The Seven Follies of Science [2nd ed.]: A popular account of the most famous scientific impossibilities and the attempts which have been made to solve them. To which is added a small budget of interesting paradoxes, illusions, and marvelsPhin, John
History
The Seven Follies of Science [2nd ed.]: A popular account of the most famous scientific impossibilities and the attempts which have been made to solve them. To which is added a small budget of interesting paradoxes, illusions, and marvels
Phin, John
Geometry -- Famous problems; Scientific recreations
That liquid air is a real and wonderful discovery, and that for a
certain small range of purposes it will prove highly useful, cannot be
doubted by those who have seen and handled it and are familiar with its
properties, but that it will ever be successfully used as an economical
source of mechanical power is, to say the least, very improbable. That a
small quantity of the liquid is capable of doing an enormous amount of
work, and that under some conditions there is _apparently_ more power
developed than was originally required to liquefy the air, is
undoubtedly true, but when a careful quantitative examination is made of
the outgo and the income of energy, it will be found in this, as in
every similar case, that instead of a gain there is a very decided and
serious loss. The correct explanation of the fallacy was published in
the "Scientific American," by the late Dr. Henry Morton, president of
the Stevens Institute, and the same explanation and exposure were made
by the writer, nearly fifty years ago, in the case of a very similar
enterprise. The form of the fallacy in both cases is so similar and so
interesting that I shall make no apology for giving the details.
About the year 1853 or 1854, two ingenious mechanics of Rochester, N.
Y., conceived the idea that by using some liquid more volatile than
water, a great saving might be effected in the cost of running an
engine. At that time gasolene and benzine were unknown in commerce, and
the same was true in regard to bisulphide of carbon, but as the process
of manufacturing the latter was simple and the sources of supply were
cheap and apparently unlimited, they adopted that liquid. The name of
one of these inventors was Hughes and that of the other was Hill, and it
would seem that each had made the invention independently of the other.
They had a fierce conflict over the patent, but this does not concern us
except to this extent, that the records of the case may therefore be
found in the archives of the Patent Office at Washington, D.C. Hughes
was backed by the wealth of a well-known lawyer of Rochester, whose son
subsequently occupied a high office in the state of New York, and he
constructed a beautiful little steam-engine and boiler, made of the very
finest materials and with such skill and accuracy that it gave out a
very considerable amount of power in proportion to its size. The source
of heat was a series of lamps, fed, I think, with lard oil (this was
before the days of kerosene), and the exhibition test consisted in first
filling the boiler with water, and noting the time that it took to get
up a certain steam pressure as shown by the gage. After this test,
bisulphide of carbon was added to the water, and the time and pressure
were noted. The difference was of course remarkable, and altogether in
favor of the new liquid. The exhaust was carried into a vessel of cold
water and as bisulphide of carbon is very easily condensed and very
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account