• Re: Einstein Gyroscope

    From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 25 12:02:57 2023
    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    [snip large and poor quality extract from]

    József Illy, The Practical Einstein: Experiments, Patents, Inventions <https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Inventions/dp/1421411717>

    More Einstein fun by the same author in
    József Illy, Albert Meets America: How Journalists Treated Genius
    during Einstein's 1921 Travels <https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Meets-America-Journalists-Einsteins/dp/0801884578>

    For our American friends, where is the cover photograph taken?
    A parade in New York?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Nov 25 02:25:59 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 1:16:20 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Patent Office
    At the Swiss Patent Office, Einstein’s job was to consult with
    inventors. Only
    one of his written opinions on patent applications is left , the administrative
    documents having been routinely destroyed. This opinion is on an alternatingcurrent
    machine with short- circuit brushes and opposing auxiliary spools for
    spark prevention. Einstein off ers not a single good word for the patent claim:
    it is “incorrect, inaccurate, and unclear.” He also gave the requirements for a
    correct application: it should note only characteristics of the subject
    of the
    patent that are in the claim, and each par tic u lar embodiment should correspond
    to the main claim of the main patent and the claims of the actual
    patent.
    ? His advice did not help the inventor. A revised application was
    submitted
    two months later, but Einstein was still not satisfi ed with it.
    We have indirect evidence of a further case. A certain Ignacy Moscicki, inventor
    of a way to produce nitrogen acid from the atmosphere, of a new method
    of concentrating nitrogen acid and sulfuric acid, and of high power capacitors,
    submitted an application to the Swiss Patent Offi ce in 1906. It dealt
    with an arc furnace for the production of nitric acid, in which the arc
    was
    rotated by an electromagnet.? As the designated expert, Einstein was espechapter
    three
    Expert Opinions
    38 The Practical Einstein
    cially interested in why the electric arc changed its orientation in a magnetic
    fi eld. He gave a positive opinion of the application. The story, fi rst aired in
    1934,? was rediscovered by Zofi a Golab-Meyer.?
    That Moscicki and Einstein did meet in Bern is confi rmed by an exchange
    of letters in 1932. Einstein asked Moscicki for help in getting a
    position for an
    acquaintance of his. In the introductory sentences, he remarked that “I know
    that you were originally a physical chemist, and I hear that even now
    you work
    as an or ga niz er for scientifi c and technological research.” ? The letter was addressed
    “To Mr. President of Poland Professor Dr. Moscicki.” Moscicki, the successful inventor and scientist, returned to Poland in 1912, where he
    was
    named professor of chemical physics and technical electrochemistry at
    the
    Technical University of LwĂłw (present- day Lviv, Ukraine), and in 1926
    was
    elected president of Poland.
    In reply, Moscicki emphasized the meager prospects in Poland for Einstein’s
    protégé, but he also mentioned that Einstein’s letter gave him par tic u lar pleasure,
    because it reminded him of their meeting in Bern and later in Fribourg.? From Einstein’s next letter we learn that he remembered their meeting
    with great satisfaction, especially the one in Fribourg with Kowalski.?
    The
    encounter in Bern may have been in the patent offi ce, but the
    University of
    Bern cannot be excluded either, for Einstein succeeded in getting the
    venia
    legendi (permission to teach) there around February 28, 1908, and he was Privatdozent
    there from April 21, 1908, to August 4, 1909. In May and June 1908, he
    also worked at the University of Fribourg in Professor Albert Gockel’s laboratory
    on his fi rst invention, an electrometer for small quantities of
    electricity
    (see chapter 4), and on May 24, 1909, he attended a physics colloquium there.?
    In addition, Professor Joseph Kowalski (JĂłzef Wierusz- Kowalski),
    professor
    of physics at the university, was interested in this electrometer,?? so there was
    ample opportunity to meet Moscicki, for he served as Assistent to
    Kowalski
    from 1896 to 1912.
    Three more patents are supposed to have gone through Einstein’s hands:?? an electrical typewriter with shuttle- type carrier,?? a gravel
    sorter,?? and a meteorological
    station controlled by ambient humidity.??
    Gyrocompasses
    Hermann AnschĂĽtz- Kaempfe, the inventor of the gyrocompass and own er of
    a
    gyrocompass factory in Kiel, Germany, sued the American Sperry
    Gyroscopic
    Expert Opinions 39
    Company.?? The competition between them had turned fi erce when, in
    1914,
    Sperry sold a compass to the German navy. Selling gyrocompasses was a promising
    business at the time. They could be used on ships, submarines, and airplanes,
    because metal structure does not distort their indication as it does
    with magnetic compasses. In addition, in the de cade before the First
    World
    War, Germany intended to build a navy comparable to or outrivaling Britain’s.
    One of the AnschĂĽtz patents allegedly infringed was DE182855,?? which protected the original design. Sperry claimed that the patent was void,
    for it
    was not new when compared to a previous patent of Marinus G. van den
    Bos.??
    The other patent that AnschĂĽtz claimed to be infringed, DE236200,?? described
    a means of damping unwanted oscillations.
    The fi rst hearing of November 10, 1914, was adjourned, but the court advised the parties to choose an impartial expert living not far from
    Berlin
    in order to keep expenses low. The court submitted a list of potential experts,
    including Arnold Sommerfeld, professor in Munich, and Felix Klein,
    professor
    in Göttingen, who were coauthors of a book on gyroscopes.?? The fi rst
    name
    on the list was, however, Einstein’s, perhaps because he was a Berliner, and the
    court selected him. A court expert’s duty was to answer questions impartially,
    to attend the proceedings, and to provide oral testimony.??
    The next hearing took place on January 5, 1915. Einstein failed to
    impress
    the court; he was not well prepared. To make his task easier, the court formulated
    four questions to be answered in a written report and presented at the
    next hearing:
    1. What are the physical principles of gyrocompasses?
    2. What are the diff erences between Anschütz’s compass and other gyrocompasses, in par tic u lar the compass patented by Van den Bos as DE34513?
    3. What is the gist of the invention patented in DE236200; and did this invention make it possible to produce the fi rst, perfectly working gyrocompass?
    4. What are the similarities and diff erences between the Anschütz and Sperry compasses, and had Sperry made use of Anschütz’s two
    inventions to such an extent that his compass was technically similar
    to Anschütz’s compass?
    Einstein answered the questions on February 6, 1915.?? He gave a clear exposition
    of the principles of gyroscopes and gyrocompasses (question 1) and
    40 The Practical Einstein
    declared that AnschĂĽtz was the fi rst to produce the fi rst usable gyrocompass
    with damped oscillations (question 3), which he achieved in his second patent
    with a method better than Van den Bos’s. Einstein denied the novelty of Anschütz’s fi rst patent, giving priority to Van den Bos (question 2). Finally, he
    declared that Sperry did make use of Anschütz’s fi rst patent but
    doubted that
    the second was infringed (question 4), that is, he accepted Sperry’s damping
    as an original idea.
    Apparently neither the court nor Anschütz was happy with Einstein’s voting
    for Sperry. In the second hearing on March 26, Einstein did not convince
    the court with his opinion, so he was given two further questions.
    The fi rst question practically repeated the previous question 2, asking
    him
    to explain the relationship between Anschütz’s and Van den Bos’s patents.
    The second question reformulated the earlier question 4: How far had
    Sperry
    made use of the ideas in Anschütz’s two patents in his own compass delivered
    to the German navy?
    Einstein prepared a supplementary opinion on August 7.??
    Aft er a meticulous study of the patent specifi cations, he concluded
    that
    Anschütz’s fi rst patent did indeed diff er from Van den Bos’s invention.
    To answer the second question, Einstein tested a Sperry compass. He
    confi rmed that Sperry made use of Anschütz’s fi rst patent, but, in contrast
    to his fi rst opinion, he declared that the same is true for the second patent.
    This time he received no further questions, and the court decided in
    favor
    of AnschĂĽtz.
    Why did Einstein change his mind? Apparently he had not immersed himself
    in the case deeply enough. When in 1918 AnschĂĽtz asked him to serve as
    his private expert in another proceeding, Einstein expressed the self- critical
    hope that in the future “the insuffi cient understanding of impartial experts”
    would not cause damage to AnschĂĽtz and make him angry.??
    In this case, AnschĂĽtz- Kaempfe considered that a patent application of
    the
    Gesellschaft fĂĽr nautische Instrumente (GNI)?? infringed upon his patent DE241637.?? The GNI invention was an arrangement to avoid erroneous indication
    of gyrocompasses when the ship is rolling. He asked Einstein to serve
    as a private expert on his behalf?? and solicited an opinion from him on whether
    the method proposed by the GNI fell within the scope of protection of
    his patent
    or not.?? Einstein’s opinion submitted on July 7, 1918, is not
    available. Apparently
    AnschĂĽtz was not satisfi ed with it, and he requested another one.??
    Expert Opinions 41
    Einstein began his second opinion with an analysis of how the motion of
    a
    ship infl uences the gyroscope (fi g. 3.1).??
    Let the rotating gyroscope be suspended from P by a solid rod a. If it swings
    between A" and A' in a plane to which its axis of rotation stays perpendicular,
    it will not change its direction. But if it swings perpendicular to the previous
    plane (between B" and B'), its axis of rotation will oscillate
    perpendicular to
    the plane of its swing, but the time average is zero. Consequently, the direction
    change will not present an insurmountable diffi culty in indicating the correct cruising direction.
    If, however, the gyro swings in a direction that is a combination of
    these
    two directions, a torque may appear that makes the gyroscope’s axis of rotation
    rotate with respect to the vertical. Both the AnschĂĽtz and the GNI inventions
    aim to eliminate this eff ect.
    Anschütz’s patent gives two ways to avoid or minimize this eff ect: to prevent swings from A" to A' (which is eff ectively the same as allowing only
    swings from B" and B'), or to use two or more gyroscopes with their axes
    not
    parallel to each other. If two gyros are mounted in a frame this way,
    any rotation
    Figure 3.1. Gyroscope motion.
    42 The Practical Einstein
    of the axes is prevented by inertial forces if the angle between the
    axes is kept
    fi xed by a nonrigid connection. The patent does not stipulate that the gyroscopes
    be horizontally arranged; the only requirements are that the resulting moment of all the gyros has a horizontal component on which gravitation
    acts
    and that the gyro axes be nonrigidly connected and not positioned
    parallel to
    each other. Einstein declared that the claims are expounded so clearly
    that, by
    following them, any engineer with a knowledge of the subject can build a usable
    gyrocompass.
    Then he turned to the GNI patent application. It also uses two
    gyroscopes
    with nonparallel axes and connected with a nonrigid connection, so it is evident
    that it falls within the main claim of the AnschĂĽtz patent. The only question
    left is whether its construction represents a technical improvement. Einstein said no.
    He concluded that the subject of the GNI application fell within the
    scope
    of protection of the AnschĂĽtz patent, and its specifi c features are neither novel
    inventions nor practical developments.
    Maybe the applicant succeeded in presenting arguments to prove that
    these specifi c features did represent novel invention; maybe the
    lawsuit took a
    diff erent course for other reasons. We do not know, because the
    documents of
    the court and patent administration are no longer available. We only
    know that
    AnschĂĽtz lost the case and that a patent,?? along with two additional patents,??
    was granted to GNI in 1918.
    The encounter was, however, not settled at this point. In the spring of 1922,
    the manager of GNI, Professor Oscar Martienssen, approached Einstein and requested that he withdraw his opinion of 1918 because AnschĂĽtz intended
    to
    use it against GNI.?? He argued that Einstein’s opinion was based on errors,
    and he wanted to avoid protracted and time- consuming discussions in
    various
    courts that would take Einstein’s “invaluable talent” away from “more
    important
    things.” If Einstein agreed, there would be no need of attacking him in court. From the formulation, one may infer that Anschütz had lodged
    another
    suit against GNI.
    Martienssen called Einstein’s attention to a mistake that he himself had made in an earlier publication,?? but later corrected.?? He also added
    that Richard
    Grammel followed the same erroneous considerations in his book on gyroscopes,
    ?? but later he also realized it was a mistake. Apparently Martienssen supposed that Einstein had relied on these publications when he prepared
    his
    opinion.
    Expert Opinions 43
    Martienssen’s second objection was that Einstein had given no reason why the patent application was dependent on Anschütz’s patent. The Anschütz patent states explicitly that the invention refers to a supplementary
    gyro in the
    moving system and not to a system with a gyro for stabilizing the
    cardanic
    suspension. The GNI application, however, uses a stabilizing gyro. Furthermore,
    Anschütz’s patent can be constructed using two auxiliary gyros but not with only one, with its axis perpendicular to the northward directing
    gyro.
    The spring that joins the two gyros is of fundamental importance for the AnschĂĽtz patent, whereas for the GNI application the vertical gyro is fi rmly
    mounted on the ground plate.
    “You may rest assured,” Martienssen added, “that I feel terrible about writing
    these lines to you whom I sincerely hold in high esteem for your eminent achievements.”
    Einstein did not understand the letter, simply because he did not
    remember
    the proceedings that had taken place four years earlier.?? He asked Martienssen
    for clarifi cation, forwarded Martienssen’s letter to Anschütz the same day,??
    and doubted that Martienssen was right, “despite his arrogant tone.” The following day, Martienssen replied to him and attached copies of the relevant
    patents,?? as well as a copy of Einstein’s 1918 opinion. He also added a further
    objection: in his opinion, Einstein had explicitly stated that
    Anschütz’s
    direction- indicating system was equipped with two or more gyroscopes
    and
    that in the patent of GNI the same system has only one gyro. Why was it
    then
    that in his further considerations Einstein mentioned two gyros in the
    GNI
    patent application? In it, the stabilizing gyro has nothing to do with
    the direction
    indication.
    The hearing began on April 11, 1922, in Kiel.?? On April 12 Einstein prepared
    a supplementary opinion, but it is not available. AnschĂĽtz won the
    case.??
    GNI submitted an appeal to the Higher Regional Court on June 9.
    Einstein prepared a second supplementary opinion.?? In the particulars
    of
    the appeal, he wrote, a patent was mentioned to demonstrate that there
    were
    patents on gyrocompasses with constructions similar to Anschütz’s invention
    but had not been considered to infringe upon it.?? This patent did not include
    means to eliminate or minimize the rolling error. The opposite
    statements in
