The Seven Follies of Science [2nd ed.] / A popular account of the most famous scientific impossibilities and the attempts which have been made to solve them. To which is added a small budget of interesting paradoxes, illusions, and marvels

by John Phin

2. FALLACIES

Fallacies are distinguished from absurdities on the one hand and from frauds on the other, by the fact that without any intentionally fraudulent contrivances on the part of the inventor, they seem to produce results which have a tendency to afford to certain enthusiasts a basis of hope in the direction of perpetual motion, although usually not under that name, for that is always explicitly disclaimed by the promoters.

The most notable instance of this class in recent times was the application of liquid air as a source of power, the claim having been actually made by some of the advocates of this fallacy that a steamship starting from New York with 1000 gallons of liquid air, could not only cross the Atlantic at full speed but could reach the other side with more than 1000 gallons of liquid air on board—the power required to drive the vessel and to liquefy the surplus air being all obtained during the passage by utilizing the original quantity of liquid air that had been furnished in the first place.

That this was equivalent to perpetual motion, pure and simple, was obvious even to those who were least familiar with such subjects, though the idea of calling it perpetual motion was sternly repudiated by all concerned—the term "perpetual motion" having become thoroughly offensive to the ears of common-sense people, and consequently tending to cast doubt over any enterprise to which it might be applied.

That liquid air is a real and wonderful discovery, and that for a certain small range of purposes it will prove highly useful, cannot be doubted by those who have seen and handled it and are familiar with its properties, but that it will ever be successfully used as an economical source of mechanical power is, to say the least, very improbable. That a small quantity of the liquid is capable of doing an enormous amount of work, and that under some conditions there is apparently more power developed than was originally required to liquefy the air, is undoubtedly true, but when a careful quantitative examination is made of the outgo and the income of energy, it will be found in this, as in every similar case, that instead of a gain there is a very decided and serious loss. The correct explanation of the fallacy was published in the "Scientific American," by the late Dr. Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute, and the same explanation and exposure were made by the writer, nearly fifty years ago, in the case of a very similar enterprise. The form of the fallacy in both cases is so similar and so interesting that I shall make no apology for giving the details.

About the year 1853 or 1854, two ingenious mechanics of Rochester, N. Y., conceived the idea that by using some liquid more volatile than water, a great saving might be effected in the cost of running an engine. At that time gasolene and benzine were unknown in commerce, and the same was true in regard to bisulphide of carbon, but as the process of manufacturing the latter was simple and the sources of supply were cheap and apparently unlimited, they adopted that liquid. The name of one of these inventors was Hughes and that of the other was Hill, and it would seem that each had made the invention independently of the other. They had a fierce conflict over the patent, but this does not concern us except to this extent, that the records of the case may therefore be found in the archives of the Patent Office at Washington, D.C. Hughes was backed by the wealth of a well-known lawyer of Rochester, whose son subsequently occupied a high office in the state of New York, and he constructed a beautiful little steam-engine and boiler, made of the very finest materials and with such skill and accuracy that it gave out a very considerable amount of power in proportion to its size. The source of heat was a series of lamps, fed, I think, with lard oil (this was before the days of kerosene), and the exhibition test consisted in first filling the boiler with water, and noting the time that it took to get up a certain steam pressure as shown by the gage. After this test, bisulphide of carbon was added to the water, and the time and pressure were noted. The difference was of course remarkable, and altogether in favor of the new liquid. The exhaust was carried into a vessel of cold water and as bisulphide of carbon is very easily condensed and very heavy, almost the entire quantity used was recovered and used over and over again.

But to the uninstructed onlooker, the most remarkable part of the exhibition was when the steam pressure was so far lowered that the engine revolved very slowly, and then, on a little bisulphide being injected into the boiler, the pressure would at once rise, and the engine would work with great rapidity. This seemed almost like magic.

The same experiment was tried on an engine of twelve horse-power, and with a like result. When the steam pressure had fallen so far that the engine began to move quite slowly, a quantity of the bisulphide would be injected into the boiler and the pressure would at once rise, the engine would move with renewed vigor, and the fly-wheel would revolve with startling velocity. All this was seen over and over again by myself and others. At that time the writer, then quite a young man, had just recovered from a very severe illness and was making a living by teaching mechanical drawing and making drawings for inventors and others, and in the course of business he was brought into contact with some parties who thought of investing in the new and apparently wonderful invention. They employed him to examine it and give an opinion as to its value. After careful consideration and as thorough a calculation as the data then at command would allow, he showed his clients that the tests which had been exhibited to them proved nothing, and that if a clear proof of the value of the invention was to be given, it must be after a run of many hours and not of a few minutes, and against a properly adjusted load, the amount of which had been carefully ascertained. This test was never made, or if made the results were not communicated to the prospective purchasers; the negotiations fell through, and the invention which was to have revolutionized our mechanical industries fell into "innocuous desuetude."

That the inventors were honest I have no doubt. They were themselves deceived when they saw the engine start off with tremendous velocity as soon as a little bisulphide of carbon was injected into the boiler, and they failed to see that this spurt, if I may use the expression, was simply due to a draft upon capital previously stored up. The capacity of bisulphide of carbon for heat is quite low, when compared with that of water; its vaporizing point is also much lower and consequently, an ordinary boiler full of hot water contains enough heat to vaporize a considerable quantity of bisulphide of carbon at a pretty high pressure.

In even a still greater measure the same is true of liquid air, and this was the underlying fallacy in the case of the tests made with liquid-air motors.