The Roman Age of Steam
Coreleus Corneleus
might insert into the old thread.
Anyway, I have been wondering.
What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
Was it used for the practical purpose for pumping water or powering
mills in ancient Rome, with the art being abandoned later on with the
middle ages?
Could it have been gradually adapted, along with windmills and water
turbines, to have spurred innovation in the middle ages in these
areas, due to its already having been put to a practical use, to the
point of having steam and combustion turbines and engines being
developed at the same time as greek fire?
If turbines had been developed even in the 1700s, would we ultimately
be using piston engines or turbine engines, for propelling smaller
moving machines (like automobiles, not jet aircraft)?
Are turbines with high-temperature ceramics still supposed to be in
the automobiles of the future (or even high-temperature modified
Wenkels)? What basic advantages do piston engines have over rotary or
turbine engines, besides the fact that the pistons themselves can be
bored in ways like the boring of cannon or smaller firearms?
Admittably, if Leonardo da Vinci would have had something like a small
primitave jet turbine engine or an internal combustion engine, he
would probably have been a Wright brother (possibly).
I will following put forth a few links and posts found in my web
search on the subject.
I found a new interesting way of waffeling: if you get a point in
history wrong, claim you are posting from an ATL.
Links/References/Earlier posts:
Magor earlier thread:
The Roman Age of Steam
Post to:
sci.archaeology
alt.history.what-if
soc.history.what-if
sci.physics
Links:
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/02.html
http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/html/demos/303.html
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Thermodynamics/Heros_Engine/Heros_Engine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_of_Alexandria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine
Old earlier posts:
From: Robert J. Kolker
(bobk...@usa.net)
Subject: Re: Technology What Ifs.
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2000/06/24
Keith Morrison wrote:
>
> The ancient Greek steam engine is the canonical example.
Only if the technology for making gears and
cranks were sufficient to put the steam power
to some use. By the way, Hero's engine was
a turbine and not a piston engine. As it was the
need for power could be supplied by animals
and human slaves. In OTL, the steam engine
came along just about the time when human
slavery was being phased out. That is one of
the reasons why it was developed.
If Hero's engine could have been combined with
the kind of turbine machinery found in mills
powered by water wheels history might have
been different.
I often speculate what would have happened in
Archimedes took an interest in steam engines.
Maybe the Romans would have been drive from
Syrakus by steam driven tanks.
As it was, Archimedes had "star wars" weapons.
He was burning Roman ships by using parabolic
mirrors.
A few more geniuses like Archimedes and societies
willing to let them play, and we would be flying
about the galaxy in star ships, along about now.
From: Seth Deitch (dok...@stpiaacm.net)
Subject: Re: The Butterfly Effect
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1998/03/02
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 05:57:11 GMT, iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Ian) wrote:
>>More significantly, the applications of these theories
>>would be likely to be different than ours, also. As Hero's steam
engine
>>demonstrates, it's possible applications could be left in the dark
for
>>thousands of years, contrary to your assertions of "development
without
>>tremendous delay"!
>Nope. "Hero's steam engine" had few applications because it was a
>primitive, nearly-useless steam engine from a technology base which
was
>nowhere near being able to manufacture more useful kinds. An analysis
of
>history says that steam engines took off when a host of other
supporting
>technologies was available, and indicates that Roman steam engines
would
>require a vast improvement of Roman technology in many areas.
Most prototypes are not actual practical aplications. Some but not
all and its not a requirement that they be. A prototype must merely
demonstrate a principal which can be applied. A lot had to do with
Hero's vocation. While he was a very brilliant engineer, he seems to
have made his money constructing toys for the rich. He wrote several
books on mechanics which mostly gathered dust and only gained notice
for his "wonders" themselves rather than the principals behind them.
Had he been a merchant rather than a scholar, things might well have
been different.
In the industrial revolution, slave labor was either out or on the
way out depending on where you were and all sorts of automated textile
technology was on the way in. Watt's engine, which was an improvement
on earlier engines, notably that of Newcomen, was what started to make
that technology really usefull in terms of industrialization. Needless
to say, first century Rome, had no emerging automation allready in
place for the textile industry, or any other industry for that matter.
Hero's engine was not held back because of its mechanical failings,
but because of its surrounding technological and social environment.
Had things been slightly (fairly speaking, more than slightly)
different, things could have been otherwise.
Allow me to draw a parallel with the search for controlled fusion.
We are by no means sure that this technology can be made to work, but
we know the economic benefits would be tremendous if we can make it
work. Hero had no such idea of the economic benefit. Indeed, economic
benefit might have been absent even from a really good steam engine in
his era.
True enough technology drives society and economy, but the reverse
is just as true.
-Seth Deitch
From: Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Subject: Re: WI: Industrial revolution in the Roman Empire
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1998/02/04
You might find it useful to read the Posting Tips FAQ
sections 3.12 Ancient technolology and 3. Plausibility,
probability, the unexpected, luck and chance -- which
notes that It is not plausible to propose that the Roman
Empire survives almost unchanged to the present day,
For ease of reference here is the part on Ancient technology.
I suggest you visit the website to read the parts on enduring
empires and plausibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------
3.12 Ancient technolology. An early, and vivid fictional
AH proposed that as an alternative to the collapse of
the Roman Empire and the onset of the "Dark Ages" a
time-traveller arrived in Rome and introduced
twentieth century technology. This was L. Sprague de
Camp's 1939 novel, Lest Darkness Fall. The hero
introduces one invention after another, transforms
Rome and prevents the Fall. But you can make your what-if
operate within the realm of plausibility. Consider the classic
AH of the Roman steam engine:
The Romans were good at technological development, by taking
existing basic concepts and improving them where it was
sufficiently desired and cost-effective.
However they were not technical innovators.
Would the Romans be interested in developing a steam engine.
It is of primary value as a labor saving machine. But the
Romans had a glut of slaves and Plebs. Consider
cost-effectivness. Supply and demand meant that there was
nothing to be gained by developing machinery for anything
except toys and spectacles (temple doors etc). The Romans
were practical to the extreme and limited R&D to where they
needed it--cement, good plumbing (great baths are practical
from the point of view of the user).
Until the mid-19th century, with the advances in Chemistry,
technology has developed independently of science. Practical
measurements and iterative tests--often extremely
unsafe--were used instead of mathematical modelling to
develop things such as early cannon and steam engines. Check
out how, for example, James Watt perfected the steam
engine (1775).
The geometry that the Romans used in their construction was
sufficient for this project.
They knew about Euclid's "Elements" of geometry and there was no
shortage of Greek teachers to explain the finer points.
However, it would have been beyond Roman ability to make a working
steam engine until they developed a boring mill to manufacture
cylinders. This technology was developed in Europe to make better
cannon.
So Roman development of a working steam engine--as opposed to a
Hero's ball that spins by venting steam--would have depended on
improving their seige machinery by developing something that
fired through tubes. Gunpowder is not essential. The key is
precision matching of the tube and projectile diameters. Seems
like there is a possibility here for a good AH!
The creative AH designer might find another reason for the
Romans to develop a boring mill than to make cannon.
Alternatively, the AH designer might have the Romans stick to
rotation, and develop a steam turbine. However, this would have
its own requirements: including balancing and reliable,
effective bearings.
Either way, they'd have to perfect fairly high-quality steel.
Given several centuries the Romans could solve these problems.
But the AH designer must motivate the Romans to do so by making
labor much more expensive relative to machinery.
From: Pyotr Filipivich
(py...@coho.halcyon.com)
Subject: Re: Roman Scientific Revolution
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1996/05/12
neum...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Craig J Neumeier) writes:
}This is an outgrowth of another post of mine.
}We've recently discussed Hero's steam engine as a chance for Rome to
have
}an Industrial Revolution, concluding [well, I did, anyway] that the
odds
}were remote.
}What about a Scientific Revolution, though? Oh, I know that the
Romans
}weren't really very science-minded, so let's be more specific:
} What if the Romans had started grinding lenses during the early
Empire,
}say at the time of Augustus? Note than Roman glassware was the most
}advanced in the world, and that Seneca (the Younger, I think, but it
might
}have been the Elder -- anyway, some time between 50 BC and 50 AD)
observed
}that a glass globe full of water made a page of letters enlarged and
more
}distinct.
} They *could* have experimented with lenses. Anyone else agree
that the
}telescope (Galileo) was important to the Scientific Revolution? What
}about the microscope, and the corresponding boost to the germ theory
of
}disease?
Personal opinion (that is, I can't quote, cite or appeal to specific
authorities) is that the Romans were good at rule of thumb
engineering,
but were hampered by a lack of unified theortical presupositions and a
ducedly unwieldly arithmatic system (Binary Coded Roman Numerals
anyone?)
If you think of XL not as "forty" but as "ten less than fifty", and
"XIX" as "one less than twenty", and III minus III as undefined,
you'll
see part of the problem.
As for the unifiying presuppositions - where there is a deity for each
and every activity, the secret of better beer is better propitiations
of
the proper piety, not some odd ball theory about the action of
"invisible animucles". Say what you will, until the concept of the
universe as the Watchmaker's masterpiece (in the modern sense of the
word), pervaded academic circles, 'learning' consisted of reading what
had been written by the Authority on the subject. Galen, Plato, Salon,
et al. But once the paradigm shift began, the entire universe was
opened
to study, as it was all understandable, having been created by one
logical and rational entity, and not a committee of emanations &
personifications of mankind's appetites.
As for a steam engine in the 3rd century - consider the technological
advances that were needed to exploit steam in the 1600s. Metalurgy,
precision measurments, record keeping (again with the numbers).
Granted, I can probably build a steam engine without knowing alot of
that technical stuff, but what manner efficency will I get? Why did
this one explode, and not that one? Why'd did it burst - and cause
such
a steam explosion in the first place?
more food for thought.
tschus
pyotr
--
py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
From: Craig J Neumeier
(neum...@maroon.tc.umn.edu)
Subject: Re: Overrated and underrated turning points
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1998/05/15
gavin allen weaire <wea...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>On 13 May 1998, Donald Tucker wrote:
>> The question is too broad to make any sense.
>>
>> But if we narrow it down to specific eras we can get some
>> useful insights.
> I'll have a go at the Romans, then.
> Most overrated: probably the aftermath of Cannae. People can't
>seem to get rid of the romantic notion that Hannibal made a Fatal
Error
>and didn't march on a Rome that was supposedly at his mercy.
Another candidate: Hero's Engine. It's not the best-known feature
of classical history, but the concept that they came _that_ close
to an industrial revolution is fairly common. (I used it myself,
and I know better.)
From: Donald Tucker
(bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Subject: Re: Technological Development
Accelerated/Delayed
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1996/06/24
>If Hero had continued working on his steam "engine", would
>we have colonies around Alpha Centauri today?
Probably, but for sociological reasons the Greeks and Romans
were *not* going to develop the steam engine. We had an extended
discussion of this in the "Steam Engine in Roman Times????" thread
that
began on April 11, 1996. But it makes a good story. See L.
Sprague de Camp's "Lest Darkness Fall" (aone of the all time
great alternate histories) or Harry Turtledove's "Agent of
Byzantium".
From: cra...@hotmail.com
(cra...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The Roman Age of Steam
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2000/07/14
In article <396F0BA0...@usa.net>,
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Old age. He died at the age of 97 after egging on the
> > Roman scientific revolution.
>
> He was killed by a Roman thug at the age of 75.
>
> Read Plutarch's Lives.
To belabor the obvious...
Is the Roman scientific revolution in Plutarch's Lives?
No?
Then I must be talking from the POV of an ATL where
he did live to 97 and died of old age.
From: Robert J. Kolker
(bobk...@usa.net)
Subject: Re: The Roman Age of Steam
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2000/07/13
Jorg Pietschmann wrote:
> I'm afraid there is no chance for ancient railroads...
Except for the * original * railroads which were Roman.
The Romans used wooden rails to roll carts on to
drag stuff out of mines. The width of the wheels of
these carts happened to be 4 feet 8.5 inches which
is North American and English standard gauge.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
>
> If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
> might insert into the old thread.
>
> Anyway, I have been wondering.
>
> What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
>
> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
> powering mills in ancient Rome?
Ancient Rome charged water usage assuming flow scaled linearly with
pipe diameter. Rome was wholy incapable of doing engineering that
could not be jury-rigged by trial and error or stolen from their
technological betters. That much better folk much later on settled
for the Newcomen engine demonstrates the abysmal level of
technological expertise enjoyed by the human race overall... despite
direct divine communication with omnipotent, omnisicient, and
omnibenevolent deities through a plethora of priests and religions.
This "test of faith" is underscored by God offhand forgetting to
provide a system of numbers that could be used for calculation.
Nobody is going anywhere crippled by using extended fractions instead
of decimal notation (or whatever base you like).
log(XVII) is a ludicrous thought.
If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
toilet, you need an engineer.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Ken Down
core...@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
> powering mills in ancient Rome?
Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
produced by this method would have been relatively small.
> Only if the technology for making gears and
> cranks were sufficient to put the steam power
> to some use.
The Antikythera astrolobe shows that the Greeks and Romans were not only
acquainted with gears, but were also pretty skilled at making them. As the
"engine" produced rotary motion, there would have been no need for cranks.
> By the way, Hero's engine was
> a turbine and not a piston engine.
It produced rotary motion, but that is about the only resemblance to a
turbine - which involves steam, water or air being passed through angled
blades.
> Would the Romans be interested in developing a steam engine.
> It is of primary value as a labor saving machine. But the
> Romans had a glut of slaves and Plebs. Consider
> cost-effectivness.
Engines always have an advantage because when they are not needed you turn
them off; slaves and animals need to be fed at all times. The main obstacle
to the development of steam power was the lack of a suitable fuel; I think I
am correct in stating that the Romans only had oil, wood or charcoal (from
wood) for fuel. Coal and oil were not known.
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
James Nicoll
Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <97d1d750.04020...@posting.google.com>,
>core...@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
>
>> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
>> powering mills in ancient Rome?
>
>Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
>outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
>in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
>could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
>produced by this method would have been relatively small.
OK, really stupid idea: A Roman Robert Goddard. The technology
available probably prevents him from having any success.
>
>
--
"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture
and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure,
and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the
future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"
Robert J. Kolker
Uncle Al wrote:
> If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
> afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
> toilet, you need an engineer.
The Romans had all of the above. They were smart enough to filch the
idea of a running water crapper.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
James Nicoll wrote:
> OK, really stupid idea: A Roman Robert Goddard. The technology
> available probably prevents him from having any success.
Robertus Godardus launches the first Roman Candle.
Bob Kolker
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
>>
>> If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
>> might insert into the old thread.
>>
>> Anyway, I have been wondering.
>>
>> What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
>>
>> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
>> powering mills in ancient Rome?
>[snip]
>
>Ancient Rome charged water usage assuming flow scaled linearly with
>pipe diameter. Rome was wholy incapable of doing engineering that
>could not be jury-rigged by trial and error or stolen from their
>technological betters.
I think that last is an overstatement. For example, from whom did the
Romans steal the chain pump described in
http://www.christopp.co.uk/pract_romanw.htm
Then there is the 170km Serino aqueduct and associated branches and
distribution systems, built at the time of Augustus, virtually all
underground and with a very precisely controlled slope to match the
hydraulic grade line.
http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/Napoli/itinerary2/acquedot.html
http://www.pompeisepolta.com/english/castellum.htm
>That much better folk much later on settled
>for the Newcomen engine demonstrates the abysmal level of
>technological expertise enjoyed by the human race overall...
The philosophical leap - the appreciation of the true nature of a
vacuum - which led to the Newcomen engine was centuries in the making.
The same amount of advance would be made to today in 5 to 20 years.
Roman engineering was at the foot of a very long and increasingly
steep learning curve. I don't think the folk at the time of Newcomen
were necessarily better. They just knew more.
>despite
>direct divine communication with omnipotent, omnisicient, and
>omnibenevolent deities through a plethora of priests and religions.
>This "test of faith" is underscored by God offhand forgetting to
>provide a system of numbers that could be used for calculation.
>Nobody is going anywhere crippled by using extended fractions instead
>of decimal notation (or whatever base you like).
>
>log(XVII) is a ludicrous thought.
Nevertheless you should consider that Newton first derived the
mathematical basis of the elliptical orbits of the planets from his
theory of gravity, using his newly invented 'Method of Fluxions'
(calculus). This last was so ill regarded that he spent the next 20
years doing it all over again using the methods of conventional
geometry and it was this later proof that he first published. Its not
impossible. Its merely very difficult.
>
>If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
>afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
>toilet, you need an engineer.
In the beginning, we actually needed lots of them, before Thomas
Crapper came up with his particular version. You fill find the name
Doulton comes in there also.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
> In article <na.ae945d4c7b....@argonet.co.uk>,
> Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <97d1d750.04020...@posting.google.com>,
> >core...@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
> >
> >> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
> >> powering mills in ancient Rome?
> >
> >Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
> >outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
> >in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
> >could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
> >produced by this method would have been relatively small.
>
> OK, really stupid idea: A Roman Robert Goddard. The technology
> available probably prevents him from having any success.
>
There was a History Channel Internbational "Ancient Inventions" in the
Christmas time period. I recorded it but have just started to look at
it as my daughter was interested in any shipwreck underwater
archaeology that might be in it. Little bit with the antikythera
machine, which seems to some sort of fortune-telling device. The Hiero
section had his self-opening doors, his 17 inch television sized
auto-play and lot of his temple toys. The heiro-pile was shown in a
rather larger version than I remember but the idea of Greek gears,
pulleyies and transfer step ups etc sort of suggested you could get
work (in the Physics 101 sense) out of a hieropile. It's like Mahlon
Loomis and his radio (?) from the 1860s, nobody with any horsepower or
depth has ever (publicly) put a device out that would vindicate
Hiero/Hieron as an inventor of a potentially practical device. I would
like to seem an effort like the Babbage device wherein someone with a
budget created a device to run off a supply of water and heat and
create a hieropile that made work.
>
> >
> >
Ian Stirling
<snip>
> Engines always have an advantage because when they are not needed you turn
> them off; slaves and animals need to be fed at all times. The main obstacle
> to the development of steam power was the lack of a suitable fuel; I think I
> am correct in stating that the Romans only had oil, wood or charcoal (from
> wood) for fuel. Coal and oil were not known.
Only if the total ownership cost of the slave/animal exceeds that of the
engine.
Donkey + field = usefull work.
Trying to come up with a working replacement for a donkey hauling stuff
ain't gonna happen with roman technology.
Cliff Wright
Hi Ken.
Certainly the AntiKythera machine (probably a sort of Orrery) was made by a much more advanced
technical culture than that of Rome. From memory I think it was dated to c300BC which means
that it was Greek or from Asia minor.
You will note that the most advanced technology in late Roman times was entirely in the Eastern
empire. The westerners didn't have "Greek Fire" or even improved armour like the Byzantines.
We seem to have an obsession with Rome! IMO the Roman empire was a disaster for the west.
In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology despite the reduction in
literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered
an ignorant flock who didn't argue. A perfect example of this is the Danish empire where the
effective literacy level probably droppped from ~40/50% to way under 10% when Runes were
replaced by Roman letters.
Regards Cliff Wright.
Robert J. Kolker
Cliff Wright wrote:
> didn't argue. A perfect example of this is the Danish empire where the
> effective literacy level probably droppped from ~40/50% to way under 10%
> when Runes were replaced by Roman letters.
Are you saying that Latin letters were the rune-ation of Danish?
Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer
> If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
> might insert into the old thread.
> Anyway, I have been wondering.
> What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
> powering mills in ancient Rome?
Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine. Getting useful
work out of a turbine was more than a century after the piston steam
engine OTL.
And we have no idea what it looked like despite the common drawings
that look old. My best guess it was like the weight on a pressure
cooker and spun horizontally. Otherwise we have to ask what he used
for seal on his bearings.
--
Black studies, women's studies, and holocaust studies
are modeled after the freudian con game to give
academic credential to future snake oil salemen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2997
Coreleus Corneleus
Going through links, some possibly partially coming from similar
sources, one tends to get the idea that rockets and cannon were circa
post 1000 AD Chinese inventions that then migrated westward, possibly
with an accelerated migration due to the Mongols.
Some early aspects and versions of gunpowder may have been pre-Greek
fire, and might have even gone back to early searches for 'the elixer
of life' in China, however, more advanced applications of explosives
such as rockets and early cannon are somewhat later in Chinese
history.
http://www.askasia.org/frclasrm/lessplan/l000019.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/china/age.html
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmissile.htm
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/rocketry_origins_000702.html
http://sino.studentenweb.org/project/inventions/overzicht.htm
http://www.xmatc.com/air100/eng_xuqu.htm
http://www.twilightbridge.com/hobbies/festivals/diwali/historyfireworks.htm
http://www.artsmia.org/arts-of-asia/china/dynasties/tang-video.cfm
Note: Some of the early versions of Chinese matches given here would
tend to indicate that the early Puritans in the 1600s may not have
been awed by matches.
Greysky
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
question of who was going to drink the water once it had been crapped in...
The Ghost In The Machine
<jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:01:17 GMT
<1opUb.23704$rj7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
> Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
>> If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
>> might insert into the old thread.
>
>> Anyway, I have been wondering.
>
>> What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
>
>> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
>> powering mills in ancient Rome?
>
> Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
> Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
> after the piston steam engine OTL.
Actually, as I recall diagrams of the device, it was a
small brass bomb with two outlets, vaguely reminiscent of
a dual whistling teakettle, with its spin axis horizontal.
There are many practical problems with such a device,
the simplest one being: how does one keep the hot water
inside? The hot water will fall out of the bottom nozzle
as it spins -- straight into the fire or perhaps splashed
onto any curious onlookers. Ow!
An alternative might be to jet the steam out of the sides,
with the pipe both serving as thruster and bearing. The
device would look a bit like a ball with an oddly bent pipe
sticking through it; the unit would be mounted into two
fittings over a fire after water-charging. Such a device
would not take a full charge, as the water level could
never be more than half full, but at least it wouldn't
all fall out.
If one constructs the bomb such that the steam comes out
near the top and directs the steam into two jets imparting
a torque, and somehow mounts the entire device over a fire
using a simple framework, with the actual spin axis being
vertical, one might have an interesting spinning curiosity
until it exhausts its supply of water. It still wouldn't
be horribly useful, though it might run longer.
A weird possibility involves attachment of propeller blades
to the bomb, probably parallel to the steam nozzles, and
then denting the bomb (or perhaps converting it into a
fat water-holding torus) so that it can sit on a vertical
cast-iron rod on a device placed in the coals, perhaps
even containing the coals. Charge the device with water,
heat, and let spin. After awhile the spin might be fast
enough (or the device light enough) to lift the entire
bomb into the air; latent heat would keep it in there
for a short time until it decides to drop down on some
poor unsuspecting passer-by. I could see this done as a
publicity stunt, but that's about it, and the authorities
would probably frown upon such tomfoolery unless done in,
say, the middle of a field, with onlookers kept at a very
safe distance.
I do not know how adept the Romans were with brass.
I'm assuming they'd not figured out iron yet.
AIUI, a true turbine requires fan blades of some sort, so as to
convert the movement of steam in a steam jet into rotational
momentum. That was probably the most useful innovation,
after perhaps feeding the boiler output into a piston
a la James Watt.
>
> And we have no idea what it looked like despite the common drawings
> that look old. My best guess it was like the weight on a pressure
> cooker and spun horizontally. Otherwise we have to ask what he used
> for seal on his bearings.
>
That, and how he kept the water in prior to boiling. Of course
for such a curiosity sleeve bearings would probably work, if the
fire's hot enough.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Richard Herring
Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> writes
>In sci.physics, Matt Giwer
><jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote
>on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:01:17 GMT
><1opUb.23704$rj7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
>> Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
>>> If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
>>> might insert into the old thread.
>>
>>> Anyway, I have been wondering.
>>
>>> What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
>>
>>> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
>>> powering mills in ancient Rome?
>>
>> Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
>> Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
>> after the piston steam engine OTL.
>
>Actually, as I recall diagrams of the device, it was a
>small brass bomb with two outlets, vaguely reminiscent of
>a dual whistling teakettle, with its spin axis horizontal.
>There are many practical problems with such a device,
>the simplest one being: how does one keep the hot water
>inside? The hot water will fall out of the bottom nozzle
>as it spins -- straight into the fire or perhaps splashed
>onto any curious onlookers. Ow!
No, the hot water is in a larger container below the rotating part, with
steam carried up supporting tubes. There's a picture at
http://alexandrias.tripod.com/hero.htm
[...]
>I do not know how adept the Romans were with brass.
>I'm assuming they'd not figured out iron yet.
They certainly had by the time of Hero (probably 1st century AD)
>
>AIUI, a true turbine requires fan blades of some sort,
Not if you're Tesla!
[...]
--
Richard Herring
Ken Down
<c.wr...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> Certainly the AntiKythera machine (probably a sort of Orrery) was made by
> a much more advanced technical culture than that of Rome. From memory I
> think it was dated to c300BC which means that it was Greek or from Asia
> minor.
The Romans were smart enough to take over anything useful that they found in
other cultures. If the Greeks could do it, so could the Romans.
> You will note that the most advanced technology in late Roman times was
> entirely in the Eastern empire. The westerners didn't have "Greek Fire" or
> even improved armour like the Byzantines.
Greek Fire was invented *after* the Western Empire had collapsed under the
onslaught of the barbarians. Naturally the Byzantines were not about to
share the discovery with actual or potential enemies.
> We seem to have an obsession with Rome! IMO the Roman empire was a
> disaster for the west.
You are welcome to your opinion. It is wrong, but this is a free country.
> In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
> despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
> the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
> argue.
One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.
R.Schenck
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:57:30 -0800, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
> >>
> >> If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
> >> might insert into the old thread.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I have been wondering.
> >>
> >> What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
> >>
> >> Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
> >> powering mills in ancient Rome?
> >[snip]
> >
> >Ancient Rome charged water usage assuming flow scaled linearly with
> >pipe diameter. Rome was wholy incapable of doing engineering that
> >could not be jury-rigged by trial and error or stolen from their
> >technological betters.
>
> I think that last is an overstatement. For example, from whom did the
> Romans steal the chain pump described in
> http://www.christopp.co.uk/pract_romanw.htm
>
> Then there is the 170km Serino aqueduct and associated branches and
> distribution systems, built at the time of Augustus, virtually all
> underground and with a very precisely controlled slope to match the
> hydraulic grade line.
> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/Napoli/itinerary2/acquedot.html
> http://www.pompeisepolta.com/english/castellum.htm
>
i think the arguement re:water delivery is that the romans didnt
understand putting pressure at one end of the system and using pipe
diameter to control the flow rate. aqueducts are of course a brillant
way of getting around that lack of information and theory. Also,
tangentially, didn't the romans deal with the excessive force/water
pressure at the 'spout' end(s) of an aqueduct by making the system
empty into a fountain which could have water forcefuly expelled from
it and collected in its basin (thus making drawing water for personal
use from an aqueduct viabel)?
snip
Eric Stevens
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:09:59 GMT, Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk>
wrote:
---- snip -----
>> In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
>> despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
>> the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
>> argue.
>
>One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
>year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
>preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
>spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.
While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
circa 540 AD.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Simple. The nozzles continue inside the sphere until almost the
centre. Gravity or centrifugal force keeps the water well away from
the inlet.
The most difficult problem I could see is designing the device so that
it can be topped up with water and fitting it with bearings which run
at somewhat less than steam temperature.
>AIUI, a true turbine requires fan blades of some sort,....
Umm - no.
It depends on whether you have a 'reaction' turbine or an 'impulse'
turbine. An impulse turbine relies upon the jet of (in this case)
steam blowing onto the vanes. A 'reaction' turbine relies on the steam
expanding through nozzles in the rim of the wheel. If the rim of the
wheel contains sufficient nozzles the material between them begins to
'look' like turbine blades. See http://www.tpub.com/fluid/ch3c.htm
In practice, turbines tend to be a mixture of both reaction and
impulse.
.... so as to
>convert the movement of steam in a steam jet into rotational
>momentum. That was probably the most useful innovation,
>after perhaps feeding the boiler output into a piston
>a la James Watt.
>
>>
>> And we have no idea what it looked like despite the common drawings
>> that look old. My best guess it was like the weight on a pressure
>> cooker and spun horizontally. Otherwise we have to ask what he used
>> for seal on his bearings.
>>
>
>That, and how he kept the water in prior to boiling. Of course
>for such a curiosity sleeve bearings would probably work, if the
>fire's hot enough.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
(R.Schenck) wrote:
I think as much as anything else that was because it avoided the need
for a local reticulation system. In fact, the water was often
reticulated to larger houses which had their own system of fountains
and pools. This was where the ignorance of the metering function of
the pipes came into effect. But then, whether with flows over weirs or
through pipes, an understanding of the laws governing such flows had
to await the arrival of a better system of arithmetic and the
invention of calculus.
Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
Eric Stevens
Ian Stirling
and would have been easily makable in roman times.
Google-groups for
"ian stirling" "steam engine" yuloh
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
Hoc est ridiculum.
Bob Kolker
Richard Henry
> Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
III.
Insane Ranter
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:S%zUb.15335$fD.7009@fed1read02...
How about
"IIII dextans" or "IV dextans"?
M Fielding
Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<7975201ld7ch4jsui...@4ax.com>...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
There is a very good reason for posting this. There is not a very good
reason for posting this to all the news groups that someone has
managed to stuff into the attributes. My apologies. I hadn't noticed
how far it had been spread.
Eric Stevens
Matt Giwer
> In article <4021...@news.auckland.ac.nz>, Cliff Wright
> <c.wr...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:09:59 GMT, Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> ---- snip -----
>>>In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
>>>despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
>>>the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
>>>argue.
>>
>>One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
>>year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
>>preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
>>spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.
> While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
> truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
> The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
> and writing of only approved religious works.
First, the Church which encouraged this was no more knowledgable than
the people. There was no grand conspiracy to hide learning as the
Church was not learned so there was nothing to hide.
Second, please reconcile that state with the next.
> The bible was not
> generally available to the populace at large for example.
First, so what were the people encouraged to read?
Second, written material cost an arm and a leg and a left nut and a
first born.
> Works were
> written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
> the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
There is no evidence the church was knew enough to suppress anything
knowingly. All the evidence is they were just as ignorant as everyone
else.
> Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
> exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
> suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
> circa 540 AD.
Not from superior knowledge but from shared and mutual ignorance.
--
What the government says it cannot foresee
the government has planned for.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3005
Matt Giwer
> In sci.physics, Matt Giwer
> <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:01:17 GMT
> <1opUb.23704$rj7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
>>Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
>>
>>>If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
>>>might insert into the old thread.
>>
>>>Anyway, I have been wondering.
>>
>>>What is the concensus on Hero's engine?
>>
>>>Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
>>>powering mills in ancient Rome?
>>
>> Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
>>Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
>>after the piston steam engine OTL.
> Actually, as I recall diagrams of the device, it was a
> small brass bomb with two outlets, vaguely reminiscent of
> a dual whistling teakettle, with its spin axis horizontal.
> There are many practical problems with such a device,
> the simplest one being: how does one keep the hot water
> inside? The hot water will fall out of the bottom nozzle
> as it spins -- straight into the fire or perhaps splashed
> onto any curious onlookers. Ow!
I have seen such drawings but they have all been modern artists
conceptions. I have never found a contemporanious source claiming to
be a drawing of it.
> An alternative might be to jet the steam out of the sides,
> with the pipe both serving as thruster and bearing. The
> device would look a bit like a ball with an oddly bent pipe
> sticking through it; the unit would be mounted into two
> fittings over a fire after water-charging. Such a device
> would not take a full charge, as the water level could
> never be more than half full, but at least it wouldn't
> all fall out.
>
> If one constructs the bomb such that the steam comes out
> near the top and directs the steam into two jets imparting
> a torque, and somehow mounts the entire device over a fire
> using a simple framework, with the actual spin axis being
> vertical, one might have an interesting spinning curiosity
> until it exhausts its supply of water. It still wouldn't
> be horribly useful, though it might run longer.
No matter what you suggest, you do not get significant useful work
out of the steam. But if you think you can, patent it. Steam turbines
have all of those stages of fans in different shapes for very well
known reasons of steam thermodynamics. It is not a simple problem nor
one anyone would rationally consider trying by trial and error even if
they knew it could be done.
--
Is anyone taking bets on the way Hussein will
die before standing trial?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3020
Matt Giwer
Are you suggesting they could have perfected a form of engine that we
today still have not made practical with all of our knowledge and
experience?
Why?
--
Israel has no legally recognized conscientious objectors which
says more than one wants to know about Israelis.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2991
Ian Stirling
> Ian Stirling wrote:
>> However, there are some engines that are easily constructed
>> and would have been easily makable in roman times.
>> Google-groups for
>> "ian stirling" "steam engine" yuloh
>
> Are you suggesting they could have perfected a form of engine that we
> today still have not made practical with all of our knowledge and
> experience?
No.
The Yuloh steam engine was a very, very simple steam engine, using
leather, pottery, and a spike of iron, directly coupled to an oar
to push it back and forward.
Its efficiancy sucks, as it's very low pressure but conversely the
sculling oar is very efficiant, so overall it's not so bad.
Plus, it can use wood as a fuel, rather than needing highly refined
fuels, and needs no accurate machining of metal.
Ian Stirling
iron would work fine)
http://www.simplicityboats.com/yulohstoveengine.htm
Is the only writeup I can see remaining.
Ken Down
news:lub520t7jt1vs7odv...@4ax.com...
> > Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
> III.
I didn't know that Roman numerals had decimal points?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:lub520t7jt1vs7odv...@4ax.com...
>
>> > Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
>
>> III.
>
>I didn't know that Roman numerals had decimal points?
>
That's one of the problems. Lack of place-value is another.
Eric Stevens
Double-A
[snip]
>
> Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
How about with VII, XXII parts.
Double-A
Inger E Johansson
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:79094630.04020...@posting.google.com...
I saw once, don't remember where because it's ages ago at least 35 years
ago, that they had an approximation for pi. Don't remember it. Sad to say.
Inger E
>
> Double-A
Ian Stirling
It doesn't actually give a plan, which is a pity, but it doesn't
seem that hard, a few flap valves, ...
120C/6PSIG is not a very harsh enviroment.
Ian Stirling
Wasn't it III_?
Inger E Johansson
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:y7WUb.803$Y%6.14...@wards.force9.net...
Nope. It was written inside a circle which were inside a triangle and it was
an equation alike thing 'a figure' minus an other figure/into something.
Inger E
George
Jones, Phillip S. Recent Discoveries in Babylonian Mathematics. I.
Zero, Pi, and Polygons. Mathematics Teacher 50 (1957), 162--65.
Supplements Archibald, Raymond Clare, Babylonian Mathematics,
discussing some work by Neugebauer and others 1936 and 1957. Discusses
the invention of the zero in (later) Babylonia and its appearance in
Greece. (Zero was apparently first regarded as a true number by
Aristotle.) Also discusses a value of 3 1/8 for pi (reported by M.E.M.
Bruins, anticipated by Neugebauer), a problem to determine the radius
of a circle circumscribing an isosceles triangle with two sides of 50
and one of 60 (an often discussed example, originally discovered by
Bruins, that is still a good algebra problem, using only the
Pythagorean theorem), and a table giving areas of pentagons, hexagons,
and heptagons from the square of a side. Not all are accurate, but
agree with analogous values given later by Heron (c. 75 AD). Heron's
table included the regular nonagon as well. The article is continued
in Jones, Phillip S., Recent Discoveries in Babylonian Mathematics.
II., which however, has a somewhat smaller scope. Reprinted in Swetz,
Frank J., From Five Fingers to Infinity. Closely related topics:
Sumerians and Babylonians, The Circle, Zero, Aristotle, and The
Measurement of Area and Volume.
Ken Down
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
> and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
> generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
> written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
> the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
Heretical works were suppressed, but much else was available - including the
Bible. The problem was mainly that before printing came along, books were
horrendously expensive. You could buy one house or two Bibles - which round
here would mean that a Bible was worth c. 48,000 ukp.
> Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
> exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
> suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
> circa 540 AD.
I've no idea who this Bailllie is. I am currently reading "The History of
the Franks" by Gregory of Tours and just about every year he records
celestial phenomena (and usually interprets them as foreshadowing some event
in the political sphere the following year.)
Inger E Johansson
"Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:na.f79aba4c7c....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <7975201ld7ch4jsui...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
> > and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
> > generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
> > written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
> > the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
>
> Heretical works were suppressed, but much else was available - including
the
> Bible. The problem was mainly that before printing came along, books were
> horrendously expensive. You could buy one house or two Bibles - which
round
> here would mean that a Bible was worth c. 48,000 ukp.
>
> > Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
> > exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
> > suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
> > circa 540 AD.
>
> I've no idea who this Bailllie is. I am currently reading "The History of
> the Franks" by Gregory of Tours and just about every year he records
> celestial phenomena (and usually interprets them as foreshadowing some
event
> in the political sphere the following year.)
>
> Ken Down
That's Gregory of Tours! He is one kind of a Historian I like. You never get
bored reading him. Which translation do you use?
Inger E
Matt Giwer
So you are telling me if you carry food and water for rowers instead
of wood it would be less efficient?
--
Black studies, women's studies, and holocaust studies
are modeled after the freudian con game to give
academic credential to future snake oil salemen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2997
Ian Stirling
> Ian Stirling wrote:
>> In sci.physics Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Stirling wrote:
>>>
>>>>However, there are some engines that are easily constructed
>>>>and would have been easily makable in roman times.
>>>>Google-groups for
>>>>"ian stirling" "steam engine" yuloh
>
>>> Are you suggesting they could have perfected a form of engine that we
>>>today still have not made practical with all of our knowledge and
>>>experience?
>
>> No.
>> The Yuloh steam engine was a very, very simple steam engine, using
>> leather, pottery, and a spike of iron, directly coupled to an oar
>> to push it back and forward.
>> Its efficiancy sucks, as it's very low pressure but conversely the
>> sculling oar is very efficiant, so overall it's not so bad.
>> Plus, it can use wood as a fuel, rather than needing highly refined
>> fuels, and needs no accurate machining of metal.
>
> So you are telling me if you carry food and water for rowers instead
> of wood it would be less efficient?
Efficient can be a strangely misleading word.
You really need the context.
The outboard motor probably convert 15-20% of the chemical energy
into torque at the motor shaft.
A steam engine is much worse.
However, a propellor is very inefficiant, as it moves a small amount
of mass backwards very fast, wasting a lot of energy accellerating
it.
The force is proportional to the amount of water moved times the speed.
However, the power you need to do this is proportional to the speed
squared.
A sculling oar, though slow is a very efficiant method of converting
power into motion.
Humans are quite poor at converting food into usefull work, measured on
simple efficiancy terms.
Robert J. Kolker
George wrote:
>
> Supplements Archibald, Raymond Clare, Babylonian Mathematics,
> discussing some work by Neugebauer and others 1936 and 1957. Discusses
> the invention of the zero in (later) Babylonia and its appearance in
> Greece. (Zero was apparently first regarded as a true number by
> Aristotle.)
Citation please. Aristotle was death on the Void. If nature abhored a
vacuum, Aristotle abhorred it even more. The greatest mathematician of
ancient time, Archimedes did not tumble on to zero.
Bob Kolker
PSmith9626
Just write it as a continued fraction. Use roman N. to express the integers.
Penny
>Message-id: <79094630.04020...@posting.google.com>
Dave J
Ian Stirling <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sp6Vb.819$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> In sci.physics Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Ian Stirling wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> The force is proportional to the amount of water moved times the speed.
> However, the power you need to do this is proportional to the speed
> squared.
>
Actually, the screw is a centrifugal type device, so it is propotional to
speed cubed. Oars are a positive displacement device, so more "efficient"
per energy expended. That's why fish have oar-like fins, not lots of
whirly-gig flagella or screw-type propulsion...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <7975201ld7ch4jsui...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
>> and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
>> generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
>> written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
>> the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
>
>Heretical works were suppressed, but much else was available - including the
>Bible. The problem was mainly that before printing came along, books were
>horrendously expensive. You could buy one house or two Bibles - which round
>here would mean that a Bible was worth c. 48,000 ukp.
I don't know the dates but for a long period the bible deliberately
was not translated from latin to prevent the ordinary people from
reading it too easily. A number of people were prosecuted (aka
'burned') for translating the bible into the local vernacular.
>
>> Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
>> exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
>> suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
>> circa 540 AD.
>
>I've no idea who this Bailllie is. I am currently reading "The History of
>the Franks" by Gregory of Tours and just about every year he records
>celestial phenomena (and usually interprets them as foreshadowing some event
>in the political sphere the following year.)
>
Mike Baillie is professor of paleoarchaeology at Quenns University,
Belfast.
Eric Stevens
Jordan Abel
>>Heretical works were suppressed, but much else was available - including the
>>Bible. The problem was mainly that before printing came along, books were
>>horrendously expensive. You could buy one house or two Bibles - which round
>>here would mean that a Bible was worth c. 48,000 ukp.
>
>
> I don't know the dates but for a long period the bible deliberately
> was not translated from latin to prevent the ordinary people from
> reading it too easily. A number of people were prosecuted (aka
> 'burned') for translating the bible into the local vernacular.
from context, it seemed to me the post you're responding to meant anyone
could buy a bible in latin.
pyotr filipivich
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
following:
>
Close.
Try XXII divided by VII
(Remember, the division sign is a "late" developments, and the expressing of
fractions a "a/b" is even later.)
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
pyotr filipivich
Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
following:
>
>While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
>truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
>
>and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
>generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
>written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
>the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
The Church taught people to read and write, and the main book was the
Bible. One learned to read and write in Latin. If you didn't need latin, you
didn't need books. (The reason the paper pushers are called the clerical
assistants dates to back when it was the Clergy who could read and write. But I
digress.)
Besides, books were beyond bloody expensive. Someplace about here I have a
price comparison for Florence Italy in the late 1400s: Scribes charge a gold
florin a page to copy a book, while printers charge three florin, but you got
100 copies. So, a couple hundred dollars a page, give or take, and you're
going to buy how many books?
But hey, it should take you all that long to copy a book by hand.
Steve Hix
pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> A city wide blackout at Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:06:12 +1300 did not prevent
> Eric
> Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
> following:
> >
> >While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
> >truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
> >
> >The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
> >and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
> >generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
> >written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
> >the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
"The Church" wasn't necessarily a monolithic entity. Some parts of it
suppressed any number of things, at different times. (The Roman Catholic
portion wasn't all of Christendom, as much as they wanted to beleive
otherwise.)
Other parts, at different times, recovered and spread earlier literature.
At various times, Roman and Greek manuscripts were reintroduced either
from the east, from the Byzantine remainder of the Roman Empire, or
from the west, from Irish clergy traveling eastward.
> The Church taught people to read and write, and the main book was the
> Bible. One learned to read and write in Latin. If you didn't need latin,
> you didn't need books. (The reason the paper pushers are called the clerical
> assistants dates to back when it was the Clergy who could read and write. But
> I digress.)
>
> Besides, books were beyond bloody expensive. Someplace about here I have a
> price comparison for Florence Italy in the late 1400s: Scribes charge a
> gold florin a page to copy a book, while printers charge three florin, but you got
> 100 copies. So, a couple hundred dollars a page, give or take, and you're
> going to buy how many books?
That was the killer. Cheap printing had an enormous impact on Europe;
nothing was unaffected by it.
> But hey, it should take you all that long to copy a book by hand.
As long as you didn't count the time you spent learning to copy
properly... It's not like you'd miss any favorite TV programs, after all.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
That may or may not be true but the hoi polloi were unlikely to be
able to read it.
Eric Stevens
Edward Green
> A city wide blackout at Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:06:12 +1300 did not prevent Eric
> Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
> following:
> >
> >While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
> >truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
> >
> >The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
> >and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
> >generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
> >written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
> >the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
>
> The Church taught people to read and write, and the main book was the
> Bible. One learned to read and write in Latin. If you didn't need latin, you
> didn't need books. (The reason the paper pushers are called the clerical
> assistants dates to back when it was the Clergy who could read and write. But I
> digress.)
That's neat. "Clerical" seems to be a dying word, at least in the US:
"administrative assistant" is the new attempt to rename the rose.
> Besides, books were beyond bloody expensive. Someplace about here I have a
> price comparison for Florence Italy in the late 1400s: Scribes charge a gold
> florin a page to copy a book, while printers charge three florin, but you got
> 100 copies. So, a couple hundred dollars a page, give or take, and you're
> going to buy how many books?
>
> But hey, it should<n't> take you all that long to copy a book by hand.
Which implies scribes had a guild, to protect the public from bad
book-copying.
Ken Down
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
> That's Gregory of Tours!
Er - that's what I said.
> He is one kind of a Historian I like. You never get bored reading him.
> Which translation do you use?
The one put out by Penguin.
Ken Down
Ken Down
<jma...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> from context, it seemed to me the post you're responding to meant anyone
> could buy a bible in latin.
If you could afford to buy a Bible (or any other book) you could read Latin.
Ken Down
<ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A sculling oar, though slow is a very efficiant method of converting
> power into motion.
The trouble is that half the time you are moving the scull backwards to get
it in position for the next stroke. Thus, in theory at least, a paddlewheel
will be much more efficient.
Unfortunately for your theory, direct trials proved that a screw was more
powerful than a paddlewheel.
> Humans are quite poor at converting food into usefull work, measured on
> simple efficiancy terms.
So how come it's so difficult to lose weight?
Ken Down
<neu...@alltel.net> wrote:
> Actually, the screw is a centrifugal type device, so it is propotional to
> speed cubed. Oars are a positive displacement device, so more "efficient"
> per energy expended. That's why fish have oar-like fins, not lots of
> whirly-gig flagella or screw-type propulsion...
Fish don't swim with their fins.
