Talk:Dionysius Lardner

message: I'ver removed this from the article as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball:Andrew Odlyzko is including a chapter on Lardner in his forthcoming book "The Internet and Victorian 
Railroads: How to Blame Microsoft for the Dot-com Bubble and 
How to Prepare for the Next Techno-mania."
When Odlyzko's book is published, it can go in Further Reading or, better, actually be used to expand the article and thus be a Reference. However it may be more appropriate to mention Lardner in Odlyzko's article than vice versa (unless this article is be a list of every writer who has mentioned Lardner in the last 200 years). JackyR | Talk 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article 

message: No mention of Diogenes Laertius? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name? 

message: I added what is probably his most famous quotation.  I've been looking for context or expansion, but can't find any at the moment.  I recall reading somewhere years go that it was based on a mis-application of Bernouli's principle but can't find that source now.  Anyway, it would be nice to flesh this out and provide context.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented my suggestions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dionysius_Lardner&diff=616002399&oldid=613334700 https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Dionysius_Lardner&action=historysubmit&diff=1756015&oldid=1733477 --Gwern  (contribs) 21:34 7 July 2014 (GMT)
===Comment on Did he actually say that===
I researched this topic for my biography of Lardner, 'Villain of Steam', although I looked at different sources and am interested to see the helpful work done above. Lardner was called to the Second Great Western Railway Enquiry because he had written some of the very few articles and books to inform hungry readers about the issues involved (railways, speed, tunnels and the alternative methods- stationary engines on pneumatic railways). In his 1834 'Edinburgh Review' article, which was written at the time between the two enquiries. This was at about the time when the Box tunnel was being secretly conceived, and was probably did not address the Box tunnel specifically. Lardner had written:
 "The principle objection to the adoption of tunnels on railways, worked by steam power, has been the want of sufficient ventilation.  The furnace of the engine renders the air unfit for breathing, and the impurity produced by the passage of one engine might continue until the arrival of the next.  It is proposed, in longer tunnels, to overcome the difficulty by building shafts or chimneys at short intervals, carried from the roof of the tunnel to the surface of the ground above [...] we are not aware of whether the sufficiency of such an expedient for the purposes of ventilation has yet been proved by experiment." -Improvements on Inland Transport - Railroads, 'Edinburgh Review', 1834 p.108
Lardner wrote very enthusiastically about the early railways but thought it professional to keep a balanced tone and was justifiably concerned about health and safety aspects at a time when embers fell on passengers heads and brakes consisted of a plank of wood rubbed against the wheel. His objection to the Box tunnel was not that it was a particularly long tunnel which would affect the air quality, but that but that the track descended steeply in the tunnel and ended in a curve. This is why the issues of asphyxiation and the issue of speed have become conflated in later historical accounts. His evidence to the enquiry was at first negative regarding the tunnel: A Lord asked:
‘Do you know of any Parallel to this, uniting the length of this tunnel with that incline?’
‘No, I am not aware of any.’
‘Is it justifiable, except in a very extreme Case, to unite those two disadvantages, Such a Length of Tunnel with that Inclination?’
‘I think nothing but an overruling Necessity could justify it’. ”Minutes of evidence taken before the Lords [sic.] committees to whom the bill intituled An act for joining the railway from London to Bristol to join the London and Birmingham railway near London, to be called the “Great Western Railway” with branches therefrom to the towns of Bradford and Trowbridge in the County of Wilts”
June 1835. p.902
After some days Lardner became reluctant to give further evidence on tunnels, stating that nobody had ever seen such a tunnel, but eventually conceded that he did not think that the air quality in the Box Tunnel would prove lethal. 
See further details on Lardner and the Great Western Railway enquiry in 'Villain of Steam'.A.L. Martin, Villain of Steam, Tyndall Scientific, 20015 pp.179-213
Anna L Martin (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  famous quotation 

message: I researched this topic for my biography of Lardner, 'Villain of Steam', although I looked at different sources and am interested to see the helpful work done above. Lardner was called to the Second Great Western Railway Enquiry because he had written some of the very few articles and books to inform hungry readers about the issues involved (railways, speed, tunnels and the alternative methods- stationary engines on pneumatic railways). In his 1834 'Edinburgh Review' article, which was written at the time between the two enquiries. This was at about the time when the Box tunnel was being secretly conceived, and was probably did not address the Box tunnel specifically. Lardner had written:
 "The principle objection to the adoption of tunnels on railways, worked by steam power, has been the want of sufficient ventilation.  The furnace of the engine renders the air unfit for breathing, and the impurity produced by the passage of one engine might continue until the arrival of the next.  It is proposed, in longer tunnels, to overcome the difficulty by building shafts or chimneys at short intervals, carried from the roof of the tunnel to the surface of the ground above [...] we are not aware of whether the sufficiency of such an expedient for the purposes of ventilation has yet been proved by experiment." -Improvements on Inland Transport - Railroads, 'Edinburgh Review', 1834 p.108
Lardner wrote very enthusiastically about the early railways but thought it professional to keep a balanced tone and was justifiably concerned about health and safety aspects at a time when embers fell on passengers heads and brakes consisted of a plank of wood rubbed against the wheel. His objection to the Box tunnel was not that it was a particularly long tunnel which would affect the air quality, but that but that the track descended steeply in the tunnel and ended in a curve. This is why the issues of asphyxiation and the issue of speed have become conflated in later historical accounts. His evidence to the enquiry was at first negative regarding the tunnel: A Lord asked:
‘Do you know of any Parallel to this, uniting the length of this tunnel with that incline?’
‘No, I am not aware of any.’
‘Is it justifiable, except in a very extreme Case, to unite those two disadvantages, Such a Length of Tunnel with that Inclination?’
‘I think nothing but an overruling Necessity could justify it’. ”Minutes of evidence taken before the Lords [sic.] committees to whom the bill intituled An act for joining the railway from London to Bristol to join the London and Birmingham railway near London, to be called the “Great Western Railway” with branches therefrom to the towns of Bradford and Trowbridge in the County of Wilts”
June 1835. p.902
After some days Lardner became reluctant to give further evidence on tunnels, stating that nobody had ever seen such a tunnel, but eventually conceded that he did not think that the air quality in the Box Tunnel would prove lethal. 
See further details on Lardner and the Great Western Railway enquiry in 'Villain of Steam'.A.L. Martin, Villain of Steam, Tyndall Scientific, 20015 pp.179-213
Anna L Martin (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Did he actually say that

message: It seems likely (names + interests) that Dionysius and Nathaniel Lardner are related (as grandfather/-son?)  Anyone know?  Either way, it would be good to mention the answer in the articles.  SquisherDa (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related to Nathaniel Lardner?