| Ninja
|
| 423713. Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:15 am |
 |
|
| eggshaped wrote: | Hi Zoe, the following is from Jumping Jack's original notes. I hope he doesn't mind me posting them here:
| Quote: | Scotland is named after the Scoti, who were Irish. Scots is actually a dialect of Irish (1). Kilts were also invented by the Irish though the word ‘kilt’ itself is Danish(2). The bagpipes were invented in Asia(3).
Haggis was invented in ancient Rome. Hogmanay is a French invention and a French word(4). Porridge was invented in ancient China. Whisky was invented in Italy(5).Clan tartans were invented by the English (6).
The telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci, an Italian-American, from whom Alexander Graham Bell outrageously stole the patent application and copied it.
The steam engine was invented in ancient Egypt by a Greek(6).
John Logie Baird was beaten to the invention of television by Philo T Farnsworth, an American.
Penicillin was known to the Bedouins of north Africa for thousands of years and the French got there well before Sir Alexander Fleming discovered it by accident.
FOOTNOTES
(1)The Scoti, a Celtic tribe from Ireland, arrived in what the Romans called Caledonia in the fifth or sixth century AD. By the 11th century they dominated the whole of mainland Scotland.
(3)From kilte op, ‘tuck up’.
(3)Probably. But definitely not in Scotland.
(4)In Norman French the word is hoguinané , from Old French aguillanneuf meaning the ‘last day of the year’, and a gift given on it accompanied by the cry ‘Aguillanneuf!’. It is possible that the word comes from aiguille à l’an neuf (‘pointer to the New Year’) though it has been suggested that the first part may derive from au gui (making it: ‘to the mistletoe at the New Year’).
(5)The Chinese were in fact the first to discover whisky, but it was first (independently) invented in Europe by the Italians in the 12th Century.
(6) The elaborate system of clan tartans is a complete myth stemming from the early nineteenth century. The word tartan, or tertaine (probably from the French meaning ‘silk stuff’) is mentioned vaguely in the 15th and 16th centuries, but the earliest known visual representation of tartan dates from 1660. The painting (in the National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh) is supposed to be of a Campbell chieftain, but the pattern of small cross-checks on his clothes bears no resemblance to the Campbell or to any other known tartan. Paintings from the 18th Century sometimes show Highland gentlemen in tartan but in hotch-potches of any old mixtures they fancied. All Highland dress, including what tartan there was, was banned after the English crushed the Scots after the 1745 rebellion. The garrison regiments started designing their own (now suddenly uncharacteristically vivid tartans) as an affectation, particularly to make a special show for the state visit of King George IV to Edinburgh in 1822. Queen Victoria encouraged the trend, which became something of a craze for the Victorians. The Scottish Tartans Society was founded in 1963.
(7) Watt invented the steam condenser. |
I don't know whether this is the definative list as mentioned on the show, things may have been added or deleted by the time the question went to air.
Of course in true QI spirit, it would be great for you to return this kindness with some of your own research. |
Couple of problems here. QI has a habit of putting forth technicalities as "facts", and some of the info given in the post I've quoted is actually an outright lie.
1. The first telephone was actually invented by Robert Hooke. He was the first person in history to audibly convey sounds down a telephone line. It was not electrical however, which is the reason why it is overlooked.
As for electrical telephones, Meucci was the first admittedly. However, the above article told an outright lie, stating that Bell stole Meucci's ideas. There is absolutely ZERO evidence whatsoever that Bell stole Meucci's ideas. What actually happened was that Bell's patent - his own work - was similar to Meucci's failed patent. To put it more simply, great minds think alike, and his invention coincidentally shared many similarities. Meucci took Bell to court simply to protect his rights to his invention, something which failed due to there being no evidence that Bell had ever stolen Meucci's designs.
At the very least, Bell was undeniably the most influential and important person in the telephone's history. Considering that Meucci allowed his patent to "time out" and eventually neglected it, it was left to Bell to push the invention forward, making greater leaps than anyone else working on a similar device. Without Bell, telephone technology would be decades behind its current state.
2. Steam engine - another technicality being presented as a fact, I'm afraid. The Egyptians were the first one to harness the power of steam, using it to spin a small metal ball, but they did NOT create an engine. The invention, the aeolipile, powered nothing. It had no function, it had no use, it did not power any machinery, it did not transfer thermal energy into mechanical work (which is the definition of an engine), and therefore it cannot be regarded as a true engine. It was regarded as a "distraction", a toy. It is no more an engine than a household kettle.
