independent of the particular phenomenon taken as the common measure.

§ 3. THE PRINCIPLE OF CARNOT AND CLAUSIUS

The principle of Carnot, of a nature analogous to the principle of the conservation of energy, has also a similar origin. It was first enunciated, like the last named, although prior to it in time, in consequence of considerations which deal only with heat and mechanical work. Like it, too, it has evolved, grown, and invaded the entire domain of physics. It may be interesting to examine rapidly the various phases of this evolution. The origin of the principle of Carnot is clearly determined, and it is very rare to be able to go back thus certainly to the source of a discovery. Sadi Carnot had, truth to say, no precursor. In his time heat engines were not yet very common, and no one had reflected much on their theory. He was doubtless the first to propound to himself certain questions, and certainly the first to solve them.

It is known how, in 1824, in his Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu, he endeavoured to prove that “the motive power of heat is independent of the agents brought into play for its realization," and that "its quantity is fixed solely by the temperature of the bodies between which, in the last resort, the transport of caloric is effected"-at least in all engines in which "the method of developing the

motive power attains the perfection of which it is capable"; and this is, almost textually, one of the enunciations of the principle at the present day. Carnot perceived very clearly the great fact that, to produce work by heat, it is necessary to have at one's disposal a fall of temperature. On this point he expresses himself with perfect clearness: "The motive power of a fall of water depends on its height and on the quantity of liquid; the motive power of heat depends also on the quantity of caloric employed, and on what might be called-in fact, what we shall call the height of fall, that is to say, the difference in temperature of the bodies between which the exchange of caloric takes place."

Starting with this idea, he endeavours to demonstrate, by associating two engines capable of working in a reversible cycle, that the principle is founded on the impossibility of perpetual motion.

His memoir, now celebrated, did not produce any great sensation, and it had almost fallen into deep oblivion, which, in consequence of the discovery of the principle of equivalence, might have seemed perfectly justified. Written, in fact, on the hypothesis of the indestructibility of caloric, it was to be expected that this memoir should be condemned in the name of the new doctrine, that is, of the principle recently brought to light.

It was really making a new discovery to establish that Carnot's fundamental idea survived the destruc

tion of the hypothesis on the nature of heat, on which he seemed to rely. As he no doubt himself perceived, his idea was quite independent of this hypothesis, since, as we have seen, he was led to surmise that heat could disappear; but his demonstrations needed to be recast and, in some points, modified.

It is to Clausius that was reserved the credit of rediscovering the principle, and of enunciating it in language conformable to the new doctrines, while giving it a much greater generality. The postulate arrived at by experimental induction, and which must be admitted without demonstration, is, according to Clausius, that in a series of transformations in which the final is identical with the initial stage, it is impossible for heat to pass from a colder to a warmer body unless some other accessory phenomenon occurs at the same time.

Still more correctly, perhaps, an enunciation can be given of the postulate which, in the main, is analogous, by saying: A heat motor, which after a series of transformations returns to its initial state, can only furnish work if there exist at least two sources of heat, and if a certain quantity of heat is given to one of the sources, which can never be the hotter of the two. By the expression "source of heat," we mean a body exterior to the system and capable of furnishing or withdrawing heat from it.

Starting with this principle, we arrive, as does

Clausius, at the demonstration that the output of a reversible machine working between two given temperatures is greater than that of any non-reversible engine, and that it is the same for all reversible machines working between these two temperatures.

This is the very proposition of Carnot; but the proposition thus stated, while very useful for the theory of engines, does not yet present any very general interest. Clausius, however, drew from it much more important consequences. First, he showed that the principle conduces to the definition of an absolute scale of temperature; and then he was brought face to face with a new notion which allows a strong light to be thrown on the questions of physical equilibrium. I refer to entropy.

It is still rather difficult to strip entirely this very important notion of all analytical adornment. Many physicists hesitate to utilize it, and even look upon it with some distrust, because they see in it a purely mathematical function without any definite physical meaning. Perhaps they are here unduly severe, since they often admit too easily the objective existence of quantities which they cannot define. Thus, for instance, it is usual almost every day to speak of the heat possessed by a body. Yet no body in reality possesses a definite quantity of heat even relatively to any initial state; since starting from this point of departure, the

quantities of heat it may have gained or lost vary with the road taken and even with the means employed to follow it. These expressions of heat gained or lost are, moreover, themselves evidently incorrect, for heat can no longer be considered as a sort of fluid passing from one body to another.

The real reason which makes entropy somewhat mysterious is that this magnitude does not fall directly under the ken of any of our senses; but it possesses the true characteristic of a concrete physical magnitude, since it is, in principle at least, measurable. Various authors of thermodynamical researches, amongst whom M. Mouret should be particularly mentioned, have endeavoured to place this characteristic in evidence.

Consider an isothermal transformation. Instead of leaving the heat abandoned by the body subjected to the transformation-water condensing in a state of saturated vapour, for instance-to pass directly into an ice calorimeter, we can transmit this heat to the calorimeter by the intermediary of a reversible Carnot engine. The engine having absorbed this quantity of heat, will only give back to the ice a lesser quantity of heat; and the weight of the melted ice, inferior to that which might have been directly given back, will serve as a measure of the isothermal transformation thus effected. It can be easily shown that this measure is independent of the apparatus used. It consequently becomes a