Chapter X: Section III (4)

4. Respiration is not, as Dr. Girtanner says, a process similar to the combustion and oxydation (the calcination) of metals. Some of these by calcination, and _all_ of them in the opinion of Dr. Girtanner, unite with the condensable part of the oxygen contained in the air, while the elastic part is dissipated in flame or heat. The reverse of this takes place in breathing; for here the elastic part of the oxygen unites with the blood, and makes it warm, while the condensable part, uniting with certain particles to be thrown off from the body, passes away in fixed air. Thus the process of respiraton does not resemble the calcination of a metal (at least according to our author’s opinion of that operation) but rather the inflammation of some combustible substance; for in both cases a certain quantity of carbon is found to be united with the basis of oxygen in the atmosphere, and thrown off from the place of combustion; and thus a quantity of fixed air is produced from every burning substance. Just so is it with respiration. If the condensable part of the oxygen combined with the blood, then no fixed air could be produced; or if any part of the oxygenous base was absorbed, it must certainly be known by a proportional deficiency in the quantity of fixed air produced. But there are no experiments made with accuracy sufficient to determine this point. It is true that many very able physiologists, as Borelli, Jurin, &c. have been of opinion, that part of the air is absorbed in respiration; but when we come to particulars nothing can be determined. Dr. Hales by experiment found the quantity absorbed to be a _sixty-eighth_ part of the whole quantity inspired; but, on account of supposed errors, he states it only at _an hundred and thirty-sixth_ part. Between these two the difference is so enormous, that we know not how to draw any conclusion from them. The French chemists are more decisive, and agree pretty well with one another. Chaptal calculates it at _three hundred and fifty-three_, and La Metherie at _three hundred and sixty_, cubic inches in an hour. Allowing these experiments to be just, the next question is, what part of the air is absorbed. Lavoisier says, that it is the oxygenous base, or the same with that which is absorbed in the calcination of mercury. But how comes he to know this? Surely not in the same way that he determines the absorption of it by mercury. In the latter case he takes a certain quantity of mercury, includes it in another known quantity of oxygen air, and heats the metal by means of a burning-glass or otherwise: the consequence is, that the air is absorbed, the mercury loses its fluidity, and is increased in weight. The metal gains the _whole_ weight of the air absorbed; and, by another process, _all_ the air and _all_ the metal, or very nearly so, may be obtained in their original form. This experiment is so decisive, that nothing can be said against it with any shadow of reason; but who _hath_ made, or who _can_ make, similar experiments with the blood of a living man? Such experiments indeed might be made, if _insensible perspiration_ did not stand in our way. Common atmospherical air is about _eight hundred_ times lighter than water. A cubic inch of distilled water, according to Dr. Kirwan, weighs _two hundred and fifty-three grains and a quarter_. Oxygen air is somewhat lighter than common air: we shall therefore suppose that six hundred inches of it are equal to an inch of water. If then the blood absorb three hundred and sixty inches of air in one hour, it will in twenty-four hours have absorbed eight thousand six hundred and forty inches, equal in weight to fourteen inches of water and two fifths, which according to Dr. Kirwan’s estimate is between seven and eight ounces. But the quantity of matter insensibly perspired in that time is so much greater, that no calculation can be made. Here is one mode of determining the quantity of oxygen inspired totally impracticable in the human body, though quite easy and practicable in the case of mercury. The other mode of determining it by the expulsion of oxygen from the blood is equally impracticable. Dr. Girtanner indeed has expelled oxygen from flesh; but we know not in what proportion, nor can we determine whence it came. With regard to this last, indeed, there are two sources allowed by Drs. Beddoes and Girtanner themselves; viz. the absorption of oxygen by the lungs, and the quantity taken in with the aliment. A third source was also manifest from Dr. Girtanner’s experiments; viz. absorption from the atmosphere; for, by exposure to the atmosphere, flesh, which had once parted with its oxygen, became again impregnated with it. In this case therefore we must acknowledge that the uncertainty of the absorption by the lungs must be extremely great. A certain quantity of oxygen is undoubtedly thrown out in fixed air. How are we to determine this quantity? Certainly not by the first reverie that happens to occupy our imagination. It is a problem, the solution of which must be attended with the utmost difficulty. We must know, in the first place, how much oxygen was contained in the air _inspired_. In the second place we must know the quantity of fixed air _expired_. In the third place we must exactly know the proportion of oxygen contained in the fixed air thrown out by the breath. In the fourth place we must determine whether, by the conversion of oxygen into fixed air, any change is made in its bulk. For, if this shall be found to be the case, we should be led to suppose an absorption or augmentation of air when no such thing took place. This point therefore ought to be determined with the utmost accuracy. In the fifth place we must exactly know how much _azote_, _septon_, _phlogisticated air_ is contained in the atmosphere inspired, and likewise in that expired. In the sixth place, we must be assured that there are no other fluids in the atmosphere capable of being absorbed by the lungs, excepting oxygen and azote. Whether there are any others or not, hath not been determined. From an expression of Dr. Fordyce, he would seem to be skeptical on the subject. “The atmosphere (says he) is found to consist of various vapours, of which air, or, as it has been called, pure air, or respirable air, (oxygen air) forms at present about a fourth. Gas (probably fixed air) forms some part;[72] but the greatest part consists of one or more vapours, which, _without any positive quality, but from that indolence which makes mankind in their researches attempt to find a resting place, have been considered by many chemists as one individual species, under the names of phlogisticated air_,” &c. In the seventh place we ought to know what quantity of _pure oxygen_, unconverted into fixed air, or whether any such, is thrown out by the breath. That a quantity of this kind of air is really thrown out, is probable, because we can blow up a fire with our breath, and by a blow-pipe excite a most intense heat, capable of melting the most refractory metals, platina excepted. It is true that the eolipile, by the mere conversion of water into steam, will blow up a fire also; though, if the access of external air be denied, the blast of the eolipile will put the fire out. Probably the breath would do the same; but even this cannot be accounted a decisive proof of the oxygen being totally exhausted; for the moist vapour with which the breath abounds may extinguish the fire, even though some small quantity of oxygen should remain in it. It is not, however, our business at present to enter minutely into such discussions. From what has been already said, it is evident, that the absorption of oxygen by the blood, instead of being indubitably established, is of all things the most uncertain; the requisites for determining it being absolutely beyond the investigation of any person, however accurate. We may indeed, with great labour and trouble, determine that some part of the air is absorbed in breathing; but what that part is, we are unable to discover from any chemical investigation. The opinion of the simplicity of metals, and their being reduced to a calx by the adhesion of oxygen, has been so implicitly, and in a manner universally, received, that it has given a new turn to physiology, so that, by a kind of analogical reasoning, the human body has been reduced to a mere chemical apparatus, the operations of which may be calculated as we can do the event of experiments in a laboratory. But, after a very long and tedious contest, Dr. Priestley seems at last to have overthrown this doctrine of oxygenation, even in the inanimate parts of the creation; so that we can much less apply it to the doctrines of life and animation. His experiments are published in the third number of the Medical Repository, volume II, and fully demonstrate, that, though mercury absorbs oxygen during calcination, this is not the case with all metals; that in many cases the oxygen will unite with other substances in preference to the metal, which last is nevertheless reduced to a calx as though it had united with the oxygen; that in many cases the addition of weight gained by the calx is owing to mere water, &c. He has likewise shown that phlogisticated air (azote) is not a simple substance, as has been taught by the new chemists, but consists, as well as fixed air, of an union of oxygen with carbon, or at least with the black matter of burnt bones, with which he made the experiment. These aerial fluids therefore being so easily convertible into one another, and the uncertainty of the changes in bulk which may occur in consequence of these conversions so great, it is impossible to say whether a portion of the atmosphere in substance, i. e. both oxygen and azote, is absorbed, as physicians formerly supposed; or whether a portion of oxygen air alone be absorbed, as Dr. Beddoes supposes; or whether only the elastic principle itself is absorbed, and the diminution in bulk made in consequence of the conversion of oxygen into fixed air; I say, these matters depend on circumstances so much beyond the reach of our senses, that if we come to any probable conclusion upon the subject, it must be by analogical reasoning from other known facts, not from experiments made directly upon the living body; which, in their own nature, must, always be extremely vague and uncertain.

[72] It is now acknowledged that common atmospherical air contains
a portion of what Dr. Black and Dr. Priestley have called fixed
air; but this portion is so small (not more than one fiftieth part,
according to Dr. Anthony Fothergill’s Prize Dissertation, and _none
at all_, according to Dr. Beddoes) I say, this proportion is so
small, that we cannot suppose it to constitute the quantity of fixed
air thrown out by the breath, which is very considerable. Besides,
fixed air, of all others, is the most readily absorbed; and, indeed,
if we could admit of absorption of any basis of air in the present
case, it certainly ought to be that of fixed air; but where such a
quantity is thrown out, we cannot well admit of any absorption.

5. That, during the circulation, the blood charges itself with carbonic hydrogen air, is an assertion which cannot be easily admitted. It has already been observed, that, by the air-pump, venous blood does not appear to contain any elastic fluid whatever; and it is also certain, that animals cannot bear any quantity of air injected into their veins. Dr. Girtanner himself tried several kinds, and all of them proved fatal. Having injected a considerable quantity of oxygen air into the jugular vein of a dog, the animal raised most terrible outcries, breathed very quickly, and with the utmost difficulty; by little and little his limbs became stiff, he fell asleep, and died in less than three minutes. On injecting into the vein of another dog a small quantity of phlogisticated air, the animal died in twenty seconds. With carbonic acid gas (fixed air) a third dog died in a quarter of an hour. A fourth was killed in six minutes by nitrous air.[73] From these experiments, had no others ever been made on the subject, it seems very probable, that no species of air can be safely admitted into the blood in its elastic state. If any such therefore should naturally be produced in the body, it must either be instantly thrown out, or disease must ensue. Such objections to the Doctor’s theory are so natural, that we might have thought he would have foreseen and provided against them. Instead of this he grounds the whole upon such slender evidence as could not be admitted in the most trifling matter. “An incision (says he) was made in the jugular vein of a sheep, and the blood which came from it was received into a bottle filled with nitrous air. When the bottle was half filled, it was closed. The blood coagulated immediately, and a separation of a great quantity of blackish serum took place. The day after, on opening the bottle, a very strong smell of nitrous ether (dulcified spirit of nitre) was perceived, the nitrous air having been changed in part into nitrous ether by the carbonic hydrogen gas of the blood. This experiment proves, beyond a doubt, that the venous blood contains carbonic hydrogen air; and that this air is not very intimately mixed with it, but may be expelled with the greatest ease.”

[73] Nitrous air is that suffocating vapour which arises when aqua
fortis is poured upon metals. When taken into the lungs it destroys
animal life more quickly than any other species.

On reading the Doctor’s account of this experiment; it must be very obvious, that, however decidedly he may be of opinion that it proves _beyond a doubt_ the existence of hydrogen air in the venous blood, yet there is not one solid reason; from what he says, for supposing any such thing. How can any man determine from the mere _smell_ of _sheep’s_ blood taken out of the body of the animal, and mixed with a poisonous vapour, what is the composition of _human_ blood in the living body? In the case of any substance suspected to contain elastic air, the air-pump will always afford an _experimentum crucis_. But we know that venous blood does not yield any elastic vapour by the pump: if instead of blood, however; we should fill a portion of vein with beer, cyder, or other fermented liquor, it would instantly discover, by its swelling up, that it really contained air in an elastic state. If then from the tumefaction of the vein when filled with fermented liquor we conclude that the latter contains fixed air, why should we not, from the non-tumefaction of it when filled with blood, conclude that the vital fluid contains no air? If Dr. Girtanner was so well assured that the venous blood contains hydrogen air, he ought to have expelled some of it from a portion of the blood, noted the difference between the blood which had lost its air, and that which had not, and then, by adding the air to it again, restored the blood to its former state. Nothing less then recomposition can prove the truth of a chemical analysis; as division can only be proved by multiplication, or multiplication by division.

From all that has been said, we may fairly conclude, that no proof can be brought sufficient to prove the existence either of oxygen air or any other species of aerial fluid, in its elastic state, in the blood. Neither can we prove that any part of the condensable part of oxygen air is received by the breath in the lungs. It is, however, probable that this condensable part may be received into the stomach with our food; that having passed through the various channels of circulation, and arrived at last at the surface, it there resumes its aerial nature by combining with the superfluous heat of the body, and is evaporated through the pores of the skin by insensible perspiration. The aerial vapour which passes off by these pores indeed has been discovered to partake of the nature of _fixed air_; but we know that this species of gas always contains the basis of oxygen, being indeed composed of it; and whether the oxygen be taken into the body in its pure state or not, the result would undoubtedly be the same; for an union would be formed between it and the carbonic particles to be thrown off from the body. But thus we can never suppose the basis of oxygen or any other air to be a permanent part of the composition of our bodies; nor can the quantity of it be augmented by breathing any kind of air. The readiest way to increase the quantity seems to be by drinking fermented liquors. Thus, if the body is too hot, the superfluous heat will have a proper subject to act upon, viz. the condensable part of the fixed air; and hence we may perhaps account for the very grateful and cooling sensation produced by drinking these liquors in some diseases. With respect to the existence of _carbon, charcoal_ or _hydrogen_ in the blood, it is probable that it exists in equal quantity at all times, being indeed the fundamental material of the whole body, and probably only a modification of that _dust_ from whence man was originally taken.[74] When the blood therefore grows very black, when the teeth are covered with a black sordes, the hands become foul, &c. we may say, indeed we too surely _feel_, that, in such cases, there is a propensity in the body to return to its original state of dissolution; but there is not one solid reason for supposing the proportion of its materials to be varied; that there is a collection of _oxygen_ in one part, _hydrogen_ in another, or in short that nature can admit of any such disproportion taking place.

[74] In one of Dr. Priestley’s papers above quoted he says, that
_charcoal_ is entirely of _vegetable_ origin; but the conversion of
vegetable into animal matter which we daily see is an undoubted proof
that there cannot be any essential difference between them. Even the
bones are undoubtedly produced from vegetables in such animals as
feed upon vegetable substances; so that even the calcareous earth
they contain is plainly of vegetable origin. We may say indeed that
the calcareous particles had a previous existence in the vegetables
used by the animal as food; but we may say the same of the particles
of the blood, flesh, horns, &c. Besides, Dr. Priestley has shown that
_every_ particle of charcoal may be volatilized into inflammable
air, with as great accuracy as any human experiment can be made; so
that in this case the calcareous particles, if any such there were,
showed themselves to be as much charcoal as the rest. In the 74th
volume of the Philosophical Transactions, Mr. Watt has shown, that
dephlogisticated spirit of nitre may be changed into the smoking and
phlogisticated kind by means of red-lead or magnesia alba, as well
as by charcoal; of consequence there can be no essential difference
even there. In short, so wonderful and multifarious are the
transforming or metamorphosing powers of nature, that every attempt
to find out a substance upon which these powers cannot act, will be
found altogether vain, and our best conducted and most plausible
experiments, made with a view to discover the ultimate composition or
what we call the elements of bodies, will be found mere inaccuracy,
bungling and blunder.