    the particulars are untrue.
    Then he refl ected on the opinions of two experts. The fi rst maintained that
    the GNI application had a specifi c feature that Anschütz’s patent does not.
    Einstein replied that the same feature was explicitly described in it
    and that,
    44 The Practical Einstein
    at present, it is not the complete in de pen dence of the patents at
    stake but the
    question of whether the GNI patent is dependent on Anschütz’s patent or not.
    He summarized his reply to the opinion of the second expert in three
    points:
    1. Anschütz’s patent is the fi rst to realize that the rolling error depends
    on the swing period of the directional system around the gyro axis,
    and it is the fi rst to off er a means to avoid or signifi cantly reduce this
    error.
    2. The inspected instruments (apparently each fi rm presented one of its own) use gyroscopes to reduce swinging.
    3. In these instruments, the gyros that slow down the swing are not
    mounted directly on the base of the directional gyro but on a component part, which is connected to the others with rigid connection.
    Anschütz’s patent would be already infringed if only the fi rst point were a
    feature of the GNI patent, but because all three points are shared by
    it, the
    GNI patent is technically the same as the AnschĂĽtz patent.
    There was a second session on July 10, 1922. Einstein’s main role was as
    a
    “bogeyman.” ?? Anschütz won again. The last information on this suit is that
    “the scoundrel did not get away with his tricks” ??— an impolite and unjust
    remark from Einstein’s pen for, as we saw, Martienssen was polite and raised
    clear technical objections to Einstein’s opinion. While Einstein’s fi rst reaction
    to Martienssen’s approach was to call his tone “arrogant,” we have ample
    evidence
    for Schell’s remark, that “the impartial expert had long since become a good and thoroughly partial friend of Anschütz- Kaempfe and his fi rm.” ??
    In Einstein’s next case, the defendant was Franz Drexler, and again the plaintiff Anschütz- Kaempfe.?? Drexler, a trained pi lot, had been
    working on
    a gyrocompass with AnschĂĽtz and, aft er having left the company, tried
    to
    sell it through his newly founded company, the Kreiselbau Co. The
    invention
    was a gyrocompass for indication of vertical and horizontal turns of airplanes.??
    In his opinion of July 23, 1919, Einstein set out by explaining the
    behavior
    of a gyroscope that has two degrees of freedom (fi g. 3.2).??
    Let a gyroscope be mounted in an inner gimbal R, which can turn around
    axis B–B in an outer gimbal G. Springs F restore the position of R whenever it
    is forced to leave the plane of G. Let the gyroscope be mounted on an airplane
    with the plane of G parallel to the wings. When the airplane gains or
    loses
    Expert Opinions 45
    height, R will not leave the plane of G, because its axis of rotation
    A–A is
    shift ed parallel. When, however, the airplane turns to the right or
    left , R will
    step out of this plane by turning around B–B and will keep the new position
    until the turn is fi nished. Einstein calls this arrangement the “turn indicator.”
    How can up and down turns be indicated? Maybe with a simple plumb line.
    Let us suspend such a line L in a plane P and keep P horizontal (fi g.
    3.3). Until
    they move uniformly, L and P will make a rectangle. If P is accelerated,
    L will
    lag behind, and so they will not stay perpendicular to each other. The
    same
    happens should P turn up or down.
    This simple pendulum cannot provide a precise indication of up and down turns, for it is possible that if the airplane is accelerated and turned downward
    at the same time, L and P could remain perpendicular. Let us call this device,
    as Einstein did, the “plumb indicator.”
    Now return to the gyrocompass and fi x R on G in a line lying higher
    than
    the center of mass of R and K. In addition, remove the springs F. By
    doing so,
    we combine a gyroscope and a plumb indicator, which, however, cannot indicate
    directly whether the airplane is turning or not. Einstein calls this a “gyro
    pendulum.”
    Aft er these preparatory considerations, Einstein answered fi ve
    questions
    put by the court. Because we do not have the original court document,
    and
    Einstein’s answers do not follow the numbering of the questions, I can only
    summarize them.
    Figure 3.2. Gyrocompass.
    Albert Einstein, “Court Expert
    Opinion in the Matter of
    AnschĂĽtz & Co. vs. Kreiselbau
    Co.,” July 23, 1919. Courtesy
    Albert Einstein Archives, The
    Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    46 The Practical Einstein
    Anschütz’s patent consists of a gyro pendulum and a plumb indicator.?? The
    indications of the two instruments must be compared to follow the fl
    ight on a
    general curve. Even though this is not the fi rst patent that indicates
    the change
    of orientation,?? it is the fi rst to indicate vertical turns.
    AnschĂĽtz can claim priority not in the application of a gyro pendulum
    but
    in the combination of this pendulum with the plumb indicator, and,
    because
    it is only this combination that can help fl ight in a curve, the patent represents
    technical progress of inventive importance.
    Drexler’s patent follows the same principle as Anschütz’s, Einstein continued:
    it makes use of two gyroscopes with horizontal axes (even though
    arranged
    as a turn indicator) and of a plumb indicator. Whether the plumb
    indicator
    is a separate device, as with Anschütz’s, or it is the turn indicator itself
    that is turned into a plumb indicator as with Drexler’s, makes no diff erence
    of principle. There is, however, a technical diff erence between them: Drexler’s
    device indicates right and left turns directly, not as a diff erence
    between the
    indications of two instruments.
    Einstein felt that this opinion sounded obscure for the lawyers, so he appended an explanation, as he put it, in a “freer form,” an application of
    set theory.
    Figure 3.3. Turn indicator.
    Albert Einstein, “Court Expert Opinion in the Matter of Anschütz & Co. vs.
    Kreiselbau Co.,” July 23, 1919. Courtesy Albert Einstein Archives, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    Expert Opinions 47
    Consider a plane P whose points represent all the possible technical realizations
    of all the patent inventions. The embodiments of a par tic u lar
    invention
    make a region G of this plane. Had the inventor a complete knowledge of
    all the embodiments of his invention, that is, of G, he should be
    considered as
    the only own er of them. He has, however, only a limited knowledge of G; there
    can be various technical embodiments of his idea of which he does not
    know,
    and which may have novel technical features. Such cases can be called “dependent
    inventions.” Whether such an invention may have some legal rights
    is a problem for lawyers.
    Drexler’s patent is a “dependent invention” in this sense: dependent on
    Anschütz’s patent, for it serves the same goal and uses the same gyroscopes,
    but it is a genuine invention, too, for it uses only one indicator in
    place of two,
    and so it produces its result more safely and with greater precision. Drexler’s
    patent covers Anschütz’s patent, but it does not copy or circumvent it. Neither parties were satisfi ed with Einstein’s opinion. According to Anschütz’s patent lawyer, Hugo Licht, it was “not negligibly weak”;?? therefore,
    Einstein was requested to fi nd new arguments in Anschütz’s favor. Einstein called the director of regional court and explained that when
    he had formulated his opinion, he was staying in Switzerland and, upon returning to Berlin, he found documents that he had not been able to
    use.
    He would like to complete his opinion by taking them into
    consideration.??
    He submitted a supplementary opinion on October 9, 1919, of which only
    one
    paragraph is extant, quoted in Licht’s letter to Anschütz.?? In it, he declares
    that it was Anschütz’s patent that fi rst proposed a gyroscope with two degrees
    of freedom and with a horizontal axis of rotation to keep track of the direction change of the aircraft , and Drexler’s turn indicator is also based
    on this idea.
    On the hearing of November 4, under the pressing questions of Drexler, Einstein admitted that if a pi lot had known of a paper published in
    1910 on
    a turn indicator,?? it would not have been necessary to wait for an invention.
    With this, he weakened the technical importance and priority of Anschütz’s
    1917 patent. Licht explained Einstein’s point by saying that an eminent scientist
    uses stronger criteria than a judge for what can be considered an invention.??
    AnschĂĽtz won the case, but Drexler appealed. Einstein was again proposed
    as an expert, but because the court expected a second expert who was
    “well
    48 The Practical Einstein
    informed in both the theory of gyroscopes and the behavior of airplane during curved fl ight,”?? Anschütz proposed two further candidates, Richard
    Grammel, professor at the Technical University of Stuttgart, and Ludwig Prandtl, professor of aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen, an international
    authority and pioneer in the theory of fl ight. Prandtl confessed that
    he could not qualify as a practical expert because he had never actually
    fl own,
    but he could not resist to add, “When Professor Einstein, who certainly has a
    weaker knowledge of fl ight than I do, appears as an expert, that will
    be very
    interesting indeed.”?? In the end, the court picked a third person, Hans Wolff ,
    an engineer at the German Test Institution for Aviation (Deutsche Versuchsanstalt
    fĂĽr Luft fahrt) in Berlin- Adlershof, as a fl ight expert partner of Einstein.
    In its session of January 7, 1922, the court solicited a comment on
    Wolff ’s
    opinion from Einstein, which he presented on January 18.?? Wolff ’s opinion is
    not available.
    Einstein essentially maintained his earlier opinion that Drexler’s invention
    falls within the area of protection of Anschütz’s patent, even though a British
    patent from 1916,?? not known to him when preparing his fi rst opinion, might
    restrict this area. He proposed a formulation of the specifi c novelty
    of
    Anschütz’s patent that would stand even in this case as “a clearly arranged
    combination of a gyro pendulum and an apparatus for indication of the direction
    of the apparent gravity.”
    The case ended with a settlement out of court, and Kreiselbau retracted
    the
    appeal
    I find I don't have the attention span to read this entire post, Starmaker. Boil it down for us. Did Einstein use his privileged position in the patent office to steal and plagiarize other applicant's ideas then file on them hizself? RH has claimed
    with great credulity that Einstein was on the make to get his fortune by any means necessary

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Nov 25 05:33:12 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:26:02 AM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:


    I find I don't have the attention span to read this entire post, Starmaker. Boil it down for us.

    He is just spamming.
    Report him as spam. I have.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Nov 25 12:22:23 2023
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    [snip large and poor quality extract from]

    József Illy, The Practical Einstein: Experiments, Patents, Inventions <https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Inventions/dp/1421411717>

    More Einstein fun by the same author in
    József Illy, Albert Meets America: How Journalists Treated Genius
    during Einstein's 1921 Travels <https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Meets-America-Journalists-Einsteins/dp/0801884578>

    For our American friends, where is the cover photograph taken?
    A parade in New York?

    Jan

    Einstein and his wife New York City 1921

    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sun Nov 26 13:38:55 2023
    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    [snip large and poor quality extract from]

    József Illy, The Practical Einstein: Experiments, Patents, Inventions <https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Inventions/dp
    /1421411717>

    More Einstein fun by the same author in
    József Illy, Albert Meets America: How Journalists Treated Genius
    during Einstein's 1921 Travels <https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Meets-America-Journalists-Einsteins/dp/080188
    4578>

    For our American friends, where is the cover photograph taken?
    A parade in New York?

    Jan

    Einstein and his wife New York City 1921

    No ticker tape, obviously. I have seen the book in the meantime.
    There were many parades, wherever Einstein and Weizmann went.
    Motorised police escorts, hundreds of cars, brass bands,
    cheering crowds. Mass meetings and theatre performances.

    They did what they could to promote Zionism in general,
    and fundraising for the setting up of Hebrew University in Jerusalem
    in particular,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sun Nov 26 16:55:43 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:28:19 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    [snip large and poor quality extract from]

    JĂłzsef Illy, The Practical Einstein: Experiments, Patents, Inventions <https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Inventions/dp
    /1421411717>

    More Einstein fun by the same author in
    JĂłzsef Illy, Albert Meets America: How Journalists Treated Genius during Einstein's 1921 Travels <https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Meets-America-Journalists-Einsteins/dp/080188
    4578>

    For our American friends, where is the cover photograph taken?
    A parade in New York?

    Jan

    Einstein and his wife New York City 1921

    No ticker tape, obviously. I have seen the book in the meantime.
    There were many parades, wherever Einstein and Weizmann went.
    Motorised police escorts, hundreds of cars, brass bands,
    cheering crowds. Mass meetings and theatre performances.

    They did what they could to promote Zionism in general,
    and fundraising for the setting up of Hebrew University in Jerusalem
    in particular,

    Jan
    Most people are not aware that the word Zionism actually stands for...genocide.

    and the goal of Hebrew University in Jerusalem is too controll ALL information, documents, letters on Albert Einstein, from the rest of the WORLD!

    Outsiders are not allowed to read it. including yous goys scientists.


    If you want to read any letter or document by Albert Einstein...you
    first have to kill them all.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Starmaker, will you join me in lobbying Pope Francis to proclaim the 9th Crusade to take back the Christian lands that Muhammed confiscated in 632 AD by means of his "convert or die" colonization? This land would cover roughly from Iraq to the Morocco.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Nov 26 17:12:03 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:03:01 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    [snip large and poor quality extract from]

    JĂłzsef Illy, The Practical Einstein: Experiments, Patents, Inventions <https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Inventions/dp/1421411717>

    More Einstein fun by the same author in
    JĂłzsef Illy, Albert Meets America: How Journalists Treated Genius
    during Einstein's 1921 Travels <https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Meets-America-Journalists-Einsteins/dp/0801884578>

    For our American friends, where is the cover photograph taken?
    A parade in New York?

    Jan

    13 years after gravity destroyed Einstein and his special relativity, a content-thirsty American press and fledgling silent newsreel industry resuscitated it right up until the Big Ben Paradox. Even in spite of the BBP, relativity still sells TV ads,
    books and movies, and college courses & textbooks. You say you just don't believe a fake can be perpetuated by favorable media coverage? Then I've got three letters for you. F. J. B.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Mon Nov 27 13:35:30 2023
    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    [snip large and poor quality extract from]

    József Illy, The Practical Einstein: Experiments, Patents, Inventions <https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Invention
    s/dp
    /1421411717>

    More Einstein fun by the same author in
    József Illy, Albert Meets America: How Journalists Treated Genius during Einstein's 1921 Travels <https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Meets-America-Journalists-Einsteins/dp/08
    0188
    4578>

    For our American friends, where is the cover photograph taken?
    A parade in New York?

    Jan

    Einstein and his wife New York City 1921

    No ticker tape, obviously. I have seen the book in the meantime.
    There were many parades, wherever Einstein and Weizmann went.
    Motorised police escorts, hundreds of cars, brass bands,
    cheering crowds. Mass meetings and theatre performances.

    They did what they could to promote Zionism in general,
    and fundraising for the setting up of Hebrew University in Jerusalem
    in particular,

    Jan

    Most people are not aware that the word Zionism actually stands for...genocide.

    You are back-projecting.
    Remember that Einstein and Weizmann founded Hebrew University back in
    1918. Yes, that is 1918, less thatn a year after Jerusalem had been
    taken by the British.
    The idea that a state would be possible just didn't exist at the time.

    The desire for a Jewish university is quite understandable,
    given the strong anti-semitism and discrimination
    practiced in academia all over the western world.
    (until well after WWII)
    Jews were discriminated against for faculty appointments,
    and a 'numerus fixus' for Jewish students was nearly universal.
    Eistein and Weizmann had a strong desire to establish
    at least one university where Jews would not be discriminated against.

    Remember that even Richard Feynman was refused entrance at
    Columbia University because their quota of Jews was full.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)