Feedback is our weekly column of bizarre stories, implausible advertising claims, confusing instructions and more
Detecting a dubious detection
GEORESONANCE? What would that be? Feedback鈥檚 fruitloop-detector pinged when we read that, on 28 April, a firm by that name to have found the wreckage of tragically missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
Although inexpert in the company鈥檚 field of mineral exploration, we were still surprised to read its claims at that 鈥淪ubsurface deposits generate distinct electromagnetic fields that reflect physical and chemical properties of atoms [which] can be captured by airborne multi-spectral images.鈥�
Advertisement
Armed forces around the world have devoted highly secret but very large sums to detection of cigar-shaped metallic objects underwater, from the air. Water is recalcitrant in its opacity to electromagnetic fields (, which it rapidly attenuates). Now this company claims success?
Our doubts were immeasurably strengthened when Graham Parkinson forwarded us an email discussion between members. Passing over for brevity the fruits of technically expert scepticism, Feedback was fascinated by a member鈥檚 discovery that the same website was devoted to 鈥淕eo-Resonance Rejuvenation 鈥� An Innovation in Holistic Healing鈥�.
Nevertheless, the Sydney Morning Herald that Bangladesh had sent two navy frigates to the location in the Bay of Bengal mentioned by GeoResonance.
In the basement of the building where Jeroen Gildemacher works is a mysterious machine, clearly labelled 鈥淐omfort Inverter鈥�. Gildemacher says it 鈥渆xplains a lot鈥� about his environment
Undetected breakthroughs
OTHER websites making very similar claims to , mentioned above, such as , have more of that indefinable 鈥渓ook鈥� of quackery that has become queasily familiar at the Feedback desk. Have all these companies made enormous breakthroughs in physics?
Perpetual-motion ship ahoy!
ENTIRELY unrelated, apart from its aquatic theme, is the claim made by British newspaper The Times that the 鈥淯S navy makes plans to power its fleet with seawater鈥�. A diagram shows water being electrolysed; the resulting hydrogen heated with carbon dioxide over an iron catalyst; and the reaction products converted into hydrocarbons. It seems to Sandy Dalkin that the US navy has 鈥渁 way to violate the laws of thermodynamics鈥�.
Vice-admiral Philip Cullom is quoted as saying that this 鈥渋s not alchemy, this is real science鈥�. A small clue to what this eminent naval-gazer is really hoping for is in the corner of the diagram, where the liquid fuel is fed to a jet. The Times didn鈥檛 mention where the electricity comes from: we presume a nuclear reactor.
Shakespeare, scientist
THERE may be nothing new under the sun 鈥� a phrase which would indeed be the wisdom of King Solomon, were he, as tradition has it, the author of . That verse probably inspired the author of Shakespeare鈥檚 : 鈥淚f there be nothing new, but that which is / Hath been before鈥︹��
Now 鈥渢he list of Shakespeare鈥檚 scientific insights steadily grows鈥�, writes Michael Kusz in response to our series of articles on the Bard鈥檚 dealings with scientific ideas (19 April, p 40). He directs us to in the June 1888 edition of on 鈥淪hakespeare鈥檚 Knowledge of Electricity鈥�. The anonymous author found references in Shakespeare to lightning, magnetic attraction and St Elmo鈥檚 Fire discharges on ships鈥� rigging.
Funnily enough, just as this arrived, a colleague was combing Shakespeare for references to calculus 鈥� without success, so far.
Petards then and now
FEEDBACK was in fact aware that the textual origin of the phrase 鈥渉oist by your own petard鈥� is, as John Davies points out, from Hamlet鈥檚 that 鈥溾�檛is the sport to have the engineer / Hoist with his own petard: and 鈥榯 shall go hard / But I will delve one yard below their mines, / And blow them at the moon鈥�. This practically defines the early modern usage of 鈥減etard鈥� to name explosives placed under fortifications.
Recalling this merely reinforced our conviction that, in modern usage, 鈥減etard鈥� is a metaphor without foundation 鈥� which we have dubbed an 鈥渁thelemic metaphor鈥� (26 April), and more of which we seek.
The height of theatricality
WHILE we are considering matters theatrical, we present here the imaginative use of actorly units by Australian TV news channel 9MSN. Ed Lukin alerts us to its of a record-breaking shark caught in Florida that was 鈥渁s tall as Tom Hanks and Danny DeVito put together鈥�. Feedback is a little concerned about the possibility of doing arithmetic on such mixed-base units. Adding the length of two sharks, how do we know when to carry the Hanks?
Elephants in Lakeland
FINALLY, and returning to matters aquatic, while discussing the use of the Windermere as a unit of inundation, Feedback reported David Williams suggesting: 鈥�3.4 million elephants of rain is more acceptable, at the standard conversion rate of 5 tonnes per elephant鈥� (8 March).
Given the prevalence of Feedback readers near here, we should not have been surprised to hear that 鈥淲indermere鈥檚 volume is about 314.5 脳 106 cubic metres: 300 Windermeres of rain equates to about 94,350 million tonnes whereas 3.4 million 5-tonne-elephants is only 17 million tonnes.鈥� Thank you, Brian King.