Re: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
A version of the caloric theory heat stated that all bodies emit and receive caloric at the same time. This aspect of caloric theory is an accord with the currently accepted principles of thermodynamics however Rumford rejected it as impossible: <> Certainly if heat were a substance rather than motion, Rumford's criticism seems reasonable. With Rumford a wave theory of radiation (which he likened to sound waves) it was only possible for a body to warm or cool by the type of radiation it *received*, and not by the radiation it *emitted*. At first glance this would seem to allow a body to perpetually emit radiation and never cool down, but according to Rumford all bodies are continually bathed in cooling or frigorific radiation so this situation cannot arise. Harry On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:07 PM H LV wrote: > > I found a video demonstrating Pictet's classic experiment of radiant > heating and radiant cooling which inspired Rumford's work. > Unfortunately the video is in Russian. but if you know what it is about > it is easy to follow along. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW4T0ZaiGno > > There are two parabolic mirrors facing each other. Either a lit candle or > what appears to be a vial of liquid nitrogen is located at the focus of the > mirror on the left. At the focus of the mirror on the right is some sort of > thermometer. As the horizontal line on the monitor moves up or down it > indicates either an increase or decrease in temperature. > > Harry > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:14 AM H LV wrote: > >> Sorry about the OCR errors in the last post. I cleaned them up in >> this post... >> >> The following is from _Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and >> reflection of cold_ by James Evans and Brian Popp (1985). (google >> search for full pdf paper) >> >> I think Evan's and Popp's criticism of Rumford's theory in the last >> paragraph below is mistaken. It is only the relative difference in >> frequency that determines whether a ray will be cooling (frigorific) or >> warming (calorific) rather than a relative difference in amplitude. An >> increase or decrease in amplitude will only affect the rate at which >> cooling or warming occurs so Rumford's theory is not plagued by internal >> inconsistencies as they argued. >> >> Another interesting part of Rumford's theory is that a body only cools or >> warms by the rays it receives rather than by the rays it emits. Evans and >> Popp also insist this causes problems for Rumford's theory but they don't >> say why. >> >> --Begin quote-- >> >> Rumford's own explanation of the radiation and reflection of cold was >> thoroughly undulationist in nature. As suggested at the beginning of >> this article, Rumford regarded radiant heat as an undulation analogous to >> sound, and seems to have viewed Pictet's experiment more or less as a case >> of a driven oscillator: "The cold body in one focus compels the warm body >> (the thermometer) in the other focus to change its note." This was the >> explanation he ventured to offer his companions at Edinburgh in 1800. >> Later, in his paper of 1804, he gave a more or less complete sketch of his >> view of radiant heat. >> >> To begin, imagine a bell, or any other body perfectly elastic, placed in >> a perfectly elastic fluid medium and surrounded by other perfectly elastic >> bodies. When the bell is struck and made to vibrate, its vibrations are >> gradually communicated, by means of the undulations or pulsations they >> occasion in the elastic fluid medium, to the other sur-rounding bodies. If >> these bodies should happen already to be vibrating at the same frequency >> with which the bell vibrates, the undulations occasioned in the elastic >> medium by the bell would neither increase nor diminish the frequency of the >> vibration of the surrounding bodies; nor would the undulations caused by >> the vibrations of these bodies tend to accelerate or retard the vibrations >> of the bell. But if the vibrations of the bell were more frequent than >> those of the surrounding bodies, the undulations produced by the bell in >> the elastic fluid would tend to accelerate the vibrations of the >> surrounding bodies. On the other hand,the slower vibrations of the >> surrounding bodies would retard the vibrations of the bell. The bell and >> the surrounding bodies would continue to affect one another until, by the >> vibrations of the latter being gradually increased and those of the former >> diminished, they would be reduced to the same tone. >> >> Now, if heat is assumed to be nothing more than the vibrations of the >> constituent particles of a body, the cooling of a hot object by radiation >> will entail a series of actions and reactions similar to those just >> described for the case of the bell. The rapid undulations produced in the >> surrounding ethereal fluid will act as calorific rays on the neighboring >> bodies, and the slower undulations produced by the vibrations of these >> colder bodies will
Re: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
I found a video demonstrating Pictet's classic experiment of radiant heating and radiant cooling which inspired Rumford's work. Unfortunately the video is in Russian. but if you know what it is about it is easy to follow along. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW4T0ZaiGno There are two parabolic mirrors facing each other. Either a lit candle or what appears to be a vial of liquid nitrogen is located at the focus of the mirror on the left. At the focus of the mirror on the right is some sort of thermometer. As the horizontal line on the monitor moves up or down it indicates either an increase or decrease in temperature. Harry On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:14 AM H LV wrote: > Sorry about the OCR errors in the last post. I cleaned them up in > this post... > > The following is from _Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and > reflection of cold_ by James Evans and Brian Popp (1985). (google search > for full pdf paper) > > I think Evan's and Popp's criticism of Rumford's theory in the last > paragraph below is mistaken. It is only the relative difference in > frequency that determines whether a ray will be cooling (frigorific) or > warming (calorific) rather than a relative difference in amplitude. An > increase or decrease in amplitude will only affect the rate at which > cooling or warming occurs so Rumford's theory is not plagued by internal > inconsistencies as they argued. > > Another interesting part of Rumford's theory is that a body only cools or > warms by the rays it receives rather than by the rays it emits. Evans and > Popp also insist this causes problems for Rumford's theory but they don't > say why. > > --Begin quote-- > > Rumford's own explanation of the radiation and reflection of cold was > thoroughly undulationist in nature. As suggested at the beginning of this > article, Rumford regarded radiant heat as an undulation analogous to sound, > and seems to have viewed Pictet's experiment more or less as a case of a > driven oscillator: "The cold body in one focus compels the warm body (the > thermometer) in the other focus to change its note." This was the > explanation he ventured to offer his companions at Edinburgh in 1800. > Later, in his paper of 1804, he gave a more or less complete sketch of his > view of radiant heat. > > To begin, imagine a bell, or any other body perfectly elastic, placed in a > perfectly elastic fluid medium and surrounded by other perfectly elastic > bodies. When the bell is struck and made to vibrate, its vibrations are > gradually communicated, by means of the undulations or pulsations they > occasion in the elastic fluid medium, to the other sur-rounding bodies. If > these bodies should happen already to be vibrating at the same frequency > with which the bell vibrates, the undulations occasioned in the elastic > medium by the bell would neither increase nor diminish the frequency of the > vibration of the surrounding bodies; nor would the undulations caused by > the vibrations of these bodies tend to accelerate or retard the vibrations > of the bell. But if the vibrations of the bell were more frequent than > those of the surrounding bodies, the undulations produced by the bell in > the elastic fluid would tend to accelerate the vibrations of the > surrounding bodies. On the other hand,the slower vibrations of the > surrounding bodies would retard the vibrations of the bell. The bell and > the surrounding bodies would continue to affect one another until, by the > vibrations of the latter being gradually increased and those of the former > diminished, they would be reduced to the same tone. > > Now, if heat is assumed to be nothing more than the vibrations of the > constituent particles of a body, the cooling of a hot object by radiation > will entail a series of actions and reactions similar to those just > described for the case of the bell. The rapid undulations produced in the > surrounding ethereal fluid will act as calorific rays on the neighboring > bodies, and the slower undulations produced by the vibrations of these > colder bodies will act as frigorific rays on the hot body. These reciprocal > actions will continue until the hot body and the colder bodies around it > have acquired the same temperature, i.e., until their vibrations have > become isochronous. It follows that cold and heat are relative terms. The > rays from one particular object will be either frigorific or calorific, > according as they impinge on other objects either warmer or colder than > itself. Imagine three identical bodies, A, B, and C. Let A be at the > temperature of freezing water, B at the temperature of 72 °F, and C at 112 > °F. The Rays emitted by B will be calorific with respect to the colder body > A, but frigorific with respect to C. Moreover, they will be just as > efficacious in heating the former as in cooling the latter. > > "According to this hypothesis, cold can with no more propriety be > considered as the absence of heat than a low orgrave sound
Re: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
<< The formation of ozone from oxygen is an endothermic reaction in which the energy is furnished in the form of an electrical discharge, heat, or ultraviolet light. >> from http://www.pathfinderscience.net/teachers/ozone/background.cfm Harry On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:08 AM Frank Znidarsic wrote: > When I was doing cold fusion experiments with high voltage. The corona > (think it was ozone) that came off seemed to have a cooling effect. > > >
Re: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
When I was doing cold fusion experiments with high voltage. The corona (think it was ozone) that came off seemed to have a cooling effect. -Original Message- From: H LV To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 16, 2020 12:49 am Subject: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays The following is from _Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and reflection of cold_ by James Evans and Brian Popp (1985). (google search for full pdf paper) I think Evan's and Popp's criticism of Rumford's theory in the last paragraph below is mistaken. It is only the relative difference in frequency that determines whether a ray will be cooling (frigorific) or warming (calorific) rather than a relative difference in amplitude. An increase or decrease in amplitude will only affect the rate at which cooling or warming occurs so Rumford's theory is not plagued by internal inconsistencies as they argued. Another interesting part of Rumford's theory is that a body only cools or warms by the rays it receives rather than by the rays it emits. --Begin quote-- Rumford's own explanation of the radiation and reflection of cold was thoroughly undulationist in nature. As suggested at the beginning of this article, Rumford regard-ed radiant heat as an undulation analogous to sound, and seems to have viewed Pictet's experiment more or less as a case of a driven oscillator: "The cold body in one focusCompels the warm body the thermounctcr, in the ciber to-cus to change its note." This was the explanation he ven-tured to offer his companions at Edinburgh in 1800. Later,u lis eper of 1804, he gave a more or less complete sketch of his view of radiant heat. To begin, imagine a bell, or any other body perfectly elastic, placed in a perfectly elastic fluid medium and sur-rounded by other perfectly elastic bodies. When the bell is struck and made to vibrate, its vibrations are gradually communicated, by means of the undulations or pulsationsthey occasion in the elastic fluid medium, to the other sur-rounding bodies. If these bodies should happen already to be vibrating at the same frequency with which the bell vi-brates, the undulations occasioned in the elastic medium by the bell would neither increase nor diminish the fre-quency of the vibration of the surrounding bodies; nor would the undulations caused by the vibrations of these bodies tend to accelerate or retard the vibrations of the bell.But if the vibrations of the bell were more frequent than those of the surrounding bodies, the undulations produced by the bell in the elastic fluid would tend to accelerate the vibrations of the surrounding bodies. On the other hand,the slower vibrations of the surrounding bodies would re-tard the vibrations of the bell. The bell and the surrounding bodies would continue to affect one another until, by the vibrations of the latter being gradually increased and those of the former diminished, they would be reduced to the same tone. Now, if heat is assumed to be nothing more than the vibrations of the constituent particles of a body, the cooling of a hot object by radiation will entail a series of actions and reactions similar to those just described for the case of the bell. The rapid undulations produced in the surrounding ethereal fluid will act as calorific rays on the neighboring bodies, and the slower undulations produced by the vibra-tions of these colder bodies will act as frigorific rays on the hot body. These reciprocal actions will continue until the hot body and the colder bodies around it have acquired the same temperature, i.e., until their vibrations have becomeisochronous.It follows that cold and heat are relative terms. The rays from one particular object will be either frigorific or calo-rific, according as they impinge on other objects either warmer or colder than itself. Imagine three identical bo-dies, A, B, and C. Let A be at the temperature of freezing water, B at the temperature of 72 °F, and C at 112 °F. The Rays emitted by B will be calorific with respect to the colderbody A, but frigorific with respect to C. Moreover, they will be just as efficacious in heating the former as in cooling the latter. "According to this hypothesis, cold can with no more propriety be considered as the absence of heat than a low orgrave sound can be considered as the absence of a higheror more acute pitch; and the admission of rays which generate cold involves no absurdity and creates no con-fusion of ideas." 48 The application of Pictet's experiment is immediate and obvious. The rapid vibrations of the particles of the ther-mometer produce rapid undulations in the surrounding elastic fluid. These undulations arrive, after two reflec-tions, at the cold body, where they act to raise its tempera-ture. Simultaneously, the slower vibrations of the coldbody give rise to slower undulations in the elastic medium which proceed, again by means of two reflections, to
Re: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
Sorry about the OCR errors in the last post. I cleaned them up in this post... The following is from _Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and reflection of cold_ by James Evans and Brian Popp (1985). (google search for full pdf paper) I think Evan's and Popp's criticism of Rumford's theory in the last paragraph below is mistaken. It is only the relative difference in frequency that determines whether a ray will be cooling (frigorific) or warming (calorific) rather than a relative difference in amplitude. An increase or decrease in amplitude will only affect the rate at which cooling or warming occurs so Rumford's theory is not plagued by internal inconsistencies as they argued. Another interesting part of Rumford's theory is that a body only cools or warms by the rays it receives rather than by the rays it emits. Evans and Popp also insist this causes problems for Rumford's theory but they don't say why. --Begin quote-- Rumford's own explanation of the radiation and reflection of cold was thoroughly undulationist in nature. As suggested at the beginning of this article, Rumford regarded radiant heat as an undulation analogous to sound, and seems to have viewed Pictet's experiment more or less as a case of a driven oscillator: "The cold body in one focus compels the warm body (the thermometer) in the other focus to change its note." This was the explanation he ventured to offer his companions at Edinburgh in 1800. Later, in his paper of 1804, he gave a more or less complete sketch of his view of radiant heat. To begin, imagine a bell, or any other body perfectly elastic, placed in a perfectly elastic fluid medium and surrounded by other perfectly elastic bodies. When the bell is struck and made to vibrate, its vibrations are gradually communicated, by means of the undulations or pulsations they occasion in the elastic fluid medium, to the other sur-rounding bodies. If these bodies should happen already to be vibrating at the same frequency with which the bell vibrates, the undulations occasioned in the elastic medium by the bell would neither increase nor diminish the frequency of the vibration of the surrounding bodies; nor would the undulations caused by the vibrations of these bodies tend to accelerate or retard the vibrations of the bell. But if the vibrations of the bell were more frequent than those of the surrounding bodies, the undulations produced by the bell in the elastic fluid would tend to accelerate the vibrations of the surrounding bodies. On the other hand,the slower vibrations of the surrounding bodies would retard the vibrations of the bell. The bell and the surrounding bodies would continue to affect one another until, by the vibrations of the latter being gradually increased and those of the former diminished, they would be reduced to the same tone. Now, if heat is assumed to be nothing more than the vibrations of the constituent particles of a body, the cooling of a hot object by radiation will entail a series of actions and reactions similar to those just described for the case of the bell. The rapid undulations produced in the surrounding ethereal fluid will act as calorific rays on the neighboring bodies, and the slower undulations produced by the vibrations of these colder bodies will act as frigorific rays on the hot body. These reciprocal actions will continue until the hot body and the colder bodies around it have acquired the same temperature, i.e., until their vibrations have become isochronous. It follows that cold and heat are relative terms. The rays from one particular object will be either frigorific or calorific, according as they impinge on other objects either warmer or colder than itself. Imagine three identical bodies, A, B, and C. Let A be at the temperature of freezing water, B at the temperature of 72 °F, and C at 112 °F. The Rays emitted by B will be calorific with respect to the colder body A, but frigorific with respect to C. Moreover, they will be just as efficacious in heating the former as in cooling the latter. "According to this hypothesis, cold can with no more propriety be considered as the absence of heat than a low orgrave sound can be considered as the absence of a higheror more acute pitch; and the admission of rays which generate cold involves no absurdity and creates no con-fusion of ideas." 48 The application of Pictet's experiment is immediate and obvious. The rapid vibrations of the particles of the thermometer produce rapid undulations in the surrounding elastic fluid. These undulations arrive, after two reflections, at the cold body, where they act to raise its temperature. Simultaneously, the slower vibrations of the cold body give rise to slower undulations in the elastic medium which proceed, again by means of two reflections, to the thermometer. The accumulation of these frigorific rays in the thermometer causes its temperature to fall. And, concludes Rumford, "...this is what actually happened in the celebrated
