There is much more than she even knows I'm not an engineer like she is, I am a metal worker, mechanic and welder.. so I know how the fastening of metal works in the real world.. which is why I bow down to the greatness of standardised bolt sizes by Whitworth, which she faild to acknowledge. A G Bell gets a mention though, but any school kid knows that name.. teach us about metal fastening greatness, please She didn't even mention about how the speed of cooling steel down changes how it exists.. she does mention how women are different to men a few times though
This reminds me the story of a headline in a newspaper: NUTS SCREWS WASHERS AND BOLTS. Anybody expects to read about some incident in a workshop or about prices. But the story was about a resident manager of a 5 star hotel, Mr.Nuts, employing young girls as dishwashers, then sexually abusing them and leaving the country when the matter becomes public. Interesting to note that the sentence, in addition to the puns, also has "s" at the end of four of the five words in it, with 3 different functions: Part of a proper noun Singular form of 2 verbs Plural of a noun.
I'm a bit disappointed in the RI curation of the talks, the quality isn't what it was a few years ago. Getting to watch it for free, I'm not really entitled to complain though, as I still got more than I paid for.
11:50 - So, let me see if I got this right: her husband (whose name didn't even get mentioned) created the company, but it's her name on the packaging, and this is supposed to be "a wonderful story"... for that reason? Imagine _she_ had created the company and her husband had taken over and put _his_ name on the packaging. Would that still be "a wonderful story"? Also, all that about women "not being allowed to study" and a company owned by a woman being "unheard of" is simply not true. There were several famous English businesswomen in the 19th century (in industry, fashion, agriculture, theatre, banking, etc.), as well as several famously (very) well-educated women (Eliza Tinsley was a contemporary of Ada Lovelace, for example). True, it was seen as "improper" for a young woman to leave home and go to college, but rich ones often had tutors or were taught by relatives. Considering this was about inventions, a better example would have been Henrietta Vansittart (an actual inventor). She didn't invent anything related to nails, but neither did Eliza Tinsley, who was essentially a manager.
While I have not done a deep dive into Eliza Tinsley (nor Thomas Tinsley), it seems from my basic research that she grew the company AFTER the death of Thomas Tinsley. It could also be argued that her husbands name was mentioned, as she had to take his surname. This was in a period where females were extremely discriminated against, and she would have to deal much resistance. Your example of her being the one who started and grew the company while the husband took all credit would be the norm for the time (as in the husband taking credit of her work, a female starting a company would be difficult). You mention that "being unheard of" is inaccurate. If you know any basic history you would know not to bring up individual examples. to "disprove" a rule. Females were discriminated against, there is no point in denying that. They were in general not given the same education, and were in general less respected. Imagine how many female Ramanujans we have missed in history. Denying 50% of the population propper education because of their gender hampers societal progress. If you are about to bring up that only a small percentage of the population got a propper education, that would be a strawman, as only a tiny percentage of the population that was allowed education was female. As to the point about the contribution from Tinsley vs Vansittart, Tinsley was brought up as an example to how important the nail industry was even at the time (6 different manufacturing sites), not as an example of pioneering nail development. While one could argue that bringing up a female businesswoman who did well despite the adversity she faced might be a bit out of place in such a lecture, i would recommend you insted look into yourself as to why you had such a negative reaction to her bringing up that example.
@@TheEspenjo - The talk is supposedly about *inventions.* Tinsley didn't invent anything, she was a businesswoman. Nothing about her story seems particularly "wonderful". She simply inherited a business after its founder had died and managed it competently (as did several other British women of the time - many actually _started_ their own businesses, especially in fashion and theatre). Vansittart, on the other hand, _did_ invent something (again, as did several other British women, like Sarah Guppy, Agnes Marshall, etc.). But, after listening to the rest of the talk, it's so full of errors and inaccuracies that confusing *invention* with company *management* is practically irrelevant.
Woe woe woe, did she just say that rivets were invented in the C18? Plate armour was held together how? Now she is talking about bolts.. surely she will talk about Whitworth, eh.. no? FFS Are any of the RI talks peer reviwed? If not, can this comment be a peer review please?
No, public talks are not peer-reviewed-wherever did you get that idea?!!! And no, your comment cannot be considered a peer review because (1) You're not her peer for the purposes of a peer review, and (2) Your comment is composed of 5 questions and an expletive. Maybe that counts as a review on Amazon or Yelp, but it's not a peer review. You should let go of the fantasy that someone who's not even an engineer would be asked to peer-review a Master in Structural Engineering. BTW, is that why you feel threatened by her? Because she has all those degrees, all those famous buildings that she has designed, all those fellowships, all those awards, even an MBE? And that she's been invited to lecture at the RI while you weren't?
Well then let it be a review of the terrible standard of this particular public talk by a so called expert on the subject. Much appredciated for you highlighting my review, it really helps a lot. As a life long worker of metal and professional fastener of metal, I am more than quallified to review her talk as a peer; with more than 30 years experience in this field. ;) Rivets were not invented just a few hundred years ago, they have been used for thousands of years.
@@nHans Well, talks can be revied by your colleagues, you can show it to them and ask if all the details are correct. Moreover, it's a talk about history of structure engineering not structure engineering itself :P Here she made many mistakes in her specialisation field!!?? btw I have PhD degree :P
_"Rivets were not invented just a few hundred years ago, they have been used for thousands of years."_ - that's a much better way of putting it 👍. You should've led with it. You'd have collected many more eyeballs and likes without any help from me at all! See, nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes; even experts. It's perfectly fine to correct them. But how you do it matters. Your earlier style unfortunately masked the substance of what you were trying to say. BTW, her published book is fact-checked-by her own staff as well as the publisher's. I'm pretty sure her presentation slides also were carefully prepared. Paradoxically, nowadays we expect speakers to speak informally and conversationally, rather than read stiffly and monotonically from a prepared script. That's why she frequently went off-script and spoke off-the-cuff. (Observe that there were no slides to back up those parts of her lecture.) And that's when she made mistakes.
Did she actually do any research? Many mistakes in this lecture. There were ways to join materials prior to metal nails. Has she ever heard of dowels or tongue in groove. Both used to build boats using no nails what so ever. She got the difference between iron and steel wrong. Tough take anything else seriously when there are so many basic mistakes.
How did they find those thousands of iron nails made by the Romans so much later without them rusting away? How did the Romans keep them so safe? 870,000 of them?
The same way they've found Roman nails from that era at other sites, I expect: by digging near some Roman ruins. And there were probably more than 870k, originally. Some of them had just rusted too much to be identified as nails.
17 minutes: Bolt diameter 20mm? even if we're talking about an M20x2.5, we're talking about a core diameter over 16.5mm, so a core area of 214mm²... 8.8 class bolts (the most used) have a yield strength of 640 MPa, thats 640 Newton/mm², a 4.6 class bolt only goes to 240 Newton/mm². The 4.6 class M20 bolt therefore can withstand at least 51.36 kN, about 5.2 Metric Ton with earth's gravity. Even this bolt carries 100 Roma's of 52kg / 8.2 stone / 115 pounds With the more common 8.8 class, we're going to 137kN, a it shy of 14 Metric Ton. Here we need Roma on a diet once she goes over 139kg... An 8.8 class bolt has a pretension force of 127kN. Even if I were to choose a 4.6 class bolt which I've never encountered except in woodworking we're talking about a 37kN pretension.
arrgh... holding a magnet in front of an old TV doesn´t mess with the electron beam - but with the metal screen separating the color dots, bending it and therefore generating those nice colours because the electron beam now hits the wrong hole. Do your science and don´t spread misinformation - and if you dabble in a field you´re not qualified do ask an expert (like an telecommunications engineer)!
What to do with it if it's broken? 1) is broken buy a new one. 2) take it apart and see if you can fix it with 0 understanding of its engineering. Only 2 outcomes. You still need a new one or you don't need a new one. I'll take anything apart and learn how to understand it.
"Hundreds of thousands of years"??? Steel more ductile because of the carbon content as opposed to iron?? (Iron is brittle due to the carbon co tent, steel is formed from iron by reducing the carbon) There are far too many inaccuracies and false historical facts in this lecture!😮
21:00 “Telegraph system was used as a tool of oppression.” In my opinion, she went out of her way to insert and peddle her Indian right wing ideology through this talk. Unnecessary. Just keep it to science. Leave your religion, politics, nationalism and hate out of it. Sheesh! SMH
@@MrElvis1971 Sorry, but the invention was simply about communication. That an oppressive regime used it as a tool for oppression is totally irrelevant to the invention. Of course there is some science that is funded for religious, political or nationalistic reasons, but most of it is neutral. It might become known or get improved a lot in the context of something but the base frequently is neutral. E.g. aviation. Do you really think Otto Lilienthal or the Wright brothers had an air force in mind?
@realulli encryption, nuclear weapons, synthetic rubber, duct tape, super glue, GPS, microwave radar, the Jeep, jet engines, the electronic computer, the procrss of mass production of penicillin, walkie talkie, night vision, ballistic missiles, darkweb, digital photography, and of course the first man on the moon was a political display and entirely motivated by the cold war. The list is endless. Human beings are far from neutral and are in general motivated by reasons that are unwholesome.
@Ahsan Mohammed it doesn't depend. When people are investing money into science then they want a return on investment. That return is generally an expression of power (money, resources, war, politics, etc). Any human endeavour is corrupted by human nature. Science is just as guilty as any other human endeavour.
RUclips offers to "translate to English" for your comment. It's probably the gratuitous use of "o" that caused this... but I wonder what language, which must be liberal on it's "o" usage, RUclips thinks you're speaking?
Very interesting information RUINED by someone repeatedly moaning about men. Men are amazing and built most of the world. Could we PLEASE stop bitching about men?
Please tell about the men, who invented basically everything , women did just that, just looked after the businesses.......her story was full of foolishness
I never imagined that there is so much history behind a humble nail. Great talk, interesting, well explained.
There is much more than she even knows
I'm not an engineer like she is, I am a metal worker, mechanic and welder.. so I know how the fastening of metal works in the real world.. which is why I bow down to the greatness of standardised bolt sizes by Whitworth, which she faild to acknowledge.
A G Bell gets a mention though, but any school kid knows that name.. teach us about metal fastening greatness, please
She didn't even mention about how the speed of cooling steel down changes how it exists.. she does mention how women are different to men a few times though
wait wearnt joints (mortise and tenon) used to join wood together way before the nail?
Loved your talk Roma! I can’t wait to read your books.
This reminds me the story of a headline in a newspaper:
NUTS SCREWS WASHERS AND BOLTS.
Anybody expects to read about some incident in a workshop or about prices.
But the story was about a resident manager of a 5 star hotel, Mr.Nuts, employing young girls as dishwashers, then sexually abusing them and leaving the country when the matter becomes public.
Interesting to note that the sentence, in addition to the puns, also has "s" at the end of four of the five words in it, with 3 different functions:
Part of a proper noun
Singular form of 2 verbs
Plural of a noun.
that was amazing!!!!!!
I'm a bit disappointed in the RI curation of the talks, the quality isn't what it was a few years ago.
Getting to watch it for free, I'm not really entitled to complain though, as I still got more than I paid for.
Great talk.
11:50 - So, let me see if I got this right: her husband (whose name didn't even get mentioned) created the company, but it's her name on the packaging, and this is supposed to be "a wonderful story"... for that reason? Imagine _she_ had created the company and her husband had taken over and put _his_ name on the packaging. Would that still be "a wonderful story"?
Also, all that about women "not being allowed to study" and a company owned by a woman being "unheard of" is simply not true. There were several famous English businesswomen in the 19th century (in industry, fashion, agriculture, theatre, banking, etc.), as well as several famously (very) well-educated women (Eliza Tinsley was a contemporary of Ada Lovelace, for example).
True, it was seen as "improper" for a young woman to leave home and go to college, but rich ones often had tutors or were taught by relatives.
Considering this was about inventions, a better example would have been Henrietta Vansittart (an actual inventor). She didn't invent anything related to nails, but neither did Eliza Tinsley, who was essentially a manager.
While I have not done a deep dive into Eliza Tinsley (nor Thomas Tinsley), it seems from my basic research that she grew the company AFTER the death of Thomas Tinsley. It could also be argued that her husbands name was mentioned, as she had to take his surname. This was in a period where females were extremely discriminated against, and she would have to deal much resistance. Your example of her being the one who started and grew the company while the husband took all credit would be the norm for the time (as in the husband taking credit of her work, a female starting a company would be difficult).
