# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts, Textual Evidence, and other Interesting Data

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts, Textual Evidence, and other Interesting Data

# data[].attributes.body
1) What were some technologies that gained the public's attention in 1940s

How did they distinguish between the "good" and "bad" technologies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A glimpse of an alternative economic and industrial history and future, in which the Luddites were successful in their battle against alienating technology.

The Luddites did not hate technology; they only channeled their anger toward machine-breaking because it had nowhere else to go. Illustration: MIT Press Reader

In common parlance, the term "Luddite" means someone who is anti-technology, or maybe, just not adept at using technology. Historically, however, the Luddite movement was a reaction born of industrial accidents and dangerous machines, poor working conditions, and the fact that there were no unions to represent worker interests during England's initial period of industrialization. The Luddites did not hate technology; they only channeled their anger toward machine-breaking because it had nowhere else to go. What you are about to read is an alternate history (an encyclopedia entry from circa 2500) that depends on the critical assumption that the Luddites succeeded in their industrial campaign in the 1810s. Instead of techno-determinism (that the development of technology is inevitable, and that society will alter and adjust to it) the Encyclopedia entry notes that the Luddites, in their success, formulated a different, yet productive, relationship between society and the development of technology.
Originating in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution in the first two decades of the 19th century, Luddism was a movement arising as a response to poor working conditions in nascent textile manufacturing businesses. The Luddite movement was a precursor to the development of the economic philosophy known as Sustainomics, which promotes technological development that adheres to principles of Utilitarianism and Human Flourishing Doctrines. Sustainomics began its rise in the early part of the 20th century and has remained the dominant economic system of the Hemispheric Union for the past 600 years.

Beginning in the early 19th century, foreign wars coupled with high unemployment and food shortages caused widespread desperation among the populace. Many seeking "earned wages" went to work in rudimentary industrial factories. With no safety standards and shoddy medical care, industrial accidents were quite common.

As corn became increasingly scarce in the winter of 1810 to 1811, groups of workers who could not pay for food and shelter became even more desperate. Under the Combination Act of 1799, Parliament had outlawed unions. It was amidst these stark conditions that the Luddites began to organize in secret. The Luddite Movement was open to both women workers and child laborers. Indeed, women and children comprised roughly 40 percent of the Luddite membership.

Leadership of General Ned Ludd and Origin of the Term 'Luddite'

Many stories and legends have grown up around the esteemed figure of General Ned Ludd, named by "Passage Zine" as one of the "Top 10 Most Influential People of the Last Thousand Years." Hailed as a visionary even in his own time, the Luddite Councils are named in his honor. The complete story of Ludd's life and times is told in "The Epic Saga of General Ludd." While stylized, the Saga has largely been corroborated with the archaeological records.

As an orphan, young Ned grew up in the late 1790s in a "workhouse," a facility that existed to make people "earn their keep," to use the antiquated terminology and backward thinking of the time. Ned was trained in the textile trade as a boy. Contemporary sources recount 15-year-old Ned being beaten when he refused to work at a machine that had, only moments beforehand, severed one of his co-worker's arms. After several days of docked wages, Ned, still nursing bruises from his beating, was told to go back to work on that same dangerous device. As every schoolchild learns in reading "The Luddite Primer," young Ned seized a hammer and smashed the hazardous machine. Within a fortnight Ned had fled the factory and joined the British army.

Ned Ludd, leader of the Luddites. Image: Working Class Movement Library catalogue, Public Domain

Although he had only a brief stint in the military, young Ned was a quick student of battlefield strategy. Returning to Huddersfield just a few years later, his supporters styled him "General Ludd." As the Movement increased in popularity over the summer of 1811, a large crowd gathered at Huddersfield. By the time the Movement began in earnest, Ned Ludd's supporters numbered over 100,000. Luddite supporters were characterized by their sense of utmost loyalty and solidarity to their brothers and sisters in the Movement. Despite the large number of supporters and the completely rudimentary communication available at the time, the Movement, its leaders and its political and social aims remained a well-guarded secret to factory owners and the government alike.

Takeover of Factories

Beginning in November 1811, General Ludd and his right-hand man, Lt George Mellor, surrounded, took and held factories throughout the textile district of Nottinghamshire. Their first victory, at Cartwrights Mill at Rawfolds, is now the site of the Mellor Memorial Museum, which contains many of the original documents so central to the Luddite Movement. Much of the success of the early campaigns was largely due to the fact that the Luddites were chiefly a peaceful movement. Contemporaneous newspaper accounts described individual events as the "occupation" of factories. This characterization has since been disputed by researchers, and definitive archaeological studies have completely repudiated these polemic accounts as wholly fabricated.

Typically, when the Luddites arrived at a factory, the oppressed wage earners cheered and chanted: "Up with Ludd!"

Remarkably, in the first two years of the Luddite campaign, only one serious injury was reported. The owner of Ottiwells Mill, William Horsfall, refused to stand down when a peaceful crowd gathered around his factory. After shouting that he planned to "swim in Luddite blood," Horsfall began firing his rifle indiscriminately into the largely unarmed crowd, which included many of the factory's large group of child workers. As a defensive measure, Lt Mellor fired a single shot, intending to hit Horsfall's arm, but which instead injured his groin. No further resistance was encountered and the factory changed hands without incident.

The Luddites shooting Mr. Horsfall.

The Ottiwells Mill incident was an anomaly. Typically, when the Luddites arrived at a factory, the oppressed wage earners cheered and chanted: "Up with Ludd!" Many deserted to join the Luddite forces. Against this overwhelming show of support for the Movement, most of the managers and owners would turn and run or else peacefully surrender. Part of why Ludd could count on such support was that Lt Mellor began by strategically targeting the factories that had the worst records of safety and that paid the lowest wages. After a Luddite victory, local towns would break into impromptu celebrations. Later these celebrations were formalized to become the most important state holiday of the Hemispheric Union. Every year on 1 March, and under the formula of equivalency on Mars, "Ludd Day" commemorates the courageous citizens who took part in the Movement. The day is characterized by rest from labor, time with family and community, fashion shows with costumes from Regency Britain and a dinner of fish and chips. It is also a well-recognized, though not universal, custom to give a hand-made item of clothing to a loved one, in order to commemorate the Movement's origins in the textile industry.

Luddite Ceremonial Hammers

Sometime in 1812 a group of Ludd's followers in Nottingham gained control of a tool factory, and used its metal-working machines to construct large hammers. In turn, those involved in factory takeovers would use the massive hammers to break machines that had been responsible for death or injury by industrial accident. Ludd's own hammer was named "Great Enoch." The original hammers were later employed in ceremonial capacities establishing trade relations between the United Kingdom with Russia and Japan, before the Great Consolidation into the Hemispheric Union. Today the original ceremonial hammers are displayed in the British Museum's Robert Owen Branch in Valles Marineris, Mars.

Response to the Luddites

By 1813 the British government faced a severe crisis. Waging the Napoleonic Wars had depleted the Crown's treasury. Inflation was high, and food shortages persisted. Until that time the Luddites had mostly been seen as a nuisance. The Luddite Movement then emerged from the fringes, however, to capture the support of an economically depressed populace. By the time Parliament grasped that the wage earners were serious about not being abused and would not back down, the Luddites had already gained significant power. By that point the Luddites had control of over half the output of Britain's textile factories.

At that time the United Kingdom's factories were critical to mercantilism. This economic system involved the colonies shipping raw materials to Britain, with factories using those inputs to manufacture valuable goods. The end results were then returned and sold back to the colonists. Upon realizing that the entire mercantile system was in jeopardy, certain elements in Parliament who stood to lose their livelihoods pressed for military intervention. Many formerly wealthy factory owners also petitioned for redress. They proposed reforms that would fundamentally change the law towards machine breaking. At that time the laws dealing with property damage uniformly suggested that anyone found guilty would be transported, i.e., sent to Australia or another distant colony looking for settlers. Industrial and mercantile interests, which quickly coalesced into the "Property First Party," wanted to change the punishment for machine breaking to death by hanging.

Fortunately, for Sustainomics as we know it, the Property First Party failed to pass this legislation. Lord Byron, poet laureate of the Luddite Movement, and eventual MP from Nottinghamshire, whipped up popular sentiment in favor of the Luddites with his volume "Poems in Celebration of Luddism." These poems were eventually set to music and included the first recorded noises, which were mostly of machines. This began the first era of "Industrial Music," which is recognized as the official traditional music of the Hemispheric Union.

Tides Turn towards the Luddites, and Their Ultimate Victory

In 1813 the Luddites set their sights on Manchester, which was the heart of industrial cotton processing in England. Although the British army had by then been called out to put down what Parliament was dismissively calling the "Luddite disturbance," there simply was not the manpower to spare. The army's reserves were spread thin and taxed heavily defending Britain from the French and Americans.

Richard Arkwright's factory in Manchester was the first to be liberated. The Luddites swarmed the factory and others near it, to the jubilant reaction of wage earners. Once the major factories in Manchester were under the control of the former wage earners, tradespeople and small artisans, support for the Luddites swelled even further. By 1815 the government had no choice but to declare an amnesty and to grant all the Luddites' demands.

In late 1815 Parliament passed the Luddite General Amnesty Law. This law overrode all previously imposed legal penalties and sanctions that might have been imposed not only on Luddite leaders but also on supporters. In 1816, as a result of further political pressure arising from a groundswell of popular support, Parliament passed the Democratic Factory Act, followed by the Luddite Peace Accords. The Democratic Factory Act of 1816 outlined what we now recognize as prototypes of today's Luddite Councils and cadres, and this law was also the official genesis of Sustainomics.

Textile Factories under Early Luddite Rule

Contrary to some of the partisan accounts of the day written by factory "owners," the Luddites were for the most part very careful with industrial machines. Upon the surrender of a factory, the Luddites would break one or two machines that were especially dangerous and had injured a worker. After breaking the isolated machine to make a calculated statement, the Luddites would carry out a thorough assessment of the facilities. Lt Mellor had a natural facility as an auditor and accountant. He would analyze the books and records of the factory to ascertain its profitability and the suitability of the factory for continuing in its present course, if it paid living wages and did not use child labor.

Upon the surrender of a factory, the Luddites would break one or two machines that were especially dangerous and had injured a worker.

Reflecting Mellor's business genius, the majority of the factories that were surrendered to the Luddites were up and running under worker-owned management within a matter of days or weeks. The workers in Luddite-run factories were treated as the owners of the shop, as if they had established it from the start. As long as there was no threat to human life, the factory machines were treated respectfully and with reverence. Mellor was committed to repaying the factory owners the true value of the land and machines, and payments were made through 1816. The Luddite Peace Accords of that year established a compensation fund that extinguished any existing claims.

Resulting Peace and the Economic Power of the Cadres

In 1817 Manchester hosted a ceremony in which the Luddites ceremonially stowed away their hammers. With factories under worker control, the Luddites turned their goals towards a political movement that promoted smart growth and democratic technology policies. As part of the peace, factories came to be seen as partially owned by workers, with workers holding seats on every factory's board of directors. Workers were no longer paid hourly "wages," an antiquated notion indeed, but instead given dividends on the production that they dedicated themselves to guiding. They were also no longer called "wage earners" or "employees," terms that implicated servile or subordinate status. Instead, they came to be known collectively as "cadres," though to this day some of the archaic terminology still exists. The organizational structure the cadres pioneered has long endured, and in fact is the ubiquitous form of corporate holding in the Hemispheric Union.

Establishment of the Luddite Councils

In the early 1820s each factory set up its own distributed "Luddite Council," which was elected from the cadres. Growing out of a notion that industrial technology was outpacing the human ability to respond to it - or, for that matter, even comprehend it - the Luddite Councils were set up to discuss and debate proposed technological changes. To be certain, some inventions were seen as those that could have either positive or negative results, and for the most part inventors continued to tinker and be incredibly productive. But it was understood that there needed to be a communal discussion of the nature of technological change and advancement as the technologies were being implemented. The cadres were not convinced that the free market should be the only determinant of technology. Instead, they firmly believed that technology had to be adopted democratically and used for the common good, not just the interests of the few. Ludd's speeches during this time made the point that technological goals and resource allocation were to be decided in advance based on social needs and prioritization, and invention was to be paid for and encouraged in those areas.

The first round of consideration by the Luddite Councils determined that, given the food shortages during the past decade, agricultural technology, food distribution, health and nutrition would be the top priority.

To track and improve food delivery systems, many cadres became involved in the design of analytical engines, pioneered by Charles Babbage and Lady Ada Lovelace, Lord Byron's daughter. During the 1830s these analytical engines became more sophisticated and had a place in every Luddite factory. Other cadres became adept at designing and fixing harvesting and planting machines that could operate virtually autonomously. Great advances in communications were also needed. The Luddite Councils provided monetary grants for new and improved forms of communication, and by the 1830s telephonic intermediaries were in widespread usage. Rudimentary data storage areas were set up around the world and analytical engines were set to analyzing them. Luddite Councils used these results in order to set budgetary and technological priorities.

Role of Lyanna Ludd and Continued Development of the Luddite Councils

When she reached adulthood, Ludd's daughter Lyanna headed two of the major Luddite Councils, directing and carrying out their policies for many years. The original purpose of the Luddite Councils was to provide citizens with a forum for discussing and debating technology and the common values that they wanted to embed within those technologies.

Under Lyanna's, as well as her daughter Sophia's, guidance, the Luddite Councils had a member of the board on every factory when the cadre numbered more than 25. When new technology was proposed, the Luddite Councils typically supported the changes so long as the labor-saving gains were then distributed as dividends to the cadres.

Further, Lyanna and Sophia both strongly supported the idea that everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or age, had important contributions to make to the cadre. Unlike other societies at the time, which pushed women into lower-paying work, under Lyanna's guidance full economic equality for women was achieved. Social equality did not come until the 25th century, but Lyanna's work provided important groundwork for social change within the cadres.

Advances of the Luddite Councils

Robert Owen, a well-known industrialist from Scotland who was also a utopian visionary, consulted with many worker cadres. In particular, Owen helped the children who had been working in many factories. In many instances these children were orphans or residents of poorhouses. In consultation with the cadres, it was determined that the proper place for these children was school. Owen and the cadres established special schools of engineering and technology so that the children could learn how to construct new and better industrial machines. It was a graduate of one of these Owenite schools, Alyssa Tell, who invented the telephonic intermediary. Most advances were not made by individuals, however, but by groups of cadres working together on shared goals. These working groups were highly effective.

Worldwide Effects of the Luddite Councils

Throughout this time the standards of living of members of cadres worldwide rose drastically. Combining increased production with shared gains to workers meant that the average person became prosperous. Beginning in the 1850s, it was common for every household to have its own analytical engine. Beginning in the 1860s, the rudimentary backbone of what we now know as the Dataverse began to be formed, in response to a Luddite Council directive.

Labor-saving technology meant that work was also more evenly spread out, with most workers in the United Kingdom working for paid remuneration five hours per day, and for four days per week. Citizens spent their spare time on families, hobbies and civic pursuits. Dangerous and dirty activities were no longer delegated to cadres but outsourced to machines.

The United States implemented labor-saving technology across the country, which resulted in universal emancipation in 1849. Former enslaved persons were recompensed with 40 acres and an analytical engine. Perhaps no one understood then the advantage that possession of an analytical engine in a household conveyed. The result was that it was the children of these former enslaved people who became some of the greatest U.S. analytical scientists.

Using an advanced version of the analytical engine, as well as information from the Dataverse, William Johnson, whose parents were enslaved, discovered the cure for cancer in 1855, and later planted the seeds of the anti-telemoric treatments that would vastly increase human lifespan.

Automatization of Manufacturing

During the 1910s, with the blessing of several Luddite Councils, three factories in the north of Britain decided to change manufacturing altogether. Using analytical engines for design and sophisticated printing machines, they created the first "garden printers," which could be set up in any household. Suddenly manufacturing became centered back in the household, rather than in the factory. Essentially, the modern era of production had begun, which then made other advances possible, such as space exploration, which started in the 1920s.

