Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/170

 form E=C−4/c, when  is large, thus satisfying the condition proposed by Lord Rayleigh. The theoretical interpretation of this formula remains to some extent a matter of future investigation, but it appears to satisfy experiment within the limits of observational error. In order to compare Planck’s formula graphically with Wien’s, the distribution curves corresponding to both formulae are plotted in fig. 8 for a temperature of 2000° abs., taking the value of the constant c = 14,600 with a scale of wave-length in microns. The curves in fig. 9 illustrate the difference between the two formulae for the variation of the intensity of radiation corresponding to a fixed wave-length 30. Assuming Wien’s displacement law, the curves may be applied to find the energy for any other wave-length or temperature, by simply altering the wave-length scale in inverse ratio to the temperature, or vice versa. Thus to find the distribution curve for 1000° abs., it is only necessary to multiply all the numbers in the wave-length scale of fig. 8 by 2; or to find the variation curve for wave-length 60, the numbers on the temperature scale of fig. 9 should be divided by 2. The ordinate scales must be increased in proportion to the fifth power of the temperature, or inversely as the fifth power of the wave-length respectively in figs. 8 and 9 if comparative results are required for different temperatures or wave-lengths. The results hitherto obtained for cases other than full radiation are not sufficiently simple and definite to admit of profitable discussion in the present article.

—It would not be possible, within the limits of an article like the present, to give tables of the specific thermal properties of different substances so far as they have been ascertained by experiment. To be of any use, such tables require to be extremely detailed, with very full references and explanations with regard to the value of the experimental evidence, and the limits within which the results may be relied on. The quantity of material available is so enormous and its value so varied, that the most elaborate tables still require reference to the original authorities. Much information will be found collected in Landolt and Bornstein’s Physical and Chemical Tables (Berlin, 1905). Shorter tables, such as Everett’s Units and Physical Constants, are useful as illustrations of a system, but are not sufficiently complete for use in scientific investigations. Some of the larger works of reference, such as A. A. Winkelmann’s Handbuch der Physik, contain fairly complete tables of specific properties, but these tables occupy so much space, and are so misleading if incomplete, that they are generally omitted in theoretical textbooks.

Among older textbooks on heat, Tyndall’s Heat may be recommended for its vivid popular interest, and Balfour Stewart’s Heat for early theories of radiation. Maxwell’s Theory of Heat and Tait’s Heat give a broad and philosophical survey of the subject. Among modern textbooks, Preston’s Theory of Heat and Poynting and Thomson’s Heat are the best known, and have been brought well up to date. Sections on heat are included in all the general textbooks of Physics, such as those of Deschanel (translated by Everett), Ganot (translated by Atkinson), Daniell, Watson, &c. Of the original investigations on the subject, the most important have already been cited. Others will be found in the collected papers of Joule, Kelvin and Maxwell. Treatises on special branches of the subject, such as Fourier’s Conduction of Heat, are referred to in the separate articles in this encyclopaedia dealing with recent progress, of which the following is a list:, , , ,, , , , , , , , , . For the practical aspects of heating see.

HEATH, BENJAMIN (1704–1766), English classical scholar and bibliophile, was born at Exeter on the 20th of April 1704. He was the son of a wealthy merchant, and was thus able to devote himself mainly to travel and book-collecting. He became town clerk of his native city in 1752, and held the office till his death on the 13th of September 1766. In 1763 he had published a pamphlet advocating the repeal of the cider tax in Devonshire, and his endeavours led to success three years later. As a classical scholar he made his reputation by his critical and metrical notes on the Greek tragedians, which procured him an honorary D.C.L. from Oxford (31st of March 1752). He also left MS. notes on Burmann’s and Martyn’s editions of Virgil, on Euripides, Catullus, Tibullus, and the greater part of Hesiod. In some of these he adopts the whimsical name Dexiades Ericius. His Revisal of Shakespear’s Text (1765) was an answer to the “insolent dogmatism” of Bishop Warburton. The Essay towards a Demonstrative Proof of the Divine Existence, Unity and Attributes (1740) was intended to combat the opinions of Voltaire, Rousseau and Hume. Two of his sons (among a family of thirteen) were Benjamin, headmaster of Harrow (1771–1785), and George, headmaster of Eton (1796). His collection of rare classical works formed the nucleus of his son Benjamin’s famous library (Bibliotheca Heathiana).

HEATH, NICHOLAS (c. 1501–1578), archbishop of York and lord chancellor, was born in London about 1501 and graduated B.A. at Oxford in 1519. He then migrated to Christ’s College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1520, M.A. in 1522, and was elected fellow in 1524. After holding minor preferments he was appointed archdeacon of Stafford in 1534 and graduated D.D. in 1535. He then accompanied (q.v.), bishop of Hereford, on his mission to promote a theological and political understanding with the Lutheran princes of Germany. His selection for this duty implies a readiness on Heath’s part to proceed some distance along the path of reform; but his dealings with the Lutherans did not confirm this tendency, and Heath’s subsequent career was closely associated with the cause of reaction. In 1539, the year of the Six Articles, he was made bishop of Rochester, and in 1543 he succeeded Latimer at Worcester. His Catholicism, however, was of a less rigid type than Gardiner’s and Bonner’s; he felt something of the force of the national antipathy to foreign influence, whether ecclesiastical or secular, and was always impressed by the necessity of national unity, so far as was possible, in matters of faith. Apparently he made no difficulty about carrying out the earlier reforms of Edward VI., and he accepted the first book of common prayer after it had been modified by the House of Lords in a Catholic direction.

His definite breach with the Reformation occurred on the grounds, on which four centuries later Leo XIII. denied the Catholicity of the reformed English Church, namely, on the question of the Ordinal drawn up in February 1550. Heath refused to accept it, was imprisoned, and in 1551 deprived of his bishopric. On Mary’s accession he was released and restored, and made president of the council of the Marches and Wales. In 1555 he was promoted to the archbishopric of York, which he did much to enrich after the Protestant spoliation; he built York House in the Strand. After Gardiner’s death he was appointed lord chancellor, probably on Pole’s recommendation; for Heath, like Pole himself, disliked the Spanish party in England. Unlike Pole, however, he seems to have been averse from the excessive persecution of Mary’s reign, and no Protestants were burnt in his diocese. He exercised, however, little influence on Mary’s secular or ecclesiastical policy.

On Mary’s death Heath as chancellor at once proclaimed Elizabeth. Like Sir Thomas More he held that it was entirely within the competence of the national state, represented by parliament, to determine questions of the succession to the throne; and although Elizabeth did not renew his commission as lord chancellor, he continued to sit in the privy council for two months until the government had determined to complete the breach with the Roman Catholic Church; and as late as April 1559 he assisted the government by helping to arrange the Westminster Conference, and reproving his more truculent co-religionists. He refused to crown Elizabeth because she would not have the coronation service accompanied with the elevation of the Host; and ecclesiastical ceremonies and doctrine could not, in Heath’s view, be altered or abrogated by any mere national authority. Hence he steadily resisted Elizabeth’s acts of supremacy and uniformity, although he had acquiesced in the acts of 1534 and 1549. Like others of Henry’s bishops, he had been convinced by the events of Edward VI.’s reign that Sir