Chapter 9

Authorities.â€”J.F. Rhodes,History of the United States, vol. 7, covering 1872-1877 (New York, 1906); P.L. Haworth,The Hayes-Tilden disputed Presidential Election of 1876(Cleveland, 1906); J.W. Burgess,Political Science Quarterly, vol. 3 (1888), pp. 633-653, â€œThe Law of the Electoral Countâ€; and for the sources. Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 5 (vol. 1), and House Miscel. Doc. No. 13 (vol. 2), 44 Congress, 2 Session,â€”Count of the Electoral Vote. Proceedings of Congress and Electoral Commission,â€”the latter identical withCongressional Record, vol. 5, pt. 4, 44 Cong., 2 Session; also about twenty volumes of evidence on the state elections involved. The volume calledThe Presidential Counts(New York, 1877) was compiled by Mr. Tilden and his secretary.

1The election of a vice-president was, of course, involved also. William A. Wheeler was the Republican candidate, and Thomas A. Hendricks the Democratic.2A second set of electoral ballots had also been sent in from Vermont, where Hayes had received a popular majority vote of 24,000. As these ballots had been transmitted in an irregular manner, the president of the Senate refused to receive them, and was sustained in this action by the upper House.

1The election of a vice-president was, of course, involved also. William A. Wheeler was the Republican candidate, and Thomas A. Hendricks the Democratic.

2A second set of electoral ballots had also been sent in from Vermont, where Hayes had received a popular majority vote of 24,000. As these ballots had been transmitted in an irregular manner, the president of the Senate refused to receive them, and was sustained in this action by the upper House.

ELECTORS(Ger.KurfÃ¼rsten, fromKÃ¼ren, O.H.G.kiosan, choose, elect, andFÃ¼rst, prince), a body of German princes, originally seven in number, with whom rested the election of the German king, from the 13th until the beginning of the 19th century. The German kings, from the time of Henry the Fowler (919-936) till the middle of the 13th century, succeeded to their position partly by heredity, and partly by election. Primitive Germanic practice had emphasized the element of heredity.Reges ex nobilitate sumunt: the man whom a German tribe recognized as its king must be in the line of hereditary descent from Woden; and therefore the genealogical trees of early Teutonic kings (as, for instance, in England those of the Kentish and West Saxon sovereigns) are carefully constructed to prove that descent from the god which alone will constitute a proper title for his descendants. Even from the first, however, there had been some opening for election; for the principle of primogeniture was not observed, and there might be several competing candidates, all of the true Woden stock. One of these competing candidates would have to be recognized (as the Anglo-Saxons said,geceosan); and to this limited extent Teutonic kings may be termed elective from the very first. In the other nations of western Europe this element of election dwindled, and the principle of heredity alone received legal recognition; in medieval Germany, on the contrary, the principle of heredity, while still exercising an inevitable natural force, sank formally into the background, and legal recognition was finally given to the elective principle.De facto, therefore, the principle of heredity exercises in Germany a great influence, an influence never more striking than in the period which follows on the formal recognition of the elective principle, when the Habsburgs (like the Metelli at Rome)fato imperatores fiunt: de jure, each monarch owes his accession simply and solely to the vote of an electoral college.

This difference between the German monarchy and the other monarchies of western Europe may be explained by various considerations. Not the least important of these is what seems a pure accident. Whereas the Capetian monarchs, during the three hundred years that followed on the election of Hugh Capet in 987, always left an heir male, and an heir male of full age, the German kings again and again, during the same period, either left a minor to succeed to their throne, or left no issue at all. The principle of heredity began to fail because there were no heirs. Again the strength of tribal feeling in Germany made the monarchy into a prize, which must not be the apanage of any single tribe, but must circulate, as it were, from Franconian to Saxon, from Saxon to Bavarian, from Bavarian to Franconian, from Franconian to Swabian; while the growing power of the baronage, and its habit of erecting anti-kings to emphasize its opposition to the crown (as, for instance, in the reign of Henry IV.), coalesced with and gave new force to the action of tribal feeling. Lastly, the fact that the German kings were also Roman emperors finally and irretrievably consolidated the growing tendency towards the elective principle. The principle of heredity had never held any great sway under the ancient Roman Empire (see underEmperor); and the medieval Empire, instituted as it was by the papacy, came definitely under the influence of ecclesiastical prepossessions in favour of election. The church had substituted for that descent from Woden, which had elevated the old pagan kings to their thrones, the conception that the monarch derived his crown from the choice of God, after the manner of Saul; and the theoretical choice of God was readily turned into the actual choice of the church, or, at any rate, of the general body of churchmen. If an ordinary king is thus regarded by the church as essentially elected, much more will the emperor, connected as he is with the church as one of its officers, be held to be also elected; and as a bishop is chosen by the chapter of his diocese, so, it will be thought, must the emperor be chosen by some corresponding body in his empire. Heredity might be tolerated in a mere matter of kingship: the precious trust of imperial power could not be allowed to descend according to the accidents of family succession. To Otto of Freising (Gesta Frid.ii. 1) it is already a point of rightvindicated for itself by the excellency of the Roman Empire, as a matter of singular prerogative, that it should not descendper sanguinis propaginem, sed per principum electionem.