6. We must now consider Dr. Girtanner’s account of the origin of animal heat, which is, that, “during the distribution of the oxygen through the system, the heat which was united with this oxygen escapes; hence the animal heat;” and, “that the great _capacity_ of the arterial blood for heat is owing to the oxygen with which it is united in the lungs.”--This leads us to consider in a more particular manner the doctrine of heat, a subject hitherto much less investigated than the importance of the subject requires. What little we do know of this matter seems to be almost entirely owing to Dr. Black, who hath discovered some very remarkable phenomena unknown to former philosophers. His discovery here, as in that of fixed air, was accidental. Making experiments on the water of different temperatures, he found that the mixture would always be an arithmetical mean betwixt the two quantities mixed. Thus, on mixing water at 50 degrees with an equal quantity at 100, the temperature of the mixture would be 75 degrees; but if instead of using water only he took snow or ice for one of the quantities, the mixture was no longer an arithmetical mean betwixt the two temperatures, but greatly below it; so that a quantity of heat seemed to be totally lost and in a manner annihilated. His attention was engaged by this unexpected phenomenon, and, prosecuting his experiments, he found that, when water was converted into ice, it really became warmer than it was before; and, by keeping the fluid perfectly still during the time that cold was applied, he was able to cool it to 27 degrees of Fahrenheit’s thermometer, which is five degrees below the freezing point; but on shaking this water so cooled, it was instantly converted into ice, and the thermometer rose to 32. On reversing the experiment he found that mere fluidity in water is not sufficient to melt ice. A considerable degree of heat is necessary; and even when this is previously given to the water, the whole becomes as cold as ice by the time that the ice is melted. The result of his experiments in short was this: Water, when frozen, absorbs an hundred and thirty-five degrees of heat before its fluidity can be restored: that is, supposing a pound of ice at the temperature of 32 to be mixed with a pound of water at the temperature of 32, by adding 135 degrees, so that the temperature of the water is augmented to 167, the ice will indeed be melted, but the temperature of the whole quantity of liquid will be reduced to 32. In this case therefore the heat manifestly assumes two different modes of action: one in which it acts internally upon the substance of the body, without being sensible to the touch, while in its other state it hath no effect upon the internal parts, but affects bodies on the outside. The former state therefore the Doctor distinguished by the name of _latent_, the latter by that of _sensible_ heat.

The same theory was applied to explain the doctrine of evaporation, and that in the most decisive and satisfactory manner. The Doctor found, that, in the distillation of water, much more heat was communicated to that in the worm-tub of the still, than could be supposed necessary to raise the water distilled to 212 degrees, which is the utmost that water can bear. In prosecuting the experiment he found the quantity of heat absorbed by the water, when raised into vapour, truly surprising; no less than _a thousand_ degrees; an heat more than sufficient to have made the whole quantity of fluid that came over red hot. Some objections, however, were made to this theory, even by the Doctor’s friends. Mr. Watt, particularly, though he could not deny the theory derived from Dr. Black’s experiments, yet suggested one, which, had it proved successful, would have overthrown the whole. It was this: Let water be distilled _in vacuo_, where it boils with a heat of 97 degrees, and the operation must be carried on with much less fuel, and with much greater ease, than in the common mode. It was said that, in this experiment, Dr. Black was equally concerned with Mr. Watt; but, in a personal conversation with the Doctor himself, he assured me that he had no farther concern than foretelling that the experiment would not succeed, which it seems did not. The event was as follows: Mr. Watt, determining at all events to try the experiment, caused to be made a copper retort and receiver, joined together in one piece. In the receiver he pierced a small hole, and, heating both retort and receiver, plunged the latter into cold water. The consequence was, that a considerable quantity of water entered the vessel, and was easily poured back into the retort, as a subject for distillation. A fire being now applied, the water was soon raised into steam, which filled both retort and receiver, and in a great measure expelled the external air. The small orifice in the receiver being now closed, and the receiver itself plunged into cold water, the distillation went on _in vacuo_; for, as soon as any of the steam was condensed, the space which it had occupied (according to Dr. Black _one thousand and sixty-six_ times more than the original water) was become absolutely empty, and more steam, rarefied, not by any quantity of sensible heat, but merely by that which it contained in a _latent_ state, would occupy the place of the former. The event of the experiment showed the truth of Dr. Black’s theory. The water boiled, and steam was raised as well as if access had been given to the air; but with this difference, that the upper part of the distilling vessel was never heated above what the hand could easily bear. With the water in the cooler it was quite otherwise. It became hot as usual, and, by the quantity of heat it received, plainly demonstrated that the vapour, though destitute of most of its _sensible_ heat, yet contained an immense quantity in a _latent_ state. The saving of fuel therefore in the practice of distillation, which was Mr. Watt’s object in making the experiment, was quite trifling, and not equal to the trouble of filling the retort with liquid.

The doctrine of latent heat thus established, furnished a solution of many phenomena which could not formerly be explained in a satisfactory manner. Thus the melting of all kinds of substances was found to be owing to an absorption of heat, while their condensation was attended with the contrary. Fluidity in all cases was explained on the same principle; and the more heat that was absorbed, the more fluid the matter became. Thus water, when in a condensed or solid state, absorbs 135 degrees of heat before it becomes fluid. A thousand degrees more convert it into vapour, and at last, by passing through the intense heat of a glass-house furnace, it is converted into a brilliant flame, and augments the heat of the furnace to a great degree. Hence the practice in glass-houses of throwing water into the ash-hole, the vapour of which, by passing through the burning fuel, makes the furnace much hotter than it was. In a similar manner were explained the phenomena of crystallization, the ductility of metals, the heat produced by hammering them, and the hardness produced by the operation, as well as the operation of annealing, &c. One other phenomenon, a very curious one, shall be noticed, on account of its being connected with the subject of this treatise. It is this: Let a small vessel filled with vitriolic ether be put into a larger one of water, and both included in the receiver of an air-pump. On exhausting the air, the ether boils, and is converted into vapour, while the water freezes. This shows that heat does not always act equally upon surrounding bodies, but has a tendency to enter some in preference to others; and from other experiments it appears, that this property has a considerable connexion with the density of the bodies concerned.

Thus one step was gained, and it was universally admitted that heat, in some cases, entered bodies, and in others was thrown out of them; but now the question arose, What is heat; and by what laws is it regulated, or from what source is it derived? Here Dr. Black himself was at a loss; for, as he supposed _cold_ to be a mere non-entity, and only to consist in a comparatively smaller degree of heat, some phenomena occurred which would not easily admit of solution upon such an hypothesis. With these Dr. Black did not meddle much, but others were bolder. Dr. Irving, Professor of Chemistry at Glasgow, undertook to explain the whole mystery of latent heat upon the single principle of attraction. One of the most puzzling phenomena in the way of Dr. Black’s theory had been, that in some cases heat and cold seemed to repel each other, and a very remarkable instance of this was, that, in the morning, a little before sunrise, when the rays of light pass through the atmosphere, a little above the surface of the earth, the air then becomes manifestly colder than even at midnight. Dr. Irving’s explanation of this was, that the sun’s rays _attracted heat from the atmosphere_, and thus rendered it colder. Such at least was the explanation given in an inaugural dissertation by Dr. Cleghorn, one of Dr. Irving’s scholars; for the Doctor himself delivered his opinions only to them. In other cases he supposed that different substances had different _capacities_ for receiving heat; and, of consequence, should the _form_, or rather the _internal constitution_, of the body be changed, the _capacity_ of it for receiving heat must also be changed; and as an attraction subsists, or is supposed to subsist, between heat and all other substances, it is plain that while this attraction subsists, if the capacity of any substance for receiving heat be augmented, it will imbibe much more than it would have done had its former constitution remained. Thus _water_ in its liquid state contains a certain quantity of heat; we may therefore say that water has a capacity for receiving heat equal to one to ten, or what we please. Vapour has a capacity for containing heat ten times greater than water. Water therefore, when converted into vapour, will imbibe ten times the quantity of heat that the water contains; and, again, on being re-converted into water, the _capacity_ becoming what it was before, the superfluous quantity must be thrown out, as in Dr. Black’s experiments. In like manner, when a metal is melted by the fire, the capacity of it for receiving heat is changed: of consequence a great quantity is imbibed, and again expelled by the change of _capacity_ which takes place on its becoming solid; and thus, from the change of capacity, in different substances, every phenomenon was solved.

This doctrine of _capacities_ did not give general satisfaction. Dr. Black himself said of it, that it was neither _probable_ nor _ingenious_;[75] notwithstanding which, it continued to be received, and even very generally adopted. Dr. Crawford, so well known for his writings on this subject, has adopted the idea, and Dr. Girtanner, in the passage above quoted from him, appears to be of the same opinion. The doctrine, however, had several opponents, among whom were the Monthly Reviewers. In their account of Nicholson’s First Principles of Chemistry, they express themselves in the following manner: “We only wish, that, in the doctrine of heat, he had avoided, which he might easily have done, Dr. Crawford’s idea of bodies having different _capacities_ for heat. In the melting of ice, for instance, a quantity of heat is absorbed, without any increase of the temperature, that is, without making the water sensibly warmer than the ice before its liquefaction; which is said to be owing to the water having a greater _capacity_ for heat, or being able to _hold more_ of it, than the ice; and, in like manner, when converted into vapour, its capacity is further increased, or it can hold more still. This appears to us a very unchemical, and a very inadequate idea of the matter: for, admitting water to have a greater capacity than ice, how is the change from one state to the other to be effected? Can the properties which a body is found to possess, after a change has taken place, be assigned as a cause of the change itself? Or will it be said, that the heat first enlarges the capacity, and then hides itself in that capacity so enlarged? We should think it much better to say, consonantly with the phenomena of other combinations in chemistry, that a certain quantity of heat, uniting with the ice, first _liquefies_ it, as a certain quantity of acid only neutralizes an alkali; that if any surplus quantity must be introduced, that surplus, remaining free and uncombined, must act and be sensible as heat in the one case, and acid other; and that different bodies require different quantities of heat or acid to be combined with them, for producing the changes in question.”[76]

[75] These words are to be found in the M. S. Copies of his lectures
circulated at Edinburgh. Dr. Black himself never published any thing
to the world upon the subject.

