A Daily History of Holes, Dots, Lines, Science, History, Math, Physics, Art, the Unintentional Absurd, Architecture, Maps, Data Visualization, Blank and Missing Things, and so on. |1.6 million words, 7500 images, 4.9 million hits| Press & appearances in The Times, Le Figaro, Mensa, The Economist, The Guardian, Discovery News, Slate, Le Monde, Sci American Blogs, Le Pont, and many other places… 5000+ total posts since 2008.

Author: JF Ptak

  • Found-Art in Scientific Journals–Lonely Little Light (1926)

    JF Ptak Science Books  Quick Post

    There haven’t been that many entries in the scientific journal found-art category on this site, and it seems that mainly the artworks found/noticed have occurred in the Annalen der Physik, Scientific American,  and Nature. Hunting for something else (as is usually the case) I found this lovely bit of design in Physikalische Zeitschrift, volume 26, 1926 (page 731, plate 5), illustrating an article by R. Seeliger on the electric arc, “Die Entwocklung des Lichtbogen”. It isn’t so much that the image itself is interesting for the sake of found-art–rather it is its placement, and the lack of almost anything else, and the pleasure of it being surrounded by pretty much nothing that makes this image so artful (or at least noticeable) to me. 

    Phyz Zeit 1926 arc

    There is a bit of an unusual history about the priority of discovery of the electric arc, though that notice usually goes to Humphrey Davy in 1802 and 1809. There was earlier work in 1802 by Vasily Petrov (d. 1834), but even at the time his experimentation was obscure and not much shared. I only mention this because of the line that leapt from the “page” of the Wiki entry for him, saying  “…soon after his death he fell into oblivion in Russia”, which seems pretty harsh to me, however true it may be.


  • Radio and Television, a Peep into the Future of 1930 from 1929

     JF Ptak Science Books   Post 2740

    Pop Mech 1929 radio of the future

    The odd thing about this odd speculation for an odd look advancing a single odd year into the future is that it is so, well, odd. Here on page 1009 of the January-June volume of Popular Mechanics the editors speculated on what the approaching year might bring in the evolution/revolution of the radio. Radio as a popular medium was relatively new-ish in 1922 and the in six quick years very much developed for wide use, and so it must have appeared not too long a leap to jump into a radio for 1930 that offered images to accompany the broadcast. The idea of “seeing by wireless” was already upon folks back then, or at least the technology was.

    Since the vision of the future of 1930 was that of the radio, I’m assuming that the image that “the feminine football fan” was seeing in 1930 was a static image of someone punting–the capacity for that already existed, so I suppose that what Popular Mechanics was expressing was the general distribution of this new wireless set.  Perhaps “television” wasn’t mentioned because this was a speculation on radio.

    As a matter of fact, television as an invention was already established by 1929–deeply so. There was already a television station  (established in 1928, WRGB), which already was several years after John L. Baird’s1 first public demo of his mechanical tv at Selfrdige’s department Store in London on March 25, 1925. And by 1926 Baird had made a successful demonstration of a moving image, which was well documented in a 62-page book months later by Alfred Dinsdale, Seeing by Wireless, in which “television”  is elegantly described as an invention where “we see what is happening at a distance while it is happening”. (There is a famous and relatively creepy image that is described as the first photo of a moving image transmitted via television, a death-mask-like portrait of Baird’s business part, Oliver Hutchinson, and which first appeared in The Times on January 28, 1926.)

    In the same period a D.C. man, Charles Francis Jenkins, was having success with his electronic television, where by 1925 he had already publicly demonstrated a transmission of silhouetted images (and this following a dozen years after his first publication on the subject, “Motion Pictures by Wireless” in 1913).  Two years later (April 7, 1927) yet another very successful demo was made by Herbert E. Ives and Frank Gray (both of Bell Labs). A year later, on September 3, 1928, the beautifully-named Philo Farnsworth was far enough along with his invention that its public demonstration on that date is recognized as the first electronic television demonstration.

    In any event, I wanted to note some of the events in the development of television that occurred around the time of the publication of this issue of Popular Mechanics to show how much work and how far along the new medium had come to give  a little background into the question of why this photo essay would stand by a static-image radio while a moving image electronic television was being shown to be so successful. I’m a little stumped.

    Notes:

    1. I don’t know where else to hang this tidbit, so here it goes: it is just interesting to note that two Scots–Alexander Graham Bell and John Logie Baird–gave ears and eyes to human communication, one with the telephone and the other with the television.  There are many others who made very significant contributions to both developments, but I thought that this was worth a mention.

    Also, Frankenstein’s “monster” may not have been flesh and blood, but a moving picture of it. Here’s the work of one Frankenstein with a patent relating to the development of the media monster, television: “VON JAWORSKI, W. und FRANKENSTEIN, A., “Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur Fernsichtbarmachung von Bildung und GegenstÄnden mittels Selenzellen, Dreifarbenfilter und Zerlegung des Bilden in Punktgruppen durch Spiegel”, Brevet allemand, 172 376, 20 August 1904.”

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:

    —

  • A Great Mental Calculator (1856)

    JF Ptak Science Books   Post 2739

    George Parker Bidder (1806-1878) gave a lecture (without notes) explaining to the audience at the Institution of Civil Engineers in 18561 his interior practices and habits in performing absolutely prodigious and complex arithmetical feats entirely in his head. He was among the first tier of performing human calculators (like Zerah Colburn, b. 1804) mental calculations enchanted large audiences from the stages, answering seemingly impossible questions with accuracy and speed. It is in the 1856 paper (which Martin Gardner refers to as “historic2” and “valuable”) that he relates some of the practices which clarify his process–for example, one large element was that he would keep one fact in his head at a time, until it was finished, and then move on. Of course for people who did not have anything even remotely resembling this impossible ability, the information is interesting, though I have no idea how useful it may be…unless you were already a savant, that is.  Some things are just not to be known by mere mortals. Like the probably-apocryphal story of someone asking Hans Bethe how Richard Feynman had solved–on his feet–some impossible something, and Bethe responds: “First he thinks very very hard….and then he gets the answer”.) Something like that. 

    In any event, here’s the article, reproduced by Devonshire Perspectives website. My own copy is in a tightly-bound volume from the proceedings, and no doubt I would have broken the spine trying to copy the thing. That said, if anyone wants to buy this volume, it is for sale–this is a book selling site, sorta, after all.  

    The full lecture by Bidder:

    https://www.devonperspectives.co.uk/georgebidder/OnMentalCalculation.pdf

    Notes:

    1. Bidder, George Parker. “On Mental Calculation”, in Minutes of Proceedings of he Institution of Civil Engineers with Abstracts of the Discussions, volume XV, Session 1855-6, London, published by the Institution,  pp 251-280 in the 534pp volume. 

    2.  Gardner, Martin. “Mathematical Games”, in Scientific American, 216/4, April 1967, p. 117. 

    Also, I found an interesting biographical treatment of Bidder:

    • Bidder, George Parker. Mental Arithmetic. A short account of George Bidder, the celebrated mental calculator: with a variety of the most difficult questions, proposed to him at the principal towns in the kingdom, and his surprising rapid answers, etc. by George Parker BIDDER Rapid Calculator and Engineer., 1821

    It seems as though there was a separate edition of this 1856 lecture tens years later, published by Clowes:

    • Bidder, George Parker, and Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain). On Mental Calculation. Edited by Charles Manby. London: Printed by W. Clowes, 1866.

    And another printing somewhat later:

    • Bidder, George Parker. On Mental Calculation. London: Printed by W. Clowes, 1886.

