Datasets:

vqamaster

/

EduVidQA

like 0

Casein means milk base paint.

On the topic of casein house paint- Is house paint really made with milk protein? If so, I think that's pretty interesting.

rTF_WrVSPPQ

(modern music) - One of the sort of standard approaches to analyzing artists' paint is to take a tiny sample so that we reveal the layers in their sequence of application from the ground up through the various layers to the varnish. So we see the whole sequence of paint applications revealed in this one tiny sample that's just a few hundred microns across. Some of the other information we can get from paint cross-sections, are to do with the interactions between layers. We can tell, for example, if one paint layer was applied over a paint that was still wet when the second paint was applied. We find that the very first set of paints applied by Pollock are a series of four paints which seem to represent his first laying in of the broad composition applied very dynamically, most of those paints show wet-on-wet interactions. So we see the cadmium lemon picking up particles of the cerulean blue from the teal and the yellow getting intermingled with the umber. So our general conclusion is that the very dynamic creative phase of painting comes in that set of four paints. We've used quite a range of analytical techniques and we were able to identify that the majority of the paints in mural are actually oil paint, and high quality artist oil paint at that. The finding of casein house paints alongside all of the oil paints in mural was really something of a surprise, really rather unexpected. We think that Pollock chose that particular material for its qualities of being opaque, bright, white, and covering, and quick drying, to fill in the background reserve between all the colored shapes. And while we're throwing all this scientific technical know-how at the work, it's important for us to remember all along that we're doing that to enlighten how he went about creating this spectacular work of art. (modern music)

By the power of Truth.

at 0:15 what does the latin phrase " per veritatem vis" mean?

hACdhD_kes8

(intro music) Hi! My name's Julia Driver, and I teach in the philosophy department at Washington University in St. Louis. Today, I'm going to introduce you to the theory of consequentialism. Consequentialism is a type of normative ethical theory. Such theories provide criteria for moral evaluation, and may also recommend rules or decision procedures for people to follow in acting morally. Consequentialism, in its most general form, holds that the moral quality of an action is completely determined by its consequences. There are variations on this theme. For example, we might be evaluating character traits instead of actions, or we might be evaluating actions in terms of the consequences of adopting a set of rules that prescribe those actions. The common thread, however, is that moral quality is a function of consequences and nothing else. Traditionally, consequentialist theories of moral evaluation have two parts. One part is an account of what is good, and the other part, an account of how to approach the good, which underlies the attribution of deontic properties to the action, such as the property of being right. For example, the most well-known version of consequentialism is hedonistic act utilitarianism, which holds that the right action is the action that maximizes pleasure, the action that has the best overall consequences in terms of the production of pleasure. Here, the theory of the good is hedonism, which is the view that pleasure is the one intrinsic good, and the approach to pleasure is to maximize it, or to produce as much of it as possible. Suppose a doctor, Martha, has a dose of medicine that is just enough to save the life of one person, Steve. To save Steve, she would need to use the entire dose of medicine. However, there are five other people who need much smaller doses in order to be saved. She could instead divide the medicine into five smaller doses and save them instead of Steve. The utilitarian would view the right action as the action with the best consequences, and so Martha should use the medicine to save five rather than just one. The guiding idea is that the point of morality is to make the world a better place. Consequentialism is contrasted with theories of moral evaluation that either hold that consequences are not relevant in determining the moral quality of one's actions; or that consequences are only partly relevant, and that other considerations matter in determinations of moral quality. Very few believe that consequences are not at all relevant. However, there are very many moral theorists who believe consequentialism is incorrect because it reduces the moral quality of an action to the goodness of its consequences. For example, I have moral reason to keep a promise, even if the promise does not promote the good. The reason is simply that I made the promise. If I break a promise, I have done something wrong, even if the consequences of breaking the promise are slightly better than the consequences of keeping the promise. Maximizing forms of consequentialism are thought to be overly demanding. If the right action for me to perform is the one among the options open to me that produces the most good, and if failure to produce the most good is therefore wrong, then many of our ordinary actions are wrong. For example, if I buy a bagel every morning for breakfast, rather than make my own toast at home, then I am spending money on a bagel that I could be spending to do something else that, morally speaking, is better. I could save my bagel money and send it to Oxfam, and use the money to save people's lives. And this is true for very many of the purchases that people in affluent countries make. Thus, maximizing forms of consequentialism, such as utilitarianism, seem to be morally very demanding. To avoid this problem, some consequentialists hold that the right action need not maximize the good. Instead, the right action is the action that produces enough good. This is called "satisficing consequentialism." However, this approach seems odd, since maximizing seems to be rationally required by the observation that more good is surely better than less good. Subtitles by the Amara.org community

Milk provides calcium, among other minerals, which is the basis of bone, the osteoblasts blast calcium at the afflicted area and the calcium mineralizes on to the bone, and the osteoclasts deposit acids which dissolve the calcium and, in excess, can cause Osteoporosis.

Does milk help your body release extra osteoblasts, or does it impede the working of the osteoclasts? How does it make your bones stronger?

6zzA4BU2e58

Science Out Loud. Every day, we rely on a substance that's harder than iron or steel, our teeth. [MUSIC PLAYING] So if teeth are harder than steel, they must also be harder than bone. And if they're harder than bone, then why does your jaw, which is made of bone, not crumble under all that pressure? There's a bit of tissue called the periodontal ligament, or PDL, around your teeth under your gums. The PDL is a shock absorber, cushioning your jawbone from all the chewing forces. OK, so far, so good. But what if your teeth come in all funky? Sure, it looks kind of goofy. But that's not the only reason that somebody might want to fix it. Funky teeth can interfere with the way you talk and the way you eat. So how do we fix this? Well, we basically break our mouths with braces, except it's actually our bodies that do the breaking. The PDL has these cells called mechanoreceptors. And when these cells detect a force on your teeth that's too big, like if you accidentally bite into your fork, they signal the brain to stop biting down before you hurt yourself. Braces tether your teeth, pulling them together or pushing them apart. Either way, they're applying a steady force to your teeth. And when mechanoreceptors in the PDL sense this kind of smaller but sustained force, they signal cells called osteoclasts to the area, which spew out acid and proteins to dissolve parts of your jawbone. Then the mechanoreceptors signal osteoblasts to come. And those cells deposit minerals that make bone. Osteoblasts rebuild the jawbone in a new shape that lets the PDL hold teeth in the new position. So braces basically force your body to dissolve itself and then rebuild itself according to their evil whims. Sounds barbaric, right? But your body is actually breaking down and rebuilding bone using osteoclasts and osteoblasts all the time, not just if you have braces. Bone remodeling is just the way our body grows. The infant body replaces almost all of its original skeleton by the time it's a year old. And it happens throughout our entire life. 10% of my bone material is technically new since last year. We can manipulate the bone remodeling process to not only get straighter teeth, but also to treat diseases, like osteoporosis, which make your bones very brittle. By keeping overactive osteoclasts from dissolving the bone so much, or by boosting osteoblasts to produce more bone, drugs can prevent bones in those patients from breaking so easily. People with severe bone injury have to rely on bone transplants, where they take bone from other parts of their body and move it to the damaged area, which is sometimes not even possible and is always painful. So instead, Paula Hammond's group at MIT has created a new material-- --that very slowly releases proteins. And these proteins cause osteoblasts to go right to the site where the injury happened and generate new bone. Now, this was a really big deal for us, because it's really hard to generate something that very slowly releases the protein. Most of the time, the protein comes out very rapidly and gets swept away in the body, so that it no longer has any effect. It's easy to write braces off as a form of medieval torture. But it's kind of amazing that this mouth torture actually works. And the technology that makes it possible is not just in your braces, it's in your bones. Hi, my name is Andrea, and thank you for watching this episode of Science Out Loud. If you liked this episode, why don't you check out some of these other videos. And visit our website. And visit our website. [LAUGHING] They're separate things?

Maybe because the jaw may still be slightly broken down and need more time to harden, and the retainer is to keep the teeth from slipping out of place during this time. Just a guess, though.

What role would a retainer serve after the jawbone has been reformed using braces? Why wouldn't the teeth simply stay in place on their own?

6zzA4BU2e58

Science Out Loud. Every day, we rely on a substance that's harder than iron or steel, our teeth. [MUSIC PLAYING] So if teeth are harder than steel, they must also be harder than bone. And if they're harder than bone, then why does your jaw, which is made of bone, not crumble under all that pressure? There's a bit of tissue called the periodontal ligament, or PDL, around your teeth under your gums. The PDL is a shock absorber, cushioning your jawbone from all the chewing forces. OK, so far, so good. But what if your teeth come in all funky? Sure, it looks kind of goofy. But that's not the only reason that somebody might want to fix it. Funky teeth can interfere with the way you talk and the way you eat. So how do we fix this? Well, we basically break our mouths with braces, except it's actually our bodies that do the breaking. The PDL has these cells called mechanoreceptors. And when these cells detect a force on your teeth that's too big, like if you accidentally bite into your fork, they signal the brain to stop biting down before you hurt yourself. Braces tether your teeth, pulling them together or pushing them apart. Either way, they're applying a steady force to your teeth. And when mechanoreceptors in the PDL sense this kind of smaller but sustained force, they signal cells called osteoclasts to the area, which spew out acid and proteins to dissolve parts of your jawbone. Then the mechanoreceptors signal osteoblasts to come. And those cells deposit minerals that make bone. Osteoblasts rebuild the jawbone in a new shape that lets the PDL hold teeth in the new position. So braces basically force your body to dissolve itself and then rebuild itself according to their evil whims. Sounds barbaric, right? But your body is actually breaking down and rebuilding bone using osteoclasts and osteoblasts all the time, not just if you have braces. Bone remodeling is just the way our body grows. The infant body replaces almost all of its original skeleton by the time it's a year old. And it happens throughout our entire life. 10% of my bone material is technically new since last year. We can manipulate the bone remodeling process to not only get straighter teeth, but also to treat diseases, like osteoporosis, which make your bones very brittle. By keeping overactive osteoclasts from dissolving the bone so much, or by boosting osteoblasts to produce more bone, drugs can prevent bones in those patients from breaking so easily. People with severe bone injury have to rely on bone transplants, where they take bone from other parts of their body and move it to the damaged area, which is sometimes not even possible and is always painful. So instead, Paula Hammond's group at MIT has created a new material-- --that very slowly releases proteins. And these proteins cause osteoblasts to go right to the site where the injury happened and generate new bone. Now, this was a really big deal for us, because it's really hard to generate something that very slowly releases the protein. Most of the time, the protein comes out very rapidly and gets swept away in the body, so that it no longer has any effect. It's easy to write braces off as a form of medieval torture. But it's kind of amazing that this mouth torture actually works. And the technology that makes it possible is not just in your braces, it's in your bones. Hi, my name is Andrea, and thank you for watching this episode of Science Out Loud. If you liked this episode, why don't you check out some of these other videos. And visit our website. And visit our website. [LAUGHING] They're separate things?

It will try to move to a place with an ideal temperature.

Since cold-blooded animals do not have homeostasis,what happens if a cold-blooded animal such a snake gets too hot or too cold?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

The heart helps to maintain the homeostasis of the circulatory system. For example, when we exercise the heart beats faster and harder. This circulates more oxygenated blood to the muscles.

Does our heart have anything to do with homeostatis?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

Dogs actually do have sweat glands however they are only on the bottoms of the dogs feet so they pant to help cool off.

Something I don't get is how does a dog cool down? I heard they have no sweat glands. Is that why they pant?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

atp (adenosine triphosphate) is the energy created in the krebs cycle (look it up) inside the mitochondria organelle

what is ATP and ADP

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

The body constricts the peripheral blood vessels and keeps more blood in the central (core) part of the body - where your heart and other organs are. It is a preservation technique. You could survive without an extremity but if your core dies, you die.

What does it mean by drawing blood away from the skin?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

When your hair stands on end, it traps a layer of air around your skin and stops it from moving around as much as it would otherwise (imagine an army of cold air molecules running across a plain of flat skin, compared to one running through a forest of hair). Cacti spines use the same method to prevent the wind from leeching all their moisture.

At 1:40 it says that goosebumps help insulate the body. It would seem that your hair standing on end would do the opposite. Aren't goosebumps just a side effect of your skin contracting? How would the skin contracting help keep an even body temperature?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

assuming the stomach acid didn t destroy it and you didn t end up killing yourself by damaging your heart and/or other vital systems, yes eventually your body would rid you of the extra (it would be removed with your urine in case you were wondering).

I f you drank pure adrenalin, would be the same later?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

Homeostasis is more than just temperature regulation. Put simply homeostasis is a living thing monitoring itself and attempting to keep itself from internal extremes. This means technical, yes lawrence try to keep homeostasis. That being said most fish are cold blooded meaning their body temperature changes depending on the temperature around them. If you happen to know what kind of fish Lawrence is then you can look up that type on the internet and find out how warm or cold they like their water.

Do fish have homeostasis? I want to learn if my pet fish Lawrence has homeostasis. If he doesn't have homeostasis,I guess I should fill up his bowl with warm water.

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

Good thought. You might lose a little heat due to the extra surface area, but the warmth gained by the goosebumps would be greater.

At 1:35, wouldn't the extra surface area from goose bumps transfer heat away from my body if I were cold, thus creating the opposite result intended?

rSBbnHLR_cg

How do you maintain a steady body temperature when you're exposed to ice packs, or hot water bottles? Healthy Body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I need to keep a steady temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or else crucial molecules in my body will change shape and stop working, and I'll die. Homeostasis is the scientific term for my body's ability to maintain its proper equilibrium temperature. But what if I'm exposed to steaming hot water, or freezing cold ice? How does my body maintain its equilibrium temperature then? I'll cover myself with ice packs, and see how my body reacts. Five cold minutes later, let me check my body temperature. Sure enough, it's still near normal body temperature, homeostasis in action. Within a degree or so 98.6 is still considered normal. And despite how cold I feel, I haven't actually gotten any colder. How did my body do this? It made me feel cold, and want to wear myself up by shivering, little muscle movements that generate heat. See how pale my arm looks? After noticing the cold, my body directed by blood to my core, and less to my skin and extremities. My arm quickly loses heat to the cold environment, but the temperature stays constant in my core, which is thicker, so it loses less heat to the environment. I also get goosebumps, where my hair stands on end, creating an insulating layer like the jacket my body wisher I were wearing. So my body uses a lot of tools to keep my temperature up. When my body senses that it's cold, homeostasis mechanisms make me shiver, draw blood away from my skin, and give me goosebumps. These make me warmer, so my core temperature isn't changed. My body uses some of the opposite tools to cool down. It directs blood to the surface to cool down, making me a bit pink. It needs to resort to more extreme measures if I want to be active in the heat, because moving my muscles uses energy and lets off heat, sort of like shivering to keep warm in the cold. But in this case, my body needs to counteract the warmth that the movement causes. My body makes me feel exhausted, urging me to stop running in place, but that's not enough if I'm excited to be running for some reason. It also makes me sweat. In order to get the energy to evaporate into the air, sweat pulls heat from my body, and this helps me cool down. Not all animals have as effective sweat glands as people do, so people can endure longer periods of intense activity than many other animals. When I got warm, homeostasis mechanisms let my blood move near the surface of my skin, and made me sweat, so I got cooler. There are other forms of homeostasis to regulate things besides temperature. For example, when your blood pressure drops suddenly, which can happen if you stand up suddenly, your blood vessels constrict, which brings your blood pressure up to normal. Also, if your blood sugar rises, which can happen after eating, your pancreas releases insulin to lower your blood sugar back to normal. Diabetes is the disease that affects your body's ability to maintain blood sugar homeostasis. In general, homeostasis is when our bodies recognize a slight drift from healthy conditions, and counteract that drift by nudging us back to equilibrium.

yes,but they used it for fire to warm and to light up.europeans used it for powering machines. hope this helped;)

Didn't China use coal long before Europeans? Marco Polo part talked about it.

zhL5DCizj5c

Hi, I’m John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore - the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans - specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "The New England Revolution." That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

It s still taking place right now

when does industrial revolution take place?

zhL5DCizj5c

Hi, I’m John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore - the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans - specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "The New England Revolution." That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

The Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the late 1700s and had spread to other countries at the time, like America. People like Thomas Newcomen, Richard Arkwright, Samuel Crompton, Edmund Cartwright and James Watt. Invented machines that brought forward the Industrial revolution. not many people have profit from the industrial revolution back then. it seems that only the wealthy people. and factory owners have benefited back then. but people like us, in the long run, have benefited from it.

A few questions: -When/Where was the Industrial Revolution? -What were some famous people in the Industrial Revolution, and what did they do? -Who profited the most from the Industrial Revolution? These questions have been troubling me for a long time...

zhL5DCizj5c

Hi, I’m John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore - the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans - specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "The New England Revolution." That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin.

I wonder, who thought of creating a machine for cotton?

zhL5DCizj5c

Hi, I’m John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore - the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans - specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "The New England Revolution." That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

India may have spurred British industrialization because of India s non-industrial textiles. But that doesn t mean, and he doesn t say, that they were higher in industrial capability. In fact, he specifically states that Europe, India and China were relatively equivalent in industrial production.

So basically,what John is saying is that the main reason Britain industrialised a lot was because of India?Is he saying that India was higher than Britain?

zhL5DCizj5c

Hi, I’m John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore - the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans - specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "The New England Revolution." That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

that is mainly because of rapid industrialization..people who were ready to take up jobs related to industrialization were aid high wages and also people would ask themselves why become farmers when they can be paid better with other jobs?

So, can anyone tell me why suddenly less than 1% of the population are now farmers and everyone else isn't

zhL5DCizj5c

Hi, I’m John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore - the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans - specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "The New England Revolution." That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

Yes, that s correct. Also, bells are made of metal, so that would increase the chances even more.

,,He wanted to explore the effects of lightning, which always strikes the highest point in the area" . Is this why churches, more precisely their bell towers were hit disproportionately higher than other buildings (assuming they were the highest buildings in the area)?

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.

He wanted to explore the effects of lighning, which always strikes the highest point in the area, like a tall tree or building. Therefore, in order to attract the lightnng and gather results, Franklin had to create something that would be the highest point for the lightning to strike, thus a kite was flown.

I still don't get why he did the kite experiments.

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.

I ve been told (but cannot verify it as the truth) that for a long time in Europe, the other buildings in a town were prohibited by law from being taller than the church as a show of piety. If this was true, even in places where it was no longer law, it would easily remain a matter of tradition.

Why were churches so high back then? I mean, if you see tall buildings getting hit all the time, you'd want to build short buildings, right?

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.

i think once they understood it installing a ligthning rod to give electricity a safe way down was both more effective and easier than remove the bells, after all even without the bells the tower would probably still be the highest point around and keep attracting ligthning just because of that.

Did they remove the church bells when they discovered that they were making the lightning hit more?

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.

I don t know exactly, but his inventions DID save many lives

was his inventions important in the war?

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.

He invented the Franklin stove, bifocals, Franklin electrostatic machine, Lightning protection system, and the Glass harmonica

Does anybody know all of what Benjamin Franklin invented? Thanks in advance! :)

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.

At the time when presidents were being elected, Franklin was almost 90 years old. He was focusing on his electricity experiments at the time, and probably didn t want to be president. George Washington was the only president to be elected unanimously too, so the people obviously wanted him to be president.

how come benjamin cant be president because he did alot so why not?

uGjR338bHPs

Voiceover: So in the last couple of videos, we've talked about Benjamin Franklin as a printer, we've talked about him as a successful public leader, as a successful businessman, but we also know Benjamin Franklin, and we've talked about him as a successful writer, with Poor Richard's Almanac, but there's this other side of Benjamin Franklin which kind of makes him larger than life, which he was also a significant scientist. Voiceover: Yes, you know, he would have thought it was strange that you could aspire to be a great citizen and not care about science. Back then, you should know about science. So he did everything from tried to track the gulf stream, he discovered ways to use dark fabrics to absorb heat, he creates the great Franklin stove, a fireplace that's a wonderful way to be more efficient in terms of heating a room without getting it all smoky, and... Voiceover: And also not wasting the heat I think, normally in a fireplace all the heat goes straight up, and out. Voiceover: Right, and it sort of had a nice little top to it, a little plate, that got very hot, and so he was a very practical inventor. Even things like bifocals, he's riding along the road one day, and he keeps wanting to read, but then look up into the distance, and he says, "Well, why don't I have two pieces "of glass melded together, one that's good "for reading, and one that's good for looking out in the distance." So, it wasn't like he was a research scientist, he was just a practical inventor. What makes him into a great research scientist is when finally, in the 1740s and early 1750s, he starts doing the electricity experiments. Voiceover: And this is important, this is actually something I learned when I read your book on Benjamin Franklin, is that, I mean this was real, as you mentioned, this was real research. This was something that, understanding the nature of elecricity, the nature of lightning, and how to manipulate it. Voiceover: Yeah, we think of him as a doddering old dude flying a kite in the rain, but in fact, those electricity experiments were the most important experiments of that era. Not only for the practical use of them, but for the theory. Up until then, people had created static electricity, you know, when you rub your sweater against a piece of glass, and lots of sparks come out, and they thought that electricity was two different fluids, and they had two different names for the fluids. Franklin realizes it's a single fluid, and he creates the idea of positive and negative, plus and minus, those type of things, so that it's a flow of electricity, and he does that with his electricity experiments that really begin in the 1740s, partly as a parlor trick, 'cause he loves it, but then he realizes, no, let's study this stuff - electricity. Voiceover: And it was a real issue, I mean people were dying because of lightning. I remember in the book, there was a particularly funny, I forgot the exact quote, where he said, "Churches get to be, tend to be hit "disproportionately, so it seems like God "is not favoring them." (laughing) Voiceover: Right, well you know what they used to do, was they would sanctify the church bells, so that it would ward off the lightning, and they would even sometimes store gunpowder inside churches with sanctified bells. But the lightning kept hitting the steeples of the churches, and people in Germany, Italy, and then the United States, there were these huge explosions, lightning was the great scourge of the times. Voiceover: So to ward off lightning, they would sanctify a metal bell, and put it at the top of the tower. Voiceover: Bingo! (laughing) It did not work! And Franklin has a wonderful line in one of his letters which is, "You'd think we would try something different, and see if that worked." (chuckling) And so Franklin looks at sparks, that he's been looking at from his electricity experiments, and he's been creating these little sparks with the static electricity, but then using wire to make it into a flow of electricity, and put it into a battery. He gives us the name "battery" 'cause he puts it together a lot of Leyden jars, which is the way they used to store electricity. And so he's looking at the similarity between sparks and lightning. And in his notebook, he makes a little chart. He said, well sparks have these qualities, they're fast, they jump, there's a sulfurous smell, they make a little crack, and lightning has the same qualities. And he does a wonderful notation at the bottom of that notebook page, very scientist-like, he says, "Let the experiments be made." And that's how you get the lightning experiments. Voiceover: He literally, it's a little bit of a legend now, but he literally did go out into a rainstorm and tie a kite with a silk thread, to a kind of a key attached to a Leyden jar? Voiceover: Well, what he did was as clouds were passing over, he and his son William went out into a field, and as the rain started, they flew the kite, and they tried to draw the electricity down from the clouds, 'cause it was his theory that a lightning strike was just a spark coming out of a cloud. And at first it didn't work, but as the cloud got nearer, he could see the little fibers on the silk get raised, and there was a key at the end of it, and that's where the electricity, the charge collected, and then he was able to put it into a Leyden jar, or a battery. Voiceover: So really what he was doing, is he was connecting, because the clouds are getting a, they're kind of at a different electric potential up here, by kind of connecting it with his conducting silk thread that's wet, he was able kind of to get the Leyden jar to save potential. It wasn't like the lightning struck like Back to the Future. lightning striking him, he was drawing some of the charge down from the cloud, but that showed him that what lightning was, was a discharge from the cloud of its electric potential. Voiceover: Right, and that's significant, 'cause when he figured that out, that you could manipulate electric, that lighting was electricity, that he could kind of solve the church problem. Voiceover: The big, big problem, and you look at that kite you've drawn, what does that show you? It says, I get it, if we put something up there like that, like a lightning rod, and he knew that pointed metal objects were very good at drawing the flow of electricity, so he said, why don't we put up a lightning rod, and he described exactly how to do it. They ended up testing it in France, first, 'cause he published the lightning rod way of doing it, but later on he replicates the experiments in the United States, and it makes him the most famous person probably, other than maybe the King of France, and the King of England, the most famous person in the world because he has solved this astonishingly big problem of how do we ward off lightning from striking our building. Voiceover: Especially tall buildings like church and castle towers, and this is where he saves lives, this is a... Voiceover: Oh saves hundreds of lives, by far the most important invention of the time, and of course, we still use lightning rods, we still ground, have grounded points on top of buildings to make sure... Voiceover: It's a very simple idea, that you give kind of this pointed conductor point, that's really high up, the lightning will want to strike that, and then you construct a path for the lightning, so it can go to the ground, and not have to go through the building. Voiceover: And what he does in his house in Philadelphia, especially 'cause he's about to go to England again at the time, he puts up a lightning rod, he grounds it, but he puts a tiny little bell, so that when the electricity's coming down from the storm is approaching, and it's drawing the electrical charge from the clouds, a tiny little bell will sort of bounce back and forth, being jolted by the charges coming there, and it drove Deborah Read, his wife, absolutely to distraction, so there's a wonderful letter he writes home from England, telling her how to dismantle the bell, and it will still be safe. Voiceover: Fascinating.