526 Years On, Da Vinci's Clockwork Car Constructed

SimianOverlord writes "The Guardian (and several other news outlets) report on the attempt by Professor Paulo Galluci and his team to build a working model of Leonard Da Vinci's clockwork powered car, designed in 1478. Previous attempts have been made to create the vehicle, but they failed to work properly. This is thought to be due to a misunderstanding of the original design, which is corrected in the new model. Apart from the 1/3 scale replica, the team have also made a full size model but have not dared to test it. Professor Galluzzi explained "It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage.""

Comments

fascinating

[msim]

It's taken them long enough to figure it out.

I guess that 2 things can be learned from this
1) Da Vinci was a genius ahead of his own time
2) Document your frigging drawings! were not all mind readers ya know!

Re:fascinating

[natrius]

The fact that his drawings weren't commented is what tipped us off to his genius in the first place. Everyone knows smart people don't comment.

Re:fascinating

[LordK3nn3th]

By your logic the windows source code should be documented to all hell, while the linux source code has roughly three comments in it.

Re:fascinating

[geekoid]

top 2 things overheard in Da Vinci's lab:

"Even a simplten with a mere IQ of 210 will be able to understand these drawings, no need to document"

"Surely, everybody will want to read my writing as if they are looking into a mirror."

top 2 things heard in developers cubes:
"If it's hard to write, it should be hard to read"

"My code is self documenting"

Re:fascinating

[nacturation]

By your logic the windows source code should be documented to all hell, while the linux source code has roughly three comments in it.

No, no... in Linux, the comments are written *backwards*.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way you misspelled "simpleton".

Re:fascinating

[geekoid]

hehe, It's the little touches that make it funny.

Re:fascinating

[endx7]

"My code is self documenting"

Hey, not all of us are cobol programmers!

Re:fascinating

[E_elven]

Seen in actual code

// |/| 4 1 (| |/| 3-3 _| + + 1 _| 0 + '| 3 =| =| |_| 8 3 |-| +
// 2 |V| '| 0 =| 2 |/| 4 '| + |/| 0 1 + ) |/| |_| =| 2 1 |-| +
void to_little_endian(void * buffer) {
...

Re:fascinating

[Niet3sche]

DaVinci was a genius, yes. However, I am no longer so inclined to say that he was ahead of his time. Quite a bit of our current view of the "backward-thinking" dark/middle ages comes about from (can't remember his name now - he wrote "Sleepy Hollow"). Also, they apparently KNEW the world was round - Columbus did NOT make that discovery, and it was NOT against Church doctrine. I caught a program by Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) [I believe] and he was going through and outlining this. It was really an amazing insight into the time. So ... they were actually NOT the "backward savages" that we're inclined to believe, nor was the Church such a crushingly obtuse entity with respect to science - seems it was in its best interest to encourage people to check out and unravel God's workings - to get to better know the mind of God. Sooooo ... it was a great program, anyway.

Re:fascinating

[Niet3sche]

Here we go:

This is the program I was thinking of - "Medieval Lives"

It's actually a brilliantly watchable series. ;)

Re:fascinating

[Seekerofknowledge]

// |/| 4 1 (| |/| 3-3 _| + + 1 _| 0 + '| 3 =| =| |_| 8 3 |-| +
// 2 |V| '| 0 =| 2 |/| 4 '| + |/| 0 1 + ) |/| |_| =| 2 1 |-| +
void to_little_endian(void * buffer) {

Whew, I finally figured out what that said. It only took about 5 mins, a mirror, and some head-scratching.

For all of those who don't have a mirror handy, or are too lazy (who are we kidding :), it says:

the buffer to little-endian
this function transforms

One more thing:
I guess this function knows how big a buffer to convert? I mean, is it converting some words to little-endian or dwords? hmm, what about 64-bit ints? Doesn't seem very clear. I hope this didn't come out of the Linux kernel :P

Re:fascinating

[sankeld]

Uhm, no comment.

Re:fascinating

[Seekerofknowledge]

Good ol' Cobol.

