Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rob Stowell wrote:
In fact the use of sails to tack against the wind may have originated rather closer to Alexandria, however.
Thanks for your comments, Rob. It seems that few inventions are as disputed as the development of the lift-type sails -- everyone claims them! But from my research I'd have to award it to the Austronesians or (at the very least) the Polynesians. If you look at their settlement patterns & dates it's hard to see how it would have been possible without lift-type sails (although they didn't use lateen sails, of course) well into the BCs. But I've certainly seen the Arabs/Persians/etc. credited with it -- even in engineering textbooks. But, of course, we don't have direct written evidence as with the Arabs/Persians/etc.
The website you link to is interesting, but makes a couple of odd claims, e.g.
It is interesting to notice that in the north of Europe, during the 1400's, ships were only square rigged and were entirely dependent on a fair wind. They were quite unstable, and were never used to attempt to make headway against an adverse wind and thus were unable to make long journeys to cross oceans.
The above is quite incorrect. The square Viking sails could be used to generate lift with the tacking spar, and of course, the Vikings had reached North America by the turn of the last millennium!
Stephen Judd wrote:
Are those advantages really peculiar to England? Iberia has all those advantages too - and that's why Spain and Portugal were serious contenders with the English for imperial dominance.
You're absolutely right, Stephen -- and the Dutch, etc. too. I did qualify my claims of "had all the right ingredients" with "... and Western Europe in general", but perhaps I should have emphasized that a little more. The main point of difference shall become clear in the next episode (playing in around a week) when I talk about the role of coal in the 1700s -- what Britain did was radically different in scale to any other country (although Sweden also did pretty astounding things).
Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
[The Chinese] bathed and were cultured beyond beyond their bacteria, unlike the English.
Certainly... and I did actually mention the "more advanced civilizations in Asia: in particular, China.". I mention China a bit in next week's episode, too.
OK 1421 has a bit of bollocks in it too
Quite a bit, I'd say.
Slavery built the British Empire & individual fortunes...
This was often claimed in old history texts, but modern research has rather exploded this idea. Slave trade profits were less than one per cent of British national income between 1688 and 1800. For example, see: Morgan, K. (1999) The birth of industrial Britain : economic change 1750-1850. Longman, London, page 71-73.
-
Part four of a twelve-part series looking at energy. This week: How Energy Allowed Britannia to Rule the Waves...
NOTE: References, further information, and a complete transcript of this week's episode are available here.
This episode of Public Address Science was originally broadcast on Radio Live, 13th October 2007, 5 pm - 6 pm.
Public Address Science dedicated RSS feed and story archives.
-
Thank you for that, Graham -- incredibly powerful stuff. Almost too anguishing to watch.
When I was a (very junior and temporary) engineering lecturer, I used to begin my lecture on the IPENZ code of ethics by talking about Auschwitz-Birkenau. I'd present diagrams of the material flows in an (unnamed) "factory from the 1940s" -- showing how efficient it was and how they almost closed all the waste streams, etc. Then I would explain what those highly-talented university-educated engineers had designed.
It seemed like a good way of pointing out that engineering isn't just about numbers and following procedures. It can very easy for design engineers (as opposed to engineering scientists, perhaps) to focus on solving technical problems at the exclusion of their meaning in the context of the wider world. Engineers are responsible for so many good things, but we shouldn't ignore the 'terrible successes' that engineers have also achieved.
-
Ben Austin wrote:
Interesting theory, I've seen it alluded to here and there but not to that degree.
Our posts seemed to have overlapped -- fascinating info! Would you be able to direct me to where this interpretation is discussed elsewhere -- I'd be very interested... (and marks off to me for not finding it myself).
Deborah wrote:
Colic? Reflux?
Colic and reflux and cow's milk protein allergy, poor chap. He's really had a tough start.
Oh, and you're right about Hadrian -- although Augustus said something similar at one point (they do cover a lot of ground in philosophy, don't they?).
-
Kyle Matthews wrote:
... where's the evidence that 'slave energy limits' was a prime factor? Is this something that anyone else has theorised on? I note no footnotes in that crucial point.
I've talked this interpretation (I wouldn't go as far as to say 'theory' -- except in an ironic sense!) over with my former Classics colleagues at UoC. As far as I've been able to discover, and as far as they've ever heard, no-one has ever suggested this interpretation before.
Of course, plenty of people have noted that labour shortages were a factor in the collapse of the Roman Empire -- and that's obvious from the labour control regulations decreed by Diocletian and Constantine, etc. (see the Encarta article that I cite in the programme -- under 'Constantine'). And plenty of people have noted that Roman methods for harnessing animal labour and wind were inefficient (see any of the engineering history books cited in my programme). And loads of people have claimed that reliance on slavery hindered the development of labour-saving machinery, as Che points out (e.g. see 'A History of Engineering and Technology: Artful Methods' cited in my programme). But I don't think anyone has overtly put these things together to discuss them in terms of a possible energy crisis.
I certainly don't think this in any kind of revelatory theory that will change history -- it's just a (mildly) interesting light in which to look at some of the established explanations for the Decline & Fall...
Please note the cautious language used in the programme:
Clearly, there were many contributory factors in the collapse of the Roman Empire. But I would argue that energy was a critical underlying cause -- often overlooked -- that ties together a number of other important factors.
rodgerd wrote:
I personally find the decline of the Roman Empire is kind of a Rorsharch test for people. It tells you more about what they think than the actual causes.
Sure, I agree -- hence my facetious introduction: "every certified nutcase has a theory about the collapse of the Roman Empire -- you should hear mine..."
On the other hand, I think (without claiming too much) that it is mildly interesting and mildly informative to look at history through the lens of energy. But, of course, as a former energy engineer, I would think that...
P.S. And, yes, Kyle -- you're dead right -- it is bloody depressing to think of humans purely in terms of their potential energy output. Not something I would normally do, I assure you.
-
Part three of a twelve-part series looking at energy. This week: Energy Crisis in the Roman Empire...
NOTE: References, further information, and a complete transcript of this week's episode are available here.
This episode of Public Address Science was originally broadcast on Radio Live, 27th September 2007, 5 pm - 6 pm.
Public Address Science dedicated RSS feed and story archives.
-
InternationalObserver, Daleaway, Russell Brown, and particulrly Stephen Judd & Steve Barnes:
I humbly worship at the feet of your literary prowess(es). Truly we have giants among us.
-
Very nice post, Dr Creon (although I suspect that I'm not clever enough to fully appreciated your erudition).
My own reaction to porn is not that of -- ahem -- boredom. But rather a sense of worry about the actors -- hoping that they're not unhappy (a point, I guess, that you touch upon in your post). I worry about practically everything, so this is probably only to be expected in my case.
Did you discuss with Mr Profane the idea that porn could also be art? Does the definition of porn (which I guess hinges on the fact that it's designed to arouse sexual excitement) preclude it from being a success at an artistic level, i.e. with great lighting, cinematography, editing, etc. could you make a porn film which is also a genuine work of art?
-
Steve Barnes:
Love the poem, dude! You should send it to Landfall.
I tried to write my own ode on the subject of the local body elections, but couldn't think of an appropriate rhyme for Banks...
-
RE: the security excuse
A couple of years ago I cycled over to Westland and stopped at Punakaiki. I was locking my bike outside the Department of Conservation kiosk when a uniformed DOC-Nazi leapt out and screamed at me (in upper case, like this): "OI YOU! TAKE THAT BLOODY BIKE AWAY -- RIGHT NOW!".
My bike, so he claimed (via the medium of shouting), was a security risk. Nothing was to be left outside the DOC kiosk because it might be the work of terrorists.
When I asked how a bicycle could possibly be a terrorist threat he said (and I quote his exact words from my diary): "You might have packed the bicycle frame with Semtex".
In his razor-sharp mind, nothing was more probable than international terrorists hack-sawing up a bicycle, packing the tubing with Semtex, welding the bicycle frame back together again, flying to New Zealand, taking their Semtex-packed bicycle off the plane, cycling 300 kilometres to a DOC kiosk in the middle of nowhere, locking the bicycle up, blowing the shit out of the kiosk, and then walking 300 kilometres back to Christchurch airport rubbing their hands with glee at the enormous terror-coup they'd inflicted upon Western civilization.
I defy anyone to come up with a stupider fear-of-terrorism situation than this.