Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
You wrote:
; No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
; more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the Empire of Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early
1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>
ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital computers". They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of computers
as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that series that was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>
The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
other German inventors).
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
You wrote:
> No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
> more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a
non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the
Empire of
Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early
1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper
Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>
ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from
1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital
computers". They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of
computers
as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that
series that
was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>
The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
other German inventors).
'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces
for German scientists.
Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors
like Zuse.
The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in Thuringia.
TH
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
We can use von Neumann architectureDid you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
[correction]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early >>> 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper >> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
[conspiracy theory]
On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
Yes, before the ENIAC.
And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
concepts also of its predecessors.
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
[conspiracy theories/historical inaccuracies]
(I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.)
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
concepts also of its predecessors.
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
Nonsense.
Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'> No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
> more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a >>> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the
Empire of
Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early
1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper
Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
Yes, before the ENIAC. And the plans for the Z3 were of course
designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
concepts also of its predecessors.
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
Yes, before the ENIAC.
The ENIAC (completed in 1945) was (arguably) the first digital *electronic* computer:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>> early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
quote
"
Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und
größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert
worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit
der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte,
als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "
translated by google
"Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad
Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the
world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his architecture in 1945."
BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir
rights (or not).
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse
(or not).
But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>> early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
quote
"
Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und
größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert
worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit
der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte,
als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "
translated by google
"Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad
Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the
world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his architecture in 1945."
BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir
rights (or not).
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse
(or not).
But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
[...]Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse
(or not).
Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention itself ascribed to somebody else
[...]
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.
But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.
On 2025-12-06 17:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>>> early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).
Wikipedia confirms both of my dates:
"Die Z3 war einer der ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner weltweit
und wurde am 12. Mai 1941 von Konrad Zuse in seiner Werkstatt in der
Methfesselstraße 7 in Berlin-Kreuzberg vorgestellt."
"Die Z1 war ein mechanischer Rechner von Konrad Zuse aus dem Jahre
1937."
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
That was not the criterion that was part of the post I was replying to.
Am Samstag000006, 06.12.2025 um 17:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
Yes, before the ENIAC.
The ENIAC (completed in 1945) was (arguably) the first digital *electronic* >> computer:
You actually missed the point:
that was the origin of the 'von Neumann' architekture
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.
And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.
The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture,
at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term
is that program store and data memory reside in the same space.
Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.
Which led to Von
Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
engineering mistake at the same time.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured. How is it possible that you have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like these? (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.)
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>>> early 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument):
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable
computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3!
A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph:
"Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]"
It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing
and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where
the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just
define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior)
system may not match by some detail" (sort of).
The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing
if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts.
[...]
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents ofYes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"
Zuse (or not).
isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA.
Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured. How is it possible that you >> have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like >> these? (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.)
This behavior was quoted by me, but apparently stemmed from 'Janis Papanagnou'.
Not sure, if that guy was the source, but don't care, anyhow.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument):
My 'original argument' was that US 'liberators' not only stole the
patent for Zuse's invention, but also the fame and gave it to someone else.
Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured. How is it possible
that you
have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines
like
these? (The fact aside that most of the information there is
superfluous.)
This behavior was quoted by me, but apparently stemmed from 'Janis Papanagnou'.
Not sure, if that guy was the source, but don't care, anyhow.
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.
Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
von Neumann's architecture.
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in Germany.
The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle.
The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company.
[snip digressions to 'US copyright' and 'Urheberrecht']
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis
Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture
computers.
Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
von Neumann's architecture.
And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.
(This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation
and being "the first".)
The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann
architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning
of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the
same space.
Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no!
Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.
And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally] programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! -
nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed.
We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers,
maybe, and similar corner cases).
Which led to Von
Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
engineering mistake at the same time.
Yes.
An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
we commonly see...
"Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
von Neumann's architectures."
"Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
"Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
(I assume you notice the dodge.)
I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.
Janis
[*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
we commonly see...
"Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
von Neumann's architectures."
"Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
"Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
(I assume you notice the dodge.)
I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.
Janis
[*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
(My point was the [non-existing] reach of a German patent in the
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
(My point was the [non-existing] reach of a German patent in the--
USA.)
The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle.
The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company.
With a granted patent in Germany you can exploit the commercial
gains yourself or with companies licensing the patents during
the first years after getting the patent.
Besides the commercial aspects the primary point of a patent can
probably be derived from the meaning of its name; Latin "patere",
to be open [for the society], to provide gain for mankind.
(Semantics in popular recognition may have changed given the
prevalence of commercial thinking worldwide.)
[snip digressions to 'US copyright' and 'Urheberrecht']
Janis
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:,'.
[...]
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the [Einstein] 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
[developing a conspiracy theory while going down the rabbit hole
they digged for themselves]
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called >'Einstein's fridge'.
But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor.
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
which thoese reactors 'breed'.
And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it >requires good reason to want Plutonium.
That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late >1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories >related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
upon theoretical physics).
Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in >possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
TH
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:19:04 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in >>>>> Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called
'Einstein's fridge'.
But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor. >>
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
which thoese reactors 'breed'.
And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it
requires good reason to want Plutonium.
