Talk:Timeline of historic inventions/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks
Thank you Anon for fixing those incorrectly named edit links. :) --maveric149
Clocks and heating
Are "central heating" and the "clock" really ancient inventions? Perhaps clock should be sun dial or pendulum? Central heating .... ?? mirwin 22:32 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)
The ancient world had centrally heated water for bath houses. I don't think they would have too much problem with bellows pumping slaves.What's wrong with that sentence... I mean its gramatical and all.....
Water clocks based on gravity predate mechanical clocks. And they were more accurate than them for the first couple of hundred years of ticking.
Lots to do here but first I'm going to Timeline of chemical element isolation
- I have moved the Timeline of chemical element isolation reference to the List of timelines page, as it fits better there and this page is really technology related. kiwiinapanic
Are measurements of the earth's dimensions (200 BC) and rotation (350 BC) really inventions (technology) or scientific discoveries/observation? See other timelines such as Timeline of solar system astronomy. - kiwiinapanic 22:45 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
I'm confused about the line
- Sumerian picto-graphic writing
because the article Sumer mentions a cuneiform but not pictographic writing. Can anyone shed light on this? -- Tarquin 16:40 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This list has lots of shaky info. Specifically I remember reading that the circular saw was invented by a woman in an egalitarian religious utopian colony in America; not by an English male. Now where is that source... Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:51 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I was wondering ....
In St. Louis, Nikola Tesla made the first public demonstration of radio communication in 1893. He was addressing the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and the National Electric Light Association at St. Louis, he described and demonstrated in detail the principles of radio broadcasting.
In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis in the same year - two years before Marconi's first experiments-Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube. IEEE reference
If the date of the first practical, fielded, version of the invention is to be used, does this demonstration count as to being the 1st Radio signal? reddi 03:34, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Adding to the comment on the amount of questionable information:
It's pretty disappointing to see an exciting entry like a date of 1595 for the Microscope (well ahead of the telescope, but that's quite possible for a simple (one-lens) microscope) and then find that there's absolutely no information on the matter in the article on microscopes or the non-existent article on the claimed inventor, Zacharias Janssen.
My mistake, more or less: I see that the claim is mentioned in the Timeline_of_microscope_technology, and it's a compound scope. Which raises the question, What do we do about disputed claims in this timeline? Perhaps the same thing that the microscope timeline does? (But that can result in double entries, again as in the microscope timeline, which may be more detail than one wants in this more general list. Dandrake 18:48, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
I don't think Microsoft Windows 3.1 should be in the timeline of "invention".
As someone wrote, "Microsoft realized early on that it didn't need to spend much on innovation or product development because it could simply come out with cheap imitations of popular products a few months or a few years later, and use the savings to drive the original products out of the market through vicious price competition. Far from hailing Bill Gates as a great innovator, I see him as the annoying kid in class who cheats off your paper and then gets a better grade than you."
"Carpet sweeper"? "Electric dry shaver"? "Kodak hand camera"? "Microsoft Windows"??? Please...
There are many items that could be removed from this list.
Let's focus on Stuff that Matter(TM)...
Cultivation of grains and domestication of animals, in the 3rd millennium BC? Where do people get these ideas? That's off by more than two millennia, though the details are highly controversial. Yeah, I know, this is a Wiki, fix it yourself, and I will when I have my books at hand, but really! Conversely, that time seems pretty early for pure mercury to be in use; I guess no one will ever volunteer to give us the source for this datum.
The 35th century BC was before the early 3rd millennium, not after. And Chinese ideograms are definitely not 31st century, just a century after hieroglyphics. I gues it's time to shut up and just rewrite a major part of this timeline and get it as right as can easily be done. But it reminds me of the weakness of a system in which anybody drops anything into the text and is not really expected to go to the trouble of mentioning a source. While we're at it, who will be first to go through and put in headings so that the entire timeline isn't one huge glob? Dandrake 18:53, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
Domestication of sheep and goats, 8,000 BC, happens to be in the almost-current issue of Science, 7 November 2003. Would anyone like to join the Document Your Dates movement? Dandrake 07:41, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
A vote of thanks to Morwen for putting in the section headings.
Moved a bunch of things, with dates mostly from Columbia History of the World: not the ultimate authority, but at least it doesn't have howlers like agriculture being invented in the 3rd millennium BC. A couple of century headings are still under the wrong (3rd) millennium; I don't want to change them until and unless I can be reasonably sure the data aren't nonsense. Anyone? Dandrake 08:51, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
The pure samples of mercury, zinc, etc have been commented out until someobdy can give support for these extraordinary claims. Dandrake 06:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
35th and 31st centuries
The 35th and 31st centuries BC have long been filed under the third millennium BC. This is wrong. As I'm unwilling to assert that all these things were invented in the 4th millennium, I've cut them out and archived them right here, to be restored correctly by anyone who has good data on the real dates. Dandrake 06:33, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
35th century BC
31st century BC
- Drainage and Sewage system in India
- Dams, canals, stone sculptures using inclined plane and lever in Sumeria
There are two entries for parachute. No sources, but someone should fix this. -prat 12:46, 2004 Jan 15 (UTC)
Are SACD and DVD-audio important inventions? Only time will tell, but for now I don't think we can say so. Otherwise, they are just another format, like 8-track tape. -- The Anome 13:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Language
There is a claim that "spoken language" (by which I assume the author meant "syntactic language") predates homo sapiens. Can anyone supply a reference for that? I haven't completely reviewed the literature, but I am not aware that any evidence exists to support that claim.
-- Selket Dec 9, 2004
I changed the entry for "spoken language" to simply "language" (early languages may have been gestural) and linked it to Origin of language which doesn't say if other hominids definitely developed language. Personally, I would get rid of the "pre homo sapiens" and "with homo sapiens" categories and replace them with Paleolithic and Neolithic.
--Brunnock 2005 Feb 10
Paleolithic and Neolithic?
Instead of assigning prehistoric inventions to pre homo sapiens and with homo sapiens categories, perhaps we could use the Paleolithic and Neolithic ages as most archaeologists do? -Brunnock 2005 Feb 8
Centuries prior to 2nd millenium
I don't think there are enough entries for centuries prior to the 2nd millenium to justify separate century headings. If there are no objections, I'd like to get rid of the headings. Brunnock 14:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Chinese Inventions
Hum...there seems to be a lack of Chinese Inventions and Discoveries. Have anyone read The Genius of China 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention by Robert Temple? It provides a small list of Chinese invention. Maybe it could be added onto this Timeline.
- There are many Chinese inventions in the list. And I'm sure that the participants have read many books. Since this timeline is dependent upon the referenced Wikipedia articles, you should edit the respective articles. --Brunnock 14:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
what the jiggily mop?? şÀ[[]]
Of course someone can read the book or find evidence themselves if they don't trust it.
Time lags between Chinese Inventions/Discoveries and their Adoption/Recognition in the West
Agriculture
Row cultivation of crops and intensive hoeing 6thC BC 2,200 years
The iron plow 6thC BC 2,300 years
Efficient horse harness -- trace 4thC BC 500 years
-- collar 3rdC BC 1,000 years
The rotary winnowing fan 2ndC BC 2,000 years
The multi-tube "modern" seed drill 2ndC BC 1,800 years
Astronomy & Cartography
Recognition of sunspots as solar phenomenon 4thC BC 2,000 years
Quantitative cartography 2ndC BC 1,300 years
Discovery of the solar wind 6thC BC 1,400 years
The Mercator map projection 10thC AD 600 years
(Mounted) Equatorial astronomical instruments 13thC AD 600 years
Engineering
Sprouting bowls and standing waves 5thC BC never
Cast iron 4thC BC 1,700 years
Double-acting piston air bellows 4thC BC 1,900 years
Double-acting piston water bellows 4thC BC 2,100 years
Crank handle 2ndC BC 1,100 years
"Cardan suspension" or Gimbals 2ndC BC 1,100 years
Manufacture of steel from cast iron 2ndC BC 2,000 years
Deep drilling for natural gas 1stC BC 1,900 years
Belt drives 1stC BC 1,800 years
Water power 1stC AD 1,200 years
Chain pump 1stC AD 1,400 years
Suspension bridge 1stC AD 1,200 years
First cybernetic machine 3rdC AD 3,000 years
Essentials of the steam engine 5thC AD 3,200 years
"Magic" mirrors 5thC AD 1,500 years
"Siemens" steel process 5thC AD 1,300 years
Segmental arch bridge AD610 500 years
Chain drive AD976 800 years
Underwater salvage operations 11thC AD 800 years
Domestic & Industrial Technology
Lacquer: the first plastic 13thC BC 3,200 years
Strong beer (sake) 11thC BC never
Petroleum and natural gas as fuel 4thC BC 2,300 years
Paper 2ndC BC 1,400 years
Wheelbarow 1stC BC 1,300 years
Sliding calipers 1stC BC 1,500 years
Magic lantern 2ndC BC 1,800 years
Fishing reel 3rdC BC 1,400 years
Stirrup 3rdC AD 300 years
Porcelain 3rdC AD 1,700 years
Biological pest control 3rdC AD 1,700 years
Umbrella 4thC AD 1,200 years
Matches AD577 1,000 years
Chess 6thC AD 500 years
Brandy and Whisky 7thC AD 500 years
Mechanical clock AD725 585 years
Printing -- block printing 8thC AD 700 years
-- movable type AD1045 400 years
playing cards 9thC AD 599 years
Paper money 9thC AD 850 years
"Permanent" lamps 9thC AD never
Spinning wheel 11thC AD 200 years
Medicine & Health
Circulation of blood 6thC BC 1,800 years
Circadian rhythms in the human body 2ndC BC 2,150 years
Endocrinlogy (glands, secretion) 2ndC BC 2,100 years
Deficiency diseases 3rdC AD 1,600 years
Diabetes detection by urine analysis 7thC AD 1,000 years
Use of thyroid hormone 7thC AD 1,250 years
Immunology -- innoculation against smallpox 10thC AD 800 years
Mathematics
Decimal system 14thC BC 2,300 years
A place for zero 4thC BC 1,400 years
Negative numbers 2ndC BC 1,700 years
Extraction of higher roots & solutions of 1stC BC 600 years
higher equations
Decimal fractions 1stC BC 1,600 years
Using algebra in geometry 3rdC AD 1,000 years
A refined table of pi 3rdC AD 1,200 years
"Pascal's" triangle of coefficients AD1100 427 years
Magnetism
First compasses 4thC BC 1,500 years
Dial and pointer devices 3rdC AD 1,200 years
Magnetic declination of Earth's magnetic field 9thC AD 600 years
Magnetic remanence and induction 11thC AD 600 years
The Physical Sciences
Geobotanical prospecting 5thC BC 2,100 years
First law of motion 4thC BC 1,300 years
Hexagonal structure of snowflakes 2ndC BC 1,800 years
Seismograph AD130 1,400 years
Spontaneous combustion 2ndC AD 1,500 years
"Modern" geology 2ndC AD 1,500 years
Phosphorescent paint 10thC AD 700 years
Transportation & Exploration
Kite 5th/4thC BC 2,000 years
Manned flight with kites 4thC BC 1,650 years
First relief maps 3rdC BC 1,600 years
First contour transport canal 3rdC BC 1,900 years
Parachute 2ndC BC 2,000 years
Miniature hot-air baloons 2ndC BC 1,400 years
Rudder 1stC AD 1,100 years
Masts/sailing: Batten sails -- staggered masts 2ndC AD never
Multiple masts, fore & Aft rigs 2ndC BC 1,200 years
Leeboards 8thC AD 800 years
Watertight compartments in ships 2ndC BC 1,707 years
Helicopter rotor & propeller 4thC AD 1,500 years
Paddle-wheel boat 5thC AD 1,000 years
Land-sailing AD650 1,050 years
Canal pound-lock AD984 400 years
Sound & Music
Large tuned bell 6thC BC 2,500 years
Tuned drums 2ndC BC unknown
Hermetically sealed research laboratories 1stC BC 2,000 years
First understanding of musical timbre 3rdC AD 1,600 years
Equal temperament in music AD1584 50 years
Warfare
Chemical warfare: poison gas, smoke bombs 4thC AD 2,300 years
& tear gas
Crossbow 4thC BC 200 years
Gunpowder 9thC AD 300 years
Flame-thrower 10thC AD 1,000 years
Flares & fireworks 10thC AD 250 years
Soft bombs & grenades AD1000 400 years
Metal-cased bombs AD1221 246 years
Land mines AD1277 126 years
Sea mines 14thC AD 200 years
Rocket 11thC AD 200 years
Multi-staged rockets 14thC AD 600 years
Guns, cannon & mortars -- firelance AD1120 450 years
-- true gun AD1280 50 years
Microphone
I am removing the microphone by Charles Wheatstone entry for a second time.
The microphone article states that it was invented in 1877. The Charles Wheatstone article states that his "microphone" consisted of 2 slender rods. In other words, a stethoscope.
--Brunnock 12:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Am no expert on this stuff but have recently vied a DVD called "Secrets of the Stone Age" by Richard Rudgley - he is an anthropologist who points out the discoveries of a considerable amount of evidence suggesting that such things as cloth (requiring looms)and beads (requiring drills)of a fairly advanced nature were being manufactured some 30-40 thousand years ago.
Suggests that you may need to revise the early part of the timeline - am just a novice at the moment so leaving it alone . . .
rossfi 19-08-2005
List of accidental inventions?
How about a List of accidental inventions? Like silly putty, play-doh, etc? Gflores Talk 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Inventions qualifying for this list
Wikipedia:Notability: "A list should contain only notable entries"
- Fundamental breakthrough (No prior art, not just variation)
- Universal/generic nature (archetype)
- New brand/product alone does not qualify
- Apparent contemporary popularity is irrelevant ("Notability is not popularity")
- Citation in media alone does not mean automatic qualification - relevance comes first
I urge anyone making additions to this list, especially when the immediate past and present is concerned (1990s and 2000s), to better think twice before adding something easily. Have a look at the inventions mentioned here, and what makes them worthy to be included: they represent a fundamental breakthrough, and they are of an universal and generic nature, NOT a new product building upon well-known archetypes, NOT a new brand and NOT a minor variation of existing stuff. The first portable games console, the first digital audio player, the first internet search engine may be entries qualifying for this list (no matter if they are well-known brands/products today or not - popularity is NOT a criteria for this list, and no, the mentioning in a popular magazine is neither), I-Pod, Wii or YouTube are surely not, keeping that in mind. Please give it a thought and maybe put it up for discussion here first if you are unsure. Quantity is not quality. Thank you. Bluebird47 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- This entire article is currently OR.WolfKeeper 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- This clearly cannot be a list of all inventions (there's massive numbers of inventions- inventing things is easy- it's inventing something particularly clever or useful that is hard). This is a list of the most important inventions.WolfKeeper 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- For an item to be on the list we need to reference that the particular invention is considered to be one of the greatest inventions of all time; otherwise the entry should be removed, as by adding it here we are saying that it is especially important, and that is OR and that is not allowed in the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- The name of the article is Timeline of invention, not List of most important inventions. There is nothing in the title to even suggest that the article should only include the most important inventions ever. If you want a list of the most important inventions ever, then you can always create a new article to deal with it, but there is no need to restrict the current article in such a way. If the size of the article is a problem, then it can always be divided into several smaller articles, as it has been suggested in #Splitting page below. Jagged 85 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is, because the article becomes unreadable if you include every invention. Basically, any article has to be restricted in scope to be something that can be sensibly covered here. Otherwise we will end up with every patented invention listed here, if it has been mentioned by any news source (and in practice many of them would be paid to mention it behind the scenes). That doesn't work; the wikipedia is not lists. This kind of article only works if you stick to things that are more important than normal, and webmail for example simply doesn't make the cut; it just isn't of the same quality as things that feed people or keep people alive or for which there are no reasonable alternatives; and that's why you won't be able to find a reference to it being a truly important invention.WolfKeeper 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest anything that does not and should not have its own a Wikipedia article should be discounted, but other than that, I would be inclined to include most things (excepting variations). -- Beland (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, has anyone noticed that beer was mentioned twice? After looking at the history of beer, however, I couldn't figure out if it should be there or not.GoogleplexPlus (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Splitting page
This list has gotten far too long to be readable anymore, and it is difficult to manage (keeping focus on significant inventions). Therefore I propose splitting it into four parts:
- 1st century BC and before
- 1st century to 10th century
- 11th century to 18th century
- 19th century to present
I first thought of splitting according to some non-numerical scheme (e.g. Classical Period / Middle Ages / Modern Times), but this has the problem of disputed starting/ending times and it only applies to European history really.