[76] Monthly Review, for 1790, p. 165.

Thus the Reviewers, as well as others, reasoned _a priori_, and several facts were adduced to prove that no such changes in capacity could take place. But however strong the arguments adduced, or however plain the experiments might be, little or no notice was taken of them, and the enlargement or diminution of _capacities_ has been repeated, seemingly by rote, from one author to another, without the least inquiry or investigation. Dr. Girtanner indeed says that “the oxygen united with the arterial blood in the lungs” is the cause of the _great capacity_ of the arterial blood for heat. But this is assigning a very doubtful cause for a very doubtful effect. He ought to have proved in the first place that arterial blood really has this capacity; for its being _hotter_ than the blood of the veins, only shews that it parts with more heat to surrounding bodies than venous blood does; which is a proof that it contains _less_ heat, if there be any difference, than that of the veins. But the truth is, that the _capacity_ for containing heat depends neither on the oxygenation nor hydrogenation of a fluid, but upon its density. The more fluid and the more easily expansible into vapour that any substance is, the greater quantity of heat it is capable of containing, and _vice versa_. This has been fully ascertained by Mr. William Jones, an English clergyman, whose observations on the generally received system of philosophy contain many particulars worthy of attention. From his experiments it appears that a piece of red-hot iron, thrown into water, imparts much less _sensible_ heat to it, and is itself much more effectually quenched, than by throwing it into an equal quantity of quick-silver of the same temperature with the water. As the quick-silver therefore becomes much hotter to the touch than water does upon throwing a piece of red-hot iron into it, and as the iron itself is much more imperfectly quenched by the metal than by the water, it follows that the latter is capable of containing much more heat than the former. But such experiments are not applicable to the blood. Though that of the arteries may be somewhat hotter than the venous blood, yet the reason is obvious. The heat is communicated directly to the arterial blood in the lungs; but during the circulation a part of it evaporates, and the farther distant any part is from the lungs, the more cool will the vital fluid be, without regard to any alteration of _capacity_, which indeed never can be shown to exist.

But the most decisive experiments against any supposed alteration in the capacities of bodies for containing heat are those lately tried by Count Rumford, and related in the Philosophical Transactions for 1798. His attention to this subject was engaged by observing the great degree of heat acquired by a brass gun during the time of boring it,[77] and still more by the intense heat (much greater than that of boiling water) of the metallic chips separated from it by the borer. From a consideration of these things he was naturally led to the following inquiries. “Whence comes the heat actually produced in this mechanical operation? Is it furnished by the metallic chips which are separated by the borer from the solid mass of metal? If this were the case, then, according to the modern doctrine of caloric, the _capacity for heat_ of the parts of the metal so reduced to chips, ought not only to be changed, but the change undergone by them be sufficiently great to account for _all_ the heat produced. But no such change had taken place; for I found, that by taking equal quantities by weight of these chips, and of thin slips of the same block of metal, separated by means of a fine saw, and putting them at the same temperature, that of boiling water, and putting them into equal quantities of cold water (that is to say, at 59-1/2 of Fahrenheit) the portion of water into which the chips were put, was not, to all appearance, heated either less or more than the other portion in which the chips were put.”

[77] Count Rumford was superintendant of boring the cannon in the
workshops of the military hospital at Munich.

From this experiment, several times repeated with the same result, Count Rumford inferred, that the heat could not possibly have been furnished at the expense of the latent heat of the metallic chips. He then proceeded to ascertain “how much heat was actually generated by friction, when a blunt steel borer being so forcibly shoved (by means of a strong screw) against the bottom of the bore of the cylinder, [of the machine in use] that the pressure against it was equal to the weight of about ten thousand lb. avoirdupois, the cylinder being turned round on its axis (by the power of horses) at the rate of about thirty-two times in a minute.” In this experiment the metallic dust or scaly matter detached from the cylinder by the borer weighed only 837 grains troy; but, says the author, “Is it possible that the very considerable quantity of heat produced in this experiment (a quantity which actually raised the temperature of above 113 lb. of gun-metal at least 70 degrees of Fahrenheit’s thermometer, and which of course would have been capable of melting 6-1/2 lbs. of ice, or making near five pounds of ice-cold water to boil) could have been furnished by so inconsiderable a quantity of metallic dust, and this merely in consequence of a _change_ of its capacity for heat? As the weight of this metallic dust (837 grains troy) amounted to no more than one 948th part of that of the cylinder, it must have lost no less than 948 degrees of heat to have been able to raise the temperature of the cylinder one degree; and consequently it must have given off more than _sixty-six thousand, three hundred and sixty_ degrees of heat to have produced the effects which were actually found to have been produced in this experiment.”

It was next considered whether the air did not contribute to the generation of this heat; and our author determined that this could not be the case; because the quantity of heat generated was not sensibly diminished when the free access of air was prevented. From another experiment it appeared that the generation of the heat was neither prevented nor retarded by keeping the apparatus immersed in water. Here the friction generated so much heat, that in one hour the temperature of the water surrounding the cylinder was raised from 60 to 107 degrees of Fahrenheit. In half an hour more it was raised to 142; at the end of two hours to 178; at two hours 20 minutes to 200; and in two hours and a half it boiled.[78] On the whole, Count Rumford concludes, that “the quantity of heat, produced equably by the friction of the blunt borer against the bottom of the hollow metallic cylinder, was _greater_ than that produced equably in the combustion of _nine wax candles_, each three quarters of an inch diameter, all burning at the same time with a clear, bright flame.” From all these experiments, however, our author does not draw any certain conclusion. “What is heat? (says he.) Is there any such thing as an _igneous fluid_? Is there any thing that can with propriety be called _caloric_? The heat produced, in the author’s experiments, by the friction of two metallic surfaces, was not furnished by small particles of metal, detached from the larger solid on their being rubbed together. It was not supplied by the air, because the machinery in three experiments was kept under water, and the access of atmospherical air completely prevented. It was not furnished by the water which surrounded the machinery, because this water was continually receiving heat from the machinery and could not at the same time be giving to and receiving heat from the same body; and because there was no chemical decomposition of any part of this water.” At last he observes, that the source of this heat, whatever it is, must evidently be inexhaustible, adding, that “any thing, which any _insulated_ body, or system of bodies, can continue to furnish _without limitation_, cannot possibly be a _material substance_; and it appears to me to be extremely difficult, if not quite impossible, to form any distinct idea of any thing capable of being excited and communicated, in the manner the heat was excited and communicated in these experiments, except it be MOTION.”

[78] The quantity was two gallons and a quart, wine measure.

On this last paragraph, however, it is obvious to remark, that the whole force of the argument rests upon an _insinuation_, that the cylinder and borer were _insulated_, or cut off from all communication with any other material substance. Had this been the case, then no doubt it would follow that an _endless_ supply of any thing _material_ could not be furnished by them; but if, as Dr. Boerhaave and many other learned and intelligent persons have supposed, fire be an element universally present, and which becomes sensible to the touch only in consequence of a particular mode of action, it will follow, that no substance in nature can be _insulated_ with respect to it; but, in whatever place, and for whatever length of time, any substance shall be affected in such a manner as to agitate this fluid, there we shall perceive a production of heat _without limitation_, even though heat itself be no more than the action of a fluid essentially _material_, though invisible to us.

Considerations of this kind occurred long ago to the writer of this treatise, when by the nature of his employment it was necessary for him to speculate upon these subjects. It could not then but appear to him that the theory of Dr. Black was far superior to any that had been published. The opinion of those who supposed fire to consist in the vibratory motion of the particles of solid bodies, seemed altogether untenable. It is impossible to explain the phenomena of heat upon ordinary mechanical principles, because, with respect to all terrestrial substances, heat constantly appears as an _agent_, while they are merely _passive_; and no man can explain the nature of a cause from its effect. Thus one of the most obvious effects of heat is _expansion_, or enlargement of bulk, in such bodies as are heated. But if from this fact we infer that the parts of elementary fire are repulsive of one another, our reasoning is certainly erroneous. In like manner, when we are not sensible of heat, we are not authorised to conclude that it is not present; for Dr. Black has demonstrated that it may be present in very great quantity, though indiscoverable either by our senses or by a thermometer.

But, with regard to the theory published by Dr. Black himself, it is evident that, though one part of it rests on the solid basis of experiment, the other is founded entirely upon hypothesis, and that too an hypothesis which cannot admit of being proved by any experiment, viz. that _cold_ is a mere negative, and hath no real existence in nature. Among many phenomena which militate against this opinion, the following experiment of M. Geoffrey seems to be the most remarkable. He took a small bason filled with water, and set it on a support in the middle of a large tub of water, in such a manner that the temperature of the water in the tub might communicate itself to that in the bason. This being ascertained by a thermometer placed in the bason, he threw a quantity of burning coals into the tub. The effect of this, on the supposition that cold is a mere privation of heat, ought to have been, that the heat of the coals, communicated to the water in the large tub, would in a short time pervade the small bason, and affect the thermometer there. The latter would therefore rise; but instead of this it fell several degrees before it began to rise; for which it doth not appear that any other reason can be assigned than that the cold is partly repelled by the heat of the coals, and therefore, entering into the small bason of water, it causes the thermometer to sink previous to its rising. To the same purpose we may urge the phenomenon already taken notice of, viz. that the sun’s rays, when passing at some distance above the surface of the earth, cool the lower part of the atmosphere. The natural solution is, that the heat of the sun partly repels the cold downwards; and as for the doctrine of _attracting_ heat from the atmosphere, Count Rumford has shown that this does not happen in a case where we might with much more probability expect it; not to mention the violence done to the common perceptions of mankind by supposing the sun’s rays, which are most evidently the source of heat, to have any occasion to _attract_ heat from the atmosphere or any thing else.

Lastly, with regard to the _capacities_ of bodies for containing heat, the doctrine appears to involve a radical error, of such enormous magnitude, that it is impossible to make any thing of it. This is no less than confounding the heat which flows out from bodies with that which they contain as an essential part of their composition, and which they cannot emit without being changed into some other form. Thus the capacity of aqueous vapour for containing heat, according to Dr. Black, is 1000 degrees; yet without decomposing the vapour it would have been impossible to have known this; for vapour is often extremely cold to the touch, and a thermometer immersed in it will sink greatly. In short, all that we can know about the capacity of bodies for retaining heat is, that they either continue to absorb it, or we may continue to force it into them, till they be reduced to vapour. It is doubtful whether they can receive more; for from the experiment with Papin’s digester, formerly mentioned, it appears that the additional quantity of heat, which the water was made to receive, very quickly left it as soon as the steam had room to expand.

But, to come to a conclusion upon this subject: If we will investigate the nature of heat, we must do it as in other cases, viz. by making the _igneous fluid_, _caloric_, or what we please to call it, the object of our senses; for we cannot reason fairly, or indeed come to any rational conclusion at all, by doing otherwise. In this investigation it is necessary to attend to the particulars mentioned by Count Rumford. The fluid must be omnipresent in its nature, infinite in its quantity, and equable, uniform and incessant in its action; as far as these epithets can be applied to any material being. There are only two fluids which we know that can answer to these characteristics. The one is the light of the sun, which pervades all the celestial spaces; the other the electric fluid, which penetrates every terrestrial substance. Both of these produce heat, unlimited in quantity, as well as in duration, provided their action be continually kept up. The mode in which both produce heat is exactly the same, viz. by converging into a focus; and the greater the quantity, the greater is the heat, and that without any limitation either as to intensity or duration. With regard to the solar rays, it has long been known that by concentration they would produce heat; nevertheless it was unaccountably doubted whether the rays themselves were the matter of heat. One objection to this was, that on the tops of high mountains the air is exceedingly cold, though the sun shines very bright. But this objection was founded upon an erroneous notion that, wherever the matter of heat exists, there we must feel it; which doth not follow any more than that wherever air exists there we must feel a wind blowing upon us. _Wind_ is air in motion, and _heat_ is a more subtile fluid in motion. One demonstration of this is, that, on the tops of the highest mountains, a burning lens or mirror will set fire to combustible bodies as readily as in the vallies at the foot of them. Neither has heat, properly so called, anything to do with air. The focus of a burning-glass will heat bodies _in vacuo_ as well as in the open air; and Sir Isaac Newton has observed, that if a thermometer be included in the vacuum of an air-pump, it will acquire the temperature of the room nearly in the same time that another will when included in a similar glass without any exhaustion.

The science of electricity is but of late date; and most violent and hypothetical disputes have taken place concerning the nature of the fluid. Its luminous and burning properties naturally led a number of people to suppose that it was elementary fire; but this was opposed by others with as much violence as if there had been something criminal in the supposition. The opposition, however, was founded upon the same error with that about the solar light. It was imagined that wherever elementary fire existed, there heat must be felt; and it was especially urged, that electricity, though it produced light, did not produce any heat, except when it exploded with such violence as to penetrate the internal substance of bodies, agitating their particles, and by this agitation producing heat. It has now, however, been found, that the electric _aura_, as it is called, when made to converge in great quantity to the point of a needle, will heat it to such a degree as to set fire to gun-powder. This shows that heat is occasioned by the convergence of this fluid to a focus, and to its divergence from it. In the focal point, heat will always take place. From the experiments of Hauksbee, Beccaria and Priestley, it likewise appears, that electricity will render transparent the most opaque bodies, such as sealing-wax, pitch, &c. which even the most intense light of the sun cannot do. As to the intensity of the heat produced by it, experiments have shown, that it cannot be exceeded even by that of the most powerful mirror. Globules of gold have been vitrified, platina melted, and the most infusible substances reduced to glass, by means of the electric shock. From so many evidences, therefore, it appears to me impossible to conclude otherwise than that the light of the sun and the electric fluid are the same thing; and, according to the different modes in which they act, they produce the phenomena of heat and light in all their varieties, besides a multitude of other effects of which we cannot have any perception. We may indeed, if we please, suppose that some other thing exists which is heat itself, and that the light or electric fluid sets in motion, attracts, repels, or acts otherwise upon this unknown something; just as it comes into our heads to fabricate our system. But, until our senses can discover in some way or other this hidden substance, _reason_ will always suggest that it has no existence. We may say that without such a supposition we cannot solve the phenomena of heat. But do we ever expect to solve these phenomena; or do we know all that the solar light and electric fluid can perform? If we do not know what they _can_ do, neither do we know what they _cannot_; and the invention of other fluids must be accounted not only chimerical but useless.