As time went on, the Luddite Councils realized that they needed a set of guiding principles in order to rationalize which technologies they supported. There were some technologies that had been proposed that were outright dangerous or would have a negative impact on society as a whole.

If the answer is that the technology does not lead to Human Flourishing, Luddism questions the purpose of the technology.

Many tinkerers were interested in labor-saving practices not because they wanted commercialization but because they were intellectually curious and were generally interested in improving Human Flourishing. This philosophy undergirds all the great inventions that have been achieved since then, including quantum and biological analytical engines.

In numerous instances, inventors petitioned to have a technology that had no known usage approved. This is the story of the faster-than-light drives and space elevators. These advances were constructed almost entirely using automatized manufacturing.

Luddite Philosophy

Contrary to the propaganda distributed by factory owners of the Regency period, Luddites were not antagonistic to technology per se. In fact, many Luddite leaders, including Lt Mellor himself, promoted technologies that were used for the purpose of improving the health and welfare of the cadres. Luddites destroyed only the machines that were dangerous and had caused human injury, and they were destroyed only to demonstrate a point.

These actions boil down to a motto central to Luddite thought: "Principles over property." As a philosophy, Luddism asks its adherents to ask how technology will assist in Human Flourishing. If the answer is that the technology does not lead to Human Flourishing, Luddism questions the purpose of the technology.

Luddite philosophy also rests on the notion that the adoption of a new technology may resolve an existing problem, but that it may create future problems and concerns. Thus, technology must be viewed from all angles, and, if a technology is found to have negative consequences, social resources must be devoted to changing or fixing that technology. For Luddites, the idea of voluntary and democratic adoption of technology in a sustainable fashion is a central tenet of their philosophy.

Indeed, as faster-than-light drives paved the way for further expansion in the 22nd century, the Luddite Councils adhered to the principles of Sustainomics and its core mottos: "Don't build what you can't maintain"; "Respect for human life and the environment"; and "Principles over property." These principles have served the Hemispheric Union well and led to an unparalleled number of technological advances.
Miriam A. Cherry is a Professor of Law, and Associate Dean for Research & Engagement at Saint Louis University Law School. She is the author of "Work in the Digital Age: A Coursebook on Labor, Technology, and Regulation" forthcoming with Wolters Kluwer. This article is adapted from her essay in "Economic Science Fictions" (Goldsmiths Press)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A glimpse of an alternative economic and industrial history and future, in which the Luddites were successful in their battle against alienating technology.

# data[].attributes.headline
Topic 1 : How did the development  nuclear power influence the overall society?

# data[].attributes.subject
Topic 1 : How did the development  nuclear power influence the overall society?

# data[].attributes.body
Were there any instances of strong corporations restricting the research of individual researchers at the time the story was written (pre-1940)?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the scientific discoveries during 1930s and 40s that affected the development of nowadays renewable energy?

2. Did Great Depression have anything to do with large companies' stopping the development of technology?

# data[].attributes.body
Topic 2: What impression did companies make on people in the 1940s?

# data[].attributes.body
1. The book mentions "Atomic power" - referring to nuclear fission. How does people's opinion differ on nuclear fissile power between 1940s and now?

2. How can we prevent external forces from manipulating scientific development?

# data[].attributes.body
1) What perceptions did the people in the 1940s have on fossil fuels/renewables? How much energy did they use?

2)What companies were mainly in charge of Energy Distribution in the 1940s (America), and what the public perceptions of those companies were like back then

# data[].attributes.body
How does the Fluorescent lamp be introduced in society?

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Questions 1 - Photoelectric device

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Questions 1 - Photoelectric device

# data[].attributes.body
I think author had many interest in light. He wrote many novels about space, light travel.

Also, he majored math and physics and studied about radar in army. Because the photoelectric effect was known and solar cell study was already proceeding, I think he would easily think about this idea for writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IMay 7., 1935. A. H.' LAMB 0 Y 2,000,642

PHOTOELECTRIC DEVCE Filed July 14. 1932 'Patented May 1, 193sv UNITED STATES y amsn ruo'romc'rmc nevica Anthony n. Lamb, Elisabeth, N. '.r., signor o Weston Electrical Instrument Corporation, Newark, N. J., a corporation of New JerseyY Application July 14, 1932, Serial No. 622,531

type including an actinoelectric material such as cuprous oxide, solenlum, tellurium, selenides, tel- -lurides and the'like.

Photoelectricycells of this type have been designed and used as current-change devices for the operation, either directly or through amplifiers, of current-response devices since, in general,

the maximum voltage generated is too low to actuate satisfactorily a static amplifier, or to actuate directly a dynamic amplifier. Photocells of the'evacuated tube type are essentially voltagechange devices ln that the current output is so minute as to be of no practical use, vwhereas the voltage change resulting from wide variations in illumination is of substantial magnitude. The phototubes are not, however, sensitive to small changes within the range` of relatively low illumination.

An object of the -invention is toprovide photoelectric devices of the voltage-change type, and which are characterized bya higher sensitivity than the .known phototubes. A further object is to provide photoelectric devices of high voltage output, and of the type including a layer of actinoelectric material disposed between two electrode terminals. A

These and other objects and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following spec'fication, when taken with the accompanying y drawing, in which:

Fig. l is a somewhat diagrammatic sectional view of a photocell of the current generating type,

Fig. 2 is a diagram oi.' a' circuit including a plurality of such cells,

, Fig. 3 is a plan view of a device embodying the invention,

Fig. 4 is a sectional view on line 4-4 of Fig. 3, and

' Figs.'5 to' 8, inclusive, are somewhat diagrammatic plan views of other mountings for cascaded cell units.

In the drawing, the reference numeral I ident'fles the actinoelectric layer of material that is arranged between a collector or grid electrode 2 and a second electrode 3 to forma photoeleetric cell CI The layerll may consist of selenium that was applied'in molten state to the backing electrode 3, and then heat treated to produce a crystalline structure. The collector electrode 2 is shown as a. grid with relatively large openings but it is to be understood that this showing serves only for purpose of illustration as the collecting electrode may have other known forms, that of a translucent film of metal.

Whether the actinoelectric layer be crystalline selenium or one of the other materials noted above, a photo-electric device such as shown 1n Fig. 1 has the property of generating a voltage between the electrodes 2, 3 when.the collecting electrode face of the layer i is exposed to light and its opposite face is dark. 'I'he voltage so developed is 'of a very low order of magnitude but 10 a substantial ilow of current may be established in an external circuit between the electrodes. l The absolute values of the voltage and current .will be diierent, of course, for the diiferent actinoelectric materials, the collecting'electrode con- 15 struction and the intensity of the illumination but in all cases the action will be of the type indicated graphically in Fig. l. If appropriate voltage and current measuring instruments are employedfas indicated diagrammatically by instruments V and A, respectively, it will be found that -the maximum voltage obtainable under strong illumination is quite small but the current output is appreciable. In view of this characteristic of the devices, they have been uniformly employed withauxiliary equipment that respondcd to changes in current flow.

As indicative of the low voltages developed, it has been impossible to obtain potentials greater than from '75 to 150 millivolts as the relatively rapid variation in voltage which results from variations in relatively low illumination does not extend over the entire range of illumination, a saturation effect preventing any increase in voltage with increasing illumination.

Voltages of the order stated are ltoo low to operate satisfactorilythe voltage-response devices that are employed with photo-electric devices of the vacuum tube type.

I have discovered that cells of the currentchange type may be cascaded to develop a voltage, when working into a circuit of such highlresistance as to substantially prevent all current flow, that is substantially the sum of the voltages developed by the individual cells, and that the size of the cascaded cells may be but fa smallfraction of the size of the cells commonlyfformed of the same materials and for use as currentchange devices. Thecurrent output of currentchange cells of the solid type is dependent upon the exposed area of the cell but I have found that the desired voltage 'addition effect may be obtained by' cascading a plurality of current-change cell units which are each of such small size as to develop only a negligible current.

such asv light or to open .As shown in Fig. 2, a plurality oi' cells C may be cascaded by connecting the collecting electrode of one cell to the back electrode of the adjacent cell. The terminals of the cascaded cells may be connected to a thermiomc amplifier 4 or other voltage response device, the number of cells being so chosen that the voltage developed between the terminals is suilicient to actuate the amplifier. as indicated graphically by the measuring instruments V, A, in Fig. 2, the input resistance oi the amplifier is ao high that there is no current iiow. but the open-circuit voitage produced upon enh posing the cells to iight is relatively high. The

open-circuit voltage ci the cascaded cells cannot be measured by (a sensitive millivoltmeter connected ...cross the terminals, since the instrument winding will short-circuit the cells and the voltage will iall appronimately to zero, and it is to be understood that the showing of the voltmeter V indicates only the magnitude of the open-circuit voltage, and not a circuit for measuring that voltage. With ten cascaded cells, for example, over 30u millivolts were developed at 5 footcandles and over lVZ volts were developed at 25u foot-candles. The high millivolt sensitivity at low illumination is thus rendered available for control purposes as the absolute value of the voltage change corresponding to a given change in illumination may be stepped up to any desired magnitude by choice ofthe number of cascaded cells.

One practical arrangement for a device comprising a plurality of cascaded cells is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. An'insulating base 5 is recessed to provide seats for receiving a plurality of small cells C and the lower ends of approximately Z-shaped connecting strips 6; the upper ends of the strips overlying an adjacent recess, whereby the strips make contact between the collecting electrode of one next cell. A glass cover plate l is secured to the b'ase 5 by a screw 0 and holds the outer ends of the connecting strips 6 in contact with the respective collecting electrodes. Terminal strips 9 extend from opposite faces of the two end cellsr to points beyond the base i5.

It is to be noted that the size oi' a multiple cell potential-generating device is not directly related to the size of the known current-generating cells employing the same materials. The individual cell units C' may be, and preferably are, quite small and the dimensions and shape of the complete multi-cell device may be the same as those of a single cell C of the current-change type, thus facilitating the manufacture ci mountings and auxiliary equipment by one construction available for use with cells of both the voltage-change and the current-change types.

It will be apparent that there is considerable latitude in the choice of the materials of the individual cell umts, and in the physical arrangements of the cascaded cells.

As illustrated in Fig. 5, a plurality of individual' cells C are alined and carried by a narrow strip I of insulating material. This form of mounting is particularly desirable when a comparatively extended region is to be protected by a light-sensitive alarm or control system. The` for example, be mounted along" strip Il may, the side of an elevator door to energize a signal a circuit-breaker when any object cell and the base electrode of the -is in such position as to be injured by closing the door or starting the elevator.

The mounting plate i I may be oi annular form, as shown in Fig. 6, or a circular mounting I2 may support s plurality oi unit cells C2 which are of sector shape. Or. as shown in Fig. 8, a plurality oi unit cells C" may be compactly arranged on a square mounting plate iii.

The number oi cascadcd cells and their arrangement muy, ofcourse, be varied to suit the particular design requirements in any given case.

l. A photoclectric device of the voltagechange type comprising a base ci insulating material having recesses in one face thereoi, a current-generating photoelectric celi snugly received within each oi said recesses, each ci said cells being of disk form and comprising a layer of actinoelectric material between a baci: electrode and an upper light-transmitting electrode, conducting strips connecting said cells in cascade, each strip having an end extending,r to the bottom oi one recess and an opposite end overlying the upper electrode oi a cell in an adjacent recess, a glass plate overlying said cella and connecting strips, and means clamping said plate to said base to retain said strips in electrical contact with the several cells.

2. A photoelectric device as .claimed in claim 1, wherein the actinoelectric material of said cells is selenium, whereby said cells have a high resistance when not illuminated.

3. A photoelectric device of the voltagechange type comprising a base of insulating material, a plurality of connecting strips on said base and each having an outer end overlying and spaced from the inner end of an adjacent strip, a photoelectric cell unit of the current-generating type between each set of opposed inner and outer ends of adjacent strips, each cell unit comprising a layer of actinoelectric material between a back electrode and an upper light-transmitting electrode, and means securing said cells to said base and retaining the respective ends of said strip in electrical contact with the cell electrodes adjacent thereto.

fi. A photoelectric device as claimed in claim 3, wherein each cell unit is below the size capable oi developing an appreciable current output.

5. A photoelectric device of the voltage-change type comprising a recessed base of insulating material, a plurality ot photoelectric cell units of the current-generating type mounted on said base and with the outer surface thereof substantially flush with the surface of said base, each cell unit comprising a layer of actinoelectric material between and united to a back electrode and an outer light-transmitting electrode, a pair oi terminals electrically connected to electrodes oidlierent types `oi' two of said cell umts, a plurality of conducting members vconnecting the said cell units in cascade between the said pair of terminals, each connecting member having one outer end overlying the light-.transmitting electrode of one cell unit and an inner end in contact with the back electrode of an adjacent cell unit, and means securing said cell umts to said base and retaining said connecting members in electrical contact with their associated cell unit electrodes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US2000642A - Photoelectric device - Google Patents

# data[].attributes.headline
about q2. Large companies tried to protect themselves by preventing other companies from developing new technologies, and they stopped investing in new technology themselves, because of great depression. However, New Deal policy prevented those powerplays and stabilized the market.

# data[].attributes.subject
about q2. Large companies tried to protect themselves by preventing other companies from developing new technologies, and they stopped investing in new technology themselves, because of great depression. However, New Deal policy prevented those powerplays and stabilized the market.

# data[].attributes.body
During the Great Depression, many companies were reluctant to adopt new technologies due to the economic downturn. Innovation was delayed as it was considered a financial burden.

The railroad industry experienced an economic crisis due to the Great Depression, which hindered investment in and adoption of new transportation technologies. Railroad companies, facing financial difficulties, attempted to block the development of road and aviation technologies to protect their market.

Due to the Great Depression, demand for electricity decreased, and the financial condition of electric companies deteriorated, delaying the development of electricity-related technologies and infrastructure expansion. Without the economic recession, the electric industry could have advanced more quickly.

During the Great Depression, the development of automobile safety technologies (e.g., seat belts, airbags) was delayed.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Is there any technologies that were threatened by big companies for opening to the public?

# data[].attributes.body
Phoebus Cartel lasted until the late 1930s which is the group of fluorescent bulbs making companies that intentionally reduced the life expectancy of the bulbs.

# data[].attributes.body
What were the early perceptions of renewable energy sources during the 1940s?

# data[].attributes.body
Quote from "Let there be light",

"Be practical. You aren't the Atomic Energy Commission.,,

The first "Let there be light" was published in 1940,

But the first AEC is established in 1946.,,,

# data[].attributes.headline
discuss how the historical realities intersect with technological development 

# data[].attributes.subject
discuss how the historical realities intersect with technological development 

# data[].attributes.body
Who should control the use of controversial technologies- scientists? Politicians? Or a seperate body of governance

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antitrust_law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life or a purposely frail design, so that it becomes obsolete after a certain pre-determined perio…

# data[].attributes.body
Because of the nature of these issues, most are obviously going to be conspiracies...

Got Milk campaign (late 2000s)

Breakfast and bacon (1900s)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfast-health-america-kellog-food-lifestyle

GM streetcar conspiracy (1920s)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

Phoebus Cartel; Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (1920s)

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy

Have to read into this; might be the actual basis for the events in the story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Until very recently, common wisdom held that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. We've anecdotally tied all sorts of ills to a failure to sit down to a "complete breakfast." But health research has proven that skipping that fried egg or bowl of cereal does not, in fact, lead to weight gain, health issues or underperformance.

The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more.

Our reverence for breakfast is actually relatively recent. Before the late 19th century in the US, breakfast didn't have any particular importance ascribed to it. But all that was changed by a small group of religious fanatics and lobbyists for cereal and bacon companies.

Historically, breakfast didn't come with its own list of prescribed foods, says Abigail Carroll, author of Three Squares: The Invention of the American Meal. People simply ate whatever they had around for breakfast, which was often leftovers from the night before.

By the 1800s, what Americans think of as a farmer's breakfast started showing up at the table.

Eggs have always been a popular breakfast food, says Heather Arndt Anderson, author of Breakfast: A History. Chickens lay eggs in the morning, and egg dishes are easy and fast to prepare. Meat that did not have to be slaughtered that day and could keep was also incorporated. Chicken was never a breakfast food, points out Arndt, as no one is going to kill a chicken first thing in the morning, but cured meat from a pig that was previously slaughtered could be.

In the late 19th century, however, people began to worry about indigestion as the Industrial Revolution saw people move from farm labor to factories and offices, where a lot of their time was spent sitting or standing in one place. Heavy farm breakfasts before work got the blame for indigestion, a major preoccupation at the time, and a lighter version became the ideal.

It was around this time, in the middle of a general healthier living fad, that breakfast cereals got their start at sanatoriums founded by followers of the newly formed Seventh-day Adventist religion.

These religious health gurus opened sanatoriums and introduced people to vegetarian diets and eating bland, whole wheat as a way to counter ill health. The first cereal, invented by James Caleb Jackson, and the better known Kellogg's brand, invented by John Harvey Kellogg, were both born at sanatoriums.

Jackson was a preacher, and Kellogg a religious man who believed that masturbation was the greatest evil, which bland, healthy foods like corn flakes could prevent. Both Jackson and Kellogg were early Seventh-day Adventists, further tying a sense of religious morality into their ideas around the importance of healthy eating.

Using moralizing rhetoric to sell the idea of a healthy breakfast in the 19th century changed how people thought about the meal, says Carroll. That moralization wasn't just around religion and health: it also incorporated our reverence for hard work. In the early 20th century, the idea that if you ate a lighter, healthier breakfast you were going to be more efficient and productive at work added "another moralizing layer", according to Carroll.

The cliche that breakfast is the most important meal - and one with very specific food groups - developed from those early days of cereal.

After vitamins were discovered, it did not take long before, in the 1940s, breakfast cereals were fortified and heralded as a source of every vitamin under the sun, making breakfast that much more important, according to advertisements at the time.

It was also around that time that women were entering the workforce in droves during the war, and needed something quick yet nutritious to feed the kids in the morning. Maternal guilt was used to market cereal as the best food to give to children, and underline the importance of eating breakfast.

It was a combination of fear of indigestion, religious moralization and advertising that helped push the idea of breakfast as the most important meal of the day - but it was a campaign to sell more bacon that really solidified the idea. A public relations expert working for the Beech-Nut company, Edward Bernays, whose other claim to fame was being the nephew of Sigmund Freud, exploited all the moralization and health fears around breakfast to help the company push its bacon.

Bernays got a doctor to agree that a protein-rich, heavy breakfast of bacon and eggs was healthier than a light breakfast, and then sent that statement to around 5,000 doctors for their signatures. He then got newspapers to publish the results of his petition as if it was a scientific study, explains Carroll. That brought bacon and eggs back into fashion and added more weight to the idea that breakfast was not only very important but medically recommended.

Today, we are still mostly eating foods like cereals, bacon and eggs, rolls, bagels and croissants for breakfast. Dinner and lunch somehow never got the same treatment, and our adherence to the same narrow category of breakfast foods continues unabated.

It's not just the moralization that got caught up with breakfast that has changed how we see it, says Arndt Anderson. Unlike lunch and dinner, there is something about the meal that lends itself to judgment.

"I think that the breakfast table is one place where you see the most blatant demonstrations of this human tendency to tie what one eats to who one is," says Arndt Anderson. "People make their lifestyle change at New Year and every morning is like a small New Year's Day - a chance to start things off in the right direction. So if you have cold pizza for breakfast, it says what sort of person you are."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How lobbyists made breakfast 'the most important meal of the day'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've tied all sorts of ills to a failure to sit down to a hearty breakfast. But research and history show that skipping our granola bowl does not, in fact, harm our health

# data[].attributes.body
Pre 1940s: Major lawsuits and investigations

[edit]

United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895)

Supreme Court restricted monopoly regulation.

Industrial Commission (1898)

Investigates railroad pricing, among other things

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)

The Supreme Court orders a regional railway monopoly, formed through a merger of 3 corporations, to be dissolved.

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905)

The antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)

Standard Oil was dismantled into geographical entities given its size, and that it was too much of a monopoly

United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911)

Found to have monopolized the trade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standard Oil (Refinery No. 1 in Cleveland, Ohio, pictured) was a major company broken up under United States antitrust laws.

The history of United States antitrust law is generally taken to begin with the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, although some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy has existed throughout the common law's history. Although "trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing conglomerate of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 began a shift towards federal rather than state regulation of big business.[citation needed ] It was followed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950.

During the late 19th century hundreds of small short-line railroads were being bought up and consolidated into giant systems. Separate laws and policies emerged regarding railroads and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies. Advocates of strong antitrust laws argued that for the American economy to be successful, it requires free competition and the opportunity for individual Americans to build their own businesses. As Senator John Sherman put it, "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act almost unanimously in 1890, and it remains the core of antitrust policy. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade or to form a monopoly. It gives the Justice Department the mandate to go to federal court for orders to stop illegal behavior or to impose remedies.

Monopoly brothers--high profits all carried by hapless little consumer 1912; by Thomas Powers

Standard Oil was widely hated. Many newspapers reprinted attacks from a flagship Democratic newspaper, The New York World, which made this trust a special target. For example, a feature article in 1897 stated:

There has been no outrage too colossal, no petty meanness too contemptible for these freebooters to engage in. From hounding and driving prosperous businessman to beggery and suicide, to holding up and plundering widows and orphans, the little dealer in the country and the crippled peddler on the highway-all this is entered into the exploits of this organized gang of commercial bandits.

There were legal efforts to curtail the oil monopoly in the Midwest and South. Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky and Kansas took the lead in 1904-1905, followed by Arkansas, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia. The results were mixed. Federal action finally won out in 1911, splitting Standard Oil into 33 companies. The 33 seldom competed with each other. The federal decision together with the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and the creation that years of the Federal Trade Commission largely de-escalated the antitrust rhetoric among progressives. The new framework after 1914 had little or no impact on the direction and magnitude of merger activity.

Public officials during the Progressive Era put passing and enforcing strong antitrust high on their agenda. President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft sued 75. In 1902, Roosevelt stopped the formation of the Northern Securities Company, which threatened to monopolize transportation in the Northwest (see Northern Securities Co. v. United States).

Antitrust under Roosevelt and Taft

Roosevelt's antitrust record over eight years included 18 civil cases and 26 criminal antitrust cases resulting in 22 convictions and 22 acquittals. Taft's four years had 54 civil and 36 criminal suits and Taft's prosecutor secured 55 convictions and 35 acquittals. Taft's cases included many leading firms in major sectors: Standard Oil; American Tobacco; United States Steel; Aluminum Company of America; International Harvester; National Cash Register; Westinghouse; General Electric; Kodak; Dupont; Union Pacific railroad; and Southern Pacific railroad. It also included trusts or combinations in beef, lumber, wine, turpentine, wallpaper, licorice, thread, and watches. The targets even included operations run by Taft's personal friends, such as Ohio-based National Cash Register. The media gave extensive exposure, especially to cases against Standard Oil and American Tobacco, which reached directly tens of millions of consumers. Taft's attorney general George W. Wickersham personally supervised the most important cases against Standard Oil and American Tobacco. He argued to the Supreme Court that trusts should be dissolved into their constituent parts, arguing they were artificial creations and did not achieve their positions through normal business methods and hence were guilty of violating the Sherman act. The government brief argued that dismemberment would correct this inequity and would force and restore normal competition. The Court agreed in 1911 and ordered the Justice Department to draw up complete reorganization plans in six months. Wickersham and his staff, all expert lawyers, were not experts in business management. The hurriedly created over thirty new corporations to replace Standard, plus several in tobacco.

Public opinion became angry due to the subsequent inflation. Wickersham discovered that trust busting meant higher prices for consumers, telling Taft "the disintegrated companies of both the oil and tobacco trust are spending many times what was formerly spent by anyone in advertising in the newspapers." 16 new cases were launched in the last 2 months of the Taft administration.

Standard Oil

The most notorious trust was the Standard Oil Company; John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build a virtual monopoly in the oil business. Some minor competitors remained in business. The Federal government sued and in 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900-1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act (see Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States). It ordered the Justice Department to come up with a plan to break up the trust. It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and now ExxonMobil), Standard Oil of Indiana ( Amoco), Standard Oil Company of New York ( Mobil, again, later merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil), of California ( Chevron), and so on. In approving the breakup, the Supreme Court added the "rule of reason" -- not all big companies or monopolies are evil, and the courts (not the executive branch) are to make that determination. To be harmful, a trust had to damage the economic environment of its competitors.

Major lawsuits and investigations

"I Like a Little Competition"-J. P. Morgan by Art Young. Cartoon relating to the answer J. P. Morgan gave when asked whether he disliked competition at the Pujo Committee.[12]

One problem some perceived with the Sherman Act was that it was not entirely clear what practices were prohibited, leading to businessmen not knowing what they were permitted to do, and government antitrust authorities not sure what business practices they could challenge. In the words of one critic, Isabel Paterson, "As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid." In 1914 Congress passed the Clayton Act, which prohibited specific business actions (such as price discrimination and tying) if they substantially lessened competition. At the same time Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose legal and business experts could force business to agree to " consent decrees", which provided an alternative mechanism to police antitrust.

The antitrust laws came to be seen by the Supreme Court as a "charter of freedom", designed to protect free enterprise in America. One view of the statutory purpose, urged for example by Justice Douglas, was that the goal was not only to protect consumers, but at least as importantly to prohibit the use of power to control the marketplace.

"We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace--both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace...In final analysis, size in steel is the measure of the power of a handful of men over our economy...The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist...Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men...That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." Dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in United States v. Columbia Steel Co.

By the 1970s, fears of "cutthroat" competition had been displaced by confidence that a fully competitive marketplace produced fair returns to everyone. The fear was that monopoly made for higher prices, less production, inefficiency and less prosperity for all. As unions faded in strength, the government paid much more attention to the damages that unfair competition could cause to consumers, especially in terms of higher prices, poorer service, and restricted choice.

The pace of business takeovers quickened in the 1990s, but whenever one large corporation sought to acquire another, it first had to obtain the approval of either the FTC or the Justice Department. Often the government demanded that certain subsidiaries be sold so that the new company would not monopolize a particular geographical market.[citation needed ]

In 1999 a coalition of 19 states and the federal Justice Department sued Microsoft. A highly publicized trial found that Microsoft had strong-armed many companies in an attempt to prevent competition from the Netscape browser. In 2000, the trial court ordered Microsoft split in two to punish it, and prevent it from future misbehavior; however the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and removed the judge from the case for improperly discussing the case with the media while it was still pending. With the case in front of a new judge, Microsoft and the government settled, with the government dropping the case in return for Microsoft agreeing to cease many of the practices the government challenged. During his defense, CEO Bill Gates argued that Microsoft always worked on behalf of the consumer and that splitting the company would diminish efficiency and slow the pace of software development.

While the sentiment among regulators and judges has generally recommended that breakups are not as remedies for antitrust enforcement, recent scholarship has found that this hostility to breakups by administrators is largely unwarranted. In fact, some scholars have argued breakups, even if incorrectly targeted, could arguably still encourage collaboration, innovation, and efficiency.

1. Since the passage of the Federal Trade Commission Act in 1914, the ^ FTC has had power to enforce section 1 of the Sherman Act administratively, under the rubric of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 45. See generally FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co. As that Supreme Court decision explains, the FTC also has authority to act against incipient Sherman Act violations and violations of its "spirit."

2. Ralph W. Hidy and Mural E. Hidy, ^ History of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey): Pioneering in Big Business 1882-1911 (1955) pp. 647-648, quoting New York World May 16, 1897.

3. George W. Wickersham, "Recent Interpretation of the Sherman Act." ^ Michigan Law Review (1911) 10#1: 1-25. online

4. ^ Wickersham to Taft August 23, 1912 in Record, p 179.

5. ^ Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344, 359-60 (1933) ("As a charter of freedom, the act has a generality and adaptability comparable to that found to be desirable in constitutional provisions.").

Hofstadter, Richard. "What Ever Happened to the Antitrust Movement?" in The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. (1965). online

Kwoka, John, and Lawrence J. White, eds. The antitrust revolution : economics, competition, and policy (Oxford UP, 2014), articles by experts. online

May, James. "Competition Policy in America: 1888-1992, History, Rhetoric, Law." Antitrust Bulletin 42#2 (1997), pp. 239-331. online

Morgan, Thomas D. ed. Cases and materials on modern antitrust law and its origins (2014) online

Orbach, Barak, & Grace Campbell, The Antitrust Curse of Bigness, Southern California Law Review (2012).

Peritz, R.J.R. "Three Visions of Managed Competition, 1920-1950" Antitrust Bulletin (1994) 39(1) 273-287.

Rozwenc, Edwin C. ed. Roosevelt, Wilson and The Trusts. (1950), readings online

Sawyer, Laura Phillips. "U.S. Antitrust law and policy in historical perspective." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History (2019) online.

Areeda, Phillip. Antitrust analysis: problems, text, and cases (2013)

Berle, Adolph and Gardiner Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) online

Brandeis, Louis, Other people's money, and how the bankers use it (1914) online

Bringhurst, Bruce. Antitrust and the Oil Monopoly: The Standard Oil Cases, 1890-1911 (Greenwood, 1979).

Chandler, Alfred, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (1977) online

J Dirlam and A Kahn, Fair Competition: The Law and Economics of Antitrust Policy (1954)

J Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization 1865-1918 (1949) online

T Freyer, Regulating Big Business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America, 1880-1990 (1992)

Hahn, Robert W. High-Stakes Antitrust : The Last Hurrah? (Brookings, 2003)

W Hamilton & I Till, Antitrust in Action (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940)

W Letwin, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1965).

Peritz, Rudolph J.R. Competition Policy in America 1888-1992: History, Rhetoric, Law (1996).

Stigler, George, The Organization of Industry (1968)

Stocking, George, and M Watkins, Monopoly and Free Enterprise (1951).

Sullivan, E. Thomas. The Political Economy of the Sherman Act : The First One Hundred Years (Oxford University Press, 1991)

Thorelli, Hans. The Federal Antitrust Policy: Origination of an American Tradition (1955) online; very detailed history that ends in 1904.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of United States antitrust law - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The history of United States antitrust law is generally taken to begin with the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, although some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy has existed throughout the common law's history.

# data[].attributes.body
"I wanted to do it. But now a time has come when the factory won't support your research any longer. In fact, I may have to close the doors of the plant."

"Those big tycoons are practical men. They won't waste a dime on heckling you if it no longer serves their pocketbooks.''"

# data[].attributes.body
Such laws were obviously absent in EU pre-1940s but they seem to get stronger to halt corporate monopolies and thus ensuring scientific development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
European Union competition law - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q1- Energy source in 1940s and renewable energy

# data[].attributes.subject
Q1- Energy source in 1940s and renewable energy

# data[].attributes.body
The most used energy source in order is coal-petroleum- natural gas- renewable energy. By the early 1900s, coal-fired power units featured outputs in the 1 MW to 10 MW range, outfitted with a steam generator, an economizer, evaporator, and a superheater section. By the 1910s, the coal-fired power plant cycle was improved even more by the introduction of turbines with steam extractions for feedwater heating and steam generators equipped with air preheaters—all which boosted net efficiency to about 15%. The 40-MW Lakeside Power Plant in St. Francis, Wisconsin, began operations in 1921 by WEC Energy company.

In 1949, General Electric installed the first gas turbine built in the U.S. for the purpose of generating power at the Belle Isle Station, a 3.5-MW unit, owned by Oklahoma Gas & Electric.

Renewable energy source

solar cell- The next breakthrough in PV technology came in 1940, with Russell Shoemaker Ohl, a semiconductor researcher at Bell Labs. The first practical solar cell was developed a few years later in 1954 by Daryl Chapin, Calvin Fuller, and Gerald Pearson, researchers at Bell Labs.

wind energy- wind is the oldest form of renewable energy, started in Greek. In 1888, Charles Brush, an inventor in Ohio, constructed a 60-foot wind turbine capable of generating electricity in his backyard.

Interest in wind power was renewed by the oil crisis of the 1970s, which spurred research and development.

By the 1980s, the first utility-scale wind farms began popping up in California. Europe has been the leader in offshore wind, with the first offshore wind farm installed in 1991 in Denmark.

The business model began to shift in 1970s by oil shock, and environmental problems. However, in 1940s, because of abundant energy source, renewable energy was limited.

# data[].attributes.body
The efficiency of using solar energy can be decided by the material types. And the importnat factor is changing continuously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Silicon is the most commonly used material in photovoltaic (PV) technology. In recent times perovskite materials have generated much excitement in the field of solar cell research. Here we discuss the pros and cons of each in addition to their use in conjunction with one another.

Silicon vs Perovskites

Silicon is the most common semiconductor material used in the production of solar cells and is also, in fact, the second most abundant element on Earth (after O ₂). Silicon solar cells can be based on amorphous or crystallised silicon. The crystallised form is preferrable and most commonly used, as this material has demonstrated the highest power conversion efficiency (PCE). That said, the material has to be extremely pure and devoid of structural defects to work efficiently and this drives up production costs.

The upper limit of efficiency for silicon has hovered at around 29%. Perovskite is much better at absorbing light than crystalline silicon and can even be 'tuned' to use regions of the solar spectrum largely inaccessible to silicon photovoltaics.

Perovskite holds a much better tolerance for defects and can function well with impurities and imperfections. This wonder material has thus drawn the attention of researchers around the globe and holds promise as a cost-effective means for future power generation. This stands in contrast to silicon PV fabricated at high temperatures and under vacuum conditions, making them comparatively expensive to produce. Perovskites meanwhile can be produced more easily and more flexibly. Flexibility is the operative word here too because perovskites are rollable and even , unlike the rigid silicon cell that, in aggregate form, also consume large amounts of space too (think solar panelled rooftops).

Silicon remains the dominant material in the solar energy market because it is known and trusted, and perovskites alone are yet to meet the standards in performance set by this material. Perovskites need to be ultrathin to enhance performance but at the same time retain stability - something of a problem for a material susceptible to temperature and humidity. Another drawback is the fact perovskites generate toxic lead during processing. Consequently, researchers around the world have been "racing to find new, more stable perovskite materials" and experimenting with different ways of optimising perovskites and their architecture in the creation of solar energy.

All of this is not to say research efforts focused upon silicon solar cells has stagnated; research remains vibrant, and this is of no surprise given the dominance of this material in the solar energy sphere. Even so, the allure of perovskites presents a serious challenge to the longstanding and sturdy position silicon has retained in the solar energy market thus far. To this end then Mártil (2022) posed the key question: will perovskite eventually replace silicon or complement it?

The top perovskite cell absorbs high-energy photons, while the silicon-based bottom cell absorbs low-energy photons

Researchers Break the 30% Efficiency Barrier

In July 2022, a new record in solar power generation was set when researchers at the Swiss Center for Electronics and Microtechnology (CSEM) and the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) achieved a power conversion efficiency exceeding 30% for a 1 cm ² tandem perovskite-silicon solar cell. The breakthrough was confirmed by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

Since the Lausanne lab breakthrough, researchers around the globe have concentrated their efforts on surmounting the 30% barrier. According to Stefaan De Wolf and Erkan Aydin (2023), "overcoming this threshold provides confidence that high-performance, low-cost PVs can be brought to the market."

Experts say perovskite-silicon tandems could theoretically reach efficiencies of around 45%. The optimal perovskite band gap (i.e., wavelength that can be absorbed relative to that which the solar cell can efficiently utilize) is limited by the thickness of the perovskite material and by parasitic energy absorption. This results in lost power, rather than the desired conversion of solar energy to electricity directly.

Just this week (correct as of 7 July 2023) two separate international research teams reported differing strategies for the development of perovskite-on-silicon tandem solar cells with a PCE exceeding the 30% threshold. Chin and a team of scientists achieved success in breaking the barrier using a technique to prevent energy losses. Meanwhile, Mariotti and colleagues have sought ways to improve upon the stability and efficiency of the tandem cell.

Tandem solar cells look set to decrease the levelized cost of electricity (a measure used to compare the cost of generating electricity over the lifetime of the solar cell when compared to other methods of generation) and researchers are now well on the way to realising the potential of this PV technology. Ignacio Mártil, who is Professor of Electronics at the Complutense University of Madrid, maintains that photovoltaic energy "is the fastest growing renewable source of all the power generation technologies" and undoubtedly then the perovskite-on-silicon tandem solar cell has much to contribute to the ongoing discussion over clean energy and climate change.

Perovskite Materials
View now

References

1. AAAS (2023) Two studies report: Perovskite-silicon tandem cells that break the 30% efficiency threshold. Science., 381, (6653). DOI: 10.1126/science.adg0091

2. Anon. (2023) Perovskites, a 'dirt cheap' alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient' University of Rochester News Center, February 16th, 2023. Online here.

3. Bellini, E. (2022) CSEM, EPFL achieve 31.25% efficiency for tandem perovskite-silicon solar cell. PV Magazine. Online here.

1. Chin, X. et al. (2023) Interface passivation for 31.25%-efficient perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells. Science, 381, (6653), 59-63.

2. De Wolf, S. and E. Aydin (2023) Tandems have the power: perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells break the 30% efficiency threshold. Science, 381, (6653), 30-31.

3. Hutchins, M (2022) Environmental impacts of perovskite PV. PV Magazine. Online here.

4. Lee, K.J., Wei, R., Wang, Y. et al. (2023) Gigantic suppression of recombination rate in 3D lead-halide perovskites for enhanced photodetector performance. Nat. Photon. 17, 236-243 DOI: 10.1038/s41566-022-01151-3.

5. Mariotti, S. (2023) Interface engineering for high-performance, triple-halide perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells. Science, 381, (6653), 63-69.

6. Mártil, I. (2022) A New Photovoltaic Paradigm: The Silicon-Perovskite Tandem. OpenMind BBVA. Online here.

7. Wang, Y. et al. (2022) Dopant-free passivating contacts for crystalline silicon solar cells: Progress and prospects. EcoMat, 5, (2) DOI: 10.1002/eom2.12292.

View Literature and Reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perovskite Solar Cells vs Silicon Solar Cells

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Silicon is the most commonly used material in photovoltaic (PV) technology. In recent times perovskite materials have generated much excitement in the field of solar cell research. Here we discuss the pros and cons of each in addition to their use in conjunction with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
Stronger U.S. regulations: US has been stringing its rules on big money corporations to hinder scientific development. However, one might argue, that with the recent disappearance of Boeing employees, how much of it is actually implemented could be a topic of debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monopolies came to colonial America well before the United States was born. The large-scale public works needed to make the New World hospitable to Old World immigrants required large companies to carry them out.

These companies were granted exclusive contracts by the colonial governors. Even after the American Revolution, many colonial holdovers continued to function due to the contracts and land that they held.

A monopoly is characterized by a lack of competition, which tends to lead to higher prices and inferior products. However, the great economic power that monopolies hold has also had positive consequences for the U.S.

Sherman's Hammer

The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890 in response to a public outcry over price-fixing abuses by monopolies.

This act banned trusts and monopolistic combinations that placed "unreasonable" restrictions on interstate and international trade. The act was a hammer that gave the federal government the power to shatter big companies into smaller pieces.

Despite this act's passage, the next 50 years saw the formation of many domestic monopolies. At the same time, it was used to attack several monopolies, with varying levels of success. The general trend seemed to have been to make a distinction between good monopolies and bad monopolies.

One example is International Harvester, which produced cheap agricultural equipment for a largely agrarian nation and was thus considered untouchable, lest the farmers rebel. American Tobacco, on the other hand, was suspected of charging more than a fair price for cigarettes, which were at the time touted as a cure for everything from asthma to menstrual cramps. American Tobacco consequently became a victim of the government's wrath and was broken up in 1911.

The Natural Monopoly

The oil industry was prone to what is called a natural monopoly because of the rarity of the products that it produced. John D. Rockefeller, the founder and chair of Standard Oil, and his partners took advantage of both the rarity of oil and the revenue produced from it to set up a monopoly.

