The revelations of nature; a philosophic essay based on many discoveries of mighty import made by the author ...

Preface

The reader who may not agree with the views expressed in this essay is respectfully requested not to pass judgment upon them offhand at first reading, and to cast off any prejudice. It will generally take several readings before everything said is fully grasped, engraved and correlated in the mind for permitting impartial criticism. Any proposition never heard of before may seem an absurdity at first sight and yet may become an obvious truth subsequently. That is because it usually takes time for the human mind to become accustomed to new ideas. That is also why the first literary work of authors who are not imitators is seldom appreciated before they have acquired fame.

Without making any claim to literary ability the author feels that the intelligent reader should find in this book abundant food for thought and that is its essential purpose.

THE REVELATIONS OF NATURE.

PART I. Discoveries Unparalleled Since the Time of Newton*

Perpetual Motion is Solvable and Solved.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

The writer has none of the ponderous authority which gives real (or fictitious) weight to anything said or written by persons whose scientific standing and position give them prominence. His share of knowledge on scientific subjects and any subject is only a very minute fraction of that possessed by such persons. He is simply a "man in the street/' Therefore he does not claim to possess what is generally conceded to be the highest order of education or learning, but he claims to be able to give some pointers on some subjects to those who possess such advantages. At all events, he gives here some of his thoughts for scientific men to weigh and scrutinize if they have the leisure and patience. (Those approached hitherto had apparently neither.)

He is not looking for any authorities on the subjects treated, but pretends to have made great discoveries, and if there is any authority in the matter, he is that authority. The reader may and should take it for what it is worth if he can find out and no more. True, he, (the writer), has no precious "reputation to lose," but he has one to make and is not so much indifferent as to what may become of it. He does not wish to appear pretentious ; there is no pretension about it at all, but what he has to say will be said without restraint as to matter of form. This is not a question of fine academic style, conventionalities or sham modesty, but one of truth. Being merely seeking the truth he shall ever be found willing to retrace his steps whenever found on the wrong path, provided reasonable evidence is adduced.

Most writers studiously avoid the use of the pronoun "I" as much as possible, using "we" instead most frequently. This is akin to the ancient custom of hiding the number 13 under the cover of "12 bis," so the gods could not see it. The leap over to 14 was thus safely accomplished. For my part I will not try to conceal my identity and put the responsibility for what I say upon somebody's else shoulders, for I am only one and don't pretend to be many. Being the writer of the book I can see no good reason for hiding behind a screen, as this would make mighty little difference to the value of what is said. Therefore I will say III, whenever that expression is the most handy and suitable. This is a free country. Foolish customs of all shades are plentiful enough to make comfortable upholstery to sit on.

PERPETUAL MOTION.

The scornful haughty disdain with airs of commiseration of scientific men for the seeker after the Perpetuum Mobile and their heaping of slur, ridicule and abuse upon his head, trusting in their exalted superior knowledge, is something proverbial and universal. "It is no use talking, you cannot get something for nothing/' they say, or something equivalent. Well, no, not so long as you don't know how, (and the knowing how is something), but such an assertion is presumptuous in the extreme, and utterly unwarranted and unjudicious so long as all the forces and secrets of Nature are not fully understood, and it does not appear that they are. "You cannot cheat Nature/* they say again. No, but oh! how beautifully Nature can cheat you, as she has done so many a time without any scruples with scientists who pretended to set a limit to her powers. Of course, perpetual motion without means to generate energy permanently is an impossibility, as far as present knowledge goes at least, but to find such means is not, and these being found, it is perpetual motion all the same, or something on the same plan if you please, and science does not admit the possibility of the one any more than that of the other. The very mention of perpetual motion is a scarecrow. It is an absurdity born of human vagaries. Such notion is the rankest nonsense and is good only for ignoramuses and cranks. Here is a sample of what science has to say from the Encyclopedia Brittanica : " . . . If a man likes to indulge in the notion that, after all, an exception to the law of the conservation of energy may be found, and provided he submits his idea to the test of experiment at his own charges without annoying his neighbors, all that can be said is that he is engaged in an unpromising enterprise. The case is otherwise with the projector who comes forward with some machine which claims by the mere ingenuity of its contrivance to multiply the energy supplied to it from some of the ordinary sources of nature and sets to work to pester scientific men to examine his supposed discovery, or attempts therewith to induce the credulous to waste their money/'

So, lofty science holds its foot upon it and Nature cannot help it if she would. It is clear, therefore, that science will have nothing to do with it; so much so that the announcement to that effect was made by the French Academy of Sciences over a century ago, (1775) and has been closely adhered to by all scientific bodies ever since ; so that we shall have to do without science, taking this bull by the horns. This is a nut hard to crack, but with the proper tools it can be done. Moreover, at the present day this attitude of science is probably more a question of terms employed for expressing an idea than an objection to the idea itself, for a great many scientists assume that some inexhaustible source of energy might incidentally be discovered ; many think it will. But if that source is not to be discovered in the known forces of Nature, there is a great deal less likelihood of its being found in any unknown force or the less understood, or in some imaginary entity, such as the ether. The secrets of Nature do not drop down in a bundle with everything explained.

Many scientists usually style it a great audacity when they advance some notion out of the usual run with or without, (more often without), Nature's testimonials. There may be audacity in presenting a bogus check at the bank counter, but the bearer of the genuine is fearless, no matter what the figure involved may be.

Nature finds the means to move the universe for nothing, but our scientific men appear to think that God once gave it such a tremendous kick as a starter that it will never stop. This was a centrifugal kick, of course, or otherwise central anyhow.

Thus while perpetual motion at retail, as applying to mechanics, is emphatically declared an impossibility, it is fully admitted at wholesale when applying to the motion of the universal machine. But it so happens that science holds precisely the wrong view in both cases, for the universe could not move without expenditure of energy any more than our machines, and our machines as well as the world can find in Nature an everlasting supply of energy to move them when we know how. The writer assumes that he does know and is positive about it. The motion of the universe is purely mechanical; the forces moving it and those which move our machines are the very same ones. Or would they exist merely for the delight and convenience of man, who does not even understand them? He may well believe that as he once believed the whole universe was revolving around him for the same purpose. In the Newtonian gravitational theory, heat, electricity and magnetism (which are real forces, not effects of force) are not assumed to be a factor in the motion of the universe, since according to said theory the universe moves without expenditure of energy. Newton discovered gravitation, but did not discover the cause of it. His explanation of the phenomena which was at first appearance a working hypothesis was good enough for his time, since none better could possibly be found then, but it is time at last to hammer down this old crumbling relic which has done duty for two centuries and is now blocking the march of progress.

The very existence of the real forces of Nature creates the inevitable necessity of a perpetual and universal motion, for said forces being everlasting are forever at work, and as they do that work without the assistance of man, they can move his machines permanently, too, provided he makes the right ones. These things in time scientists will find out, but it can hardly be expected that they will do so at once. Old rooted and universal prejudice takes time to die out. An eminent psychologist in treating of the actions of the mind says : "It is miraculous how little judgment even scientific men often use when investigating a thing about which they have preconceived notions.'' As far as the experience of the writer goes, this is absolutely true, and the story of the subversions in doctrines and opinions concerning scientific and other subjects abundantly prove it. Such subversions take place very slowly and not at once, even in the light of absolute evidence which clearly establishes a new truth. This accounts for the struggles and persecution of the authors of many great discoveries. Great discoveries are great principally from the fact that they meet with opposition and obstacles from all sides. Preconceived notions are comparable to and probably related with hypnotic suggestion which blinds the reasoning faculties. In any event, they usually show a lack of independence of judgment with too much reliance on the judgment of the majority or that of some authority and the length of time this judgment has been upheld. If a wrong view concerning any particular thing has been handed down from age to age for ten thousand years, this will not make it right any more than if it had been upheld only for ten minutes, but it will be immensely more difficult to set aside and few will be found to dispute it. This disposition of man's mind is directly responsible for the perpetuation of errors.

But if science is slow in recognizing its errors, the truth is bound to come to the surface in the end nevertheless. Every great discovery that is coming to light in our day should convince scientific men of the conservative school that they know mighty little about the secrets of Nature, but they do not feel that way, although they sometimes profess to do so, yet will unhesitatingly proclaim the absurdity of any startling but unverified discovery that does not match with their accepted formulae without even taking the trouble to look into it carefully or not at all. What is not possible in one way or any known way does not necessarily imply that there is no principle in Nature which makes it possible, even if looked for in vain for centuries.

Of course there are many fallacies in alleged discoveries, but there are many fallacies in the teachings of science, too, and scientists never realize it until their teachings are thoroughly shattered. Conservative, classic, pure (?) science is content to stand on long trodden ground, even if it is a blind alley and there "zealously guards its acquisitions/' only to see them vanish one after another.

The following paragraph extracted from a humorous article headed "Science and Common Sense/' by

George Bernard Shaw, and reproduced in the English Mechanic and World of Science (Eng.) of April 13, 1900, is a little gem. Here it is :

"Science is the whole fascinating body of speculation concerning what we do not know. The fact that science claims with absolute conviction a special and sacred infallibility of its own which distinguishes it from the superstition of the augur and soothsayer, the medicine man and witch doctor, the faith healer and medium, the yogi and lama, the priest and parson, is the conclusive proof that it is generically identical with them, since they all make that very claim with that very conviction."

This is probably even more true than the author had in mind. If all the absolute scientific knowledge — I mean absolute truth — were put together in a scale, it would make a very poor showing indeed. Theories and doctrines succeed each other as night succeeds day, but none is assured of perfect stability as to basic causes, and without knowing the causes we cannot fully understand the effects. Furthermore, there are many different views in scientific as well as in religious matters. In both cases this diversity of opinion is caused by the influence of "suggestion" a great deal more than by that of truth.

Yet with all that it cannot be gainsaid that true scientific investigation and research is the principal base of all progress, but dogmatism born from preconceived notions is its stumbling block.

I fondly hope that truly progressive scientific men will not get mad at the little teasings contained herein, as they are not intended for them, but will assume that those who might feel incensed at any of the foregoing and subsequent remarks are the reactionary element which has to be fought to the teeth as usual every time a departure marking a step forward in any direction is advanced.

Concerning the views expressed here, however, we need not quarrel. Every one can have it all his own way who don't like my way, but am prepared to receive without flinching the usual abuses and ridicule generally served to innovators. I should like, however, to find out whether the impartiality and good faith of the world of science in its quest after truth is real or only a pretense where sect, cast and dogma are the ruling principles.

As regards perpetual motion, all former attempts at solving it were necessarily doomed to failure, except possibly in one instance, because no way and principles permitting to get something for nothing or jg The Revelations of Nature,

something that cost nothing if you prefer, had been discovered.

What is the one case in which the attempt had any chance of success? It is not very old; it was a living issue in the press a few years ago, although all that was said was of course in vehement condemnation of the heresy, which the writers thought they had buried so deep that it could never again come to the surface. It was the case of Mr. Tripler of liquid air fame. He did not appear to have really discovered any great law or principle of Nature and was merely groping about in the dark, but he was on the right track without knowing it. He, and no doubt many others, had probably secret hopes of reaching the goal, but he dreamed of a thing that he apparently could not handle properly, and he denied some statements attributed to him, as published in an article on liquid air in the McClure Magazine for March, 1899. In this said article Mr. Tripler is represented as repeatedly asking, "What becomes of all this heat anyway?" (That whose removal or disappearance in some way caused liquefaction of the air in his machine.) Mr. Tripler was puzzled, but did not give the answer to this burning question, which is a most vital one, and his traducers disposed of it by simply ignoring it, some of them giving instead some calculations which prove nothing at all concerning the unknown quantity — the secrets of Nature.

Nearly one year before this question appeared in print in the said article, (April 12, 1898), the writer happened to pose the same question to himself and claims to have discovered the answer at the same moment. It is given hereinafter.

LIQUEFACTION OF GASES.

It was early held that the heat of compression of a gas was generated by the act of compression itself, but subsequently this theory was upset and another theory substituted therefor in which it is assumed that the heat of compression is caused by a condensation of the normal heat of the gas. At the present time there seems to be a revulsion toward the earlier theory, or rather uncertainty or indefiniteness as to what really takes place.

In any event it is assumed that the reason why a gas liquefies is because some of its heat is extracted from it when not liquefied by pressure alone.

Then a great problem in physics presents itself here whose true solution is of momentous capital importance. The question is this :

When a gas is liquefied by mechanical means is its normal heat really extracted from it, or is the heat made to disappear from the gas by any other action than that of extraction or radiation into space, which is equivalent?

If it is the normal heat of the gas that is extracted by the cold water usually used in refrigerating plants, then this normal heat must be condensed by the act of compression of the gas and elevated in degree by the condensation.

But we will presently see that this notion of the normal heat of the gas being extracted is an amazing absurdity and that the heat which is extracted by cold water or other agency was created by the act of compression of the gas.

This is the case at least for all the heat exceeding in degree the normal temperature of the gas before compression.

I would say in the first place that the capacity of a gas for retaining or absorbing heat does not change whether it is under pressure or not. ioo cubic feet of atmospheric air, for instance, condensed into one cubic foot contain just as much heat as before the condensation if the temperature is the same. Otherwise what would give it the ioo atmospheres pressure it contains?

Is it not heat that develops pressure within a confined fluid? What would give confined liquid air the capacity for developing a pressure of 800 atmospheres on reaching the normal temperature if it could not contain normally as much heat in the confined as in the non-confined state, and that without showing any difference on the scale of temperature? If any part of the normal heat contained in a volume of gas could be squeezed out of it the whole of its heat could be squeezed out for that matter, and as long as the gas should be prevented from expanding it could not again reabsorb the normal heat it contains in the free state or even part of same. Compressing a gas by mechanical means without adding to its normal heat has in one sense the same effect as adding to its heat without compressing it by mechanical means, i. e., in both cases it is brought under stress if confined, and in both cases it is the heat contained within it that causes the stress.

When a gas is under pressure it is really the heat it contains that is under pressure, but the heat shows no difference of degree, it only shows a disposition to expand with the gas that contains it. This is also proof that both heat and cold are contained by matter and that where there would be no matter neither heat nor cold could exist.

Void space can have no temperature.

Then if at the normal temperature of the atmosphere a given amount of air contains an equal amount of heat whatever be the pressure, it is quite evident that the heat of compression which is of a degree higher than the normal does not form part of the heat contained in the air before the compression, but was generated by the latter and is added to the original heat of the air, but gradually radiates into space or is otherwise extracted. Consequently the extraction of this heat of compression does not extract any of the original heat of the air or any other gas. The reason it is of a higher degree is not because the normal heat was condensed, for if it could be condensed by compression of the gas so as to rise on the scale of temperature, the removal of the excess of heat above the normal after compression should also remove the pressure, and with no pressure in the gas, the latter could only expand gradually by reabsorption of heat. (This it does only after liquefaction.) By compressing the gas further and further and removing the heat of compression at the same time, the gas would finally liquefy at the normal temperature, but no temperature below the normal could be attained.

Ho\yever, the removal of the heat of compression only removes the excess of pressure caused by it; that is because none of the original heat of the gas is removed so long as the temperature of the heat absorbing agent is not below the normal temperature of the gas. If the water employed for removing the heat of compression had a temperature below its normal at the time of using it, then some of its normal heat would have to be disposed of before employing the water for cooling the gas.

When a gas under pressure is allowed to expand suddenly or continuously through a narrow nozzle, however, some heat disappears to be sure until the gas liquefies, and here comes the rub. Is the heat destroyed? Heat being a force of nature, how can it be destroyed?

In the method now used for liquefying air on a commercial scale known as the regenerative process, one type of which is embodied in the Linde's machine, the air under pressure expanding continually through a needle valve or nozzle is cooled to such an extent that part of the expanding air is liquefied on issuing out of the nozzle, and that which does not liquefy is yet cold enough to cool the air rushing toward the nozzle. Consequently it does not carry with it the heat of that part of the air which has been liquefied on expanding since it is itself colder than before expansion.

It is evident, therefore, that it is the act of expansion that causes the disappearance of the normal heat of the air. What becomes of it?

I take no stock in the latent heat story, at least as far as gases are concerned. It has no place here anyway, for it would be the same thing as to say that one gallon of liquid air contains as much heat as an equal amount of air at the normal temperature, but that in one case the heat is apparent and in the other latent, which need no refutation.

The explanation of science varies to suit the circumstances. In one instance science says that the heat is extracted, and when this explanation does not suit the case, science says that the heat is rendered latent. Which is which? Neither. For instance, in reference to the liquefaction and evaporation of air in a report from the Patent Office refuting my views, I see the following curious statement, which, however, is apparently in accordance with present scientific notions : "Heat is merely transformed into intermolecular energy, i. e., the air in vaporising absorbs the latent heat of air vapor." If this has any admissible meaning I fail to grasp it and it reminds me of Voltaire's definition of metaphysics : "When two men are talking together and that the one who is talking does not understand himself while the one who listens seems to understand, that is metaphysics."

Other scientific statements are that when a compressed gas expands its heat is rendered latent, which eventually causes it to liquefy. If the heat is extracted it is not rendered latent; if it is rendered latent it is not extracted ; yet it would have to be both to explain all the phenomena connected with the liquefaction and the evaporation of gases according to the present views of science. It might be contended that a part of the heat is extracted and the other part rendered latent, but such argument could not hold water. Nature's laws do not operate half one way and half the other way.

As regards the liquefaction of air the heat is not absorbed by anything; neither is it destroyed but only transformed. Transformed into what? It is not transformed into work as the present admitted theory would have it ; this is another absurdity as will be seen presently. The heat is transformed into cold, and cold being transformed heat is a force of Nature! The

26 Tke Revelations of Nature.

sole fact that a temperature below the normal average temperature of bodies at any given time or latitude can be attained at all as well as a temperature above said normal is a positive proof that cold is a force whatever may be the means used for producing it artificially. It is well known that the evaporation of a liquid or solid produces cold, but this is clearly a physical action which has nothing to do with extraction of heat ; it is rather external heat which causes the evaporation and is thereby transformed into cold. This is what is proven by Pictet's experiments described in the Scientific American of March 31, 1900, in which the heat absorbed by the liquid air in his apparatus, not only at the surface but within the mass of the liquid, causes it to evaporate while the evaporation destroys this heat as such.

The theory of latent heat is a myth which was accepted for lack of any better explanation. The fact, for instance, that a determined amount of ice absorbs a determined amount of heat to melt it all before the melted ice can get warmer than the ice itself is meant that a determined amount of ice can transform a determined amount of heat into cold and no more than that amount. The same may be said of water evaporating into free space ; about four-fifths of the heat put into the water is transformed into cold by the evaporation, but the heat is not transformed when the evaporation takes place into a closed vessel because the space for expansion is limited. Any other related phenomena may be explained in an analogous manner. There is no reason whatever for assuming that the evaporation of warmed water does not generate cold as well as the evaporation of any other body at normal temperature. Evaporation wherever and whenever it occurs is a physical action whose effect is the transformation of heat into cold when taking place in the open free space, and not an absorption or a hiding of heat. This is thoroughly in accord with observed facts and I propose to demonstrate it by practical experiments. That will be the end of the fancy latent or hidden heat which has been playing hide and seek in the minds of scientists since the advent of Blake's theory. Really, heat and cold are the opposite poles of a single force of matter which is temperature, and this is the key that will unlock many priceless treasures of Nature's secrets.

If cold were not a force or else one pole of temperature, how could it contract or condense matter? If cold were nothing in itself but merely the more or less complete absence of heat as at present held by science, the removal of the heat should leave the matter in the state of expansion it had acquired by the presence of the heat and no contraction or condensation could ever take place of itself after expansion whether the heat were present in the matter or not. Yet we know that the force of contraction is a tremendous one which in the case of freezing water takes the expansive form and is capable of producing a pressure estimated at 30,000 pounds per square inch, or about three times as much as could be secured from confined liquid air. Every rain drop tells us that this drop was formed by the attractive force of cold ; no rain drops could be formed without such an attractive force since condensation involves molecular motion of matter, and contractive molecular motion is just as much an effect of force as expansive molecular motion. This is such a self-evident proposition that it is to be wondered why it was ever viewed otherwise. And if any one still clings to the theory that cold is nothing, let him burn his fingers with liquid air and this may possibly have a more persuasive effect than words, unless he prefers to believe that it is heat only that burns, even when it is absent.

Then cold being transformed heat, heat is transformed cold for that matter, but this subject will be taken up again farther on.

No heat can be transformed into work for the very simple reason that heat is a force of Nature and work is not. In other words, heat is a cause, indestructible, though variable in form or degree, while work or motion is only an effect which lasts only as long as the cause is in action. So that the transformation of heat into motion would mean its absolute annihilation in all forms with nothing to take its place.