For someone who grew up on C, Cobol is more like self-obfuscating. :)

Re:fascinating

[geekoid]

That, from someone who grew up using c!?!

Re:fascinating

[kfg]

Particularly smart people before the advent of a patent system.

Once upon a time, in a New World far, far away from it's cultural origins, there arose a new nation, founded by men who thought very hard about what they were doing and, for the most part, got things pretty right (there are always men who think only of their own benefit who muck up the system).

Thomas Jefferson got the patent system pretty right, and while things were under his direct control the system worked very well and Leonardo (had he come to America) would have felt free to publish and comment without fear, and the public would not have had to wait hundreds of years for his ideas to become freely available to them. This system actually stood as a model for the world for 100 years.

But extraordinary men are always replaced by lesser men.

Patents are not the problem. Patents are the solution to a problem that most people have forgotten existed. Except, perhaps, those trying to create corporeal versions of Leonardo's drawings.

The problem is protectionism bolstered by greed. Congress, of course, is supposed to represent the people in creating systems that allow the people to engage in profit making enterprises without abrogating the rights of the people.

But congress, for the most part, is made up of these lesser men, driven by protectionism and greed.

"What if you were an idiot? And what if you were a member of congress? But I repeat myself." --Mark Twain.

KFG

Re:fascinating

[Radical Rad]

"Even a simplten with a mere IQ of 210 will be able to understand these drawings, no need to document"

I saw somewhere that DaVinci purposely put flaws into his drawings as a type of copy protection. Only another genius would be able to see the flaw and build the device correctly. This would come in handy if his plans were stolen or captured since many of his designs were commissioned for siege craft.

Re:fascinating

[geekoid]

Yes, the knowledge of the time(among the educated) is more advanced then a lot of people think, but this car can be programmed to drive it's self through some patterns.
I think DaVinci had some marble delivered; Then, when it needed to be moved, he said 'Genius at work, can't be bothered' while everyone else moved the marble. Then doodles it up so people wouldn't get angry he didn't help.

Re:fascinating

[mec]

I think the idea "understanding God's creation is an act of respect for God" is a 17th century idea, not a Renaissance idea. I read a book about the history of science -- damn, can't remember the author or title at all -- which talked about this idea quite a bit.

I do agree that educated people in Columbus's time knew that the earth was round. For evidence, see Dante's "Purgatoria", published about 100 years before Columbus. Dante liked to put big lumps of astronomy into his work sometimes, and he has the narrator and Virgil emerge from the Earth at an antipodal point from where the narrator lives before ascending the mountain of Purgatory.

The question about Columbus's journey was how big the earth was. My recollection is that Columbus claimed a circumference of 15,000 miles or so, which meant he could get to India pretty easily. Columbus turned out to be wrong about that (and the ancient Greeks were much more accurate).

Lastly, the author of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" was Washington Irving. I didn't know he had anything to do with the "middle ages == stupid" meme.

Re:fascinating

[black mariah]

I've been trying to explain this to people for years. When handled properly, patents are in the best interest of everyone. Leonardo had to have other ways of protecting his work, namely his weird code.

Re:fascinating

[emarkp]

Yes, the Greeks knew the world was round because the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always round. Also, a greek librarian (Eratosthenes of Cyrene) figured out the size of the Earth from his books and a little measurement.

Columbus' success was based on two things: 1) He vastly underestimated the size of the Earth (even compared to other estimates of the time) and 2) got really lucky that the Americas were in the way.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit man, you got way too much time on your hands!

Re:fascinating

[kfg]

In fact, my experience is that only another genius would recognize that the work of a genius could have flaws that require correcting.

Most people are sheep and blindly follow "the directions," even when those directions result in nonfunctioning items. They blame the nonfunctionality on themselves, rather than on the design.

Hence the notations you'll find on many processed food products these days, "You'll find that this might taste good with a little cheese on it. Or maybe some salt." They have to be told to "think outside the box," as it were. Many people get all weird about the idea of even modifying a published recipe. The published version is the "correct" version in their minds. Perhaps this phemonenon is a good part of why some people get all weird about the idea of open source software. They need to feel that out there, somewhere, is a definatively "correct" version, handed down from the mountain engraved on stone tablets by some programing god or other.

Most people who play classical music play it as if they were some sort of flawed mechanism in a player piano whose function is to reproduce the markings on the paper as closely, and mechanically, as possible.

The musical genius recognizes that the markings on the paper are one genius talking to another genius, saying, "Hey, look at this idea," and interprets the music.

KFG

Re:fascinating

[ReflectingGod]

The fact that his drawings weren't commented is what tipped us off to his genius in the first place. Everyone knows smart people don't comment.

That must make me a real genius, as my code is never commented, and nobody can ever understand it.

The fact that I can't understand it either, and it never compiles, is completely irrelevant.

Re:fascinating

[potat0man]

This is stupid. Even Aristotle suggests the world is round. As well as Ptolemny. The Greek-speaking Egyptian astronomer who published in 400 B.C.(E.)

Re:fascinating

[no longer myself]

Most people are sheep and blindly follow "the directions," even when those directions result in nonfunctioning items. They blame the nonfunctionality on themselves, rather than on the design.

I will disagree on one point. The sheep these days never accept blame, and make claim that the designer was an idiot, and it's obviously just junk.

And I do agree with your point about OSS. Many times it would almost take a genious to follow those directions to the letter, but even if you did, it would most likely fail. You have to think on your feet to spot little details for your particular situation (as everyone has their own unique situation) and make adjustments.

The musical genius recognizes that the markings on the paper are one genius talking to another genius, saying, "Hey, look at this idea," and interprets the music.

That reminds me of Mozart's "Ein musikalischer Spass". Only now people are starting to realize the true genious behind it. Ironic that any "bird brain" could have figured it out. ;-)

Naturally, I'm partial to jokes... even subtle ones.

Re:fascinating

[fenix down]

Although he certaintly encoded his work on things other than weapons, mostly after he got old, his defense contractor work is most of what's encoded. Leonardo didn't give a shit about intellectual property, he had patrons. He didn't have to worry about the artist down the block stealing his animatronic kight design and taking over his contract with Wal-Mart. He got paid even when he didn't produce anything, which is actually what happened most of the time, and why he changed patrons more often than he changed his underwear.

He encoded the tanks and the ballistas and everything in case the wrong guy wanted to build them. He encoded other things for his own reasons, but he never encoded anything because he was afraid that Italian noblemen would start paying for the bragging rights of having the guy who ripped off Da Vinci stay in the guest house.

Re:fascinating

[kfg]

And the modern term for "patron" is "employer."

In the case of the machinery of warfare the federal government often takes the place of the Lord, as they stand in much the same relationship to one another.

The government often employs its own patent systems to protect the ideas embodied in its war machines, since those 'secrets' never remain secret very long after a device is actually produced.

Perhaps that's an underlying reason why governments have been so willing to extend the protections of patents beyond all normal reason.

KFG

Re:fascinating

[linzeal]

Are you thinking of Boorstein's "The Discoverers", or something else? Perhaps the most enjoyable book I have read on the history science myself, and thank you sir for reminding me. I am wont to pick up some of his other books, he seems to be well versed with a reular motley of fascinations.

Re:fascinating

[euxneks]

You should note that you draw the dangerous parrallel of saying software developers are like Da Vinci. Tell them that and you'll never hear the end of it!

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah right. Employer is the modern term for master. Wife is the modern term for patron.

Re:fascinating

[kfg]

Wife is the modern term for patron.

Or sometimes "mother," should her basement prove to be suitable.

KFG

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the round earth issue, that's not really so intriguing as anybody who lives outside of a valley can observe the horizon and of course the moon and sun are rather blatant clues. I would imagine dogs and cats can figure out the earth is round. I think the reason people pretend to think this was a major discovery is that elementary school teachers like to present things in that manner.

Re:fascinating

[killjoe]

The bible does mention the four corners of the earth suggesting that the earth is a four sided plane. But then again it also says stars fell down to earth suggesting that stars are little things in the sky. Finally it suggests that pi = 3 when describing the sea that god made.

