XLIII Scientific Instrument Symposium - SIC 2024

Session Chair: Johan Kärnfelt (Göteborgs universitet, Sweden)

Instruments and environmental change: applied geophysics at the Science Museum
Author: Alexandra Rose
In 1931, a special temporary exhibition at the Science Museum in London showcased an array of instruments for applied geophysics: seismic, magnetic, electrical and gravitational devices for oil and mineral prospecting. The exhibition’s curator, Herman Shaw, obtained an array of cutting-edge precision equipment for the displays, some not yet proven in the field; alongside these he reinterpreted existing artefacts in the Museum’s collection to present a narrative of technological development. In the context of an energy transition that was seeing a shift from coal to oil as an energy source, the exhibition was timely, and it also aligned with the objectives of the Museum’s governors to serve better the needs of industry. The exhibition was not merely a standalone display: it reflected the central and active role the Museum played in cultivating and promoting the new field of applied geophysics in Britain, resulting from the campaigns of politically-engaged scientists.

The topic of fossil fuel extraction, and the matter of how museums can effect social and environmental change, both have renewed pertinence today as the world faces an unprecedented climate crisis. This paper concludes by raising some open questions that will be the focus of planned future research. How might we reckon with the complex environmental legacies that some instruments – such as geophysical prospecting instruments – have left? Can historic, as well as contemporary, scientific instruments be mobilised by museums in their programmes of public engagement around the climate and environment? Could these collections even effect positive environmental change?

Attributing Precision to William Thomson’s Invention of Electrometry
Author: Daniel Jon Mitchell
The history of physics in Victorian Britain has given rise to two main socio-historiographical approaches concerning the origin of consensus about the precision of measurements: “centers of calculation” associated most closely with Schaffer and Latour, and “networks of trust” advocated in response by Gooday. The traditional opposition between these approaches, namely the role of trust and authority in the social processes that constitute precise measurement, masks an important point of agreement: “precision” is an attribute that emerges as a result of the successful assembly of chain of expertise, materials, instruments, procedures, and standards. Thus the precision of an instrument is made contingent upon extrinsic factors, to such an extent that calling an instrument “precise” lies somewhere between jumping the gun and making a category mistake.

This conclusion does not seem right. From a museological and a scientific viewpoint, there is something intuitive about ascribing precision to an instrument. In this paper, I explore the extent to which this intuition can be recaptured while preserving the insights of networks-of-trust and centers-of-calculation historiographies. I do so by returning to their origin in the history of Victorian physics through a study of William Thomson’s “precision” electrometers. I consider the extent to which the issue is a substantive or a semantic one, especially insofar as actors’ categories are involved. Previously neglected, the case merits careful consideration: Thomson was probably the most prolific and important inventor of so-called precision electrical measuring devices during the nineteenth century.

Breaking the Technological Monopoly: Initiating the Localization of Measuring Instruments through the UTD2000 Digital Oscilloscope
Author: Nianci Wang
Co-Authors: Ke Zhao, Deli Chen, Hongyin Lv
The invention of measuring instruments marks a pivotal shift for human beings from perceptual cognition to quantitative analysis. Since the 20^th century, electronic measuring instruments have been the key for gauging a nation’s scientific and technological prowess. In 2006, UNI-T, a Chinese firm seeking transformation, cooperated with the Institute of Electronic Testing Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. The cooperation results in the development of the UTD2000 digital storage oscilloscope within a year. With a bandwidth of 200 MHz and a price of 300 euros per unit – one tenth of the international counterparts, Agilent and Tektronix – the UTD2000 quickly penetrated the China market. It catered to applications requiring bandwidths below 500MHz with sales of 30000 units per year. Notably, it became one of the earliest Chinese electronic measuring instrument exported to Europe, Brazil, and beyond.

In the transition of scientific research to market-ready products, the monopoly of technology becomes apparent, with technology serving as the key competitive asset. Established companies erect barriers, hindering newcomers through technical obstacles. When new companies manage to overcome these technology barriers, they still face the challenge of dealing with the low price set by the established ones. This research looks at how the UTD2000, a Chinese electronic measuring instrument, went from being developed to being sold internationally in the 2000s. It examines the decisions made by companies, government policies, and market fluctuations. Ultimately, it explores how scientific instruments can shake up the dominance of established companies, leading to innovations in a region.

The Keepers of Time / Historic Schools for Watchmakers in North America
Author: Gary Fox
By the mid 1880’s The American watch manufacturing industry was producing over 750,000 watches annually and given their mechanized processes, that number was increasing exponentially every year.
Producing over 2,000,000 watches annually, the Swiss industry believed there was little to fear from the American upstarts, until it was too late to see the looming change.  However, the Swiss industry recognized the need for trained watchmakers to maintain and repair the watches they produced long before their American counterparts. Schools were opened where the students learned not just how to repair a broken part but why the parts were designed as they were.
In the Americas, watchmakers were trained through apprenticeships and mentorships, a lengthy process with often dubious results. The result? There simply weren’t enough skilled watchmakers to meet the need.
The call went out for horological schools where a student could learn more in a year than in three years as an apprentice. But was anyone listening? James Parsons was.
This is the story of:

• the first school for watchmakers in North America – Parsons Horological Institute opened by James Root Parsons in La Porte, Indiana in 1886;
• the first school for watchmakers in Canada – The Canadian Horological Institute opened by Henry Richard Playtner in Toronto, Ontario in 1890, and;
• the Elgin Watchmakers’ College, started in 1922 by Playtner and funded by the Elgin National Watch Company.