A problem is the large number of pages linking to this page, usually referring to a specific part of it. Each link would have to be specified. A possible solution: keeping this general page with only the most important inventions for each period, with links to the more detailed sub-articles. This way none of the original links has to be changed while creating a good overview page for anyone interested in a rough but digestable overview on inventions throughout history.
Please give your input and/or alternative suggestions; I will wait a few days before going ahead. Bluebird47 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you split this article into multiple articles, then it will become even more difficult to maintain.
- If the current list is too long, then prune the list. --Sean Brunnock 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This article is plagued by multiple vandalism every day, plus people who litter it with inventions which are no real inventions, so in fact it's hard to keep track of additions and deletions even with the help of the watchlist. There are only two solutions: radically shorten it, which however would be to the detriment of legitimate content, or splitting it, leading to the linking problem among other things. So I thought of keeping a reduced overview article of the whole period on this page, with more detailed account for each era on four sub-pages. That's the only reasonable solution I can think of, if you got other ideas, please post them here. Bluebird47 10:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I took wiimote off because it does not qualify.
Questionable edits
In my opinion, there have been a rash of questionable additions and changes to this list recently. The edits appear to be nationalistic in nature. I've been trying to correct errors, but I'm getting overwhelmed. In the past, I simply had to cite my sources and that was that, but it appears that there are groups of people who seem to be pursuing an agenda of rewriting history (see Talk:Pottery). I'll continue to try to keep this list and source articles updated, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Brunnock 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Chess
I don't think chess qualifies as an invention. The first board game might be an invention, but I don't want to start listing every board game ever designed. --Brunnock 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Irrigations, canals, drainage, ...
Are these individual inventions? Or just variations on water channels? --Brunnock 16:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- According to [1], drainage was developed by the Sumerians along with irrigation. --Brunnock 13:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"The New Revolution in Media Distribution"
In 1994,Joseph Risolia recieved a United States patent for the first cd/dvd vending machine.His company,Intune, commercialized the sale of music through fully automated machines and the internet before Apple launched their suspiciously and closely named operation "Itunes".After succesfully operating cd/dvd vending machines around the world,the invention helped spur the development of a new invention, the very first Digital Content vending machine.This machine allowed an individual to purchase digital content such as mp3's and movies directly from a vending machine to their handheld computer,cell phone or ipod(even though the first machine and patent was issued and developed before the proliferation of Ipods).Joseph Risolia recieved the patent for the first Digital Content vending machine in december of 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefunkhouse (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Blu-ray, DVD drivers and Intel Pentium processors
I can't see how "Blu-ray discs" can be compared to telephones and automobiles. Not everything can be classified as an invention. Blu-ray discs are no more than a sort of compact discs and those were "invented" in 1970s, but hey, once we have started we could also list Memorex 52x CD-R:s to. Why stop? I "invented" a "stone-washer" when I was eight, that should also join the list. -Funper 22:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Many of the latest "inventions" are simply standards, variations on a theme, or even marketing gimmicks. Feel free to purge the list. --Sean Brunnock 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would not hesitate but there is to much. Suggesting rewrite of the article? --Funper 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to rewrite the article. If there's an entry you think should not be on the list, just remove it and make a note in the edit summary. --Sean Brunnock 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Telephone
Since there were versions before Bell, perhaps a note to make it clear? Perhaps a list in paranthesis by those preceding him?DanielDemaret 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- There are thorough articles at Invention of the telephone and Timeline of the telephone. I'd say pick an inventor and have the entry in this article point to Timeline of the telephone. No need to reproduce that timeline here. --Sean Brunnock 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Paper clip
Removed:
- 1901: Paperclip: Johan Vaaler
This is apparently a persistent falsehood. Vaaler patented a type of paper clip but it was not the first, and his version was never widely used. The paperclip article suggests it was invented much earlier, but gives no fixed date.