Goes to show you should not go to the bible for your science or math unless you live in Montana

Re:fascinating

[dstillz]

That is one of the most insightful things I've ever read on Slashdot. You've got a fairly low UID, so you probably don't get replies by email, but I just wanted to say that you've enriched my "4AM, why am I up this late when I'm not being paid to code or play music?" experience, in a tangible way.

Re:fascinating

[jabbadabbadoo]

>| ) |_| =| Y 2 4 _| |_| 0 Y

Re:fascinating

[genus babbage]

seems to be a perfect example of a useless comment. Pretty much unreadable, distracting, unmaintainable, tells you nothing that the prototype doesn't tell you, and neglects to mention anything that might be useful, such as assumptions about the buffer's state prior to calling...

Re:fascinating

[LilGuy]

Reminds me of grade school. No matter which class, there would always be some kid sitting next to me, peeking over at my paper. I'd act like I didn't notice/care, but secretly mark wrong answers. As soon as they finished their test, I'd go back and change them to the right answers.

I fooled kids for many years that way. No one ever confronted me as to why I always had a higher grade than they did.
Served them right.

Re:fascinating

[larrylemur]

Ze noemen ons de bouters het zit ons echt niet mee We willen graag beroemd zijn van Fillem en TV We zijn te groot voor smurfen Als Laaf zijn we te klein dus niemand wil ons hebben hoe grappig we ook zijn Bouterdart x3 doet ons echt geen pijn. We kunnen niet goed stilstaan we springen in het rond dat maakt ons ongeschikt als beeldje op de grond Wij bouters zijn dus werkloos wij snappen niet waarom we zijn een vrolijk volkje en helemaal niet dom! Bouterdart x3 doet maar even pijn Plop kon ons niet uitstaan, dat is zo'n saaie vent we waren veel te druk dat is-tie niet gewend. We kunnen niet goed zingen, dus Disney werd het niet. Die wilde alleen bassen in zijn kabouterlied.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Mom must be proud of her lil man.

Re:fascinating

[VanillaCoke420]

All from the beginnings of the Dark Ages up until the Age of Enlightenment (which btw is welcome back to finish the job), the church DID have great power in Europe and other places. During that time, almost no significant scientific discoveries were made. Hypatia was killed rather brutally by a christian mob in the final stages of the ancient era, one of the things that marked the beginning of a new age, the Dark Age.

This is the time when ridiculous ideas such as Earth being flat and the centre of the universe were promoted and forced upon the people, for example. From now on, scientists, philosophers and pagans and others better look out. You do know about Bruno, Galileo and others, right? Punished for their heretic views. And you do know about the constant indoctrination, right? Or what about all the women and children burnt at the stake, after being "found guilty" of a non-crime, with no evidence? Science was not welcome if it kept questioning the Bible or the Church's interpretation of it.

Oh, and one more thing... having a society run by madmen who wish to stifle imagination, philosophy, and science, is indeed a society run by backward savages.

We live in a strange world too, since we try to protect our children from "bad words" being uttered on TV or violence in the movies, yet we have no problem having them read the Bible; and we try to keep naked breasts out of their entire worldview for fear of eternal damage, yet we have no problem when it comes to indoctrinating them with ridiculous and archaic ideas.

Re:fascinating

[operagost]

Four corners = four compass directions. Like the phrase "you say that I am," it's an ancient expression that modern people like to misinterpret.

Stars = shooting stars.
Since Hebrew doesn't have the word "meteor", it would have been difficult to have it any other way.

Your mention of pi equaling three proves that you are just another atheist parroting an oft-repeated fallacy - because it's not God that creates the "sea" (the bowl or tub) but Solomon. Number one, since all the measurements of the bowl are given in round figures, there's no way pi would every pop up exactly. Number two, they were probably measuring the outside circumference of the bowl. Since the rim is described as opening like a "lily blossom", this measurement would have resulted in numbers that were slightly "off".

Re:fascinating

[Lumpy]

A food preparer follows the recipie.. a Great chef looks at the recipie for the general idea, throws it aside and then creates the meal.

