Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
His other incorrect assumption, that heat was a substance, was likely due to an entirely new state of matter unknown at the time: plasma.

What? This makes no sense. He was quite familiar with the common understanding of heat, and of course expert in its laboratory applications. He gives careful explanations of the common experiences of heat in terms of the passage of caloric between bodies.

I don't know why you would want to attribute the idea of caloric to some experience or anticipation of a plasma state. The closest thing in our modern understanding to caloric ( i.e. the concept of heat as a fluid substance ) is enthalpy, the thermodynamic state function with symbol "H", which we always jokingly said stood for "Heat".

The point is that "caloric" was in our terms a misconception of which, for very understandable reasons, Lavoisier was never disabused, in spite of his belief that he was dealing in Facts of Nature.

8 posted on 11/29/2008 7:21:14 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: dr_lew

This was a wild guess on my part. What do you think of his other assumption, of oxygen defining acid?


9 posted on 11/29/2008 8:24:32 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson