Skip to main content

On the Mutual Binding of Floating Corpuscles and on Their Shunning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Borelli's On the Movement of Animals - On the Natural Motions Resulting from Gravity

Part of the book series: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ((AUST,volume 38))

  • 365 Accesses

Abstract

Almost 32 years ago, I wanted to find out whether iron wires floating on water placed at different inclinations in relation to the Meridian would retain their position, and return to the same situation and direction in which they had been set, as William Gilbert says. While I was observing attentively, an amazing spectacle was offered to me, which had not been noticed hitherto: some extremities of the floating bodies rushed to each other to unite closely while others separated as occurs for a magnet and iron. Thus, stimulated by this novelty, I tried again using other corpuscles, straws, leaves of trees, and countless other bodies. I wished very much to understand the cause of this effect. After countless experiments, I noticed that these opposite operations resulted from the edges of water round adjacent floating bodies, some raised, some depressed. I took two copper sheets, thinner than paper, V and X (Table 8.1, Fig. 10). At their centres C and L, I applied two straws CD and LM which I welded with wax perpendicularly to the planes of the sheets. I then set the sheets horizontally on the water of a vessel FRSO. When the floating sheets were depressed below the surface of the water, they were surrounded by water edges EA, GB and IN, KO. Then I made two wooden chips Y and Z both of an equal thickness of about half a finger breadth (Table 8.1, Fig. 11). I also adapted to them perpendicular straws. When they were set on water, sloping wedges EA, GB formed round their circumference, above the surface FHO of the water. After this preparation, I dextrously pushed with my fingers the top D of a straw to move the small sheet V towards X, while retaining this firmly before it came into contact with the other sheet V. The distance between the sheets was less than one finger breadth. Then, firstly, I saw that the two sheets V and X spontaneously moved towards each other. Although retained by the small effort of a finger and prevented from reaching each other, afterwards they joined quickly, not less than previously. In the process of their union, the water edge GHN by which the sheets were separated previously levelled off completely. I then turned to the wooden chips Y and Z which were equally immobile and inert when distant from each other by more than a finger breadth. Drawn closer, the chips suddenly moved towards each other to join. This process was different from the previous one in that the two raised wedges GB and IM, not only did not level off nor did they move down to the surface of the subjacent water but, on the contrary, the intermediate space and the cavity BHI were filled completely up to the top BI. Finally, I joined the copper sheet V with the chip Z (Table 8.1, Fig. 12) and I saw that, whenever I drew them closer at a distance of less than one finger breadth, not only they did not unite but, on the contrary, they rapidly moved away from each other and separated as if they abhorred their mutual view and vicinity. Experience thus shows that drawing closer and joining of sheets occur only when the water edges are similar, i.e. when both are raised above or when both are depressed below the surface of the water. When they are different, one being depressed below and the other raised above the surface of the water, separation and escape of the chips occur. In all these operations it was found that, if one of the sheets is retained fixed and immobile, or rather if it is in the orifice of a vessel, the other sheet free and not retained either joins or avoids the contact with the former which is immobile. Since both float freely over the fluid, the movement is common to both bodies. There is a difference, however: the smaller and less ponderous body joins or escapes the other more quickly while the displacement of the larger sheet is slower and more nonchalant. Such is the true and accurate story of this surprising effect. Thus, I do not wonder that the true cause of this effect was not proposed since the history of this operation was not obvious and was not noticed perfectly. It could be observed clearly and evidently only by way of the mentioned small sheets which I devised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borelli, G.A. (2015). On the Mutual Binding of Floating Corpuscles and on Their Shunning. In: Borelli's On the Movement of Animals - On the Natural Motions Resulting from Gravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 38. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08536-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics