# A History of Thermodynamics: The Missing Manual

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

**Sources.**The bulk of this article discusses specific fundamental primary sources, but most of the background “pre-history” was obtained from a few important secondary sources. Mendoza’s 1960 A Sketch for a History of Early Thermodynamics [5], written by a co-inventor of the helium dilution refrigerator [6], explains for contemporary scientists and engineers how the seemingly naive concept of a conserved heat fluid, caloric, could have been accepted for nearly seventy-five years. It also explains how a (now known to be non-physical) heat function, written as $Q(p,V)$, could in Laplace’s hands yield a recognizably modern, if incomplete, theoretical structure. $Q(p,V)$ is not a state function, as assumed by Laplace, since its value depends on its path in $(p,v)$ space. Mendoza’s sketch deliberately restricts its scope, with little on thermometry and heat, and little following Carnot’s classic analysis of 1824.

**Analysis.**Besides simply giving the basics of the early history, from Carnot onward I discuss derivations that originally appeared in a number of fundamental papers. In discussing all articles, when available I employ in the equation itself the original numbering; however, in addition I give automatic Latex numbering at the margins. Unfortunately, many of the original articles have no numbered equations at all. In these cases I try to cite equations in such papers by approximate location within a given section (when section numbers exist), or a reprint, as for Carnot [8,12,13] and for Clapeyron [12,14]. Müller [15], Weinberger [16], and Truesdell [17] had helpful bibliographies of original papers. In such cases I use brackets following the equation itself and the Latex numbering; thus the un-numbered 3rd equation in the 12th numbered paragraph (or numbered section) would have an appended $\left[12.3\right]$. I also use brackets to convert partial equations into full equations, so that something like $m{c}^{2}$ would become $[E=]m{c}^{2}$.

**On notation:**different works use volume V or v, and temperature T or t (or sometimes even $\theta $ or $\tau $). The present work tries to employ consistent usage. However, to avoid being excessively pedantic, I expect the reader to understand the appropriate usage in a number of equations. Typically, specific heats are per unit mass.

**Motivation:**The author’s motivation for the present study began on witnessing, in 1972, following a conference presentation, a disagreement between two distinguished low temperature physicists (John Wheatley—later to receive the 1975 London Prize in Low Temperature Physics—and Robert Richardson—later to receive the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physics). Each employed both noise and magnetic susceptibility thermometry in the millikelvin range, but they disagreed on which was more accurate. In 2018 I realized that, by studying the deviations from the entropy uniqueness condition $\Delta S=\oint dQ/T=0$ for all paths in p-v space, one can determine which of two or more temperature scales is “better” [18]. This resolution led me to study how Clausius’s entropy became established in the lore of physics, and the meaningful study of Clausius led to the study of his predecessors, and the present work.

## 2. An Overview

- (A)
- the meaning of temperature;
- (B)
- (C)
- the history of thermodynamics proper, treated with two distinct assumptions:
- (1)
- (2)

#### 2.1. Temperature—Material-Independent, Unique, Absolute, Agreement with Ideal Gas

“Is there any principle on which an absolute thermometric scale can be founded? It appears to me that Carnot’s theory of the motive power of heat enables us to give an affirmative answer.”

#### 2.2. Outline of Thermodynamics Prehistory

#### 2.3. Outline of Thermodynamics Based on Conservation of Heat

#### 2.4. Outline of Thermodynamics Based on Conservation of Energy

_{g}, for an arbitrary number of coupled Carnot cycles; Thomson did not take the limit to obtain the integral form.

#### 2.5. Additional Topics

## 3. On Definitions

#### 3.1. Force

#### 3.2. Energy and Work

#### 3.3. Temperature

#### 3.4. Heat

## 4. Friction, Fire, Phlogiston, Caloric

- (1)
- The non-quantitative idea that work produces heat; non-quantitative because neither work nor heat had any precise meaning. Fire was not in the picture. This is exemplified by early observations of Francis Bacon (1617), and later by Newton, Leibnitz and others [7].
- (2)
- The conjoining of fire and heat, in the late 1600s and early 1700s, with the idea that a substance called phlogiston, having mass (weight), is released on burning. There were also multiple, less chemically-based fire theories, with massive or massless particles of fire entering an object as it heats.
- (3)
- The separation of fire and heat, in the caloric idea of a massless conserved heat fluid, and the placement of fire within the domain of chemistry and chemical reactions.

#### 4.1. Gases

#### 4.2. Heat as Fluid, Phlogiston and ‘Fire’

#### 4.3. Heat as Fluid—Caloric

#### 4.4. Heat as Motion—Vis Viva

## 5. On the Steam Engine

## 6. Carnot

#### 6.1. Analyzing the Efficiency of Heat Engines

#### 6.2. Difficulties with Carnot’s Analysis

## 7. Clapeyron

#### 7.1. Ideal Gas and Heat Function Q

#### 7.2. Ideal Gas and Carnot Efficiency

#### 7.3. Ideal Gas and dependence of Q on v

#### 7.4. Ideal Gas and Specific Heats

#### 7.5. Vapor-Liquid (Steam)

#### 7.6. General Case

## 8. Thomson 1848 and 1849

#### 8.1. Thomson 1848

#### 8.2. Thomson 1849

#### 8.2.1. The Thomson Brothers and the Ice-Water Transition

#### 8.2.2. Thomson’s 1849 Paper Itself

#### 8.2.3. Thomson’s Four-Part Appendix

## 9. On Energy Conservation

**Mayer.**Mayer, a physician, in 1842 developed a theoretical argument for the mechanical equivalent of heat, based on the difference in specific heats at constant volume and at constant pressure. He attributed this difference to the work done at constant pressure as the volume expanded [58]. Perhaps without realizing it, he assumed, implicitly but correctly, that the internal energy of a real gas is basically independent of the gas interactions, and therefore is independent of the gas density. Without showing details of his calculation, he obtained a reasonable value for the mechanical equivalent of heat. Mayer performed no experiments himself, although he did employ specific heat data from Gay-Lussac [59]. Belatedly, but during his lifetime, Mayer’s work received the recognition it deserved [7]. Hutchinson discusses Mayer’s work, how it was confirmed by Joule’s 1844 work, and how Joule and Thomson’s further study of the effect of density on gas properties (the Joule-Thomson effect, 1854) helped establish the Kelvin scale [11].

**Joule.**In late 1840, Joule published his observation of Joule heating, that wires heat up at a rate proportional to their electrical resistance and to the current squared [61,62]. Around 1842 Joule began a series of independent experiments that gave accurate values for the mechanical equivalent of heat. He first studied what is known as Joule heating due to electric current driven by chemical energy from a battery, and next studied what we now know as “Joule heating” due to electric current driven by electromagnetic induction from mechanical energy. In 1844, Joule wrote of some of his experiments on air, that “the heat evolved by compressing the air was found to be the equivalent of the mechanical power employed, and, vice versa, the heat absorbed in rarefaction was found to be the equivalent of the mechanical power developed.” As Hutchison notes, although in this paper Joule did not study the conversion of heat to work (all other things held constant), he did show that (all other things not held constant) work converts to heat and that (some) heat converts to work, in equivalent amounts [11]. In this same passage, Joule quotes Mayer as having in 1842 proposed such an equivalence, “without, however, attempting an experimental demonstration of its accuracy.” One cannot fail to recognize the methodical, thorough, and careful approach taken by Joule [63].

**Colding.**Colding, a Danish civil engineer, is largely ignored in textbook discussions of the history of energy conservation. Working at Oersted’s institute, he published in Scandinavian journals, which were largely unread out of the Scandinavian countries. In 1863, he wrote, in English, a summary of his work [65]. There he noted that in 1843 he gave many examples of heating due to compression of both liquids and solids, and developed an apparatus to study heating due to friction, in part to establish that the heating was proportional to the ‘mechanical power lost’. He published his results in 1847, with a value for the mechanical equivalent not far from that of Mayer.

**Holtzmann.**In 1845, Holtzmann (“a schoolteacher and competent mathematician” [66]), aware of work on the mechanical equivalence of heat but, apparently, not of energy conservation, considered Clapeyron’s extension of Carnot. Using the same method as Mayer he obtained a value for the mechanical equivalence of heat that substantially agreed with that of Joule. However, Holtzmann did not take the step of arguing that something is conserved, nor did he redefine the temperature scale via ${T}_{g}=a+t$, where Holtzmann took the temperature offset $a=267$ [7].

**Helmholtz.**In 1847, Helmholtz wrote a paper mathematically enunciating energy conservation (he called it ‘force conservation’) [30]. First, he considered mechanical energy, including both what we would call kinetic energy and potential energy, showing that for central forces their sum is conserved. He then discussed heat, arguing that Joule’s many experiments show that heat and work are both quantities of the same type, what we would now call energy, and thus that total energy (for Helmholtz, ‘total force’) is conserved [30].

## 10. Clausius 1850

#### 10.1. Ideal Gas and Specific Heats

#### 10.2. Ideal Gas and Adiabatic Condition

#### 10.3. Thermodynamic Efficiency

#### 10.4. Steam

- (1)
- $s,\sigma $ as the volumes of a unit mass of vapor (steam) and of fluid (water);
- (2)
- $m,\mu $ as the masses of vapor and fluid;
- (3)
- $h,c$ as the specific heats per mass of vapor and fluid.
- (4)
- r as the latent heat per vapor mass (rather than Clapeyron’s latent heat per vapor volume k).

#### 10.5. Steam and Clausius-Clapeyron Equation

## 11. Thomson 1851

#### 11.1. Part I. Fundamental Principles

#### 11.2. Part II. Finite Temperature Differences

#### 11.3. Part III. Applications to Physical Properties of all Substances

#### 11.4. Part IV. Measurement of, for a Compressed Fluid, the Mechanical Work and the Heat Produced

#### 11.5. Part VI. Thermo-Electric Currents

## 12. Clausius 1854

#### 12.1. Clausius’s Two Types of “Equivalences of Transformation”

- (1)
- One type, the equivalence value function $f(t)$, applies when work W is completely converted into unit heat $Q=1$ at a reservoir of temperature t, with $f(t)>0$. For more general Q, $f(t)$ appears in the form $Qf(t)$. Conversely, if heat Q at t completely converts to work, then its equivalence value is $-Qf(t)$:$$\mathrm{equivalence}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{value}-Qf(t)\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{if}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}Q\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{at}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}t\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{converts}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{to}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}W$$
- (2)
- The other type, the equivalence value function $F({t}_{1},{t}_{2})$, applies when unit heat $\overline{Q}=1$ spontaneously flows from reservoir ${t}_{1}$ to reservoir ${t}_{2}$, as occurs if ${t}_{1}>{t}_{2}$, with $F({t}_{1},{t}_{2})>0$. For more general $\overline{Q}$, $F({t}_{1},{t}_{2})$ appears in the form $\overline{Q}F({t}_{1},{t}_{2})$:$$\mathrm{equivalence}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{value}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\overline{Q}F({t}_{1},{t}_{2})\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{if}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\overline{Q}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{flows}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{from}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}{t}_{1}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{to}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}{t}_{2}$$

#### 12.2. The Reversibility Condition: An Early Version of Entropy

#### 12.3. Finding the Absolute Temperature

## 13. Thomson-Joule 1854

## 14. Priority Disputes

- I think it fair to say that Mayer is the first to publish the idea of energy conservation and to obtain a value for the mechanical equivalent of heat. However, without further experimental support, as in the independent and extensive and careful work of Joule, it would not have served as a foundation for others to build upon. On the other hand, the underlying implication, not stated by Mayer, is that the constituents of the gases are so weakly interacting that volume changes due to expansion or compression do not affect their interactions.
- Thomson expended great effort in the laboratory to test his friend Joule’s “conjecture” that $\mu =J/{T}_{g}$. But Thomson strategically labeled and downgraded Mayer’s more well-founded but implicit assumption, that the constituents of an ideal gas interact only weakly, to the level of a “hypothesis”. In my opinion, this is a loss to the physics community. Mayer’s unstated but well-founded hypothesis about the lack of interactions in the ideal gas should be taught at the outset of all thermodynamics courses, in part because it so readily yields a value for the mechanical equivalent of heat. Further, as argued above, the relationship $\mu =J/{T}_{g}$ did not define temperature uniquely; uniqueness was first shown to follow from the integration factor argument of Clausius. Modern arguments, depending on the analysis of a Carnot cycle, and its generalization to arbitrary reversible cycles, are simpler than the argument of Clausius.
- S. Thompson, in his biography of Kelvin, condemns Clausius as arriving at a “vague statement” that heat tends to pass from hot to cold [52]. However, a similar comment can also be made about Kelvin’s initial statement of his version of the Second Law of thermodynamics. Moreover, Thompson also seems to appreciate neither the origin of Thomson’s specification of the reversibility condition in a “conjecture” rather than a theoretical deduction, nor Clausius’s extension of it in integral form to develop the entropy [78].
- Although I have read comments attributing to nationalism the priority jockeying between Thomson, Tait and Joule, on the one hand, and Clausius and Mayer on the other hand, I think it is more likely that it was a matter of personal loyalty in the staking of claims. To my knowledge, of all of the participants during the development of thermodynamics, only Thomson and Joule were friends. On the contrary, in 1862 the English Tyndall supported the German Clausius, likely simply out of a sense of fairness; after this Kelvin’s friend Tait entered the fray. I believe that Thomson had it within his ability to call off the polemical Tait; if Thomson had done so, various disagreements would have been more amicable, but perhaps in that case neither Joule nor Thomson would have had their eponymous units of energy and temperature. Not until somewhat later did Thomson and the German Helmholtz (a distant relative of the American William Penn) become good friends.
- By 1860 Maxwell, and by 1873 Gibbs, had entered the picture. These two had a calming influence. Gibbs wrote:“in the memoir of Clausius ...the science of thermodynamics came into existence”. However, he goes on with “In the development of the various consequences of the fundamental propositions of thermodynamics, as applied to all kinds of physical phenomena, Clausius was rivaled, perhaps surpassed, in activity and versatility by Sir William Thomson” [78]. Here Gibbs implicitly refers to Thomson’s far-sighted applications of thermodynamics to elasticity and to thermoelectricity.

## 15. Clausius and Entropy 1865

## 16. Rankine

## 17. On Entropy Production and Wasted Energy

## 18. Conclusions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Thomson, W. An Account of Carnot’s Theory of the Motive Power of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Regnault’s Experiments on Steam. Trans. Edinb. R. Soc.
**1849**, 16, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] This paper has been published in numerous places, such as Mathematical and Physical Papers; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1882; Volume 1, pp. 113–114. This latter reference will be referred to as MPP1.[Green Version] - Clausius, R. On the moving force of heat and the laws of heat which may be deduced therefrom. Poggendorf’s Annalen
**1850**, 79, 368–369. [Google Scholar] About 50 pages. Translated Phil. Mag.**1851**, 2, 8–21 and Phil. Mag.**1851**, 2, 102–119. Reprinted in Ref. [12]. These are the first two memoirs of nine in The Mechanical Theory of Heat: With Its Applications to the Steam-Engine and to the Physical Properties of Bodies; Clausius, R., Ed.; Thomas Archer Hirst, Pub. J. Van Voorst, 1867. - Thomson, W. On the dynamical theory of heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr. Joule’s equivalent of a thermal unit, and M. Regnault’s observations on steam. Trans. Edinb. R. Soc.
**1851**, 20, 261–288, 289–298, and 475–482, They also can be found in Mathematical and Physical Papers**1882**, 1 (MPP1) 174–232. [Google Scholar] - Carnot, Clapeyron, and Thomson (1849) all accepted the proportionality of the net work W to the heat Q
_{H}from the hot reservoir. Clausius took the step of taking the heat to the cold reservoir Q_{C}as being Q_{H}diminished by W, or Q_{C}= Q_{H}− AW, where A is the heat equivalent of work. - Mendoza, E. A Sketch for a History of Early Thermodynamics. Phys. Today
**1961**, 2, 32–42, See also Mendoza, E. Archives Internationales d’histoire**1959**, 12, 377, Contributions to the study of Sadi Carnot and his work. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - London, H.; Clarke, G.R.; Mendoza, E. Osmotic Pressure of He
^{3}in Liquid He^{4}, with Proposals for a Refrigerator to Work below 1^{∘}K. Phys. Rev.**1962**, 128, 1992–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cardwell, D.S.L. From Watt to Clausius: The Rise of Thermodynamics in the Early Industrial Age; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1971; For Dalton and Gay-Lussac, see pp. 129–131. Cardwell questions Tait’s crediting of Charles with this law, since Gay-Lussac notes that Charles gave results in agreement with Gay-Lussac for water-insoluble gases, but not for water-soluble gases. [Google Scholar]
- Carnot, S. Reflexions sur la Puissance Motrice du feu; Bachelier: Paris, France, 1824; pp. 1–59. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, L. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland; MacMillan: London, UK, 1865; It is well-known that Lewis Carroll is a pseudonym used by the mathematician Charles Dodgson. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, R. The Caloric Theory of Gases from Lavoisier to Regnault; The Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Hutchison, K. Mayer’s Hypothesis: A Study of the Early Years of Thermodynamics. Centaurus
**1976**, 20, 279–304, To more easily explain the original papers that he discusses, Hutchison has taken the liberty to use modern notation. In the present paper I explain and employ the notation of the original papers. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Carnot, S. Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, and Other Papers on the Second Law of Thermodynamics by E. Clapeyron and R. Clausius; Mendoza, E., Ed.; Dover: New York, NY, USA, 1960; pp. 1–59, As the title indicates, it contains papers by Carnot, Clapeyron, and Clausius. [Google Scholar]
- Carnot, S. Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire: A Critical Edition with the Surviving Scientific Manuscripts; Fox, R., Translator; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK; Lilian Barber Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Clapeyron, E. Memoire sur la puissance motrice de la chaleur. Journal de l’Ecole Polytechnique
**1834**, 14, 153–190, Translated in Ref. [12] as Memoir on the Motive Power of Heat, pp. 73–105. [Google Scholar] - Müller, I. A History of Thermodynamics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Weinberger, P. The discovery of thermodynamics. Philos. Mag.
**2013**, 93, 2576–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Truesdell, C. The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics 1822–1854; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1980; The Sources part of this book has been helpful, as well has his discussion of Mayer’s reasoning process. The reader should be alerted, however, that Truesdell does not employ any modern histories of the subject (such as Cardwell, Mendoza, or Fox), and he writes in what I found to be an inscrutable and idiosyncratic style and notation. [Google Scholar]
- Saslow, W.M. Entropy Uniqueness Determines Temperature. submitted for publication.
- Planck, M. Treatise on Thermodynamics, 1st ed.; Translated from the first German Edition of 1897; Longmans: London, UK, 1903; See Sect. 90. [Google Scholar]
- Thomson, W. On an Absolute Thermometric scale founded on Carnot’s Theory of the Motive Power of Heat, and Calculated from Regnault’s observations. Philos. Mag. Ser.
**1848**, 3, 313–317. [Google Scholar] See Kelvin’s Mathematical and Physical Papers; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1882; Volume I, pp. 100–106. - Young, T. A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts; J. Johnson: London, UK, 1807; “The term energy may be applied, with great propriety, to the product of the mass or weight of a body, into the square of the number expressing its velocity.” The multi-talented Young, in addition to being a first-rate opthalmologist, and a talented mathematician and physicist (interference), was a scholar of many languages and made the first real progress in deciphering the Rosetta Stone. [Google Scholar]
- What we now know as nitrogen was called dephlogistated air, and carbon dioxide was called fixed air. That is, in the first case the ‘oxygen principle’ had been removed and in the second case it had been combined. See Ref. [10].
- Kuhn, T.S. Energy conservation as an example of simultaneous discovery. In Critical Problems in the History of Science; Clagett, M., Ed.; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1957; pp. 321–356, (Proceedings of the Institute for the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin, 1–11 September 1957). Reprinted in Th. S. Kuhn, The essential tension, 1959, pp. 66–104. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, G. Personal communication, Tufts University: Medford, MA, USA, 2019.
- Iltis, C. Leibniz and the Vis Viva Controversy. Isis
**1971**, 62, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jammer, M. Concepts of Force; Footnotes 12 and 14; Dover Publications: Mineola, NY, USA, 1957; p. 167. [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton, W.R. On a General Method in Dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Part II
**1834**, 124, 247–308. [Google Scholar] - Hamilton, W.R. Second Essay on a General Method in Dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Part I
**1835**, 125, 95–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dugas, R. A History of Mechanics; Dover Publications: Mineola, NY, USA, 1955; Originally published in 1950 in French. It is difficult to get definitions correct; in this work, Dugas incorrectly attributed to Helmholtz in 1847 the later-introduced terms kinetic energy and potential energy. Needless to day, Dugas did not have access to the modern tools of online access, interlibrary loan, copy machines, or cell phone photography. [Google Scholar]
- Von Helmholtz, H. Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft. Eine physikalische Abhandlung; G. Reimer: Berlin, Germany, 1847. [Google Scholar]
HermannHelmholtz, ’On the conservation of force; A Physical Memoir’, in
Scientific Memoirs Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science, and from Foreign Journals. Natural Philiosophy; John Tyndall and William Francis (Ed.) Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 1853; pp. 114–162. [Google Scholar]
Translation by John Tyndall. Among the references Helmholtz cites are Joule, J.P. Philos. Mag.
**1845**, 27, 205 for heating by friction of water in tubes, as well as Davy and Rumford. This is in Brush, S. The Nature of Gases and of Heat 1965; Volume 1, pp. 89–110. - Rankine, W.J.M. On the General Law of the Transformation of Energy. Phil. Mag. Ser. 4
**1853**, 30, 106–117, Read to the Philosophical Society of Glasgow, 5 January 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tait, P.G. On the Dissipation of Energy. Phil. Mag.
**1879**, VII, 344–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Thomson, W. Note by Sir W. Thomson on the preceding Letter*. Philos. Mag.**1879**, VII, 346–348. [Google Scholar] Both are included in Mathematical and Physical Papers; Thomson, W. (Ed.) Cambridge, UK, 1911; Volume V (MPP5), pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar].[Green Version] - Knowles Middleton, W.E. A History of the Thermometer and Its Use in Meteorology; The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MA, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Boyer, C.B. History of the Measurement of Heat I. Thermometry and Calorimetry. Sci. Mon.
**1943**, 57, 442–452. [Google Scholar] - Lavoisier, A.; Laplace, P.S. Mémoires de la Académie des Sciences. Mémoire sur la chaleur
**1783**, 1780, 355–408. [Google Scholar] - Calorie as defined at Wikipedia, 14 August 2019 from google search “calorie wikipedia”.
- Rankine, W.J.M. A Manual of the Steam Engine and other Prime Movers; Griffin and Co.: Glasgow, UK, 1859. [Google Scholar]
- Clausius, R. Uber einige fur anwendung bequeme formen der hauptgleichungen der nischen warmetheorie. Annalen der Physik und der Chemie
**1865**, 125, 353–400. [Google Scholar] Translated in On the Determination of the Energy and Entropy of a Body. Phil. Mag. S4**1866**, 32, 1–17. - Powers, J.C. Measuring Fire: Herman Boerhaave and the Introduction of Thermometry into Chemistry. Osiris
**2014**, 29, 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lavoisier, A. Mémoire sur la combustion en général. In Oeuvres de Lavoisier; Dumas, J.-B., Ed.; Imprimerie Impériale: Paris, France, 1862; First printed at 1777; Volume II, pp. 225–233. Originally published in: Mém. Acad. R. Sci. Paris année 1777, 592–600 (1780). [Google Scholar]
- Lavoisier, A. Traitée elémentaire de chimie. (1789). In Oeuvres de Lavoisier, Tome Premier; Imperial Press: Paris, France, 1864. [Google Scholar]
- Lavoisier, A. Réflexions sur le phlogistique, pour servir de suite á la théorie de la combustion et de la calcination, publiée en 1777. Mém. Acad. R. Sci. Paris Année
**1786**, 1783, 505–538. [Google Scholar] - Best, N.W. Lavoisier’s “Reflections on phlogiston” I: Against phlogiston theory. Found. Chem.
**2015**, 17, 137–151, This is an English translation of the first part of Ref. [42]. It refutes various versions of the phlogiston hypothesis. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Best, N.W. Lavoisier’s “Reflections on phlogiston” II: On the nature of heat. Found. Chem.
**2016**, 18, 3–13, This is an English translation of the second part of Ref. [40]. He expounds on his new theory of combustion, based on the oxygen principle, and discusses thermodynamic phenomena in terms of a subtle fluid (not yet named caloric) that can penetrate porous bodies. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guerlac, H. Chemistry as a Branch of Physics: Laplace’s Collaboration with Lavoisier. Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci.
**1976**, 7, 193–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Laplace, P.S. Sur la vitesse du son dans l’air et dans l’eau. Ann. Chim. Phys.
**1816**, 3, 238–241, Translation by Lindsay, R.B. Velocity of Sound in Air and Water, pp. 181–182 of Acoustics: Historical and Philosophical Development; Lindsay, R.B., Ed.; Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar] - Benjamin Count of Rumford. An inquiry concerning the source of the heat which is excited by friction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
**1798**, 88, 80–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Davy, H. “Essay on Heat, Light, and the Combinations of Light”, with a discussion of heating and melting of ice by friction. In Contributions to Physical and Medical Knowledge; BIGGS&COTTLE: Bristol, UK, 1799. [Google Scholar]
- Rhodes, R. Energy: A Human History; Simon and Shuster: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Channell, D.F. The Rise of Engineering Science: How Technology Became Scientific; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Fleming, D. Latent Heat and the Invention of the Watt Engine. Isis
**1952**, 43, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thompson, S.P. Life of Lord Kelvin; Macmillan: London, UK, 1910. [Google Scholar]
- Silvanus P. Thompson was a well-known applied physicist and technical author of the period around 1900. Nobel laureate in Physics Richard Feynman indicated that he learned calculus by reading Thompson’s short book Calculus Made Easy, which is available online as a pdf and was reprinted in 1970 by St. Martin’s Press, New York.
- Had Thomson considered using that work to drive a paddle wheel and convert the work to heat he would have concluded that the net effect would be, with all other things unchanged, the production of heat. Thus heat would not be conserved.
- Thomson, J. Theoretical Considerations on the Effect of Pressure in Lowering the Freezing Point of Water. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb.
**1849**, 16, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Thomson, W. The Effect of Pressure in Lowering the Freezing Point of Water Experimentally Demonstrated. Philos. Mag.
**1850**, 37, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Stokes, G.G.; Thomson Kelvin, W. The correspondence between Sir George Gabriel Stokes and Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin of Largs, Vol.1; Wilson, D.B., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Mayer, J.R. Bemerkungen uber die Krafte der unbelebten Natur. Ann. Chem. Pharm.
**1842**, 42, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] Translations into English include Foster, G.C. Remarks on the Forces of Inorganic Nature. Philos. Mag.**1862**, 4, 371–377. [Google Scholar]Magie, W.F. A Source Book in Physics; Harvard University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1935; pp. 197–203. [Google Scholar]Brush, S.G. Kinetic Theory; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1965; Volume 1, pp. 71–77. [Google Scholar] - Ref. [7], on pp. 133–134, cites Gay-Lussac, J.-L. Mem. Soc. d’Arcueil
**18.7**, 1, 221. Fox gives an extensive discussion on pp. 130–134. See also Gay-Lussac, J.-L. “Recherches sur la dilatation des gaz et des vapeurs” (Researches on the expansion of gases and vapors). Annales de Chimie**1802**, 43, 137–175. [Google Scholar] - Lindsay, R.B. Men of Physics: Julius Robert Mayer; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 1973; pp. 68–74, give an English translation of Mayer, J.R. Ann. Chem. Pharm.
**1842**, 42, 233–240. [Google Scholar] - Joule, J.P. The Scientific Papers of J. P. Joule; Physical Society: London, UK, 1884. [Google Scholar]
- Joule, J.P. On the production of heat by voltaic electricity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
**1840**, 4, 280, See pp. 59–60 of Ref. [61] “On the Production of Heat by Voltaic Electricity”. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Joule, J.P. On the changes of temperature produced by the rarefaction and condensation of air. Philos. Mag.
**1845**, 26, 369–383, See pp. 172–189 of Ref. [61] “On the changes of temperature produced by the rarefaction and condensation of air”. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gray, A. Lord Kelvin: An Account of his Scientific Life and Work; J. M. Dent: London, UK, 1908; Gray Was Kelvin’s successor at the University of Glasgow. [Google Scholar]
- Colding, M.A. On the History of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy. Lond. Edinb. Dublin J. Sci. S.4
**1863**, 47, 56–64. [Google Scholar] - Holtzmann, K.A. Ueber die Warme und Elasticitat der Gase und Dampfe; Loeffler: Mannheim, Germany, 1845; ‘On the Heat and Elasticity of Gases and Vapours.’ See Ref. [7], Chapter 7, citation 46. I found this 40 page book online in German. [Google Scholar]
- Joule, J.P.; Thomson, W. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 1853, 143, 357–365; this is part 1; for part 2, see ibid. 143 (1854); for part 3, see Trans. Roy. Soc, June, 1860 (MPP1, 400-414); for part 4 see Trans. Roy. Soc, June, 1862 (MPP1, 415–431). There is an Appendix giving abstracts for all four Parts, in Proc. Roy. Soc. VI, June, 1853 (MPP1, 432–455). Joule, J.P. and Thomson, W. On the Thermal Effects of Fluids in Motion, Part 4, in W. Thomson, Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. 1 (MPP1) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1882), 415–431; we reproduce here an equation from p. 430. This article was originally published in 1862 in Phil.Trans. Roy. Soc., vol. 152. J. P.Joule and W. Thomson, On the Thermal Effects of Fluids in Motion, in W. Thomson, Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882), 346–356. This article was originally published in 1853 in the Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Note that MPP1 contains a preliminary paper (1862), all four papers I (1863), II (1864), III (1860) IV (1862), and an Appendix in pp. 333–455.
- There was not yet a notation among mathematicians for dQ/dt at constant p. My mathematics colleague Phil Yasskin, trained as a physicist, has informed me that mathematicians still do not employ such a notation!
- Thomson, in Ref. [3], indicates that Rankine communicated his result on February 4 of 1850. This corresponds to J. M. C. Rankine, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. XX, which is reprinted in Ref. [88], 234–284.
- Clausius, R. The Mechanical Theory of Heat: With Its Applications to the Steam-engine and to the Physical Properties of Bodies; Hirst, T.A., Ed.; J. Van Voorst: London, UK, 1867; See the footnote on p. 65, in 1864 added to the English translation. Clausius notes that Rankine “was not yet in possession of the necessary second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat”. [Google Scholar]
- Eisner, A. Specific Heats of saturated water vapor and liquid. Phys. Rev. E
**1993**, 48, 1839–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Thomson, W. Thermo-electric currents. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb.
**1854**, 126. [Google Scholar] This is simply a page number within an article that goes from Thomson, W. Thermo-electric currents. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb.**1854**, 21, 123–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] reprinted in Math. and Phys. Papers, I (XLVIII), pp. 232–291, 1882. I attach Ref71ThomsonThermoelectric from the reprint. - Clausius, R. Mathematical and Physical Papers; Thomson, W., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1911; Volume 5, p. 43, Original: On the Discovery of the True Form of Carnot’s Function. Philos. Mag.
**1856**, XI, 447–449. [Google Scholar] - Clausius, R. Poggendoff’s Annalen
**1854**, 93, 481–506; translated in the Journal de Mathematiques**1855**, XX Paris, and in Philos. Mag.**1856**, XII, 81. I found this available online at wikisource. - I was unable to understand the argument given in the (confusing) translation of Clausius that I employed. (Perhaps an indication of the confusing nature of the derivation and/or translation is that Ref. [7] avoids discussion of the derivation.) However, Clausius’s definitions form the basis of the argument presented here.
- Chang, H.; Yi, S.W. The Absolute and Its Measurement: William Thomson on Temperature. Ann. Sci.
**2005**, 62, 281–308, Joule and Thomson employed, with C and A a gas-dependent constant, $v=\frac{Ct}{p}-\frac{1}{3}AJK{(\frac{273.6}{t})}^{2}$ based on “a complex theoretical and experimental matter on which Joule and Thomson spent a decade”. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thomson, W. Mathematical and Physical Papers; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1911; Volume 5, p. 45, Original: Philos. Mag.
**1856**, XI, 449–450. [Google Scholar] - Gibbs, J.W. Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius. Proc. Am. Acad.
**1889**, 16, 458, Reprinted in The Scientific Papers of J. Willard Gibbs (New York, 1906; reprinted 1961), 2, 261–267. Gibbs also writes “But such work as that of Clausius is not measured by counting titles or pages. His true monument lies not on the shelves of libraries, but in the thoughts of men, and in the history of more than one science”. [Google Scholar] - Clausius, R. Communicated to the Naturforschende Gesellschaft of Zurich, 27 January 1862; published in the Viertaljahrschrift of this Society, VII, 48; in Poggendorff’s Annalen,
**1862**, CXVI, 73; in the Philosophical Magazine,**1862**, xxiv, 81; and in the Journal des Mathematiques of Paris, S.2. VII, 209. On the Application of the Theorem of the Equivalence of Transformations to Interior Work. - Klein, M.J. Gibbs on Clausius. Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci.
**1969**, 1, 127–149, University of California Press. He notes that his discussion of disgregation is based on unpublished work by his student Charles Weiner. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Darrigol, O. The Gibbs paradox: Early history and solutions. Entropy
**2018**, 20, 443, To compare with Clausius [79] note that Clausius uses dQ > 0 when heat goes to a reservoir. Using the usual sign convention for heat (change the sign of Clausius’s dQ), and taking dQ = TdS, causes Clausius’s (II.) to become dS = dH/T + dZ, where he lets “the quantity of heat contained in [a body] be expressed by H”, and Z is the “disgregation”. Darrigol’s (4) is dS = dY + d$\overline{K}$/T, where Y is Darrigol’s notation for disgregation and he employs the “free heat” $\overline{K}$, “which is the average kinetic energy of the molecular system”. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Maxwell, J.C. The Scientific Letters and Papers of James Clerk Maxwell; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1890; Volume 2, pp. 1862–1873, It was republished by Cambridge in 2009, and edited by P. M. Harman. p. 16 of Harman’s Introduction notes that Numbers 356, 402, and 403 contain negative comments about Clausius’s terminiology, but that by the time of Number 483 he has corrected his misconception about entropy. [Google Scholar]
- Hutchison, K.W.J.M. Rankine and the Rise of Thermodynamics. Brit. J. Hist. Sci.
**1981**, 14, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hutchison, K. Rankine, Atomic Vortices, and the Entropy Function. Archives internationales d’histoire des Sciences
**1981**, 31, 72–132. [Google Scholar] - Marsden, B. Ranking Rankine: W. J. M. Rankine (1820-72) and the Making of ‘Engineering Science’ Revisited. Hist. Sci.
**2013**, 51, 434–456, Marsden takes his title from a pun by the “ever capricious wordsmith Maxwell”. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hutchinson, K. Personal communication, University of Melbourne: Parkville, Australia, 2019.
- Maxwell, J.C. Tait’s ‘Thermodynamics’ Nature.
