Conservation and Innovation : Helmholtz's Struggle with Energy ...
Conservation and Innovation : Helmholtz's Struggle with Energy ...
Conservation and Innovation : Helmholtz's Struggle with Energy ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The first history of the conservation principle: "evolution <strong>and</strong><br />
development, not discovery" (1862-65)<br />
In the pages of the Philosophical Magazine for the years 1862-65<br />
there is a bitter polemic between Tyndall on one side <strong>and</strong> Tait (specially) <strong>and</strong><br />
W.Thomson (mostly in the background) on the other 365. Other participants were<br />
Joule, Colding, Verdet, Bohn, Rankine, Akin. The summary of this controversy<br />
can well be considered one of the first contributions to the historiography of the<br />
principle of conservation of energy. With various qualifications, agreements <strong>and</strong><br />
disagreements, <strong>with</strong> the papers' titles ranging from History of <strong>Conservation</strong> of<br />
<strong>Energy</strong>, to History of Mechanical Theory of Heat, of Dynamical Theory of Heat,<br />
of Thermodynamics, of Energetics, of Force it can be asserted that at the time<br />
there was awareness of the following contributions to the principle, which "was<br />
not discovered but evolved <strong>and</strong> developed":<br />
a) conservation of vis viva: Descartes, Huygens, Leibniz, John<br />
Bernoulli, James Bernoulli, Daniel Bernoulli, D'Alembert, Fresnel, L.Carnot<br />
b) dynamical theory of heat : Bacon, Locke, Rumford, Davy, Young<br />
c) correlation of forces : Rumford, Haldat, Morosi, Seguin, Placidus<br />
Henrich, Mohr, Faraday, Liebig<br />
d) mechanical equivalent : S.Carnot, Clapeyron, Holtzmann, Mayer,<br />
Colding, Joule<br />
e) generalization of the principle : Helmholtz, Clausius, Rankine,<br />
W.Thomson.<br />
What was the assessment of <strong>Helmholtz's</strong> work in this debate? He did<br />
not receive special attention: the focus of the debate was a comparison of the<br />
relative merits of Mayer, defended by Tyndall, <strong>and</strong> Joule defended by Tait <strong>and</strong> by<br />
365 See also: Lloyd, J. "Background to the Joule-Mayer Controversy." In Notes <strong>and</strong><br />
Records of the R.S. 25 (1970): 211-25.