Ken Down
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> I don't know the dates but for a long period the bible deliberately
> was not translated from latin to prevent the ordinary people from
> reading it too easily. A number of people were prosecuted (aka
> 'burned') for translating the bible into the local vernacular.
Quite correct.
> Mike Baillie is professor of paleoarchaeology at Quenns University,
> Belfast.
Oh, an Irishman.
Ian Stirling
> In article <sp6Vb.819$h44.1...@stones.force9.net>, Ian Stirling
> <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A sculling oar, though slow is a very efficiant method of converting
>> power into motion.
>
> The trouble is that half the time you are moving the scull backwards to get
> it in position for the next stroke. Thus, in theory at least, a paddlewheel
> will be much more efficient.
The stroke 'backwards' is as much a power stroke as when going 'forwards'.
>
> Unfortunately for your theory, direct trials proved that a screw was more
> powerful than a paddlewheel.
A screw can be more powerful than a paddlewheel.
The sculling oar is good as it generates lots of water moving relatively
slowly, not a small amount moving fast as a prop does.
Seppo Renfors
George wrote:
>
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message news:<1rUUb.48177$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net>...
> > "Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:79094630.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<lub520t7jt1vs7odv...@4ax.com>...
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric Stevens
> > >
> > >
> > > How about with VII, XXII parts.
> >
> > I saw once, don't remember where because it's ages ago at least 35 years
> > ago, that they had an approximation for pi. Don't remember it. Sad to say.
> >
> > Inger E
>
> Jones, Phillip S. Recent Discoveries in Babylonian Mathematics. I.
> Zero, Pi, and Polygons. Mathematics Teacher 50 (1957), 162--65.
>
> Supplements Archibald, Raymond Clare, Babylonian Mathematics,
> discussing some work by Neugebauer and others 1936 and 1957. Discusses
> the invention of the zero in (later) Babylonia and its appearance in
> Greece. (Zero was apparently first regarded as a true number by
> Aristotle.) Also discusses a value of 3 1/8 for pi (reported by M.E.M.
> Bruins, anticipated by Neugebauer), a problem to determine the radius
> of a circle circumscribing an isosceles triangle with two sides of 50
> and one of 60
Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> (an often discussed example, originally discovered by
> Bruins, that is still a good algebra problem, using only the
> Pythagorean theorem), and a table giving areas of pentagons, hexagons,
> and heptagons from the square of a side. Not all are accurate, but
> agree with analogous values given later by Heron (c. 75 AD). Heron's
> table included the regular nonagon as well. The article is continued
> in Jones, Phillip S., Recent Discoveries in Babylonian Mathematics.
> II., which however, has a somewhat smaller scope. Reprinted in Swetz,
> Frank J., From Five Fingers to Infinity. Closely related topics:
> Sumerians and Babylonians, The Circle, Zero, Aristotle, and The
> Measurement of Area and Volume.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Ken Down wrote:
>
> In article <c4la20t9hvgvnsjaf...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I don't know the dates but for a long period the bible deliberately
> > was not translated from latin to prevent the ordinary people from
> > reading it too easily. A number of people were prosecuted (aka
> > 'burned') for translating the bible into the local vernacular.
>
> Quite correct.
>
> > Mike Baillie is professor of paleoarchaeology at Quenns University,
> > Belfast.
>
> Oh, an Irishman.
...or more accurately a nutter who happens to be Irish.
pyotr filipivich
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) from posting to soc.history.what-if the
following:
>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<a0sa2053g83406anu...@4ax.com>...
>> A city wide blackout at Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:06:12 +1300 did not prevent Eric
>> Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
>> following:
>> >
>> >While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
>> >truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
>> >
>> >The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
>> >and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
>> >generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
>> >written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
>> >the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
>>
>> The Church taught people to read and write, and the main book was the
>> Bible. One learned to read and write in Latin. If you didn't need latin, you
>> didn't need books. (The reason the paper pushers are called the clerical
>> assistants dates to back when it was the Clergy who could read and write. But I
>> digress.)
>
>That's neat. "Clerical" seems to be a dying word, at least in the US:
>"administrative assistant" is the new attempt to rename the rose.
I've a quote from an English companion to the Missal (long before the
English prayer book in 1549).
Answer at 'Temptacionem'
'sid libra nos a malo, amen."
It were no need for thee this to kenn
for who con not this are lewd men.
['Lewd' has its roots in "lay person" as in "not a member of the clergy"]
This is also the earliest form of the fabled "you are not suppose to
understand this" comment in the code.
Those who con it not are lewd men
>
>> Besides, books were beyond bloody expensive. Someplace about here I have a
>> price comparison for Florence Italy in the late 1400s: Scribes charge a gold
>> florin a page to copy a book, while printers charge three florin, but you got
>> 100 copies. So, a couple hundred dollars a page, give or take, and you're
>> going to buy how many books?
>>
>> But hey, it should<n't> take you all that long to copy a book by hand.
>
>Which implies scribes had a guild, to protect the public from bad
>book-copying.
If you want a quality product ... :-)
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
Cliff Wright
Ken Down wrote:
> In article <c03mid$8pr$3...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, Jordan Abel
> <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>from context, it seemed to me the post you're responding to meant anyone
>>could buy a bible in latin.
>
>
> If you could afford to buy a Bible (or any other book) you could read Latin.
>
> Ken Down
>
Hi I'm back!!!
Ken I'm afraid that doesn't stack up at all. Medieaval kings of England from the Norman
invasion through until the early 13th century were almost totally illiterate. Being able to
sign one's name was a big deal!
The influence that began to change things was probably the Crusades. The influence of Muslim
culture was profound in many areas "book learning" and music being 2 of the most important.
Not only did the church discourage learning, it fell back so far that most priests were only
semi literate. The papacy was caught between a rock and a hard place, ignorance was bliss,
perhaps, but it also lead to heresy unorthodoxy and doctrinal "drift".
What the church wanted was to be indispensable to the ruling classes and an effective monopoly
of literacy was a good start.
If you have ever studied Latin you will find that many early books are written in dreadfully
bad Latin as even the church tended to lose the plot from its own efforts to suppress learning
and literacy.
Books were staus symbol, it didn't necessarily mean you could read them!
Regards Cliff Wright.
Robert Stonehouse
In 1274 a Latin Bible cost about 30 pounds. (A labourer could get two
pounds in a year if he worked every day.) In the 1420s a Lollard New
Testament in English was sold for two pounds sixteen and eightpence,
implying seven to ten pounds for a complete Bible. Tyndale's New
Testament (printed, 1526) went for anything from two shillings and
eightpence to four shillings. A retailer bought 300 copies at
ninepence apiece, but that was from a Dutchman in the Fleet prison -
sounds like a distress sale.
This from W.R. Cooper's introduction to the British Library
publication of Tyndale.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Eric Stevens
Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>
>> (an often discussed example, originally discovered by
>> Bruins, that is still a good algebra problem, using only the
>> Pythagorean theorem), and a table giving areas of pentagons, hexagons,
>> and heptagons from the square of a side. Not all are accurate, but
>> agree with analogous values given later by Heron (c. 75 AD). Heron's
>> table included the regular nonagon as well. The article is continued
>> in Jones, Phillip S., Recent Discoveries in Babylonian Mathematics.
>> II., which however, has a somewhat smaller scope. Reprinted in Swetz,
>> Frank J., From Five Fingers to Infinity. Closely related topics:
>> Sumerians and Babylonians, The Circle, Zero, Aristotle, and The
>> Measurement of Area and Volume.
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >George wrote:
[..]
> >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> >> and one of 60
> >
> >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
>
> Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
IS what you believe!
[..]
Richard Herring
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> writes
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >George wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
>> >> and one of 60
>> >
>> >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
>>
>> Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>
>Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>
>I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
>lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
>50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
>IS what you believe!
>
So, does S-I-D-E spell "angle" in your native language?
--
Richard Herring
JMB
news:40279800...@not.pollis.net.au...
>
>
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >George wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> > >> and one of 60
> > >
> > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> >
> > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>
> Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>
> I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> IS what you believe!
You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle does
not have to equal 180. And given that George mentioned it as being an
"isosceles triangle", there is no way that anybody with a basic knowledge of
maths could think that the figures of 50 and 60 mentioned refered to the
degrees of the angle. Add to that the fact that the problem mentioned was
to find the radius of the circle circumscribing the triangle, which makes
your claims even more daft (if that were possible), and I think I'd have to
agree with Eric, mathematics really isn't your strong point, but then
nothing really is.
>
>
> [..]
>
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
John Byrne
www.iol.ie/~archaeology
To email me use the feedback form on the website.
The address attached to this post is just a spam trap.
Jordan Abel
>
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>><Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>George wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>>....triangle with two sides of 50
>>>>and one of 60
>>>
>>>Surely that cannot make a triangle!
>>
>>Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>
> Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>
> I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> IS what you believe!
the ANGLES have to add up to 180, not the SIDES.
Ken Down
<ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The stroke 'backwards' is as much a power stroke as when going 'forwards'.
Ah, sorry. Did you mean a single oar at the back of the boat, moved from
side to side while the angle changes? If so, I withdraw my comments, which
were based on normal rowing.
Ken Down
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> ...or more accurately a nutter who happens to be Irish.
There are, of course, those who would claim that the two are synonymous.
We live about 80 miles from Ireland and proximity (plus floods of visitors
from across the water in summertime) has not imbued us with great
appreciation for Irish intellect. Charming people, great sense of humour,
quick witted with repartee, but when it comes to adding 2+2 a trifle slower
than everyone else - which is why our local market traders rub their hands
with glee as summer approaches.
Ken Down (north Wales)
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >George wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
>> >> and one of 60
>> >
>> >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
>>
>> Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>
>Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>
>I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
>lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
>50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
>IS what you believe!
>
Sides, Seppo - sides. Not angles.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
>"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
>news:40279800...@not.pollis.net.au...
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>> > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >George wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
>> > >> and one of 60
>> > >
>> > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
>> >
>> > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>>
>> Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>>
>> I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
>> lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
>> 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
>> IS what you believe!
>
>You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle does
>not have to equal 180.
They do on a plane.
Unless of course the plane is flying around the world in which case
the navigator might think the angles exceed 180.
>And given that George mentioned it as being an
>"isosceles triangle", there is no way that anybody with a basic knowledge of
>maths could think that the figures of 50 and 60 mentioned refered to the
>degrees of the angle. Add to that the fact that the problem mentioned was
>to find the radius of the circle circumscribing the triangle, which makes
>your claims even more daft (if that were possible), and I think I'd have to
>agree with Eric, mathematics really isn't your strong point, but then
>nothing really is.
>
>>
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> --
>> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
>> misled.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
Ian Stirling
> <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The stroke 'backwards' is as much a power stroke as when going 'forwards'.
>
> Ah, sorry. Did you mean a single oar at the back of the boat, moved from
> side to side while the angle changes? If so, I withdraw my comments, which
> were based on normal rowing.
Yes, sorry for any misunderstanding.
This can be a very good way of moving heavy loads (60 foot boats were(are?)
regularly moved by a single oar).
JMB
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:45:50 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>
> >"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:40279800...@not.pollis.net.au...
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> >> > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >George wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> >> > >> and one of 60
> >> > >
> >> > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> >> >
> >> > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
> >>
> >> Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
> >>
> >> I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> >> lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> >> 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> >> IS what you believe!
> >
> >You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle does
> >not have to equal 180.
>
> They do on a plane.
>
> Unless of course the plane is flying around the world in which case
> the navigator might think the angles exceed 180.
I think you need to reread what I said too, either that or I have just
missed a joke, but I am a bit tired so that is possible.
>
> >And given that George mentioned it as being an
> >"isosceles triangle", there is no way that anybody with a basic knowledge
of
> >maths could think that the figures of 50 and 60 mentioned refered to the
> >degrees of the angle. Add to that the fact that the problem mentioned
was
> >to find the radius of the circle circumscribing the triangle, which makes
> >your claims even more daft (if that were possible), and I think I'd have
to
> >agree with Eric, mathematics really isn't your strong point, but then
> >nothing really is.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> --
> >> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> >> misled.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Jordan Abel
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:45:50 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>>You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle does
>>not have to equal 180.
>
>
> They do on a plane.
no, the angles do. the sides do not.
> Unless of course the plane is flying around the world in which case
> the navigator might think the angles exceed 180.
sides are not angles... in that case the navigator would probably think
the _sides_ exceeded several thousand, unless he was measuring in light
years or something.
Eric Stevens
Euclidean geometry is the geometry of the plane (plane surface). The
sum of the angles drawn on a plane surface ALWAYS total 180 degrees.
The geometry of the surface of a spehere is such that the sum of the
angles of a triankle is always greater than 180. You can, for example,
have a triangle where every corner is 90 degrees. This is the geometry
of spherical navigation.
On the other hand the geometry of the trumpet-shaped surface known as
the 'pseudo-sphere' is such that the sum of the angles of a triangle
is always smaller than 180 degrees.
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
Jordan Abel
[snip]... none of which has any direct effect on the sum of the sides,
or any rules governing the same. Like he said, reread what he said. look
out for the word "sides" it starts with an S, not an A.
Martin Reboul
> A city wide blackout at Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:06:25 -0800 did not prevent
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
> following:
> >> >news:lub520t7jt1vs7odv...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)
> >
>
> Close.
The same as e then?
Martin Reboul
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >George wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> > >> and one of 60
> > >
> > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> >
> > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>
> Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>
> I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> IS what you believe!
You have a hat Seppo? I thought you must have eaten all yours (corks and all!)
many years ago!
Cheers
Martin
Richard Henry
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c09568$l5b$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
I had a profesor who taught us to memorize e as
2-point-7-andrewjackson-andrewjackson-abomb.
David B.
>>> >You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle
does
>>> >not have to equal 180.
>>>
>>> They do on a plane.
>>>
>>> Unless of course the plane is flying around the world in which case
>>> the navigator might think the angles exceed 180.
>>
>>I think you need to reread what I said too, either that or I have just
>>missed a joke, but I am a bit tired so that is possible.
>
>Euclidean geometry is the geometry of the plane (plane surface). The
>sum of the angles drawn on a plane surface ALWAYS total 180 degrees.
Any chance we can discuss petfood instead? This is really going very very
wrong.
David B.
Seppo Renfors
Are you SURE you are even responding to the correct post? Somehow I
doubt you are!
The relevant defining text is after all "triANGLE" and numbers
undefined by any other means. Therefor it is an indication of the
ANGLE the "SIDE" is intersecting another "side" by. So what else are
the numbers? 50 shithouses, 50 apples and the last 60 is the
"owner-operator" strokes?
In other situations "side" (undefined) indicates an angle when there
is something that indicates that it is a comparison to the "front",
"back", "top", "bottom" or "edge". Further more, one "side" is
opposite the other (and it can't be in a TRIANGLE).... Therefor a
free-standing word "side" cannot indicate "angle" - but then it wasn't
free-standing AND the number has already been defined by "triANGLE" as
it has no other definition. This is rather elementary, I'm surprised
you need to ask!
Oh, I just LOVE the way you take a dive through red paint in order to
claim I am a NATIVE.... That's it isn't it, your attempts at sneering
at what YOU (erroneously) though was "stupid" is inherently related to
"natives" by you, right!
Seppo Renfors
JMB wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:40279800...@not.pollis.net.au...
> >
> >
> > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> > > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >George wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> > > >> and one of 60
> > > >
> > > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> > >
> > > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
> >
> > Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
> >
> > I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> > lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> > 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> > IS what you believe!
>
> You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle does
> not have to equal 180.
See my reply to Herring.
Seppo Renfors
Ken Down wrote:
>
> In article <4026D54B...@not.pollis.net.au>, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> > ...or more accurately a nutter who happens to be Irish.
>
> There are, of course, those who would claim that the two are synonymous.
Indeed there are, and applicable to any nationality you can think of.
The Canadians think that of the Yanks, the Yanks do the same about the
Mexicans... Some Aussies think that of NZ'ers, they think that of us.
> We live about 80 miles from Ireland and proximity (plus floods of visitors
> from across the water in summertime) has not imbued us with great
> appreciation for Irish intellect. Charming people, great sense of humour,
> quick witted with repartee, but when it comes to adding 2+2 a trifle slower
> than everyone else - which is why our local market traders rub their hands
> with glee as summer approaches.
You will find that applies to most any border area - and applies
equally on both sides of borders. The reason is that those who are not
the sharpest tack in the box tend to stand out more and become
noticed.
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
'sides' Seppo - sides. It says so in the same line.
>
>In other situations "side" (undefined) indicates an angle when there
>is something that indicates that it is a comparison to the "front",
>"back", "top", "bottom" or "edge". Further more, one "side" is
>opposite the other (and it can't be in a TRIANGLE).... Therefor a
>free-standing word "side" cannot indicate "angle" - but then it wasn't
>free-standing AND the number has already been defined by "triANGLE" as
>it has no other definition. This is rather elementary, I'm surprised
>you need to ask!
>
>Oh, I just LOVE the way you take a dive through red paint in order to
>claim I am a NATIVE.... That's it isn't it, your attempts at sneering
>at what YOU (erroneously) though was "stupid" is inherently related to
>"natives" by you, right!
Eric Stevens
DickT
The angles, not the sides add up to 180 degrees in the Euclidean
plane. The triangle would be isoceles with a base of 60 (whatever
units) and two sides of 50. We can find the angles by dropping a
perpendicular bisector from the apex to the base, dividing the
triangle into two right triangles with base 30 and hypotenuse 50, We
instanly see that they are 3-4-5 right triangles and the altitude must
be 40. Then the base angles are each arccos 30/50 = 41.41.. degees.
Multiplying this be 2 and subtracting from 180 we get the third angle
of the tringle as 97.18 degrees.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
God - I've been infected and its turning Seppotic. :-(
Eric Stevens
JMB
>
>
> Ken Down wrote:
--SNIP--
> >
> > Oh, an Irishman.
>
> ...or more accurately a nutter who happens to be Irish.
Actually, he is a very well respected academic and researcher. Some details
can be easily found on the Queen's website:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/arcpal/staff/m_baillie.htm
I haven't followed the full conversation so I don't know if the above
description is just more Seppo nonsense or whether it is due to others
making claims on behalf on Baillie that he himself never made. Either way,
the term "nutter" certainly doesn't apply to him (I'm not sure about the
term "Irish", you'd have to ask him).
>
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
JMB
Sides, Eric, not angles. Seppo must be becoming contageous.
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
--
Richard Herring
Hook, line and sinker. This must be how Pavlov felt ;-)
--
Richard Herring
JMB
>
>
> JMB wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:40279800...@not.pollis.net.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> > > > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >George wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> > > > >> and one of 60
> > > > >
> > > > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
> > >
> > > Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
> > >
> > > I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> > > lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> > > 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> > > IS what you believe!
> >
> > You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle
does
> > not have to equal 180.
>
> See my reply to Herring.
I did. It made you look even more foolish. You'd have been better off just
doing what Eric did when he made the same mistake and admitting that you
read it wrong originally.
>
> [..]
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Richard Herring
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> writes
>
>
>JMB wrote:
>>
>> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:40279800...@not.pollis.net.au...
>> >
>> >
>> > Eric Stevens wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>> > > <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >George wrote:
>> >
>> > [..]
>> >
>> > > >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
>> > > >> and one of 60
>> > > >
>> > > >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
>> > >
>> > > Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
>> >
>> > Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
>> >
>> > I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
>> > lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
>> > 50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
>> > IS what you believe!
>>
>> You do realise that the sum of the length of the sides of a triangle does
>> not have to equal 180.
>
>See my reply to Herring.
>
>[..]
Don't just see it, print it out and frame it ;-)
--
Richard Herring
JMB
news:P+0DWLLb...@baesystems.com...
No need to do that. Seppo updates his clangers quite regularly. Just give
him a little time and he'll post something that will made his claims on this
topic seem intelligent by comparison.
>
> --
> Richard Herring
Nicholas Smid
> A city wide blackout at Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:06:12 +1300 did not prevent
Eric
> Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> from posting to soc.history.what-if the
> following:
> >
> >While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
> >truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.
> >
> >The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
> >and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
> >generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
> >written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
> >the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.
>
> The Church taught people to read and write, and the main book was the
> Bible. One learned to read and write in Latin. If you didn't need latin,
you
> didn't need books. (The reason the paper pushers are called the clerical
> assistants dates to back when it was the Clergy who could read and write.
But I
> digress.)
>
As with any very large outfit that has been in business for so long the
Church has had lots of policies, often several at the same time. Well in the
late middle ages, when the reform was getting started, the Catholics did get
pretty repressive alot of the early science was done by church men, often
with incouragement from the bosses. Even Gallilao only really got into
trouble because he published in vanaculer, if he'd published in Laten the
pope would probably have left him alone.
But alot of the major engineering developments, flying buttresses and
putting windows in large buildings, came from building churches, well those
huge Gothic cathedrals, or monestary buildings. It was a monastic order that
built the first parabolic arch bridges, rather than circuler arches, major
step forward. many monistaries had large workshops that advansed trades,
well they could afford to do the R&D, few others could. So like most things
human they did a mix of good and bad though through much of the middle ages
probably more good than bad.
> Besides, books were beyond bloody expensive. Someplace about here I have
a
> price comparison for Florence Italy in the late 1400s: Scribes charge a
gold
> florin a page to copy a book, while printers charge three florin, but you
got
> 100 copies. So, a couple hundred dollars a page, give or take, and you're
> going to buy how many books?
>
> But hey, it should take you all that long to copy a book by hand.
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
Martin Reboul
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> In message <4028340D...@not.pollis.net.au>, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> writes
> >
> >
> >Richard Herring wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <40279800...@not.pollis.net.au>, Seppo Renfors
> >> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> writes
> >> >
> >> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:27:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> >> >> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >George wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[..]
> >> >
> >> >> >> ....triangle with two sides of 50
> >> >> >> and one of 60
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
> >> >>
> >> >> Mathematics really isn't your strong point .....
> >> >
> >> >Oh dear, Eric, now THAT is a real clanger you dropped...
> >> >
> >> >I don't think you should ever be talking about mathematics after that
> >> >lot, when you can't even perform simple addition!! Try adding up
> >> >50+50+60..... IF that adds to 180, I'll eat a hat, but apparently that
> >> >IS what you believe!
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, does S-I-D-E spell "angle" in your native language?
> >
> >Are you SURE you are even responding to the correct post? Somehow I
> >doubt you are!
Oh dear - he's rolling!
> >The relevant defining text is after all "triANGLE" and numbers
> >undefined by any other means. Therefor it is an indication of the
> >ANGLE the "SIDE" is intersecting another "side" by. So what else are
> >the numbers? 50 shithouses, 50 apples and the last 60 is the
> >"owner-operator" strokes?
No, no apples Seppo, the lengths of the *sides* - you know, those three lines
round the edges. The sentence was "....triangle with two sides of 50 and one
of 60...." was it not? You know, like a bar of Toblerone seen from the end, or
a pyramid seen from one side with one eye shut (like the picture on a packet
of 20 Camels?). I'm sure you've seen one somewhere, it looks like half of a
Star of David (you know, the Jewish one?), or if you visualise a square or
rectangle (try and imagine a brick seen from the side, a page of A4 paper or a
football pitch seen from above), then cut it in half from one corner to the
opposite corner and throw one half away... what you are left with is called a
'triangle' by mathematicians and children. They play them in orchestras as
well, they make a little 'dinging', sort of 'tinkly' sound? I know you don't
get out and about much, but surely you have seen one *somewhere*?
BTW Seppo, your unsavoury obsession with lavatories (or 'dunnies' as I think
you call them?) is noted yet again...
> >> >> >Surely that cannot make a triangle!
Oh yes it can Seps.... he should perhaps have explained that the three sides
of a triangle do not always have to be the same length, but probably never
assumed that people as thick as you might manage to switch on a computer and
read it.
Seps, this is hardly advanced trigonometry - you were obviously bullied at
school, so you must have attended a few times at least?
> >In other situations "side" (undefined) indicates an angle when there
> >is something that indicates that it is a comparison to the "front",
> >"back", "top", "bottom" or "edge". Further more, one "side" is
> >opposite the other (and it can't be in a TRIANGLE)....
Now, I'm no mathematician, I must admit, but when describing a right-angled
triangle, the three sides are often refetred to as 'opposite', 'adjacent' and
'hypotenuse'... however, I do not wish to get you inveigled into a new realm
of nit-picking nonsense Seps, lest the entire Internet slows down to a
grinding halt...
> Therefor a
> >free-standing word "side" cannot indicate "angle" - but then it wasn't
> >free-standing AND the number has already been defined by "triANGLE" as
> >it has no other definition. This is rather elementary, I'm surprised
> >you need to ask!
I'm surprised you were daft enough to actually write this reply Seppo, never
mind have the stupidity to send it off!
> >Oh, I just LOVE the way you take a dive through red paint in order to
> >claim I am a NATIVE.... That's it isn't it, your attempts at sneering
> >at what YOU (erroneously) though was "stupid" is inherently related to
> >"natives" by you, right!
>
> Hook, line and sinker. This must be how Pavlov felt ;-)
Very appropriate.... him and those dogs... heh!
Unfortunately, pointing out something in plain English is seldom good enough
for "Dogfood" Renfors, since he is absolutely incapable of ever admitting he
may have been wrong, and finds apologising or backing down completely
impossible.
Once Seppo has 'gone off on one', the only options are to keep arguing forever
(until he gets exhausted) or give up. The latter is of course okay in a
trivial and obvious matter such as this, but since he continues to insist on
accusing me of being "a Nazi", I have to keep kicking his sorry backside and
making a fool out of the noxious little fellow, lest someone, somewhere might
believe the filthy tempered, loud-mouthed, lying little fool. Fortunately, I
find it rather amusing.
As to being a 'native', I think 'inmate' would probably be more appropriate,
but they seem to keep letting him out (I suppose he is harmless in his
foul-tempered way?). You will now be forever classed as a rascist by Seps I
fear, since you used the phrase "native language". He will naturally assume
you were accusing him of being a black fellah, which (as a homophobic,
rascist, amateur nazi) Seppo takes great exception to.
Cheers
Martin
Richard Herring
<mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:ouFKCjJe...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <4028340D...@not.pollis.net.au>, Seppo Renfors
>> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> writes
>> >
>> >Richard Herring wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, does S-I-D-E spell "angle" in your native language?
>> >
[...]
>> >Oh, I just LOVE the way you take a dive through red paint in order to
>> >claim I am a NATIVE.... That's it isn't it, your attempts at sneering
>> >at what YOU (erroneously) though was "stupid" is inherently related to
>> >"natives" by you, right!
>>
>> Hook, line and sinker. This must be how Pavlov felt ;-)
>
>Very appropriate.... him and those dogs... heh!
[...]
>As to being a 'native', I think 'inmate' would probably be more appropriate,
>but they seem to keep letting him out (I suppose he is harmless in his
>foul-tempered way?). You will now be forever classed as a rascist by Seps I
>fear, since you used the phrase "native language".
Thanks for your solicitude, but it was no accident ;-) You can imagine
how he reacts to the discussions of language acquisition etc. in
sci.lang, into which he occasionally stumbles.
--
Richard Herring
JMB
Seppo actually posts to sci.lang? The same Seppo who thinks Irish isn't a
language but just a way of prononcing English words?
To quote him:
"In fact there isn't even a language called "Irish" when it comes to that.
"Irish" can refer to the dialect of English they speak, the unique lilt in
their pronunciation."
(I just love that quote ;^)).
Message ID: news:3DCC6C51...@not.ollis.com.au
Maybe I should start looking at his sci.lang posts. The comedic value alone
must be extraordinary.