Talk:Prokop Diviš

First sentence

Please do something about the first sentence - it is nigh unreadable. Awadewit | talk 03:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't relevant in the same way anymore, however an issue with the first sentence is that Diviš's first name is not mentioned in the article as being Vaclav, however it is included in the Czech IPA as seen in the first sentence as "Dom Prokop Diviš, O.Praem. (Czech pronunciation: [ˈvaːtslaf ˈprokop ˈɟɪvɪʃ][1])." 2601:642:C301:119A:A031:D2A5:2DDF:5424 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Helvíkovice nad Orlicí

First of all, Helvikovice is not part of Žamberk, it is independent village with its own Mayor. Further, there are not any other Helvíkovice, we have only Helvíkov here in the Czech Republic. You can check it http://www.mapy.cz/ I am resident of Žamberk so that you can believe to my information. --Bohemianroots 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lightning rod

The objects identified in the images as "lightning rods" are certainly not "rods", i.e. solid cylinders (many rods maybe ;). Is there another word or phrase that can be used to describe this invention, for example, "lightning protection device"? Does anyone know what Diviš called his invention?

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "lightning rod" is much more familiar in English than more technically precise terms like "air terminal" or "lightning protection system." For a general audience, "lightning rod" is clearer.

While on the subject of lightning rods, I question the accuracy of these sentences in the Science section:

As a consequence of his research, Diviš became the inventor of the first grounded lightning rod. Benjamin Franklin had invented the lightning rod in 1752 in the United States, but it did not work well, because it was not grounded, while Diviš's apparatus in 1754 was. Therefore it worked perfectly, and was constructed six years before Franklin's invention.'

(Two footnotes at the end of the paragraph reference two articles in Czech, which unfortunately I do not read. I apologise if my question below was already answered in these articles.)

In a 1750 letter to Peter Collinson at the Royal Society of London, Benjamin Franklin described both the ungrounded lightning rod for use as a proof-of-concept experimental tool, and the grounded rod for practical protection against lightning damage, according to http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_59/iss_1/42_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1 (also the source for dates below).

Franklin's letter was published in 1751 with four preceding letters in a pamphlet, Experiments and Observations on Electricity, Made at Philadelphia in America. The pamphlet was immediately distributed and also translated into French, a language known to Diviš. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_42/January_1893/The_Inventor_of_the_Lightning-Rod

By mid May 1752 the French Académie des Sciences in Paris received the first successful experimental confirmation of Franklin's insulated rod experiment. (Grounded protective lighning rods were installed later the same year in Philadelphia's Academie.)

In July 1753 in St. Petersburg as told in this article, Prof. Richmann's fatal electrocution during an attempt to repeat the insulated rod experiment horrified Europe's intelligentsia. (In the 1753 Poor Richard's Almanac, Franklin published do-it-yourself grounded lighning rod instructions. Subsequent study of failure patterns led him within a decade to correct the imperfect electrical connections of the first generation of his design.)

In this environment, with the air figuratively crackling with excitement over the new science, was it possible for such a learned and experienced electrical experimenter as Diviš to have invented the grounded lightning rod, between 1750 and 1754, independently? Egmonster (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

answering Egmonster: Well, it was theoretically possible, but Franklin was first. And even if Franklin hadn't been - no. Divis didn't invent a lightning rod - not the first, not the first grounded one, not any at all that we know of. His intention was a weather machine that constantly sucked electricity out of the air to pre-empt hailstorms and thunderstorms altogether. In his theory, lightning shouldn't happen at all if only there are enough devices with pointy nails on the lower ground. Then, when storms and rain didn't happen some years later, he preached at church that his devices finally worked. The farmers weren't too happy about it in that year of drought, and destroyed his inventions. That was reported to have happened in 1758 or 1759. Finally, to protect his invention from further rampage, he mounted it up on the tip of the church tower. Even then - that arrangement was most probably not a lightning rod.

I doubt there is any substance to the claim that his devices were grounded. Either the 1754 one or the 1759 one. I have sources [in German] that his devices weren't grounded, and thus couldn't even work on accident.

Don't get me wrong, he was probably a keen and dedicated mind, he felt punished for wasting away in his small town and he was eager to stay well-connected in the scientific community (another reason to doubt that his rod was developed independently from Franklin's, since Franklin was publishing/writing on the large scale), and Divis had contributed some favorable ideas in his field of expertise (biological/medical applications of electricity). Then Divis went into physics and was soon left out of the loop. Idle, he spent the time to theorize on his own, and thus his later work was regarded as superphantastical even by open-minded contemporary scientists. He only made news again when 100 years later, local patriots discovered him as their "European Franklin". --Enyavar (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to correct myself here: Divis's apparatus might have grounded, but it still didn't work as he intended. It was (probably, we can't say it for sure anymore), serving fine as a free-standing lightning rod. Still, I edited all the en-WP's pages that claim Divis was a lightning rod inventor, because he just wasn't. In fact, someone should probably also write about his research in electrical healing, the article is pretty one-sided now with all the focus on debunking the lightning rod. --Enyavar (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prokop Diviš. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.znojmuz.cz/english/aodivis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160103225303/http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/muwi/fricke/303sitter.pdf to http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/muwi/fricke/303sitter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)