Showing 2 results

41 Palace Court, (London).—Explains how his ideas on entropy differ from those of other physicists.

—————

Transcript

41 Palace Court
15/2/3

Dear Mr. Henderson,—Many thanks for proof {1}. My only fear in suggesting any alterations is that I may be unfair to Lodge or Perry.

The difference between Lodge & me is very much more fundamental than your article says. Lodge seems to think increase of total entropy is never caused except by transfer of heat between bodies of different temperature. Perry, as far as I can gather his views from his letters thinks the same, & they both think that when gas is expanded into a vacuum the increase of entropy is due to subsequent equalisation of temperature. I have had a good deal of correspondence with Lodge privately. I find there is also ambiguity about what Η & Θ refer to. I have put my notions in last weeks Electrician. Bryan in a letter says he doesn’t know what the books mean by Η & Θ, & doesn’t believe the authors know either.

I think thermodynamics wants complete overhauling. The smaller men merely copy the au-thorities blindly, & the big people never explain what they mean. Bryan is about as good a “thermodynamician” as there is, & if he privately admits that his ideas are not clear there is something wrong. I think there is far too much ‘blind mathematics’ in our days.

I have not criticised books on thermodynamics, only on steam engines & Φ {2} diagrams & math. Physics. But we have no decent books on thermodynamics. Preston {3} I have only seen, but I don’t think he is at all clear. Though he may discuss irreversible processes I think his only idea of increase of entropy was by transfer of heat. A pupil of his who is v. good at T. Dynamics tells me Preston never really understood entropy; & I have a 2nd hand book which belonged to Preston with pencil notes, showing the same thing!

Ofcourse† all this is not for publication.

Yours faithfully
J Swinburne

—————

{1} Not identified.

{2} ‘& Φ’ is the apparent reading, but the meaning is unclear.

{3} The Theory of Heat, by Thomas Preston (1894).

† Sic.

41 Palace Court, W..—Clarifies further his ideas on entropy.

—————

Transcript

41 Palace Court
17/2/3

Dear Mr. Henderson, I dont think you need worry about the Feilden article {1}. It is much more to the purpose than any other article about the discussion. The truth is a discussion like this is rather bad as a means of getting at anything like a solution.

As to Preston, I only speak from memory and may be wrong. My notion as to dissipation is that increase of entropy, for instance when two gases interdiffuse does not there & then involve degradation of energy into heat. But you have let yourself in for the degradation, as you must degrade work into heat to get the gases into their original condition. Increase of entropy thus means eventual degradation of energy, but you cant take the degradation of energy as the criteri-on if you want to see if a change will take place.

Ofcourse† Perry & Lodge’s idea is, as far as I can make out, that the only case of increase of entropy is by transfer of heat; so that they think increase of entropy means that energy already degraded into heat is merely rendered less available by reduction of temperature.

Yours sincerely
J. Swinburne

[Direction on envelope:] W. Craig Henderson Esq | 1 Bride Court | Temple | E.C.

—————

The envelope, which was postmarked at London, S.W., at 3.15 p.m. on 17 Feb. 1903, is marked ‘Jas. Swinburne. re Entropy | Feb. 15 & 17. 1903’, and in a later hand, ‘Controversy | Swinburne v Perry’.

{1} Not identified.

† Sic.