The Scottish were the first to invent the steam engine, ie. a true steam engine. Considering that the engine actually powered something, something which utilises thermal energy for mechanical work, it is the world's first genuine steam engine, and thus a surefire Scottish invention.
3. Wow, an outright lie. John Logie Baird displayed to the world his invention 3 years BEFORE Farnsworth. Seriously, check up the facts - it is a confirmed, undisputed historical fact that Baird designed, patented and built the television first, and displayed it a full 3 years before Farnsworth. No technicalities here from QI, just an outright lie.
Baird's was the first device to display moving images electronically, and so therefore the inventor of the television. Without a doubt, the television is a Scottish invention, and that is a fact.
4. Another technicality. Simply using fungus on wounds to heal them does not constitute for the discovery of the actual substance penicillin. Humans have been producing fire ever since the first man walked the earth, that doesn't change the fact that oxygen and combustion were first discovered in the 1800's.
Fair enoguh though, the French did discover Penicillin before Fleming, although they weren't the first either - the first to discover it was John Tyndall, an Irishman. Fleming's discovery was by far the most important of all the discoveries, however, as his was the first to be recognised by the scientific community, and thus his discovery was the one that enabled penicillin, and antibiotics as a whole, to enter widespread use. He was also the first to recognise Penicillin's potential abilities in medicinal use, and coined the name penicillin. |
|
|
|
 |
| suze
|
| 423717. Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:38 am |
|
|
I'd have to agree about Philo Farnsworth - John Logie Baird successfully demonstrated something which is recognizable as "television" before Farnsworth did.
Although in fact, shouldn't the English inventor Archibald Low get the credit? He demonstrated something which he called Televista at the Institute of Automobile Engineers as far back as 1914.
The Times (30 May 1914) noted:
"An inventor, Dr A M Low, has discovered a means of transmitting visual images by wire. If all goes well with this invention, we shall soon be able, it seems, to see people at a distance."
and the Daily Chronicle (29 May 1914) said:
"Dr Low gave a demonstration for the first time in public, with a new apparatus that he has invented, for seeing, he claims by electricity, by which it is possible for persons using a telephone to see each other at the same time."
Dr Low was by all accounts a difficult man, which didn't help him in seeking funding for his research. And of course, war broke out a few months later. Accordingly, he took this invention no further. |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 424009. Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:14 pm |
|
|
Seems all the arguments here are mostly about which nationality can claim the credit - but whoever invented/discovered/utilised something is a personal achievement built often building on previous work by others.
So, by all means let's query whether Baird or Farnsworth, Fleming or some unknown Arab, were first but let's stop this silly notion of claiming the credit for a nation except where it's due.
Examples of a nation achieving something would be:
Lunar exploration - US
Nuclear Reactors - US
Bouncing Bombs - Britain
Intercontinental Bombers - Germany
All of these were state sponsored efforts. The actions of lone individuals should never be ascribed to the arbitrary choice of which country they inhabit, hail from, owe allegiance to, or consider their spiritual home. |
|
|
|
|
| dr.bob
|
| 424109. Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:21 am |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: | | Lunar exploration - US |
Presumably you're talking about manned lunar exploration. The first lunar exploration was carried out by the USSR as part of their Luna program. |
|
|
|
|
| eggshaped
|
| 424125. Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:35 am |
|
|
I don't really have time to respond to all these allegations of "Lies," but I will in due course. In the meantime:
1. Even if you count two tins of beans and a length of string as a telephone, Hooke was born on the Isle of Wight so was not Scottish.
Furthermore:
| Quote: | | However, the above article told an outright lie, stating that Bell stole Meucci's ideas. There is absolutely ZERO evidence whatsoever that Bell stole Meucci's ideas. |
According to a US Congress Resolution in 2002 that recognised Meucci's role in the invention of the telephone:
| Quote: | | When Meucci heard of Bell's activities, he urged his lawyers to take action. The Supreme Court of the United States eventually agreed to hear the case between Meucci and Bell, and the government was moving to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. However, Meucci died before the trial commenced |
So Bell was about to be found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation when he was saved by Meucci's death.
2.
| Quote: | | Steam engine - another technicality being presented as a fact, I'm afraid. The Egyptians were the first one to harness the power of steam, using it to spin a small metal ball, but they did NOT create an engine. |
Engine: (n) A machine, more or less complicated, consisting of several parts, working together to produce a given physical effect.
- Oxford English Dictionary.