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • Spaghetti & Subways: an Ordered Anxiety of 1929

    JF Ptak Science Books  Quick Post

    spaghetti (or is it linguine?) and subways is not a common topic on this blog, but that was all I could think about (and eating some eggplant parm) when looking at some of the illustrations in Robert Ridway’s1 “The Rapid transit Subways of New York City”2. This was a pamphlet published in 1929 for a World Engineering Congress in Tokyo, and Ridway (67 years old at this point) was a very old hand in public works/building/transport in NYC, and gave a pretty masterful review of the subway situation in the city. In any event, this is the image that stopped me:

    Ridgway subway cut wall st

    Holy moley.

    Here’s another, this one a plan, and for a different location, but, still…:

    Ridgway subsurface 40th st

    I don’t have that much to say about the ordered anxiety of these images except “oh, my”.  

    Notes:

    1. “Robert Ridgway, sometimes spelt Robert Ridgeway, (born Oct. 19, 1862)  was an American civil engineer. He did not study engineering at any school, but worked 49 years for New York City in the construction of major projects, and became Chief Engineer of the Transit Commission in 1921. He became president of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Metropolitan section. Further he became president of the national ASCE in 1925. The Ridgway Awards are an annual award of the ASCE Met section named for him.”–Wikipedia

    2.  9×7″, 32pp, plus 17 plates (two folding). This is an offprint, or at least a separately-printed paper, presented by Ridgway at the World Engineering Congress in Tokyo, 1929, and presumably printed there. It is a SIGNED copy to another engineer of high order, Maj. General W.L.Siebert. There are NO copies located in WorldCat/OCLC.

     

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • “Youth too often fails to interpret itself to age” (1927)

    JF Ptak Science Books  Quick Post

    I found an interesting bit a the end of an article that I happened to see–a wonderful last line, and the second good line I’ve seen in this young day. (The other one comes from my friend Jeff Donlan out in Santa Fe, who started the sentence of an email yesterday with “The ice sublimed…”, but that is another story.)  The sentence that I had in mind is “Youth too often fails to interpret itself to age”, which is the half-inscrutable closer to the anonymous book review “The Numerical Measurement of Genius” of Lewis Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius which appears in Nature magazine for 14 May 1927. The reviewer is referencing the translation of childhood IQs of their  later-to-be-famous selves. The reviewer points out that Ben Franklin’s intelligence quotient was estimated at 145 IQ at a young age, while Darwin as a child was 135, and (somehow) Newton was given 130 and  John Locke a 125.

    Where this was going, I don’t truly know (though the reviewer ultimately found high potential in Terman’s work here in 1927, and Terman lists as top-100 or so of all-time cited work in psychology). I do know that this one one installment of Terman’s work on genius and is one of the longest-conducted longitudinal studies in the history of psychology. One conclusion that Terman reached after many years up to his elbows in geniousity was that high-IQ doesn’t necessarily make a “success”, that there isn’t a correlation between intellect and achievement. So I guess the mostly “normal” IQs for the geniuses named earlier also didn’t correlate to their later super-achievements, or something.  

    I just liked the sentence for its oddness, disappointing as it is, because it is almost artful in its vaguely condescending nature. 

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • High Realism in Anatomical Art: the Skull (1690 and 1872)

    JF Ptak Science Books   Quick Post

     Anatomy--braun--

    The collaborative work of anatomist Wilhelm Braune (1831-1892) and artist C. Schmiedel (fl. mid-1800s) produced a singular work,  Topographisch-anatomischer atlas nach durchschnitten an gefrorenen cadavern…(published in Leipzig in 1872), which was an oustanding example of high-realism in the art of anatomy. This book is pretty much right-to-business, with no extraneous bits as had appeared in many anatomies for centuries. And even though these practices had pretty much expired by the first quarter of the 19th century, Braune/Schmiedel was ever more so detailed and simple–their design was fabulous, and their detail light and exceptional. 

    I love the detail of the eyelashes and the short haircut.  