The accessions of Conrad II. (see Wipo,Vita Cuonradi, c. 1-2), of Lothair II. (seeNarratio de electione Lotharii, M.G.H.Scriptt.xii. p. 510), of Conrad III. (see Otto of Freising,Chronicon, vii. 22) and of Frederick I. (see Otto of Freising,Gesta Frid.ii. 1) had all been marked by an element, more or less pronounced, of election. That element is perhaps most considerable in the case of Lothair, who had no rights of heredity to urge. Here we read of ten princes being selected from the princes of the various duchies, to whose choice the rest promise to assent, and of these ten selecting three candidates, one of whom, Lothair, is finally chosen (apparently by the whole assembly) in a somewhat tumultuary fashion. In this case the electoral assembly would seem to be, in the last resort, the whole diet of all the princes. But ade factopre-eminence in the act of election is already, during the 12th century, enjoyed by the three Rhenish archbishops, probably because of the part they afterwards played at the coronation, and also by the dukes of the great duchiesâ€”possibly because of the part they too played, as vested for the time with the great offices of the household, at the coronation feast.1Thus at the election of Lothair it is the archbishop of Mainz who conducts the proceedings; and the election is not held to be final until the duke of Bavaria has given his assent. The fact is that, votes being weighed by quality as well as by quantity (seeDiet), the votes of the archbishops and dukes, which would first be taken, would of themselves, if unanimous, decide the election. To prevent tumultuary elections, it was well that the election should be left exclusively with these great dignitaries; and this is what, by the middle of the 13th century, had eventually been done.

The chaos of the interregnum from 1198 to 1212 showed the way for the new departure; the chaos of the great interregnum (1250-1273) led to its being finally taken. The decay of the great duchies, and the narrowing of the class of princes into a close corporation, some of whose members were the equals of the old dukes in power, introduced difficulties and doubts into the practice of election which had been used in the 12th century. The contested election of the interregnum of 1198-1212 brought these difficulties and doubts into strong relief. The famous bull of Innocent III. (Venerabilem), in which he decided for Otto IV. against Philip of Swabia, on the ground that, though he had fewer votes than Philip, he had a majority of the votes of thosead quos principaliter spectat electio, made it almost imperative that there should be some definition of these principal electors. The most famous attempt at such a definition is that of theSachsenspiegel, which was followed, or combated, by many other writers in the first half of the 13th century. Eventually the contested election of 1257 brought light and definition. Here we find seven potentates actingâ€”the same seven whom the Golden Bull recognizes in 1356; and we find these seven described in an official letter to the pope, asprincipes vocem in hujusmodi electione habentes, qui sunt septem numero. The doctrine thus enunciated was at once received. The pope acknowledged it in two bulls (1263); a cardinal, in a commentary on the bullVenerabilemof Innocent III., recognized it about the same time; and the erection of statues of the seven electors at Aix-la-Chapelle gave the doctrine a visible and outward expression.

By the date of the election of Rudolph of Habsburg (1273) the seven electors may be regarded as a definite body, with an acknowledged right. But the definition and the acknowledgment were still imperfect. (1) The composition of the electoral body was uncertain in two respects. The duke of Bavaria claimed as his right the electoral vote of the king of Bohemia; and the practice ofpartitioin electoral families tended to raise further difficulties about the exercise of the vote. The Golden Bull of 1356 settled both these questions. Bohemia (of which Charles IV., the author of the Golden Bull, was himself the king) was assigned the electoral vote in preference to Bavaria; and a provision annexing the electoral vote to a definite territory, declaring that territory indivisible, and regulating its descent by the rule of primogeniture instead of partition, swept away the old difficulties which the custom of partition had raised. After 1356 the seven electors are regularly the three Rhenish archbishops, Mainz, Cologne and Trier, and four lay magnates, the palatine of the Rhine, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg, and the king of Bohemia; the three former being vested with the three archchancellorships, and the four latter with the four offices of the royal household (seeHousehold). (2) The rights of the seven electors, in their collective capacity as an electoral college, were a matter of dispute with the papacy. The result of the election, whether made, as at first, by the princes generally or, as after 1257, by the seven electors exclusively, was in itself simply the creation of a German kingâ€”anelectio in regem. But since 962 the German king was also, after coronation by the pope, Roman emperor. Therefore the election had a double result: the man elected was not onlyelectus in regem, but alsopromovendus ad imperium. The difficulty was to define the meaning of the termpromovendus. Was the king electinevitablyto become emperor? or did thepromotioonly follow at the discretion of the pope, if he thought the king elect fit for promotion? and if so, to what extent, and according to what standard, did the pope judge of such fitness? Innocent III. had already claimed, in the bullVenerabilem, (1) that the electors derived their power of election, so far as it made an emperor, from the Holy See (which had originally â€œtranslatedâ€ the Empire from the East to the West), and (2) that the papacy had ajus et auctoritas examinandi personam electam in regem et promovendam ad imperium. The latter claim he had based on the fact that he anointed, consecrated and crowned the emperorâ€”in other words, that he gave a spiritual office according to spiritual methods, which entitled him to inquire into the fitness of the recipient of that office, as a bishop inquires into the fitness of a candidate for ordination. Innocent had put forward this claim as a ground for deciding between competing candidates: Boniface VIII. pressed the claim against Albert I. in 1298, even though his election was unanimous; while John XXII. exercised it in its harshest form, when in 1324 he ex-communicated Louis IV. for using the title and exerting the rights even of king without previous papal confirmation. This action ultimately led to a protest from the electors themselves, whose right of election would have become practically meaningless, if such assumptions had been tolerated. A meeting of the electors (Kurverein) at Rense in 1338 declared (and the declaration was reaffirmed by a diet at Frankfort in the same year) thatpostquam aliquis eligitur in Imperatorem sive Regem ab Electoribus Imperii concorditer, vel majori parte eorundem, statim ex sola electione est Rex verus et Imperator Romanus censendus ... nec Papae sive Sedis Apostolicae ... approbatione ... indiget. The doctrine thus positively affirmed at Rense is negatively reaffirmed in the Golden Bull, in which a significant silence is maintained in regard to papal rights. But the doctrine was not in practice followed: Sigismund himself did not venture to dispense with papal approbation.

By the end of the 14th century the position of the electors, both individually and as a corporate body, had become definite and precise. Individually, they were distinguished from all other princes, as we have seen, by the indivisibility of their territories and by the custom of primogeniture which secured that indivisibility; and they were still further distinguished by the fact that their person, like that of the emperor himself, was protected by the law of treason, while their territories were only subject to the jurisdiction of their own courts. They were independent territorial sovereigns; and their position was at once the envy and the ideal of the other princes of Germany. Such had been the policy of Charles IV.; and thus had he, in the Golden Bull, sought to magnify the seven electors, and himselfas one of the seven, in his capacity of king of Bohemia, even at the expense of the Empire, and of himself in his capacity of emperor. Powerful as they were, however, in their individual capacity, the electors showed themselves no less powerful as a corporate body. As such a corporate body, they may be considered from three different points of view, and as acting in three different capacities. They are an electoral body, choosing each successive emperor; they are one of the three colleges of the imperial diet (seeDiet); and they are also an electoral union (KurfÃ¼rstenverein), acting as a separate and independent political organ even after the election, and during the reign, of the monarch. It was in this last capacity that they had met at Rense in 1338; and in the same capacity they acted repeatedly during the 15th century. According to the Golden Bull, such meetings were to be annual, and their deliberations were to concern â€œthe safety of the Empire and the world.â€ Annual they never were; but occasionally they became of great importance. In 1424, during the attempt at reform occasioned by the failure of German arms against the Hussites, theKurfÃ¼rstenvereinacted, or at least it claimed to act, as the predominant partner in a duumvirate, in which the unsuccessful Sigismund was relegated to a secondary position. During the long reign of Frederick III.â€”a reign in which the interests of Austria were cherished, and the welfare of the Empire neglected, by that apathetic yet tenacious emperorâ€”the electors once more attempted, in the year 1453, to erect a new central government in place of the emperor, a government which, if not conducted by themselves directly in their capacity of aKurfÃ¼rstenverein, should at any rate be under their influence and control. So, they hoped, Germany might be able to make head against that papal aggression, to which Frederick had yielded, and to take a leading part in that crusade against the Turks, which he had neglected. Like the previous attempt at reform during the Hussite wars, the scheme came to nothing; the forces of disunion in Germany were too strong for any central government, whether monarchical and controlled by the emperor, or oligarchical and controlled by the electors. But a final attempt, the most strenuous of all, was made in the reign of Maximilian I., and under the influence of Bertold, elector and archbishop of Mainz. The council of 1500, in which the electors (with the exception of the king of Bohemia) were to have sat, and which would have been under their control, represents the last effective attempt at a realReichsregiment. Inevitably, however, it shipwrecked on the opposition of Maximilian; and though the attempt was again made between 1521 and 1530, the idea of a real central government under the control of the electors perished, and the development of local administration by the circle took its place.

In the course of the 16th century a new right came to be exercised by the electors. As an electoral body (that is to say, in the first of the three capacities distinguished above), they claimed, at the election of Charles V. in 1519 and at subsequent elections, to impose conditions on the elected monarch, and to determine the terms on which he should exercise his office in the course of his reign. ThisWahlcapitulation, similar to thePacta Conventawhich limited the elected kings of Poland, was left by the diet to the discretion of the electors, though after the treaty of Westphalia an attempt was made, with some little success,2to turn the capitulation into a matter of legislative enactment by the diet. From this time onwards the only fact of importance in the history of the electors is the change which took place in the composition of their body during the 17th and 18th centuries. From the Golden Bull to the treaty of Westphalia (1356-1648) the composition of the electoral body had remained unchanged. In 1623, however, in the course of the Thirty Yearsâ€™ War, the vote of the count palatine of the Rhine had been transferred to the duke of Bavaria; and at the treaty of Westphalia the vote, with the office of imperial butler which it carried, was left to Bavaria, while an eighth vote, along with the new office of imperial treasurer, was created for the count palatine. In 1708 a ninth vote, along with the office of imperial standard-bearer, was created for Hanover; while finally, in 1778, the vote of Bavaria and the office of imperial butler returned to the counts palatine, as heirs of the duchy, on the extinction of the ducal line, while the new vote created for the Palatinate in 1648, with the office of imperial treasurer, was transferred to Brunswick-LÃ¼neburg (Hanover) in lieu of the one which this house already held. In 1806, on the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the electors ceased to exist.

Literature.â€”T. Lindner,Die deutschen KÃ¶nigswahlen und die Entstehung des KurfÃ¼rstentums(1893), andDer Hergang bei den deutschen KÃ¶nigswahlen(1899); R. KirchhÃ¶fer,Zur Entstehung des Kurkollegiums(1893); W. Maurenbrecher,Geschichte der deutschen KÃ¶nigswahlen(1889); and G. Blondel,Ã‰tude sur FrÃ©dÃ©ric II, p. 27 sqq. See also J. Bryce,Holy Roman Empire(edition of 1904), c. ix.; and R. SchrÃ¶der,Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, pp. 471-481 and 819-820.

(E. Br.)

1This is the view of theSachsenspiegel, and also of Albert of Stade (quoted in SchrÃ¶der, p. 476, n. 27): â€œPalatinus eligit, quia dapifer est; dux Saxoniae, quia marescalcus,â€ &c. SchrÃ¶der points out (p. 479, n. 45) that â€œparticipation in the coronation feast is an express recognition of the kingâ€; and those who are to discharge their office in the one must have had a prominent voice in the other.2See SchrÃ¶derâ€™sLehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, p. 820.

2See SchrÃ¶derâ€™sLehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, p. 820.

ELECTRA(á¼¨Î»ÎÎºÏ„ÏÎ±), â€œthe bright one,â€ in Greek mythology. (1) One of the seven Pleiades, daughter of Atlas and PleÃ¯one. She is closely connected with the old constellation worship and the religion of Samothrace, the chief seat of the Cabeiri (q.v.), where she was generally supposed to dwell. By Zeus she was the mother of Dardanus, Iasion (or EÃ«tion), and Harmonia; but in the Italian tradition, which represented Italy as the original home of the Trojans, Dardanus was her son by a king of Italy named Corythus. After her amour with Zeus, Electra fled to the Palladium as a suppliant, but Athena, enraged that it had been touched by one who was no longer a maiden, flung Electra and the image from heaven to earth, where it was found by Ilus, and taken by him to Ilium; according to another tradition, Electra herself took it to Ilium, and gave it to her son Dardanus (Schol. Eurip.Phoen.1136). In her grief at the destruction of the city she plucked out her hair and was changed into a comet; in another version Electra and her six sisters had been placed among the stars as the Pleiades, and the star which she represented lost its brilliancy after the fall of Troy. Electraâ€™s connexion with Samothrace (where she was also called Electryone and Strategis) is shown by the localization of the carrying off of her reputed daughter Harmonia by Cadmus, and by the fact that, according to Athenicon (the author of a work on Samothrace quoted by the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius i. 917), the Cabeiri were Dardanus and Iasion. The gate Electra at Thebes and the fabulous island Electris were said to have been called after her (Apollodorus iii. 10. 12; Servius onAen.iii. 167, vii. 207, x. 272,Georg.i. 138).

(2) Daughter of Agamemnon and Clytaemnestra, sister of Orestes and Iphigeneia. She does not appear in Homer, although according to Xanthus (regarded by some as a fictitious personage), to whom Stesichorus was indebted for much in hisOresteia, she was identical with the Homeric Laodice, and was called Electra because she remained so long unmarried (á¼ˆ-Î»ÎÎºÏ„ÏÎ±). She was said to have played an important part in the poem of Stesichorus, and subsequently became a favourite figure in tragedy. After the murder of her father on his return from Troy by her mother and Aegisthus, she saved the life of her brother Orestes by sending him out of the country to Strophius, king of Phanote in Phocis, who had him brought up with his own son Pylades. Electra, cruelly ill-treated by Clytaemnestra and her paramour, never loses hope that her brother will return to avenge his father. When grown up, Orestes, in response to frequent messages from his sister, secretly repairs with Pylades to Argos, where he pretends to be a messenger from Strophius bringing the news of the death of Orestes. Being admitted to the palace, he slays both Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra. According to another story (Hyginus,Fab.122), Electra, having received a false report that Orestes and Pylades had been sacrificed to Artemis in Tauris, went to consult the oracle at Delphi. In the meantime Aletes, the son of Aegisthus, seized the throne of Mycenae. Her arrival at Delphi coincided with that of Orestes and Iphigeneia. The same messenger, who had already communicated the false report of the death of Orestes, informed her that he had been slain by Iphigeneia. Electra in her rage seized a burning brand from the altar, intending to blind her sister; but at the critical moment Orestes appeared, recognition took place, and the brother and sister returned to Mycenae. Aletes was slain by Orestes, andElectra became the wife of Pylades. The story of Electra is the subject of theChoÃ«phoriof Aeschylus, theElectraof Sophocles and theElectraof Euripides. It is in the Sophoclean play that Electra is most prominent.

There are many variations in the treatment of the legend, for which, as also for a discussion of the modern plays on the subject by Voltaire and Alfieri, see Jebbâ€™s Introduction to his edition of theElectraof Sophocles.

ELECTRICAL(orElectrostatic)MACHINE,a machine operating by manual or other power for transforming mechanical work into electric energy in the form of electrostatic charges of opposite sign delivered to separate conductors. Electrostatic machines are of two kinds: (1) Frictional, and (2) Influence machines.

Frictional Machines.â€”A primitive form of frictional electrical machine was constructed about 1663 by Otto von Guericke (1602-1686). It consisted of a globe of sulphur fixed on an axis and rotated by a winch, and it was electrically excited by the friction of warm hands held against it. Sir Isaac Newton appears to have been the first to use a glass globe instead of sulphur (Optics, 8th Query). F. Hawksbee in 1709 also used a revolving glass globe. A metal chain resting on the globe served to collect the charge. Later G.M. Bose (1710-1761), of Wittenberg, added the prime conductor, an insulated tube or cylinder supported on silk strings, and J.H. Winkler (1703-1770), professor of physics at Leipzig, substituted a leather cushion for the hand. Andreas Gordon (1712-1751) of Erfurt, a Scotch Benedictine monk, first used a glass cylinder in place of a sphere. Jesse Ramsden (1735-1800) in 1768 constructed his well-known form of plate electrical machine (fig. 1). A glass plate fixed to a wooden or metal shaft is rotated by a winch. It passes between two rubbers made of leather, and is partly covered with two silk aprons which extend over quadrants of its surface. Just below the places where the aprons terminate, the glass is embraced by two insulated metal forks having the sharp points projecting towards the glass, but not quite touching it. The glass is excited positively by friction with the rubbers, and the charge is drawn off by the action of the points which, when acted upon inductively, discharge negative electricity against it. The insulated conductor to which the points are connected therefore becomes positively electrified. The cushions must be connected to earth to remove the negative electricity which accumulates on them. It was found that the machine acted better if the rubbers were covered with bisulphide of tin or with F. von Kienmayerâ€™s amalgam, consisting of one part of zinc, one of tin and two of mercury. The cushions were greased and the amalgam in a state of powder spread over them. Edward Nairneâ€™s electrical machine (1787) consisted of a glass cylinder with two insulated conductors, called prime conductors, on glass legs placed near it. One of these carried the leather exacting cushions and the other the collecting metal points, a silk apron extending over the cylinder from the cushion almost to the points. The rubber was smeared with amalgam. The function of the apron is to prevent the escape of electrification from the glass during its passage from the rubber to the collecting points. Nairneâ€™s machine could give either positive or negative electricity, the first named being collected from the prime conductor carrying the collecting points and the second from the prime conductor carrying the cushion.

Influence Machines.â€”Frictional machines are, however, now quite superseded by the second class of instrument mentioned above, namely, influence machines. These operate by electrostatic induction and convert mechanical work into electrostatic energy by the aid of a small initial charge which is continually being replenished or reinforced. The general principle of all the machines described below will be best understood by considering a simple ideal case. Imagine two Leyden jars with large brass knobs, A and B, to stand on the ground (fig. 2). Let one jar be initially charged with positive electricity on its inner coating and the other with negative, and let both have their outsides connected to earth. Imagine two insulated balls Aâ€² and Bâ€² so held that Aâ€² is near A and Bâ€² is near B. Then the positive charge on A induces two charges on Aâ€², viz.: a negative on the side nearest and a positive on the side most removed. Likewise the negative charge on B induces a positive charge on the side of Bâ€² nearest to it and repels negative electricity to the far side. Next let the balls Aâ€² and Bâ€² be connected together for a moment by a wire N called a neutralizing conductor which is subsequently removed. Then Aâ€² will be left negatively electrified and Bâ€² will be left positively electrified. Suppose that Aâ€² and Bâ€² are then made to change places. To do this we shall have to exert energy to remove Aâ€² against the attraction of A and Bâ€² against the attraction of B. Finally let Aâ€² be brought in contact with B and Bâ€² with A. The ball Aâ€² will give up its charge of negative electricity to the Leyden jar B, and the ball Bâ€² will give up its positive charge to the Leyden jar A. This transfer will take place because the inner coatings of the Leyden jars have greater capacity with respect to the earth than the balls. Hence the charges of the jars will be increased. The balls Aâ€² and Bâ€² are then practically discharged, and the above cycle of operations may be repeated. Hence, however small may be the initial charges of the Leyden jars, by a principle of accumulation resembling that of compound interest, they can be increased as above shown to any degree. If this series of operations be made to depend upon the continuous rotation of a winch or handle, the arrangement constitutes an electrostatic influence machine. The principle therefore somewhat resembles that of the self-exciting dynamo.

The first suggestion for a machine of the above kind seems to have grown out of the invention of Voltaâ€™s electrophorus.Bennetâ€™s Doubler.Abraham Bennet, the inventor of the gold leaf electroscope, described a doubler or machine for multiplying electric charges (Phil. Trans., 1787).

The principle of this apparatus may be explained thus. Let A and C be two fixed disks, and B a disk which can be brought at will within a very short distance of either A or C. Let us suppose all the plates to be equal, and let the capacities of A and C in presence of B be each equal to p, and the coefficient of induction between A and B, or C and B, be q. Let us also suppose that the plates A and C are so distant from each other that there is no mutual influence, and that pâ€™ is the capacity of one of the disks when it stands alone. A small charge Q is communicated to A, and A is insulated, and B, uninsulated, is brought up to it; the charge on B will beâ€”(q/p)Q. B is now uninsulated and brought to face C, which is uninsulated; the charge on C will be (q/p)Â²Q. C is now insulated and connected with A, which is always insulated. B is then brought to face A and uninsulated, so that the charge on A becomes rQ, wherer =p(1 +qÂ²).p + pâ€²pÂ²A is now disconnected from C, and here the first operation ends. It is obvious that at the end of n such operations the charge on A will be rnQ, so that the charge goes on increasing in geometrical progression. If the distance between the disks could be madeinfinitely small each time, then the multiplier r would be 2, and the charge would be doubled each time. Hence the name of the apparatus.

A is now disconnected from C, and here the first operation ends. It is obvious that at the end of n such operations the charge on A will be rnQ, so that the charge goes on increasing in geometrical progression. If the distance between the disks could be madeinfinitely small each time, then the multiplier r would be 2, and the charge would be doubled each time. Hence the name of the apparatus.

Erasmus Darwin, B. Wilson, G.C. Bohnenberger and J.C.E. Peclet devised various modifications of Bennetâ€™s instrument (see S.P. Thompson, â€œThe Influence Machine from 1788 to 1888,â€Journ. Soc. Tel. Eng., 1888, 17, p. 569).Nicholsonâ€™s doubler.Bennetâ€™s doubler appears to have given a suggestion to William Nicholson (Phil. Trans., 1788, p. 403) of â€œan instrument which by turning a winch produced the two states of electricity without friction or communication with the earth.â€ This â€œrevolving doubler,â€ according to the description of Professor S.P. Thompson (loc. cit.), consists of two fixed plates of brass A and C (fig. 3), each two inches in diameter and separately supported on insulating arms in the same plane, so that a third revolving plate B may pass very near them without touching. A brass ball D two inches in diameter is fixed on the end of the axis that carries the plate B, and is loaded within at one side, so as to act as a counterpoise to the revolving plate B. The axis P N is made of varnished glass, and so are the axes that join the three plates with the brass axis N O. The axis N O passes through the brass piece M, which stands on an insulating pillar of glass, and supports the plates A and C. At one extremity of this axis is the ball D, and the other is connected with a rod of glass, N P, upon which is fixed the handle L, and also the piece G H, which is separately insulated. The pins E, F rise out of the back of the fixed plates A and C, at unequal distances from the axis. The piece K is parallel to G H, and both of them are furnished at their ends with small pieces of flexible wire that they may touch the pins E, F in certain points of their revolution. From the brass piece M there stands out a pin I, to touch against a small flexible wire or spring which projects sideways from the rotating plate B when it comes opposite A. The wires are so adjusted by bending that B, at the moment when it is opposite A, communicates with the ball D, and A communicates with C through GH; and half a revolution later C, when B comes opposite to it, communicates with the ball D through the contact of K with F. In all other positions A, B, C and D are completely disconnected from each other. Nicholson thus described the operation of his machine:â€”

â€œWhen the plates A and B are opposite each other, the two fixed plates A and C may be considered as one mass, and the revolving plate B, together with the ball D, will constitute another mass. All the experiments yet made concur to prove that these two masses will not possess the same electric state.... The redundant electricities in the masses under consideration will be unequally distributed; the plate A will have about ninety-nine parts, and the plate C one; and, for the same reason, the revolving plate B will have ninety-nine parts of the opposite electricity, and the ball D one. The rotation, by destroying the contacts, preserves this unequal distribution, and carries B from A to C at the same time that the tail K connects the ball with the plate C. In this situation, the electricity in B acts upon that in C, and produces the contrary state, by virtue of the communication between C and the ball; which last must therefore acquire an electricity of the same kind with that of the revolving plate. But the rotation again destroys the contact and restores B to its first situation opposite A. Here, if we attend to the effect of the whole revolution, we shall find that the electric states of the respective masses have been greatly increased; for the ninety-nine parts in A and B remain, and the one part of electricity in C has been increased so as nearly to compensate ninety-nine parts of the opposite electricity in the revolving plate B, while the communication produced an opposite mutation in the electricity of the ball. A second rotation will, of course, produce a proportional augmentation of these increased quantities; and a continuance of turning will soon bring the intensities to their maximum, which is limited by an explosion between the platesâ€ (Phil. Trans., 1788, p. 405).

Nicholson described also another apparatus, the â€œspinning condenser,â€ which worked on the same principle. Bennet and Nicholson were followed by T. Cavallo, John Read, Bohnenberger, C.B. DÃ©sormes and J.N.P. HachetteBelliâ€™s doubler.and others in the invention of various forms of rotating doubler. A simple and typical form of doubler, devised in 1831 by G. Belli (fig. 4), consisted of two curved metal plates between which revolved a pair of balls carried on an insulating stem. Following the nomenclature usual in connexion with dynamos we may speak of the conductors which carry the initial charges as the field plates, and of the moving conductors on which are induced the charges which are subsequently added to those on the field plates, as the carriers. The wire which connects two armature plates for a moment is the neutralizing conductor. The two curved metal plates constitute the field plates and must have original charges imparted to them of opposite sign. The rotating balls are the carriers, and are connected together for a moment by a wire when in a position to be acted upon inductively by the field plates, thus acquiring charges of opposite sign. The moment after they are separated again. The rotation continuing the ball thus negatively charged is made to give up this charge to that negatively electrified field plate, and the ball positively charged its charge to the positively electrified field plate, by touching little contact springs. In this manner the field plates accumulate charges of opposite sign.

Modern types of influence machine may be said to date from 1860 when C.F. Varley patented a type of influence machine which has been the parent of numerous subsequent forms (Brit. Pat. Spec.No. 206 of 1860). In it theVarleyâ€™s machine.field plates were sheets of tin-foil attached to a glass plate (fig. 5). In front of them a disk of ebonite or glass, having carriers of metal fixed to its edge, was rotated by a winch. In the course of their rotation two diametrically opposite carriers touched against the ends of a neutralizing conductor so as to form for a moment one conductor, and the moment afterwards these two carriers were insulated, one carrying away a positive charge and the other a negative. Continuing their rotation, the positively charged carrier gave up its positive charge by touching a little knob attached to the positive field plate, and similarly for the negative charge carrier. In this way the charges on the field plates were continually replenished and reinforced. Varley also constructed a multiple form of influence machine having six rotating disks, each having a number of carriers and rotating between field plates. With this apparatus he obtained sparks 6 in. long, the initial source of electrification being a single Daniell cell.

Varley was followed by A.J.I. Toepler, who in 1865 constructed an influence machine consisting of two disks fixed on the same shaft and rotating in the same direction. Each disk carried two strips of tin-foil extendingToepler machine.nearly over a semi-circle, and there were two field plates, one behind each disk; one of the plates was positively and the other negatively electrified. The carriers which were touched under the influence of the positive field plate passed on and gave up a portion of their negative charge to increase that of the negative field plate; in the sameway the carriers which were touched under the influence of the negative field plate sent a part of their charge to augment that of the positive field plate. In this apparatus one of the charging rods communicated with one of the field plates, but the other with the neutralizing brush opposite to the other field plate. Hence one of the field plates would always remain charged when a spark was taken at the transmitting terminals.

Between 1864 and 1880, W.T.B. Holtz constructed and described a large number of influence machines which were for a long time considered the most advanced development of this type of electrostatic machine. In one form theHoltz machine.Holtz machine consisted of a glass disk mounted on a horizontal axis F (fig. 6) which could be made to rotate at a considerable speed by a multiplying gear, part of which is seen at X. Close behind this disk was fixed another vertical disk of glass in which were cut two windows B, B. On the side of the fixed disk next the rotating disk were pasted two sectors of paper A, A, with short blunt points attached to them which projected out into the windows on the side away from the rotating disk. On the other side of the rotating disk were placed two metal combs C, C, which consisted of sharp points set in metal rods and were each connected to one of a pair of discharge balls E, D, the distance between which could be varied. To start the machine the balls were brought in contact, one of the paper armatures electrified, say, with positive electricity, and the disk set in motion. Thereupon very shortly a hissing sound was heard and the machine became harder to turn as if the disk were moving through a resisting medium. After that the discharge balls might be separated a little and a continuous series of sparks or brush discharges would take place between them. If two Leyden jars L, L were hung upon the conductors which supported the combs, with their outer coatings put in connexion with one another by M, a series of strong spark discharges passed between the discharge balls. The action of the machine is as follows: Suppose one paper armature to be charged positively, it acts by induction on the right hand comb, causing negative electricity to issue from the comb points upon the glass revolving disk; at the same time the positive electricity passes through the closed discharge circuit to the left comb and issues from its teeth upon the part of the glass disk at the opposite end of the diameter. This positive electricity electrifies the left paper armature by induction, positive electricity issuing from the blunt point upon the side farthest from the rotating disk. The charges thus deposited on the glass disk are carried round so that the upper half is electrified negatively on both sides and the lower half positively on both sides, the sign of the electrification being reversed as the disk passes between the combs and the armature by discharges issuing from them respectively. If it were not for leakage in various ways, the electrification would go on everywhere increasing, but in practice a stationary state is soon attained. Holtzâ€™s machine is very uncertain in its action in a moist climate, and has generally to be enclosed in a chamber in which the air is kept artificially dry.