That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late
1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories
related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
upon theoretical physics).
Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in
possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
TH
I lost count how many times I posted here...
that which you call "a fast breeding reactor"
is what you see in the diagram here..
https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeding+reactor.&oq=fast+breeding+reactor
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.12.2025 um 19:01 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:19:04 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in >>>>>> Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called
'Einstein's fridge'.
But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor. >>>
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
which thoese reactors 'breed'.
And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it
requires good reason to want Plutonium.
That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late >>> 1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories >>> related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
upon theoretical physics).
Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in
possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
TH
I lost count how many times I posted here...
that which you call "a fast breeding reactor"
is what you see in the diagram here..
https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeding+reactor.&oq=fast+breeding+reactor
This is a good paper about the subject:
https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf
Quote:
"
Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors
Frank von Hippel
1
The possibility of a plutonium?fueled nuclear reactor that could produce >more fuel than it consumed (a breeder reactor) was first raised during >World War II in the United States by scientists in the atomic bomb program."
But this was seemingly a lie, because if the first fast breeding
reactors were invented and built in Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how >could Einstein invent and patent a part of that reactor already in 1930
in Berlin?
...
TH
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't. He designed, together with Szilard, _a >refrigerator_, in 1926. Szilrd, not Einstein, patented it in the U.S. in 1930.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator>
You just went from a self-built slippery slope down a rabbit hole, guided by >your paranoia. (Is your mind still sane enough for you to accept your mistake?)
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 01:58:37 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't. He designed, together with Szilard, _a >>refrigerator_, in 1926. Szilrd, not Einstein, patented it in the U.S. in 1930.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator>
You just went from a self-built slippery slope down a rabbit hole, guided by >>your paranoia. (Is your mind still sane enough for you to accept your mistake?)
That link ' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn' posted is a FRAUDULENT webpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
Anyone can see the fruad by looking at the picture on the right:
"Einstein's and Szilrd's patent application"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
They inserted a fruad hand drawn calligraphy fonts that reads at the
bottom
"Einstein Refridegerator"
(patent number, date and signatures are also fraud) is all hand drawn >calligraphy fonts ans script writing.
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
You cannot trust an African BushPig with 'PointedEars'.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn is an 'off-the cuff' ' guy who
lacks ...knowledge.
I don't know how he manages to get out of bed everyday...
i bet he doesn't know how the can-opener works.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 01:58:37 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't. He designed, together with Szilard, _a >>refrigerator_, in 1926. Szilrd, not Einstein, patented it in the U.S. in 1930.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator>
You just went from a self-built slippery slope down a rabbit hole, guided by >>your paranoia. (Is your mind still sane enough for you to accept your mistake?)
That link ' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn' posted is a FRAUDULENT webpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
Anyone can see the fruad by looking at the picture on the right:
"Einstein's and Szilrd's patent application"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
They inserted a fruad hand drawn calligraphy fonts that reads at the
bottom
"Einstein Refridegerator"
(patent number, date and signatures are also fraud) is all hand drawn >calligraphy fonts ans script writing.
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Well done to dig up the real patent application of December 19. 1926.
So it's settled now, it is a refrigerator.
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Well done to dig up the real patent application of December 19. 1926.
So it's settled now, it is a refrigerator.
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Well done to dig up the real patent application of December 19. 1926.
So it's settled now, it is a refrigerator.
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux. >>
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
Now, do yous actually believe this is a BLOUSE that Albert Einstein
filed a patent for in 1936????
https://patents.google.com/patent/USD101756?oq=USD101756-0
Of course not. Albert Einstein was tooo busy building his atomic
bombs.
He had to come up with a way to protect others from being exposed to
URANIUM RADIATION.
So he simply designed a Radiation Vest Jacket:
It's not a blouse, it's a radiation vest!
http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US5274851-2.png
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5274851A/en?oq=US5274851+
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8067759?oq=radiation+vest
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20160923_EOS_0467.jpg
don't forget, he spoke german..that means the word "blouse" might have
a
different meaning..
meaning not having to do with 'women'.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
It is a process.
You probably need an understanding also of what the word "process"
means...
define process
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular
end.
perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something)
in order to change or preserve it.
a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a
particular result
Den 14.12.2025 19:25, skrev The Starmaker:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
You are right!
"An apparatus for producing refrigeration"
does not produce a machine.
It _is_ a machine which is called a refrigerator.
It is a process.
You probably need an understanding also of what the word "process"
means...
define process
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular
end.
perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something)
in order to change or preserve it.
a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a
particular result
Do you mean that an apparatus that is performing the process
REFRIDERATION must be fast breading reactor?
:-D
Den 14.12.2025 19:25, skrev The Starmaker:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters
REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
You are right!
"An apparatus for producing refrigeration"
does not produce a machine.
It _is_ a machine which is called a refrigerator.
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 14.12.2025 19:25, skrev The Starmaker:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
LOL; it's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black:
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters
in _capital_ (uppercase) letters
[The Capitol is a building in Washington, D.C., the capitol (primary city)
of the U.S.A., instead.]
REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
No, it reads (correctly) _REFRIGERATION_.