**1878**, 17, 257-259, 278-280. In Volume 2 of Ref. [82] pp. 660–671. This is a review of Tait’s Thermodynamics. It should not be assumed that Maxwell had only criticism for Rankine; many instances in Maxwell’s works on Statics have positive comments about Rankine’s work on force diagrams. See p. 163 of Ref. [82]. - Rankine, J.M.C. Miscellaneous Scientific Papers; Tait, P.G., Ed.; C. Griffin and Co.: London, UK, 1881; Referred to as MSP; Available online: https://archive.org/details/miscellaneoussci00rank (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Rankine, J.M.C. on p. 302 of Ref. [37] uses the phrase “a curve of no transmission, or adiabatic curve.” A few lines later he discusses “a curve whose coordinates represent the pressures corresponding to various volumes when the substance is absolutely destitute of heat, then this curve, which may be called the line of absolute cold, is at once an isothermal curve and an adiabatic curve.”
- Sears, F.W. An Introduction to Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and Statistical Mechanics, 2nd ed.; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, C. The Science of Energy; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1998; This work gives a history of energy, largely for Joule’s Manchester and Thomson’s Glasgow, with a sociological view of the physics and engineering, including religious motivations. Despite citing Gibbs’s very favorable view of Clausius’s contributions to thermodynamics [78], in my opinion this work undervalues Clausius’s contributions, specifically, it does not cite Clausius as one of the very few true founders of thermodynamics, yet it places Rankine in that category. On p. 263 Smith notes that Maxwell declined to celebrate Rankine when “Tait and others struggled to edit a memorial volume of Rankine’s Miscellaneous scientific papers [88]. Nevertheless, that volume does include an extract from a mixed review by Maxwell of Rankine’s work [87]. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbs, J.W. Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids, Transactions of (he Connecticut Academy, II, pp. 309–342, April–May, 1873. This is reprinted in J. W. Gibbs, Collected Works. Vol. I, Thermodynamics (Longmans, New York, 1928). The quote is from the very last line of the long footnote on p. 52. The introduction of this volume notes that one of Gibbs’s articles is on electromagnetic radiation in matter, and shows that a work of Kelvin’s on the same subject is in error. In general, Gibbs seems to be aware of who did what and when, and who did it correctly and who didn’t, but he does not present any history, merely final results, so that much of his work reads like pure mathematics. As far as I can tell, he does not bother to indicate how temperature and entropy arose. His thermodynamics text emphasizes the properties of matter rather than the efficiency of steam engines.
- Daub, E.E. Atomism and Thermodynamics. Isis
**1967**, 58, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Daub, E.E. Entropy and Dissipation. Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci.
**1970**, 2, 321–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Onsager, L. Reciprocal Relations in Irreversible Processes. I. Phys. Rev.
**1931**, 37, 405–426, Reciprocal Relations in Irreversible Processes. II. Phys. Rev.**1931**, 38, 2265–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Callen, H.B. Thermodynamics, 1st ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M.; Silsbee, R.H. Thermodynamic analysis of interfacial transport and of the thermomagnetoelectric system. Phys. Rev. B
**1987**, 35, 4959–4972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kjelstrup, S.; Bedeaux, D. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics of Heterogeneous Systems; World Scientific: Singapore, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Sears, M.R.; Saslow, W.M. Irreversible thermodynamics of transport across interfaces. Can. J. Phys.
**2011**, 89, 1041–1050, Sect. 2.5 estimates the rates of entropy production at a surface: (1) due to an electric current crossing an interface (with associated Joule heating); and (2) due to a heat current crossing an interface (with no associated heat production, since the heat itself is energy). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Penrose, R. Kelvin: Life, Labours, and Legacy; Flood, R., McCartney, M., Whitaker, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008; Chapter 15; pp. 253–277, Kelvin and Statistical Mechanics, discusses Kelvin’s work on the thermoelectric effect in terms of Onsager’s more recent work. It considers only the off-diagonal terms in the thermodynamic flux vs. thermodynamic force relations. [Google Scholar]
- Philosophical Magazine. Available online: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=philosmag (accessed on 4 January 2020). See also https://archive.org/details/texts (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Tuckerman, A. Index on the Literature of Thermodynamics; Smithsonian Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 1890. [Google Scholar]

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Saslow, W.M.
A History of Thermodynamics: The Missing Manual. *Entropy* **2020**, *22*, 77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010077

**AMA Style**

Saslow WM.
A History of Thermodynamics: The Missing Manual. *Entropy*. 2020; 22(1):77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010077

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Saslow, Wayne M.
2020. "A History of Thermodynamics: The Missing Manual" *Entropy* 22, no. 1: 77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010077