Great Chef's also are extremely happy to tell you all about that meal, even the ingredients and enough information that another chef can reproduce it very well, if not exactly.. althoguh the taste will still be different as you cannot recreate the chef's steps exactly... not even the great chef can reproduce his creations exactly.

The Best minds in the world are happy to share with you how it was done... it is the no talent hacks with something to hide that favor hiding everything from view.

Re:fascinating

[Spoing]

1. The fact that his drawings weren't commented is what tipped us off to his genius in the first place. Everyone knows smart people don't comment.

Ha! Yes they do, here's a guy who is famous for making a helpful comment -- he even put it in the margin!

Re:fascinating

[Hast]

Leonardo (had he come to America) would have felt free to publish and comment without fear

Though I think he would have had to fear the general public instead. When the patent system was passed by congress Leonardo had been dead for over 200 years. Him coming to America and walking around then would probably have caused quite a stir. ;-)

It is however true that the idea of patents are a good thing. Encouraging people to freely share their ideas is good. However in the current implementations patent systems are not good. Mainly they make it very difficult and expensive for "little people" to get patents. And when they have them there is little they can do if a bigger company would want to infringe. Since the big companies have patented a shitload of little things they'll just counter sue you. You'll be bancrupt before you can get any money.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

But it has one benefit over some code comment I've seen. It doesn't give you blatantly wrong information!

Re:fascinating

[few2]

no comment

Re:fascinating

[master_p]

Ancient Greek astronomers also knew that the Earth was round...they calculated the distance between Earth and the Moon within +- 10 meters using trigonometry on shadows.

They just did not know that Earth was not the center of the universe.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

You insensitive clod! I do graphic design - I compare myself to Michelangelo!

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, apologists. It's easy to reinterpret language in light of modern knowledge. "Four corners" is straight out of pre-Biblical thinking, where the Earth was really considered to have four corners. An apologist can say that when it was said in the Bible (as opposed to by some other heathens), it meant something different, but if you'd gone back to, say, a Jew of the day and asked them what they thought "four corners" meant, they would've thought you were crazy if you said the Earth was a sphere. Likewise, shooting stars were called "shooting stars" precisely because that's what people originally thought they were.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

[ancient Greeks] calculated the distance between Earth and the Moon within +- 10 meters using trigonometry on shadows.

The hell they did. That's way beyond Greek accuracy. A few thousand miles is more like it.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.

Skeptics will assume from these verses a concept of a flat, circular, pancake-like earth. In each case, the Hebrew word here is exactly the same, as Strong's tells us:

2329. chuwg, khoog; from H2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.

And here is where we alert the reader to another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast!), but that they simply did not create a second word for it.

Re:fascinating

[Fancia]

But going back in the history of the church, you won't find that everyone suggests that you *should* go to the bible for science. In his Literal Commentaries on Genesis, St. Augustine (~300 A.D.) warns Christians *not* to take it as creation science. Augustine was very much against literal interpretations of the bible; in fact, it's this claim of religion as science that drove him away from the Manichee cult and towards Christianity. The spiritual interpretation of the bible appealed to him greatly.

Re:fascinating

[Knetzar]

Remember that it's backwards, that means read right to left, bottom to top. It says "This function transforms the buffer to little-endian."

Now who wants to take bets that someone will write a program/script to translate text into backwards 733+ speek?

Re:fascinating

[fcecin]

> When handled properly, patents are in the best interest of everyone. Not me. I don't like patents. At all.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, apologists. It's easy to reinterpret language in light of modern knowledge. "Four corners" is straight out of pre-Biblical thinking, where the Earth was really considered to have four corners.

So the Earth was "really considered to have four corners" in pre-Biblical thinking? Interesting. Please provide your references to primary texts which back up this belief of yours.

What, you don't have any? Then this is not a case of "reinterpreting", it's a case of "interpreting". The Christian apologists argue that "four corners" means compass points, and the atheist apologists argue that it means they thought the Earth was square. But neither side has any objective evidence. The intelligent onlookers such as myself note the ambiguity as an interesting linguistic artefact, shake our heads at the idiots who think it's worth arguing about on Slashdot, and move on.

Re:fascinating

[elykyllek]

Nobody is probably moderating this anymore, but the bible may have infact been a head of its time with thinking the earth was round.

Heres the King James version of Isaiah 40:22

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep telling yourself that. We are laughing at you, not with you.

Re:fascinating

[hackus]

Your both wrong.

The four corners of the earth are a reference to the creation of our solar system, and placing the path of the sun in the sky.

The corners in Genesis represent the four cardinal points of the earth with respect to the calendar.

Only the "Gods" know the secrets of the calendar and in this case, especially when God is talk to Job in the Book of Job, it means the four seasons.

Therefore the four corners of the earth are: the spring and summer equinoxes and the winter and summer solstice.

You are fools and you are bigger fools to not realize many of the religions today direct quote scientific facts whe discussing mysteries of existence.

Christ said while he was here that you shall see, but not understand, read but not comprehend.

God brings this point up to Job for example in the Christian/Hebrew religion because the four corners of the earth ARE IMPORTANT.

They represent the basis of a calendar and modern civilization is impossible without the basic means of measuring time.

Fools, idiots.

-Hack

Re:fascinating

[mitherial]

"The problem is protectionism bolstered by greed. Congress, of course, is supposed to represent the people in creating systems that allow the people to engage in profit making enterprises without abrogating the rights of the people." The "rights" of "the people" (read 'Society') to repossess the ideas the somebody else came up with? Sorry, but this country was founded on individual rights, not on any so-called rights of 'Society'.

Re:fascinating

[ajs318]

Ssssh! Don't say that or we'll be bombarded under a tidal wave of Perl one-liners!

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw somewhere that DaVinci purposely put flaws into his drawings as a type of copy protection. Only another genius would be able to see the flaw and build the device correctly.

Either that or he just fscked up.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Individual rights on one hand, and on the other hand a legacy of society through religion over individuality. American culture is a chimara constantly trying to bite all its other heads off.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that the Earth is not the center of the universe?

Have you been outside the universe and looked into it? It all seems rather relative to me.

Re:fascinating

[killjoe]

Facinating interpretation. BUt you know that's all that it is. Just interpretation. Other people may choose to interpret those passages some other way.

Of course most people believe that bible is the word of god. It's not up to interpretation.

Re:fascinating

[killjoe]

The ancient greeks not only knew the earth was a sphere they also pretty accurately calculated the size. Way before the bible.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

And more importantly, a filter to translate it back.

Re:fascinating

[Forgotten]

Decent interpretation, but one caveat: they're not scientific facts, but merely empirical facts. "Scientific" implies more than mere objective reportability (and especially, more specific constraints on what you can assume).

Most people do conflate the two, however. I get quite tired of hearing about "scientifically proven" facts when there's no scientific method in use, and likewise get tired of people who assume Science can describe all, when it has very definite limits, which are important to its own functioning.

Re:fascinating

[killjoe]

What's even worse is when people fall back on utter superstition when science does not have an answer.

Instead of saying "we don't know" or "we have no way of observing or measuring that" people say "It's this way because this two thousand year old books says so".

Re:fascinating

[ckaminski]

That would be "matron".

Re:fascinating

[mec]

No, it was something else, not Boorstin. But these Boorstin books look like something I should check out, thanks!

Re:fascinating

[black mariah]

It's okay. When you grow up and enter the real world you'll realize that a utopian society doesn't exist. I just hope they break it to you gently.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

> I can see the "Post Anonymously" option, but
> where do I find the "Post Humously" option?

It's right next to the "Post Humorously" option, which you obviously can't find, either.

Re:fascinating

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

>> When handled properly, patents are in the
>> best interest of everyone.
>
> Not me. I don't like patents. At all.

If you think the Chromatic Dragon of Ignorance should be slain with the vicious sword of flame, turn to Retort #1. If you think the Dragon should be slain with the psionic power of Mind Encynicization, turn to Retort #2:

|1| ...he says, typing on a machine, and about concepts, that only exist because of patents.

|2| Yes, I prefer living in a world where thousands of years go by with little technological development, too. Let's get rid of copyrights, too, so we can listen to the same music and read the same stories over and over again for centuries.

Re:fascinating

[d34thm0nk3y]

Finally it suggests that pi = 3...

Crap man, for the time I would say that being within .1415.... is pretty damn good!!! heh.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

> Most people who play classical music play it as if they were some sort of flawed mechanism in a player piano whose function is to reproduce the markings on the paper as closely, and mechanically, as possible.

This wasn't always true. It's more just the style of this era.

Re:fascinating

[rzbx]

"...that only exist because of patents."

I'm sorry you believe this. Who exactly told you this? Did you read this somewhere? Was it part of your history class in high school? PATENTS DO NOT FURTHER SCIENCE. Patents are a legal document that are claimed to exist for incentive purposes, but used more so as protection against competition. You have no idea what science is if you believe that patents are somehow directly involved in progress in science and technology. The idea that patents help progress is one of the largest myths about them. You could have your opinions about what patents HAVE accomplished, but as a realist, I don't give a shit about what you think, but what the inventor, the scientist, the researcher, the investor, the employees, the customers, the wealthy, and the various others involved with the progress of science and technology think. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DO IT, NOT YOU. Do some reading about the progress of science and technology and the legal system behind it.

There is a reason for patents and copyrights, and various intellectual property laws. They served their purpose, but unfortunately have not changed with times. If the system were perfect, it would have slowly dissolved by now. There is no need for it today. If you would like I could explain why. Just ask.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I have no objection to people creating their own methods and systems of belief and/or knowledge to explain things that science has nothing to say about. Or even rejecting scientific explanations and again relying on their own, or someone else's from a long time ago. The only thing I really dislike is people trying to invoke the holy mantra of "scientifically proven" without having a clue of how much and how little that actually means.

Re:fascinating

[jcoleman]

The Best minds in the world are happy to share with you how it was done... it is the no talent hacks with something to hide that favor hiding everything from view.

"And what software development processes does this remind us of, class?"

An excellent point, and one that we should remind ourselves of daily.

Re:fascinating

[TKinias]

scripsit killjoe:

The ancient greeks not only knew the earth was a sphere they also pretty accurately calculated the size. Way before the bible.

Um, the referenences were to the Jewish Bible (i.e., Old Testament) -- and parts of that are quite a bit older than classical Greece.

Re:fascinating

[TKinias]

scripsit master_p:

They just did not know that Earth was not the center of the universe.

That was a debated point, actually. Ptolemy, whose model came to be dominant until the Copernican revolution, had a geocentric model. Pythagoras, however, had a heliocentric model, IIRC; there were probably others, too.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no... in Linux, the comments are written *backwards*.

In Soviet Russia the comments WRITE YOU.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, Egyptian cosmology:

It appears that the Egyptian conceived the sky as a sort of tangible or material roof placed above the world, and supported at each of its four corners by a column or pillar, which was later on conceived as a great mountain. The earth itself was conceived to be a rectangular box, [...]

Re:fascinating

[Omerna]

Most people who follow the directions (at least on processed food) are doing it because they're looking for a quick/dirty approach to eating (or whatever). If they had wanted to start getting creative with it they probably would just cook something!

Also, directions are, generally speaking, the best way to do the given task. The product won't last long if it's directions suck. You can see that when you first try to build something without the directions and then, after giving up and grabbing the instructions, putting it together quickly.

Re:fascinating

[killjoe]

Exactly how old do you propose the old testament is? Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth around 250 BC in egypt (he was the librarian at alexandria). The dead sea scrolls are dated at around 100 BC to 100 AD one presumes the old testament to be right around that time. Does anybody date the old testament before 250 BC?

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

dumbass... you should have looked up "posthumous" in the dictionary before you made a fool of yourself.

