to the brief life of the carbon
burner. Even under the best conditions it was found that the carbon members were
subject to a rapid disintegration or evaporation, which experimenters assumed was due to
the disrupting action of the electric current; and hence the conclusion that carbon
contained in itself the elements of its own destruction, and was not a suitable material for
the burner of an incandescent lamp. On the other hand, platinum, although found to be
the best of all materials for the purpose, aside from its great expense, and not combining
with oxygen at high temperatures as does carbon, required to be brought so near the
melting-point in order to give light, that a very slight increase in the temperature resulted
in its destruction. It was assumed that the difficulty lay in the material of the burner itself,
and not in its environment.
It was not realized up to such a comparatively recent date as 1879 that the solution of the
great problem of subdivision of the electric current would not, however, be found merely
in the production of a durable incandescent electric lamp--even if any of the lamps above
referred to had fulfilled that requirement. The other principal features necessary to
subdivide the electric current successfully were: the burning of an indefinite number of
lights on the same circuit; each light to give a useful and economical degree of
illumination; and each light to be independent of all the others in regard to its operation
and extinguishment.
The opinions of scientific men of the period on the subject are well represented by the
two following extracts--the first, from a lecture at the Royal United Service Institution,
about February, 1879, by Mr. (Sir) W. H. Preece, one of the most eminent electricians in
England, who, after discussing the question mathematically, said: "Hence the subdivision
of the light is an absolute ignis fatuus." The other extract is from a book written
by Paget Higgs, LL.D., D.Sc., published in London in 1879, in which he says: "Much
nonsense has been talked in relation to this subject. Some inventors have claimed the
power to `indefinitely divide' the electric current, not knowing or forgetting that such a
statement is incompatible with the well-proven law of conservation of energy."
"Some inventors," in the last sentence just quoted, probably--indeed, we think
undoubtedly--refers to Edison, whose earlier work in electric lighting (1878) had been
announced in this country and abroad, and who had then stated boldly his conviction of
the practicability of the subdivision of the electrical current. The above extracts are good
illustrations, however, of scientific opinions up to the end of 1879, when Mr. Edison's
epoch-making invention rendered them entirely untenable. The eminent scientist, John
Tyndall, while not sharing these precise views, at least as late as January 17, 1879,
delivered a lecture before the Royal Institution on "The Electric Light," when, after
pointing out the development of the art up to Edison's work, and showing the apparent
hopelessness of the problem, he said: "Knowing something of the intricacy of the
practical problem, I should certainly prefer seeing it in Edison's hands to having it in
mine."