Benham's colourful tops.

 Charles E. Benham (1860-1929) was a journalist and inventor, and he deserves more than this, or what his Wikipedia entry, offers. I was triggered to go here this morning because of a comment Stew made about my last entry: there may be more, later.

When I first discovered the Benham disc, I was delighted, because I am colour-blind. The Benham disc is a black and white patterned circle, which looks coloured when it is spun around. I had heard of these things but I had never tried them, and I thought it would be interesting to see whether they had the same effect on a colour-blind viewer. Being colour-blind does not mean that you “see everything in black and white”, as David Brewster said. It simply means you see colours differently. It occurred to me to wonder if maybe I would see different colours in the disc from those other people see.

Benham described his illusion in an article published in Nature  back in 1894. In those days, if you wanted to see the disc, you would look for the design on a children’s top, known, predictably, as ‘Benham’s top’. The first account was a brief and anonymous one, noting that the ‘disc’ on the top was a black semi-circle, with the white half of the circle divided in four, and with black arcs painted in.

As the disc is rotated, people see different colours from the different black arcs. And, as the reporter noted, if “. . the direction of rotation is reversed, the order of these tints is also reversed. The cause of these appearances does not appear to have been exactly worked out.”

An ‘Artificial Spectrum Top’, devised by Mr. C. E. Benham, and sold by Messrs Newton and Co., furnishes an interesting phenomenon to students of physiological optics. The top consist of a disc, one half of which is black, while the other half has twelve concentric circles drawn upon it. Each arc subtends an angle of forty-five degrees. In the first quadrant there are three such concentric arcs, in the next three more, and so on; the only difference being that the arcs are parts of circles of which the radii increase in arithmetic progression. Each quadrant thus contains a group of arcs differing in length from those of the other quadrants. The curious point is that when this disc is revolved, the impression of different colours is produced upon the retina.

(Nature , 51 (1309), November 29, 1894, 113–114.)

There followed an animated correspondence, during which Benham stepped in. Illuminate the top with a bright sodium flame, he said, and you will see a very clear blue, and a very clear red. And now the controversy heats up: immediately underneath, in the same issue, Professor Liveing retorts that he has seen no such colours: the phenomenon is obviously a subjective one. Clearly there is room for more research here.

It is unclear whether Nature  thought so too, for they go on in the same column to publish next a letter from F. G. Donnan in Leipzig, suggesting that we need a new word in chemistry: ‘solute’, and the discussion seems to have died there. Well, as far as I can judge, I see the same colour effects as other people, which means we won’t learn anything about colour blindness from the Benham disc. But how about trying to learn about colour vision? What causes the colour effect as the disc slows down?

Most explanations seem to speculate rather than to explain, but here is the official version as found in psychology text-books. We have three kinds of light receptor in our eyes, in the same way there are three kinds of phosphor in a colour TV. Speaking crudely, these receptors, the cone cells, are all sensitive to just one of red, green and blue.

According to the theory, you need all three kinds of cone in the retina of your eye to see colours normally. Somehow, the cones which pick up one of the colours (red, for example) must react differently to flashing lights of a particular frequency. So with different size black bits on the disc, we get different frequency effects, and so our eyes are stimulated to ‘see’ different colours.

Well, that’s what the theory says. Some time in the future, a careful and critical look at it, will reveal once and for all whether and how this official explanation operates, and where it breaks down. There is probably a Nobel Prize in this for somebody, though they will need to acknowledge Gustav Fechner, and that's a hint.