Comments on: Jet aircraft of the Belle Époque

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:08:34 +0000

Those fools... fools! What have they done?

By: Ricardo Reis

Ricardo Reis — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:55:50 +0000

ressurrection:

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Coandas-Claim.html

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:39:09 +0000

Thanks, Chris, Jakob, and JDK for stepping in here while I've been busy post-blogging. I think we should take enrique's last as something of a peace offering (ignoring his second-last, of course) and leave it at that. For my part I regret the 'hectoring' bit as all it was ever going to was make the discussion one about tone and politeness. With any further discussion of 'the Romanian plane' going out the window. There are some important questions here for a research blogger like myself, however. I don't worry that this post will adversely affect my academic reputation -- blogging doesn't yet count for anything towards it, why should it count against it? And the tone of this post is so far from academic (including the lack of references, which I would usually provide for a serious post) that I would have thought it clear that it's (as Jakob put it) a jeu d'esprit. But if I want my blogging to be taken seriously, do I need to make it clear when I'm making 'serious' (scholarly, well-informed) pronouncements? Should I put disclaimers on not-so-scholarly posts? After all I do have my credentials at the foot of every page. (Which also may be misleading -- I wasn't a Dr when I wrote this post, in fact I was only about 2 months into the PhD, but that's not going to be apparent to the casual surfer). A final point: I thought Wikipedia frowns frowns on using blogs as sources, so I'm not sure why I'm linked from there anyway. Things to ponder...

By: enrique

enrique — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 05:29:34 +0000

Jakob: I realize now that the abruptness of my initial post was easily construed as rudeness(and obviously my initial reply), and will try to bear your advice in mind in future. I have little experience with such fora, and the standards which are expected on some of them. Although I realize that there are those who would dispute my competence to make such a judgement, I found your handling of the situation to be exemplary, and feel that you personally are deserving of that now almost archaic appellation gentleman. I realize that you might suspect that this post is a Left-handed way of attacking your peers, but this is not the case. If you have such suspicions, I regret having engendered them. Perhaps if I had replied to your post first I would have calmed down a bit. Any reply would be superfluous, since I have no intention of returning(and seem to have more than worn out my welcome anyway).

By: enrique

enrique — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:40:01 +0000

No big suprise. I'm sure, as I was some time ago, that that article will be there in perpetuity; giving most of the people who read it the impression that this is a proven fact. And if Gibbs -Smith was used in composing it, it certainly is very well hidden. It is apparent that you two have made a large number of accusations, like Chris Williams' suggestion that I had accused him of anti-semitism. But for the record(or whatever duration this post might have) I have not suggested that anyone on this blog is lacking in qualifications. Anyone who cares to read the posts will see this. I am in fact more concerned than I might otherwise be because this IS the blog of a professional historian, as I have said at least once. You call me evasive because I don't list qualifications, but I never made any assertions that would require them, and I'm not particularly interested in posting personal information . And as I said, without documentation claims of credentials are as common as dirt. The term "arguing from authority" has nothing to do with the layman's term arguing. It means claiming that your argument is correct because of your credentials rather than by logic or reason. It is one of the classical fallacies.(like 'it happened before, It'll happen again') I never suggested everyone else has a problem. But I suppose putting words in some one's mouth and attacking them for them is your regular mode of operation. And of course It's important to then put your hands over your ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA" loudly until he's gone because that way you've gotten the last word. I really have no Idea if you just can't understand simple English, or if you're intentionally pretending to mis-interprit my posts because of some problem of yours. But you're a sorry pair of spalpeens. (Chris and JDK)

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:44:12 +0000

enrique: whatever.

By: JDK

JDK — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:13:14 +0000

Dear enrique, Please don't be sarcastic. You've been asked not to be rude (sarcasm is rude). Dr Holman is a qualified historian, and has been clear about welcoming further input has been quite clear on the extent of his understanding - including the references you don't like to agree he's used (Gibbs-Smith). My details and qualifications are also easily found, and are very much anchored in the real world. Yet you are not prepared to offer your own profile in return. It is not a matter of argument, just what the person's involvement is. Most of your questions are answered - the main ones are that Dr Holman has given his sources, stated his ambivilence as to the actual story of Coanda, and interest in further data. Asking a question over 'inadvertent' invention is not grounds for censure. Science and aviation is full of inadvertent discoveries and inventions. Dr Holman was not suggesting the question was - as yours are - already answered in his own mind. If you genuinely are interested in correcting a common misconception, as you are a guest on Dr Holman's blog, more moderate and less sarcastic and demanding posts might've got a better reaction. Given you are determined on your course - and clearly see no problem with it, it's probably too late. Either way, you are clearly not the kind of person I'm interested in corresponding further with, from a combination of your personal evasiveness and aggressive and rhetorical sarcastic posts - ignoring the context and advice given. The truth does not need such a handmaiden, and Gibbs-Smith would not be thanking you for your approach. It isn't everyone else, it is you with the problem. Regards, and goodbye,

By: enrique

enrique — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:54:31 +0000

JDK: The only references I see listed after the article are described as image sources. I have no particular interest in, or skepticism about, the sources of the photos he used. Any old blog, or photo archive will do for that sort of thing. You ask me why I haven't listed my qualifications. That's because I'm not trying to convince you of anything by arguing from authority, and I find internet discussions about credentials to be unproductive (character is who you are in the dark, and a highly qualified expert who must be respected because of his credentials is who every poster is on the internet). All I did was quote a few sources. I did pass judgement in a limited way(wether it involved combustion or not) on his British patent, but in terms of complexity it's not exactly the Shoals typesetting machine. You assert that I'm "desperate to prove Coanda a fraud" and that I want to "harass people into agreeing with my version of history". It isn't my version of history it's Gibbs-Smith's version of history, and a very large number of other aviation historian's version of history. I started asking questions here because I was curious why someone who Identifies himself as a professional aviation historian would be stating as bare fact that Coanda invented(and flew) the first jet aircraft. I didn't see any list of references other than those image credits, and wanted to know what had made him come to this conclusion. Now I know. Apparently it was posted as "fodder for alternate history stories" and was "not a serious piece of research". When I have read the work of professional historians in the past I'm afraid I've missed the parts where they State poorly sourced rumor as bare fact because it would make a neat alternate history story. I would have thought it obvious that this sort of thing creates the kind of confusion that most historians spend their careers trying to clear up. It also does a huge dis-service to the people who actually did develope working jet engines. This was a very difficult, and at times dangerous task. But you say I'm mistaken in my assessment of his admitted posting under the aegis of his credentials of "fodder for alternate history stories". Apparently I'm the one doing a dis-service to history by trying to find out if he has any evidence for his claims. You claim I've asked questions already answered, but I don't see where he says a thing about any references other than examining (after the fact)the blog he got the picture from. You and your freinds seem to think that I'm intimidating and bullying you by asking a few questions. Do you really find a post that involves a few neutrally worded questions intimidating? Would it have been somehow less intimidating to you if I had put it in Bullet-point form? I suppose that if I had worded this sentence in the form of a question that I might have crossed the line over into bullying intimidation. And as for the one reponse from Brett that I chose to Indicate any personal interpretation of, tell me just how plausible do you think it is that the jet engine was invented "inadvertently"?

By: enrique

enrique — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:52:37 +0000

Obviously, these posts should be dealt with individually. Chris Williams: As to your assertion that I have accused you of anti-Semitism: If you read the post in question more carefully you'll see that I wrote, "Perhaps you consider the attacks on Jews, the English, and the Queen in specific to be polite." Speculations on your standards of acceptable discourse do not imply anything about your personal feelings for the groups, or individuals in question, only about your definition of politeness. Politeness was one of the main thrusts of your post, wasn't it? I can appreciate that you may have read this post in an agitated state and mis-construed my meaning, but find it somewhat Ironic in this context that you went on to attack my "skills in basic reading comprehension". You describe yourself as being anti-monarchy. Many people are. However there is a distinction to be made between being against constitutional monarchy and advocating contumacious beheavior toward some old lady who was born into her role. A role which gives many of her subjects a certain proprietary interest in her dignity. Perhaps you don't think you called me a liar. If this is so, allow me to provide an illustrative example. Suppose I wrote on this page: Holman, you don't have a Phd, you never wrote those books, and your first name isn't Brett, it's Eugene. In that case, in addition to having made some easily disproven charges, I would have called him a liar since he could not possibly be mistaken about these things. You wrote that you didn't believe I had any knowledge of the subject in question other than what I might have picked up on Wikipedia. Since I Had just written that I didn't just read about this on Wikipedia, and since I could not possibly be mistaken in this, you called me a liar.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:50:36 +0000

enrique, I'm still open to kissing and making up, but if you are going to fling out accusations that I am anti-Semitic, on the basis that I'm anti-monarchy, I've got to warn you that (b) that particular window is closing very fast and (b) my opinion of your skills in basic reading comprehension isn't getting any better. Perhaps an apology is in order?