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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

not being explicitly formulated, was already in the background (of the vis viva conservation) for conservative forces: in this case work cannot be destroyed. The problem of the nature of heat helped, through many difficulties, to gain wide acceptance for the second philosophical root. At the beginning of the forties the existence of the caloric was widely questioned, not only in scientific debates: Helmholtz himself recalls an essay on the topic that he had to write when a student at the Potsdam Gymnasium. Apparently here Helmholtz forgets his own difficulties in giving up with the caloric in his first papers. He again defines his Erhaltung not as an original research but as a critical survey, aimed at clarifying and reordering known facts and deciding between different explanations. Mayer was not, then, completely original even if his paper of 1842 deserves due credit. But the credit is for the priority in the assertion of an idea, not for his demonstration. Without an empirical demonstration of the indestructibility of forces, the " deduction" from obscure metaphysical principles as "causa aequat effectum" is worthless. Mayer did not give this empirical evidence in 1842 (he did not explain but only asserted that the work equivalent was 365 kgm). But even if he had explained his calculation of the work equivalent he would not have shown anything: "it was necessary to show that different processes give the same value". The accomplishment of this great experimental task is the lasting merit of Joule. Helmholtz becomes more and more severe: only after Joule's work do Mayer's views acquire the character of "non improbable hypotheses" 363 and Mayer's destiny teaches young researchers that the best ideas risk to be sterile without convincing demonstrations. The priority debate was actually a debate on scientific methodology, as almost explicitly asserted by Helmholtz. Both in the undervaluation of his own contribution of 1847 and of Mayer's results Helmholtz clearly shows that in the early eighties the preoccupations with an empiricist viewpoint were very strong. Was this due to the bitter controversy that even led him into a depressive state 364 or are its roots to be found in real scientific problems resulting from his previous theoretical commitments? Helmholtz's original approach to energy conservation had in fact been seriously challenged in the electrodynamics debates of the seventies. 363 Helmholtz 364 Koenigsberger H v H p.306.
The first history of the conservation principle: "evolution and development, not discovery" (1862-65) In the pages of the Philosophical Magazine for the years 1862-65 there is a bitter polemic between Tyndall on one side and Tait (specially) and W.Thomson (mostly in the background) on the other 365. Other participants were Joule, Colding, Verdet, Bohn, Rankine, Akin. The summary of this controversy can well be considered one of the first contributions to the historiography of the principle of conservation of energy. With various qualifications, agreements and disagreements, with the papers' titles ranging from History of Conservation of Energy, to History of Mechanical Theory of Heat, of Dynamical Theory of Heat, of Thermodynamics, of Energetics, of Force it can be asserted that at the time there was awareness of the following contributions to the principle, which "was not discovered but evolved and developed": a) conservation of vis viva: Descartes, Huygens, Leibniz, John Bernoulli, James Bernoulli, Daniel Bernoulli, D'Alembert, Fresnel, L.Carnot b) dynamical theory of heat : Bacon, Locke, Rumford, Davy, Young c) correlation of forces : Rumford, Haldat, Morosi, Seguin, Placidus Henrich, Mohr, Faraday, Liebig d) mechanical equivalent : S.Carnot, Clapeyron, Holtzmann, Mayer, Colding, Joule e) generalization of the principle : Helmholtz, Clausius, Rankine, W.Thomson. What was the assessment of Helmholtz's work in this debate? He did not receive special attention: the focus of the debate was a comparison of the relative merits of Mayer, defended by Tyndall, and Joule defended by Tait and by 365 See also: Lloyd, J. "Background to the Joule-Mayer Controversy." In Notes and Records of the R.S. 25 (1970): 211-25.
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: methodology. Dühring claimed the c
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 and 136: condition that work done by the for
Page 137 and 138: histories cites these (Hirn's) arti
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?