[meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse (Warning- Pre-Chladni)

From: Matthias Bärmann <majbaermann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:05:57 +0200
Message-ID: <8EFC8EB8DD1A46F2A2833091B29EC229_at_thinkcentre>

Gentlemen,

quite interesting discussion indeed (unfortunately I didn't receive Doug's
answer to an email I've sent him regarding this subject).

In any case, we all have all reasons to be proud and thankful that Ernst
F.F. Chladni existed as well as Harvey H. Nininger, or Humboldt, or
Rittenhouse (who was born in Germantown ;-), Lichtenberg, Benjamin Franklin,
Monsieur Biot, or, or, or ... Never to forget the authors of early cultures.
At least these are merits of adorable individual persons and in the same
moment merits of whole mankind itself.

My best to all of you,
Matthias


----- Original Message -----
From: "MexicoDoug" <mexicodoug at aim.com>
To: <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>; <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse (Warning-
Pre-Chladni)


> Martin, Hi ;-)
>
> If you have more information on the 1739 American sighting in particular
> in the USA from Chladni's book, please do be so kind and send it my way
> hen you get some time. You have done a good job being an heir of Chladni,
> but in my opinion you aren't being objective enough - not that I have been
> either as a student of Franklin's.
>
> We can pare this down to its essential points in rthe future sometime.
> Meanwhile, Long live Chladni ... and his collection of 41 meteorites.
>
> ...and may Rittenhouse be elevated and generally recognized until another
> earlier is perhaps found, as the first American to determine independently
> by observation the height at which a bolide in 1779 begins during the
> founding of the USA while the British were camped by Philadelphia giving
> seige; its incandescent path, that it had mass and cosmic velocity and an
> in dependent orbit around the Sun before encountering Earth, and that hard
> masses occasionally fell from the sky and had the potential to hammer
> people and buildings, though Rittenhouse believed they would more
> frequently explodes in the air. You are right - that is nothing Chladni
> couldn't have said although Rittenhouse had the better ideas on the cause
> of the incandescence than Chladni and predated Chladni.
>
> ...and that in America Rittenhouse was the Chief astronomer of the nascent
> Am,erican country.
>
> ...as was he second president of the scientific establishment of the new
> country (The American Philosophical Society) after its founder Ben
> Franklin who had a keen interest in atmospheric phenomena and a musical
> instrument Chladni was enamored with...
>
> ...and that the third president of the Society after Rittenhouse was
> Thomas Jefferson, who so much respected Rittenhouse that he order six
> copies of Rittenhouse's biography and most certainly had read and believed
> in Rittenhouse's 1779 meteor data.
>
> ...and that the professional astronomer, professor Rittehouse oversaw the
> 1783 design of the first coin of the United States of America. These
> coins depicted an exploding star and represented the American colonies
> each as a single star from the explosion
>
> ...and that on his suggestion these same stars of the new constellation on
> his suggestion were integrated into a stylized twilight blue sky much like
> the time of the 1779 fireball he observed 4 years earlier, on the newly
> approved American Flag (which is why the stars were in a circle
> originally as they radiated from the center).
>
> Are a lot of circumstantial thoughts, but taken together they paint a
> pretty picture and show that Americans made an early great contribution to
> the understanding of meteoritics as well that clearly influenced Chladni.
> I'm sure Thomas Jefferson's friend and correspondent Alex von Humboldt
> would agree after he became a member of the American Philosophical Society
> in 1804 under Jefferson and probably was carting massive, looted Mexican
> irons when he came to visit. Jefferson of course was president of the
> United States at the time he was president of the Society and this was
> three years before Weston.
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 3:46 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse
> (Warning - Pre-Chladni)
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> also nothing new. See my last posting.
>
> And even much more earlier, some astronomers suggested that meteoris could
> be
> used to solve the time/length problem.
>
> And I ask, how you can judge about Chladni's work at all, without having
> read
> it?
> For each and every tiny piece in his work, which doesn't stem from him, he
> gives
> the credits to the observer or to the inventor of the idea or the
> exponents and
> the bibliography.
>
> As he does also with Rittenhouse.
> But his meteor account is only one of many, Chladni gives, other
> astronomer had
> made triangulations of meteors before, and for the cosmic origin he gives
> other
> references than Rittenhouse, some of them definitely earlier.
> So his work would have been accomplished also without Rittenhouse.
>
> But like you I'm writing without knowing the sources,
> I simply don't know, whether Rittenhouse has written a treaty about
> meteors,
> meteorites and their origins.
> If so, then the debate starts to get interesting.
>
> Chladni developed his theory also from data retrieved by others,
> That is not only doubtful, that is good standard of science - and he
> metioned
> all his data sources meticulously.
>
> From your first posting - I almost believed to see,
> that you sketched a picture of Chladni
>
> ....like the Doc Terminus of Pete's Monster.
>
>
> And that is somewhat keen.
> Martin
>
> Huiii btw. if you insist in nationalisms, Whithorp reported a fireball in
> USA in
> 3rd of June 1739....
> (where do I know from? From Chladni of course).
>
> -----Urspr??ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: MexicoDoug [mailto:mexicodoug at aim.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Oktober 2011 20:37
> An: altmann at meteorite-martin.de; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse
> (Warning -
> Pre-Chladni)
>
> Martin,
>
> One further thing regarding "borrowed plumes" you mention. Ursula
> Marvin tells us that in 1797,
>
> "... Lichtenberg (Chladni's mentor), was delighted wirth a suggestion
> put forth by Chladni that two astronomers, some distance apart, should
> observe the same portion of the sky simultaneously, noting the timing
> and apparent paths of meteors so their real heights and their real
> flight paths might be calculated."
>
> Well, that was simply a repetition of the two-astronomer
> Rittenhouse-Page experiment of 1779 and from the context, something
> that both American astronomers had done before. Page-Rittenhouse
> suggested 50-60 miles altitude and ruled out gravity as the impulse,
> and obliged cosmic velocity of extraterrestrial bodies to be ther only
> possible explanation for the bolide. While I noted you said that they
> didn't determine a velocity; I'm sorry, I reject your explanation and
> see this simply as a validation of Rittenhouse's paper. The Americans
> put the appropriate bounds on the velocity and that is all the
> experiment required, and they identified it was only possible with
> cosmic velocity, the conclusion Rittenhouse unequivocably made.
>
> Yet I see no mention in Lichtenberg delight of "Chladni's idea" that
> the Americans had already been there and done that 11 years earlier.
> The altitude determined by Rittenhouse was the dead middle of the range
> proposed by the students Lichtenberg put working on "Chladni's idea".
>
> I just had a heart to heart discussion with Ben Franklin. He seems to
> have become a real lightning rod these days:
>
> http://www.diogenite.com/ben.JPG
>
> He confirms that doing science in the 1700's in the colonies was like a
> breath of fresh air compared to dealing with all the dead wood that the
> movers and shakers in the European scientific community had. He
> commends Chladni, and us for taking this on but says that if Chladni
> wanted to utilize his time for such efforts, Poor Richard would chide
> me (and you),
>
> Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for time is the stuff
> life is made of.
> Benjamin Franklin, 'Poor Richard's Almanack,' June 1746
>
> He further scoffs at the idea that he did not accept Rittenhouse's
> explanation that material fell from space, as the head of the American
> scientific community, that he personally edited Rittenhouse's meteor
> letters into the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
> journal, which was in the first edition upon Franklin's organization of
> the Society with the help of Thomas Paine and others. Franklin laughed
> about the resistence met in Europe to the idea that objects fell from
> the sky but considers Howard the world's true father of meteoritics
> from a scientific point of view, and questions whether Chladni even
> had
> any meteorites to personally inspect that he could be reliably certain
> fell from the sky, or whether it was Howard who really made that link
> and whether it was Rittenhouse's account and Chladni's special
> connection to Franklin through music that Chladni was in a unique
> position to consolidate information on the second light phenomenon
> after Ben explained lighning; that coupled with the fact that there
> were many European members of the American Society receiving the
> Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, and the fact that
> it fell into the hands of Chladni's mentor exactly in the time frame
> that Chladni came to play his new musical intrument based on the same
> effect Franklin had in the armonica. That the most likely scenario for
> Chladni's interest is no surprise and that indeed the
> Franklin-Rittenhouse connection had a direct role in Chladni's
> appropriating Rittenhouses work - with appropriate credit as Martin you
> point out.
>
> Ben said that accepting that rocks fell from space was no big deal in
> America for this reason, and Ben reminds me that although Chladni
> started his compendium seemingly out of the blue, there was much more
> communication than 21st century records would indicate but also that I
> should give Chladni credit later on for continuing in the field of
> meteoritics although during the 1790's it was for that surprisingly
> brief period.
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> To: altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>; meteorite-list
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 12:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse
> (Warning - Pre-Chladni)
>
>
> "Therefore... Rittenhouse played no role for Chladni's work. Neither
> did he adorn himself with borrowed plumes."
>
> Not so fast Martin,
>
> Before it becomes a national issue, I'll allow Chladni each and every
> benefit of interpretation. Just as Germans kindly give Nininger the
> benefit of doubt for being another sort of father of meteoritics ;-)
>
> Further, your recollections of what Chladni did are based only on
> Chladni's work and where we agree, his contemporaries ridiculed him and
> this was not a pleasant experience.
>
> Chladni may have many references and built a compendium as if fighting
> a case in a court of law, and therein may be his credit. But, in
> referencing Rittenhouse, he was referencing a published work eight
> years prior to own which was a first hand analysis of data,
> triangulation of path, and detailed statement, analysis, and proof of
> why meteors were of cosmic origin, done by a professional astronomer.
>
> So from Chladni's point of view we can credit him with a wonderful
> compendium.
>
> However, from Rittenhouse's point of view, which you nearly dismiss
> calling it a report, we can credit the American as having done the
> experiment and deduced the results from scientific observation to
> conclude and publish ion 1786 that bolides and meteors were of cosmic
> origin based on a database of prior observations Rittenhouse was privy
> to, in independent orbits that intersected earth in our trip around the
> Sun.
>
> So, unless one or more of the 'reports' you mention has similar proof
> and discuss that the objects had mass and were able to potentially
> survive the passage and land on a house, which of course it may, the
> claim to publish the theory that meteors were of cosmic origin was
> already solved and published by Rittenhouse. In Rittenhouse's case it
> was not solely a report, but a proper analysis and conclusion published
> in the leading American Scientific Journal of the day.
>
> Interesting, that Chladni didmissed the idea that meteors were an
> electric phenomenon. Here, Rittenhouse, though tersely, clearly had
> the scientific insight that Chladni lacked, as well as a closer
> relationship with Franklin who was a world expert on electrical
> phenomena in the atmosphere who surely discussed it with him
> extensively due to their being direct peers in the same institution
> dealing in the area of their specialty - the University of Pennsylvania
> which Franklin founded. Rittenhouse was right about that conjecture,
> of course. He was searching for an explanation for the source of the
> awesome incandescence of a bolide and his general observation of
> meteors which he clearly stated were two manefestations of the same
> phenomenon, itself a major statement.
>
> Today we know that the cause of the light phenomenon is due to the
> electrical excitation of ablating material and their emission of light
> upon relaxation.
>
> So, let's agree that I overstepped on Chladni's mindset; but it would
> be incorrect for me to continue crediting Chladni as the one with the
> radical theory when the American scientific establishment of the time
> clearly had already accepted this in their preeminent society where it
> was published. It certainly paints a better picture of scientific
> community in the Colonies. Rittenhouse received nothing but acceptance
> in 1783, as far as we can see, and collaboration a peer astronomer of
> the same mind. Nowhere is there any evidence of ridicule in the
> American scientific community; but, there is one modern day misplaced
> scientific quote which unfairly could give the impression that
> meteoritics in the newly emerging country was not at the head of the
> scientific pack. In fact, it lead the pack!
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
> (UPenn '92)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 11:16 am
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse
> (Warning - Pre-Chladni)
>
>
> Uh?
>
>>... the only question I have is to what degree Chladni references this
> prior published work in his work.
>
> Well, if we take Chladni's work of 1794 about the origin of meteorites
> and
> fireballs,
> He refers to Rittenhouse (& Page) in the third chapter, where he gives
> several fireball observations as examples. There Ritterhouse's&Page's
> account is one among many, there Chladni wrote, giving also the correct
> source (Philos. transact. of the American Society, Vol II, page 173) -
> that
> Page&Ritterhouse describe a fireball, they observed on Oct 31, 1779
> which
> had a long and winded tail, that the observed height was 60 miles, the
> diameter of the fireball at least 3 miles and that the velocity couldn't
> have been measured.
> In that small catalogue the Rittenhouse report is only one from many
> other,
> like those of Muschenbroek, Vassali, Silberschlag, Chalmer, Ulloa,
> Kirch,
> Balbi, Halley, Winthrop, Smith&Baker,
> Pringle, Le Roy& LaLande, Cavallo, Aubert, Cooper, Edgeword, Pigot,
> Bernstorf, Bladge..
> Several earlier than Rittenhouse and many with similar or more "data".
>
> For the heights, he listes data retrieved by parallaxes
> of the fireballs of 1676, 1708, Feb. 1719, May 1719, 1758, 1762, 1771,
> - to
> name those before Rittenhouse.
>
> For the electric origin, which he disregards,
> he refers to Vassalli 1787, Senebier, Saussure & Toaldo 1789, Reimarius
> 1778, le Roy 1771, Beccaria (1716-1781).
>
> And finally as exponents for the origin of meteors stemming from outer
> space
> (and also partially orbitating the sun) he refers to Maskelyne, to
> Wallis,
> to Hartsoeker (1707), Hevelius, Halley.
> (always giving the bibliographical references).
>
>
> Therefore... Rittenhouse played no role for Chladni's work. Neither did
> he
> adorn himself with borrowed plumes.
>
> Mythbusting busted.
>
> ;-)
> Martin
>
>
>
> -----Urspr??ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
> MexicoDoug
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Oktober 2011 12:23
> An: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Betreff: [meteorite-list] Part II: American David Rittenhouse (Warning -
> Pre-Chladni)
>
> Dear list,
>
> OK, let me change the tone a bit and remind you that we left off with
> Franklin's death in 1790, Chladni playing his musical instrument for a
> physicist who told him to dig through the Philosophical Society
> Journals to explain meteors, in a similar fashion Franklin tried to
> explain what the other light in the sky was-lightning.
>
> We have the American Astronomer, David Rittenhouse taking the
> presidency of the American Philosophical Society at Franklin's passing
> in 1790 and until his death in 1796. This interval was precisely the
> time Chladni, who had a lifelong connection to Franklin through music,
> probably of great respect, was in the library reading obsessively the
> accounts of the Philosophical Societies looking for information about
> meteor accounts.
>
> As Franklin must have been a larger than life figure in Chladni's
> world, let's say now that Chladni may have admired him, undoubtedly he
> read the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society where
> Franklin published more than any other and Franklin greatly respected
> Rittenhouse as a great astronomer. Independently, Rittenhouse had a
> great reputation among Europeans as a first class astronomer, which was
> shocking that it could be possible to some given the adverse conditions
> in the colonies ref:
>
> You can read the potential electrical explanation Rittenhouse touches
> upon and be certain he discussed this with his great buddy Ben Franklin
> (He was the Chairman at the time of the Astronomy Department at the
> University of Pennsylvania, which Ben Franklin founded and they were
> great friends). So we can safely assume now that Franklin had a
> similar line of thinking and it may not have been contentiously
> "electrical" when talking about the meteor phenomenon.
>
> What follows is the text of the original Letters exchanged between
> Rittenhouse and John Page a fellow astronomer. In this exchange you
> can see what is likely the first triangulation of a bolide, the first
> theory that a a bolide or meteor produces light by passing dense
> material that is sufficiently solid to resist immediate destruction
> upon passing through the atmosphere. You can also find the height at
> which the luminous path begins reasonably calculated, and you can find
> the question on why these bodies from space at one point compared to
> iron filings don't hit people and buildings more often, being early
> references to hammer stones or irons.
>
> You can also find the convincing scientific arguments on why they have
> mass, are from space in their own independent orbits and not from earth
> and occur upon chance intersection with earth's trip around the Sun.
>
> The only thing we are missing is the meteorite itself which was
> conjectured.
>
> The witness reports these gentlemen made was so convincing, published
> 10 years before Chladni, and given Chaldni's special connection to
> Franklin and now Rittenhouse's being the president of the American
> Society at just the right time ... the only question I have is to what
> degree Chladni references this prior published work in his work.
>
> Thus, the situation in Europe was very different than that among the
> Americans ... where the question being asked was not, "How can rocks
> fall from the sky", but rather, How can't rocks fall from the sky?
>
> Transactions of the American Philosophical
>
> Society
>
> Letters on the ACCOUNT OF A METEOR
>
>
>>From John Page, Esq., to David
>
> Rittenhouse, Esq.
