ARCHIVE THIS! — by Steve Nadis
I’ve long been intrigued by the “Archives of Useless Research,” a 5.7-cubic-foot assortment of papers, collected from 1900-1989, that now sit in the MIT Institute Archives. Housed within numerous cartons are such neglected treatises as: “The world of staraeognology” by William H. Davis; “Perspicuous demonstration of the practical utility of adequate knowledge” by Jacob Fresch (1925); “Maps have their limitations” by Richard Edes Harrson(1943); “The Riddle of the Universe - solved” (1935); “Perpetual motion, at last and powerful!” by Capt. Kidd; and “This world is flat” by Archibald Robertson (1961).
In the course of investigating this odd collection, I discovered that the Institute Archives also include four cartons of materials relating to an alternative energy study that I worked on several decades ago for an environmental organization with roots at MIT. It was considerred to be an important study when it came out, and I believe Ralph Nader made a fairly recent (and positive) reference to the work (though one might say he was predisposed to like its findings). The conclusions, moreover, are as pertinent today as they were 25 years ago when the book was published. Yet it is old and long forgotten. Who’s to say it’s any less useless than “The Riddle of the Universe - solved”?
Posted by
at
05:21:16
zardoz says:
O.K. so whats your point..?
do you have something alternative to analyse?
or youre just doing your usual
i love volleyball … but look there playing cricket over there, in the ice hockey field with tennis rackets and flippers ?
————–ZARDOZ
The Internet is a huge archive of useless stuff. Makes the MIT archive seem positively quaint.
So what is the solution to the riddle of the universe? While, I’m at it, what is the riddle of the universe?
Sorry TB, I’m afraid you’ll have to go down to the catacombs of MIT to find the answer to that one. And to find the question. Roses is right, there is plenty of garbage out there. But how much of it is truly “useless”? And as for Z’s obscure remarks, the easiest thing would be to say that I agree wholeheartedly.
Sounds like early blogging to me.
I know what you mean, Doc. People have been producing worthless junk since the first tools were invented–and maybe even before then. (I haven’t given that last point much thought but perhaps it’s possible.)
I’ve got perpetual motion figured out. You need to work WITH nature, not obtuse to the forces we already have.
If YOU utilize natural motion, like the spin of the earth, which manifests energy in the form of gravity. …It could happen. I need a lab and a huge grant, and I will spend my career finding it. Deal?
Oh, and can I borrow those papers?
MsAmber
Wow……this is all way too deep for me. I think I’ll go into my vault and count my money.
Sounds like fun. I’ve never really understood why the thought of perpetual motion is considered a useless quest. Does the earth earth stop turning? If so, does it then really matter that we no longer have a free energy source? Is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really valid? Yeah, this is too deep. Think I’ll go collect some of that dispersed energy.
You’ve raised some interesting points about perpetual motion, Amber & Ardist. Maybe I should reconsider the whole notion. And Windfall, you make perfect sense–that’s what I’d be doing if I had any money to count. Instead I’ll spend my time deep in the basements of MIT.
I respect your work,it is the most nice one i ever see