3 & 4 to follow... |
|
|
|
|
| Arcane
|
| 424126. Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:37 am |
|
|
| suze wrote: | | I'd have to agree about Philo Farnsworth - John Logie Baird successfully demonstrated something which is recognizable as "television" before Farnsworth did. |
In Australia, the national television awards are called the "Logies" after John Logie Baird. I was of the understanding that it was common knowlege here in Australia, due to the "Logies" being called such, that John Logie Baird was considered the initial demonstrator of television.
Wiki article on the "Logies" |
|
|
|
|
| Ninja
|
| 424210. Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:59 am |
|
|
| eggshaped wrote: | I don't really have time to respond to all these allegations of "Lies," but I will in due course. In the meantime:
1. Even if you count two tins of beans and a length of string as a telephone, Hooke was born on the Isle of Wight so was not Scottish.
Furthermore:
| Quote: | | However, the above article told an outright lie, stating that Bell stole Meucci's ideas. There is absolutely ZERO evidence whatsoever that Bell stole Meucci's ideas. |
According to a US Congress Resolution in 2002 that recognised Meucci's role in the invention of the telephone:
| Quote: | | When Meucci heard of Bell's activities, he urged his lawyers to take action. The Supreme Court of the United States eventually agreed to hear the case between Meucci and Bell, and the government was moving to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. However, Meucci died before the trial commenced |
So Bell was about to be found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation when he was saved by Meucci's death.
2.
| Quote: | | Steam engine - another technicality being presented as a fact, I'm afraid. The Egyptians were the first one to harness the power of steam, using it to spin a small metal ball, but they did NOT create an engine. |
Engine: (n) A machine, more or less complicated, consisting of several parts, working together to produce a given physical effect.
- Oxford English Dictionary.
3 & 4 to follow... |
1. It was the first example of a device of that function in history, so yes I would. However, I'm simply correcting the mistakes that the poster had made.
2. Yet there is still no evidence that Bell came into contact with Meucci or stole his designs. His patent happened to be similar to Meucci's as they both functioned on similar principles. Meucci was filing for a court order because he did get there first, but let the patent lapse. As soon as he saw another inventor patent a similar device he realised that the patent had some marketable aspects, and so tried to discredit Bell's invention by filing a lawsuit.
Once again, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Bell stole Meucci's work, zero evidence that he read the details on Meucci's design and zero evidence that the two even came into contact before the event. Considering that, 1. there is no evidence for Meucci's claim, and 2. it is logical to assume that the court order is Meucci's attempt to discredit another inventor so he can patent his own device once again, it is quite clear that you simply cannot condemn Bell whatsoever. As such, Bell did NOT steal Meucci's plans and it is simply erroneous to claim otherwise.
3. Definition: motor that converts thermal energy to mechanical work.
Or alternatively: something used to achieve a purpose; "an engine of change"
Considering that it powered nothing, served no function and was put to no use, it was not an engine in the true sense of the word. The Scottish invention is the first genuine engine as it converted thermal energy into mechanical work.
At the very least, the Scottish invention was the world's first locomotive, and therefore they also invented the world's first train. |
|
|
|
|
| Ninja
|
| 424212. Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:02 am |
|
|
| suze wrote: | I'd have to agree about Philo Farnsworth - John Logie Baird successfully demonstrated something which is recognizable as "television" before Farnsworth did.
Although in fact, shouldn't the English inventor Archibald Low get the credit? He demonstrated something which he called Televista at the Institute of Automobile Engineers as far back as 1914.
The Times (30 May 1914) noted:
"An inventor, Dr A M Low, has discovered a means of transmitting visual images by wire. If all goes well with this invention, we shall soon be able, it seems, to see people at a distance."
and the Daily Chronicle (29 May 1914) said:
"Dr Low gave a demonstration for the first time in public, with a new apparatus that he has invented, for seeing, he claims by electricity, by which it is possible for persons using a telephone to see each other at the same time."
Dr Low was by all accounts a difficult man, which didn't help him in seeking funding for his research. And of course, war broke out a few months later. Accordingly, he took this invention no further. |
Fair enough, it does seem that Low got there first. However, the fact that it was quoted that Farnsworth got there before Baird was what got me to post here in the first place.
Low may have got there first, but to say Farnsworth got there before Baird is simply incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
| Izzardesque
|
| 424228. Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:25 am |
|
|
Can I throw Philipp Reis into the mix for the inventor of the telephone?
I'd say Hooke contributed more to the invention of the telegraph and certainly laid the path for the invention of the telephone but I don't think his invention was sufficiently advanced to be credited with inventing the telephone. |
|
|
|
|
| eggshaped
|
| 424239. Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:39 am |
|
|
Ninja, I presume you're not a physicist.
| Quote: | | Definition: motor that converts thermal energy to mechanical work. |
Mechanical work is loosly defined as the energy transferred by a force; the energy in the aeolipile was transferred from the potential energy of the fuel used to heat the water, into kinetic energy propelling the ball-thing around.
| Quote: | | Considering that it powered nothing, served no function and was put to no use, it was not an engine in the true sense of the word. |
On the contrary, it is an engine in the very truest sense of the word. i.e. an object that creates an output (movement) from an input (steam).
In fact, it is not only a steam engine, it is a steam motor as it creates kinetic energy from a source of external energy.
| Quote: | | Yet there is still no evidence that Bell came into contact with Meucci or stole his designs. |
The Supreme Court of the United States obviously thought otherwise. Here is House Resolution no. 269 in case you want to check it for yourself. They unambiguously say that Bell's patent was to be annulled on the basis of fraud. Surely the couldn't do that with ZERO EVIDENCE.
http://www.house.gov/fossella/Press/pr020611.htm |
|
|
|
|
| eggshaped
|
| 424242. Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:44 am |
|
|
I should also say.
Welcome to the QI forums ninja. I hope you stay around and contribute to our interestingness.
Furthermore, I concur on the Farnsworth point, though as soon as I find the original research that was done on this subject, I'll be able to let you know what our reasoning was or where we went wrong. |
|
|
|
|
| Izzardesque
|
| 424245. Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:46 am |
|
|
| Any comment on Reis eggshaped? From what I've read he seems a decent contender. Admittedly its on various websites rather than original sources but all seem to point to a device (if not all that reliable) that could be held to be the first true telephone. |
|
|
|
|
| eggshaped
|
| 424252. Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:01 am |
|
|
I've checked through the QI database and my database - nothing.
However, I've checked the news archives, and here is something from the Daily Telegraph, 1st December 2003
| Quote: | EVIDENCE of a 50-year-old cover-up to curb debate over whether a German science teacher invented the first telephone rather than the Scot Alexander Graham Bell has been discovered in the Science Museum, London.
Tests in 1947 [sic - this should be 1861] on a primitive German telephone that predates Bell's by 13 years were suppressed by a prominent businessman.
Previously unseen documents show how the experiments on a range of phones disclosed that a device developed by Philipp Reis (1834- 1874) actually worked, said John Liffen, Science Museum curator.
Engineers from the British firm Standard Telephones and Cables (STC) found that Reis's 1863 "Telephon" could transmit speech, albeit faintly, and that his receiver would also "reproduce speech of good quality but of low efficiency".
But Sir Frank Gill, chairman of STC, ordered that the tests were kept secret. STC was at the time attempting to win a deal with the American Telephone and Telegraph company, which had evolved from the Bell Company, and Sir Frank thought the results could wreck his plans by reflecting badly on STC. |
In 1947, STC demanded that all files regarding Reis be returned from the science museum. Curator Gerald Garratt wrote back:
| Quote: | "You must know as well as I the old controversy `Did Bell invent the telephone?' and I have here an unpublished manuscript of over 400 pages which proves pretty conclusively that he didn't.
"Does your anxiety to retrieve these reports rather suggest that you agree?" |
The fact is that Reis's technology was not a direct predecessor of Bell/Meucci's but if we're accepting two baked-bean cans as a telephone, then we have to accept this.
We've said on the show before that Meucci invented the phone, so maybe a trip to the science museum might be in order... Always good to revisit questions, especially if we have a different answer, it really confuses the panellists!
Now if you don't mind, I've got a biography of Augustus to read - it's a hard life being an elf.
Last edited by eggshaped on Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:12 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
| Izzardesque
|
| 424258. Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:09 am |
|
|
| eggshaped wrote: | The fact is that Reis's technology was not a direct predecessor of Bell/Meucci's but if we're accepting two baked-bean cans as a telephone, then we have to accept this.
|
Sorry, eggshaped, I don't quite understand what you mean by not being a direct predecessor? Surely just because the technology was different (although I understand Bell used some bits that are similar - no evidence that Bell was copying tho) doesn't mean that it can't count as a previous invention??
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted you. |
|
|
|
|
| Izzardesque
|
| 424273. Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:20 am |
|
|
| After reading a bit more, the info I have seems confused over whether Reis' phone actually worked. Some say that it DID transfer words etc although very faintly and intermittently (which, reliability issues aside, would surely count as having been a prior invention to Bell/Meucci) whereas others say it produced only whines and squeeks which would obviously go against it being a useful invention! |
|
|
|
|
