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

quotes 288 and criticises a proposition of Vorsselman de Heer accepted in the
Erhaltung ("the total heat which is provoked in the entire circuit by an electric
discharge is independent of the nature of the circuit"). The same for an expression
of Riess 289 referring to the independence of the heat of discharge from the nature
of the connecting wires.
Clausius in 1852 also criticises Helmholtz's interpretation of Holtzmann,
asserting that the latter did not believe in the consumption of heat, but in its
invariability. This is a point which Helmholtz seems to have misunderstood and
that seems to imply a serious flaw in his analysis of the work equivalent of heat in
the fourth chapter of the Erhaltung. Clausius ends his 1853 paper with an
acknowledgement and an appreciation of Helmholtz's achievements in the
Erhaltung, despite the criticisms 290.
Helmholtz in 1854 answers, in a detailed and balanced way, the specific points
about de Heer and Riess and admits his own mistake as far as the interpretation
of Holtzmann is concerned 291. He finally adds four new points to the
electromagnetic research of the Erhaltung , on the basis of Poisson's magnetic
induction, of his own researches of 1853 on the oscillations of induced currents.
He found that a galvanic current has an electrodynamic potential in itself,
proportional to the square of the current intensity. If the circuit is interrupted
there is a conversion of this "force equivalent" in heat either in the spark or in the
extracurrent 292. Finally he shows that F.Neumann's law of induction through
magnets or currents is in agreement with conservation of energy.
Clausius' final remarks acknowledge the clarifications and only insists on the
problem of central forces 293.
The result of the controversy is remarkable: if not the great success claimed by
Koenigsberger 294, Helmholtz achieved some success. He had shown himself to be
also a skilled mathematical physicist, able to debate with a researcher as clever
as Clausius. In the circumstances this was a particularly difficult achievement for
Helmholtz: Clausius was right (as later indirectly acknowledged by Helmholtz
288 Clausius "Electrical Discharge" p.16
289 Clausius "Electrical Discharge" p.21
290 Clausius "Einige Stellen" Pp.578-9.
291 Helmholtz "Erwiderung" p.90.
292 Thus correcting his "wrong" deductions of 1847.
293 Clausius "Zweite Notiz" p. 604.
294 Koenigsberger H v H p.116.