Electrostatic Investigations
Von Guericke thought of the capacity of body to exert an influence beyond its immediate boundaries in terms of "corporeal and incorporeal potencies". Examples of "corporeal potencies" were the giving off of fumes, smells, gases etc. by bodies. An example of an "incorporeal potencies" was the Earth's "conservative potency" whereby it retained its atmosphere and caused the return of objects thrown upwards to the Earth's surface. The Earth also possessed an "expulsive potency" which was deemed to explain why objects that fall bounce back up again. The notion of an "incorporeal potency" is similar to that of "action at a distance" except the former notion remained purely qualitative and there is no inkling of the fundamental "action and reaction" principle.
Von Guericke describes his work on electrostatics in Chapter 15 of Book IV of the Experimenta Nova. In a letter of November 1661 to Fr. Schott, reproduced in the Technica Curiosa, he notes that the then projected Book IV would be concerned with "cosmic potencies" (virtutes mundanae). Accepting the claim of the preface to the Experimenta Nova that the entire work had been essentially completed before March 1663, von Guericke can be fairly credited with inventing a primitive form of frictional electrical machine before 1663. He used a sulphur globe that could be rubbed by hand.
In Chapter 6 of Book IV von Guericke writes: "It seems reasonable to suppose that if the Earth has a fitting and appropriate attractive potency it will also have a potency of repelling things that might be dangerous or disagreeable to it. This is to be seen in the case of the sulphur sphere described below in Chapter 15. When that sphere is stroked or rubbed not only does it attract all light objects, but it sometimes arbitrarily also repels them before attracting them again. Sometimes indeed it doesn't even attract them again." Von Guericke was aware of both Gilbert's book "On the Magnet and Magnetic bodies and on the great magnet the Earth" published in 1600 and of the Jesuit Niccolo Cabeo's "Philosophia Magnetica" (1629). He does not explicitly acknowledge any anticipation of his demonstration of electrostatic repulsion by the latter but,as he quotes a passage from the same page, could not have been unaware that, in a discussion of the nature of electrical attraction, Cabeo had written (Philosophia Magnetica p. 192): " When we see that small bodies (corpuscula) are lifted (sublevari et attolli) above the amber and also fall back to the motionless amber, it cannot be said that such erratic behaviour (talem matum - but if "matum" is taken as a misprint for "motum", then the translation is simply "such motion") is an attraction by the gravity of the attracting body." In Book IV Chapter 8 of the Experimenta Nova von Guericke is at pains to point out the difference between his own "incorporeal potency" views and Cabeo's more Aristotelian conclusions. He writes : "Writers who have written on magnetism, always confuse it with electrical attraction, although there is a great difference. In particular, Gilbert in his book De Magnete claims that electrical attraction is caused by the effluence of a humour, that the humid seeks the humid and this is the cause of the attraction. Moreover in Philosophia Magnetica, Book 2 Chapter 21, Cabeo criticises Gilbert but does admit that this attraction is created by the agency of an effluent. Humidity does not play any role but the attraction is brought about purely by the agency of an effluent, by which the air is disturbed.After the initial impulse, the air returns to the amber again taking with it little particles. He (Cabeo) concludes by saying :'I say therefore that from amber or any other electrically attracting body, a very rarefied effluent is emitted which dispels and attenuates the air, extremely agitating it. Then the agitated and attenuated air returns to the amber body sweeping along with it whatever dust or small bodies are in its way'. We however, who in the previous chapter, take the attraction of the sulphur ball as electrical in nature and operating through a conservative potency, cannot admit that the air plays a role in producing the attraction. Experiment visibly shows that this sulphur globe (once it has been rubbed) also exercises its potency through a linen cord up to a range of a cubit and more and can attract at that distance."
The key Chapter 15 is entitled "On an experiment, in which these potencies, listed above,can be evoked by the rubbing of a sulphur ball." In Section 3 of this chapter he describes how light bodies are repelled from a sulphur sphere which has been rubbed with a dry hand, and are not again attracted until they have touched another body. Oldenburg's review of the Experimenta Nova (November 1672) in the Proceeding of the Royal Society sceptically observes: "How far this globe may be confided in, the Tryals and Consideration of some ingenious person here may perhaps inform us hereafter." In fact, Robert Boyle repeated von Guericke's experiments for the Royal Society in November 1672 and February 1673. (Schneider p. 127)
Read more about this topic: Otto Von Guericke