<研究報告>ラムフォードの砲身旋削実験に関する歴史的考察

概要

論文の詳細を見る
The writer argues why RUMFORD'S cannon-boring experiments could not disprove the caloric theory, concentrating his attention on the two anomalous results (he calls 'Anomaly') which RUMFORD'S cannon-boring experiments afforded. The two anomalies are as follows. Anomaly I; The heat by friction is not in consequence of a change of the capacity for heat, and Anomaly II; The source of heat generated by friction appears to be inexhaustible. He examined the reactions which vibrationalists such as H. DAVY and T. YOUNG, and calorists such as W. HENRY, J. DALTON, and J. B. EMMETT gave for or against RUMFORD' experiments, and he came to the following conclusions : Anomaly I represents the negative result which can not be quantitative and would be meangless unless all of the experimental conditions are perfectly satisfied. Anomaly II represents practically unprovable or unverifiable result. Therefore the results of RUMFORD'S experiments were easily refuted from calorists, though vibrationalists admitted them in corroboration of their own assertions. In order that the rightness of RUMFORD'S experiments might be admitted, first, it was necessary for calorists to recognise the results of RUMFORD'S experiments as anomalous (as J. W. HERSCHEL declared them to be extraordinary), then the anomalous results had to be explained by the new concept such as the conversion of mecanical work into heat.
国立科学博物館の論文