[If would be just a typo on "The Starmaker"'s part, it would be a very
strange one: on a U.S. keyboard layout, the key for "D" is two keys away
from that for "G". So much for "English as second language".]
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
From this repetition of the mistake we can surmise that it was not just a >typo by "The Starmaker", but that it is due to a missing ability to read or >write properly. They might be dyslexic; but then it would be hilarious that >they would lecture others about language.
You are right!
"An apparatus for producing refrigeration"
does not produce a machine.
It _is_ a machine which is called a refrigerator.
Exactly. The patent application begins with
| Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly to an
| apparatus and method for producing refrigeration [...]
(So much for "The Starmaker"'s understanding of English.)
It is interesting to note that Einstein and Szilrd are called "ASSIGNORS TO >ELECTROLUX SERVEL CORPORATION, of NEW YORK, N.Y., A. CORPORATION OF
DELAWARE" there already. (You mentioned that the refrigerator that was used >in your parent's home was manufactured by Electrolux and based on this design.)
Also: "Application filed December 16, 1927, Serial No. 240,566 [in the >U.S.A.], and in Germany December 16, 1926."
F'up2 sci.physics
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/
US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/
US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.12.2025 um 14:27 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
The only known use of Einstein's fridge is as a part of a fast breeding reactor.
Therefore, my guess was: 'fridge' was a misnomer, to hide the real
purpose and the device was actually meant as a part of a fast breeder.
If otherwise, there is a need to show a working fridge, which is based
on Einstein's design.
But I read, that a group of students tried to replicate the 'fride' and found out, that it didn't cool.
But as patent it wouldn't make much difference, if the 'inert gas' is actually molten Natrium (or some other molten metal).
Den 15.12.2025 07:50, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000014, 14.12.2025 um 14:27 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
The only known use of Einstein's fridge is as a part of a fast
breeding reactor.
Therefore, my guess was: 'fridge' was a misnomer, to hide the real
purpose and the device was actually meant as a part of a fast breeder.
If otherwise, there is a need to show a working fridge, which is based
on Einstein's design.
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's
and Szillard's patent?
You only think they did, because Electrolux spent money.
But actually there are all sorts of reasons thinkable, why some company would like to give somebody money and declare that as spending for patents.
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
Maybe we today could read the patent application and see what kindAm Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's
and Szillard's patent?
The simple fact that the Electrolux fridge my parents and a lot of
other people bought in 1953 was an absorption refrigerator with
no moving parts which had the same machinery as described here:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The refigerator is described in detail.
You only think they did, because Electrolux spent money.
But actually there are all sorts of reasons thinkable, why some company
would like to give somebody money and declare that as spending for patents.
So why do you think that Electrolux gave Einstein money?
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called 'Einstein's fridge'.
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but >wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
THAT was actually the question.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part
needed for a fast breeding reactor????
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein's
patent and check whether or not it cools.
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering >students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast >breeding reactors.
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
TH
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:50:10 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but >>wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
THAT was actually the question.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part >>needed for a fast breeding reactor????
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein's
patent and check whether or not it cools.
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering >>students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast >>breeding reactors.
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
TH
...
"common knowledge"??? that is lacking with these people...
"Never used in refrigerators, their pump was later adapted for the >circulation of coolants in the controversial fast-breeder nuclear
reactoran irony that would not have been lost on either Einstein or >Szilard. (Bernard Feld, Einstein and Nuclear Weapons, Holton and
Elkana, p. 391.)"
The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann
architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning
of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the same
space. Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code. Which led
to Von Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
engineering mistake at the same time.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 16:26:41 +0200, Michael S wrote:
[...] Which is undeniable mathematical truth and seriousThis is why Computer Science exists as an entirely separate field of
engineering mistake at the same time.
study from the mathematical theory of computability:
because
mathematicians are primarily concerned with whether something is
merely possible, not whether it can be done efficiently.
Not the reason! Computer science is to do with what computers are;
|Computer science is not a science.
|It's also not about computers.
- Hal Abelson
That's like the difference between being interested in making cars
and driving them.
...because mathematicians are primarily concerned with whether
something is merely possible, not whether it can be done
efficiently.
A few mathematicians are like that. Most of us are also concerned
with how hard it is to do things.
On 21 Dec 2025 10:37:45 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:A computer scientist is a machine for converting coffee into urine.
|Computer science is not a science.
|It's also not about computers.
- Hal Abelson
Presumably this person was not a computer scientist ...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 22:20:53 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 21 Dec 2025 10:37:45 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
|Computer science is not a science.
|It's also not about computers.
- Hal Abelson
Presumably this person was not a computer scientist ...
A computer scientist is a machine for converting coffee into urine.
- Alan Kay.
You have complexity theory. But there is a world of difference between...because mathematicians are primarily concerned with whetherA few mathematicians are like that. Most of us are also concerned
something is merely possible, not whether it can be done
efficiently.
with how hard it is to do things.
that and knowing how to write actual programs.
Again: one is part of maths, the other is part of computer science.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 63:15:22 |
| Calls: | 13,949 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,035 |
| D/L today: |
3,472 files (1,016M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,461,403 |