     

    Anatomy braune04[Source: National Library of Medicine.]

    They also made use of sliced frozen sections of cadavers, which seems to give their work that crystalline touch.  The first image looks at the brain from top-to-bottom, while the second reverses the view, which is in itself somewhat unusual, even in 1872. 

    Looking into a very finely-produced skull from an earlier period in the work of the anatomist Govard Bidloo (1649-1713) and the artist Gérard de Lairesse (1640-1711) in their Ontleding des menschelyken lichaams, (which was printed in Amsterdam in 1690) we find a bit of a different story.

    Anatomy skull[Source: National Library of Medicine.]

    One interesting aspect of Bidloo is that he can be extraordinarily dedtailed and still lend a rather baroque still life to engage his subject–like the skull with musical score, above.  There’s no reason for the added bit of scenery, its just a luxurious background for the anatomy. And then there are examples like this incredible facial/neck dissection below, which is very hard-core realisitc, just as what you might find on any dissecting table, which most assuredly did not come equiped with pen/ink/music score.  Bidloo here is ulrta-real, more so than the greater majority of anatomist/illustrators. [Ontleding des menschelyken lichaams...printed in Amsterdam, 1690, as a copperplate engraving with etching. 

     

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • The Wright Brothers in the Popular Press: Scientific American, 1902 (Revisited)

    JF Ptak Science Books  Post 2738

    Wright bros 1902 Sci AmI used to wonder why the Wright brothers’ experimental gliding flights at Kill Devil Hills in 1901 received so little attention in the popular scientific press at that time–particularly the coverage in Scientific American. The reporting on their successful experiments was tucked away safely in the depths of the SA issue for 22 February 1902, cushioned and obscured by other news reports on minor but newsworthy subjects.

    The report is sandwiched in between “Winter Railroading in Alaska”, “Experiments of M. Moissan  with hybrids of potassium” and “A Garbage-Consuming plant” on the page opposite with  “Alloys for Brass and Bronze “ just below it.  And as it turns out there are more words devoted to the Alaska railroading article than to the Wrights as well.  There are dozens of articles given better placement in this issue: steam boiler inspection, variable speed gears for pumps, making photographs with electric headlights, domestic manufacturing of Portland cement, assorted announcements of electrical progress, and other such stuff. The front page of the issue is dedicated to the new bridge of the Redheugh Bridge at Newcastle-on-Tyne; the Wright article follows on page eight. 

    Even though the brothers had been experimenting with gliding flight at Kill Devil since 1900, reports of their activities had been mostly unreported–and this partly of their own accord, for the sake of security and privacy, partly from the event being dismissed as another crackpot flying idea, and possibly partly because the location of their flights was so removed and obscure.  And this seems to have suited them—the brothers seemed not to need or even want publicity, or recognition, at this point. The Wrights were not predisposed to be accommodating to strangers, necessarily, though neither would they ever be rude; as they did enjoy their privacy, and they would protect the details of their flying machine with scrupulous vigor. So, even though there weren’t necessarily public demonstrations of their flying machine, neither were they done in secret.

    Kill Devil Hills was very remote at that time, and few people outside of the Outer Banks made the trips to bear witness. There were people who  did witness  the Wrights’ successes here, but it seems that this was not enough to convince many people that the remarkable achievements made there were true and accurate. So here were reports on their progress, that they had made incomparable strides since they first became interested in flight in 1896 following the failure of Samuel Langley and the Potomac River crash of his aerodrome. (Just for the record, Alex Bell also referred to his aircraft as aeromdomes.) And there was still at this point the perceived lunacy of people who pursued the construction of flying machines, an unbrilliant assumption that would persist until 1908, when all of that would change.

    This report for February seems to be the earliest on the 1901 flights in North Carolina, with the principle difference (from what I can see) is that this earlier glider didn’t yet have a tail which would make an appearance a little latter in the year (followed by a very critical discovery on the need for the maneuverability of the tail.) It also seems that the 1902 gliders were as different from the 1901 gliders as the 1903 glider/plane would be from the 1902 model. 

    Still, given the competing news of the day, and the importance of the Wrights’ experiments, and the amount of interest in flight at this time,  it is a little bothersome to me why the report on their sandy accomplishments got so gobbled up in the nonchalant scientific bric-a-brac and standardiana of 1902. 

    Of course there is the whole “crackpot” angle, and the endless parade of significant people who claimed that human flight (not in a balloon) was impossible, and experimenting on that a waste of time and money…and there were plenty of experiments to back this up. The Wrights were different–they weren’t just two engineering-able tinkering brothers with a bike shop and some tools; they were scientific explorers, observers of a high order, scientific method men. 

    Even after the success of the December 17, 1903 powered flights, the Scientific American seemed lukewarm (and even critical and questioning) to the reports of the brother’s achievements, not really embracing them until April 1906. It certainly seems that they were far more asknowledged in Europe during their tour there in 1908 than they had been in the U.S.–even the U.S. army  expressed no interest in the flyer when first presented with the opportunity to purchase it in 1905, though the Wrights found very willing potential buyers for their aircraft in England in France. It was after the Wrights European exposure that the Army finally became interested in the aircraft enough to have the Wrights perform test trials prior to purchase and contract at For Myer in 1908. (Actually it was just Orville there in the summer of 1908 as Wilbur was in Europe entertaining business interests of a similar sort.) It was really with these flight trials in Fort Myer in 1908 (and concluding) in 1909 that the U.S. public seemed to truly understand and accept the success of the Wrights in human powered flight–after all, the Army did begin purchasing aircraft and began training pilots in the autumn of 1909, so it was outstandingly obvious that the new era had begun.

    Notes:

    By my reckoning from what I can see in my run of the Scientific American that the magazine did not dedicate a cover to the Wrights until 1908: 

    Wright flyer 1908 cover Sci Am

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/first-airplane-flight-marks-111th-anniversary/

    Since this is outside my area I quote liberally from the US Commission on the Centennial of Flight for a more exact description of the difference of the gliders between 1901 and 1902:

    “Their 1902 glider had a new wing with a shallow camber and high aspect ratio. It was a major departure from their earlier machines. It had roughly the same wing surface area as the 1901 machine, but the similarities ended there. The wingspan was ten feet (three meters) longer and the chord two feet (0.6 meter) shorter than the old machine, making the glider look larger and more graceful. It had an overall length of 16 feet (5 meters) and weighed 112 pounds (51 kilograms). The wing camber followed a shallow parabolic curve, and the elevator was extended farther out in front of the pilot. This gave it more leverage, which allowed better control. The 1902 glider also had a new rudder that consisted of two fixed vertical surfaces located behind the aircraft . Wilbur and Orville calculated that these would help prevent the skidding that had occurred when they warped the wings.”

     And the following on the 1902 flights from Orville Wright “How We Made the First Flight”:

    “The flights of the 1902 glider had demonstrated the efficiency of our system for maintaining equilibrium, and also the accuracy of the laboratory work upon which the design of the glider was based. We then felt that we were prepared to calculate in advance the performance of machines with a degree of accuracy that had never been possible with the data and tables possessed by our predecessors. Before leaving camp in 1902 we were already at work on the general design of a new machine which we proposed to propel with a motor…”

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • Revolutionary Lines (1811)

    Here’s a very fine example of a beautiful piece of engineering and a lovely rendition of it. The artwork is an engraving found in Abraham Rees’ monumental Encyclopedic Dictionary…,and was published in London in 1811. It shows in exquisite detail the straight line dividing engine of Jesse Ramsden (1735-1800), which here is being used as “an engine for cutting screws”.  A person could crawl all over this image in varying degrees of microscopic inspection and find  beautiful internal images nestled within the larger drawing in a Ken Burns/fractal-y way. 

    [Click on each image for a better resolution–seems as though this is restricted in a general view by my host]

    Ramsden _2_

    This and other similar inventions by  Ramsden’s were key additions to the developing scientific technologies of the Industrial Revolution, integral improvements necessary for integral improvements. (And as we see below in the Wiki quote on this subject, one of the very first things that Ramsden fabricated with his new and accurate lathe was to construct and even more accurate lathe before getting to work–that is an essential and brilliant idea.) Simply put, to make something more precise you need a more precise instrument, and this is exactly what Ramsden made. 

    Ramsden _3_

    And the full engraving:

    Ramsden _1_

    Notes:

    From Wikipedia–“The first truly modern screw-cutting lathe was likely constructed by Jesse Ramsden in 1775. He appears to have been the first person to put a leadscrew into actual use (although, as Leonardo’s drawings show, he was not the first person ever to think of the idea), and he was the first to use diamond-tipped cutting tools.  His device also included a slide rest and change gear mechanism. These form the elements of a modern (non-CNC) lathe and are in use to this day. Ramsden was able to use his first screw-cutting lathe to make even more accurate lathes. With these, he was able to make an exceptionally accurate dividing engine and in turn, some of the finest astronomical, surveying, and navigational instruments of the 18th century.”

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • Indicting Documents on Conditions in the Soviet Union, and the Holomodor, 1933/4

    JF Ptak Science Books   Post 2737

    I’m reposting the following from my books-for-sale section, as I think it may be useful for someone out there who happens to read this blog to know that this fairly rare resource is out there in the world, and available. I am not well acquainted with this area except for the basics of the Soviet Union in the 1930’s, so the descriptions of the contents and interpretations are necessarily rudimentary, though there’s enough there I think for someone interested in this area to be able to know if this material may be useful.

    The post is on three volumes of translations of news and reports coming out of the cloaked and secretive U.S.S.R. in 1933 and 1934. The publication was produced at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, a translation from the Polish journal, as referenced by Kris Dietrich in his Taboo Genocide: Holodomor 1933 & the Extermination of Ukraine. There are definite and numerous statements in this journal that—even for the limited amount that I have read in it—are very critical of the Soviet leadership, particularly in regard to the grain tax and the effect of collectivization in Ukraine and the Northern Caucasus. This comes at the time of massive political and social repression, manipulating the criminal code, establishing a new constitution, and the beginning of the next wave of extermination by starvation in Ukraine (the Holodomor). For example, in the chapter on agriculture in the Ukraine (on page 7 of that section) we read the summary of the extent of the “participation of the Soviet State in the grain balance” by the kolkozi was at least 70% in Ukraine and about 100% in the Norther Caucasus, meaning that there there would be no food left for those farming it, with this particular paragraph ending “what is left for the peasants”?  The answer to that question was written in millions of lives lost to the monster that was Stalin

    Rosja Sowieka. 3 documents, September 1933, February 1934, March 1934. 

     (1) Rosja Sowieka (“Soviet Russia”, printed originally in Warsaw) No. 6 (50/51) of September 30, 1933.

     

    Rosja

    ·Posted by :

    ·in:


  • Data Visualization of Comparative Naval Strengths, 1929

    JF Ptak Science Books  Quick Post

    There are many more complex, complicated, and data-rich displays like this one presented on this blog (just access the “Display of Quantitative Info” section), but there is a certain attraction with this simple-ish one. It is the design of W.R. Robinson–an artist with a fine touch, which is on display here more for the employment of empty space than lines–and gets across the information pretty easily and quickly. In any event, here it is, displaying the relative strengths of the world’s navies ten years after the end of WWI, which at that point was still the great War, “World War I” waiting to be invented in another ten years when there was a needed distinction between that world war and the newest world war.  

    Pop Mech 1929 dataviz navy strength

    [Image source: Popular Mechanics, June, 1929.]