MRS. B.
None at all: no more than satiety is a test of the quant.i.ty of food eaten. The thermometer, as I have repeatedly said, can be affected only by free caloric, which alone raises the temperature of bodies.
But there is another mode of proving the existence of specific heat, which affords a very satisfactory ill.u.s.tration of that modification.
This, however, I did not enlarge upon before, as I thought it might appear to you rather complicated. --If you mix two fluids of different temperatures, let us say the one at 50 degrees, and the other at 100 degrees, of what temperature do you suppose the mixture will be?
CAROLINE.
It will be no doubt the medium between the two, that is to say, 75 degrees.
MRS. B.
That will be the case if the two bodies happen to have the same capacity for caloric; but if not, a different result will be obtained. Thus, for instance, if you mix together a pound of mercury, heated at 50 degrees, and a pound of water heated at 100 degrees, the temperature of the mixture, instead of being 75 degrees, will be 80 degrees; so that the water will have lost only 12 degrees, whilst the mercury will have gained 38 degrees; from which you will conclude that the capacity of mercury for heat is less than that of water.
CAROLINE.
I wonder that mercury should have so little specific heat. Did we not see it was a much better conductor of heat than water?
MRS. B.
And it is precisely on that account that its specific heat is less. For since the conductive power of bodies depends, as we have observed before, on their readiness to receive heat and part with it, it is natural to expect that those bodies which are the worst conductors should absorb the most caloric before they are disposed to part with it to other bodies. But let us now proceed to LATENT HEAT.
CAROLINE.
And pray what kind of heat is that?
MRS. B.
It is another modification of combined caloric, which is so a.n.a.logous to specific heat, that most chemists make no distinction between them; but Mr. Pictet, in his Essay on Fire, has so clearly discriminated them, that I am induced to adopt his view of the subject. We therefore call _latent heat_ that portion of insensible caloric which is employed in changing the state of bodies; that is to say, in converting solids into liquids, or liquids; into vapour. When a body changes its state from solid to liquid, or from liquid to vapour, its expansion occasions a sudden and considerable increase of capacity for heat, in consequence of which it immediately absorbs a quant.i.ty of caloric, which becomes fixed in the body which it has transformed; and, as it is perfectly concealed from our senses, it has obtained the name of _latent_ heat.
CAROLINE.
I think it would be much more correct to call this modification latent caloric instead of latent heat, since it does not excite the sensation of heat.
MRS. B.
This modification of heat was discovered and named by Dr. Black long before the French chemists introduced the term caloric, and we must not presume to alter it, as it is still used by much better chemists than ourselves. And, besides, you are not to suppose that the nature of heat is altered by being variously modified: for if latent heat and specific heat do not excite the same sensations as free caloric, it is owing to their being in a state of confinement, which prevents them from acting upon our organs; and consequently, as soon as they are extricated from the body in which they are imprisoned, they return to their state of free caloric.
EMILY.
But I do not yet clearly see in what respect latent heat differs from specific heat; for they are both of them imprisoned and concealed in bodies.
MRS. B.
Specific heat is that which is employed in filling the capacity of a body for caloric, in the state in which this body actually exists; while latent heat is that which is employed only in effecting a change of state, that is, in converting bodies from a solid to a liquid, or from a liquid to an aeriform state. But I think that, in a general point of view, both these modifications might be comprehended under the name of _heat of capacity_, as in both cases the caloric is equally engaged in filling the capacities of bodies.
I shall now show you an experiment, which I hope will give you a clear idea of what is understood by latent heat.
The snow which you see in this phial has been cooled by certain chemical means (which I cannot well explain to you at present), to 5 or 6 degrees below the freezing point, as you will find indicated by the thermometer which is placed in it. We shall expose it to the heat of a lamp, and you will see the thermometer gradually rise, till it reaches the freezing point----
EMILY.
But there it stops, Mrs. B., and yet the lamp burns just as well as before. Why is not its heat communicated to the thermometer?
CAROLINE.
And the snow begins to melt, therefore it must be rising above the freezing point?
MRS. B.
The heat no longer affects the thermometer, because it is wholly employed in converting the ice into water. As the ice melts, the caloric becomes _latent_ in the new-formed liquid, and therefore cannot raise its temperature; and the thermometer will consequently remain stationary, till the whole of the ice be melted.
CAROLINE.
Now it is all melted, and the thermometer begins to rise again.
MRS. B.
Because the conversion of the ice into water being completed, the caloric no longer becomes latent; and therefore the heat which the water now receives raises its temperature, as you find the thermometer indicates.
EMILY.
But I do not think that the thermometer rises so quickly in the water as it did in the ice, previous to its beginning to melt, though the lamp burns equally well?
MRS. B.
That is owing to the different specific heat of ice and water. The capacity of water for caloric being greater than that of ice, more heat is required to raise its temperature, and therefore the thermometer rises slower in the water than in the ice.
EMILY.
True; you said that a solid body always increased its capacity for heat by becoming fluid; and this is an instance of it.
MRS. B.
Yes, and the latent heat is that which is absorbed in consequence of the greater capacity which the water has for heat, in comparison to ice.
I must now tell you a curious calculation founded on that consideration.
I have before observed to you that though the thermometer shows us the comparative warmth of bodies, and enables us to determine the same point at different times and places, it gives us no idea of the absolute quant.i.ty of heat in any body. We cannot tell how low it ought to fall by the privation of all heat, but an attempt has been made to infer it in the following manner. It has been found by experiment, that the capacity of water for heat, when compared with that of ice, is as 10 to 9, so that, at the same temperature, ice contains one tenth of caloric less than water. By experiment also it is observed, that in order to melt ice, there must be added to it as much heat, as would, if it did not melt it, raise its temperature 140 degrees. This quant.i.ty of heat is therefore absorbed when the ice, by being converted into water, is made to contain one-ninth more caloric than it did before. Therefore 140 degrees is a ninth part of the heat contained in ice at 30 degrees; and the point of zero, or the absolute privation of heat, must consequently be 1260 degrees below 32 degrees.
This mode of investigating so curious a question is ingenious, but its correctness is not yet established by similar calculations for other bodies. The points of absolute cold, indicated by this method in various bodies, are very remote from each other; it is however possible, that this may arise from some imperfection in the experiments.
CAROLINE.
It is indeed very ingenious--but we must now attend to our present experiment. The water begins to boil, and the thermometer is again stationary.
MRS. B.
Well, Caroline, it is your turn to explain the phenomenon.