A letter from John Davy, M.D., F.R.S., to the editors of the Philosophical Magazine in Reply to certain charges made by C. Babbage, Esq., F.R.S, etc., against the late Sir Humphry Davy, when President of the Royal Society

1864 ◽  
Vol 28 (191) ◽  
pp. 480-484
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Philosophical Magazine ◽  
Humphry Davy

The Royal Society’s first rejection of the kinetic theory of gases (1821), John Herapath versus Humphry Davy

1963 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-180 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Kinetic Theory ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Kinetic Theory Of Gases ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Mathematical Inquiry ◽  
History Of ◽  
Humphry Davy ◽  
Apparent Similarity ◽  
Caloric Theory

On 24 May 1820 a manuscript entitled ‘A Mathematical Inquiry into the Causes, Laws and Principal Phenomena of Heat, Gases, Gravitation, etc.’ was submitted to Davies Gilbert for publication in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society . The author was John Herapath (1790-1868), and his article included a comprehensive (if somewhat faulty) exposition of the kinetic theory of gases. Sir Humphry Davy, who assumed the Presidency of the Royal Society on 30 November 1820, became primarily responsible for the fate of the article and wrote several letters to Herapath concerning it. After it became clear that there was considerable opposition to its publication by the Royal Society, Herapath withdrew the article and sent it instead to the Annals of Philosophy , where it appeared in 1821 (1). Herapath’s theory received little notice from scientists until thirty-five years later, when the kinetic theory was revived by Joule, Krönig, Clausius, and Maxwell. The incident is significant in the history of physical science because it illustrates an important distinction between the two doctrines concerning the nature of heat—the kinetic and the vibration theories—a distinction which is often forgotten because of the apparent similarity of both doctrines as contrasted with the caloric theory. It also throws some light on the character of early nineteenth century British science, both in and out of the Royal Society.

scholarly journals VII.—On the Motion of a Heavy Body along the Circumference of a Circle

1865 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
Edward Sang
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Elliptic Functions ◽  
The Other ◽  
Philosophical Magazine ◽  
Circular Arc ◽  
Heavy Body ◽  
Great Ease ◽  
Fourth Volume ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One

In the year 1861 I laid before the Royal Society of Edinburgh a theorem concerning the time of descent in a circular arc, by help of which that time can be computed with great ease and rapidity. A concise statement of it is printed in the fourth volume of the Society's Proceedings at page 419.The theorem in question was arrived at by the comparison of two formulæ, the one being the common series and the other an expression given in the “Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine” for November 1828, by a writer under the signature J. W. L. Each of these series is reached by a long train of transformations, developments, and integrations, which require great familiarity with the most advanced branches of the infinitesimal calculus; yet the theorem which results from their comparison has an aspect of extreme simplicity, and seems as if surely it might be attained to by a much shorter and less rugged road. For that reason I did not, at the time, give an account of the manner in which it was arrived at, intending to seek out a better proof. On comparing it with what is known in the theory of elliptic functions, its resemblance to the beautiful theorem of Halle became obvious; but then the coefficients in Halle's formulæ are necessarily less than unit, whereas for this theorem they are required to be greater than unit.

Joule's 1840 manuscript on the production of heat by voltaic electricity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto de Andrade Martins
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Experimental Research ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Electric Currents ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Unpublished Manuscript ◽  
Philosophical Magazine ◽  
First Time

In 1840, James Prescott Joule submitted to the Royal Society a paper describing experimental research on the heat produced by electric currents in metallic conductors, and inferring that the effect was proportional to the resistance of the conductors and to the square of the intensity of the current. Only an abstract of this paper was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society , although a full paper with a similar title was printed in the Philosophical Magazine in 1841. Several authors have assumed that the content of the 1841 publication was the same as the rejected 1840 paper; however, the unpublished manuscript has been found within the archives of the Royal Society and is published here for the first time, along with a detailed analysis and comparison with the 1841 paper. The unpublished version is much shorter, and is different in certain respects from the published article. A detailed comparison throws light on several shortcomings of the unpublished version. The present work also studies the assessment of Joule's paper by the Royal Society, and elucidates the roles of Peter Roget and Samuel Christie in this connection.

XII. On the polarisation of light by oblique transmission through all bodies, whether crystallized or uncrystallized. By David Brewster, LL.D. F. R. S. Edin. and F. S. A. Edin. In a letter addressed to Taylor Combe, Esq. Sec. R. S

1814 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. 219-230 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
General Result ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Polarised Light ◽  
Partial Polarisation ◽  
Series Of Experiments ◽  
Humphry Davy ◽  
The Revolution

Sir, In a letter on “ the Affections of Light in its passage through crystallized Bodies," which I had the honour of transmitting a few days ago to the Royal Society through Sir HUMPHRY DAVY, I alluded to a series of experiments which I had in view for the purpose of generalising the various phenomena which had been described. At the very commencement of this enquiry I have been led to the important general result “ that “ light transmitted obliquely through all transparent bodies, “ whether crystallized or uncrystallized, suffers polarisation " like one of the pencils formed by doubly refracting crystals," and I hasten to communicate to you a brief sketch of the nature and consequences of this discovery. In examining if any change was produced upon common light during its passage along the oblique depolarising axis of mica, I observed, in one position of the mineral, some appearances which indicated a partial polarisation of the incident rays. Upon turning the mica round, so as to preserve its obliquity to the incident pencil, the same phenomena presented themselves in every part of the revolution of the mica, and the quantity of polarised light was found to increase with the obliquity of its incidence. I then substituted a plate of glass instead of the mica, and a similar result was obtained, though the quantity of polarised light was considerably less titan in the first experiment. By adding one plate of glass after another, the number of polarised rays was increased by the addition of each plate, and when the plates amounted to fifteen , the transmitted pencil was wholly polarised at an angle of about 70° 17', and possessed all the properties of that species of light.

scholarly journals IV. Notice as to the supposed identity of the large mass meteoric iron now in the British Museum, with the celebrated Otumpa iron described by Rubin de Celis in the Philosophical Transactions for 1786. Communicated in a letter from Woodbine Parish, Esq. F. R. S. to Charles König, Esq. Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society

1834 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 53-54
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
British Museum ◽  
Large Mass ◽  
The Real ◽  
Gran Chaco ◽  
Native Iron ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Humphry Davy

As the identity of the large mass of meteoric iron in the British Museum with the celebrated Otumpa iron, described by Rubin de Celis in the Philosophical Transactions for 1786, has been the subject of frequent inquiry, the following short historical notice, relating to that mass, is communicated by Woodbine Parish, Esq. F. R. S., by whom, when His Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at Buenos Ayres, it was sent to England. -C. K. “Dear Sir, “Agreeably to my promise, I have taken some trouble to ascertain the precise history of the large mass of native iron which I sent home to Sir Humphry Davy from Buenos Ayres, and which is deposited in the British Museum. There is no doubt of its coming from the same place as that described by Rubin de Celis, though whether it be a fragment of that particular mass upon which he made his report, or a smaller one in its immediate vicinity, I am not able to say, for there certainly is an impression at Buenos Ayres that there is not only one, but that several masses of this iron are to be found in that part of the Gran Chaco referred to by Rubin de Celis. I was under the impression that it had been sent for in order to be forwarded to Madrid; but in this I was led into error; and I have only lately ascertained through Mr. Moreno, the Buenos Ayrean Minister, that the real history of its being at Buenos Ayres is as follows.

The Presidential portraits

1946 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
William Hogarth ◽  
Humphry Davy ◽  
High Level ◽  
Lord Kelvin ◽  
Christopher Wren ◽  
Samuel Pepys

Among the treasured possessions of the Royal Society the portraits of the Presidents take an exalted place. From the time of the first President, Lord Brouncker, whose likeness was limned by Sir Peter Lely, the painted records of the great rulers of the Society have maintained a high level. It will suffice to mention such pictures as Sir Godfrey Kneller’s portrait of Sir Christopher Wren; Charles Jervas’s portrait of Newton; Thomas Phillips’s portrait of Sir Joseph Banks; Sir Thomas Lawrence’s portrait of Sir Humphry Davy; and, in more recent times, Orchardson’s Lord Kelvin; Eve’s Sir Charles Sherrington and Meredith Frampton’s Sir Gowland Hopkins. Samuel Pepys and Martin Folkes can scarcely be numbered among the Presidents who have shed a scientific lustre on the Society, but their portraits by Sir Godfrey Kneller and William Hogarth respectively are magnificent examples of the portraitist’s art.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document