CLOSE
Original image

Discovering Oxygen: A Brief History

Original image

Because there are three different dead guys who regularly vie for credit for discovering oxygen, we’ve staged a little friendly competition to establish which of these great men deserves the title of the O-master. In evaluating the contenders, we’ll look at when they isolated oxygen and how their experiments furthered our understanding of the element. In addition to bragging rights, the winner takes home one zillion liters of oxygen.

Contender 1: Carl Wilhelm Scheele

Nationality: Swedish
Occupation: Apothecary

Biggest Accomplishment: In 1772, he was the first person to figure out a way – actually a couple of ways - to isolate oxygen. He discovered that mercuric oxide, silver carbonate, magnesium nitrate, and potassium nitrate all gave off the same gas when heated. Scheele dubbed the mystery element “fire air” because he noticed that it produced sparks when it came into contact with charcoal dust.

Other Biggest Accomplishment: Discovered chlorine

Biggest Shortcoming:

Bad timing. Scheele didn’t publish his discovery until 1777, in a treatise called Chemical Observations and Experiments on Air and Fire. By that time, Joseph Priestley had already written a paper describing his findings and published the comprehensive Experiments and Observations on Air. Lavoisier had also successfully isolated the gas. Because Scheele waited so long to get the word out, his groundbreaking experiment was often overlooked by other scientists, earning him the nickname “Hard Luck Scheele.”

Contender 2: Joseph Priestley

Nationality: British

Occupation: Radical Unitarian Minister

Biggest accomplishment: In 1771, Priestley noticed that a mouse in a sealed jar would eventually collapse. He then tried slipping a sprig of mint inside and realized the plant magically revived his subject. Realizing that plants did something to freshen up the air, he wrote to his friend Benjamin Franklin, saying he hoped his discovery would stop people from cutting down so many trees.

Priestley didn’t actually isolate this mystery gas until August 1, 1774, when he heated some mercuric oxide powder and discovered that it gave off a gas that could reignite a glowing ember. He collected large amounts of the gas and tried breathing it himself. After a few puffs, Priestley was hooked. He declared, “My breast felt peculiarly light and easy for some time afterward.”

Other Biggest Accomplishment: Invented seltzer water

Biggest Shortcoming: Priestley just wouldn’t let go of phlogiston theory – a crackpot hypothesis that argued combustion was fueled by an invisible substance called phlogiston. Priestley believed that his mystery gas supported combustion because it was pure and could absorb phlogiston released by burning substances. That’s why he was pushing to name oxygen “dephlogisticated air.”

Contender 3: Antoine Laurent Lavoisier

Nationality: French

Occupation: Tax farmer/Commissioner of the Royal Gunpowder and Saltpeter Administration

Biggest Accomplishment: Lavoisier debunked phlogiston theory. Up until then, scientists couldn’t explain why tin gained weight when it was burned; if it was releasing phlogiston, it should lose weight. Lavoisier realized that there was no way phlogiston could have a negative mass and set out to prove that combustion was caused by something else. He heated Mercury until calx formed, then he heated the calx until it gave off a clear gas. Lavoisier realized combustion resulted from a chemical reaction with this gas – not some flammable mystery element called phlogiston. He dubbed the gas “oxygen” – a name that referred to its ability to create acids.

Other Biggest Accomplishment: Helped establish this thing called the metric system, which some people supposedly use.

Biggest Shortcoming: Lavoisier might have been the one to name oxygen, and for that, we’re grateful (nobody would be caught dead in a dephlogisticated air bar). However, he was not the first to isolate the gas or recognize its unique properties. His methods weren’t even original. In fact, Lavoisier had been in contact with both Priestley and Scheele and borrowed from their experiments.

And the O-Master Is...

We’re giving this one to Joseph Priestley. Although he gets points for publishing first, his real breakthrough was his realization that plants gave off oxygen. This discovery enabled future scientists to understand cellular respiration and photosynthesis – both of which are absolutely essential to life on Earth. We’re also giving Priestley points for recognizing the commercial potential of oxygen when he anticipated that the pure air could be a hit at parties. Sure enough, over 200 years later, oxygen bars have become a thing!

So next time you take a breath (hopefully soon), think of Joseph Priestley and his iconic experiment, which took place exactly 238 years ago today.

Original image
iStock
arrow
science
Tracing Vladimir Nabokov's 1941 Cross-Country Road Trip, One Butterfly at a Time
Original image
iStock

Vladimir Nabokov is most famous as a writer, but the Russian scribe was also an amateur—yet surprisingly accomplished—lepidopterist. Nabokov first began collecting butterflies as a child, and after moving to the U.S. in 1940 he began volunteering in the Lepidoptera collections at the American Museum of Natural History.

The following year, the author took a cross-country road trip, driving 4000 miles from Pennsylvania to California. Along the way, he stopped at kitschy roadside motels, which provided atmospheric fodder for his 1955 novel Lolita. Nabokov also collected hundreds of butterfly samples at these rest stops, most of which he ended up donating to the AMNH.

Nabokov would go on to publish multiple scientific papers on lepidoptery—including the definitive scholarly study of the genus Lycaeides, or the “blues”—and produce perhaps thousands of delicate butterfly drawings. Multiple butterfly species were also named after him, including Nabokov’s wood nymph.

In the AMNH’s 360-degree video below, you can trace the author's 1941 cross-country road trip state-by-state, see some of the specimens he collected, and learn how museum curators are using his westward journey to better understand things like species distribution and migration patterns.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Live Smarter
Trying to Save Money? Avoid Shopping on a Smartphone
Original image
iStock

Today, Americans do most of their shopping online—but as anyone who’s indulged in late-night retail therapy likely knows, this convenience often can come with an added cost. Trying to curb expenses, but don't want to swear off the convenience of ordering groceries in your PJs? New research shows that shopping on a desktop computer instead of a mobile phone may help you avoid making foolish purchases, according to Co. Design.

Ying Zhu, a marketing professor at the University of British Columbia-Okanagan, recently led a study to measure how touchscreen technology affects consumer behavior. Published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, her research found that people are more likely to make more frivolous, impulsive purchases if they’re shopping on their phones than if they’re facing a computer monitor.

Zhu, along with study co-author Jeffrey Meyer of Bowling Green State University, ran a series of lab experiments on student participants to observe how different electronic devices affected shoppers’ thinking styles and intentions. Their aim was to see if subjects' purchasing goals changed when it came to buying frivolous things, like chocolate or massages, or more practical things, like food or office supplies.

In one experiment, participants were randomly assigned to use a desktop or a touchscreen. Then, they were presented with an offer to purchase either a frivolous item (a $50 restaurant certificate for $30) or a useful one (a $50 grocery certificate for $30). These subjects used a three-point scale to gauge how likely they were to purchase the offer, and they also evaluated how practical or frivolous each item was. (Participants rated the restaurant certificate to be more indulgent than the grocery certificate.)

Sure enough, the researchers found that participants had "significantly higher" purchase intentions for hedonic (i.e. pleasurable) products when buying on touchscreens than on desktops, according to the study. On the flip side, participants had significantly higher purchase intentions for utilitarian (i.e. practical) products while using desktops instead of touchscreens.

"The playful and fun nature of the touchscreen enhances consumers' favor of hedonic products; while the logical and functional nature of a desktop endorses the consumers' preference for utilitarian products," Zhu explains in a press release.

The study also found that participants using touchscreen technology scored significantly higher on "experiential thinking" than subjects using desktop computers, whereas those with desktop computers demonstrated higher scores for rational thinking.

“When you’re in an experiential thinking mode, [you crave] excitement, a different experience,” Zhu explained to Co. Design. “When you’re on the desktop, with all the work emails, that interface puts you into a rational thinking style. While you’re in a rational thinking style, when you assess a product, you’ll look for something with functionality and specific uses.”

Zhu’s advice for consumers looking to conserve cash? Stow away the smartphone when you’re itching to splurge on a guilty pleasure.

[h/t Fast Company]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios