Talk:Benjamin Thompson

message: Benjamin Thompson was head of the "Queens Rangers" on Long Island, said to have torn down Presbyterian churches to create "Fort Golgotha" in the old cemetery on top of the hill in Huntington, New York (called "Ashford" under "Lord Protector" Oliver Cromwell). Nathan Hale, after capture, was brought there before being taken to New York City, where he was hung and there stated its said, "I regret having only one life to lose for my country." A monument in Huntington, NY there attests to him being there. Where he was buried it is not known. Nathan Hale's statue in New York City, has been recently moved to the front of City Hall, in City Hall Park, after renovations there in 1999. For many years it was on the northwest corner of the park, near Chambers St. and Broadway. It now faces the statue of Benjamin Franklin across the street, who also once had a small press there. The other statue in the park is of Horace Greeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.226.79 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Huntington, New York

message: Removed Baked Alaska until a reference is cited. Removed "popularity with women," looks like vandalism. RPellessier | Talk 18:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of changes

message: "When the American Revolution began, Thompson was a man of property and standing in New England, so was naturally opposed to the rebels." I am going to be removing the part about the "naterually opposed." It is misleding in that many of rebels in New England were men of property and standing, so as a man of wealth he was not inclined to oppose anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.94 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading term

message: The article on his house is tiny and pretty much an orphan.  Shouldn't we just merge it in here?  Please suppport or oppose with reasons below. Dicklyon 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal: [[Benjamin Thompson House]] to here

message: I'd like to see some substantiation of the claim that Rumford was arguing for design and divine providence in looking to fur as an example. Here is the paragraph I found:
"But among all the various substances of which coverings may be formed for confining heat, none can be employed with greater advantage than common atmospheric air. It is what nature employs for that purpose; and we cannot do better than to imitate her." from "Of the Management of Fire and the Economy of Fuel", Chapter III, paragraph 10.
He then goes on to discuss the mechanism by which fur, wool and feather constrain the movement of air and therefore reduce the loss of heat.
So, here he makes only a bland nod to "nature" and makes no mention of providence nor design. I don't know what his predilection in this regard might have been, or whether he might have argued for providence or design elsewhere, but I have not yet found such a reference in his writings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.183.36 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "arguements for design" and "divine providence"

message: I have edited the language in this entry to the following: "Thompson was a man of property and standing in New England, and was opposed to the rebels."  The original language indicated that the first condition implied opposition to the rebels.  The original author would be hard pressed to prove such causality in general or in relation to Thompson.  Counterexamples would include George Washington and John Hancock.  If the original authors think there was some sort of causality in Thompson's specific case, then that would be interesting.  One might make the argument, for example, that Thompson married specifically for the financial and social benefits offered by his wife, if there is independent evidence for such...and then that he curried favor with the British because he perceived an opportunity to rise ... and then that he took his wife's money with him to Europe. (How after all did he become a wealthy man in Europe?) But is this true? In 1776 McCullough reports that Thompson was one of several who departed for the Brits as a result of a sort of a falling out with Washington's forces during the seige of Boston.  That rings a little truer. Carlfoss (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction on Cause and Effect 

message: He most assuredly did NOT invent the wax candle.  He may have advocated it's use in Bavaria, and maybe even introduced it to those poor benighted souls.  He did not invent the wax candle.
I checked the Wikipedia article on candles.  It is one of the worst articles I have ever read on Wikipedia.  Regardless, it does not mention Rumford. 04:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a few hundred books to clarify what he did with candles.  I added a few bits about that.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi did invent the term candlepower.  It was a way to measure light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.170.84 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  He invented the wax candle?  Really? 

message: He regarded coldness to be more than just the absence of heat, but as something real and did experiments to support his theories of calorific and frigorific rays and said the communication of heat was the net effect of caloric (hot) rays *and* frigorific (cold) rays. See note 8, "An enquiry concerning the nature of heat and the mode of its communication" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, starting at page 112. javascript:insertTags('173.206.157.250 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumford's Calorific and Frigorific rays 

message: Is the lecturer in the cartoon Garnet or Thomas Young? In Chemical Principles, W. A. Benjamin Inc., 1974, , page 689, Dickerson, Gray and Haight gave the cartoon this caption.
:'Figure 75-74. Count Rumford supervising a public lecture at his Royal Institution in London, in 1802. Rumford is the hook-nosed figure smiling benignly at the upper right. The lecturer is Thomas Young, a Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Institution, and his assistant with the bellows and an evil leer is the young Humphrey Davy. The "victim" of the demonstration is Sir John Hippisley, manager of the Royal Institution. Davy worked extensively with the physiological effects of various gases. He had almost killed himself inhaling methane two years before, and caused a sensation at a lecture in 1801 by giving laughing gas (nitrous oxide) to volunteers from the audience. James Gillray, the artist, was the Herblock or Mauldin of his era and was famous for his devastating political cartoons. He considered these Royal Institution lectures a sham because, although intended as an education for working people, they had become the fashionable entertainment of the wealthy, as caricatured here. Davy and Michael Faraday continued a tradition of public lectures which has been maintained to the present day. One of us [R.E.D.] gave a Royal Institution lecture in 1970 in what was recognieably the same lecture hall as shown here in 1802. (Photograph of the original etching courtesy The Fisher Collection.)'
If the quote is too long to comply with copyright policy, anyone is welcome to excerpt as appropriate.  Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satirical cartoon by James Gillray showing a Royal Institution lecture 

message: Can someone give a link to titles and publishing dates of Thompson's works (without having to buy a book or something else)? 85.176.163.152 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: "He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1789."---Is anything know about his relations with / thoughts on the United States later in his life?---178.199.97.81 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  his relation with / thoughts on the United States later in life? 

message: Hello,
I've noticed that another editor, who is presumably not a Christian (edit history suggested they are an indentured servant), disagrees with the relevance of the quote shared on this page.
To explain my edit summary a little more: I believe Thompson is insinuating something similar to John Locke's Tabula rasa and Sir Francis Galton's Nature versus nurture argument.
That is, prior to children entering the formal education phase of their life (preschool plus K-12), religion plays a significant role in shaping their world view.
I concede that this shaping can be changed as they grow older, and often is for the most part, however many of the moral philosophies espoused by religion and how the parents practice and adhere to them are tantamount to the child's ability to understand just what the religious philosophy is.
Now, in the case of "uncivilised religions", I believe Thompson is implying that there are "holes" that arise (for whatever reason; maybe the doctrine is flawed. maybe the parent is flawed. many situations) that greatly impact a young child's ability to remain objective, as sometimes they make moral compromises that affect what they call "truth".
Hope this helps.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.8.30 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation. I feel that you are skating on very thin ice with your assumptions about the other editor's religion and employment. I cannot see how they are relevant to this discussion, and if I were the other editor I'd be inclined to find it offensive. But your mileage may vary. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation on religion and how it is relevant to Benjamin Thompson as a scientist 

message: In the "Experiments on heat" section of this article, the following text is found: "He then made the somewhat reckless, and incorrect, inference that air and, in fact, all gases, were perfect non-conductors of heat."  However, on page 49 of "Experiments upon heat", footnoted at the end of the sentence from which I've quoted, Rumford writes: "Having thus discovered that the Torricellian vacuum is a much worse conductor of heat than common air..."  Likewise, in "New experiments upon heat", Rumford states "...the Torricellian vacuum ... so far from being a good conductor of heat, is a much worse one than common air..."  Did Rumford assert that "air and, in fact, all gases" were perfect non-conductors before or after the 1792 publication of "Experiment upon Heat"?  The quote from 1792 matches his reported observed results of the "new experiments" essay dated 1786, though I can find no reference in either footnoted reference to "all gases".  A reference for Rumford's ostensible "reckless, and incorrect, inference" would help us to contextualize his evolving thoughts on the thermal conductivity of "air and ... all gases" vis-a-vis his essays of 1786 and 1792 - and especially since he is found to be saying quite the opposite of what is asserted here on Wikipedia - and in not one but BOTH of the footnoted references!  If no such "inference" reference can be furnished, I will be forced to find the Wikipedia text to "in fact" be "reckless, and incorrect".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.6.42.254 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolving thoughts on thermal conductivity