Conservation and Innovation : Helmholtz's Struggle with Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

W.Thomson 496, is striking. In fact each of these four scientists gave a formal expression of a "principle of conservation". They all gave substantial contributions in the period chosen and their relations with Helmholtz's approach are indeed relevant. The history of the experimental determination of the equivalent between work and heat is very sophisticated 497. Kuhn identifies as contributors to this determination the members of the first two groups, that is: Mayer, Joule, Colding, Helmholtz; Carnot Seguin, Holtzmann, Hirn. But, as I am going to show, Helmholtz has to be excluded: we are then left with seven "pioneers". Planck 498 and later almost identically Helm 499, referring to the same period discussed by Kuhn, cited another seven authors who provided determinations: Clausius, Kupffer, Favre, LeRoux, Bosscha, Quintus Icilius, Matteucci. They discussed thirty-one different determinations, including four of Hirn's. Kuhn does not seem to be aware of these analysis: about Hirn he asserts that "none of the standard 496 On W.Thomson see: Smith, Crosbie. "Natural Philosophy and Thermodynamics: William Thomson and 'The Dynamical Theory of Heat'." In Brit J Hist Sci 9 (1976): 293-319; Smith, Crosbie. "William Thomson and the Creation of Thermodynamics, 1840-1855." In Arch Hist Exact Sci 16 (1976-7): 231-88; Smith, Crosbie. "A New Chart For British Natural Philosophy: The Development of Energy Physics in the Nineteenth Century." In Hist Sc 16 (1978): 231-79; Wise "Math Route" ; Wise, Norton and Smith, Crosbie. "Measurement"; Wise, Norton and Smith, Crosbie. Energy and Empire: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1824- 1907. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 497 A careful discussion of the different determinations of the equivalents was already made in1869 by Sacchetti, in 1880 by Rowland, and also in 1906 by Graetz. See: Sacchetti, Giovanni "Considerazioni intorno all'origine della teoria meccanica del calore." Memorie dell'Accademia di Bologna VII, 2 (1869): p.149; Rowland, Henry. "On the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat with Subsidiary Researches on the Variation of the Mercurial from the Air Thermometer and on Variation of the Specific Heat of Water." In Proc.Amer Acad (2), VII, (1880): p.75; Rowland, Henry. Relazione Critica sulle varie determinazioni dell'equivalente meccanico della caloria . Venezia: G.Antonelli, 1882; Graetz, L. "Das Mechanische Wärmeäquivalent." In Handbuch der Physik. A.Winkelmann ed. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Barth, 1906. 3rd vol., 537-561. 498 Planck Princip chapt. 1 exp.Pp.74-6 and 80-3. 499 Helm Energetik Part1 chapt 7. exp P.34.
histories cites these (Hirn's) articles and even recognizes the existence of Hirn's claim" 500. In my view, for a correct grouping of the "pioneers", the acceptance of a principle of conversion with constant coefficients or of a principle of conservation of "energy" must be kept separate from the specific model adopted for "energy", from the experimental determination of the work equivalent and, finally, from the mathematical representation of the quantity conserved. Helmholtz in fact thought possible to formulate the principle of conservation in the Erhaltung with either heat models (caloric and mechanical), and the choice in favour of the mechanical one was made on experimental grounds. I want also to underline that the Erhaltung was largely independent from the experimental determination of the work-heat equivalent: as I am going to show, Helmholtz did not give much importance to Joule's (wrongly-translated) values. Finally, mechanical theory is not the only route to the work-heat equivalence: Mayer denied the first and determined the second. The need for these distinctions is shown in Carnot's case. Kuhn asserts that Sadi Carnot's Réflexions "are incompatible with energy conservation" and "Carnot's version of the conservation hypothesis is scattered through a notebook written between the publication of his memoir in 1824 and his death in 1832." 501. Thus he considers Carnot as a pioneer of energy conservation for his posthumously published acceptance of the mechanical model of heat and of the relative determination of the work-heat equivalent (370Kgm) 502. But this result, while obviously placing Carnot among the pioneers of the mechanical theory of heat and of the determination of the work-heat equivalence, was not needed in order to consider him among the followers of "energy conservation". Given that Carnot correctly based his theory on the impossibility of perpetual motion, even his published results do not contradict the principle of "energy" conservation. They contradict the mechanical model of heat: Carnot's assumed an interpretation of "energy" (heat by temperature variation, and this "energy" equals work) that later was abandoned because the conceptual model of heat adopted (heat as a substance) was shown to be experimentally wrong. The soundness of Carnot's 500 Kuhn Sim Disc P.68 n.2. 501 Kuhn Sim Disc P.93 and 67 respectively. 502 At the same time Kuhn asserts that, strictly speaking, Holtzmann, who also used the caloric theory, should not be included in the list. However Kuhn includes him because he made a determination similar to Mayer's one. Ibid p.67, n.2.
Page 1 and 2:
Fabio Bevilacqua Conservation and I
Page 3 and 4:
different formulations 4 and priori
Page 5 and 6:
and interesting results, despite th
Page 7 and 8:
principle of correlation is express
Page 9 and 10:
principle to the existing empirical
Page 11 and 12:
the origin and meaning of the princ
Page 13 and 14:
Whether physiological research, apa
Page 15 and 16:
In a discussion on the origins of a
Page 17 and 18:
his "Wärme" that one of the differ
Page 19 and 20:
generate a determined equivalent of
Page 21 and 22:
"Bericht", despite the application
Page 23 and 24:
experiments in the most disparate b
Page 25 and 26:
The premise reveals that the struct
Page 27 and 28:
intelligible if it can be referred
Page 29 and 30:
elevant consequence of the deductio
Page 31 and 32:
Needless to say the plan was to be
Page 33 and 34:
and from here that the direction an
Page 35 and 36:
since Leonardo 113; the "ad nihilum
Page 37 and 38:
But unfortunately for the whole str
Page 39 and 40:
The principle of conservation of vi
Page 41 and 42:
different from the one joining the
Page 43 and 44:
"The equality that exists between e
Page 45 and 46:
In virtue of its limitations to New
Page 47 and 48:
Helmholtz, while asserting that lig
Page 49 and 50:
the temperature of 1 Kg of water ca
Page 51 and 52:
In his search for a mechanical equi
Page 53 and 54:
had already been achieved in the Be
Page 55 and 56:
approach is discussed at length and
Page 57 and 58:
and unaware of Green's results190,
Page 59 and 60:
potential function 201. It is worth
Page 61 and 62:
and judged unreliable, despite prov
Page 63 and 64:
The relevance of the first question
Page 65 and 66:
principle taking this potential int
Page 67 and 68:
Finally we get to the real conclusi
Page 69 and 70:
conservation 234, on the theory of
Page 71 and 72:
for the mechanical equivalent of he
Page 73 and 74:
The controversy started with some r
Page 75 and 76:
where μ are immovable masses, m th
Page 77 and 78:
demonstration criticised by Clausiu
Page 79 and 80:
directions that join them and whose
Page 81 and 82:
quotes 288 and criticises a proposi
Page 83 and 84:
motion to all natural forces, the k
Page 85 and 86: measure this expenditure and compar
Page 87 and 88: " ...the quantity of force in natur
Page 89 and 90: forces is constant: but it relates
Page 91 and 92: experiences in general laws of unli
Page 93 and 94: "a series of important and difficul
Page 95 and 96: the Discontinuous Movements of Flui
Page 97 and 98: methodology. Dühring claimed the c
Page 99 and 100: The first history of the conservati
Page 101 and 102: while in Britain for the above talk
Page 103 and 104: apply it to acoustics (1859), hydro
Page 105 and 106: magnetic intensity. Maxwell realize
Page 107 and 108: and the electrostatic In modern not
Page 109 and 110: of conservation of energy: it is re
Page 111 and 112: efuted. But again in 1881 Helmholtz
Page 113 and 114: But was important here is that desp
Page 115 and 116: The second (1892-94), follows the i
Page 117 and 118: while the electromagnetic and the s
Page 119 and 120: can modify its specific theoric for
Page 121 and 122: considered relevant. In Poincarè
Page 123 and 124: meaning left is: "There is somethin
Page 125 and 126: interpretations at the beginning of
Page 127 and 128: while fighting metaphisicians, he w
Page 129 and 130: literature 456. There is an intrins
Page 131 and 132: assertion is surprising: it has lon
Page 133 and 134: Kant was a Naturphilosophe 480. The
Page 135: condition that work done by the for
Page 139 and 140: ) the experimental determinations o
Page 141 and 142: force principle 522. Elkana tried t
Page 143 and 144: Blüh, Otto. "The Value of Inspirat
Page 145 and 146: Graetz, L. "Das Mechanische Wärme
Page 147 and 148: Helmholtz, Hermann. "Bericht über
Page 149 and 150: Helmholtz, Hermann. Wissenschaftlic
Page 151 and 152: Madison: Wisconsin U.P., 1959. Pp.
Page 153 and 154: Poincarè, Henry. Electricité et O
Page 155: Yagi, Eri."Clausius's Mathematical
show all

Conservation and Innovation : Helmholtz's Struggle with Energy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?