The World's Largest Computer in 1951

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around two significant machines: the ENIAC, an early computer that was 10 feet tall, weighed 30 tons, and required 150 kilowatts of power, and the Russian Ekranoplan, a ground effect vehicle that could travel over 400 km/h and weighed 540 tons. The ENIAC utilized a vast number of electronic components but had less processing power than a modern pocket calculator. The Ekranoplan, developed by the Soviet Union, operates just above water using a shock wave principle, allowing it to travel over various terrains. The conversation also touches on trivia and historical facts about these machines, highlighting their unique engineering and capabilities. Overall, the thread showcases a blend of technical details and engaging quiz-like interactions.
  • #1,001
dextercioby said:
"Revolutionized chemistry".And who's responsible for "revolutioning chemistry"?

Dmitri Mendeleev?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,003
Humphrey Davy?
 
  • #1,004
Nope.Yes,it's fair to ask the year,too.Approximately,of course.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,005
dextercioby said:
Nope.Yes,it's fair to ask the year,too.Approximately,of course.
No it's not. All we can do is guess, answer, or ask for another clue.

Was it Faraday?
 
  • #1,006
I'm really sorry to say,but Faraday was not a chemist.

Clue.There's no chemical laboratory in the world without this thing.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,007
Bunsen and his burner
 
  • #1,008
Mr Bunsen?

Edit: Aww, pipped to the post. (Assuming that's the right answer!)
 
  • #1,009
Go ahead Brewnog, I can't stick around right now anyway.
 
  • #1,010
Good try.Not what i had in mind.It can't get any more elemenatry than that.

The difficult,possibly googling part would be to come up with a name and an approximate year.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,011
1924, the invention of Pyrex? :smile:
 
  • #1,012
It's not a chemical substance,but an object,INSTRUMENT,if u prefer.

No more clues.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,013
Buchner filter?
Leiblich condenser?
 
  • #1,014
The only relevant hint I've given is "revolutionized chemistry".

Daniel.
 
  • #1,015
dextercioby said:
I'm really sorry to say,but Faraday was not a chemist.
Michael Faraday's Contributions to Electricity and Chemistry
Address:http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/scientst/faraday.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,016
He was a physicist.It's like saying Hilbert was a physicist,just because Hilbert spaces are crucial in physics and the Hilbert action for the gravitational field is essential in GR.

Electrolysis came after "chemistry was revolutionized".

Need i say that this is not a technical question,so it can be answered by virtually anyone...?

Daniel.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,017
The Centrifuge, invented by Benjamin Robins in the 18th century?

Only chem-pun I can think of around "revolutionized"...
 
  • #1,018
dextercioby said:
He was a physicist.It's like saying Hilbert was a physicist,just because Hilbert spaces are crucial in physics and the Hilbert action for the gravitational field is essential in GR.

Electrolysis came after "chemistry was revolutionized".

Daniel.
Excluding Faraday as the correct answer on the basis he wasn't a chemist, rather than because it isn't the answer your looking for, is snooty and gratitously picayune, since electrochemistry did revolutionise chemistry.
 
  • #1,019
The Periodic Table of Elements, Dmitri Ivancritch Mendeléeff, 1864?? Edit: Oops, already guessed. :redface:
 
  • #1,020
Nope,i excluded Faraday,simply because it was not a revolution. in the sense putting a *************** in a chemistry lab was.:wink:

Mendeleev's first published Table of Elements was in 1869.:wink:

Daniel.
 
  • #1,021
"Revolutionised Chemistry" is a pun of some sort.
 
  • #1,022
The compound microscope, Zacharias Janssen, ~1590??
 
  • #1,023
dextercioby said:
it was not a revolution. in the sense putting a *************** in a chemistry lab was.:wink:


Bench? Sink? Blackboard? Fume cupboard? Fridge? Door? :smile:
 
  • #1,024
Chemists don't need a microscope more than a *********************.

Good guess.That's a biology lab,though.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,025
Yeah, I figured- but the question does seem very broad. Was is some kind of thermometer?? -No one is stealing this from me either! :devil:
 
  • #1,026
It's going to turn out to be something like Cavendish being the first person to bring a round stool into the lab or something along those lines.
 
  • #1,027
I think it was invented by that time,but nope,at that time,putting it in a lab was not crucial.

"Revolutionized chemistry=It literally changed the way chemistry was (being) done".

Daniel.
 
  • #1,028
zoobyshoe said:
It's going to turn out to be something like Cavendish being the first person to bring a round stool into the lab or something along those lines.

It's really essential.You won't believe that simple it is. :wink:

Daniel.
 
  • #1,029
dextercioby said:
It's really essential.You won't believe that simple it is. :wink:

Daniel.
Artificial illumination? Say, an oil lamp?
 
  • #1,030
centrifuge?
 
  • #1,031
Evo's not original (check out the previous page with Ivan's answer).Nope,it's not a lighting tool.

Daniel.

EDIT:You're not original with the centrifuge,either. :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #1,032
dextercioby said:
Evo's not original (check out the previous page with Ivan's answer).Nope,it's not a lighting tool.

Daniel.
sorry, I hadn't read all posts, not even the quetion. :redface: I changed it.
 
  • #1,033
Test tube?
 
  • #1,034
Bunsen burner?
 
  • #1,035
First chemistry textbook, Andreas Libavius, 1597??
Vacuum pump, Otto von Guericke, 1645??

Eh, the pre-dating electrolysis was a hint, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #1,036
Nope to test tube,Bunsen burner,well,it's the 3-rd time i see that answer,but Bunsen was born and worked in the XVIII-th century.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,037
acidimeter?
 
  • #1,038
Interesting,but nope,vacuum pump is in a plasma physics lab.Chemists would be dead without a ***************** in their lab.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,039
A ventilation system?!?
 
  • #1,040
Evo said:
acidimeter?

At that time,they didn't know what acid was.

Please,guess it.If you don't,u'll see that those answers were/are unbelievebly complicated and u'll get a bit of frustration,too.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,041
dextercioby said:
Need i say that this is not a technical question,so it can be answered by virtually anyone...?
It is an object/instrument, but not a technical one.

Chamber pot?
 
  • #1,042
dextercioby said:
At that time,they didn't know what acid was.

Please,guess it.If you don't,u'll see that those answers were/are unbelievebly complicated and u'll get a bit of frustration,too.

Daniel.
Did you ever state the century? Or will that give it away?
 
  • #1,043
COSHH risk assessment?

Coffee machine?
 
  • #1,044
Evo said:
Did you ever state the century? Or will that give it away?

I'm asking for the object,which should be the easy part,then the guy who did it and the year (with approximation) in which it happened.

The century will be given as a clue,if you can't find the name and the year.

But first,the easy part.

No,to Brewnog's jokes.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,045
brewnog said:
Coffee machine?
Heh, that would be math ;)

Okay some guesses: protective clothing (including glasses), storage device, a book, type of camera, uhhh... fire predates chemistry, so I guess that wouldn't have really revolutionized it?
 
  • #1,046
They hadn't discovered corrosive substances,nor dangerous gases which might blow up.Daguerre was not born.:wink: And Gutenberg had already died.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,047
The match?

Robert Boyle (1680), John Walker (1827) or Charles Sauria (1830) are possible answers to that one.
 
  • #1,048
I don't know what they used to light the fire.But they were doing it,so this is not the answer.

Daniel.
 
  • #1,049
Fire extinguisher!
 
  • #1,050
No offense,but the fire extinguisher didn't quite revolutionize chemistry.:smile:

Daniel.
 
Back
Top