View previous topic | View next topic

Scottish Inventions the Scots did not invent - Help!

Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

eggshaped
424279.  Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:25 am Reply with quote

No, I'm not saying it doesn't count.

In fact, re-reading that, I'm not altogether sure what I am saying. :S

I'm just finished reading a biog of Eadweard Muybridge who invented motion pictures, but is not accepted as such because his technology is different to that used by Edison, and the industry in late 19th century. I think that reading this:

Quote:
History has favoured Bell and not [Elisha] Gray or German inventor Johann Philipp Reis, who bested them both with 1860s sound transmission devices that employed a different principle.

From Sunday Herald (Glasgow); Dec 30, 2007.

Just got mixed up with another thought.

 
Izzardesque
424298.  Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:51 am Reply with quote

I don't doubt that Bell, irrespective of whether he actually invented it, certainly added much to it that was good and impressive. All inventions are generally built on the work of a lot of others.

 
Davini994
424305.  Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 am Reply with quote

Ninja wrote:
3. Definition: motor that converts thermal energy to mechanical work.
Or alternatively: something used to achieve a purpose; "an engine of change"

To jump in on a technical point, which is underpinning the difference of opinion: Work done, or mechanical work, is a technical term and not necessarily "doing work" as we would naturally think of it in common language.

According to the work-energy theorem, if an external force acts upon an object, causing its kinetic energy to change, then the mechanical work is this change in kinetic energy.

So an engine doesn't necessarily have to be "something used to achieve a purpose", as you've rewritten the definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work

 
Davini994
424308.  Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:10 am Reply with quote

eggshaped wrote:
In fact, re-reading that, I'm not altogether sure what I am saying.

Perhaps that Reis's telephone can count even though it wasn't very good:

Quote:
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".


Because, presumably, Hooke's 'telephone' was about as good as a bit of string and two baked bean cans.

Possibly???

 
Flash
424446.  Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:06 pm Reply with quote

Ninja - glad to have you aboard - you seem to have the kind of rigour we value around here. However, I think I should just say this: we are often mistaken here, but that isn't the same as lying. When we're mistaken and people point it out to us we say; "Excellent! A correction! Give that man a drink!" When we're accused of lying, on the other hand, we say: "What a twat. Give that man a wedgie and chuck him in with the radioactive walruses!"

Just so's you know.

 
Alfred E Neuman
425019.  Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:24 pm Reply with quote

I rather suspect we've chased Ninja away...

 
Flash
425177.  Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:59 pm Reply with quote

Well, I hope not. Ninja, you there?

 
Izzardesque
425493.  Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:43 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Ninja - glad to have you aboard - you seem to have the kind of rigour we value around here. However, I think I should just say this: we are often mistaken here, but that isn't the same as lying. When we're mistaken and people point it out to us we say; "Excellent! A correction! Give that man a drink!" When we're accused of lying, on the other hand, we say: "What a twat. Give that man a wedgie and chuck him in with the radioactive walruses!"

Just so's you know.


Maybe the corrector should buy the correctee a drink to salve the hurt?

 
Mandibles
430156.  Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:54 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe the corrector should buy the correctee a drink to salve the hurt?


A half-pint of Savlon should do the trick...

 
Lukecash
448023.  Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:26 am Reply with quote

Actually, as a United States citizen I'm wondering how the U.S. Navy was a Scottish invention.

First, I'm certain there were other navies before Scotland invented one.

Second, The Second President, John Adams, established the Department of the Navy in response to the French privateers targeting American ships that were doing business with the English. This is according to David MCCouloughs great Biography, John Adams.

At the time, the United States had no standing army, nor navy. Most Americans actually despised the idea of war and warlike activities.

 
Posital
448051.  Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:46 am Reply with quote

I guess, amusingly, Scotland probably wasn't invented by a Scotsman - and assume some Roman was involved.

When was Ireland annexed from Scotia? Why wasn't Scotland called Albania?

The people need to know.

 
96aelw
448184.  Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:41 am Reply with quote

Lukecash wrote:
Actually, as a United States citizen I'm wondering how the U.S. Navy was a Scottish invention.

First, I'm certain there were other navies before Scotland invented one.

Second, The Second President, John Adams, established the Department of the Navy in response to the French privateers targeting American ships that were doing business with the English. This is according to David MCCouloughs great Biography, John Adams.

At the time, the United States had no standing army, nor navy. Most Americans actually despised the idea of war and warlike activities.


Well, yes, certainly there were navies before Scotland's, but the contention was that it was a Scot who created the American effort. I suspect that this was intended as a reference to John Paul Jones (in his pre Led Zeppelin days). It's not strictly true that he created the US navy, but he was an important early figure in it, so it was, I suppose, a nice, impressive sounding and not wholly spurious claim with which to extend the list.

The United States did have a standing navy at the time of Adams' establishment of a Department for them, though. Granted, the Continental Navy in which Jones had served had been disbanded (although the US Navy reckons to be effectively the same organisation, and thus claims to be older than the United States themselves, the Continental Navy having been established in 1775). However, the 1794 Act to Provide a Naval Armament established a force of 6 vessels, 4 of 44 guns each, and 2 of 36 guns each. In fact, this almost never came to pass, as clause 9 stated that the whole scheme should be abandoned if peace broke out between the US and Algiers, as in fact occurred in March 1796, but Congress eventually decided to finish building 3 of the 6 at least, and the first of these, the USS United States, was launched in 1797.

Incidentally, this vessel was decomissioned in 1849, but it was still hanging around at the naval base at Norfolk, Virginia when the Civl War broke out, and was, in a beautifully ironic move, commissioned into the Confederate Navy without a change of name; it served as the splendidly monikered CSS United States.

 
Lukecash
448434.  Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:16 pm Reply with quote

[quote="96aelw"]
Lukecash wrote:
" I suspect that this was intended as a reference to John Paul Jones (in his pre Led Zeppelin days). It's not strictly true that he created the US navy, but he was an important early figure in it, so it was, I suppose, a nice, impressive sounding and not wholly spurious claim with which to extend the list.


Well, extending the list is a justifiable reason.

But it seams I will have to have a word with the Navy on their misconception on when they existed.

 
thegrandwazoo
471147.  Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:41 am Reply with quote

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.

According to Neil Oliver's History of Scotland now showing on the Beeb this statement isn't totally accurate and is an over simplification of what happened. He claims that ethnically the Picts remained the dominant group but their language and culture became subsumed by the Gaelic because of the kings Duncan (I think) and Constantine who were brought up in Ireland under the protection of their Pictish aunt who was married into the Irish royalty. When they regained control of Scotland they brought the language and culture of the Gaels with them and it gradually took over. It would seem that the Scoti or Gaels never extended further than the western highland and Islands where they became further diluted by Norse invasion.
( I hope nobody's put this on already as I haven't read the whole thread yet)

 
exnihilo
471845.  Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:23 am Reply with quote

Neil is spot on, and I say that not just because he's a colleague of mine. The situation's not entirely unlike what happened with the Normans in England. Their numbers were relatively few, but the influence of their language and culture was considerable.

 

Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group