Jump to content

Talk:Heinrich Hertz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 118: Line 118:


This article could be greatly improved for many (most?) readers by mentioning in the lead section that the SI unit for "cycles per second" [[hertz]] is named in honor of Heinrich Hertz. Covering this only in the legacy section doesn't give it the prominence its notability deserves. ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This article could be greatly improved for many (most?) readers by mentioning in the lead section that the SI unit for "cycles per second" [[hertz]] is named in honor of Heinrich Hertz. Covering this only in the legacy section doesn't give it the prominence its notability deserves. ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

==Hertz, the pioneer of contact mechanics==

Hello, I put in the entry for Hertz's contributions to creating the subject of contact mechanics which is of vast importance to tribology about a year ago. I am kind of sorry to say that, though the language of the section has been greatly improved, not much contribution has been made to the material. I was hoping to see someone mention how the Hertz-model for contact is used in deriving dry-contact friction models. If anyone is interested then, some helpful sources might be the Greenwood-Williamson model for aspirities, where they base their derivation on the original Hertzian model.

Could someone also describe the famous (among contact mechanics people) Derjaguin-Johnson (with Tabor as his tag team partner :-) ) battle of models? If it does not get done soon, I will document it. Johnson is pretty old now, and it should be okay to have a page on him too along with Tabor, Greenwood and McCool. PO!.

Revision as of 21:13, 11 August 2008

Lived

Lived from 1857-1894 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.242.194 (talkcontribs) 19:46, 27 February 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Metre, not Meter

Whoever wrote this article is a complete retard. They wrote "meter" instead of "metre". This is a SCIENTIFIC article, so measurements should be written in the correct, scientific way. You were writing about meters and metres in the same article and spelling the words the same. Why should anyone trust what this guy wrote when he clearly knows so little about science that he can't even spell a basic unit of measurement?

Huey45 07:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Huey, calm down! Make your point without the character assassination! 152.17.62.18 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I guess

Wireless application quote. I don't believe the quote. The word wireless was coined to describe radio sets for communication over distance without wires as in previous telegraphy. plainly, if he used the word 'wireless' then the application existed! I note there is no source listed. wiki rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and here I thought the deletion was by someone nameless, accountless, hence unaccountable and presumably thoughtless. Anyway, a quick Google turns up
“It’s of no use whatsoever,” he replied. “This is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right - we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there.” “So, what next?” asked one of his students. Hertz shrugged. He was a modest man, of no pretensions and, apparently, little ambition. “Nothing, I guess.” [1]
which uses "electromagnetic" rather than "wireless," hence is not subject to the objection. Presumably the "wireless" quote is some Wiki editor's paraphrase rather than a direct quote. Alas, this version too, though purporting to be a direct quote, is in English yet provides no reason to think the professor was speaking in English, so it too is subject to suspicion of paraphrase. Jim.henderson 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source for a paraphrase closer to what you had here; but it's not sourced, so hard to check. See the book search snippets for 1959 and 1969 non-quote versions and other possibilities. Dicklyon 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Nothing, \i guess' is totally different. Hertz is being modest about his achievement and its place in science. The wireless quote seems to be a recent invention which fits nicely with things like Watson's assessment of the market for computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.224.91 (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse with people who won't sign in is often a nuisance, even when they have something useful to say. Anyway I looked in three other language versions of this article, and was surprised that the English is both the longest and the most thorough. My meager supply of German does not show that it discusses this matter at all, while the French version does, offering a quote much like the "none whatsoever" quote that we have, but in a separate little "Anecdote" section. Anyway it seems the question is well covered in our English version. Maybe we should offer a little more about the bright young fellow (Marconi) who took the now obvious step from the philosophical idea of invisible waves to the practical use for telegraphy. Certainly our anonymous editor was right to remove the "wireless" quote from the infobox, merely wrong to say nothing in the edit comment about why. Jim.henderson 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Ancestry

Template:RFCbio

Here are some sources that would prove it: 1.http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/hertz.htm 2.http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//hertz.html 3.http://www.jinfo.org/Physicists.html 4.http://www.mlahanas.de/Physics/Bios/HeinrichRudolfHertz.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has questioned his ancestry. But his father converted to Christianity, and I see no source saying what Heinrich's religion was, so let's don't proclaim one for him. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we are talking only about his ethnicity. It seems that you don't understand that jewish is an ethnicity and judaism is a religion, than even if the family converted he remains jewish by race, because thats something you are been born with and can't change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipeida, do we normally categorize people by their ancestry and ethnicity? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do, and i can show you plenty of examples if you want.77.125.165.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm going to back off and let other editors comment on this. It seems strange to me to be applying ethnic/religious/ancestry labels to someone who didn't apply such to themselves. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3rd Opinion It's not appropriate to say he practices Judaism but he's Jewish. Elizabeth Taylor's article says she's a English American actress, however she converted to Judaism to marry Eddie Fisher, but I don't think that makes her a Jew, but she is listed in the American Jew category, but perhaps she should be in the English American Jew category to be precise.. Men and women routinely convert to Catholicism because one parent insist they can't marry outside the relition; this doesn't change the ethnicity of the person who converted from being a baptist, methodists, etc. and the same should be applied to this gentleman--Ccson (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have misinterpreted the question. Hertz did not convert from Judaism; his father did. And do we know anything about the ethnicity of his mother? Does a father of ex-Judaism make a jewist son? What is this ethnicity labeling about anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My answer and ratonale remain the same no matter who converted. Barack Obamas mother is white and his father is Nigeria; Oboma's has gone to great lengths to say he's a christian, not a muslim, and he was raised by his mother and her family, probably in a predominantly white neighhborhood, maybe all white for those who consider him to be white. In what category would you place Obama? Ethnicity labeling is about every print or television report only asks could he be the first African-American or black president, nothing about being the 43rd white president; good queston; why are labeling Mr. Obama?--Ccson (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with that strange convention that any "black" ancestor makes one "black". Is it the same with "jewish"? And what other ethnicities? Source? Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for the ethnicity of Hertz's mother as if that missing varable would help in this disussion on Hertz (particulary if she wasn't jewish as his father certainly was). I simply gave a current example of a man's ancestry for which we know [Nigerian father and a white mother], and posed the question on how you would categorize Obama. You raised the question, I'm just curious how that information would affect this discussion. See Irving Berlin whose second wife was Irish American and how she and her children by Berlin were snubbed by society for marrying someone Jewish. The article has sources but they're not inline citations.--Ccson (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion Personally I think that, depending on when he converted to Christianity, he should not be added to the Jewish category. If he was only briefly Jewish and converted fairly early on in life he probably shouldn't be added, however if he waited until he was middle aged or so I think he should be added. If he converted early on, I think instead of being added to the Jewish category I think he should be added to a category of people of Jewish decent if one exists. This subject is apparently the subject of much debate all over the Jewish community (see the article Who is a Jew?), so it is not surprising that its difficult for people to agree here. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention. He never converted. His father and paternal grandparents converted to Christianity. And it turns out his mother was not jewish, so that pretty well clinches in from the point of view of jewish law at least. Right? Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok. Yes, that makes sense, I agree with removing him from the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn123645 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, than if you insist for the time being i won't categorize him, buts if its fine with you i would just mention his religion change in the article.77.125.165.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit:
This subject matter is somewhat sensitive, of course; but the exchange of views in the thread above -- and the concurrent edits as this was being posted -- miss an important point. No matter how it might be re-worded, the gratuitous supplemental material about Hertz' mother doesn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph:
Heinrich Rudolf Hertz was born in Hamburg, Germany on February 22, 1857, to Gustav Ferdinand Hertz and Anna Elisabeth Pfefferkorn of Jewish orign that converted to being Catholic ....
This one-paragraph discussion of Hertz' "early years" could present the same information in three short paragraphs: (a) parents marriage, (b) further background data concerning his father, and (c) further background data concerning his mother. What's missing from this section is the "why"? Why and how were this child's parents important in the development of a man who would become world-famous? Much is understandably implied from what is revealed about Hertz' father; but the crucial point here is that much is also implied by that terse phrase having to do with his mother's religion or ethnicity .... Aha. Do you see my point?
Without more, there are implied concerns which may be trivial, but which are none-the-less likely to continue arousing close scrutiny and endless further questions. To illustrate my point, please consider this oblique example of religious conversion:
Kuki Shūzō converted to Catholicism at age 23 in 1911 (Meiji 44); and he was baptized in Tokyo as Franciscus Assisiensis Kuki Shūzō. The idealism and introspection implied by this decision were early evidence of issues which would have resonance in the characteristic mindset of the mature man.<.ref>Nara, Hiroshi. (2004). The Structure of Detachment: the Aesthetic Vision of Kuki Shūzō with a translation of "Iki no kōzō," pp. 96-97.<./ref>
The implications which follow Kuki Shūzō's religious conversion don't inspire the kind of questions which have been raised here because of something in the life of Anna Elisabeth Pfefferkorn before she became Heinrich Hertz's mother. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me. But do ahead and do some edits, with sources, and I'll see. As far as I know, he mother was not of jewish ancestry, and his father's family was converted before he was born, so there's probably not a lot that needs to be said. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of our more interested editors was mistaken to ask my opinion, but here it is anyway. Seems to me, the precedents of Felix Mendelsohn and Benjamin Disraeli apply, despite differences in details of sectarian and ethnic affiliation. Analogies to 20th century figures are less relevant. The present bio subject was Jewish by paternal ancestry, Catholic by upbringing, and whatever his opinions on religious questions may have been, they are not why people in later centuries are interested in him. The text should mention both his ethnic and his religious affiliation very briefly, and he should be included in the relevant sectarian and ethnic scientist categories. If we're voting, then that's my vote, but I don't have a lot more to say about the matter. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The German article, shorter anyway, does not mention any Jewish aspect. Besides, the web pages given at the top here pretty much reference each other. One is taken from an older version of en-Wiki itself, the page at uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//hertz.html is surely a private user page, yet jinfo.org uses it as a reference. Folks, please respect WP:V and WP:RS, use proper sources, biographies written by historians, starting e.g. with recent Google Books [2] or Scholar [3] After 1933, the Nazis tried to get rid of many kinds of people, communists and social democrats being the first targets. One strategy was to simply call somebody Jewish, and Gustav Ludwig Hertz was ousted this way, despite colleagues voicing their opinion, see e.g. Physics and National Socialism: An Anthology of Primary Sources, By Klaus Hentschel [4] The Who's Who in Jewish History, By Joan Comay [5] barely mentions Heinrich, only repeating the Gustav L. H. case. So, mention one or two sentences that can be properly sourced, but don't copy speculations from dubious web pages, where anybody can write anything.

These seem to be reputable recent sources:

  • Heinrich Hertz: Eine Biographie, By Albrecht Fölsing, Published 1997, Hoffmann und Campe, 605 pages, ISBN 3455112129 [6]
  • Heinrich Hertz: Classical Physicist, Modern Philosopher, By Davis Baird, R. I. G. Hughes, Alfred Nordmann, Published 1998, Springer Verlag, 336 pages, ISBN 079234653X [7]
  • The Creation of Scientific Effects: Heinrich Hertz and Electric Waves, By Jed Z. Buchwald, Published 1994 University of Chicago, 496 pages, ISBN 0226078876 [8]

-- Matthead  DisOuß   17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes to the suggested edit, so for the time being i will keep on looking for different sources to prove the point, that despite the comment above his father was jewish and his mother was not, but about the nazis removing his portrait in hamburg he had nothing to do with communism or socalism, and the october Bolshevic revolution was 24 years after he died, so it was only because of his backround. User:zivb2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Suggested edit: The "Legacy" section was modified slightly to include a new sub-heading for "Nazi revisionism." Any controversy about Hertz' parents is appropriately discussed in this setting. In my view, the text which seemed out-of-place in earlier versions. Nothing has been deleted, but context makes all the difference.
This information about the role of religion in the lives of Hertz's parents -- without anything more to establish create a clear context -- can only be construed as intrusive and unwelcome POV; but the same set of disparaged facts become valid when the text can be reviewed in a relevant perspective. If this doesn't make sense, please let me try to explain again using different words. I hope this re-working of the text somehow manages to garner general agreement so that this thread can close. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks sensible to me; it says it all plainly in a reasonable context, and clarifies why the article does not belong in the "jewish" categories. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks good to me ... reasonable context. The heading is subheading is alil redundant ... could be incorporated into death and afterwards ... but it's ok that I am not gonna change it now... J. D. Redding 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should mention his parents's backround in "early years" and the remove of the portrait in "nazi revisionism".What do you people say? talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivb2007 (talkcontribs) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about sub-categories of Jews? Orthodox, Conservative, Jews who converted, etc? RMFan1 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, as he was not of Jewish faith. In general, folks, please use only well-sourced statements about Hertz himself. What others did decades later is of low importance. Too much speculation going on here.-- Matthead  DisOuß   17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this ain't far away from dumb or childish (depending on the way the claimant admits their age). How about writing which salad he prefered, or the circumference for his waist? I'm sure such information would help for a true fanship of Hertz's, such as a separate wiki site or a H. Hertz forum. I really appreciate the fact that Jews look after Jews with so much care, and that a bunch of encyclopedic sites about Jews around the world exist, but this is way too much for a general article. Wikipedia is not the right place to write any statement just because it was already stated somewhere else. (Impy4ever (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's not clear whose suggestion you are intending to berate here, but I pretty much agree anyway. We typically get two kinds of people wanting to label someone as Jewish: pro-Jewish people who want to make sure that Jews get credit for something, and anti-Jewish people who want to label someone to disparage them. We need to not support either of these, but stick to reporting significant facts. Since Hertz's Jewish ancestry became a significant fact in his and his family's history in Germany, it's worth a neutral mention; but not much more; it certainly doesn't put him into a Jewish category. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article by McCormack in the authoritative professional reference Dictionary of Scientific Biography (v.6, p.340) . has the following first paragraph "Hertz was born into a prosperous and cultured Hanseatic family. His father, Gustav F. Hertz, was a barrister and later a senator: His mother was the former Anna Elisabeth Pfefferkorn. He had three younger brothers and one younger sister. Hertz was Lutheran, although his father’s family was Jewish (Philipp Lenard, Hertz’s first and only assistant and afterward a fervent Nazi, conceded that one of Germany’s great men of science had “Jewish blood”). " DGG (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention SI unit in lead section

This article could be greatly improved for many (most?) readers by mentioning in the lead section that the SI unit for "cycles per second" hertz is named in honor of Heinrich Hertz. Covering this only in the legacy section doesn't give it the prominence its notability deserves. (sdsds - talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz, the pioneer of contact mechanics

Hello, I put in the entry for Hertz's contributions to creating the subject of contact mechanics which is of vast importance to tribology about a year ago. I am kind of sorry to say that, though the language of the section has been greatly improved, not much contribution has been made to the material. I was hoping to see someone mention how the Hertz-model for contact is used in deriving dry-contact friction models. If anyone is interested then, some helpful sources might be the Greenwood-Williamson model for aspirities, where they base their derivation on the original Hertzian model.

Could someone also describe the famous (among contact mechanics people) Derjaguin-Johnson (with Tabor as his tag team partner :-) ) battle of models? If it does not get done soon, I will document it. Johnson is pretty old now, and it should be okay to have a page on him too along with Tabor, Greenwood and McCool. PO!.