Abstract
For Hooke, there were many problematic areas concerning air. The nature of the air itself, however, as we will see, was not a problem. The problematic areas, of which there were as many as one could find things affected by the air, were the effects of air on other things. Because they greatly affected human existence, these issues were important to Bacon, Boyle and Hooke.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See N.O., II, 45.
For a general study of Boyle’s life and work see Louis T. More, The Life and Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (Oxford, 1944).
For a statement of the social, cultural, and religious background to Boyle’s work, as well as the influence of Bacon, Torricelli, and Pascal, see H. Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science (New York, 1962), ch. 7 and J. B. Conant, On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach (New Haven, Conn., 1947), ch. 2. For a general survey of Boyle’s work on the air refer to N. Mohler, “The Spring and Weight of the Air,” The American Physics Teacher, Vol. 7 (1939), pp. 380-389. For a more detailed account of Boyle’s work in pneumatics see J. B. Conant, “Robert Boyle’s Experiments in Pneumatics,” Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science (ed. by J. B. Conant and L. K. Nash, Cambridge, Mass., 1957), Vol. I, pp. 3-63.
See M. Boas, Robert Boyle and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry (Cambridge, England, 1958) for the details of Boyle’s work.
See ibid., ch. 6.
According to Boyle, air is fit for respiration because it contains a certain “quintessence” or “spirituous part” which, when pumped out, leaves behind only the heavier, grosser parts that are unable to “cherish the vital flame residing in the heart.” See Boyle, Vol. I, p. 69. In a similar fashion, Hooke believed that respiration, as well as combustion, depended upon certain bodies in the air which, when removed or somehow “satiated,” for example, when a small animal was kept inside an airtight container long enough, brought on suffocation. See Gunther, Vol. 7, 1/9/1679. For a discussion of the problems of respiration and combustion with respect to the nature of the air see T. S. Patterson, “John Mayow in Contemporary Setting,” Isis, Vol. 15 (1931), pp. 47-96; 504-546 and D. McKie, “Fire and the Flamma Vitalis: Boyle, Hooke and Mayow,” Science, Medicine and History (ed. by E. A. Underwood, Oxford, 1953), Vol. I, pp. 469-488.
Boyle, Vol. 3, p. 463.
See Boyle, Vol. 5, p. 111. See also Vol. 4, pp. 25, 27, 31.
Gunther, Vol. 7, 1/17/1678.
M., p. 11.
M., p. 21. It might be noted that Newton, as revealed in his second paper on light (1675), accepted Hooke’s explanation as the true one.
See Gunther, Vol. 6, 12/24 and 31/1662.
Loc. cit.
See M. Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages (Madison, Wisconsin, 1964) for a detailed account of the translation history of Archimedes. See also G. Sarton, The Appreciation of Ancient and Medieval Science during the Renaissance (New York, 1961), Lecture III, #3 on the importance of Archimedes with respect to the founders of modern mechanics.
See G. Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (tr. and ed. by H. Crew and A. de Salvio), First Day, Section 119. 19 See G. Sarton, “Simon Stevin of Bruges,” Isis, Vol. 21 (1934), pp. 241-303, especially sections 13, 45-52.
See M., pp. 222ff.
See M., pp. 225ff.
See loc. cit.
See Gunther, Vol. 6, 12/10/1662.
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 2/7 and 14/1678.
M., p. 225.
M., p. 227.
Loc. cit.
Loc. cit.
M., p. 240.
M., p. 236. Mariotte and Halley later estimated the air’s extension as 35 and 45 miles respectively. See A. Wolf, A History of Science, Technology and Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (2nd ed., New York, 1959), Vol. I, pp. 314-316.
The Frenchman Edme Mariotte came upon the law independently in 1676.
See, for example, E. Andrade, “Robert Hooke,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 137 (1950), pp. 153-184.
See Boyle, Vol. I, p. 102. It might be added in passing that it was probably Hooke who wrote the attack on Linus’ “Aristotle’s Wheel” argument against the existence of a vacuum which concludes Boyle’s Defence.
See L. T. More, op. cit., pp. 94-96. But what of a possible Towneley claim to priority? In his 1661 retrial of his 1660 experiment on air springiness, Hooke said he had forgotten much of his earlier work on air by then and so resolved to redo his experiment. This time, he added, he intended to take into consideration Towneley’s (spelled Townly by Hooke) suggestions and arrive at greater exactitude. Hooke himself is not much help with respect to Towneley. He simply states that in his retrials, “I did not exactly follow the method that I had used at first; but, having lately heard of Mr. Townly’s Hypothesis, I shap’d my course in such sort, as would be most convenient for the examination of that Hypothesis.” (M., p. 225.) The results, claimed Hooke, were basically the same as in his 1660 experiments. According to the Dictionary of National Biography, Richard Towneley of Towneley Hall, Lancaster, was a country gentleman noted for interests in ancient literature and the new sciences. His son, Christopher Towneley (1604–1674), the only one explicitly listed in the Dictionary of National Biography, had similar interests which he followed in the form of correspondence with noted men of his time on various subjects. A younger relative of his, also named Richard, the Towneley referred to by Hooke, contributed several articles to the Philosophical Transactions and is mentioned several times in Hooke’s Diary. (See G. Keynes, A Bibliography of Dr. Robert Hooke, pp. 6, 8.) Other than this, practically nothing in known concerning the Towneleys’ relations with their contemporaries. Newton, on page seven of his handwritten notes on the Micrographia, notes that “Mr. Townlys Hypothesis is the dimension (or expansion) of the aire is reciprocall proportiona to its spring (or force required to compresse it). By Mr. Hookes Experience …” Newton then copied out the table of figures given on page 226 of the Micrographia. (See ibid., p. 107.) Also, in Newton’s Prin-cipia, no. 68, p. 609 in the Cajori edition we read: “And having this ratio, we may compute the rarity of the air… supposing the expansion thereof to be inversely proportional to its compression; and this proposition has been proved by the experiments of Hooke and others.” Marie Boas states flatly that what later became known as Boyle’s Law was discovered independently by Towneley and Hooke. (See M. Boas, op. cit., p. 44.)
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 12/13/1677.
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 12/20/1677.
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 1/3/1678.
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 1/10/1678.
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 1/17/1678.
See Gunther, Vol. 7, 2/6/1679.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1970 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Centore, F.F. (1970). The Mechanics of Fluid Motions. In: Robert Hooke’s Contributions to Mechanics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9413-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9413-6_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8633-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9413-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive