FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266  
267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   >>   >|  
taken as being 4.180 joules per gramme-degree-centigrade on the scale of the platinum thermometer, corrected to the absolute scale as explained in the article THERMOMETRY, which has been shown to be practically equivalent to the hydrogen scale. The value 4.180 joules at 20 deg. C. is the mean between Rowland's corrected result 4.181 and the value 4.179, deduced from the experiments of Reynolds and Moorby on the assumption that the ratio of the mean specific heat 0 deg. to 100 deg. to that at 20 deg. is 1.0016, as given by the formulae representing the results of Callendar and Barnes. This would indicate that Rowland's corrected values should, if anything, be lowered. In any case the value of the mechanical equivalent is uncertain to at least 1 in 2000. The mean specific heat, over any range of temperature, may be obtained by integrating the formulae between the limits required, or by taking the difference of the corresponding values of the total heat h, and dividing by the range of temperature. The quantity actually observed by Rowland was the total heat. It may be remarked that starting from the same value at 5 deg., for the sake of comparison, Rowland's values of the total heat agree to 1 in 5000 with those calculated from the formulae. The values of the total heat observed by Regnault, as reduced by Shaw, also show a very fair agreement, considering the uncertainty of the units. It must be admitted that it is desirable to redetermine the variation of the specific heat above 100 deg. C. This is very difficult on account of the steam-pressure, and could not easily be accomplished by the electrical method. Callendar has, however, devised a continuous method of mixture, which appears to be peculiarly adapted to the purpose, and promises to give more certain results. In any case it may be remarked that formulae such as those of Jamin, Henrichsen, Baumgartner, Winkelmann or Dieterici, which give far more rapid rates of increase than that of Regnault, cannot possibly be reconciled with his observations, or with those of Reynolds and Moorby, or Callendar and Barnes, and are certainly inapplicable above 100 deg. C. S 16. _On the Choice of the Thermal Unit._--So much uncertainty still prevails on this fundamental point that it cannot be passed over without reference. There are three possible kinds of unit, depending on the three fundamental methods already g
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266  
267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Rowland
 

formulae

 

values

 

Callendar

 
specific
 
corrected
 

observed

 

results

 

equivalent

 
remarked

uncertainty

 

Barnes

 

Regnault

 

joules

 

fundamental

 

method

 

Moorby

 

Reynolds

 

temperature

 
promises

difficult
 

devised

 

Henrichsen

 

electrical

 

easily

 

pressure

 

continuous

 

peculiarly

 

adapted

 
account

variation

 
accomplished
 
mixture
 

appears

 
purpose
 
passed
 
prevails
 

reference

 
methods
 

depending


Thermal

 
increase
 

possibly

 

Winkelmann

 

Dieterici

 

reconciled

 

Choice

 

inapplicable

 

observations

 

redetermine