Q1 Arts and Humanities
Jerzy Sawicki
{"title":"Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – trudna droga do prawdy","authors":"Jerzy Sawicki","doi":"10.4467/2543702XSHS.18.011.9331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On October 11, 1745, a German scientist Ewald Georg (Jürgen) Kleist in Cammin in Pommern (today Kamień Pomorski) discovered both the phenomenon of storing electricity in a glass vessel with water, and a new device – an electric capacitor. Kleist quickly and correctly announced his discovery to the scientific community.\n\nThe greatest help in confirming the discovery and its publication was received by Kleist from Daniel Gralath who was active in the first Polish Society for Experimental Physics Societas Physicae Experimentalis in Gdańsk.\n\nAt the beginning of 1746, in the Dutch Leiden, in the workshop of the famous professor Pieter Musschenbroek, an experiment was conducted similar to the one in Cammin. The information about the Leiden experiment quickly reached Paris, the centre of European science of that time, and which lead to a proclamation of a new, very important physical discovery. The experiment gained wide publicity in Europe thanks to numerous public repetitions. The French promoter of the Leiden experiment was physicist Jean-Antoine Nollet.\n\nThe discoverer’s fame was unjustly attributed to Musschenbroek and Leiden, although Daniel Gralath reported Nollet’s letter about Kleist’s priority. From the moment of discovery to modern times, scientific publications in the field of physics and history of science often misrepresent the person of the discoverer, the place of discovery and its name.\n\nThe aim of the article is to present a broad overview of the reports, descriptions and opinions contained in scientific publications about the discovery. In the review presented in the article, 117 books are divided by country of issue, language and time of publication. The most frequent errors were classified and assigned to the analyzed publications. The result turned out to be surprising, as only 6 items were free of errors, and in the remaining, 254 errors were found. Unfortunately, in both former and contemporary publications, Kleist is sometimes ignored, and even if noticed, his discovery is usually depreciated in various ways. It may come as a surprise that the first two works on the history of electrical research written in the eighteenth century by Daniel Gralath and Joseph Priestley correctly and profoundly convey the course of events and the priority of Kleist’s discovery. It turns out that the French untrue version of the history of this finding is still alive, especially in European countries, so that pupils, students and physics enthusiasts receive a false message about this important discovery.\n\nIn the circle of reliable researchers in the history of science, the priority of Kleist’s discovery is widely recognized, but even they have a problem with naming the electric capacitor discovered by the Cammin physicist differently than the Leiden jar. One of the reasons for the poor knowledge of Kleist and his experiment is scant scientific literature on the subject and the ignorance of the source texts written by the Cammin explorer. This gap is bridged by a scientific monograph written by the author of the present article. The text of this paper complements the information presented in the author’s book entitled Ewald Georg Kleist – Wielki odkrywca z małego miasta (A great discoverer from a small town): Kamień Pomorski 1745 (Warszawa: Instytut Historii Nauki PAN, Stowarzyszenie Elektryków Polskich, Zachodniopomorski Uniwersytet Technologiczny w Szczecinie, 2018).","PeriodicalId":36875,"journal":{"name":"Studia Historiae Scientiarum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Historiae Scientiarum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2543702XSHS.18.011.9331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1745年10月11日,德国科学家埃瓦尔德·格奥尔格(Jürgen)Kleist在波默恩的Cammin(今天的KamieńPomorski)发现了在装有水的玻璃容器中储存电力的现象,以及一种新的设备——电容器。克莱斯特迅速而正确地向科学界宣布了他的发现。在确认这一发现及其发表方面,克莱斯特得到了丹尼尔·格拉拉特的最大帮助,格拉拉特活跃于位于格但斯克的第一个波兰实验物理学会。1746年初,在荷兰莱顿,在著名教授彼得·穆申布罗克的工作室里,进行了一项类似于在卡姆明的实验。关于莱顿实验的信息很快传到了当时欧洲科学中心巴黎,并宣布了一项新的、非常重要的物理发现。由于多次公开重复,这项实验在欧洲获得了广泛的宣传。莱顿实验的法国推动者是物理学家让·安托万·诺莱。这位发现者的名声被不公正地归咎于穆申布罗克和莱顿,尽管丹尼尔·格拉拉特报道了诺莱关于克莱斯特优先权的信。从发现的那一刻到现代,物理学和科学史领域的科学出版物经常歪曲发现者的身份、发现地及其名称。