It may be shown as follows that the conception of a constant quant.i.ty of electricity can be regarded as the expression of a pure fact. Picture to yourself any sort of electrical conductor (Fig. 34); cut it up into a large number of small pieces, and place these pieces by means of an insulated rod at a distance of one centimetre from an electrical body which acts with unit of force on an equal and like-const.i.tuted body at the same distance. Take the sum of the forces which this last body exerts on the single pieces of the conductor. The sum of these forces will be the quant.i.ty of electricity on the whole conductor. It remains the same, whether we change the form and the size of the conductor, or whether we bring it near or move it away from a second electrical conductor, so long as we keep it insulated, that is, do not discharge it.
A basis of reality for the notion of electric quant.i.ty seems also to present itself from another quarter. If a current, that is, in the usual view, a definite quant.i.ty of electricity per second, is sent through a column of acidulated water; in the direction of the positive stream, hydrogen, but in the opposite direction, oxygen is liberated at the extremities of the column. For a given quant.i.ty of electricity a given quant.i.ty of oxygen appears. You may picture the column of water as a column of hydrogen and a column of oxygen, fitted into each other, and may say the electric current is a chemical current and vice versa. Although this notion is more difficult to adhere to in the field of statical electricity and with non-decomposable conductors, its further development is by no means hopeless.
The concept quant.i.ty of electricity, thus, is not so aerial as might appear, but is able to conduct us with certainty through a mult.i.tude of varied phenomena, and is suggested to us by the facts in almost palpable form. We can collect electrical force in a body, measure it out with one body into another, carry it over from one body into another, just as we can collect a liquid in a vessel, measure it out with one vessel into another, or pour it from one into another.
For the a.n.a.lysis of mechanical phenomena, a metrical notion, derived from experience, and bearing the designation work, has proved itself useful. A machine can be set in motion only when the forces acting on it can perform work.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 35.]
Let us consider, for example, a wheel and axle (Fig. 35) having the radii 1 and 2 metres, loaded respectively with the weights 2 and 1 kilogrammes. On turning the wheel and axle, the 1 kilogramme-weight, let us say, sinks two metres, while the 2 kilogramme-weight rises one metre. On both sides the product KGR. M. KGR. M.
1 A 2 = 2 A 1.
is equal. So long as this is so, the wheel and axle will not move of itself. But if we take such loads, or so change the radii of the wheels, that this product (kgr. A metre) on displacement is in excess on one side, that side will sink. As we see, this product is characteristic for mechanical events, and for this reason has been invested with a special name, work.
In all mechanical processes, and as all physical processes present a mechanical side, in all physical processes, work plays a determinative part. Electrical forces, also, produce only changes in which work is performed. To the extent that forces come into play in electrical phenomena, electrical phenomena, be they what they may, extend into the domain of mechanics and are subject to the laws which hold in this domain. The universally adopted measure of work, now, is the product of the force into the distance through which it acts, and in the C. G. S. system, the unit of work is the action through one centimetre of a force which would impart in one second to a gramme-ma.s.s a velocity-increment of one centimetre, that is, in round numbers, the action through a centimetre of a pressure equal to the weight of a milligramme. From a positively charged body, electricity, yielding to the force of repulsion and performing work, flows off to the earth, providing conducting connexions exist. To a negatively charged body, on the other hand, the earth under the same circ.u.mstances gives off positive electricity. The electrical work possible in the interaction of a body with the earth, characterises the electrical condition of that body. We will call the work which must be expended on the unit quant.i.ty of positive electricity to raise it from the earth to the body K the potential of the body K.[31]
We ascribe to the body K in the C. G. S. system the potential +1, if we must expend the unit of work to raise the positive electrostatic unit of electric quant.i.ty from the earth to that body; the potential -1, if we gain in this procedure the unit of work; the potential 0, if no work at all is performed in the operation.
The different parts of one and the same electrical conductor in electrical equilibrium have the same potential, for otherwise the electricity would perform work and move about upon the conductor, and equilibrium would not have existed. Different conductors of equal potential, put in connexion with one another, do not exchange electricity any more than bodies of equal temperature in contact exchange heat, or in connected vessels, in which the same pressures exist, liquids flow from one vessel to the other. Exchange of electricity takes place only between conductors of different potentials, but in conductors of given form and position a definite difference of potential is necessary for a spark, which pierces the insulating air, to pa.s.s between them.
On being connected, every two conductors a.s.sume at once the same potential. With this the means is given of determining the potential of a conductor through the agency of a second conductor expressly adapted to the purpose called an electrometer, just as we determine the temperature of a body with a thermometer. The values of the potentials of bodies obtained in this way simplify vastly our a.n.a.lysis of their electrical behavior, as will be evident from what has been said.
Think of a positively charged conductor. Double all the electrical forces exerted by this conductor on a point charged with unit quant.i.ty, that is, double the quant.i.ty at each point, or what is the same thing, double the total charge. Plainly, equilibrium still subsists. But carry, now, the positive electrostatic unit towards the conductor. Everywhere we shall have to overcome double the force of repulsion we did before, everywhere we shall have to expend double the work. By doubling the charge of the conductor a double potential has been produced. Charge and potential go hand in hand, are proportional. Consequently, calling the total quant.i.ty of electricity of a conductor Q and its potential V, we can write: Q = CV, where C stands for a constant, the import of which will be understood simply from noting that C = Q/V.[32] But the division of a number representing the units of quant.i.ty of a conductor by the number representing its units of potential tells us the quant.i.ty which falls to the share of the unit of potential. Now the number C here we call the capacity of a conductor, and have subst.i.tuted, thus, in the place of the old relative determination of capacity, an absolute determination.[33]
In simple cases the connexion between charge, potential, and capacity is easily ascertained. Our conductor, let us say, is a sphere of radius r, suspended free in a large body of air. There being no other conductors in the vicinity, the charge q will then distribute itself uniformly upon the surface of the sphere, and simple geometrical considerations yield for its potential the expression V = q/r. Hence, q/V = r; that is, the capacity of a sphere is measured by its radius, and in the C. G. S. system in centimetres.[34] It is clear also, since a potential is a quant.i.ty divided by a length, that a quant.i.ty divided by a potential must be a length.
Imagine (Fig. 36) a jar composed of two concentric conductive spherical sh.e.l.ls of the radii r and raCA, having only air between them. Connecting the outside sphere with the earth, and charging the inside sphere by means of a thin, insulated wire pa.s.sing through the first, with the quant.i.ty Q, we shall have V = (raCA-r)/(raCAr)Q, and for the capacity in this case (raCAr)/(raCA-r), or, to take a specific example, if r = 16 and raCA = 19, a capacity of about 100 centimetres.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 36.]
We shall now use these simple cases for ill.u.s.trating the principle by which capacity and potential are determined. First, it is clear that we can use the jar composed of concentric spheres with its known capacity as our unit jar and by means of this ascertain, in the manner above laid down, the capacity of any given jar F. We find, for example, that 37 discharges of this unit jar of the capacity 100, just charges the jar investigated at the same striking distance, that is, at the same potential. Hence, the capacity of the jar investigated is 3700 centimetres. The large battery of the Prague physical laboratory, which consists of sixteen such jars, all of nearly equal size, has a capacity, therefore, of something like 50,000 centimetres, or the capacity of a sphere, a kilometre in diameter, freely suspended in atmospheric s.p.a.ce. This remark distinctly shows us the great superiority which Leyden jars possess for the storage of electricity as compared with common conductors. In fact, as Faraday pointed out, jars differ from simple conductors mainly by their great capacity.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 37.]
For determining potential, imagine the inner coating of a jar F, the outer coating of which communicates with the ground, connected by a long, thin wire with a conductive sphere K placed free in a large atmospheric s.p.a.ce, compared with whose dimensions the radius of the sphere vanishes. (Fig. 37.) The jar and the sphere a.s.sume at once the same potential. But on the surface of the sphere, if that be sufficiently far removed from all other conductors, a uniform layer of electricity will be found. If the sphere, having the radius r, contains the charge q, its potential is V = q/r. If the upper half of the sphere be severed from the lower half and equilibrated on a balance with one of whose beams it is connected by silk threads, the upper half will be repelled from the lower half with the force P = q/8r = 1/8V. This repulsion P may be counter-balanced by additional weights placed on the beam-end, and so ascertained. The potential is then V = [sqrt](8P).[35]
That the potential is proportional to the square root of the force is not difficult to see. A doubling or trebling of the potential means that the charge of all the parts is doubled or trebled; hence their combined power of repulsion quadrupled or nonupled.
Let us consider a special case. I wish to produce the potential 40 on the sphere. What additional weight must I give to the half sphere in grammes that the force of repulsion shall maintain the balance in exact equilibrium? As a gramme weight is approximately equivalent to 1000 units of force, we have only the following simple example to work out: 40A40 = 8A 1000.x, where x stands for the number of grammes. In round numbers we get x = 0.2 gramme. I charge the jar. The balance is deflected; I have reached, or rather pa.s.sed, the potential 40, and you see when I discharge the jar the a.s.sociated spark.[36]
The striking distance between the k.n.o.bs of a machine increases with the difference of the potential, although not proportionately to that difference. The striking distance increases faster than the potential difference. For a distance between the k.n.o.bs of one centimetre on this machine the difference of potential is 110. It can easily be increased tenfold. Of the tremendous differences of potential which occur in nature some idea may be obtained from the fact that the striking distances of lightning in thunder-storms is counted by miles. The differences of potential in galvanic batteries are considerably smaller than those of our machine, for it takes fully one hundred elements to give a spark of microscopic striking distance.
We shall now employ the ideas reached to shed some light upon another important relation between electrical and mechanical phenomena. We shall investigate what is the potential energy, or the store of work, contained in a charged conductor, for example, in a jar.
If we bring a quant.i.ty of electricity up to a conductor, or, to speak less pictorially, if we generate by work electrical force in a conductor, this force is able to produce anew the work by which it was generated. How great, now, is the energy or capacity for work of a conductor of known charge Q and known potential V?
Imagine the given charge Q divided into very small parts q, qaCA, qaCC ..., and these little parts successively carried up to the conductor. The first very small quant.i.ty q is brought up without any appreciable work and produces by its presence a small potential V{"}. To bring up the second quant.i.ty, accordingly, we must do the work q_{"}V_{"}, and similarly for the quant.i.ties which follow the work q_{"}V_{"}, q_{""}V_{""}, and so forth. Now, as the potential rises proportionately to the quant.i.ties added until the value V is reached, we have, agreeably to the graphical representation of Fig. 38, for the total work performed, W = 1/2QV, which corresponds to the total energy of the charged conductor. Using the equation Q = CV, where C stands for capacity, we also have, W = 1/2CV, or W = Q/2C.
It will be helpful, perhaps, to elucidate this idea by an a.n.a.logy from the province of mechanics. If we pump a quant.i.ty of liquid, Q, gradually into a cylindrical vessel (Fig. 39), the level of the liquid in the vessel will gradually rise. The more we have pumped in, the greater the pressure we must overcome, or the higher the level to which we must lift the liquid. The stored-up work is rendered again available when the heavy liquid Q, which reaches up to the level h, flows out. This work W corresponds to the fall of the whole liquid weight Q, through the distance h/2 or through the alt.i.tude of its centre of gravity. We have W = 1/2Qh.
Further, since Q = Kh, or since the weight of the liquid and the height h are proportional, we get also W = 1/2Kh and W = Q/2K.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 38.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 39.]
As a special case let us consider our jar. Its capacity is C = 3700, its potential V = 110; accordingly, its quant.i.ty Q = CV = 407,000 electrostatic units and its energy W = 1/2QV = 22,385,000 C. G. S. units of work.
The unit of work of the C. G. S. system is not readily appreciable by the senses, nor does it well admit of representation, as we are accustomed to work with weights. Let us adopt, therefore, as our unit of work the gramme-centimetre, or the gravitational pressure of a gramme-weight through the distance of a centimetre, which in round numbers is 1000 times greater than the unit a.s.sumed above; in this case, our numerical result will be approximately 1000 times smaller. Again, if we pa.s.s, as more familiar in practice, to the kilogramme-metre as our unit of work, our unit, the distance being increased a hundred fold, and the weight a thousand fold, will be 100,000 times larger. The numerical result expressing the work done is in this case 100,000 times less, being in round numbers 0.22 kilogramme-metre. We can obtain a clear idea of the work done here by letting a kilogramme-weight fall 22 centimetres.
This amount of work, accordingly, is performed on the charging of the jar, and on its discharge appears again, according to the circ.u.mstances, partly as sound, partly as a mechanical disruption of insulators, partly as light and heat, and so forth.
The large battery of the Prague physical laboratory, with its sixteen jars charged to equal potentials, furnishes, although the effect of the discharge is imposing, a total amount of work of only three kilogramme-metres.
In the development of the ideas above laid down we are not restricted to the method there pursued; in fact, that method was selected only as one especially fitted to familiarise us with the phenomena. On the contrary, the connexion of the physical processes is so multifarious that we can come at the same event from very different directions. Particularly are electrical phenomena connected with all other physical events; and so intimate is this connexion that we might justly call the study of electricity the theory of the general connexion of physical processes.
With respect to the principle of the conservation of energy which unites electrical with mechanical phenomena, I should like to point out briefly two ways of following up the study of this connexion.
A few years ago Professor Rosetti, taking an influence-machine, which he set in motion by means of weights alternately in the electrical and non-electrical condition with the same velocities, determined the mechanical work expended in the two cases and was thus enabled, after deducting the work of friction, to ascertain the mechanical work consumed in the development of the electricity.
I myself have made this experiment in a modified, and, as I think, more advantageous form. Instead of determining the work of friction by special trial, I arranged my apparatus so that it was eliminated of itself in the measurement and could consequently be neglected. The so-called fixed disk of the machine, the axis of which is placed vertically, is suspended somewhat like a chandelier by three vertical threads of equal lengths l at a distance r from the axis. Only when the machine is excited does this fixed disk, which represents a p.r.o.ny"s brake, receive, through its reciprocal action with the rotating disk, a deflexion [alpha] and a moment of torsion which is expressed by D = (Pr/l)[alpha], where P is the weight of the disk.[37] The angle [alpha] is determined by a mirror set in the disk. The work expended in n rotations is given by 2n[pi]D.
If we close the machine, as Rosetti did, we obtain a continuous current which has all the properties of a very weak galvanic current; for example, it produces a deflexion in a multiplier which we interpose, and so forth. We can directly ascertain, now, the mechanical work expended in the maintenance of this current.
If we charge a jar by means of a machine, the energy of the jar employed in the production of sparks, in the disruption of the insulators, etc., corresponds to a part only of the mechanical work expended, a second part of it being consumed in the arc which forms the circuit.[38] This machine, with the interposed jar, affords in miniature a picture of the transference of force, or more properly of work. And in fact nearly the same laws hold here for the economical coefficient as obtain for large dynamo-machines.
Another means of investigating electrical energy is by its transformation into heat. A long time ago (1838), before the mechanical theory of heat had attained its present popularity, Riess performed experiments in this field with the help of his electrical air-thermometer or thermo-electrometer.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 40.]
If the discharge be conducted through a fine wire pa.s.sing through the globe of the air-thermometer, a development of heat is observed proportional to the expression above-discussed W = 1/2QV. Although the total energy has not yet been transformed into measurable heat by this means, in as much as a portion is left behind in the spark in the air outside the thermometer, still everything tends to show that the total heat developed in all parts of the conductor and along all the paths of discharge is the equivalent of the work 1/2QV.
It is not important here whether the electrical energy is transformed all at once or partly, by degrees. For example, if of two equal jars one is charged with the quant.i.ty Q at the potential V the energy present is 1/2QV. If the first jar be discharged into the second, V, since the capacity is now doubled, falls to V/2. Accordingly, the energy 1/4QV remains, while 1/4QV is transformed in the spark of discharge into heat. The remainder, however, is equally distributed between the two jars so that each on discharge is still able to transform 1/8QV into heat.
We have here discussed electricity in the limited phenomenal form in which it was known to the inquirers before Volta, and which has been called, perhaps not very felicitously, "statical electricity." It is evident, however, that the nature of electricity is everywhere one and the same; that a substantial difference between statical and galvanic electricity does not exist. Only the quant.i.tative circ.u.mstances in the two provinces are so widely different that totally new aspects of phenomena may appear in the second, for example, magnetic effects, which in the first remained unnoticed, whilst, vice versa, in the second field statical attractions and repulsions are scarcely appreciable. As a fact, we can easily show the magnetic effect of the current of discharge of an influence-machine on the galvanoscope although we could hardly have made the original discovery of the magnetic effects with this current. The statical distant action of the wire poles of a galvanic element also would hardly have been noticed had not the phenomenon been known from a different quarter in a striking form.
If we wished to characterise the two fields in their chief and most general features, we should say that in the first, high potentials and small quant.i.ties come into play, in the second small potentials and large quant.i.ties. A jar which is discharging and a galvanic element deport themselves somewhat like an air-gun and the bellows of an organ. The first gives forth suddenly under a very high pressure a small quant.i.ty of air; the latter liberates gradually under a very slight pressure a large quant.i.ty of air.
In point of principle, too, nothing prevents our retaining the electrostatical units in the domain of galvanic electricity and in measuring, for example, the strength of a current by the number of electrostatic units which flow per second through its cross-section. But this would be in a double aspect impractical. In the first place, we should totally neglect the magnetic facilities for measurement so conveniently offered by the current, and subst.i.tute for this easy means a method which can be applied only with difficulty and is not capable of great exactness. In the second place our units would be much too small, and we should find ourselves in the predicament of the astronomer who attempted to measure celestial distances in metres instead of in radii of the earth and the earth"s...o...b..t; for the current which by the magnetic C. G. S. standard represents the unit, would require a flow of some 30,000,000,000 electrostatic units per second through its cross-section. Accordingly, different units must be adopted here. The development of this point, however, lies beyond my present task.
FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 26: A lecture delivered at the International Electrical Exhibition, in Vienna, on September 4, 1883.]
[Footnote 27: If the two bodies were oppositely electrified they would exert attractions upon each other.]
[Footnote 28: The quant.i.ty which flows off is in point of fact less than q. It would be equal to the quant.i.ty q only if the inner coating of the jar were wholly encompa.s.sed by the outer coating.]
[Footnote 29: Rigorously, of course, this is not correct. First, it is to be noted that the jar L is discharged simultaneously with the electrode of the machine. The jar F, on the other hand, is always discharged simultaneously with the outer coating of the jar L. Hence, if we call the capacity of the electrode of the machine E, that of the unit jar L, that of the outer coating of L, A, and that of the princ.i.p.al jar F, then this equation would exist for the example in the text: (F + A)/(L + E) = 5. A cause of further departure from absolute exactness is the residual charge.]
[Footnote 30: Making allowance for the corrections indicated in the preceding footnote, I have obtained for the dielectric constant of sulphur the number 3.2, which agrees practically with the results obtained by more delicate methods. For the highest attainable precision one should by rights immerse the two plates of the condenser first wholly in air and then wholly in sulphur, if the ratio of the capacities is to correspond to the dielectric constant. In point of fact, however, the error which arises from inserting simply a plate of sulphur that exactly fills the s.p.a.ce between the two plates, is of no consequence.]
[Footnote 31: As this definition in its simple form is apt to give rise to misunderstandings, elucidations are usually added to it. It is clear that we cannot lift a quant.i.ty of electricity to K, without changing the distribution on K and the potential on K. Hence, the charges on K must be conceived as fixed, and so small a quant.i.ty raised that no appreciable change is produced by it. Taking the work thus expended as many times as the small quant.i.ty in question is contained in the unit of quant.i.ty, we shall obtain the potential. The potential of a body K may be briefly and precisely defined as follows: If we expend the element of work dW to raise the element of positive quant.i.ty dQ from the earth to the conductor, the potential of a conductor K will be given by V = dW/dQ.]
[Footnote 32: In this article the solidus or slant stroke is used for the usual fractional sign of division. Where plus or minus signs occur in the numerator or denominator, brackets or a vinculum is used.--Tr.]
[Footnote 33: A sort of agreement exists between the notions of thermal and electrical capacity, but the difference between the two ideas also should be carefully borne in mind. The thermal capacity of a body depends solely upon that body itself. The electrical capacity of a body K is influenced by all bodies in its vicinity, inasmuch as the charge of these bodies is able to alter the potential of K. To give, therefore, an unequivocal significance to the notion of the capacity (C) of a body K, C is defined as the relation Q/V for the body K in a certain given position of all neighboring bodies, and during connexion of all neighboring conductors with the earth. In practice the situation is much simpler. The capacity, for example, of a jar, the inner coating of which is almost enveloped by its outer coating, communicating with the ground, is not sensibly affected by charged or uncharged adjacent conductors.]
[Footnote 34: These formulA easily follow from Newton"s theorem that a h.o.m.ogeneous spherical sh.e.l.l, whose elements obey the law of the inverse squares, exerts no force whatever on points within it but acts on points without as if the whole ma.s.s were concentrated at its centre. The formulA next adduced also flow from this proposition.]
[Footnote 35: The energy of a sphere of radius r charged with the quant.i.ty q is 1/2(q/r). If the radius increase by the s.p.a.ce dr a loss of energy occurs, and the work done is 1/2(q/r)dr. Letting p denote the uniform electrical pressure on unit of surface of the sphere, the work done is also 4r[pi]pdr. Hence p = (1/8r[pi])(q/r). Subjected to the same superficial pressure on all sides, say in a fluid, our half sphere would be an equilibrium. Hence we must make the pressure p act on the surface of the great circle to obtain the effect on the balance, which is r[pi]p = 1/8(q/r) = 1/8V.]
[Footnote 36: The arrangement described is for several reasons not fitted for the actual measurement of potential. Thomson"s absolute electrometer is based upon an ingenious modification of the electrical balance of Harris and Volta. Of two large plane parallel plates, one communicates with the earth, while the other is brought to the potential to be measured. A small movable superficial portion f of this last hangs from the balance for the determination of the attraction P. The distance of the plates from each other being D we get V = D[sqrt](8[pi]P/f).]
[Footnote 37: This moment of torsion needs a supplementary correction, on account of the vertical electric attraction of the excited disks. This is done by changing the weight of the disk by means of additional weights and by making a second reading of the angles of deflexion.]
[Footnote 38: The jar in our experiment acts like an acc.u.mulator, being charged by a dynamo machine. The relation which obtains between the expended and the available work may be gathered from the following simple exposition. A Holtz machine H (Fig. 40) is charging a unit jar L, which after n discharges of quant.i.ty q and potential v, charges the jar F with the quant.i.ty Q at the potential V. The energy of the unit-jar discharges is lost and that of the jar F alone is left. Hence the ratio of the available work to the total work expended is QV/[QV + (n/2)qv] and as Q = nq, also V/(V + v).
If, now, we interpose no unit jar, still the parts of the machine and the wires of conduction are themselves virtually such unit jars and the formula still subsists V/(V + [sum]v), in which [sum]v represents the sum of all the successively introduced differences of potential in the circuit of connexion.]
ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.[39]
In a popular lecture, distinguished for its charming simplicity and clearness, which Joule delivered in the year 1847,[40] that famous physicist declares that the living force which a heavy body has acquired by its descent through a certain height and which it carries with it in the form of the velocity with which it is impressed, is the equivalentof the attraction of gravity through the s.p.a.ce fallen through, and that it would be "absurd" to a.s.sume that this living force could be destroyed without some rest.i.tution of that equivalent. He then adds: "You will therefore be surprised to hear that until very recently the universal opinion has been that living force could be absolutely and irrevocably destroyed at any one"s option." Let us add that to-day, after forty-seven years, the law of the conservation of energy, wherever civilisation exists, is accepted as a fully established truth and receives the widest applications in all domains of natural science.
The fate of all momentous discoveries is similar. On their first appearance they are regarded by the majority of men as errors. J. R. Mayer"s work on the principle of energy (1842) was rejected by the first physical journal of Germany; Helmholtz"s treatise (1847) met with no better success; and even Joule, to judge from an intimation of Playfair, seems to have encountered difficulties with his first publication (1843). Gradually, however, people are led to see that the new view was long prepared for and ready for enunciation, only that a few favored minds had perceived it much earlier than the rest, and in this way the opposition of the majority is overcome. With proofs of the fruitfulness of the new view, with its success, confidence in it increases. The majority of the men who employ it cannot enter into a deep-going a.n.a.lysis of it; for them, its success is its proof. It can thus happen that a view which has led to the greatest discoveries, like Black"s theory of caloric, in a subsequent period in a province where it does not apply may actually become an obstacle to progress by its blinding our eyes to facts which do not fit in with our favorite conceptions. If a theory is to be protected from this dubious rAle, the grounds and motives of its evolution and existence must be examined from time to time with the utmost care.
The most multifarious physical changes, thermal, electrical, chemical, and so forth, can be brought about by mechanical work. When such alterations are reversed they yield anew the mechanical work in exactly the quant.i.ty which was required for the production of the part reversed. This is the principle of the conservation of energy; "energy" being the term which has gradually come into use for that "indestructible something" of which the measure is mechanical work.
How did we acquire this idea? What are the sources from which we have drawn it? This question is not only of interest in itself, but also for the important reason above touched upon. The opinions which are held concerning the foundations of the law of energy still diverge very widely from one another. Many trace the principle to the impossibility of a perpetual motion, which they regard either as sufficiently proved by experience, or as self-evident. In the province of pure mechanics the impossibility of a perpetual motion, or the continuous production of work without some permanent alteration, is easily demonstrated. Accordingly, if we start from the theory that all physical processes are purely mechanical processes, motions of molecules and atoms, we embrace also, by this mechanical conception of physics, the impossibility of a perpetual motion in the whole physical domain. At present this view probably counts the most adherents. Other inquirers, however, are for accepting only a purely experimental establishment of the law of energy.
It will appear, from the discussion to follow, that all the factors mentioned have co-operated in the development of the view in question; but that in addition to them a logical and purely formal factor, hitherto little considered, has also played a very important part.
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EXCLUDED PERPETUAL MOTION.
The law of energy in its modern form is not identical with the principle of the excluded perpetual motion, but it is very closely related to it. The latter principle, however, is by no means new, for in the province of mechanics it has controlled for centuries the thoughts and investigations of the greatest thinkers. Let us convince ourselves of this by the study of a few historical examples.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 41.]
S. Stevinus, in his famous work Hypomnemata mathematica, Tom. IV, De statica, (Leyden, 1605, p. 34), treats of the equilibrium of bodies on inclined planes.
Over a triangular prism ABC, one side of which, AC, is horizontal, an endless cord or chain is slung, to which at equal distances apart fourteen b.a.l.l.s of equal weight are attached, as represented in cross-section in Figure 41. Since we can imagine the lower symmetrical part of the cord ABC taken away, Stevinus concludes that the four b.a.l.l.s on AB hold in equilibrium the two b.a.l.l.s on BC. For if the equilibrium were for a moment disturbed, it could never subsist: the cord would keep moving round forever in the same direction,--we should have a perpetual motion. He says: "But if this took place, our row or ring of b.a.l.l.s would come once more into their original position, and from the same cause the eight globes to the left would again be heavier than the six to the right, and therefore those eight would sink a second time and these six rise, and all the globes would keep up, of themselves, a continuous and unending motion, which is false."[41]
Stevinus, now, easily derives from this principle the laws of equilibrium on the inclined plane and numerous other fruitful consequences.
In the chapter "Hydrostatics" of the same work, page 114, Stevinus sets up the following principle: "Aquam datam, datum sibi intra aquam loc.u.m servare,"--a given ma.s.s of water preserves within water its given place.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 42.]
This principle is demonstrated as follows (see Fig. 42): "For, a.s.suming it to be possible by natural means, let us suppose that A does not preserve the place a.s.signed to it, but sinks down to D. This being posited, the water which succeeds A will, for the same reason, also flow down to D; A will be forced out of its place in D; and thus this body of water, for the conditions in it are everywhere the same, will set up a perpetual motion, which is absurd."[42]
From this all the principles of hydrostatics are deduced. On this occasion Stevinus also first develops the thought so fruitful for modern a.n.a.lytical mechanics that the equilibrium of a system is not destroyed by the addition of rigid connexions. As we know, the principle of the conservation of the centre of gravity is now sometimes deduced from D"Alembert"s principle with the help of that remark. If we were to reproduce Stevinus"s demonstration to-day, we should have to change it slightly. We find no difficulty in imagining the cord on the prism possessed of unending uniform motion if all hindrances are thought away, but we should protest against the a.s.sumption of an accelerated motion or even against that of a uniform motion, if the resistances were not removed. Moreover, for greater precision of proof, the string of b.a.l.l.s might be replaced by a heavy h.o.m.ogeneous cord of infinite flexibility. But all this does not affect in the least the historical value of Stevinus"s thoughts. It is a fact, Stevinus deduces apparently much simpler truths from the principle of an impossible perpetual motion.
In the process of thought which conducted Galileo to his discoveries at the end of the sixteenth century, the following principle plays an important part, that a body in virtue of the velocity acquired in its descent can rise exactly as high as it fell. This principle, which appears frequently and with much clearness in Galileo"s thought, is simply another form of the principle of excluded perpetual motion, as we shall see it is also in Huygens.
Galileo, as we know, arrived at the law of uniformly accelerated motion by a priori considerations, as that law which was the "simplest and most natural," after having first a.s.sumed a different law which he was compelled to reject. To verify his law he executed experiments with falling bodies on inclined planes, measuring the times of descent by the weights of the water which flowed out of a small orifice in a large vessel. In this experiment he a.s.sumes as a fundamental principle, that the velocity acquired in descent down an inclined plane always corresponds to the vertical height descended through, a conclusion which for him is the immediate outcome of the fact that a body which has fallen down one inclined plane can, with the velocity it has acquired, rise on another plane of any inclination only to the same vertical height. This principle of the height of ascent also led him, as it seems, to the law of inertia. Let us hear his own masterful words in the Dialogo terzo (Opere, Padova, 1744, Tom. III). On page 96 we read: "I take it for granted that the velocities acquired by a body in descent down planes of different inclinations are equal if the heights of those planes are equal."[43]
Then he makes Salviati say in the dialogue:[44]
"What you say seems very probable, but I wish to go further and by an experiment so to increase the probability of it that it shall amount almost to absolute demonstration. Suppose this sheet of paper to be a vertical wall, and from a nail driven in it a ball of lead weighing two or three ounces to hang by a very fine thread AB four or five feet long. (Fig. 43.) On the wall mark a horizontal line DC perpendicular to the vertical AB, which latter ought to hang about two inches from the wall. If now the thread AB with the ball attached take the position AC and the ball be let go, you will see the ball first descend through the arc CB and pa.s.sing beyond B rise through the arc BD almost to the level of the line CD, being prevented from reaching it exactly by the resistance of the air and of the thread. From this we may truly conclude that its impetus at the point B, acquired by its descent through the arc CB, is sufficient to urge it through a similar arc BD to the same height. Having performed this experiment and repeated it several times, let us drive in the wall, in the projection of the vertical AB, as at E or at F, a nail five or six inches long, so that the thread AC, carrying as before the ball through the arc CB, at the moment it reaches the position AB, shall strike the nail E, and the ball be thus compelled to move up the arc BG described about E as centre. Then we shall see what the same impetus will here accomplish, acquired now as before at the same point B, which then drove the same moving body through the arc BD to the height of the horizontal CD. Now gentlemen, you will be pleased to see the ball rise to the horizontal line at the point G, and the same thing also happen if the nail be placed lower as at F, in which case the ball would describe the arc BJ, always terminating its ascent precisely at the line CD. If the nail be placed so low that the length of thread below it does not reach to the height of CD (which would happen if F were nearer B than to the intersection of AB with the horizontal CD), then the thread will wind itself about the nail. This experiment leaves no room for doubt as to the truth of the supposition. For as the two arcs CB, DB are equal and similarly situated, the momentum acquired in the descent of the arc CB is the same as that acquired in the descent of the arc DB; but the momentum acquired at B by the descent through the arc CB is capable of driving up the same moving body through the arc BD; hence also the momentum acquired in the descent DB is equal to that which drives the same moving body through the same arc from B to D, so that in general every momentum acquired in the descent of an arc is equal to that which causes the same moving body to ascend through the same arc; but all the momenta which cause the ascent of all the arcs BD, BG, BJ, are equal since they are made by the same momentum acquired in the descent CB, as the experiment shows: therefore all the momenta acquired in the descent of the arcs DB, GB, JB are equal."
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 43.]
The remark relative to the pendulum may be applied to the inclined plane and leads to the law of inertia. We read on page 124:[45]
"It is plain now that a movable body, starting from rest at A and descending down the inclined plane AB, acquires a velocity proportional to the increment of its time: the velocity possessed at B is the greatest of the velocities acquired, and by its nature immutably impressed, provided all causes of new acceleration or r.e.t.a.r.dation are taken away: I say acceleration, having in view its possible further progress along the plane extended; r.e.t.a.r.dation, in view of the possibility of its being reversed and made to mount the ascending plane BC. But in the horizontal plane GH its equable motion, according to its velocity as acquired in the descent from A to B, will be continued ad infinitum." (Fig. 44.) [Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 44.]
Huygens, upon whose shoulders the mantel of Galileo fell, forms a sharper conception of the law of inertia and generalises the principle respecting the heights of ascent which was so fruitful in Galileo"s hands. He employs the latter principle in the solution of the problem of the centre of oscillation and is perfectly clear in the statement that the principle respecting the heights of ascent is identical with the principle of the excluded perpetual motion.
The following important pa.s.sages then occur (Hugenii, Horologium oscillatorium, pars secunda). Hypotheses: "If gravity did not exist, nor the atmosphere obstruct the motions of bodies, a body would keep up forever the motion once impressed upon it, with equable velocity, in a straight line."[46]
In part four of the Horologium de centro oscillationis we read: "If any number of weights be set in motion by the force of gravity, the common centre of gravity of the weights as a whole cannot possibly rise higher than the place which it occupied when the motion began.
"That this hypothesis of ours may arouse no scruples, we will state that it simply imports, what no one has ever denied, that heavy bodies do not move upwards.--And truly if the devisers of the new machines who make such futile attempts to construct a perpetual motion would acquaint themselves with this principle, they could easily be brought to see their errors and to understand that the thing is utterly impossible by mechanical means."[47]
There is possibly a Jesuitical mental reservation contained in the words "mechanical means." One might be led to believe from them that Huygens held a non-mechanical perpetual motion for possible.
The generalisation of Galileo"s principle is still more clearly put in Prop. IV of the same chapter: "If a pendulum, composed of several weights, set in motion from rest, complete any part of its full oscillation, and from that point onwards, the individual weights, with their common connexions dissolved, change their acquired velocities upwards and ascend as far as they can, the common centre of gravity of all will be carried up to the same alt.i.tude with that which it occupied before the beginning of the oscillation."[48]
On this last principle now, which is a generalisation, applied to a system of ma.s.ses, of one of Galileo"s ideas respecting a single ma.s.s and which from Huygens"s explanation we recognise as the principle of excluded perpetual motion, Huygens grounds his theory of the centre of oscillation. Lagrange characterises this principle as precarious and is rejoiced at James Bernoulli"s successful attempt, in 1681, to reduce the theory of the centre of oscillation to the laws of the lever, which appeared to him clearer. All the great inquirers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries broke a lance on this problem, and it led ultimately, in conjunction with the principle of virtual velocities, to the principle enunciated by D"Alembert in 1743 in his TraitA de dynamique, though previously employed in a somewhat different form by Euler and Hermann.
Furthermore, the Huygenian principle respecting the heights of ascent became the foundation of the "law of the conservation of living force," as that was enunciated by John and Daniel Bernoulli and employed with such signal success by the latter in his Hydrodynamics. The theorems of the Bernoullis differ in form only from Lagrange"s expression in the a.n.a.lytical Mechanics.
The manner in which Torricelli reached his famous law of efflux for liquids leads again to our principle. Torricelli a.s.sumed that the liquid which flows out of the basal orifice of a vessel cannot by its velocity of efflux ascend to a greater height than its level in the vessel.