You mention that "being unheard of" is inaccurate. If you know any basic history you would know not to bring up individual examples. to "disprove" a rule. Females were discriminated against, there is no point in denying that. They were in general not given the same education, and were in general less respected. Imagine how many female Ramanujans we have missed in history. Denying 50% of the population propper education because of their gender hampers societal progress. If you are about to bring up that only a small percentage of the population got a propper education, that would be a strawman, as only a tiny percentage of the population that was allowed education was female.
As to the point about the contribution from Tinsley vs Vansittart, Tinsley was brought up as an example to how important the nail industry was even at the time (6 different manufacturing sites), not as an example of pioneering nail development. While one could argue that bringing up a female businesswoman who did well despite the adversity she faced might be a bit out of place in such a lecture, i would recommend you insted look into yourself as to why you had such a negative reaction to her bringing up that example.
@@TheEspenjo - The talk is supposedly about *inventions.* Tinsley didn't invent anything, she was a businesswoman. Nothing about her story seems particularly "wonderful". She simply inherited a business after its founder had died and managed it competently (as did several other British women of the time - many actually _started_ their own businesses, especially in fashion and theatre).
Vansittart, on the other hand, _did_ invent something (again, as did several other British women, like Sarah Guppy, Agnes Marshall, etc.).
But, after listening to the rest of the talk, it's so full of errors and inaccuracies that confusing *invention* with company *management* is practically irrelevant.
Nice and clear!
Woe woe woe, did she just say that rivets were invented in the C18? Plate armour was held together how?
Now she is talking about bolts.. surely she will talk about Whitworth, eh.. no? FFS
Are any of the RI talks peer reviwed? If not, can this comment be a peer review please?
every single ring in first century chainmails were riveted...
No, public talks are not peer-reviewed-wherever did you get that idea?!!!
And no, your comment cannot be considered a peer review because (1) You're not her peer for the purposes of a peer review, and (2) Your comment is composed of 5 questions and an expletive. Maybe that counts as a review on Amazon or Yelp, but it's not a peer review.
You should let go of the fantasy that someone who's not even an engineer would be asked to peer-review a Master in Structural Engineering. BTW, is that why you feel threatened by her? Because she has all those degrees, all those famous buildings that she has designed, all those fellowships, all those awards, even an MBE? And that she's been invited to lecture at the RI while you weren't?
Well then let it be a review of the terrible standard of this particular public talk by a so called expert on the subject. Much appredciated for you highlighting my review, it really helps a lot.
As a life long worker of metal and professional fastener of metal, I am more than quallified to review her talk as a peer; with more than 30 years experience in this field. ;)
Rivets were not invented just a few hundred years ago, they have been used for thousands of years.
@@nHans Well, talks can be revied by your colleagues, you can show it to them and ask if all the details are correct. Moreover, it's a talk about history of structure engineering not structure engineering itself :P Here she made many mistakes in her specialisation field!!?? btw I have PhD degree :P
_"Rivets were not invented just a few hundred years ago, they have been used for thousands of years."_ - that's a much better way of putting it 👍. You should've led with it. You'd have collected many more eyeballs and likes without any help from me at all!
See, nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes; even experts. It's perfectly fine to correct them. But how you do it matters. Your earlier style unfortunately masked the substance of what you were trying to say.
BTW, her published book is fact-checked-by her own staff as well as the publisher's. I'm pretty sure her presentation slides also were carefully prepared. Paradoxically, nowadays we expect speakers to speak informally and conversationally, rather than read stiffly and monotonically from a prepared script. That's why she frequently went off-script and spoke off-the-cuff. (Observe that there were no slides to back up those parts of her lecture.) And that's when she made mistakes.
To do some fitting we need right to repair legislation on the books in our country.
Did she actually do any research? Many mistakes in this lecture. There were ways to join materials prior to metal nails. Has she ever heard of dowels or tongue in groove. Both used to build boats using no nails what so ever. She got the difference between iron and steel wrong. Tough take anything else seriously when there are so many basic mistakes.
How did they find those thousands of iron nails made by the Romans so much later without them rusting away? How did the Romans keep them so safe? 870,000 of them?
The same way they've found Roman nails from that era at other sites, I expect: by digging near some Roman ruins. And there were probably more than 870k, originally. Some of them had just rusted too much to be identified as nails.
17 minutes: Bolt diameter 20mm? even if we're talking about an M20x2.5, we're talking about a core diameter over 16.5mm, so a core area of 214mm²...
8.8 class bolts (the most used) have a yield strength of 640 MPa, thats 640 Newton/mm², a 4.6 class bolt only goes to 240 Newton/mm².
The 4.6 class M20 bolt therefore can withstand at least 51.36 kN, about 5.2 Metric Ton with earth's gravity. Even this bolt carries 100 Roma's of 52kg / 8.2 stone / 115 pounds
With the more common 8.8 class, we're going to 137kN, a it shy of 14 Metric Ton. Here we need Roma on a diet once she goes over 139kg...
An 8.8 class bolt has a pretension force of 127kN. Even if I were to choose a 4.6 class bolt which I've never encountered except in woodworking we're talking about a 37kN pretension.
arrgh... holding a magnet in front of an old TV doesn´t mess with the electron beam - but with the metal screen separating the color dots, bending it and therefore generating those nice colours because the electron beam now hits the wrong hole. Do your science and don´t spread misinformation - and if you dabble in a field you´re not qualified do ask an expert (like an telecommunications engineer)!
What to do with it if it's broken? 1) is broken buy a new one. 2) take it apart and see if you can fix it with 0 understanding of its engineering.
Only 2 outcomes. You still need a new one or you don't need a new one.
I'll take anything apart and learn how to understand it.
"Hundreds of thousands of years"???
Steel more ductile because of the carbon content as opposed to iron?? (Iron is brittle due to the carbon co tent, steel is formed from iron by reducing the carbon)
There are far too many inaccuracies and false historical facts in this lecture!😮
21:00
“Telegraph system was used as a tool of oppression.”
In my opinion, she went out of her way to insert and peddle her Indian right wing ideology through this talk. Unnecessary.
Just keep it to science. Leave your religion, politics, nationalism and hate out of it. Sheesh! SMH
Maybe you should study history. Science has never been and never will be neutral.
@@MrElvis1971
Many angles to that statement of yours
Types of
science
scientists
users
So, it really depends.
@@MrElvis1971 Sorry, but the invention was simply about communication. That an oppressive regime used it as a tool for oppression is totally irrelevant to the invention.
Of course there is some science that is funded for religious, political or nationalistic reasons, but most of it is neutral. It might become known or get improved a lot in the context of something but the base frequently is neutral. E.g. aviation. Do you really think Otto Lilienthal or the Wright brothers had an air force in mind?
@realulli encryption, nuclear weapons, synthetic rubber, duct tape, super glue, GPS, microwave radar, the Jeep, jet engines, the electronic computer, the procrss of mass production of penicillin, walkie talkie, night vision, ballistic missiles, darkweb, digital photography, and of course the first man on the moon was a political display and entirely motivated by the cold war. The list is endless. Human beings are far from neutral and are in general motivated by reasons that are unwholesome.
@Ahsan Mohammed it doesn't depend. When people are investing money into science then they want a return on investment. That return is generally an expression of power (money, resources, war, politics, etc). Any human endeavour is corrupted by human nature. Science is just as guilty as any other human endeavour.
Yes, at Sainte Marie-among the Hurons.
Ooooohhh shiny!
RUclips offers to "translate to English" for your comment. It's probably the gratuitous use of "o" that caused this... but I wonder what language, which must be liberal on it's "o" usage, RUclips thinks you're speaking?
How does this only have 536 likes?!
Very interesting information RUINED by someone repeatedly moaning about men. Men are amazing and built most of the world. Could we PLEASE stop bitching about men?
... _bitching_ about men? Shouldn't that be _dogging_ about men?
On second thoughts, perhaps not ;)
There were like two sarcastic remarks about men, nothing dramatic I would say. I've enjoyed the presentation.
Hat off Miss Arora
She nailed it?
Please tell about the men, who invented basically everything , women did just that, just looked after the businesses.......her story was full of foolishness
18:35 This is why useful manipulation can be done without understanding underlying reality. Why engineering is pseun and not actual science.