这篇文章的目的是对科学出版物中关于这一发现的报告、描述和意见进行全面概述。在文章中的评论中,117本书按出版国、语言和出版时间进行了划分。最常见的错误被分类并分配给分析的出版物。结果令人惊讶,因为只有6个项目没有错误,而在剩下的项目中,发现了254个错误。不幸的是,在以前和当代的出版物中,克莱斯特有时都被忽视,即使被注意到,他的发现通常也会以各种方式被贬低。令人惊讶的是,丹尼尔·格拉拉特和约瑟夫·普里斯特利在18世纪撰写的前两部关于电学研究史的著作正确而深刻地传达了克莱斯特发现的过程和优先事项。事实证明,法国对这一发现历史的不真实版本仍然存在,尤其是在欧洲国家,因此学生和物理爱好者收到了关于这一重要发现的虚假信息。在科学史上可靠的研究人员圈子里,克莱斯特发现的优先事项得到了广泛认可,但即使是他们也有一个问题,那就是用不同于莱顿罐子的名字来命名这位卡姆明物理学家发现的电容器。克莱斯特及其实验知识贫乏的原因之一是缺乏关于这一主题的科学文献,以及对这位卡姆明探险家所写的原始文本的无知。本文作者撰写的一本科学专著弥补了这一差距。本文补充了作者的著作《Ewald-Georg Kleist–Wielki odkrywca z małego miasta(一位来自小镇的伟大发现者):KamieńPomorski 1745》(Warszawa:Instytut Historyi Nauki PAN,Stowarzyszenie Elektryków Polskich,Zachodnopomorski Uniwersytet Technologiczny w Szczecini,2018)中提供的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – trudna droga do prawdy
On October 11, 1745, a German scientist Ewald Georg (Jürgen) Kleist in Cammin in Pommern (today Kamień Pomorski) discovered both the phenomenon of storing electricity in a glass vessel with water, and a new device – an electric capacitor. Kleist quickly and correctly announced his discovery to the scientific community. The greatest help in confirming the discovery and its publication was received by Kleist from Daniel Gralath who was active in the first Polish Society for Experimental Physics Societas Physicae Experimentalis in Gdańsk. At the beginning of 1746, in the Dutch Leiden, in the workshop of the famous professor Pieter Musschenbroek, an experiment was conducted similar to the one in Cammin. The information about the Leiden experiment quickly reached Paris, the centre of European science of that time, and which lead to a proclamation of a new, very important physical discovery. The experiment gained wide publicity in Europe thanks to numerous public repetitions. The French promoter of the Leiden experiment was physicist Jean-Antoine Nollet. The discoverer’s fame was unjustly attributed to Musschenbroek and Leiden, although Daniel Gralath reported Nollet’s letter about Kleist’s priority. From the moment of discovery to modern times, scientific publications in the field of physics and history of science often misrepresent the person of the discoverer, the place of discovery and its name. The aim of the article is to present a broad overview of the reports, descriptions and opinions contained in scientific publications about the discovery. In the review presented in the article, 117 books are divided by country of issue, language and time of publication. The most frequent errors were classified and assigned to the analyzed publications. The result turned out to be surprising, as only 6 items were free of errors, and in the remaining, 254 errors were found. Unfortunately, in both former and contemporary publications, Kleist is sometimes ignored, and even if noticed, his discovery is usually depreciated in various ways. It may come as a surprise that the first two works on the history of electrical research written in the eighteenth century by Daniel Gralath and Joseph Priestley correctly and profoundly convey the course of events and the priority of Kleist’s discovery. It turns out that the French untrue version of the history of this finding is still alive, especially in European countries, so that pupils, students and physics enthusiasts receive a false message about this important discovery. In the circle of reliable researchers in the history of science, the priority of Kleist’s discovery is widely recognized, but even they have a problem with naming the electric capacitor discovered by the Cammin physicist differently than the Leiden jar. One of the reasons for the poor knowledge of Kleist and his experiment is scant scientific literature on the subject and the ignorance of the source texts written by the Cammin explorer. This gap is bridged by a scientific monograph written by the author of the present article. The text of this paper complements the information presented in the author’s book entitled Ewald Georg Kleist – Wielki odkrywca z małego miasta (A great discoverer from a small town): Kamień Pomorski 1745 (Warszawa: Instytut Historii Nauki PAN, Stowarzyszenie Elektryków Polskich, Zachodniopomorski Uniwersytet Technologiczny w Szczecinie, 2018).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Historiae Scientiarum
Studia Historiae Scientiarum Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信