of temperature, be proportional to the square of its quantity. I knew
from Carnot that this _must_ be true (and it _is_ true; only now I call
it 'motivity,' to avoid clashing with Joule's 'mechanical value'). But
as I listened on and on, I saw that (though Carnot had vitally important
truth, not to be abandoned) Joule had certainly a great truth and a
great discovery, and a most important measurement to bring forward. So,
instead of rising, with my objection, to the meeting, I waited till it
was over, and said my say to Joule himself, at the end of the meeting.
This made my first introduction to him. After that I had a long talk
over the whole matter at one of the _conversaziones_ of the Association,
and we became fast friends from thenceforward. However, he did not tell
me he was to be married in a week or so; but about a fortnight later I
was walking down from Chamounix to commence the tour of Mont Blanc, and
whom should I meet walking up but Joule, with a long thermometer in his
hand, and a carriage with a lady in it not far off. He told me he had
been married since we had parted at Oxford! and he was going to try for
elevation of temperature in waterfalls. We trysted to meet a few days
later at Martigny, and look at the Cascade de Sallanches, to see if it
might answer. We found it too much broken into spray. His young wife, as
long as she lived, took complete interest in his scientific work, and
both she and he showed me the greatest kindness during my visits to them
in Manchester for our experiments on the thermal effects of fluid in
motion, which we commenced a few years later"

"Joule's paper at the Oxford meeting made a great sensation. Faraday was
there and was much struck with it, but did not enter fully into the new
views. It was many years after that before any of the scientific chiefs
began to give their adhesion. It was not long after, when Stokes told me
he was inclined to be a Joulite."