Sketches are not inventions
A sketch is not an invention. That's why this list doesn't state that Leonardo invented the helicopter and Babbage invented the computer. --Sean Brunnock 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try telling that to the patent office.WolfKeeper 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between something that self-evidently wouldn't work with the technology of the time (Leonardo's helicopter) and something that would (Babbage's computer). The evidence from the London Science Museum's construction of the difference engine with contemporary techniques is that Babbage's idea works.WolfKeeper 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- There was no patent office during the Middle Ages. The rule on this timeline is first working version. That's been the rule for years. Please respect the rules. If you want to make changes, please discuss it first. --Sean Brunnock 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll have to delete all the patent based inventions, or move them to a different date then. The patent offices don't consistently require a working version. Also, this is a very non standard definition of invention that you are attempting to use.WolfKeeper 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Patents have only been around for a few hundred years. This timeline goes back over a million years. Therefore, patents are irrelevant to this article. --Sean Brunnock 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm unclear that that is so. Also, I'm trying to get my head what you mean here, or what the ramifications of it are. So if I think up a device, draw a picture of it, hand the diagram to a machinist, and he builds it and it works. Then according to the standards of this article the machinist is the one that invented it?WolfKeeper 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in hypothetical situations and I'm not interested in doing original research. --Sean Brunnock 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Great. In that case, please can you give a reference to the definition of 'invention' you are using in this article then? Since you aren't engaged in OR it should be easy to give this.WolfKeeper 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You could read the invention article- An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty...A "castle in the air" or a "pie in the sky" (or "castles in Spain") may refer to a creative idea which does not reach fruition due to practical considerations. --Sean Brunnock 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Atlatl changed to Spear Thrower
I boldly changed the name Atlatl to Spear Thrower, because the link stated that the device was invented in North Africa. Atlatl is presumably the North/South American name. I think 'Spear Thrower' is more widely recognised - I had never heard of Atlatl, and couldn't guess what it could possibly be. Better to go for an internationally recognised term. In my country, however, it is known as a Woomera and may predate the North African invention, but I don't have a reference to prove it. It is also known as a 'Throwing Stick', but that name is ambiguous as it could also apply to a stick which is itself thrown rather than a stick which does the throwing. An example of this is the boomerang.Iramoo Bearbrass 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Disputes_over_style_issues --Sean Brunnock 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Interesting. What about the Atlatl though - if it was invented in Nth Africa, should we use a native american indian name for it, or a descriptive English language name? Iramoo Bearbrass 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think you should discuss that on the Atlatl article. --Sean Brunnock 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
First computer
By definition, a universal, general-purpose computer has to be Turing complete. By that definition, ENIAC was the first computer. I realize that Zuse's Z3 was proven to be Turing complete, but Zuse never intended for the Z3 to be Turing complete. It wasn't even proven possible until 1998. --Sean Brunnock 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, is this what the above paragraph is saying?
- to qualify as a computer a machine must be Turing complete;
- the Z3 was Turing complete;
- the designer didn't intend the Z3 to be Turing complete;
- therefore the Z3 was not a computer.
- Or, as seems quite likely, have I misunderstand what was intended? Adrian Robson 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rojas discovered a hack which allows the Z3 to simulate conditional branching. Prior to 1998, it hadn't even been suggested.
- You might as well argue that the Nazca Indians invented hot air balloons. --Sean Brunnock 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
1900
Year 1900 is in 19th century, not 20th, how can we fix it? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, 1900 is part of the [[1900s], so it went under that heading. A case of pick the lesser of two evils. --Sean Brunnock 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ball bearing
Wolfkeeper,
Did da Vinci create a ball bearing or did he just draw one? --Sean Brunnock 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- He definitely drew one. It's the earliest known diagram or mention of one. It seems reasonable to assume that he invented it. Generally, most inventions are dated from patent date. A patent is just a document with a diagram and description.WolfKeeper 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Drawings are not inventions. See above. --Sean Brunnock 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. They certainly can be. But the question might be whether they had successfully invented it. It seems to me that the real question would be with a drawing as to whether the diagram *as described* is actually a workable design with the technology of the day.WolfKeeper 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is a working model of one on display in Melbourne Australia right now, alongside models of all his other inventions [2]. I had a play with it last week - it certainly looks like it works. Come over and have a look for yourselves! (closes 1 October). Perhaps the exhibition will move to a location near you???? Iramoo Bearbrass 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I found it odd that Da Vinci is listed as inventing the ball bearing on this article, but neither his article nor the ball bearing article mentions it. 69.60.229.26 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Semi Ring Fabry-Perot (SRFP) Resonator
Can someone explain what this invention is? Is it significant enough to have a place in this article? - TexMurphy 09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs on this list. --Sean Brunnock 11:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Architecture is not mentioned
Or specific architectural inventions such as the arch, dome or column. Mr Miles 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Boredom
This word was "invented" by charles dickens in bleak house, surely it deserves a mention? ~ SleweD 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- This type of "invention" is best listed in a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Web mail is NOT notable for this list
Web mail is just a variation of standard Email. It is not a fundamental invention, it does not remove the need for a computer to read your mail, all it does is make it easier to read your mail. There are other pre-existing ways to achieve essentially the same effect. Removed, with extreme prejudice.WolfKeeper 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Web-based email removed the need for a seperate email application and made it possible to access e-mail through a web browser instead. There was never any pre-existing ways to achieve this, therefore it does constitute an invention. If this invention is notable enough to have its own article, then it is notable enough for this list. Jagged 85 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's merely a convenience. Accessing e-mail through a browser is not a fundamental invention. The fact that it has an article does not make it notable for this list; almost everything in the wikipedia is invented either conceptually or physically, but that does not make it in and of itself eligible to be here.WolfKeeper 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your argument is vacuous anyway. Would you want to include web browser implementations of spreadsheets, word processors, arcade games, chat rooms, etc. etc. etc. etc.WolfKeeper 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Removed. Again. Do not reinsert it.WolfKeeper 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I find your argument for removing it from the list unconvincing. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline is concerned with whether an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
- That's the definition of notable for being an article. That's not at all the same as being notable for being referenced from an article.WolfKeeper 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Web-based email even has an article obviously means that it's already passed the notability test. As for what constitutes a fundamental invention, that's too subjective. An invention is an invention, regardless of whether or not it's ground-breaking, as long as it's innovative. Jagged 85 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a list of all inventions. This 'invention' is so far below the level of what might be reasonable to add, as to not even be funny.WolfKeeper 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Far below in what way? Webmail was innovative, influential, and significant, so what else could you mean? Either way, trying to personally decide which inventions are significant and which are not would be original research.