>
> Williamsburg, December 4, 1779
>
> Read May 2, 1783
>
> ...recalls to my mind the meteor that was seen in many distant places
> in Virginia on thwe 31st of October at about 6:10 PM It was what is
> vulgarly called a falling star. It fell as seen at Rosewell about
> three or four degrees to the north of west and left a bright trail of
> light behind i; which extended from the horizon perpendicularly above 7
> degrees; unluckily I lost view of it when falling, but was called out
> time enough to see the grand and beautiful appearance of its trail of
> light. It was seen for near 15 minutes, it was as bright as shining
> silver, and broad as the enlightened part pf the new moon, when first
> visible about 7 degrees in length, it might be represented by number 1
> (Doug: see figure www.diogenite.com/jpage.jpg ), when I saw it first,
> and by the other figures at intervals of about a minute after. Just
> before it disappeared, it resembled the edge of a cloud. The sky was
> remarkably clear and serene. It appeared in the same manner exactly to
> several gentlemen above an hundred miles from Rosewell, but on a
> different point of the compass. I have not yet so accurate an account
> of its bearing as to ascertain its height and distance. Did you see
> anything of it?
> I am, dear sir, yours most sincerely,
> JOHN PAGE.
>
>
> from David Rittenhouse, Esquire, to John Page, Esquire
>
> Philadelphia, January 16, 1780
>
> Read May 2, 1783
>
> ...The Extraordinary Meteor you mention was likewise visible here, the
> air being serene and clear.. I did not see it until the bright streak
> was become very crooked, it then bore 70 degrees W. nearly, from
> Philadelphia, and comparing this course with that observed by you,
> adding 2.5 degrees for the depression of that place below your horizon,
> its entire apparent altitude above the spot where it fell was 9.5
> degrees which, on a radius of 365 miles, will be 61 miles perpendicular
> height. The breadth of the luminous vapor was, I think, in some
> places, when I saw it, not less than a quarter of a degree; this at 480
> miles distancemust have been at least two miles.
>
> It was certainly a grand appearance near the place where it fell, if
> any human eye was there. May not these shooting stars be bodies
> altogether foreign to the earth and its atmosphere, accidentally
> meeting with it as they are swiftly traveling the great void of space?
> And may they not, either electrically or by some other means, excite a
> luminous appearance on entering our atmosphere? I am inclined to this
> opinion for the following reasons: 1st It is not probable that meteors
> should be generated in the air at the height of 50 to 60 miles, on
> account of its extreme rareness (Doug: rareness=low density); and many
> falling stars, besides this, are known with certainty to have been at
> very great heights. 2ndly. Their motions cannot be owing to gravity,
> for they descend in all directions, and but seldom perpendicularly to
> the horizon. Besides, their velocities are much too great. This
> meteor would not have fallen by the force of gravity from the place
> where it first appeared, to the earth, in less than two minutes of
> time; nor in less than 10 seconds, if we suppose it is impelled by
> gravity from the remotest distance. They are nevertheless affected by
> gravity in some manner, for I cannot find that any one was ever
> observed to ascend upwards in its course.
>
> It is true that difficulties will likewise occur, if we suppose them to
> be foreign bodies of sufficient density to preserve such great degrees
> of velocity even in passing through the atmosphere, for it may be asked
> why they do not frequently strike the earth, buildings, etc. Perhaps
> they are generally, if not always, exploded in passing through the air,
> something in the manner that filing of steel are exploded in passing
> through the flame of a candle. And at the same time that they afford
> us occasion the variety and
> Immensity of the Creator's works, they may perhaps produce some
> important and necessary effects in the atmosphere surrounding this
> globe, for the welfare of man and its other inhabitants.
>
> I am, dear sir, your very affectionate friend
> And very humble servant
> DAVID RITTENHOUSE
>
> Clearly David Rittenhouse needs to be written into the history of
> meteoritics far more than he has been. Next time I go to Rittenhouse
> square in Philadelphia and visit the Franklin Institute itwill be with
> renewed respect.
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
> PS this is one of the best witness account I've ever read
> Would anyone like to try a modern triangulation - the data is better
> than you get nowadays, that's for sure
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> To: Meteorite-list <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 4:08 am
> Subject: [meteorite-list] On the Father of Meteoritics (Warning -
> Original Radical Theory)
>
>
> Dear List, an account of the coming of age of Chladni which may rock
> the boat a bit:
>
> "When in the course of scientific endeavors it becomes necessary for
> one scientist to dissolve the bonds which have connected them with
> another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
> equal station to which the God-given phenomenon of meteoritics entitle
> them, a decent dignity for one's inventions requires that they should
> declare the causes which impel them to the separation...."
>
> Such was the case for Ernst F. F. Chladni, who quite abruptly focused
> his interest in "fathering" meteoritics in the early 1790's: an
> accomplished musician and musical instrument designer with an interest
> in waves, electricity, and physics. He suddenly dedicated some time to
> a radical theory of meteoritics; the question is....What *sparked* his
> sudden and intensive, obsessive-compulsive interest? No one really
> knows, excepts, perhaps the Shadow. Read on please, for my theory
> after a discusson wih my Shadow...
>
> First we must define what exactly was on Chladni's mind during those
> years and more importantly what was his mindset? Well, he was
> recovering from a failed attempt to promote his musical instrument
> which he toured playing in hope to gain some recognition. His
> instrument never became popular. The reason was not because it was bad
> ... but rather because there was a superior instrument that displaced
> it in public events all the time. By 1790, he gave it up, and quite
> frustrated he was with his extensive efforts.
>
> Chladni's first love was music and acoustics. It is often cited that
> his interest in meteoritics was suddenly fomented by conversations with
> Georg Christoph Lichtenberg in 1791-1793. But Lichtenberg himself had
> nothing to say about it, despite making notes of the meetings and
> commenting that Chladni was working on a new musical instrument to
> supplant his previous failed one.
>
> A world away lived the bane of Chladni's existence, until his death in
> 1790: one Dr. Benjamin Franklin, American genius, and the antithesis of
> everything Chladni socially was... Franklin was the model of an
> brilliant human being, even able to have the French aristocracy eat out
> of his hand while founding the United States of America, all in his
> spare time while he pursued intellectual pursuits of everything and
> frequently made great scientific advancements with a sort of Midas'
> Touch with only a wit that could beat them. Such was the case with the
> armonica, a musical instrument that was a clever adaptation of sound
> waves produced by utilizing friction like the rubbing on a wine glass
> which allowed the simultaneous playing of nearly a dozen notes. This
> musical instrument precisely was the one that displaced Chladni's who
> otherwise might have found more success. Franklin's instrument was an
> American contribution to Europe that even the great composers wrote
> parts for as Chladni's own foundered. How frustrating it must have
> been.
>
> At heart, Dr. Franklin was truly a scientist and had managed some of
> the most truly remarkable experiments and even was credited as being
> the father of electricity after harnassing the meteorological
> phenomenon of lightning and proving exactly what it was: electricity.
> There was nothing he couldn't do and yet, he always got all the women,
> fame and power he wished.
>
> On the other hand Chladni was forced into a career he had no interest
> in doing by an overpowering father, had absolutely no luck with the
> woman and was spurned by his contemporaries when he initially tried to
> present his ideas to his peers. Bummer to be Chladni in 1790.
>
> But Franklin died in 1790. Chladni didn't waste a moment, dropping his
> failed instrument and immediately appropriated Franklin's armonica a
> step further and redesigned a new instrument in 1791 he named,
> immodestly CHLADNI'S EUPHONIUM (basically a synonym for armonica but
> addiding his name for recognition) he hoped would be superior - and
> finally, Franklin was dead and unable to wittily comment or compete.
> It was a prototype of that instrument he was playing for Lichtenberg.
>
> After all those years of playing second fiddle, it was only natural
> that Franklin's scientific triumphs were a subject of discussion; after
> all the new instrument was a direct improvement on Franklin's intended
> to supplant it at best... and victory would be as sweet as waking among
> the muses, especially for Chladni who was trained as a lawyer with all
> the benefits and vices that the practice of law breeds.
>
> One noteable subject of Franklin's successes was in meteorology, and
> especially legendary, regarding the proof that lightning bolts were
> composed of electricity. Franklin also went on record saying meteors
> were probably an electrical phenomenon as well. Well, these strange
> rocks were turning up at that time and there were murmurs that they
> came from the sky. Chladni became obsessed with making his mark (and
> in the process showing Franklin was wrong) by choosing the other light
> phenomenon - meteors - just as Franklin had chosen a phenomenon, just
> as Franklin had inspired his instrument - in hopes finally making a
> reputation for himself and perhaps a dab of revenge for all those years
> lost with his instrument due to Franklin superior design.
>
> Motive in any investigation is always sought. Need Chladni more
> motive? ;-) He released his first improved design utilizing Franklin's
> armonica concepts directly, suddenly became obsessed with with proving
> meteors were not electrical phenomena but rather rocks; immersed
> himself in the library for a couple of months in a mission (much like
> many contemporary meteorite folk we've seen battle it out on the list
> when one scoops the other on a new fall), published his book and in the
> process of his madness made the assertion that the rocks came from
> space, a true contribution; and then was immediately ridiculed and
> mocked ... his contemporaries new what he was up to and this attenuated
> the believability of his work.
>
> Then immdiatey after publishing, he dropped meteorites, never to return
> again to the field and gort to work building a new second generation
> musical instrument. Both instruments he designed and built in the
> 1790's met with success and Chladni finally could gain some respect he
> earned after a lifetime of brandishing by fire.
>
> The above theory would explain motivation and why Chladni's work in
> meteoritics was as efemeral as the meteors themselves.
>
> We should say a little more about Ben's beliefs and how they
> potentially influenced Chladni, as clearly, the American Philosophical
> Society, founded by Franklin who was the first president published a
> Journal just like the Liondon Society, and the Journal was undoubtably
> read by Chladni. The first president of the Society was Franklin, and
> he was followed by the great Astronomer Early American astronomer David
> Rittenhouse, as the second president, who predated much of Chladni's
> idea on cosmic origins and as the successor of Franklin, undoubtably
> would have been an interesting subject of study for Chladni as he
> studied those late nights in the library for that intriguingly brief
> period of time. As a matter of fact, Chladni himself said Lichtenberg
> told him to immerse himself reading Philosophical Transactions in the
> library. What were the Americans saying about meteors that might tip
> off Chladni and that Lichtenberg definitely read as well?
>
> Let me quote a passage of a post I made to the List in 2006 excerping a
> letter from Rittenhouse to Franklin, and to comment that Franklin
> likely had a friendly rivalry with Rittenhouse as to the cosmic origin
> of meteorites and predated Chladni's "original" contribution by a
> number of years:
>
> "Ben believed for a time that meteors were also caused by electricity,
> however his contemporary, the great Astronomer Early American
> astronomer David
> Rittenhouse, had other thoughts and most obviously discussed them at
> length with
> Franklin. They were both founders and officers in the American
> Philosophical
> Society - the Innovative and incomparable Academic Ivory Tower in the
> unique
> American tradition of their time responsible for adding scientific
> thought
> to the American Revolution and much beyond...Upon Franklin's death,
> Rittenhouse became the second president of the Society until his own
> death five years
> later.
>
> Eleven years before Ben's death, On "All Hallow's Eve", October 31,
> 1779,
> Rittenhouse had witnessed a 30-second bolide accompanied by sonic booms
> near
> Philadelphia, where he was the head of the University of Pennsylvania's
> Astronomy department...as the war of American Independence was still in
> Gear...
>
> Rittenhouse described the event in a letter purportedly to Franklin:
> "Leaving behind it a bright trail of light of a fine Silver Color,
> which
> continued Visible about 20 minutes, altho' but half an hour after
> Sunset, and
> then gradually disappeared, after changing from a Strait line to a very
> crooked
> one. [Meteors are] bodies altogether foreign to this Earth, but meeting
> with
> it, in its Annual Orbit, are attracted by it, and on entering our
> Atmosphere
> take fire and are exploded, something in the manner Steel filings are,
> on
> passing thro' the flame of a Candle. [It made a] glorious appearance at
> the
> distance of a few miles, yet from its prodigious Magnitude it must have
> been
> quite terrible. [Had the] Cataract fallen on the plain where on
> Philadelphia
> stands, half its inhabitants would probably been [sic] drowned."
>
> In the absence of the word "bolide", a cataract most certainly is the
> best
> word choice available to describe the phenomenon. It was brighter than
> the
> Sun, "a half hour after Sunset". "
>
> Chladni clearly couldn't make it on his own, and found it easier to But
> I could be wrong - though I don't mind championing the theory though
> there may be a few hole in it that doesnt mean it isn't a very good
> explanation ;-), I just wish I had more time to research my logical
> assertations.
>
> PS Franklin actually must have a smile in his grave now that we know
> meteors in fact are an electrical phenomenon.
>
> Kindest wishes
> Franklin's Heirs
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


__________ Hinweis von ESET Smart Security, Signaturdatenbank-Version 6568 (20111023) __________

E-Mail wurde gepr?ft mit ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
Received on Sun 23 Oct 2011 06:05:57 PM PDT