Heroes of Science: Physicists — Text and Context
Edition facts
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
Read the Text
was only about twenty years of age when he wrote his "Free Discourse against Swearing;" his "Seraphic Love; or, Some Motives and Incentives to the Love of God;" and his "Essay on Mistaken Modesty." "Seraphic Love" was the last of a series of treatises on love, but the only one of the series that he published, as he considered the others too trifling to be published alone or in conjunction with it. In a letter to Lady Ranelagh, he refers to his laboratory as "a kind of Elysium," and there were few things which gave him so much pleasure as his furnaces and philosophical experiments. In 1652 he visited Ireland, returning in the following summer. In the autumn he was again obliged to visit Ireland, and remained there till the summer of 1654, though residence in that country was far from agreeable to him. He styled it "a barbarous country, where chemical spirits were so misunderstood, and chemical instruments so unprocurable, that it was hard to have any hermetic thoughts in it." On his return he settled in Oxford, and there his lodgings soon became the centre of the scientific life of the university. Boyle and his friends may be regarded as the pioneers of experimental philosophy in this country. To Boyle the methods of Aristotle appeared little more than discussions on words; for a long time he refused to study the philosophy of Descartes, lest he should be turned aside from reasoning based strictly on the results of experiment. The method pursued by these philosophers had been fully discussed by Lord Bacon, but at best his experimental methods, though most complete and systematic, existed only upon paper, and it was reserved for Boyle and his friends to put the Baconian philosophy into actual practice.
It was during his residence at Oxford that he invented the air-pump, which was afterwards improved for him by Hooke, and with which he conducted most of those experiments on the "spring" and weight of the air, which led up to the investigations that have rendered his name inseparably connected with "the gaseous laws." The experiments of Galileo and of Torricelli had shown that the pressure of the air was capable of supporting a column of water about thirty-four feet in height, or a column of mercury nearly thirty inches high. The younger Pascal, at the request of Torricelli, had carried a barometer to the summit of the Puy de Dome, and demonstrated that the height of the column of mercury supported by the air diminishes as the altitude is increased. Otto von Guericke had constructed the Magdeburg hemispheres, and shown that, when exhausted, they could not be separated by sixteen horses, eight pulling one way and eight the other. He was aware that the same traction could have been produced by eight horses if one of the hemispheres had been attached to a fixed obstacle; but, with the instincts of a popular lecturer, he considered that the spectacle would thus be rendered less striking, and it was prepared for the king's entertainment. Boyle wished for an air-pump with an aperture in the receiver sufficiently large for the introduction of various objects, and an arrangement for exhausting it without filling the receiver with water or otherwise interfering with the objects placed therein. His apparatus consisted of a large glass globe capable of containing about three gallons or thereabouts, terminating in an open tube below, and with an aperture of about four inches diameter at the top. Around this aperture was cemented a turned brass ring, the inner surface being conical, and into this conical seat was fitted a brass plate with a thick rim, but drilled with a small hole in the centre. To this hole, which was also conical, was fitted a brass stopper, which could be turned round when the receiver was exhausted. By attaching a string to this stopper, which was so long as to enter the receiver to the depth of two or three inches, and turning the stopper in its seat, the string could be wound up, and thus objects could be moved within the receiver. The tube at the bottom of the receiver communicated with a stop-cock, and this with the upper end of the pumpbarrel, which was inverted, so that this stop-cock, which was at the top of the barrel, took the place of the foot-valve. The piston was solid, made of wood, and surrounded with sole leather, which was kept well greased. There being no valve in the piston, it was necessary to place an exhaust-valve in the upper end of the cylinder. This consisted of a small brass plug closing a conical hole so that it could be removed at pleasure. The construction of the cylinder was, therefore, similar to that of an ordinary force-pump, except that the valves had to be moved by hand (as in the early forms of the steam-engine). The piston was raised and depressed by means of a rack and pinion. The pumps could be used either for exhausting the receiver or for forcing air into it, according to the order in which the "valves" were opened. If the stop-cock communicating with the receiver were open while the piston was being drawn down, and the brass plug removed so as to open the exhaust-valve when the piston was being forced up, the receiver would gradually be exhausted. If the brass plug were removed during the descent of the piston, and the stop-cock opened during its ascent, air would be forced into the receiver. In the latter case it was necessary to take special precautions to prevent the brass plate at the top of the receiver being raised from its seat. All joints were made air-tight with "diachylon," and when, through the bursting of a glass bulb within it, the receiver became cracked, the crack was rendered air-tight by the same means. Other receivers of smaller capacity were also provided, on account of the greater readiness with which they could be exhausted.
