 |
|
| FORUM | REGISTER | LOGIN | HOAXIPEDIA | TOP 100 APRIL FOOLS | COLLEGE PRANKS | ABOUT THE CURATOR | CONTACT |
| A HISTORY OF HOAXES | HOAX WEBSITES | HOAX PHOTOS | HOAX PHOTO TESTS | GULLIBILITY TESTS | TALL-TALE CREATURES |
About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.
The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.
The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.Prankplace.com
REMOTE CONTROL FART MACHINEThe Brand New Fart Machine has “BoomBox” Technology, which allows more vibrant, natural sounding farts. Simply hide the little speaker, then from up to 100 feet away, press the included remote, and the hidden speaker lets out one of 15 disgusting fart sounds. Place under your co-workers desk, and let the laughter begin.
COVERT CLICKERSecretly control the TV, anywhere, any time! This device is so small it is easily concealed in your pocket. It can control volume, change the channel or turn the TV on & off. It works on 90% of all TV's.
Was Franklin’s Electric Kite Experiment a Hoax?
Status: Scholarly debate
Last weekend Philadelphia celebrated the anniversary of Benjamin Franklin's electric kite experiment (in which he flew a kite during a thunderstorm and proved that lightning was a form of electricity). They did so despite the fact that many believe the experiment was a hoax... that it never happened. The Philadelphia Inquirer provides a summary of this debate. The main proponent of the electric-kite-hoax theory is Tom Tucker, author of Bolt of Fate: Benjamin Franklin and his Electric Kite Hoax. (I noted the publication of his book back in 2003 when it first appeared in print.) Tucker points out that a) "Franklin did not publicize the kite flight until four months later, and then only with a passing mention in the Pennsylvania Gazette"; b) Franklin would have been very stupid to perform such an experiment because it could very easily have killed him; and c) Franklin was a known trickster and a great self-publicist who would not have been above taking credit for something he never did. Defenders of Franklin argue that all of Tucker's evidence is circumstantial. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the hoax theory. I think that Franklin would have been too smart to try such a deadly experiment. But, of course, it's the kind of thing historians can argue about until they're blue in the face. Ultimately there's no definitive evidence to prove that Franklin did or did not perform the experiment.
Update: Since Captain Al pointed out that the kite experiment wouldn't be deadly with some simple safety modifications, let me clarify exactly what Tucker's argument is. Tucker notes that Franklin had been sending the British Royal Society reports about his electricity experiments, but that these reports were being marginalized, mainly because the members of the RS regarded him as an uncouth American. So Tucker suggests that Franklin, frustrated at how he was being treated, sent the RS a report of the deadly electric kite experiment as a joke. It was basically the scientific equivalent of giving them the finger... suggesting that they go fly a kite in a thunderstorm. Franklin knew, and the RS members knew, that doing so could be fatal. But when the report reached France, people there took it seriously. So Franklin, knowing a good PR opportunity when he saw it, played along and began claiming that he really had done the experiment. That's the jist of Tucker's argument.
Posted By: Alex | Date: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 24
Category: History, Science
Category: History, Science
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Sounds like a job for the Mythbusters team.
Posted by Richard@Home in Sheffield, Uk on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:07 AMMythbusters actually already did a test on this event. It's new enough that they're regularly repeating it. Conclusion? Didn't happen.
Posted by Bill on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:35 AMSaw the Mythbuster episode too. Conclusion, COULDN'T have happened. Not just because of the obvious details, but Mythbusters actually considered the details of the structure where the Ben Franklin experiment happened. ALL things considered, there is NO way the experiment could have happened...
Posted by Christopher in Joplin, Missouri on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:12 AMI love Mythbusters 
Haven't seen that episode though. Can't wait!
Posted by Nettie in Perth, Western Australia on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:28 AM Haven't seen that episode though. Can't wait!
Yeah, but Mythbusters also said Archimedes' method of setting Roman ships on fire during the siege of Syracuse wasn't possible either. Yet not one, but two college student experiments proved *them* wrong!
Posted by Frederick J. Barnett in Sorrento, LA on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:29 AMI need to start watching Mythbusters more often.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:58 AMI saw that show. They couldn't even build a working kite. I may be mistaken, but I do believe that kites have been flown by other people. It's a great show but they do take themselves a little too seriously.
Posted by Dave in Phx on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:25 AMI'm not familiar with the exact details of Franklin's alleged experiment, but it seems to me it wouldn't be dangerous as long as he wasn't physically holding the kite's tether. It could have been tied to a stake in the ground or a fence.
Posted by Captain Al in Alberta, Canada on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:27 AMFrederick, all the college students prove was that a large number of people holding mirrors might eventually set fire to your boat.
This assumes that -
1) The defenders on the boat are taking no action to put out the fire (being surrounded by water and all).
2) The defenders are kind enough not to shoot dead all the people standing there holding mirrors.
3) The defenders are thoughtful enough to park their boat to make it easier for the mirrors to focus on them.
All in all, not very likely.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:39 AMThis assumes that -
1) The defenders on the boat are taking no action to put out the fire (being surrounded by water and all).
2) The defenders are kind enough not to shoot dead all the people standing there holding mirrors.
3) The defenders are thoughtful enough to park their boat to make it easier for the mirrors to focus on them.
All in all, not very likely.
I should also point out that all the fan mirrors, save the one that tragically broke apart in transit, had a focal point of only a few feet. At that range a defender would just stab you with his sword.
Having said all this, I must also state that I'm well aware that Mythbusters is for entertainment only, and in almost no way is it real science. While I wish they would actually do a bit more work before reaching their conclusions, it's still an enjoyable show.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:42 AMHaving said all this, I must also state that I'm well aware that Mythbusters is for entertainment only, and in almost no way is it real science. While I wish they would actually do a bit more work before reaching their conclusions, it's still an enjoyable show.
I posted an update clarifying Tucker's argument.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:43 AMCharybdis said:
"I should also point out that all the fan mirrors, save the one that tragically broke apart in transit, had a focal point of only a few feet."
The mirrors needed for this really should be flat. In other words, they would have no focal length. It's the aim and placement of the people holding them that determines the location and heat intensity of the focal point.
I believe there was a short story by sci-fi guru Arthur C. Clarke that used this as a plot device. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of it. It was soccer match between two arch rival countries. The home team gave small 1 foot square mirrors to every fan in the stadium. When the referee made a bad call against the home team, fans were instructed to aim the reflection of the sun at him, just to be nasty.
However, when a particularily bad call was made, the entire stadium did this at once and it instantly vaporized the referee. So you see, it was the size and shape of the stadium, filled with fans holding mirrors, that made the focal point so hot. The idea setting a wooden ship on fire with this method seems plausible to me but in Archimedes's time, where would you get enough mirrors on short notice to accomplish this feat?
Posted by Captain Al in Alberta, Canada on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:16 PM"I should also point out that all the fan mirrors, save the one that tragically broke apart in transit, had a focal point of only a few feet."
The mirrors needed for this really should be flat. In other words, they would have no focal length. It's the aim and placement of the people holding them that determines the location and heat intensity of the focal point.
I believe there was a short story by sci-fi guru Arthur C. Clarke that used this as a plot device. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of it. It was soccer match between two arch rival countries. The home team gave small 1 foot square mirrors to every fan in the stadium. When the referee made a bad call against the home team, fans were instructed to aim the reflection of the sun at him, just to be nasty.
However, when a particularily bad call was made, the entire stadium did this at once and it instantly vaporized the referee. So you see, it was the size and shape of the stadium, filled with fans holding mirrors, that made the focal point so hot. The idea setting a wooden ship on fire with this method seems plausible to me but in Archimedes's time, where would you get enough mirrors on short notice to accomplish this feat?
No no, Ben Franklin flew the kite as the storm was approaching. He felt little zaps and then packed up and left with his conclusion.
Posted by RedNeckOreo in a pickle on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:18 PMI'm with RedNeckOreo on this one.
In the history book I read, way back when, Franklin did his experiment while a thunderstorm was approaching, not actually in the lightning.
He also stood under the roof of an open shed and had a length of silk ribbon insulating him from the key and kite line. (The shed kept the rain of him and the ribbon, lowering the chance of them conducting.)
After a few minutes, he touched the key to an electroscope http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Static_Electricity/Electroscope/Electroscope.html
, proving that the key was charged with electricity. He then brought a knuckle close to the rod of the electroscope, and got a shock, just to confirm that it was electricity.
At least, that's the way I remember reading it.
He wasn't trying to prove that lightning was electricity directly, but that electric buildup in the storm caused lightning.
Of course, people DID try it during thunderstorms after Franklin, and they usually got zapped.
Oh, and to answer Captain Al; According to the legend, the Soldiers used their bronze faced shields, freshly polished, as the mirrors.
Posted by Captain DaFt on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:09 PMIn the history book I read, way back when, Franklin did his experiment while a thunderstorm was approaching, not actually in the lightning.
He also stood under the roof of an open shed and had a length of silk ribbon insulating him from the key and kite line. (The shed kept the rain of him and the ribbon, lowering the chance of them conducting.)
After a few minutes, he touched the key to an electroscope http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Static_Electricity/Electroscope/Electroscope.html
, proving that the key was charged with electricity. He then brought a knuckle close to the rod of the electroscope, and got a shock, just to confirm that it was electricity.
At least, that's the way I remember reading it.
He wasn't trying to prove that lightning was electricity directly, but that electric buildup in the storm caused lightning.
Of course, people DID try it during thunderstorms after Franklin, and they usually got zapped.
Oh, and to answer Captain Al; According to the legend, the Soldiers used their bronze faced shields, freshly polished, as the mirrors.
Captain Al: "A Slight Case of Sunstroke" is the story you were thinking of.
Aristophenes is the first person I can think of who came up with the idea of focusing the sun to use it as a weapon, mentioning it in The Clouds some two centuries before Archimedes. So the idea wasn't exactly new in Archimedes' time.
According to Dio Cassius and Plutarch and Galen and others, Archimedes supposedly got the Greek soldiers to polish the inside of their curved bronze shields, and then had them stand in a parabola pattern. This focused the sun on the ships' riggings (which would be very flammable and also hard to reach quickly to extinguish), and that caught the ships on fire.
Proklos supposedly copied Archimedes' idea in the early 6th Century AD, with similar results against Vitalianus' fleet at Constantinople (although according to Malalas, they used Greek fire instead of sunlight). There have also apparently been other tests over the years that used the same techniques and had similar successful results; LeClerc of pi fame did it in France in the 18th Century, and in the 1970's a Greek physicist got a bunch of volunteers to hold polished bronze shields and set fire to a wooden mock-up of a ship a good 50m away. So again, it seems at least possible for such a system to have been used on
None of which has anything to do with Ben Franklin, of course. While I don't see why it wasn't possible for him to do what he did, I have no way of knowing if he actually did it. I'm afraid that my Ouija board is broken.
Posted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:48 PMAristophenes is the first person I can think of who came up with the idea of focusing the sun to use it as a weapon, mentioning it in The Clouds some two centuries before Archimedes. So the idea wasn't exactly new in Archimedes' time.
According to Dio Cassius and Plutarch and Galen and others, Archimedes supposedly got the Greek soldiers to polish the inside of their curved bronze shields, and then had them stand in a parabola pattern. This focused the sun on the ships' riggings (which would be very flammable and also hard to reach quickly to extinguish), and that caught the ships on fire.
Proklos supposedly copied Archimedes' idea in the early 6th Century AD, with similar results against Vitalianus' fleet at Constantinople (although according to Malalas, they used Greek fire instead of sunlight). There have also apparently been other tests over the years that used the same techniques and had similar successful results; LeClerc of pi fame did it in France in the 18th Century, and in the 1970's a Greek physicist got a bunch of volunteers to hold polished bronze shields and set fire to a wooden mock-up of a ship a good 50m away. So again, it seems at least possible for such a system to have been used on
None of which has anything to do with Ben Franklin, of course. While I don't see why it wasn't possible for him to do what he did, I have no way of knowing if he actually did it. I'm afraid that my Ouija board is broken.
Here's the web site for the MIT Archimedes experiment:
http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/lectures/10_ArchimedesResult.html
Their's was done at 100 feet because they didn't have more room than that, but their calculations showed it could be done at a greater distance with either more mirrors or the same amount slightly concaved. Though still within bow range, it's hardly the stabbing range Charybdis cited.
As to Franklin, according to legend, he was assisted by his illegitamite son, William. He grew up to be a strong Loyalist, which eventually caused father and son to stop speaking to each other. Did William ever deny the experiment took place, or his participation?
Posted by Frederick J. Barnett in Sorrento, LA on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:42 AMhttp://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/lectures/10_ArchimedesResult.html
Their's was done at 100 feet because they didn't have more room than that, but their calculations showed it could be done at a greater distance with either more mirrors or the same amount slightly concaved. Though still within bow range, it's hardly the stabbing range Charybdis cited.
As to Franklin, according to legend, he was assisted by his illegitamite son, William. He grew up to be a strong Loyalist, which eventually caused father and son to stop speaking to each other. Did William ever deny the experiment took place, or his participation?
I forgot one thing about the MIT experiment. While they showed it was definitely possible, it also wasn't the most practical weapon, as conditions had to be just right.
Posted by Frederick J. Barnett in Sorrento, LA on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:48 AMThe stabbing range I cited had to do with the fan designs from Mythbusters. For the full scale mockup I correctly suggested bow range.
Still, while it may have been possible to set fire to one ship, they'd have been moving to fast to burn an entire fleet before they landed.
As for Franklin, wouldn't the pre-storm charges simply have been static electricity? It was already well known that static electricity builds up prior to a storm. I was always taught that he was supposed to have proved that lightning was electricity, which would have required a lightning strike.
As far as hiding in a shed, wouldn't the rain have run down the string soaking the silk ribbon and his hand?
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:41 AMStill, while it may have been possible to set fire to one ship, they'd have been moving to fast to burn an entire fleet before they landed.
As for Franklin, wouldn't the pre-storm charges simply have been static electricity? It was already well known that static electricity builds up prior to a storm. I was always taught that he was supposed to have proved that lightning was electricity, which would have required a lightning strike.
As far as hiding in a shed, wouldn't the rain have run down the string soaking the silk ribbon and his hand?
I'm with Charybdis on the Archimedes experiment. In the Mythbuster's experiment with MIT, they couldn't even get a flame (only smoking) while the boat was sitting still in the water. Imagine keeping all of the mirrors properly aligned on a moving target. Sounds too tough to be true.
Posted by dae dae on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:49 AMThe Roman ships wouldn't have been able to land, though, Charybdis. They were attacking the Achradina sea wall, so they would have tied together pairs of quinquiremes and built seige towers on them, and then have slowly moved those into place. So there would have been ample chance for a little pyromania. Also, the seige lasted about two years, so there would have been plenty of time to fry ships.
But really, what matters is that it has been shown that the process could have worked. So this means that Mythbusters isn't all that reliable of a source.
Posted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:50 AMBut really, what matters is that it has been shown that the process could have worked. So this means that Mythbusters isn't all that reliable of a source.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >