MRS. B.

You can no longer be surprised, therefore, that bodies of a different capacity for caloric should require different proportions of that fluid to raise their temperatures equally.

EMILY.

But I do not conceive why the body that contains the most caloric should not be of the highest temperature; that is to say, feel hot in proportion to the quant.i.ty of caloric it contains?

MRS. B.

The caloric that is employed in filling the capacity of a body, is not free caloric; but is imprisoned as it were in the body, and is therefore imperceptible: for we can feel only the caloric which the body parts with, and not that which it retains.

CAROLINE.

It appears to me very extraordinary that heat should be confined in a body in such a manner as to be imperceptible.

MRS. B.

If you lay your hand on a hot body, you feel only the caloric which leaves it, and enters your hand; for it is impossible that you should be sensible of that which remains in the body. The thermometer, in the same manner, is affected only by the free caloric which a body transmits to it, and not at all by that which it does not part with.

CAROLINE.

I begin to understand it: but I confess that the idea of insensible heat is so new and strange to me, that it requires some time to render it familiar.

MRS. B.

Call it insensible caloric, and the difficulty will appear much less formidable. It is indeed a sort of contradiction to call it heat, when it is so situated as to be incapable of producing that sensation. Yet this modification of caloric is commonly called SPECIFIC HEAT.

CAROLINE.

But it certainly would have been more correct to have called it _specific caloric_.

EMILY.

I do not understand how the term _specific_ applies to this modification of caloric?

MRS. B.

It expresses the relative quant.i.ty of caloric which different _species_ of bodies of the same weight and temperature are capable of containing.

This modification is also frequently called _heat of capacity_, a term perhaps preferable, as it explains better its own meaning.

You now understand, I suppose, why the milk and chalk required a longer portion of time than the lead to raise their temperature to that of the oven?

EMILY.

Yes: the milk and chalk having a greater capacity for caloric than the lead, a greater proportion of that fluid became insensible in those bodies: and the more slowly, therefore, their temperature was raised.

CAROLINE.

But might not this difference proceed from the different conducting powers of heat in these three bodies, since that which is the best conductor must necessarily attain the temperature of the oven first?

MRS. B.

Very well observed, Caroline. This objection would be insurmountable, if we could not, by reversing the experiment, prove that the milk, the chalk, and the lead, actually absorbed different quant.i.ties of caloric, and we know that if the different time they took in heating, proceeded merely from their different conducting powers, they would each have acquired an equal quant.i.ty of caloric.

CAROLINE.

Certainly. But how can you reverse this experiment?

MRS. B.

It may be done by cooling the several bodies to the same degree in an apparatus adapted to receive and measure the caloric which they give out. Thus, if you plunge them into three equal quant.i.ties of water, each at the same temperature, you will be able to judge of the relative quant.i.ty of caloric which the three bodies contained, by that, which, in cooling, they communicated to their respective portions of water: for the same quant.i.ty of caloric which they each absorbed to raise their temperature, will abandon them in lowering it; and on examining the three vessels of water, you will find the one in which you immersed the lead to be the least heated; that which held the chalk will be the next; and that which contained the milk will be heated the most of all. The celebrated Lavoisier has invented a machine to estimate, upon this principle, the specific heat of bodies in a more perfect manner; but I cannot explain it to you, till you are acquainted with the next modification of caloric.

EMILY.

The more dense a body is, I suppose, the less is its capacity for caloric?

MRS. B.

This is not always the case with bodies of different nature; iron, for instance, contains more specific heat than tin, though it is more dense.

This seems to show that specific heat does hot merely depend upon the interstices between the particles; but, probably, also upon some peculiar const.i.tution of the bodies which we do not comprehend.

EMILY.

But, Mrs. B., it would appear to me more proper to compare bodies by _measure_, rather than by _weight_, in order to estimate their specific heat. Why, for instance, should we not compare _pints_ of milk, of chalk, and of lead, rather than _pounds_ of those substances; for equal weights may be composed of very different quant.i.ties?

MRS. B.

You are mistaken, my dear; equal weight must contain equal quant.i.ties of matter; and when we wish to know what is the relative quant.i.ty of caloric, which substances of various kinds are capable of containing under the same temperature, we must compare equal weights, and not equal bulks of those substances. Bodies of the same weight may undoubtedly be of very different dimensions; but that does not change their real quant.i.ty of matter. A pound of feathers does not contain one atom more than a pound of lead.

CAROLINE.

I have another difficulty to propose. It appears to me, that if the temperature of the three bodies in the oven did not rise equally, they would never reach the same degree; the lead would always keep its advantage over the chalk and milk, and would perhaps be boiling before the others had attained the temperature of the oven. I think you might as well say that, in the course of time, you and I should be of the same age?

MRS. B.

Your comparison is not correct, Caroline. As soon as the lead reached the temperature of the oven, it would remain stationary; for it would then give out as much heat as it would receive. You should recollect that the exchange of radiating heat, between two bodies of equal temperature, is equal: it would be impossible, therefore, for the lead to acc.u.mulate heat after having attained the temperature of the oven; and that of the chalk and milk therefore would ultimately arrive at the same standard. Now I fear that this will not hold good with respect to our ages, and that, as long as I live, I shall never cease to keep my advantage over you.

EMILY.

I think that I have found a comparison for specific heat, which is very applicable. Suppose that two men of equal weight and bulk, but who required different quant.i.ties of food to satisfy their appet.i.tes, sit down to dinner, both equally hungry; the one would consume a much greater quant.i.ty of provisions than the other, in order to be equally satisfied.

MRS. B.

Yes, that is very fair; for the quant.i.ty of food necessary to satisfy their respective appet.i.tes, varies in the same manner as the quant.i.ty of caloric requisite to raise equally the temperature of different bodies.

EMILY.

The thermometer, then, affords no indication of the specific heat of bodies?