NavList:

   

Reply

Just for the record, (Cdr) Bruce Bauer died a year or two ago, so I'm
sure he won't mind being quoted.

Ken
On Nov 22, 2007, at 12:31 AM, Scott Owen wrote:

>
> Michael Daly wrote:
>>> That applies only to Mike's special interpretation of the
>>> instrument, and to
>>> the Royal Society engraving. To an open mind things are
>>> different, with our
>>> new understanding of how Newton's note can be read..
>>
>> I have an open mind, however, I'm not gullible. I'll accept anything
>> that can be reasonably proved.  I've seen no such proof.
>>
>> You are continually referring to some mythical Newtonian
>> instrument that
>> you never describe and is completely undocumented.  Provide a
>> reliable
>> source or drop the fantasy.
>>
>> Mike
> Mike,
> I freely admit my knowledge of this subject as limited to what I have
> read in CDR Bauer's book, "The Sextant Handbook" of which I hope the
> good CDR does not mind me quoting rather liberally.  As to whether or
> not he is a reliable source I leave that to your opinion. IMHO he
> seems
> to treat this subject fairly and objectively on pp 25-35.  So here
> goes.
>
> Page 25, CDR Bauer says:
> "In 1699 Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) conceived the principle of
> measuring angles by double reflection and made an instrument that
> would
> do so."
>
> Does this mean that Newton actually produced a working prototype or
> just
> a drawing?  I suggest that it doesn't matter, the drawing is as
> good as
> the prototype.  However, I DO believe Newton made a working
> prototype of
> the double reflecting instrument see below.
>
> Page 26, CDR Bauer says:
> "On 9 August 1699, the celebrated Newton, the Einstein of his age,
> personally appeared before the Royal Society to reveal a new principle
> of optics to this group whose purpose was to receive, evaluate and
> disseminate scientific knowledge. He read and submitted a paper on an
> instrument made on the principle.  From the Journal book of the Royal
> Society (minutes of the meeting), set down in a bold and flowing
> script:
>
>       Mr Newton shewed a new instrument contrived by him for observing
>       the moon and starrs, the longitude at Sea, being the old
> instrument
>       mended of some faults with which notwithstanding Mr. Hally (sic)
>       had found the longitude better than the Seaman by other methods.
>
> The minutes were referring to Edmund Halley (1656-1742), later the
> secretary of the Royal Society, who applied Newtons concepts to
> predict
> the comet that bears his name.  In 1699 Halley had recently returned
> from a voyage to Brazil, during which he evaluated an instrument
> designed by Dr. Robert Hooke, a rival of Newton.  Hooke's instrument
> used a mirror, but did not incorporate the double reflecting
> principle.
>   It did not work very well.
>
> This Royal Society Journal book entry constituted a clear record of
> what
> in current patent office terminology would be called disclosure of
> a new
> invention.  That someone was listening attentively is demonstrated by
> the insertion of a comment in the minutes of the next meeting -- 25
> October 1699 -- by Dr. Hooke that:
>
>      ...the instrument mentioned last meeting was of his [Hooke's]
>         invention before the year 1665 and that the use and fabric of
>         it was declared in the History of the Royal Society.
>
> He disputed the originality of Newton's concept or model or both.  We
> cannot tell which."
>
> So now we have Sir Isaac Newton and Dr. Hooke (rivals) saying they
> each
> invented the double reflecting principle and an instrument to measure
> such.  Newton in 1699 and Hooke sometime before 1665.  Again according
> to Bauer, John Hadley in 1731 presented yet another paper to the Royal
> Society on the double reflecting principle and TWO prototypes.  It was
> one of these prototypes that went into commercial production shortly
> thereafter.  Further, at the same time as Hadley, Thomas Godfrey (an
> American and close associate of Ben Franklin) also laid claim to
> developing the double reflecting instrument.  Ultimately, the Royal
> Society settled the Godfrey/Hadley dispute by saying it was
> "simultaneous and independent invention".  Both of these
> instruments use
> the double reflecting principle but look sufficiently different.  And
> actually these instruments were octants not sextants.  So there you
> have
> it, abbreviated sextant history according to CDR Bauer.  There is much
> more in the book and I can highly recommend it.
>
> --Scott
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply