#### 18318100OAアルキメデスの球と球状体の取り扱いを巡って

vol.26, no.164, pp.193-206, 1987 (Released:2021-09-21)

Archimedes gave geometrical demonstrations to find the volume of a sphere and the ellipsoids of revolution in totally different ways, although both lead to the same integral,∫[2a,0]x (2a — x)dx. Nicolas Bourbaki -a group of French mathematicians-state their views on why Archimedes had no concept of integral calculus as follows: "Might it not be that Archimedes regarded such a standpoint as extreme 'abstraction,'and dared to concentrate on studying characteristic properties of each figure he was working on ?" Certainly there is something in what Nicolas Bourbaki say. However, their views do not answer fully the question To the solution of this difficult problem, in my opinion, an important clue can be found by considering Archimedes' scholastic career in chronological order. It was not until Archimedes wrote On Spirals in his late forties or early fifties that he could work out the summing of the series 1²+2²+…n². In his later work On Conoids and Spheroids Archimedes could obtain for the first time the sum of a series ∑Xk(2a—Xk), necessary to give geometrical proofs about the volume of the ellipsoids of revolution However,it was difficult for Archimedes,in writing On the Sphere and Cylinder I, to obtain the sum. Therefore, he proved the theorem about the volume of a sphere in a way not making use of such summation When the same integral appeared, Archimedes could not notice the internal connection unifying them. This may be because, for one thing, he excluded from geometry, due to their mechanical nature, the discussions using indivisibles found in The Method which could have been a clue toward noticing the internal connection. Secondly, obtaining the sum of a series was not a simple matter to Archimedes who lacked the necessary algebraic symbols.

#### 342400OA書評・紹介

vol.56, no.284, pp.7, 2018 (Released:2021-01-14)

#### 32000OA津田梅子と生物学 : 科学史とジェンダーの視点から

vol.49, no.253, pp.11-21, 2010 (Released:2021-08-02)

Umeko Tsuda (1864-1929), a pioneering educator for Japanese women and the founder of Tsuda College, was a scientist. As an English teacher at the Peeresses School in Tokyo, the young Tsuda was granted a leave of absence by the government to study "teaching method" at Bryn Mawr College, a women's college near Philadelphia. During her stay in Bryn Mawr (1889-1892), however, she majored not in pedagogy but in biology, despite the fact that the Peeresses School officially banned science education for noble women. Following the vision of the feminist Dean Carrey Thomas, Bryn Mawr College offered full-fledged professional education in science comparable to that of Johns Hopkins University. Bryn Mawr's Biology Department was growing; there, Tsuda took courses from such notable biologists as Edmund B. Wilson, Jacques Loeb, and the future Nobel Laureate Thomas H. Morgan. In her third year, under Morgan, she carried out experimental research on the development of the frog's egg, which was published in a British scientific journal as their joint paper two years later. Tsuda was considered one of the best students in the department, and Bryn Mawr offered her opportunities for further study. However, after much consideration, she chose to return to Japan. Although Tsuda gave up a possibly great career as a biologist in American academe, she knew that it was almost impossible for a woman to pursue a scientific career in Meiji Japan and wanted to develop her dream of establishing an English school for women. Her experience of "forbidden" scientific study at Bryn Mawr seems to have given her great confidence in realizing her feminist ideal of enlightening Japanese women at the women's school she founded in 1900, the forerunner of Tsuda College.

#### 21000OAラウンドテーブル: ウィキペディアと科学史--知識とコミュニケーションを考える

vol.55, no.279, pp.221, 2016 (Released:2020-12-15)

#### 181300OA科学史・技術史関連科目とはどのような科目か? : 2016年度シラバスのテキストマイニングを手掛かりとして

vol.57, no.285, pp.2-19, 2018 (Released:2021-01-21)

#### 15000幕末期における蒸気船運転と蒸気機関 : 加賀藩の発機丸を事例に

vol.59, no.294, pp.131-148, 2020 (Released:2021-01-24)

The author will clarify the engine operation and its specifications of Hakki-Maru of Kaga clan that was the steamship introduced to Japan at the end of the Tokugawa period. Hakki-Maru was propelled by sails and a steam engine on Japanʼs coastline. The engine operation was relatively smooth under the calm weather, but some steam leaks of the boiler occurred mainly at the stormy weather. Though the boiler of Hakki-Maru was designed to generate steam pressures of 60 psi., the steam pressure was frequently less than 1/4 of the maximum working pressure. The repair of the engine required the help of a Shogunate engineer with a lot of operating experience. Hakki-Maru built in the United Kingdom and was equipped with a compound engine. Also it is highly probable that a combination of cylindrical boiler and surface condenser was equipped. These were developed to improve the efficiency of the engine but had been just put into practical use. The frequent breakdowns at Hakki-Maru were due to the installation of the latest equipment that required careful operation and maintenance. The steamship sold to Japan at the end of the Tokugawa period included not only old ones but also new one equipped with some cutting-edge technology. Since the steamship itself was the means of transportation, the latest technology onboard could quickly spread to the distant locations.

#### 13000OA竹内時男と人工放射性食塩事件 : 1940年代初めの科学スキャンダル

vol.57, no.288, pp.266-283, 2019 (Released:2021-01-24)

This paper examines one of the most publicized scientific scandals in Japan before the end of WWII, Takeuchi Tokioʼs alleged discovery of artificially induced radioactivity in common salt. In 1936, Takeuchi, then an associate professor at Tokyo Institute of Technology, claimed a discovery of a new way to produce a radioactive substance. According to his paper, he could induce radioactivity in common salt by a gamma ray from a radium source. When Takeuchiʼs patent for this alleged discovery was announced, Nishina Yoshio and other researchers at the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN) objected. A debate took place at a monthly meeting of the Mathematico-Physical Society of Japan in June 1941. The controversy ended when Takeuchi and Nishikawa Shōji conducted an experiment to confirm that Takeuchiʼs result was due to contamination from the radium cells, and Takeuchi withdrew his patent. This incident attracted much media attention: Newspapers and magazines published many articles on it. By examining the debates and the media coverage, this paper analyzes how Nishina and other nuclear physicists sought to set a clear boundary between acceptable and unacceptable studies of radioactivity, and shows that not only researchers, but also newspapers treated and demonstrated to the public the studies of radioactivity as something rationally verifiable, rather than magical or mysterious, indicating that the relation between the lay public and nuclear physics at that time was far more sophisticated than previously suggested. The paper concludes by discussing how such boundary work was possible in the given socio-cultural context.

#### 9000OA科学史入門 アラビア天文学から科学史を見直す

vol.59, no.296, pp.377-386, 2020 (Released:2021-10-06)

#### 9000OA古典古代の奴隷医師について

vol.21, no.141, pp.49-56, 1982 (Released:2021-05-13)

#### 9000日本の宇宙電波天文学研究が世界水準に達した経緯 : 野辺山観測所における科学目標設定と装置開発

vol.59, no.294, pp.113-130, 2020 (Released:2021-01-24)

#### 8000OA牧野富太郎(科学史入門)

vol.44, no.233, pp.43-45, 2005 (Released:2021-08-12)

#### 8000OA劇評 シス・カンパニー公演『コペンハーゲン』シアタートラム、東京、2016年6月19日

vol.55, no.280, pp.352, 2017 (Released:2020-12-15)

#### 8000OA3.11後の原子力の社会史と冷戦史研究のゆくえ : 『原子力と冷戦 日本とアジアの原発導入』を読んで[加藤哲郎・井川充雄(編)『原子力と冷戦 日本とアジアの原発導入』]

vol.53, no.271, pp.317, 2014 (Released:2020-12-09)

#### 7000OA科学史研究を回顧する

vol.50, no.259, pp.144-149, 2011 (Released:2021-07-21)

#### 6000OAガズナ マフムードとアル•ビールーニー アラビア科学研究ノ ート-14-

vol.28, no.169, pp.41-45, 1989 (Released:2021-09-01)

#### 5000OA放射線防護とは何か--ICRP勧告の歴史と福島原発事故の教訓

vol.60, no.298, pp.150-174, 2021 (Released:2022-08-01)

#### 5000OALichenは如何にして地衣と翻訳されたか

vol.48, no.249, pp.1-10, 2009 (Released:2021-08-04)

Chii, the Japanese term for 'lichen', is widely used in contemporary East Asia. However, precisely when and by whom this term was first used to refer to lichen is not known. In addition, Japanese botanists from the 1880s to the 1950s had doubts regarding whether Chii was an accurate translation of lichen, given that Chii originally referred to moss that grows on the ground, whereas most species of lichens grow on barks of trees or on rocks. In this paper, the author shows that Li Shanlan and A. Williamson et al., in the late Qing dynasty of China, first used the term Chii to refer to lichen in Zhiwuxue, published in 1858. In Japan, Tanaka Yoshio, who was influenced by Zhiwuxue, first used the term Chii in 1872. However, further investigations led to the discovery that ITO Keisuke translated lichen as Risen in 1829. In 1836, UDAGA WA Yoan also translated lichen as Risen by using a different kanji (Chinese character) to represent sen. In 1888, in his article, MIYOSHI Manabu suggested a new equivalent term, Kisoukin, to refer to lichen (algae-parasitized fungi). In the article, he proposed the term Kyosei as the Japanese translation of symbiosis. Ever since the late 1880s, Kyosei has been used as the Japanese biological term for symbiosis.

#### 5000OA総動員と野生生物 : 日本におけるヌートリアの移入

vol.42, no.227, pp.129-139, 2003 (Released:2021-08-12)

This paper is to explain the process of the introduction of nutrias in Japan and the thoughts of various people who were related to it. Since nutrias was regarded as furred animals suitable for the wartime system and attracted the interest of the military, breeding of them was spread rapidly. However, the demand for nutrias furs was vanished by the defeat of WWII, then nutrias were ejected in the open air. At a later time, around 1950, breeding of nutrias became popular once again. But this boom was declined after several years and nutrias were ejected outdoors again because the boom did not expand beyond the stage of speculative business. This fact shows that in the historical context, the introduction and expansion of nutrias was not seen as a problem but even recommended, which is different from today's principle that any introduced species should be expelled. On the other hand, this paper can not confirm any fact showing the argument about the introduction of nutrias had some influence on the argument about what human society ought to be like. However, it shows that biologists have attempted to speak figuratively about nutrias by giving them various names, for example, shouri (this is a homonym of the word that means victory in Japanese) or rumin (this word means immigrants who are forced to wander in Japanese). This fact means that any discourse about the introduction of living things should become not only scientific but social.

#### 5000OAシンポジウム 放射線影響評価の国際機関(UNSCEAR)の歴史と現在 : 東電福島原発事故の健康影響をめぐる日本の論争を理解するために

vol.58, no.291, pp.300-309, 2019 (Released:2021-01-24)

#### 5000岩橋家によって製作された3点の小型一閑張望遠鏡の発見

vol.59, no.293, pp.18-37, 2020 (Released:2021-01-24)

The purpose of this paper is to identify who fabricated the three small Ikkanbari (一閑張) telescopes discovered by the author, and to estimate when these telescopes were fabricated from a historical perspective. Zenbei IWAHASHI (1756–1811) was one of the most famous Japanese telescope makers of the Edo period and fabricated many high-performance telescopes. After Zenbeiʼs death, his successors inherited his manufacturing technique and continued to fabricate Ikkanbari telescopes until the Meiji period. To date, telescopes fabricated by the IWAHASHI family have been investigated by the author, Makoto WATANABE and his colleagues, who have already identified 24 telescopes as having been fabricated by the IWAHASHI family. Most of these telescopes provided direct evidence of their origin, such as the IWAHASHI familyʼs original pattern Kuruma gata (車形), the inscription of the name IWAHASHI, and the IWAHASHI trademark. In this study, the author investigated three small Ikkanbari telescopes. There is no direct evidence that the telescopes were fabricated by the IWAHASHI family, except for one telescope that had IWAHASHI trademark on its case. However, the author concluded that a telescope can be considered as having been fabricated by the IWAHASHI family if its size is equal to that of the telescopes described in Saikutsumori-cho (『サイクツモリ□』帳) and if several of its patterns are the same as those of the telescopes known to have been fabricated by the IWAHASHI family. This result confirms M.WATANABEʼs opinion.