The First Law Of Thermodynamics: 2. The Joule–Mayer Controversy

M. Collins
{"title":"The First Law Of Thermodynamics: 2. The Joule–Mayer Controversy","authors":"M. Collins","doi":"10.2495/978-1-84564-149-8/009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two pioneering scientists are associated with the formulation of the first law of thermo dynamics, James Prescott Joule and Julius Robert Mayer. There are two distinct aspects to their contributions: the actual statement of the equivalence of heat and work, and the experimental justification for that statement. In terms of the former, Mayer and Joule independently made that statement, Mayer a year or so earlier than Joule. In terms of the latter, Joule carried out a scientifically superb range of experiments allowing him to quantify accurately the mechanical equivalent of heat. To begin with, both had very great problems in gaining acceptance from their peers. Joule was ultimately successful, in large measure due to the strong support of Kelvin. Mayer, on the other hand, had the bitter experience of never gaining that acceptance in his lifetime. The situation was exacerbated by the heated controversy initiated by John Tyndall and the biologically oriented X-Club. In strong opposition to the thermodynamic community, they not only maintained the historical precedence of Mayer over Joule but were derogatory to Joule’s contributions. In this chapter, it will be shown that at the time the controversy was unnecessary. Moreover, scientific history, while fully crediting Joule, has been kind to Mayer, in the presentday use of the expression ‘the Mayer–Joule Principle’.","PeriodicalId":336954,"journal":{"name":"WIT Transactions on State-of-the-art in Science and Engineering","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WIT Transactions on State-of-the-art in Science and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2495/978-1-84564-149-8/009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Two pioneering scientists are associated with the formulation of the first law of thermo dynamics, James Prescott Joule and Julius Robert Mayer. There are two distinct aspects to their contributions: the actual statement of the equivalence of heat and work, and the experimental justification for that statement. In terms of the former, Mayer and Joule independently made that statement, Mayer a year or so earlier than Joule. In terms of the latter, Joule carried out a scientifically superb range of experiments allowing him to quantify accurately the mechanical equivalent of heat. To begin with, both had very great problems in gaining acceptance from their peers. Joule was ultimately successful, in large measure due to the strong support of Kelvin. Mayer, on the other hand, had the bitter experience of never gaining that acceptance in his lifetime. The situation was exacerbated by the heated controversy initiated by John Tyndall and the biologically oriented X-Club. In strong opposition to the thermodynamic community, they not only maintained the historical precedence of Mayer over Joule but were derogatory to Joule’s contributions. In this chapter, it will be shown that at the time the controversy was unnecessary. Moreover, scientific history, while fully crediting Joule, has been kind to Mayer, in the presentday use of the expression ‘the Mayer–Joule Principle’.
热力学第一定律:2。焦耳-梅耶争议
两位开创性的科学家,詹姆斯·普雷斯科特·焦耳和朱利叶斯·罗伯特·迈耶,与热力学第一定律的公式有关。他们的贡献有两个不同的方面:热功等效的实际陈述,以及对该陈述的实验证明。就前者而言,梅耶尔和焦耳各自独立地发表了声明,梅耶尔比焦耳早一年左右。就后者而言,焦耳进行了一系列科学精湛的实验,使他能够准确地量化热的机械当量。一开始,他们在获得同龄人的认可方面都遇到了很大的问题。焦耳最终成功了,这在很大程度上要归功于开尔文的大力支持。另一方面,梅耶尔一生都没有得到这种认可,这是他的痛苦经历。约翰·廷德尔(John Tyndall)和以生物学为导向的x俱乐部(X-Club)引发的激烈争论使情况更加恶化。在对热力学界的强烈反对中,他们不仅保持了迈耶对焦耳的历史优先权,而且贬低了焦耳的贡献。在这一章中,它将表明,当时的争论是不必要的。此外,科学史在充分赞扬焦耳的同时,在今天使用“梅耶-焦耳原理”这一表述时,也对梅耶很友好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信