Replies

Something else I remember about the article. The author speaks from a strange point of view, as I recall, constantly implying that David Hahn was delusional, and that all the things he did were simply the result of his need to feed his delusion. The thing that's funny is that he (the author, Ken Silverstein) also infuses the story with dark paranoia resulting from David Hahn's success. In other words, the author tries to have it both ways, even though the evidence is absolutely clear that he can only have it one way: David Hahn is a highly motivated, driven, committed, passionate young man who did something great under very trying circumstances, as a result of (in my humble opinion) exceptional creativity, understanding of the fundamentals (and well beyond), and most of all, an unbelievable level of energy, tenacity, and constancy of purpose.

I think David Hahn should have gotten a medal from the President.

It was impossible to understand from the article whether David Hahn was actually highly gifted. The author did everything he could to make it sound like David Hahn was just "acting out" a sort of fantasy, like someone who sets aside a room in their house for a shrine to Bjork, and goes around telling people he and she are engaged, etc. The facts say otherwise. It is impossible for me to believe that David Hahn could have done these things without a great deal of pure intelligence. Actions speak louder than words, a concept anathema to Harper's and its readers.

On a personal level...

I had a Gilbert's Chemestry Set too, when I was in third grade. Not the super-big one with three hinged sections; I only got the two bay one. Remember the cobalt chloride? Remember the "deflageration spoon?"

As far as books for young scientists go, I remember these books by a guy named Morgan; they were about 50 years old when I found them in the town library. They described how to make solid and liquid fueled rockets, as well as other things. One chapter I remember well explained in great detail how to make a sail-driven ice-scooter, with sharpened steed blades made from old automotive leaf-springs. This thing was big, big enough for a boy of 10 or 12 to ride on. Extensive drawings, explainations of how to grind the springs into blades, how to make the sail, etc.

I was also heavily influenced by the marvellous "Amateur Scientist" feature in Scientific American. At that time it was "conducted" (his word) by someone named C. L. Strong. I awaited each month's issue with baited breath. Mr. Strong described projects for making several lasers (ruby, HeNe, argon, and CO2), a particle accelerator using a home-made Van Der Graff generator, an infrared specrometer, a gas chromatograph using laundry detergent as a column fill medium, an electrostatic motor powered by an antenna flown from a helium balloon, a supersonic wind tunnel made from a vacuum pump and an old hot water heater tank, along with a Schleren camera for imaging the shock waves that developed around objects positioned in its throat region, and many, many other fascinating projects. I duplicated several of the (less ambitious ones). In those days (mid '60s through early '70's), Scientific American was a fantastic magazine, nothing like the silly left-wing pseudo-magazine it had degenerated into.

Today I am an Electrical Engineer, with a masters degree. I write pattern recognition algorithms for machine vision. I have three patents, with more on the way (if I can find money to pay attorney's fees). My "laboratory" is almost entirely contained in personal computers, which are one of the wonders of our age. I often say that if Leonardo da Vinci or Ben Franklen, or Humphrey Davy were alive today and could see the tools we have to work with, they would say "why aren't you rich?" As, of course, even the poorest of we Americans are, relatively speaking.

(steely)