- Wrong. That is precisely what it is. It is not verifiable that webmail is one of the most important inventions of all time. What notable opinion says this? There is none. You or I are not notable. You have not referenced anyone significant that says it is. You need to do to find this, before reinserting it in this list. It is not nearly enough to reference that it is an invention. That is not the question.WolfKeeper 01:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- It would be better to just rely on other sources, rather than on our own personal opinions. Also, I've just added a few references for Webmail, and it might also be a good idea adding sources for other inventions as well. Jagged 85 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- They are completely insufficient. This is not a list of all inventions.WolfKeeper 01:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Restored. Again. Do not re-delete it. ;) Jagged 85 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be an idiot.WolfKeeper 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to resort to personal attacks. Jagged 85 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just restored the inventions you removed in your last few edits. See #Inventions qualifying for this list above. Jagged 85 02:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the references do indeed totally configure to Wikipedia's rules. I think that the proper allocation for the article being to tagged would be in respect to a cleanup citation. What do you guys think? InternetHero 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Title
"Timeline of the most important inventions" In titles, the important words are all capitalized, so it'd be Timeline of the Most Important Inventions But I can't figure out how to change it (can't find the title text in the 'edit this page' tab) so someone else do it, please. 166.214.214.183 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the wikipedia house style is defaulting everything to lower case unless you have to for it to make sense or proper nouns, but have the first letter uppercase.WolfKeeper 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, oh well. Nevermind then ^_^' 166.214.67.223 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.67.223 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
iPhone is not a notable invention
But multi-touch screens are.
An iPhone is really not a notable invention and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas d (talk • contribs) 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
drill, dental drill, bow drill, surgery, dental surgery
7000 BC: Drill in Mehrgarh 7000 BC: Bow drill in Mehrgarh 7000 BC: Dental drill in Mehrgarh (Pakistan) 7000 BC: Surgery in Mehrgarh 7000 BC: Dental surgery in Mehrgarh
It seems wrong to list the same invention five times, but then again, it's not easy to decide which of these entries are redundant, and how many are worth keeping. I'm going to cut it down to just 'bow drill' and 'dental surgery', but fix it if you disagree. Tocky 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Selectivity/Propaganda
I know that the 12 and 13th centuries were pretty dismal, but that does not mean these sections should be bolstered by listing every single thing a few folkds in the Middle East purportedly made (esp. when most of the damn links don't even point at real objects, e.g; Programmable robot). It's not as if every single thing by Edison or DaVinci are listed... --Belg4mit 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW that one was in the news recently. The programmable robot is real enough. It was programmed by running cord around a cylinder with nails on it. You can program the movement by turning the cord back around the nail- this causes the cylinder to spin the other way as you unwind the cord; and the cylinders are attached to the wheels of the robot. It was very clever, and IMO deserves to be here.WolfKeeper 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Repeated items
Some inventions here are listed more than once, in different centuries, like the fountain pen, parachute, adding machine, etc. Things can only be invented once, can't they? --Marshmello 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes and no. An item can be invented in one culture, and later re-invented in another culture which never received knowledge of the invention from the first one. The inclusion statement at the top of this article implies that each item should only be listed once. I would recommend checking the articles on each invention to make sure that all of the multiple claims are described there, and then pick the appropriate one to list here. People who want to get the "full story" about multiple re-inventions (or when the device became practical or popular to use) can click through to the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Interwiki
I am not registrated for enough a long time on en:wikipedia. Please can you make a link to the french article fr:Chronologie de l'histoire des techniques. Thanks --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
scramjets
Although the australian scramjet flew first, it didn't create positive net thrust, so I'm going to argue that the American scramjet system 'invented' scramjets; and I propose to change this entry. Comments before I do this?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- You argue that da Vinci's sketches count as inventions but Australia's scramjet wasn't? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're talking in circles. First you argue that da Vinci's sketches count as inventions even though he never developed working versions. Now you're saying that the Australians didn't invent the scramjet even though they created a working version. You have your own set of rules and you keep applying them differently to win whatever debate you're involved in. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quite the contrary, you have arbitrarily created your own set of rules (which vary significantly from the wikipedia's policies) and are trying to force them to be used here. I'll accept a link to a notable source saying that the Australian researchers have successfully built a fully working scramjet within the next two weeks, otherwise it's gone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
However, on July 30, 2002, the Hyshot scramjet experiment, developed by the University of Queensland, had a successful launch of the world's first flight test of supersonic combustion, the process used in an air-breathing supersonic ramjet engine, known as a scramjet. - Daphne Burleson. Space Programs Outside the United States: All Exploration and Research. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786418524
- I'm not saying it wasn't a worlds first, but that's a test flight, and it doesn't say that it was a fully working scramjet system; and other references say it wasn't capable of sustaining flight. Unless the invention is a propulsion system with negative net thrust? A propulsion system that slows the vehicle that carries it down? A great invention, clearly historic!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you think that Aeolipiles are rockets, then it's not a stretch to say that the Australians developed a working scramjet. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Works in what sense? What does it do? The aeolipile at least opened temple doors. It doesn't seem that they have successfully invented a scramjet if it doesn't accelerate. This was only a successful test flight of a partial implementation of an invention.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aeolipile rockets were used to open temple doors? Where on earth do you learn this stuff? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you went ahead and deleted the scramjet entry. Like I said Vlad- you operate by your own rules. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- What policy are you talking about? There's a policy on "partial inventions"? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's a citation for the Australian scramjet right in this thread. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. It is not sufficient for something to have been invented, it has to be a historic invention, it has to actually have had a direct impact on the world. You have completely failed to show this. This engine didn't produce positive thrust, didn't maintain altitude, only worked in a screaming dive. Yeah, a real good invention for this article that is. As an R&D test it excelled, but it's not a complete invention. If you believe otherwise you simply have to give us a reference saying that it was.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you get out of this? Why do you do this crap? Why can't you just read books, take classes and educate yourself instead of pretending to be an expert? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Claim? What claim? First you ask for comments, so I made a comment. Then you ask for a citation, so I give a citation. Now you're claiming that scramjets aren't historic enough. Did you forget to take your bipolar medication or something? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove Vandalism
Can someone please remove the invention of homosexuality at the bottom of the 1st millennium ce. I tried to remove it but I can't find it in the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.229.64 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I took it out yesterday. You may have a caching problem. Try using the reload function of your browser on the article. If that fails clear the cache in your browser, and then reload, and if that fails it may be your ISP has cached and old version of the page- you should check with them.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What cleanup is needed?
What specific actions are needed for the cleanup tag to be removed? So far the only thing I see is the need to deal with items that are listed more than once. -- Beland (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
iRobot vacuum cleaner
I'm proposing taking this out, unless there's objections. It's unclear that it's really the best thing since sliced bread, unless anyone has a good reference...?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2000s Inventions
It seems like most of the 2000s inventions have been moved to the 2000s in science and technology page. Isn’t the purpose of this article to put a list of inventions all in the same place? Just a thought, because the 2000s seem very sparse on the page. I realize that a lot of the stuff on the 2000s in science and technology page is about technological developments instead of inventions, but there's still some stuff that could probably be included. Shapeshift1 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's too early for people to say what the most important inventions are yet. A lot of inventions like the internet would be such a tiny blip on peoples radar the time, and if you told people about it they would laugh, but 20 years later... OMG the internet!!!!!!!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- So we’re gonna wait for another decade to add stuff to the list which has already been invented? I think the least we can do is thoroughly check out the List of emerging technologies page and think about adding some of those things, though I’m sure it’s already been done. I definitely think more should be added (as if you couldn’t tell). Shapeshift1 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that’s ridiculous, not to say I don’t see where you’re coming from. I honestly don’t see the harm in including things that have been recently invented and seem important, because we certainly have a list of what those things are. How would that be a bad thing? I think it would add a lot to the article. Shapeshift1 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- You really need to find a reliable source that consensus says that, without any hyperbole, means that x is one of the most important inventions of all time. A lot of 'inventions' are just neater versions of what went before. Some people keep adding the iphone here for example, but it's just a neat cell phone/organizer.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I predict that 2000s inventions like SpaceCraftOne, Braille Gloves, the Hybrid Car, Light Transmitting Concrete, Infrared Fever Screening System, the artificial liver, and the phone tooth qualify for the list. These are only suggestions. CaptainGood (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hybrid_electric_vehicle#History - 1901 ;-) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Telescope POV-PUSHING
This edit[3], which subverts several thousand reliable sources for one questionable one as to who invented the telescope, really takes the cake. I have added a ((totally-disputed)) tag because of this. No telling how many other little gems there are like this one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I've removed it. How about you get a sense of proportion on an article with over 244 references, and come back to the article then?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I just checked the entry for Microscope[4] right below telescope and its wrong to. Scrolled a few up and machine gun is wrong as well. I think I got my "sense of proportion". I put the tag back. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- There have been a huge number of changes to this article just since May[5]
- Picking randomly by section brings up dubious entries in every section such as:
- 50 ka: Bow in Tunisia [4] [5] - seems dubious with a dead link and a non-answer link.
- 350 BC: Water wheel in India - ambiguous, first known Greek 3rd century BC original.
- 852: Parachute: Abbas Ibn Firnas in al-Andalus - listed as one of many, not mentioned in his article, was actually a type of glider
- 1021: Curved mirror: Ibn al-Haytham[158]]][159] - The book Catoptrics attributed to Euclid (300 BC) covered the mathematical theory of mirrors, particularly the images formed by plane and spherical concave mirrors.
- 1556: Spring-powered clock: Peter Henlein and Taqi al-Din[210][212] - actualy existed by the early 1400s
- These plus the few I have fixed shows the problem is global. Please do not remove tags unless the problem has be rectified. It is there to let other editors/readers know. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Inaccuracies
The dates of invention and inventors for many of the inventions are disputed by the very Wikipedia pages they link to. (For example, scissors are listed as invented by da Vinci under 16th century). 66.169.137.49 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Unreliable Source
I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Propaganda
This article is being used as semi-Arabic propaganda. Take a look at the Medieval section. It's completely absurd. "Robots" don't factor into it. These are wind-up toys (among the other nonsense on the list). Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, it's a place for facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with "Arabic propaganda". During the time the Arabs were having their own Golden age, which is why all these things were developed. Granted, there are a lot, but frankly compared to Europe, you can see one. The Arabs had the best scientific minds at the time, because most of Europe was a bunch of barbarians trying to fill in for the Romans. I think a lot of these inventions qualify for the criteria above, and frankly they are important. No matter what that region is like today, back from the 10th to 14th centuries, they were the strongest in science. Rearre11 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Steam car before steam engine
Hi,
There is a little non-sense in the 17th century timeline:
- 1672: Steam car: Ferdinand Verbiest[222][223]
- 1679: Pressure cooker: Denis Papin
- 1690: Polhem wheel: Christopher Polhem
- 1698: Steam engine: Thomas Savery
"A steam car is a car (automobile) powered by a steam engine" a quarter century before its engine invention? We got to fix that :\ Lacrymocéphale 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Depending on what you mean by 'steam engine', it was invented in the 1st century (aeolipile).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now we don't want to start that argument here as well! :o)
- Actually, assuming that Verbiest's 'car' was ever built (there's no known proof that it was) it was driven by an impulse turbine, not a (reciprocating) "steam engine", so there isn't a problem here at all.
- EdJogg (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- A precision problem after all. Ferdinant Verbiest is not quoted in Steam car article, so, what you say is right, but no one can see it instantaneously by self. To me, it's still understandable as you got to explain it in discussion page because it's not clear in the articles. This steam car is not corresponding to the steam car "canonical" definition. Could you add your information like a parenthesis simply saying that Verbiest Steam Car is not powered by a steam engine? Or something. Thank you for your light in the dark. Lacrymocéphale 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- The steam engine article, which is referred to by the steam car article defines a steam engine as any engine using steam as the working fluid, so the Verbiest Steam Car would be driven by a steam engine. The problem to my mind is that Thomas Savery invented a steam driven water pump, not the steam engine in toto. (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Inventions history seems to be hard to handle as there is so many scientific POV. Totally unclear but really interesting. And, in a way, there is a "Scientific point-of-view history" made of many local time lines too :D
- Fascinating! Lacrymocéphale 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- The steam engine article, which is referred to by the steam car article defines a steam engine as any engine using steam as the working fluid, so the Verbiest Steam Car would be driven by a steam engine. The problem to my mind is that Thomas Savery invented a steam driven water pump, not the steam engine in toto. (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- A precision problem after all. Ferdinant Verbiest is not quoted in Steam car article, so, what you say is right, but no one can see it instantaneously by self. To me, it's still understandable as you got to explain it in discussion page because it's not clear in the articles. This steam car is not corresponding to the steam car "canonical" definition. Could you add your information like a parenthesis simply saying that Verbiest Steam Car is not powered by a steam engine? Or something. Thank you for your light in the dark. Lacrymocéphale 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Was all that stuff in the 13th century (by Al-Jazi) really made then?
Seems very weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.39.239 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, he was the real deal. Prolific inventor; very innovative.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Money
Why is the invention of money not listed? eu.stefan (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is not a historic invention
I know that since I'm just a lowly IP, people can undo any of my edits with impunity so I'm bringing it up here: Wiki is not a historic invention. This seems to me to be self evident and it's inclusion is due to the tendency of including anything wiki related in any and all articles (such as any reference made about wikipedia by a person or in media quite often being). The world wide web is a historic invention, GPS is historic, wiki is not.--72.1.222.61 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Steam distillation/essential oils
This entry was removed from Timeline of heat engine technology as being not relevant to that article:
- c. 1000 AD - Avicenna describes the method of steam distillation in order to extract essential oils. <ref name=Marlene>Marlene Ericksen (2000), ''Healing with Aromatherapy'', p. 9, McGraw-Hill Professional, ISBN 0658003828</ref>
I don't dispute its removal, but since it is referenced, I didn't want it to get 'lost' either, so I have posted it here in case someone wants to add it to this list, or another one elsewhere.
EdJogg (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)