With this apparatus Boyle carried out a long series of experiments. He could reduce the pressure in the large receiver to somewhat less than that corresponding to an inch of mercury, or about a foot of water. Squeezing a bladder so as to expel nearly all the air, tying the neck, and then introducing it into the receiver, he found, on working the pump, that the bladder swelled so that at length it became completely distended. In order to account for this great expansibility, Boyle pictured the constitution of the air in the following way. He supposed the air to consist of separate particles, each resembling a spiral spring, which became tightly wound when exposed to great pressure, but which expanded so as to occupy a larger circle when the pressure was diminished. Each of these little spirals he supposed to rotate about a diameter so as to exclude every other body from the sphere in which it moved. Increasing the length of the diameter tenfold would increase the volume of one of these spheres, and therefore the volume of the gas, a thousandfold. Possibly this was only intended as a mental illustration, exhibiting a mechanism by which very great expansion might conceivably be produced, and scarcely pretending to be considered a _theory_ of the constitution of the air. Boyle's first idea seems to have been derived from a lock of wool in which the elasticity of each fibre caused the lock to expand after it had been compressed in the hand. In another passage he speaks of the air as consisting of a number of bodies capable of striking against a surface exposed to them. He demonstrated the weight of the air by placing a delicate balance within the receiver, suspending from one arm a bladder half filled with water, and balancing it with brass weights. On exhausting the air, the bladder preponderated, and, by repeating the experiment with additional weights on the other arm until a balance was effected in the exhausted receiver, he determined the amount of the preponderance. In another experiment he compressed air in a bladder by tying a pack-thread round it, balanced it from one arm of his balance in the open air; then, pricking the bladder so as to relieve the pressure, he found that with the escape of the compressed air the weight diminished.
One of the most important of his experiments with the air-pump was the following. He placed within the receiver the cistern of a mercurial barometer, the tube of which was made to pass through the central hole in the brass plate, from which the stopper had been removed. The space around the tube was filled up with cement, and the receiver exhausted. At each stroke of the pump the mercury in the barometer tube descended, but through successively diminishing distances, until at length it stood only an inch above the mercury in the cistern. The experiment was then repeated with a tube four feet long and filled with water. This constituted the nineteenth experiment referred to later on. A great many strokes of the pump had to be made before the water began to descend. At length it fell till the surface in the tube stood only about a foot above that in the tank. Placing vessels of ordinary spring-water and of distilled rain-water in the receiver, he found that, after the exhaustion had reached a certain stage, bubbles of gas were copiously evolved from the spring-water, but not from the distilled water. On another occasion he caused warm water to boil by a few strokes of the pump; and, continuing the exhaustion, the water was made to boil at intervals until it became only lukewarm. The experiment was repeated with several volatile liquids. He also noticed the cloud formed in the receiver when the air was allowed rapidly to expand; but the mechanical theory of heat had not then made sufficient progress to enable him to account for the condensation by the loss of heat due to the work done by the expanding air. The very minute accuracy of his observations is conspicuous in the descriptions of most of his experiments. That the air is the usual medium for the conveyance of sound was shown by suspending a watch by a linen thread within the receiver. On exhausting the air, the ticking of the watch ceased to be heard. A pretty experiment consisted in placing a bottle of a certain fuming liquid within the receiver; on exhausting the air, the fumes fell over the neck of the bottle and poured over the stand on which it was placed like a stream of water. Another experiment, the thirty-second, is worthy of mention on account of the use to which it was afterwards applied in the controversy respecting the cause of suction. The receiver, having been exhausted, was removed from the cylinder, the stop-cock being turned off, and a small brass valve, to which a scale-pan was attached, was placed just under the aperture of the tube below the stop-cock. On turning the latter, the stream of air raised the valve, closing the aperture, and the atmospheric pressure supported it until a considerable weight had been placed in the scale-pan. Because the receiver could not be exhausted so thoroughly as the pump-cylinder, Boyle attempted to measure the pressure of the air by determining what weight could be supported by the piston. He found first that a weight of twenty-eight pounds suspended directly from the piston was sufficient to overcome friction when air was admitted above the piston. When the access of air to the top of the piston was prevented, more than one hundred pounds additional weight was required to draw down the piston. The diameter of the cylinder was about three inches.
Boyle's style of reasoning is well illustrated by the following from his paper on "The Spring of the Air:"--
"In the next place, these experiments may teach us what to judge of the vulgar axiom received for so many ages as an undoubted truth in the peripatetick schools, that Nature abhors and flieth a vacuum, and that to such a degree that no human power (to go no higher) is able to make one in the universe; wherein heaven and earth would change places, and all its other bodies rather act contrary to their own nature than suffer it.... It will not easily, then, be intelligibly made out how hatred or aversation, which is a passion of the soul, can either for a vacuum or any other object be supposed to be in water, or such like inanimate body, which cannot be presumed to know when a vacuum would ensue, if they did not bestir themselves to prevent it; nor to be so generous as to act contrary to what is most conducive to their own particular preservation for the public good of the universe. As much, then, of intelligible and probable truth as is contained in this metaphorical expression seems to amount but to this--that by the wise Author of nature (who is justly said to have made all things in number, weight, and measure) the universe, and the parts of it, are so contrived that it is hard to make a vacuum in it, as if they studiously conspired to prevent it. And how far this itself may be granted deserves to be further considered.
"For, in the next place, our experiments seem to teach that the supposed aversation of Nature to a vacuum is but accidental, or in consequence, partly of the weight and fluidity, or, at least, fluxility of the bodies here below; and partly, and perhaps principally, of the air, whose restless endeavour to expand itself every way makes it either rush in itself or compel the interposed bodies into all spaces where it finds no greater resistance than it can surmount. And that in those motions which are made _ob fugam vacui_ (as the common phrase is), bodies act without such generosity and consideration as is wont to be ascribed to them, is apparent enough in our thirty-second experiment, where the torrent of air, that seemed to strive to get into the emptied receiver, did plainly prevent its own design, by so impelling the valve as to make it shut the only orifice the air was to get [in] at. And if afterwards either Nature or the internal air had a design the external air should be attracted, they seemed to prosecute it very unwisely by continuing to suck the valve so strongly, when they found that by that suction the valve itself could not be drawn in; whereas, by forbearing to suck, the valve would, by its own weight, have fallen down and suffered the excluded air to return freely, and to fill again the exhausted vessel....
"And as for the care of the public good of the universe ascribed to dead and stupid bodies, we shall only demand why, in our nineteenth experiment, upon the exsuction of the ambient air, the water deserted the upper half of the glass tube, and did not ascend to fill it up till the external air was let in upon it. Whereas, by its easy and sudden rejoining that upper part of the tube, it appeared both that there was then much space devoid of air, and that the water might, with small or no resistance, have ascended into it, if it could have done so without the impulsion of the readmitted air; which, it seems, was necessary to mind the water of its formerly neglected duty to the universe."
Boyle then goes on to explain the phenomena correctly by the pressure of the air. Elsewhere he accounts for the diminished pressure on the top of a mountain by the diminished weight of the superincumbent column of air.
The treatise on "The Spring of the Air" met with much opposition, and Boyle considered it necessary to defend his doctrine against the objections of Franciscus Linus and Hobbes. In this defence he described the experiment in connection with which he is most generally remembered. Linus had admitted that the air might possess a certain small amount of elasticity, but maintained that the force with which mercury rose in a barometer tube was due mainly to a totally different action, as though a string were pulling upon it from above. This was his funicular hypothesis. Boyle undertook to show that the pressure of the air might be made to support a much higher column of mercury than that of the barometer. To this end he took a glass tube several feet in length, and bent so as to form two vertical legs connected below. The shorter leg was little more than a foot long, and hermetically closed at the top. The longer leg was nearly eight feet in length, and open at the top. The tube was suspended by strings upon the staircase, the bend at the bottom pressing lightly against the bottom of a box placed to receive the mercury employed in case of accident. Each leg of the tube was provided with a paper scale. Mercury was poured in at the open end, the tube being tilted so as to allow some of the air to escape from the shorter limb until the mercury stood at the same level in both legs when the tube was vertical. The length of the closed tube occupied by the air was then just twelve inches. The height of the barometer was about 29-1/8 inches. Mercury was gently poured into the open limb by one operator, while another watched its height in the closed limb. The results of the experiments are given in the table on the opposite page.
In this table the third column gives the result of adding to the second column the height of the barometer, which expresses in inches of mercury the pressure of the air on the free surface of the mercury in the longer limb. The fourth column gives the total pressure, in inches of mercury, on the hypothesis that the pressure of the air varies inversely as the volume. The agreement between the third and fourth columns is very close, considering the roughness of the experiment and that no trouble appears to have been taken to _calibrate_ the shorter limb of the tube, and justified Boyle in concluding that the hypothesis referred to expresses the relation between the volume and pressure of a given mass of air.
+-----------+---------------+----------------+--------------+ |Length of |Height of |Total pressure |Total pressure| |closed tube|mercury in open|on air in inches|according to | |occupied |tube above that|of mercury. |Boyle's law. | |by air. |in closed tube.| | | +-----------+---------------+----------------+--------------+ | 12 | 0 | 29-2/16 | 29-2/16 | | 11-1/2 | 1-7/16 | 30-9/16 | 30-6/16 | | 11 | 2-13/16 | 31-15/16 | 31-12/16 | | 10-1/2 | 4-6/16 | 33-8/16 | 33-1/7 | | 10 | 6-3/16 | 35-5/16 | 35 | | 9-1/2 | 7-14/16 | 37 | 36-15/19 | | 9 | 10-1/16 | 39-3/16 | 38-7/8 | | 8-1/2 | 12-8/16 | 41-10/16 | 41-2/17 | | 8 | 15-1/16 | 44-3/16 | 43-11/16 | | 7-1/2 | 17-15/16 | 47-1/16 | 46-3/5 | | 7 | 21-3/16 | 50-5/16 | 50 | | 6-1/2 | 25-3/16 | 54-5/16 | 53-10/13 | | 6 | 29-11/16 | 58-13/16 | 58-2/8 | | 5-3/4 | 32-3/16 | 61-5/16 | 60-13/23 | | 5-1/2 | 34-15/16 | 64-1/16 | 63-6/11 | | 5-1/4 | 37-15/16 | 67-1/16 | 66-4/7 | | 5 | 41-9/16 | 70-11/16 | 70 | | 4-3/4 | 45 | 74-2/16 | 73-11/19 | | 4-1/2 | 48-12/16 | 77-14/16 | 77-2/3 | | 4-1/4 | 53-11/16 | 82-13/16 | 82-4/17 | | 4 | 58-2/16 | 87-14/16 | 87-1/8 | | 3-3/4 | 63-15/16 | 93-1/16 | 93-1/5 | | 3-1/2 | 71-5/16 | 100-7/16 | 99-6/7 | | 3-1/4 | 78-11/16 | 107-13/16 | 107-7/13 | | 3 | 88-7/16 | 117-9/16 | 116-4/8 | +-----------+---------------+----------------+--------------+
William Garnett's Heroes of Science: Physicists opens with a preface that immediately signals its pedagogical intent: the book aims to bring within reach of every boy and girl material otherwise accessible only to those with extensive libraries. This framing shapes the author's diction throughout, as Garnett balances technical exposition with explanatory clarity. His descriptions of experiments—such as Rumford's ballistic pendulum and gunpowder pressure tests—reveal a writer who values precision over dramatization. Garnett does not merely narrate results; he dissects methodology, noting where Rumford's calculations were unsatisfactory because he took no account of inner layers giving way before outer layers. This critical eye, applied consistently, gives the biographies an analytical texture rare in popular science of the period.
Technical Diction and the Language of Experiment
Garnett's vocabulary is deliberately technical, reflecting his background as a Cambridge fellow and principal of a college of science. He uses terms like ballistic pendulum, products of combustion, and maximum safe load without glossing them, trusting his young readers to follow or consult references. When describing Rumford's experiments, he writes of a receiver closed by a plug of well-greased leather and a hemisphere of steel pressed down by a 24-pounder brass cannon weighing 8081 pounds. The specificity of numbers and materials grounds the narrative in observable fact. Garnett also employs conditional language—if the products of combustion were confined—to indicate hypothetical reasoning, a hallmark of scientific writing. His diction thus serves a dual purpose: it instructs in physics while modeling the precise language of inquiry.