Robert Voss, a Berlin instrument maker, in 1880 devised a form of machine in which he claimed that the principles of Toepler and Holtz were combined. On a rotating glass or ebonite disk were placed carriers of tin-foil or metal buttonsVossâ€™s machine.against which neutralizing brushes touched. This armature plate revolved in front of a field plate carrying two pieces of tin-foil backed up by larger pieces of varnished paper. The studs on the armature plate were charged inductively by being connected for a moment by a neutralizing wire as they passed in front of the field plates, and then gave up their charges partly to renew the field charges and partly to collecting combs connected to discharge balls. In general design and construction, the manner of moving the rotating plate and in the use of the two Leyden jars in connexion with the discharge balls, Voss borrowed his ideas from Holtz.

All the above described machines, however, have been thrown into the shade by the invention of a greatly improved type of influence machine first constructed by James Wimshurst about 1878. Two glass disks are mounted on two shaftsWimshurst machine.in such a manner that, by means of two belts and pulleys worked from a winch shaft, the disks can be rotated rapidly in opposite directions close to each other (fig. 7). These glass disks carry on them a certain number (not less than 16 or 20) tin-foil carriers which may or may not have brass buttons upon them. The glass plates are well varnished, and the carriers are placed on the outer sides of the two glass plates. As therefore the disks revolve, these carriers travel in opposite directions, coming at intervals in opposition to each other. Each upright bearing carrying the shafts of the revolving disks also carries a neutralizing conductor or wire ending in a little brush of gilt thread. The neutralizing conductors for each disk are placed at right angles to each other. In addition there are collecting combs which occupy an intermediate position and have sharp points projecting inwards, and coming near to but not touching the carriers. These combs on opposite sides are connected respectively to the inner coatings of two Leyden jars whose outer coatings are in connexion with one another.

The operation of the machine is as follows: Let us suppose that one of the studs on the back plate is positively electrified and one at the opposite end of a diameter is negatively electrified, and that at that moment two corresponding studs on the front plate passing opposite to these back studs are momentarily connected together by the neutralizing wire belonging to the front plate. The positive stud on the back plate will act inductively on the front stud and charge it negatively, and similarly for the other stud, and as the rotation continues these charged studs will pass round and give up most of their charge through the combs to the Leyden jars. The moment, however, a pair of studs on the front plate are charged, they act as field plates to studs on the back plate which are passing at the moment, provided these last are connected by the back neutralizing wire. After a few revolutions of the disks half the studs on the front plate at any moment are charged negatively and half positively and the same on the back plate, the neutralizing wires forming the boundary between the positively and negatively charged studs. The diagram in fig. 8, taken by permission from S.P. Thompsonâ€™s paper (loc. cit.), represents a view of the distribution of these charges on the front and back plates respectively. It will beseen that each stud is in turn both a field plate and a carrier having a charge induced on it, and then passing on in turn induces further charges on other studs. Wimshurst constructed numerous very powerful machines of this type, some of them with multiple plates, which operate in almost any climate, and rarely fail to charge themselves and deliver a torrent of sparks between the discharge balls whenever the winch is turned. He also devised an alternating current electrical machine in which the discharge balls were alternately positive and negative. Large Wimshurst multiple plate influence machines are often used instead of induction coils for exciting RÃ¶ntgen ray tubes in medical work. They give very steady illumination on fluorescent screens.

In 1900 it was found by F. Tudsbury that if an influence machine is enclosed in a metallic chamber containing compressed air, or better, carbon dioxide, the insulating properties of compressed gases enable a greatly improved effect to be obtained owing to the diminution of the leakage across the plates and from the supports. Hence sparks can be obtained of more than double the length at ordinary atmospheric pressure. In one case a machine with plates 8 in. in diameter which could give sparks 2.5 in. at ordinary pressure gave sparks of 5, 7, and 8 in. as the pressure was raised to 15, 30 and 45 â„” above the normal atmosphere.

The action of Lord Kelvinâ€™s replenisher (fig. 9) used by him in connexion with his electrometers for maintaining their charge, closely resembles that of Belliâ€™s doubler and will be understood from fig. 9. Lord Kelvin also devised an influence machine, commonly called a â€œmouse mill,â€ for electrifying the ink in connexion with his siphon recorder. It was an electrostatic and electromagnetic machine combined, driven by an electric current and producing in turn electrostatic charges of electricity. In connexion with this subject mention must also be made of the water dropping influence machine of the same inventor.1

C, C, Metal carriers fixed to ebonite cross-arm.

F, F, Brass field-plates or conductors.

a,a, Receiving springs.

n,n, Connecting springs or neutralizing brushes.

The action and efficiency of influence machines have been investigated by F. Rossetti, A. Righi and F.W.G. Kohlrausch. The electromotive force is practically constant no matter what the velocity of the disks, but according to some observers the internal resistance decreases as the velocity increases. Kohlrausch, using a Holtz machine with a plate 16 in. in diameter, found that the current given by it could only electrolyse acidulated water in 40 hours sufficient to liberate one cubic centimetre of mixed gases. E.E.N. Mascart, A. Roiti, and E. Bouchotte have also examined the efficiency and current producing power of influence machines.

Back to Index Next