tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post5387287663210140499..comments2024-03-12T12:54:32.926-07:00Comments on Life After Mastermind: University Challenge - Grand FinalLondiniushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07871325359167581176noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-12247522136166061302012-03-24T09:07:24.797-07:002012-03-24T09:07:24.797-07:00Ah that's waonderful, thank you!
That rings...Ah that's waonderful, thank you! <br /><br />That rings a bell as the chap who standardized and simplified modern chemical notation, but used superscripts instead of subscripts as in H2O with the 2 elevated. <br /><br />Just checked their elements lists: Scheele is credited, jointly with Priestley and Lavoisier, with the discovery of Oxygen, and with the discoveries of Molybdenum, Barium, Magnanese and Tungsten, though he never published any of them in time, while Berzelius is credited outright with Silicon, Thorium, Cerium and Selenium. <br /><br />Apparently there was a proposal to name an element Berzelium, by the turn of the 20th century chemist Charles Baskerville, who claimed to have derived two new elements from Thorium: Carolinium and Berzelium. Both elements turned out to be identical with Thorium unfortunately, which is why that's the last that was ever heard of them.<br /><br />I guess the practise of naming elements after people only began in the 20th century, it probably would have been considered ungentlemanly prior to that...not sure about that though.<br /><br />ok, thanks for the write up. Glad we got it sorted. <br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Aaron.AaronWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10092351779984137119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-58610887040801548482012-03-24T07:51:41.176-07:002012-03-24T07:51:41.176-07:00Hi Aaron W.
I just replayed the question on the i...Hi Aaron W.<br /><br />I just replayed the question on the iplayer with the subtitles, and apparently it's Berzelius. I'll correct the post now.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />DaveLondiniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07871325359167581176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-49827976389616061102012-03-24T07:51:08.858-07:002012-03-24T07:51:08.858-07:00Could the chemist have been Berzelius? I can't...Could the chemist have been Berzelius? I can't remember the question, but he was a Swedish chemist.iainthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407984686597232107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-13303726889313322752012-03-24T06:59:14.177-07:002012-03-24T06:59:14.177-07:00Re: Swedish chemist Vesalius
That's the answe...Re: Swedish chemist Vesalius<br /><br />That's the answer i heard him say as well. But Vesalius was a famous ANATOMIST and PHYSICIAN, and a bit of googling reveals he was born in Brussels then Hapsburg Netherlands, to definitely UN-Swedish parents, and never set foot in Sweden never mind become nationalized as Swedish.<br /><br />When the question was asked i thought of Carl Scheele as the answer because he discovered so many elements, none of which he took the credit for due to difficulties accessing the English language press, and the arrival of Humphrey Davey a few years later. Azimov called him "hard-luck Scheele". I wasn't sure if the elements Jezza listed were the correct ones but Carl Scheele was Swedish and did discover a list of elements.<br /><br />Need to replay tape if anyone has it to check that question.AaronWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10092351779984137119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-59799608010089335552012-03-24T05:54:51.242-07:002012-03-24T05:54:51.242-07:00Thanks Jack - you are a gentleman , sir. I think y...Thanks Jack - you are a gentleman , sir. I think you're right in as much as it has been an absorbing series certainly , even if it lacked maybe a stand out team such as we've had in the last few years. Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments , and the stats which you unfailingly provide for us.<br /><br />Roll on next series !Londiniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07871325359167581176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-7492632969748898382012-03-24T05:04:26.032-07:002012-03-24T05:04:26.032-07:00Well, this was certainly no classic, but it was ce...Well, this was certainly no classic, but it was certainly a much better final than last year's. And I'm pleased Pembroke did recover somewhat at the end; a third consecutive walkover in the final would have been very disappointing.<br /><br />So very well done to Manchester for a worthy victory; and well done to Pembroke too for very good progress through the series. Ben Pugh, in particular, has shown excellent prowess throughout.<br /><br />Mr Pugh scored six starters in Pembroke's cause, as the side made 12/27 bonuses with three penalties. After being rather quiet throughout the series, Luke Kelly has his best night with five starters; the side managed 15/32 bonuses.<br /><br />Incidentally, this is the fifh consecutive series where the team on the same row won both the first match of the series and the final, if you see what I mean.<br /><br />It's certainly been an interesting series, rather boring at times, yet really fun and exciting at others. The best match of the year would have to be Manchester vs Clare for me, though Homerton and Balliol's first round match, and Homerton's win over Durham in Round 2 also stand out.<br /><br />So, well done to Paxman and all teams involved for another fine series of quizzing!<br /><br />And well done to you too Dave for some very well written reviews throughout the series. Here's hoping the next series will be just as good, if not better!Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06254840979557920582noreply@blogger.com