Narrative Structure: From Biography to Principle
Each biographical sketch follows a pattern: Garnett introduces the scientist's life briefly, then pivots to their key experiments, often interrupting chronological flow to explain underlying principles. In the Rumford section, for instance, he moves from the statue in Munich to the ballistic pendulum experiments, then to a critique of Rumford's pressure calculations, and finally to a discussion of Armstrong's improved gun design. This structure prioritizes conceptual coherence over strict biography. Garnett's authorial voice emerges in evaluative phrases—not satisfactory, much more satisfactory result—which guide the reader's judgment. He also uses comparative analysis, contrasting Rumford's method with Armstrong's, to illustrate progress in scientific understanding. The narrative thus becomes a vehicle for teaching not just facts, but the iterative nature of scientific discovery.
Descriptive Precision in Reporting Experiments
Garnett's descriptions of experiments are remarkably detailed, often including apparatus specifications and procedural steps. For Rumford's heat conduction studies, he notes that convection currents are the principal means by which heat is transferred through the substance of fluids, and describes an ascending current in the centre, and a descending current all round the periphery. This level of detail allows readers to visualize the process. Garnett also points out limitations: Rumford pushed his conclusions further than his experiments warranted. Such critical remarks are woven into the descriptive fabric, showing that Garnett values accuracy over hagiography. The descriptions are not mere summaries; they are analytical reconstructions that invite the reader to assess the evidence alongside the author.
Authorial Voice and the Role of the Critic
Garnett does not present himself as a neutral compiler. His authorial voice is that of a fellow scientist assessing the work of predecessors. He uses phrases like we have seen and hence concluded to create a shared reasoning process with the reader. When critiquing Rumford's barrel experiment, he explains that the inner layers of material are stretched to their breaking tension before they receive much support from the outer layers, a principle he then credits to Armstrong. This evaluative stance is consistent: Garnett praises ingenuity but does not shy from pointing out errors or incomplete reasoning. His diction—not satisfactory, much more satisfactory—carries judgment. The result is a biography that doubles as a lesson in scientific methodology, where the author's critical eye becomes a tool for education.
Garnett's Heroes of Science rewards readers who attend to its technical details and critical asides. The author's choices in diction and structure reveal a commitment to scientific literacy over mere storytelling. Readers may find it useful to compare Garnett's descriptions with the original papers he cites, noting where his interpretations add value. The book stands as a document of late-Victorian science education, where the line between biography and textbook was deliberately blurred.
That rainy afternoon, I kept returning to Garnett's careful diction, how precision itself became a quiet kind of poetry. It made me think of light bending, of lenses and patience. Later, almost without deciding, I found myself opening The Wonders of Optics — Story, Setting & Ideas, and the same hush of clarity settled over the room again.
Sebastian Torres
5 days agoAlexander Thompson
2 weeks agoOliver Davis
1 week agoLeo Green
1 week ago-
Kevin Nichols - 1 month ago
While the subject matter is interesting, this book feels outdated in its approach and lacks critical analysis. It presents a rather hero-worshipping view of the physicists, ignoring controversies or personal flaws. The science is oversimplified, sometimes bordering on inaccurate. For a more balanced and nuanced look at these historical figures, readers should seek modern biographies. -
Carolyn Sandra Warren - 3 weeks ago
This collection of physicist biographies is both inspiring and educational. It covers the lives and achievements of great minds like Galileo, Newton, and Faraday, highlighting their struggles and breakthroughs. The author brings each scientist to life, making their discoveries accessible and exciting. It's a fantastic read for students and anyone interested in the human side of science. I couldn't put it down. -
Matthew Johnson - 6 days ago
The book provides solid biographical sketches of key physicists, and I appreciated the historical context. However, the author sometimes glosses over complex scientific details in favor of narrative, which might leave readers wanting more technical depth. Still, it's a good introduction to the lives of these pioneers, and the writing is engaging enough to hold your attention.
What did you think of this book?
Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.
Madison Flores
1 month ago