Goliath's Revenge
HOW ESTABLISHED COMPANIES TURN THE TABLES ON DIGITAL DISRUPTORS
TODD HEWLIN SCOTT SNYDER
Cover image: © Mehmet Hilmi Barcin/iStock.com
Cover design: Wiley
Copyright © 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748–6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 5724002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-ondemand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
ISBN 9781119541875 (Hardcover)
ISBN 9781119541905 (ePDF)
ISBN 9781119541912 (ePub)
For our kids—Zachary, Emma, Morgan, Lindsey, Evan, and Carson. We learn every day from your unfiltered, digital-native viewpoints and optimistic, change-the-world energy. Digital disruptors are never going to create enough interesting jobs for your generation.
For our friends who are transforming Goliaths into future disruptors. Your courageous spirit and innovator's mindset are what really make elephants dance. Your stories inspired us to write this book.
CONTENTS
Cover
Additional Praise for Goliath's Revenge
Foreword
Chapter 1 How Much Time Do You Have?
Rewriting David versus Goliath
The Resurgence of General Motors
The Six Rules of Goliath’s Revenge
How Much Time Have You Got?
Time to Jump In
Chapter 2 The Incumbent’s Advantage
Your Crown Jewels
Self-Funding Innovation
Brand Reach
Existing Customer Relationships
Installed Base
Data Sets
Blocking Patents
Standards Influence
What Are Your Crown Jewels?
Chapter 3 Winner Takes Most
The End of Average
The Retail Industry: A Cautionary Tale
The Customer Expectation Ratchet
Why Time Is of the Essence
Note
Chapter 4 Rule 1: Deliver Step-Change Customer Outcomes
Pick a Destination: Thinking Customer-In
Plan Your Journey: The Stairway to Value
Get Going: Whole Offers by Step
Rule 1: Company and Career Readiness
Chapter 5 Rule 2: Pursue Big I and Little I Innovation
Differentiate Big I from Little I
Nurture a Company-wide Innovation Culture
Act Fast on Little I Opportunities
Unlock the Power of And
Launch Your Venture Investment Board
Run the Big I Relay Race
Mastercard Pursues Both Big I and Little I1
Stress-Test Your Innovation Program
Rule 2: Company and Career Readiness
Note
Chapter 6 Rule 3: Use Your Data as Currency
Some Historical Context
Build Your Data Balance Sheet
Value Data Optionality
Maximize Return on Data
The Weather Channel
Rule 3: Company and Career Readiness
Note
Chapter 7 Rule 4: Accelerate through Innovation Networks
Overcome the Curse of We Know Everything
Open Up Innovation Channels
Become Easy to Innovate With
Expand Your Corporate Development Toolkit
NASA Opens Up
Rule 4: Company and Career Readiness
Notes
Chapter 8 Rule 5: Value Talent over Technology
How Penn Medicine Is Changing Healthcare
Honor Institutional Knowledge
Go Beyond 3D Digital Roles
Invest in Preemptive Skill Development
Value Venture General Managers
Optimize the AI-Human Balance
Improve Your Digital Dexterity
Rule 5: Company and Career Readiness
Chapter 9 Rule 6: Reframe Your Purpose
Raise Your Sights
Answer the Five Whys
Embrace Smart Cannibalization
Engage the Next Generation
Align Top Down
Lead by Example
Discovery Reframes Its Purpose1
Rule 6: Company and Career Readiness
Note
Chapter 10 Company View: Your Disruptor’s Playbook
You Are Not Too Late
Your Disruptor’s Playbook
Mastercard Executes Its Disruptor’s Playbook
Prioritizing Your Initiatives
Making Mid-Course Adjustments
Note
Chapter 11 Career View: Disrupt Yourself
Professional Readiness for the Six Rules
Balancing Your Triple Bottom Line
Navigating Choppy Waters
Your Purpose and Headline
Your Personal Action Plan
The Time Is Now
Appendix: Goliath’s Revenge Rule Templates
About the Authors
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Detroit Electric Ad from 1917
Figure 1.2 Sample Six Rules Career Midterm Report Card
Figure 1.3 Sample Six Rules Company Midterm Report Card
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 The End of Average.
Figure 3.2 Winner Takes Most, Retail Edition.
Figure 3.3 Incremental Innovation versus Step-Change Customer Outcomes.
Figure 3.4 The Three Steps in Perpetual Algorithmic Advantage.
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Step-Change Outcome Ranking Grid.
Figure 4.2 The Stairway to Value.
Figure 4.3 GE Transportation Stairway Example.
Figure 4.4 Data-Center-as-a-Service Stairway Example.
Figure 4.5 Whole Offers By Step.
Figure 4.6 Sample Rule 1 Readiness Summary.
Figure 4.7 Rule 1 Company Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 4.8 Rule 1 Career Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 4.9 Rule 1 Readiness Summary.
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Channeling Big I and Little I Innovation.
Figure 5.2 Disruptive Potential Scorecard Example.
Figure 5.3 Reverse P&L Healthcare Example.
Figure 5.4 Rule 2 Company Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 5.5 Rule 2 Career Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 5.6 Rule 2 Readiness Summary.
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Your Data Balance Sheet
Figure 6.2 The Digital Value Stack
Figure 6.3 Shortage of Data Scientists.
Figure 6.4 Rule 3 Company Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 6.5 Rule 3 Career Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 6.6 Rule 3 Readiness Summary.
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Channels of Open Innovation.
Figure 7.2 The Gives and Gets of Open Innovation
Figure 7.3 Rule 4 Company Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 7.4 Rule 4 Career Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 7.5 Rule 4 Readiness Summary.
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Preemptive Skill Development Plan.
Figure 8.2 Evolution of the General Manager Role.
Figure 8.3 The Three Phases of the AI Invasion.
Figure 8.4 The Digitization of Leadership Roles.
Figure 8.5 Drivers of Digital Dexterity.
Figure 8.6 Rule 5 Company Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 8.7 Rule 5 Career Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 8.8 Rule 5 Readiness Summary.
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Sample Mission and Vision Statements.
Figure 9.2 Apple Gets Business Model Innovation.
Figure 9.3 The Five Whys Broaden Market Reach.
Figure 9.4 Rule 6 Company Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 9.5 Rule 6 Career Self-Assessment Grid.
Figure 9.6 Rule 6 Readiness Summary.
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 Digital Innovation Posture.
Figure 10.2 Willingness to Fund Big I Innovation.
Figure 10.3 Big I Innovators Are Biased for Growth.
Figure 10.4 Data Leverage for Innovation.
Figure 10.5 Openness to External Innovation.
Figure 10.6 Formal Innovation Process in Place.
Figure 10.7 Innovation Talent Gaps.
Figure 10.8 Employee Engagement Levels.
Figure 10.9 Organizational Alignment on Innovation Strategy.
Figure 10.10 The Goliath’s Revenge Parthenon.
Figure 10.11 Company Readiness Summary.
Figure 10.12 Rule 5 Action Plan Example.
Figure 10.13 Disruptor’s Playbook Management Cadence.
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Career Readiness Summary.
Figure 11.2 Growing Your Triple Bottom Line.
Figure 11.3 Tracking Your Triple Bottom Line.
Figure 11.4 Car Industry 2023 Scenarios.
Figure 11.5 Skills by Future Scenario.
Figure 11.6 The Longevity Paradox.
Appendix: Goliath’s Revenge Rule Templates
Figure A.1 Goliath’s Revenge Rules: Detailed Definitions.
Figure A.2 Goliath’s Revenge Rules: Assessment Scorecard.
Figure A.3 Rule 1 Action Plan Template.
Figure A.4 Rule 2 Action Plan Template.
Figure A.5 Rule 3 Action Plan Template.
Figure A.6 Rule 4 Action Plan Template.
Figure A.7 Rule 5 Action Plan Template.
Figure A.8 Figure A.8Rule 6 Action Plan Template.
Foreword
Everybody gets that digital disruption is radically changing the landscape of every economic sector, public or private. There is scarcely a board of directors or management council that is not pounding the table for digital transformation. We all know we need to get going. The question is, where to?
You can’t transform yourself if you don’t have a clear idea of who or what you need to be in the future. Unfortunately, the only role models established enterprises have today are the very digital disruptors that are putting their franchises at risk. But the disruptors simply cannot be good role models for you. If you copy them, you are taking a me-too approach to a game that they themselves invented. How dumb is that?
What you need, what we all need, is a crystal ball to look into the future and see what it might look like for us to play a valuable and vibrant role, one that leverages our unique heritage and assets. In other words, we need to stop focusing on the present threat of them and start focusing on the future potential for us.
And that is precisely what Goliath’s Revenge sets out to help you do. Todd Hewlin and Scott Snyder have been working with established companies at the cutting edge of the digital revolution for more than a decade. I have had the privilege of working alongside them on multiple projects, and I can personally vouch for their experience and their acumen. Both share the extraordinary abilities to extrapolate beyond present circumstances, to envision a variety of possible future states, and to guide their clients in sifting through a raft of possible scenarios and help them home in on their most promising paths forward.
Goliath’s Revenge capitalizes on these abilities. It presents a set of scenarios across multiple industries, each with its own Goliath, each facing a daunting attack from a dangerously agile David. Some of these contests are unfolding right now and provide insightful lessons about what to do and not do in pushing back against digital
disruption. Others are just over the horizon and represent the early warning signals that established companies need to be alert for now.
In other words, regardless of the disruption’s time horizon in your industry, Goliath’s Revenge will provide you with valuable case studies to reference. In each one, the insights and principles that Todd and Scott extract are not only fascinating, they are directly applicable to the challenges your company is, or soon will be, facing.
As leaders in the private and public sector, it is imperative that we galvanize our established institutions—the ones that operate at scale today, the ones that have already earned the trust of millions and millions of people—to play an active role in shaping the future of our society as it absorbs the shock of digital transformation.
There is not enough time or money to rebuild everything from scratch. We need instead to refresh the incredible legacy of assets we have been gifted with so that they can in turn be passed on to the next generation. This requires not only courage and intelligence, but creativity and imagination as well. We are fortunate to have books like this one to help us envision the possibilities.
—Geoffrey A. Moore
Author, Crossing the Chasm and Zone to Win
Chapter 1
How Much Time Do You Have?
How did you go bankrupt?
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.
—Ernest Hemingway, author
What company is this? Early private investor in a major ride-sharing leader. Licensed to test more fully autonomous cars on California roads than any other company. Builder of a business model that can prosper in a future where many people own cars but do not drive and others don’t want to own a car at all. Recognized as the first company delivering a long-range, sporty electric car that the average person can afford. Willing to pay a massive premium to acquire Silicon Valley–based talent in order to win the long game of digital disruption in the automotive industry. Just received an investment of $2.25 billion from famed dealmaker Masayoshi Son at SoftBank.
Google? Apple? Tesla? Amazon? Uber? Those would all be excellent guesses. The company is actually General Motors. A company that just 10 years ago required a US government bailout to survive the global financial crisis. Today GM is thriving in spite of the global automotive industry being rapidly transformed by the trifecta of digital innovation: electrification, autonomy, and sharing.
Rewriting David versus Goliath
If the business world actually reflected the biblical story of David versus Goliath, established companies built over generations would struggle valiantly against the digital upstarts but would be so visually impaired and unimaginative that they would not be able to see the rock coming. Unicorn private companies from San Francisco, Shanghai, Berlin, and Tel Aviv would upend the status quo in industry after industry, leading to bankruptcy for established companies and unemployment for their workforces. In this updated
version of the historic story, David’s sling would be an artificially intelligent robot. We would all know how the story ends but still enjoy reading about the heroic struggle these established companies mustered before their eventual demise.
For some established companies, that is actually how the business version of David versus Goliath is playing out. Digital disruptors such as the companies listed above are well funded, well staffed, and heavily armed. They are not to be taken lightly. This is true whether the established Goliath is a global industrial titan with 100,000 employees or a local company that has been the lifeblood of a family for years with 10 employees. We’ve all seen that Blockbuster was destroyed by Netflix, Nokia was beaten by Apple, and that thousands of retail entrepreneurs “retire early” as Amazon gradually takes their customers away. This outcome is predictable if the news articles you read are to be taken at face value.
We think something much more interesting is afoot. We call it “Goliath’s Revenge.” Established companies are getting wise to David’s strategy, tactics, and tools. They have seen some of their traditional competitors succumb to the digital attackers that are resetting the rules for their industries. Instead of waiting for their businesses to be disrupted by some Silicon Valley whiz kid, they are saying, Why can’t we use those same strategies, tactics, and tools for ourselves? Some are setting their sights even higher. They are simultaneously protecting their core businesses from digital disruption while also running the disruptors’ playbook to expand into high-growth adjacent markets.
Goliath’s Revenge is not just playing out within these established companies; the script is also being rewritten for the people who work in them. Senior executives, managers, and front-line staff alike are proactively reinventing themselves to ensure that they have lifetime employment, even in this period of disconcerting and rapid change. These employees are offloading routine tasks to computers instead of clinging to them. That mindset shift is allowing them to finally take on the higher-value activities that they’ve never had the time to get to. These enlightened employees are stretching themselves to build the new skills their companies will require for a digital future but may not even know to ask for yet.
Before we jump into the new rules that govern how these established companies and their workforces are achieving Goliath’s Revenge, let’s dig deeper into how GM has been able to pull off the remarkable comeback referred to earlier.
The Resurgence of General Motors
There is no substitute for making mistakes early to build the breadth and depth of institutional knowledge required for long-term market leadership. Think about the Newton that was designed by Apple Computer and launched to much fanfare in 1993. It was both an unmitigated failure and the ancestor of what would become one of the most important products ever made: the iPhone. Apple has gone on to sell over one billion iPhones. That business now represents almost two-thirds of the company’s revenue. The second time really was the charm. Steve Jobs was so confident that the iPhone would be a hit that he dropped “Computer” from the company name on the day the iPhone launched.
Around the same time Apple was working on the Newton, GM was developing the EV1—the world’s first modern electric car built by a major automotive manufacturer. It was a bold bet that came to market in 1996, seven years before Tesla was founded and 16 years before Tesla’s first internally developed car, the Model S. The EV1 proved to be GM’s Newton—unsuccessful in the near term, quickly discontinued, and essential to the long-term success of the company. Detroit’s history with electric cars actually goes back to the early part of the twentieth century. Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name Mark Twain, once observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” This is still the case today. Figure 1.1 shows a 1917 advertisement for a car called the Detroit Electric that uses the rising price of gas and moderate price of electricity to promote Detroit-built electric cars.
Figure 1.1 Detroit Electric Ad from 1917
GM did not realize it at the time, but the EV1 was an essential step on the path to achieving Goliath’s Revenge. The automotive industry is beset with digital Davids—Tesla, Google, Uber, Lyft, Apple, Zipcar, and BYD Auto, along with many lesser-known players—all trying to shape the future of the automotive industry through electrification, autonomy, and sharing. You can likely name an equivalent set of digital disruptors in your industry and country.
What the EV1 did was whet GM’s appetite for how electrification could reshape the automotive industry. It inspired the gas-andelectric Chevy Volt in late 2010 and the wholly electric Chevy Bolt in late 2016. The Bolt was recognized as Car of the Year by Motor Trend in 2017 and beat Tesla’s Model 3 to market by nearly a year. In short, GM’s credibility with end customers, dealers, and shareholders with respect to electrification is well earned.
In terms of autonomous vehicles, GM did not have the luxury of such long-term, institutional knowledge. This required the company to make a bold bet through the acquisition of Cruise Automation in
early 2016. Headquartered in San Francisco, Cruise was just three years old when GM acquired it. More shocking was the price—a reported $1 billion—valuing the startup at nearly $25 million for each of its roughly 40 employees. For context, GM itself is valued at just $0.3 million per employee. Bets don’t get a lot bigger than that. GM had the confidence to make such a major acquisition—what we will refer to as a “Big I” bet—as its own customer research demonstrated that self-driving capabilities were crossing the chasm from science project to key differentiator. Getting autonomy right was declared a must-win battle and an area in which entirely new skills would be critical to GM’s long-term success.
The final shift—sharing—was the most difficult one. Every traditional automaker wanted to believe that consumers would always value owning and driving their own cars. It felt like a core tenet of the American Dream and a foundational basis of GM’s brand, culture, and values. Again, GM had some early efforts to draw on. GM acquired the Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System all the way back in 1926 as its entry into the rental car market. That was 83 years before Uber was founded. The rental car business taught GM important lessons about which jobs customers wanted their cars to do and which of those required car ownership versus temporary vehicle access.
This history gave GM the confidence and experience to make two additional big bets—one around car sharing and one around ride sharing. For its car-sharing bet, GM acquired the assets and select staff from failed ride-sharing company Sidecar in January 2016. GM immediately relaunched that business as a new car-sharing platform called Maven that provided access to select GM vehicles on an hourby-hour basis through a mobile app. Think simple, hourly car rentals and you’re not far off—GM’s version of Zipcar. Perfect for people who want to drive themselves but only need a car for a limited time period. Maven was also ideally suited to the growing ranks of gig economy workers driving in scheduled shifts for companies such as Uber, Instacart, and Door Dash.
Two months later GM took the bold step of investing $500 million in ride-sharing company Lyft, which then had a private market valuation of $5.5 billion. This gave GM a front-row seat for the millennial-powered transition from buying cars to purchasing rides.
To GM shareholders, that investment looked expensive until Google put an additional $1 billion into Lyft, which was valued at $11 billion just 21 months later. On paper, GM had doubled its money in under two years.
There are obvious synergies between the Maven and Lyft investments. One of the critical gating factors in Lyft’s growth has been its contract drivers’ access to reliable, late-model cars like the ones Maven now rents on an hourly basis. GM’s balanced portfolio of adjacent internal innovation initiatives and external acquisitions and investment has the company best positioned of the major automotive companies for a digital future.
GM’s company-wide commitment to achieving Goliath’s Revenge comes straight from the top. In an interview late in 2016 with Business Insider, GM CEO Mary Barra said, “We are in the midst of seeing more change in the next five years than we’ve seen in the last 50 years.” GM is augmenting its decades of institutional knowledge of electrification, autonomy, and sharing with bold bets to bring in entirely new domain-specific skills, business models, technology platforms, supplier ecosystems, routes to market, and customer segments.
GM shareholders have been amply rewarded. Since the beginning of 2016, GM’s stock price has increased by nearly 50% and the company now has an enterprise value of over $140 billion. While much remains to be done, GM’s progress was recently rewarded by a $2.25 billion vote of confidence from the SoftBank Vision Fund.
But this is not a story about any one company. In industry after industry, a similar trend is unfolding. Established companies of all sizes, and the people who work for them, are taking bold steps to shift from being disrupted to becoming disruptors. They are shifting from a mind-set of “Defend the way we do things for as long as possible” or “I just hope I can retire before this really hurts my business” to one of “We need to move aggressively now to leverage our unique capabilities in a way that disrupts the disruptors.”
Rule 4: Accelerate through Innovation Networks
Overcome the curse of “not invented here.”
As you saw in the GM example, achieving Goliath’s Revenge is going to require a more rapid pace of innovation than you or your company are likely capable of today. You need a second gear—one that can translate your current level of investment and effort into innovative offers that deliver step-change customer outcomes. This second gear requires your company to develop and leverage broad external innovation networks that augment what you and your peers can deliver internally. This means reorienting from “not invented here” and “we know everything” mindsets to one that is welcoming and attractive to external innovators and ventures. It requires the right ecosystem, tools, structure, and funding mechanisms to quickly identify, validate, and spin-in new innovations from outside your company or even outside your industry. Established companies need to couple a venture capital (VC) mindset with their privileged domain knowledge around customer needs and operational systems to drive these early-stage ventures to commercial impact without crushing the butterfly. We will show you how other companies have upshifted to this second gear of innovation in Chapter 7.
Rule 5: Value Talent over Technology
Preemptive skill development pays off.
In the typical company, only 2% of today’s workforce fits the emerging needs of digital businesses. If you’ve made it to Rule 5, then you likely have this sinking feeling that the demand for new skills in areas such as user-experience design, data science, machine learning, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) is going to grow much faster than you and your company are ready for. The core technologies of digital transformation are available to every company with a bank account.
The speed at which you integrate your industry domain knowledge with the capabilities of these new digital technologies will be the greatest determinant of your future success. Realizing this, aspiring Goliaths are investing heavily in preemptive skill development and resource recycling. They are valuing new competencies in the areas highlighted above as leading indicators of their companies’ future industry power, revenue growth, and margin expansion. They also realize that what gets measured gets done, so they are resetting the metrics for how they recognize and reward their employees to accelerate the organizational focus on digital innovation. Too much focus on near-term financial metrics is a sure way to discourage the medium- to long-term investments needed in building your company’s digital talent base. For some companies, an intermediate step is needed that we call a two-speed organization design. We will cover that in detail in Chapter 8.
Rule 6: Reframe Your Purpose
Have the guts to stay focused on what really matters.
The paralyzing fear of cannibalizing their current profitable businesses is the single greatest concern of established companies in the digital age. Kodak invented the digital camera but chose not to commercialize it in order to protect its film profit margins. Blockbuster lost out to Netflix by protecting the excess margins it garnered from the late fees its customers hated. The examples are endless.
Established companies turning the tables on digital disruptors are embracing smart cannibalization. They are setting up competing businesses to fully participate in both the old wave and the next one. They are allocating human and financial capital from separate pools to avoid stealing from the future to pay for the present. Doing all this requires these aspiring Goliaths to reframe their mission and to redefine the businesses they are in. They are setting their sights on a broader, more compelling mission that aligns employees, customers, and shareholders while refocusing on the triple bottom line (profits, people, planet).
Without this fundamental reframing of your mission, too many of your peers will simply wait out the digital transformation your company requires, clinging to a mindset of this too shall pass. We will cover this “nothing risked, nothing gained” aspect of Goliath’s Revenge in Chapter 9.
How Much Time Have You Got?
It is gut-check time. None of these new rules provides a quick fix independently of the others. For most established companies, achieving Goliath’s Revenge is a three-to-five-year journey. Even the most aggressive aspiring Goliaths are typically acting on only a subset of these six rules today. Being honest about where you and your company are relative to these new rules should not feel harsh or critical. It is not a time to round up or to sugar coat the realities of the tectonic shifts impacting your career, company, and industry.
The hard truth is that digital disruptors are waking up every day trying to reset the pecking order of your industry and gain mind share with your most important customers, employees, and shareholders. Only you can answer the question of how much time you and your company have to align with the six rules before your industry’s digital disruptors are too powerful to overcome. You are in a foot race whether you realize it or not.
The first step in deciding how much time you have to turn the tables on these digital disruptors is accurately understanding your starting point. Are you and your company ready to achieve long-term success and profitable growth in spite of the digital gyrations impacting your
industry? One thing is clear—just working harder to defend the status quo is not a path to success.
While we’ve only given you a basic introduction to the six rules, it is time for some homework to determine how much time you have and the level of urgency you should feel. Take out two blank sheets of paper and write the six rules down the left side of each one. On the first sheet, grade yourself with an A, B, C, or D based on how well you think you’re positioned professionally against the new rules relative to your peer group. On the second sheet repeat the grading exercise, but with your company in mind relative to the emerging competitors in your industry.
Be a tough grader. That is, grade on a C curve, as your best university professors did. If you are average relative to your peer group/industry competitors on a given rule, then assign a mark of C. If you believe you or your company is below average, then assign a D. We will not be giving out any F grades—consider this your midterm assessment, when it is just too early to declare failure. On the other hand, if you think that you are already at the head of the class by all means give yourself an A. A grade of B means that you are above average compared with your peer group but not yet the reference standard.
We will get a lot more scientific with this grading when we get to the detailed discussion of each rule in the chapters ahead. You can then assign your final grades with full knowledge of what the final exam covers. For now, this is your opportunity for a subjective selfassessment. It will provide a baseline for the exercises to come as you work through the remainder of the book.
To help you complete this self-assessment, we have included two examples. Figure 1.2 shows one that individuals can use to assess their careers, using a hypothetical employee of GM named Grace. As with the final credits in movies, any similarity between this Grace and other Graces you may know is purely coincidental.
Figure 1.2 Sample Six Rules Career Midterm Report Card
As you can see, Grace has found a way to leverage her background in an entirely new way. It turns out that studying studio art in college positioned her incredibly well as established companies realized how important user experience design is in delivering step-change customer outcomes. On the flip side, Grace is having to address gaps in her skill set by investing personal time in online training courses for the basic statistics and coding capabilities needed to translate her creativity into a work product that her employer, GM, cannot live without. Grace realizes that lifetime employment for her generation is a little like running up a down escalator. It requires a mindset of continual and preemptive skill development.
In Figure 1.3, we have included a sample of how our fictional Grace might assess her employer, GM, against the six rules. Of course, other employees of GM may well assign grades different from our fictional Grace. That is almost certain to happen within your company and is the real point of this part of the exercise. These midterm company-level report cards are meant to spur frank, open
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
muriatic acids; as they had been termed by Berthollet, from the belief that muriatic acid contained oxygen, and oxymuriatic a still larger dose of oxygen. In opposition to this, a new doctrine was put forward in 1809 by Gay-Lussac and Thenard in France, and by Davy in England; namely, that oxymuriatic acid was a simple substance, which they termed chlorine, and that muriatic acid was a combination of chlorine with hydrogen, which therefore was called hydrochloric acid. It may be observed, that the point in dispute in the controversy on this subject was nearly the same which had been debated in the course of the establishment of the oxygen theory; namely, whether in the formation of muriatic acid from chlorine, oxygen is subtracted, or hydrogen added, and the water concealed.
In the course of this dispute, it was allowed on both sides, that the combination of dry muriatic acid and ammonia afforded an experimentum crucis; since, if water was produced from these elements, oxygen must have existed in the acid. Davy being at Edinburgh in 1812, this experiment was made in the presence of several eminent philosophers; and the result was found to be, that though a slight dew appeared in the vessel, there was not more than might be ascribed to unavoidable imperfection in the process, and certainly not so much as the old theory of muriatic acid required. The new theory, after this period, obtained a clear superiority in the minds of philosophical chemists, and was further supported by new analogies. 42
42 Paris, Life of Davy, i. 337.
For, the existence of one hydracid being thus established, it was found that other substances gave similar combinations; and thus chemists obtained the hydriodic, hydrofluoric, and hydrobromic
acids. These acids, it is to be observed, form salts with bases, in the same manner as the oxygen acids do. The analogy of the muriatic and fluoric compounds was first clearly urged by a philosopher who was 284 not peculiarly engaged in chemical research, but who was often distinguished by his rapid and happy generalizations, M. Ampère. He supported this analogy by many ingenious and original arguments, in letters written to Davy, while that chemist was engaged in his researches on fluor spar, as Davy himself declares. 43
43 Paris, Life of Davy, i. 370.
Still further changes have been proposed, in that classification of elementary substances to which the oxygen theory led. It has been held by Berzelius and others, that other elements, as, for example, sulphur, form salts with the alkaline and earthy metals, rather than sulphurets. The character of these sulpho-salts, however, is still questioned among chemists; and therefore it does not become us to speak as if their place in history were settled. Of course, it will easily be understood that, in the same manner in which the oxygen theory introduced its own proper nomenclature, the overthrow or material transformation of the theory would require a change in the nomenclature; or rather, the anomalies which tended to disturb the theory, would, as they were detected, make the theoretical terms be felt as inappropriate, and would suggest the necessity of a reformation in that respect. But the discussion of this point belongs to a step of the science which is to come before us hereafter.
It may be observed, that in approaching the limits of this part of our subject, as we are now doing, the doctrine of the combination of acids and bases, of which we formerly traced the rise and progress, is still assumed as a fundamental relation by which other relations
are tested. This remark connects the stage of chemistry now under our notice with its earliest steps. But in order to point out the chemical bearing of the next subjects of our narrative, we may further observe, that metals, earths, salts, are spoken of as known classes of substances; and in like manner the newly-discovered elements, which form the last trophies of chemistry, have been distributed into such classes according to their analogies; thus potassium, sodium, barium, have been asserted to be metals; iodine, bromine, fluorine, have been arranged as analogical to chlorine Yet there is something vague and indefinite in the boundaries of such classifications and analogies; and it is precisely where this vagueness falls, that the science is still obscure or doubtful. We are led, therefore, to see the dependence of Chemistry upon Classification; and it is to Sciences of Classification which we shall next proceed; as soon as we have noticed the most general views 285 which have been given of chemical relations, namely, the views of the electro-chemists.
But before we do this, we must look back upon a law which obtains in the combination of elements, and which we have hitherto not stated; although it appears, more than any other, to reveal to us the intimate constitution of bodies, and to offer a basis for future generalizations. I speak of the Atomic Theory, as it is usually termed; or, as we might rather call it, the Doctrine of Definite, Reciprocal, and Multiple Proportions.
CHAPTER VIII.
T
D , R , M P
Sect. 1. Prelude to the Atomic Theory, and its Publication by Dalton.
THE general laws of chemical combination announced by Mr. Dalton are truths of the highest importance in the science, and are now nowhere contested; but the view of matter as constituted of atoms, which he has employed in conveying those laws, and in expressing his opinion of their cause, is neither so important nor so certain. In the place which I here assign to his discovery, as one of the great events of the history of chemistry, I speak only of the law of phenomena, the rules which govern the quantities in which elements combine
This law may be considered as consisting of three parts, according to the above description of it; that elements combine in definite proportions;—that these determining proportions operate reciprocally; and that when, between the same elements, several combining proportions occur, they are related as multiples.
That elements combine in certain definite proportions of quantity, and in no other, was implied, as soon as it was supposed that chemical compounds had any definite properties Those who first attempted to establish regular formulæ 44 for the constitution of salts, minerals, and 286 other compounds, assumed, as the basis of this process, that the elements in different specimens had the same proportion. Wenzel, in 1777, published his Lehre von der
Verwandschaft der Körper; or, Doctrine of the Affinities of Bodies; in which he gave many good and accurate analyses. His work, it is said, never grew into general notice. Berthollet, as we have already stated, maintained that chemical compounds were not definite; but this controversy took place at a later period. It ended in the establishment of the doctrine, that there is, for each combination, only one proportion of the elements, or at most only two or three
44 Thomson, Hist Chem vol ii p 279
Not only did Wenzel, by his very attempt, presume the first law of chemical composition, the definiteness of the proportions, but he was also led, by his results, to the second rule, that they are reciprocal. For he found that when two neutral salts decompose each other, the resulting salts are also neutral. The neutral character of the salts shows that they are definite compounds; and when the two elements of the one salt, P and s, are presented to those of the other, B and n, if P be in such quantity as to combine definitely with n, B will also combine definitely with s. 45
45 I am told that Wenzel (whose book I have not seen), though he adduces many cases in which double decomposition gives neutral salts, does not express the proposition in a general form, nor use letters in expressing it.
Views similar to those of Wenzel were also published by Jeremiah Benjamin Richter 46 in 1792, in his Anfangsgründe der Stöchyometrie, oder Messkunst Chymischer Elemente, (Principles of the Measure of Chemical Elements) in which he took the law, just stated, of reciprocal proportions, as the basis of his researches, and determined the numerical quantities of the common bases and acids which would saturate each other. It is clear that, by these steps, the two first of our three rules may be considered as fully developed.
The change of general views which was at this time going on, probably prevented chemists from feeling so much interest as they might have done otherwise, in these details; the French and English chemists, in particular, were fully employed with their own researches and controversies.
