EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY THEORIES of the NATURE of HEAT. the U
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received ^ 5—13,888 MORRIS, Jr., Robert James, 1932— EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF HEAT. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1965 History, modern University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright By Robert James Morris, Jr. 1966 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA. GRADUATE COLLEGE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF HEAT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY ROBERT JAMES MORRIS, JR. Norman, Oklahoma 1965 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF HEAT APPROVED BY [2- 0 C ^ • \CwÆ-UC^C>._____ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Duane H. D. Roller, McCasland Professor of the History of Science, whose provocative and intriguing lectures first enticed me into the study of the history of science, and to Thomas M. Smith, Associate Professor of the History of Science, for their suggestions and criticisms concerning this dissertation, for their encouragement, confidence, and assistance freely given throughout my years of graduate study, and for their advice and friendship which made these years enjoyable as well as profitableo To Professor Charles J. Mankin, Director of the Department of Geology, Leroy E. Page, Assistant Professor of the History of Science, and Robert L- Reigle, Instructor of History, for reading and criticizing this dissertation. To Marcia M. Goodman, Librarian of the History of Science Collections, for her aid in obtaining sources needed for this study and for her personal interest, encouragement and friendship. To George P. Burris and Dwayne R. Mason for their selfless, untiring help in the preparation of the manuscript. To the National Science Foundation and the University of Oklahoma for their financial assistance. And to my wife, Martha, without whose hard work, sacrifice, and constant encouragement and support this work would not have been possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. , .................................. 1 Chapter I. THE SUBSTANCE "FIRE" AND ITS MOTION AS THE CAUSE OF H E A T ......................... 7 II. FIRE, HEAT, AND IDEAS OF PHLOGISTON......... 36 III. THE MOTION OF ORDINARY MATTER AS THE CAUSE OF HEAT. ................ ....... 64 IV. LAVOISIER AND THE CALORIC THEORY OF HEAT. 103 V. FRENCH PROPONENTS OF THE CALORIC THEORY .... 140 VI. OPPOSITION TO THE CALORIC THEORY: PHLOGISTON IS NEITHER FIRE NOR CALORIC .......... 182 VII. OPPOSITION TO THE CALORIC THEORY: PHLOGISTON IS F I R E ........................... 220 CONCLUSION. ....................................249 BIBLIOGRAPHY. .................................. .258 IV EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF HEAT INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the eighteenth century, there were two primary theories regarding the nature of heat. One school of thought considered the subtle matter of fire as the cause of heat. This theory is discussed in Chapter I. Fire matter can be either free or imprisoned within the pores of substances. Fire particles are in constant motion, although this motion is suppressed when fire is confined- The theory derived from a strong seventeenth-century tradition. Its chief advocate . and most influential supporter during the first half of the eighteenth century was Herman Boerhaave, although many of his ideas had been stated earlier in the century by such men as Wilhelm Homberg, Louis Lemery, and Willem Jacob van 's Gravesande. This theory of heat was dominant through out the first half of the century, and it found expression in works by Petrus van Musschenbroek and the Abbé Jean Antoine Nollet. About the middle of the century, Boerhaave's ideas concerning fire began to fuse with the phlogiston theory of Georg Ernst Stahl. This is described in Chapter II. The central figure in this development was Stahl's French disciple, Guillaume François Rouelle. Examples of the changing view are found in articles by Paul Henri Thiry, baron d 'Holbach, and Gabriel François Venel in the Diderot Encyclopédie. French phlo- gistonists identified phlogiston with Boerhaave's concept of fire, and 1 2 they added the idea that fire is found chemically combined with other principles in inflammables and in metals and that fire is released during combustion and calcination. Rouelle's synthesis was expounded by his pupilsj particularly Pierre Joseph Macquer, and it quickly superseded jbhe older theory of heat. This newer concept is expressed in many of the more popular dictionaries and texts published during the last half of the century, for example those of Aimé Henri Paulian, Joseph Aignan Sigaud-Lafond, and François Para du Panjas, as well as in most of the articles dealing with heat theory which appeared in the Observations sur la physique prior to 1780. Expressions of another theory of heat appeared from time to time throughout the century. This theory considered heat to be the vibratory motion of the particles of ordinary matter, and it is discussed in Ghap- III. An early exponent of the vibratory concept was Isaac Newton, and explanations involving this view are found in the writings of John Harris, Stephen Hales, John Theophilus Desaguliers, and Benjamin Martin. Many of the advocates of this theory were Englishmen. During the 1770's and 1780's, Henry Cavendish and Joseph Priestley used explanations based upon this concept, and during the 1780's and 1790's, Stephen Dickson and James Keir offered the view in opposition to the caloric theory. Yet most English dictionaries and encyclopedias published after 1730 expressed belief in Boerhaave's theory of fire-matter-in-motion, and advocates of the opposing view appear more as conservative traditionalists rather than as proponents of a strong, virile scientific concept. Only a few per sons attempted to establish a detailed theory of heat based upon the idea of vibration: the Russian, Mikhail Vasil'evich Lomonosov and the 3 Frenchman, Pierre Joseph Macquer. Despite the fame of some members of this school of thought, the vibratory theory remained the minority point of view throughout the eighteenth century - During the 1770^s, a different material theory of heat appeared. This new concept is described in Chapter IV. Emphasis upon the inherent motion of fire particles declined, and in the new theory, this feature of the older view is completely absent. The new concept of heat is inti mately associated with the oxidation theory of Antoine Laurent Lavoisier. Lavoisier transformed combustion from a process of decomposition to one of combination, and he transferred the source of heat from the combustible substance to oxygen gas. To account for the presence of fire matter in oxygen gas, he claimed that gases are the vaporous state of liquids which have boiling points far below common temperatures. The fire matter contained in oxy gen gas is in the form of latent heat, and the release of heat during combustion is the same process as the release of heat during the conden sation of steam. In the revised nomenclature, which appeared in 1789, the matter of heat was given the name "calorique," or "caloric" as translated into English. According to the older view, changes of state are brought about by fire matter acting as an agent to separate the particles of substances. In the caloric theory, these changes are caused by caloric chemically combining with the particles of substances. This explanation accounts for caloric becoming latent during changes of state. In general, acceptance of the caloric theory of heat paralleled the acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of oxidation, and most eighteenth- century advocates of the caloric theory were Frenchmen,, The most prolific 4 writers who supported the caloric theory were Armand Seguin and Antoine François de Fourcroy whose works are examined in Chapter V, Although they initially disagreed with some specific elements of Lavoisier’s views) both came to accept his theory almost completely. Jean Antoine Claude Chaptal de Chanteloup, however, denied the analogy between gases and vapors and claimed that -the state of caloric in oxygen gas bears no relationship to the state of caloric in vapors. Chaptal's explanation parallels a tendency in the later writings of Seguin and Fourcroy and even in the writings of Lavoisier to give less emphasis to explanations of changes of state in terms of the chemical combination of caloric and to give greater emphasis to physical explanations involving pore-space and a balance of forces. Opposition to the caloric theory had no necessary connection with belief in phlogiston. Adair Crawford, whose work is discussed in Chapter VI, believed that phlogiston is different from caloric and that these substances tend to replace each other in chemical combinations. He agreed with Lavoisier that vital air is the source of caloric released during combustion, but he denied that heat is combined in substances. Absorption and release of heat is due to concomitant changes in specific heat, Crawford’s ideas bear a striking similarity to Lavoisier’s general thepry. Crawford was able to incorporate in his theory many of the ex perimental data used to support the new chemistry, and hence his view tended to become a rallying-point for those who were impressed by these data and yet were reluctant to banish phlogiston from the realm of existence. 5 Crawford s views received substantial support from his contemporaries and created considerable controversy. Lavoisier himself felt it necessary to argue against some of Crawford s views and Seguin devoted a considerable portion of his writings to refuting various ele ments of Crawford's theory. Some of Crawford's ideas were used by phlogistonists and antiphlogistonists alike in supporting their own views and in arguing against their opponents. Another group of critics equated phlogiston with fire matter and attacked the caloric theory directly. Among these were Jean Claude de Lamétherie, editor of the Observations sur la physique, and the geologist James Hutton. Their writings are examined in Chapter VII. Lametherie and Hutton believed that the concept of heat associated with the new chemistry was the single foundation stone upon which the entire oxidation theory rested.