![]() ![]() The goal seems to have been the creation of an upscale “Reader’s Digest”, combining both fiction and nonfiction articles, with lavish illustrations to boot! The format may not have been particularly successful, as the magazine was renamed the London Magazine in 1900, after only three volumes. It is our desire, for the sake of the public, for the benefit of young artists and others, and for our own profit, to avoid the productions of the professional “ring” of much advertised mediocrity which most assuredly dominates many of our Magazines to day, though the work of really representative men and women will always be secured, without regard to its cost. The public is weary of the reiteration of the same contributors to each of the monthly publications. As with our “Daily Mail” and our other journals, we shall rely on new writers. Frankly and openly do we, therefore, declare that mere “names” will never command an entrance to the pages of this Magazine. we came to the conclusion long since that a good deal of the literary wares that are foisted on the public by means of the ordinary advertising methods of personal paragraphs and “interviews” is mainly rubbish. As to the purpose of the magazine, it is perhaps best to quote Harmsworth himself, from the introduction to the first issue: Harmsworth, founder of the Daily Mail, and evidently run by his brother Cecil. It was started in 1899 by British newspaper magnate Alfred C. There isn’t very much information on The Harmsworth Magazine online. It is not kind to the concept, or the people who pursue it. When I dug up the first volume of The Harmsworth Magazine, dated 1899, to seek out a story by Winston Churchill, I also found a popular article on perpetual motion. With that in mind, it is worth pointing out that perpetual motion has been considered impossible - and treated with scorn - for a long, long time. ![]() ![]() It would be impossible for science to progress if we spent all of our time, in the absence of new evidence, testing schemes that we know have already failed. Science is a process which builds upon all knowledge that has come before what we have discovered previously - scientific history - is crucial. It is especially amusing to hear criticism of “mini history lessons”. My answer to this is that I don’t have to! At this point, such devices have been debunked so often and the laws of physics so well understood that the onus is on any would-be perpetual motion discoverer to demonstrate that their device does work, and ideally explain why. The complaint seems to be that I don’t actually spend my time proving that the device can’t work. Thus no analysis has taken place in this article, only emotional oversimplification ( just like the second video guy ) and a trail of distracting mini history lessons. Also the author mentions several times “conservation of energy” and “thermodynamics” laws, but does not apply those concepts to explain how the device could not work. The author’s diagram does not reflect the structure of the device in the video. Neither the author of this article nor the guy in the second video actually gives any data or analysis applicable to the device in the first video. Last week, I received the following comment on the post (written two years ago, mind you): I was understandably critical of the device, and free energy has yet to reach the masses, but that doesn’t stop people from being true believers. Some two years ago, I wrote a post about a device called the “whipmag”, a thinly-disguised perpetual motion machine based on magnets that would supposedly accelerate without an external source of energy once set in motion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |