Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth
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...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences
2018-12-01
|
| Series: | Studia Historiae Scientiarum |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ojs.ejournals.eu/SHS/article/view/6881 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832575554262401024 |
|---|---|
| author | Jerzy Sawicki |
| author_facet | Jerzy Sawicki |
| author_sort | Jerzy Sawicki |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
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).
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e2e7fdac65c04e18bbd2e33535d9ad31 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2451-3202 2543-702X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-12-01 |
| publisher | Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studia Historiae Scientiarum |
| spelling | doaj-art-e2e7fdac65c04e18bbd2e33535d9ad312025-01-31T23:46:00ZengPolish Academy of Arts and SciencesStudia Historiae Scientiarum2451-32022543-702X2018-12-0117Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truthJerzy Sawicki0Zachodniopomorski Uniwersytet Technologiczny w Szczecinie, Wydział Elektryczny, Szczecin 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). https://ojs.ejournals.eu/SHS/article/view/6881Ewald Georg (Jürgen) KleistPieter MusschenbroekLeiden jar |
| spellingShingle | Jerzy Sawicki Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth Studia Historiae Scientiarum Ewald Georg (Jürgen) Kleist Pieter Musschenbroek Leiden jar |
| title | Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth |
| title_full | Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth |
| title_fullStr | Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth |
| title_full_unstemmed | Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth |
| title_short | Kleist vs. Musschenbroek – a difficult way to truth |
| title_sort | kleist vs musschenbroek a difficult way to truth |
| topic | Ewald Georg (Jürgen) Kleist Pieter Musschenbroek Leiden jar |
| url | https://ojs.ejournals.eu/SHS/article/view/6881 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jerzysawicki kleistvsmusschenbroekadifficultwaytotruth |