46 Thomson, Hist Chem vol ii p 283
Thus the rules which had already been published by Wenzel and Richter had attracted so little notice, that we can hardly consider Mr. Dalton as having been anticipated by those writers, when, in 1803, he began to communicate his views on the chemical constitution of 287 bodies; these views being such as to include both these two rules in their most general form, and further, the rule, at that time still more new to chemists, of multiple proportions. He conceived bodies as composed of atoms of their constituent elements, grouped, either one and one, or one and two, or one and three, and so on. Thus, if C represent an atom of carbon and O one of oxygen, O C will be an atom of carbonic oxide, and O C O an atom of carbonic acid; and hence it follows, that while both these bodies have a definite quantity of oxygen to a given quantity of carbon, in the latter substance this quantity is double of what it is in the former
The consideration of bodies as consisting of compound atoms, each of these being composed of elementary atoms, naturally led to this law of multiple proportions. In this mode of viewing bodies, Mr. Dalton had been preceded (unknown to himself) by Mr Higgins, who, in 1789, published 47 his Comparative View of the Phlogistic and Antiphlogistic Theories He there says, 48 “That in volatile vitriolic acid, a single ultimate particle of sulphur is united only to a single particle of dephlogisticated air; and that in perfect vitriolic acid, every
single particle of sulphur is united to two of dephlogisticated air, being the quantity necessary to saturation;” and he reasons in the same manner concerning the constitution of water, and the compounds of nitrogen and oxygen. These observations of Higgins were, however, made casually, and not followed out, and cannot affect Dalton’s claim to original merit.
47 Turner’s Chem. p. 217.
48 P. 36 and 37.
Mr. Dalton’s generalization was first suggested 49 during his examination of olefiant gas and carburetted hydrogen gas; and was asserted generally, on the strength of a few facts, being, as it were, irresistibly recommended by the clearness and simplicity which the notion possessed. Mr. Dalton himself represented the compound atoms of bodies by symbols, which professed to exhibit the arrangement of the elementary atoms in space as well as their numerical proportion; and he attached great importance to this part of his scheme. It is clear, however, that this part of his doctrine is not essential to that numerical comparison of the law with facts, on which its establishment rests. These hypothetical configurations of atoms have no value till they are confirmed by corresponding facts, such as the optical or crystalline properties of bodies may perhaps one day furnish.
49 Thomson, vol. ii. p. 291. 288
Sect. 2. Reception and Confirmation of the Atomic Theory.
I order to give a sketch of the progress of the Atomic Theory into general reception, we cannot do better than borrow our information
mainly from Dr. Thomson, who was one of the earliest converts and most effective promulgators of the doctrine. Mr. Dalton, at the time when he conceived his theory, was a teacher of mathematics at Manchester, in circumstances which might have been considered narrow, if he himself had been less simple in his manner of life, and less moderate in his worldly views. His experiments were generally made with apparatus of which the simplicity and cheapness corresponded to the rest of his habits. In 1804, he was already in possession of his atomic theory, and explained it to Dr Thomson, who visited him at that time. It was made known to the chemical world in Dr. Thomson’s Chemistry, in 1807; and in Dalton’s own System of Chemistry (1808) the leading ideas of it were very briefly stated. Dr. Wollaston’s memoir, “on superacid and subacid salts,” which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions for 1808, did much to secure this theory a place in the estimation of chemists. Here the author states, that he had observed, in various salts, the quantities of acid combined with the base in the neutral and in the superacid salts to be as one to two: and he says that, thinking it likely this law might obtain generally in such compounds, it was his design to have pursued this subject, with the hope of discovering the cause to which so regular a relation may be ascribed. But he adds, that this appears to be superfluous after the publication of Dalton’s theory by Dr. Thomson, since all such facts are but special cases of the general law. We cannot but remark here, that the scrupulous timidity of Wollaston was probably the only impediment to his anticipating Dalton in the publication of the rule of multiple proportions; and the forwardness to generalize, which belongs to the character of the latter, justly secured him, in this instance, the name of the discoverer of this law. The rest of the English chemists soon followed Wollaston and Thomson, though Davy for some time resisted. They objected,
indeed, to Dalton’s assumption of atoms, and, to avoid this hypothetical step, Wollaston used the phrase chemical equivalents, and Davy the word proportions, for the numbers which expressed Dalton’s atomic weights. We may, however, venture to say that the term “atom” is the most convenient, and it need not be understood as claiming our assent to the hypothesis of indivisible molecules. 289
As Wollaston and Dalton were thus arriving independently at the same result in England, other chemists, in other countries, were, unknown to each other, travelling towards the same point.
In 1807, Berzelius, 50 intending to publish a system of chemistry, went through several works little read, and among others the treatises of Richter. He was astonished, he tells us, at the light which was there thrown upon composition and decomposition, and which had never been turned to profit. He was led to a long train of experimental research, and, when he received information of Dalton’s ideas concerning multiple proportions, he found, in his own collection of analyses, a full confirmation of this theory.
50 Berz Chem B iii p 27
Some of the Germans, indeed, appear discontented with the partition of reputation which has taken place with respect to the Theory of Definite Proportions. One 51 of them says, “Dalton has only done this; he has wrapt up the good Richter (whom he knew; compare Schweigger, T, older series, vol. x., p. 381;) in a ragged suit, patched together of atoms; and now poor Richter comes back to his own country in such a garb, like Ulysses, and is not recognized.” It is to be recollected, however, that Richter says nothing of multiple proportions.
Marx Gesch der Cryst p 202
The general doctrine of the atomic theory is now firmly established over the whole of the chemical world. There remain still several controverted points, as, for instance, whether the atomic weights of all elements are exact multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. Dr. Prout advanced several instances in which this appeared to be true, and Dr. Thomson has asserted the law to be of universal application. But, on the other hand, Berzelius and Dr. Turner declare that this hypothesis is at variance with the results of the best analyses. Such controverted points do not belong to our history, which treats only of the progress of scientific truths already recognized by all competent judges.
Though Dalton’s discovery was soon generally employed, and universally spoken of with admiration, it did not bring to him anything but barren praise, and he continued in the humble employment of which we have spoken, when his fame had filled Europe, and his name become a household word in the laboratory. After some years he was appointed a corresponding member of the Institute of France; which may be considered as a European recognition of the importance 290 of what he had done; and, in 1826, two medals for the encouragement of science having been placed at the disposal of the Royal Society by the King of England, one of them was assigned to Dalton, “for his development of the atomic theory.” In 1833, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which was held in Cambridge, it was announced that the King had bestowed upon him a pension of 150l.; at the preceding meeting at Oxford, that university had conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws, a step the more remarkable, since he belonged to the sect of Quakers. At all the meetings of the British Association he has
been present, and has always been surrounded by the reverence and admiration of all who feel any sympathy with the progress of science. May he long remain among us thus to remind us of the vast advance which Chemistry owes to him!
[2nd Ed.] [Soon after I wrote these expressions of hope, the period of Dalton’s sojourn among us terminated. He died on the 27th of July, 1844, aged 78.
His fellow-townsmen, the inhabitants of Manchester, who had so long taken a pride in his residence among them, soon after his death came to a determination to perpetuate his memory by establishing in his honor a Professor of Chemistry at Manchester.]
Sect. 3.—The Theory of Volumes.—Gay-Lussac.
T atomic theory, at the very epoch of its introduction into France, received a modification in virtue of a curious discovery then made. Soon after the publication of Dalton’s system, Gay-Lussac and Humboldt found a rule for the combination of substances, which includes that of Dalton as far as it goes, but extends to combinations of gases only. This law is the theory of volumes; namely, that gases unite together by volume in very simple and definite proportions. Thus water is composed exactly of 100 measures of oxygen and 200 measures of hydrogen. And since these simple ratios 1 and 1, 1 and 2, 1 and 3, alone prevail in such combinations, it may easily be shown that laws like Dalton’s law of multiple proportions, must obtain in such cases as he considered.
[2nd Ed.] [M. Schröder, of Mannheim, has endeavored to extend to solids a law in some degree resembling Gay-Lussac’s law of the
volumes of gases. According to him, the volumes of the chemical equivalents 291 of simple substances and their compounds are as whole numbers. 52 MM. Kopp, Playfair, and Joule have labored in the same field.]
52 Die molecular-volume der Chemischen Verbindungen in festen und flüssingen Zustande, 1843
I cannot now attempt to trace other bearings and developments of this remarkable discovery I hasten on to the last generalization of chemistry; which presents to us chemical forces under a new aspect, and brings us back to the point from which we departed in commencing the history of this science.
CHAPTER IX.
E D F
Sect. 1. Promulgation of the Electro-chemical Theory by Davy.
THE reader will recollect that the History of Chemistry, though highly important and instructive in itself, has been an interruption of the History of Electro-dynamic Research:—a necessary interruption, however; for till we became acquainted with Chemistry in general, we could not follow the course of Electro-chemistry: we could not estimate its vast yet philosophical theories, nor even express its simplest facts. We have now to endeavor to show what has thus been done, and by what steps; to give a fitting view of the Epoch of Davy and Faraday.
This is, doubtless, a task of difficulty and delicacy We cannot execute it at all, except we suppose that the great truths, of which the discovery marks this epoch, have already assumed their definite and permanent form. For we do not learn the just value and right place of imperfect attempts and partial advances in science, except by seeing to what they lead. We judge properly of our trials and guesses only when we have gained our point and guessed rightly. We might personify philosophical theories, and might represent them to ourselves as figures, all pressing eagerly onwards in the same 292 direction, whom we have to pursue: and it is only in proportion as we ourselves overtake those figures in the race, and pass beyond them, that we are enabled to look back upon their faces; to discern their real aspects, and to catch the true character of their countenances. Except, therefore, I were of opinion that the great truths which Davy
brought into sight have been firmly established and clearly developed by Faraday, I could not pretend to give the history of this striking portion of science. But I trust, by the view I have to offer of these beautiful trains of research and their result, to justify the assumption on which I thus proceed.
I must, however, state, as a further appeal to the reader’s indulgence, that, even if the great principles of electro-chemistry have now been brought out in their due form and extent, the discovery is but a very few years, I might rather say a few months, old, and that this novelty adds materially to the difficulty of estimating previous attempts from the point of view to which we are thus led It is only slowly and by degrees that the mind becomes sufficiently imbued with those new truths, of which the office is, to change the face of a science. We have to consider familiar appearances under a new aspect; to refer old facts to new principles; and it is not till after some time, that the struggle and hesitation which this employment occasions, subsides into a tranquil equilibrium. In the newly acquired provinces of man’s intellectual empire, the din and confusion of conquest pass only gradually into quiet and security. We have seen, in the history of all capital discoveries, how hardly they have made their way, even among the most intelligent and candid philosophers of the antecedent schools: we must, therefore, not expect that the metamorphosis of the theoretical views of chemistry which is now going on, will be effected without some trouble and delay.
I shall endeavor to diminish the difficulties of my undertaking, by presenting the earlier investigations in the department of which I have now to speak, as much as possible according to the most deliberate view taken of them by the great discoverers themselves,
Davy and Faraday; since these philosophers are they who have taught us the true import of such investigations.
There is a further difficulty in my task, to which I might refer; the difficulty of speaking, without error and without offence, of men now alive, or who were lately members of social circles which exist still around us. But the scientific history in which such persons play a part, is so important to my purpose, that I do not hesitate to incur 293 the responsibility which the narration involves; and I have endeavored earnestly, and I hope not in vain, to speak as if I were removed by centuries from the personages of my story.
The phenomena observed in the Voltaic apparatus were naturally the subject of many speculations as to their cause, and thus gave rise to “Theories of the Pile.” Among these phenomena there was one class which led to most important results: it was discovered by Nicholson and Carlisle, in 1800, that water was decomposed by the pile of Volta; that is, it was found that when the wires of the pile were placed with their ends near each other in the fluid, a stream of bubbles of air arose from each wire, and these airs were found on examination to be oxygen and hydrogen: which, as we have had to narrate, had already been found to be the constituents of water. This was, as Davy says, 53 the true origin of all that has been done in electro-chemical science. It was found that other substances also suffered a like decomposition under the same circumstances. Certain metallic solutions were decomposed, and an alkali was separated on the negative plates of the apparatus. Cruickshank, in pursuing these experiments, added to them many important new results; such as the decomposition of muriates of magnesia, soda, and ammonia by the pile; and the general observation that the
alkaline matter always appeared at the negative, and the acid at the positive, pole.
53 Phil. Trans. 1826, p. 386.
Such was the state of the subject when one who was destined to do so much for its advance, first contributed his labors to it. Humphry Davy was a young man who had been apprenticed to a surgeon at Penzance, and having shown an ardent love and a strong aptitude for chemical research, was, in 1798, made the superintendent of a “Pneumatic Institution,” established at Bristol by Dr. Beddoes, for the purpose of discovering medical powers of factitious airs. 54 But his main attention was soon drawn to galvanism; and when, in consequence of the reputation he had acquired, he was, in 1801, appointed lecturer at the Royal Institution in London (then recently established), he was soon put in possession of a galvanic apparatus of great power; and with this he was not long in obtaining the most striking results.
54 Paris, Life of Davy, i 58
His first paper on the subject 55 is sent from Bristol, in September, 1800; and describes experiments, in which he had found that the decompositions observed by Nicholson and Carlisle go on, although the 294 water, or other substance in which the two wires are plunged, be separated into two portions, provided these portions are connected by muscular or other fibres. This use of muscular fibres was, probably, a remnant of the original disposition, or accident, by which galvanism had been connected with physiology, as much as with chemistry. Davy, however, soon went on towards the conclusion, that the phenomena were altogether chemical in their nature. He had already conjectured, 56 in 1802, that all decompositions might be
polar; that is, that in all cases of chemical decomposition, the elements might be related to each other as electrically positive and negative; a thought which it was the peculiar glory of his school to confirm and place in a distinct light. At this period such a view was far from obvious; and it was contended by many, on the contrary, that the elements which the voltaic apparatus brought to view, were not liberated from combinations, but generated In 1806, Davy attempted the solution of this question; he showed that the ingredients which had been supposed to be produced by electricity, were due to impurities in the water, or to the decomposition of the vessel; and thus removed all preliminary difficulties. And then he says, 57 “referring to my experiments of 1800, 1801, and 1802, and to a number of new facts, which showed that inflammable substances and oxygen, alkalies and acids, and oxidable and noble metals, were in electrical relations of positive and negative, I drew the conclusion, that the combinations and decompositions by electricity were referrible to the law of electrical attractions and repulsions, ” and advanced the hypothesis, “that chemical and electrical attractions were produced by the same cause, acting in the one case on particles, in the other on masses; . . . and that the same property, under different modifications, was the cause of all the phenomena exhibited by different voltaic combinations.”
55 Nicholson’s Journal, 4to. iv. 275.
56 Phil. Trans. 1826.
57 Ib. 1826, p. 389.
Although this is the enunciation, in tolerably precise terms, of the great discovery of his epoch, it was, at the period of which we speak, conjectured rather than proved; and we shall find that neither Davy
nor his followers, for a considerable period, apprehended it with that distinctness which makes a discovery complete. But in a very short time afterwards, Davy drew great additional notice to his researches by effecting, in pursuance, as it appeared, of his theoretical views, the decomposition of potassa into a metallic base and oxygen. This was, as he truly said, in the memorandum written in his journal at the 295 instant, “a capital experiment ” This discovery was soon followed by that of the decomposition of soda; and shortly after, of other bodies of the same kind; and the interest and activity of the whole chemical world were turned to the subject in an intense degree.
At this period, there might be noticed three great branches of speculation on this subject; the theory of the pile, the theory of electrical decomposition, and the theory of the identity of chemical and electrical forces; which last doctrine, however, was found to include the other two, as might have been anticipated from the time of its first suggestion.
It will not be necessary to say much on the theories of the voltaic pile, as separate from other parts of the subject. The contact-theory, which ascribed the action to the contact of different metals, was maintained by Volta himself; but gradually disappeared, as it was proved (by Wollaston 58 especially,) that the effect of the pile was inseparably connected with oxidation or other chemical changes. The theories of electro-chemical decomposition were numerous, and especially after the promulgation of Davy’s Memoir in 1806; and, whatever might be the defects under which these speculations for a long time labored, the subject was powerfully urged on in the direction in which truth lay, by Davy’s discoveries and views. That there remained something still to be done, in order to give full evidence and consistency to the theory, appears from this; that
some of the most important parts of Davy’s results struck his followers as extraordinary paradoxes;—for instance, the fact that the decomposed elements are transferred from one part of the circuit to another, in a form which escapes the cognizance of our senses, through intervening substances for which they have a strong affinity. It was found afterwards that the circumstance which appeared to make the process so wonderful, was, in fact, the condition of its going on at all. Davy’s expressions often seem to indicate the most exact notions: for instance, he says, “It is very natural to suppose that the repellent and attractive energies are communicated from one particle to another of the same kind, so as to establish a conducting chain in the fluid; and that the locomotion takes place in consequence;” 59 and yet at other times he speaks of the element as attracted and repelled by the metallic surfaces which form the poles; a different, and, as it appeared afterwards, an untenable view. Mr. Faraday, who supplied what was wanting, justly notices this vagueness. 296 He says, 60 that though, in Davy’s celebrated Memoir of 1806, the points established are of the utmost value, the mode of action by which the effects take place is stated very generally; so generally, indeed, that probably a dozen precise schemes of electrochemical action might be drawn up, differing essentially from each other, yet all agreeing with the statement there given.” And at a period a little later, being reproached by Davy’s brother with injustice in this expression, he substantiated his assertion by an enumeration of twelve such schemes which had been published.
58 Phil Trans 1801, p 427
59 Paris, i 154
60 Researches, 482
But yet we cannot look upon this Memoir of 1806, otherwise than as a great event, perhaps the most important event of the epoch now under review. And as such it was recognized at once all over Europe. In particular, it received the distinguished honor of being crowned by the Institute of France, although that country and England were then engaged in fierce hostility. Buonaparte had proposed a prize of sixty thousand francs “to the person who by his experiments and discoveries should advance the knowledge of electricity and galvanism, as much as Franklin and Volta did;” and “of three thousand francs for the best experiment which should be made in the course of each year on the galvanic fluid;” the latter prize was, by the First Class of the Institute, awarded to Davy.
From this period he rose rapidly to honors and distinctions, and reached a height of scientific fame as great as has ever fallen to the lot of a discoverer in so short a time. I shall not, however, dwell on such circumstances, but confine myself to the progress of my subject.
Sect. 2. Establishment of the Electro-chemical Theory by Faraday.
T defects of Davy’s theoretical views will be seen most clearly by explaining what Faraday added to them. Michael Faraday was in every way fitted and led to become Davy’s successor in his great career of discovery. In 1812, being then a bookseller’s apprentice, he attended the lectures of Davy, which at that period excited the highest admiration. 61 “My desire to escape from trade,” Mr. Faraday says, “which I thought vicious and selfish, and to enter into the service of science, which I imagined made its pursuers amiable and liberal, induced me at last to take the bold and simple step of writing
