Talk:Johann Pucher

Invented photography on glass?

in 1842 he invented photography on glass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.150.91 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual grandfather of the Xerox machine?

The task of demolishing the claim that Puhar "invented photography on glass" or "made the first photos on glass" in 1842 (a claim which seemed most probably due to inexpert translation combined with the unfortunate universal tendency to exaggerate credit in accordance with nationalistic pride) is what first drew my attention to Puhar. Anyone familiar with the detailed accounts of pre-1840 photographic experiments which have long been available in books and have now been supplemented by online primary source materials will know that such a claim is in error.

Having come to throw stones, I smashed the false icon but stayed to applaud what it had obscured. Based on the precious little information that can be found online, most of it from one highly partisan Slovene site but apparently in good accord with the contemporary sources noted there, both the man and his exotic process are indeed very remarkable. I have fleshed out the current stub a bit and may return to add a description of the process, and eventually a short biography, if no one else does it.

To the matter at hand: sulfur, rather than silver, is the basis of Puhar's process, and that fact rang a little bell in my head. Sulfur, rather than selenium, was the material used in the early experiments with electrostatic photography that eventually led to the Xerox copier. Was Puhar's process a pioneering instance of electrophotography? One of the contemporary German articles about his work appears to deal with electrical phenomena to some significant extent, but the fraktur and my very rudimentary German have, so far, conspired to deter me from diving into the muck with help from Google Translate and sifting it for information. The results would probably constitute original research in any case. Does anyone know of any study of, or commentary about, this intriguing possibility? AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Partial update: the "electrical phenomena" mentioned in the contemporary literature apparently refers to the polywater of its day: mysterious emanations from objects left in contact with glass or metal sheets, which left invisible impressions of the objects that could be brought out by breathing onto the surface. It was eventually shown that the emanations were not a newly discovered kind of invisible ray, but simply volatilized surface contaminants: a brutally scrupulous cleaning of the test object with strong acid prior to the experiment made the "invisible rays" go away.

Whether or not this scientific oops inspired Puhar's process, or was thought by him or others to play a part in it, the possibility seems to remain that the rubbing (with a silk handkerchief, perhaps?) set up a static electric charge, the sulfur coating provided a dielectric barrier, the exposure allowed the charge to bleed through locally and proportionally, and the mercury fumes were locally more or less attracted to the surface as a result—proto-xerography. What role the iodine might have played, I have not the vaguest notion. What say you, any bona fide physicists and chemists out there who may be reading this? AVarchaeologist (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Suspects on section "Puhar's year 2014"

In section "Puhar's year 2014" is reported "we have declared the year 2014 as Puhar˙s year". Surely Wikipedia did not declared the year 2014 as Puhar˙s year. My English is not so good to fix it. Someone can check it? Thanks. --Sbisolo (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)