The business practices and questionable tactics that Rockefeller used to create Standard Oil would make the Enron crowd blush. But the finished product was not nearly as damaging to the economy or the environment as the industry was before Rockefeller monopolized it.

In the early days of the oil industry, many competing oil companies were eager to find a source and drilled indiscriminately, pumping waste products into rivers or straight out on the ground rather than troubling with proper disposal. They cut costs by using shoddy pipelines that were prone to leakage.

By the time Standard Oil had cornered 90% of oil production and distribution in the U.S., it had learned how to make money off of even its industrial waste, with Vaseline being one of the new products that were developed.

The benefits of having a monopoly like Standard Oil in the country were only evident after it had built a nationwide infrastructure for oil distribution in order to avoid dependence on trains and their notoriously fluctuating costs.

Despite the eventual breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, the government realized that a monopoly could build up a reliable infrastructure and deliver low-cost service to a broader base of consumers than competing firms. That lesson influenced its decision to allow the AT&T monopoly to continue until 1982.

It is clear that when a monopoly can deliver a quality product consistently at a reasonable price-particularly when startup costs for competitors are astronomical-the government may allow it to exist as long as it can regulate it to protect consumers.

The Limitations of a Monopoly

Andrew Carnegie had gone a long way towards creating a monopoly in the steel industry when J.P. Morgan bought his steel company and merged it into U.S. Steel to create a monstrous corporation approaching the size of Standard Oil.

U.S. Steel actually did very little with the resources in its grasp, which can illustrate the limitations of a company that has one owner with a single vision.

The corporation survived its court battle with the Sherman Act and went on to lobby the government for protective tariffs to help it compete internationally.

U.S. Steel controlled about 60% of steel production at the time, but competing firms were hungrier, more innovative, and more efficient. Eventually, U.S. Steel stagnated as smaller companies ate more and more of its market share.

Clayton Improves Sherman's Aim

Following the breakup of sugar, tobacco, oil, and meatpacking monopolies, big business didn't know where to turn. There were no clear guidelines about what constituted monopolistic business practices.

The founders and management of so-called "bad monopolies" were enraged by the hands-off approach taken with International Harvester. They argued that the Sherman Act didn't make any allowances for a specific business or product and that its execution should be universal rather than operate like a lightning bolt that struck select businesses.

In response, the Clayton Act was introduced in 1914. It set some specific examples of practices that would attract Sherman's hammer. Among these were interlocking directorships, tie-in sales, and certain mergers and acquisitions if they substantially lessened competition in a market.

The Clayton Act was followed by a succession of other acts demanding government review before any large mergers or acquisitions were finalized.

These innovations gave businesses a slightly clearer picture of what not to do but did little to curb the randomness of antitrust action. Major League Baseball even found itself under investigation in the 1920s, but escaped by claiming to be a sport rather than a business and thus not classified as interstate commerce.

End of a Monopoly Era?

The last great American monopolies were created a century apart, and one lasted over a century. Others were very short-lived and some continue operating today.

AT&T Inc. ( T), a government-supported monopoly, was also an essential public utility. Like Standard Oil, the AT&T monopoly made the industry more efficient. It wasn't guilty of fixing prices, but rather of the potential to fix prices.

The breakup of AT&T in the 1980s gave birth to the regional Baby Bells. Over time, many of the Baby Bells began to merge and increase in size to serve a wider area.

The breakup of AT&T may have caused a sharp reduction in service quality and even higher prices for many customers. But that is now long past, and the descendants of the Baby Bells are finding a natural balance in the market without calling down Sherman's hammer again.

Microsoft Corp. ( MSFT) was never actually broken up even though it lost its antitrust case.

The case against it was centered on whether Microsoft was abusing its position as essentially a so-called non-coercive monopoly. A non-coercive monopoly exists because brand loyalty and consumer apathy keep people from searching for an alternative.

U.S. Steel couldn't dominate the market indefinitely because of innovative domestic and international competition. The same turned out to be true for Microsoft, at least in some market segments.

The Microsoft monopoly got a little chipped at the edges as rival operating systems gained ground and rival software, particularly open-source software, threatened the bundle business model upon which Microsoft was built. It also failed over time to dominate the internet browser wars. Because of this, the antitrust decision now seems irrelevant.

Meta (Formerly Facebook)

In today's world, technology companies are the new powerful companies, none so much as Meta Platforms, formerly Facebook ( META), which many see as a modern-day monopoly. In December 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued the company, claiming that it is maintaining its social networking monopoly via anticompetitive conduct.

The FTC claimed that Meta has done this through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, two of the largest social media networks, as well as through imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers.

The five most used social media platforms worldwide as of January 2021 are Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram. Meta owns four out of five of these platforms, or 80%. (Google owns YouTube.)

That is a significant amount of control over how personal data is shared and how advertising is allocated. Meta really doesn't have that much competition.

The FTC has called for a breakup of Meta through the divestiture of WhatsApp and Instagram, but whether it can succeed remains to be seen.

A monopoly in business is a company that dominates its sector or industry, meaning that it controls the majority of the market share of its goods or services, has little to no competitors, and its consumers have no real substitutes for the good or service provided by the business.

What Is a Monopoly in American History?

Why Are Monopolies Bad?

Is Amazon a Monopoly?

The Bottom Line

Globalization and the maturity of the world economy have prompted calls for the retirement of antitrust laws. In the early 1900s, anyone suggesting that the government didn't need to have a hammer to smash big business would have been eyed suspiciously.

Over the years, these calls have been coming from people like economist Milton Friedman, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and everyday consumers.

But if the history of government and business is any indication, the government is more likely to increase the range and power of antitrust laws rather than relinquish such a useful weapon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monopolies came to colonial America well before the United States was born. The large-scale public works needed to make the New World hospitable to Old World immigrants required large companies to carry them out. These companies were granted exclusive contracts by the colonial governors.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear fission is, in a way a long term sustainable solution that is also safe and environmentally friendly. The notion of radioactivity being dangerous is mostly because of Fukushima/Chernobyl, but statistics show that 3rd generation nuclear reactors cause the smallest deaths of all energy sources per energy generated.

Regulation of nuclear power dates back to the 40s and 50s. Politically motivated by the cold war, nuclear development was not only a concern of energy but also of national defense.

To this day, the sentiment remains the same. 80 years of development in nuclear engineering allowed us to create technologies such as breeder reactors and 3rd/4th generation reactors mentioned above, not to mention molten salt reactors that have been operational since last August.

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125953

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1029/ML102980443.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4EJQPWjFj8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Happening - China Launches World's First Thorium Nuclear Reactor

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear power was unknown to the general public but that oscillated over time. From fear to speculation to promise - it went all over

# data[].attributes.body
"And of course, everybody knows that automobiles aren't built to wear, they're build to wear out, so you will buy a new one. They build 'em just as bad as the market will stand. " (Heinlein 16)

# data[].attributes.body
1. How did public attitudes toward renewable energy in the 1940s compare to their reactions toward nuclear and fossil fuel energy? What factors influenced skepticism or acceptance of renewable technologies?

2. What ethical concerns regarding the development and implementation of renewable energy technologies, particularly solar power, were raised in the 1940s, and how do these compare to ethical discussions surrounding renewable energy today?

# data[].attributes.body
1. How did the scientific and public understanding of nuclear energy in the 1940s influence the early conceptualization of alternative energy sources?

2. What role did government and military funding play for scientific and technological advancements during World War II?

# data[].attributes.body
1. How have the challenges of tech startups introducing creative destruction evolved since 1940s?

2. Does the anti-trust law actually promote innovation?

# data[].attributes.body
1. How are the challenges of introducing creative disruption by tech startups different depending on the kind of technology?

2. How have incumbents embraced open-source technology overtime?

# data[].attributes.body
1. How are the challenges of introducing creative disruption by tech startups different depending on the kind of technology?

2. How have incumbents embraced open-source technology overtime?

# data[].attributes.body
1. How are the challenges of introducing creative disruption by tech startups different depending on the kind of technology?

2. How have incumbents embraced open-source technology overtime?