Re:fascinating

[nacturation]

Backwards doesn't imply bottom-to-top orientation. Last time I looked at myself in the mirror, my feet appeared below my head. Plus, reading it top-to-bottom makes it sound like Yoda wrote that function. "Converts a buffer, this function does... hmm?"

Re:fascinating

[operagost]

Following your line of reasoning, we don't know anything about the Greeks or Romans because the best sources of data on those empires (Tacitus and Josephus) are, as you might imagine, about 2000 years old. Even worse, the earliest existing MSS are several hundred to a thousand years removed from the original writings (unlike the New Testament).

Re:fascinating

[instarx]

Most people are sheep and blindly follow "the directions," even when those directions result in nonfunctioning items.

Sometimes people are not very creative, but as a blanket theory about humans your idea just doesn't hold up to common experience. Just as people can be blind to different ways to do something they can be just as extreme in the other direction - using things in ways they were never designes to be used. Just think of the millions of uses paper clips and coat hangers have been put to over the years rather than clipping papers and hanging coats.

Are there millions who blindly follow directions - yes. Are there millions who seldom read or follow directions - yes. Your generalization about human behavior doesn't hold water.

They blame the nonfunctionality on themselves, rather than on the design.

What planet are you from again? In my experience people almost never take the blame for things that do not work - they almost always blame the item, the design, or someone else.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the notations you'll find on many processed food products these days, "You'll find that this might taste good with a little cheese on it. Or maybe some salt." They have to be told to "think outside the box," as it were.

Um, no, that's so the food company can sell more cheese. Cha-ching!

Re:fascinating

[sparkywonderchicken]

True but until now there wasn't a proper self-winding mechanism. Now it could be a perpetual motion machine!

Re:fascinating

[ACPosterChild]

not even the great chef can reproduce his creations exactly

Romantic idea, but not true. Just because they're not using measuring spoons/cups, doesn't mean they're not measuring. A chef can pour out exact amounts of ingredients. After working under the one I did for a summer, I was able to get exact teaspoons and tablespoons of salt by pouring them in my hand, and I was getting close to trusting myself to pour a cup of liquid from a bottle directly into the mixture.

Also, since chefs know the science behind food preparation, recipies are like note progressions in music. Saying that a chef couldn't remember how to re-create a dish they made is like saying a musician couldn't remember a chord progression. If it turns out good, they're going to remember for at least awhile.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I must be a freakin' super-genius, as folks around me are always finding little flaws in my work. Which must then make them super-geniuses (super-genii?) too, since they found one of my mistakes.

Re:fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Um no, they CAN'T.

can that chef get the exact temperature again? no his stove swings +-10 degrees, can he get the exact same relative humidity during prep? no. can he be sure that he mixed to the last millisecond the same? nope.

you certianly are nto a chef as good ones know that you CAN NOT recreat a dish exactly twice.

ingredients change flavor and texture... those potatoes you used last week taste different than this week ....etc....

I strongly suggest that you go to cooking school and learn about cooking.. it's more involved and technical than computer programming is! espically the fact that he organic variables change all the time.

Lumpy is 100% correct. you are 80% wrong.

Re:fascinating

[fcecin]

Dragon what? Anyway... so when the absence of a patent system did hinder progress? And I wasn't talking about copyrights (not yet).

Re:fascinating

[pudge]

Does anybody date the old testament before 250 BC?

Yes. Everyone. The apocrypha -- the books dating between the Old and New Testaments, including the Maccabees etc. -- happened from about 400 B.C. to 0. The Old Testament (the Hebrew Canon) is all stuff from before 400 B.C.

Re:fascinating

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The massively powerful chips and networking gear that allow you to do anything more substantial than a text terminal allow you this, and that's heavily related to patents.

I must have missed the part, in reasoning, or actual reality, where people being able to lift your designs and implement them drives for faster technological progress. Makes me want to do it!

Turns only to the right?

[bearl]

A programmable steering mechanism allows it go straight, or turn at pre-set angles. But only to the right.

To the right? That's of no use! Reprogram that sucker to turn left and send it to NASCAR.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[rchatterjee]

or they could always just decide to have races with this kind of car going the opposite direction on the track.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

or they could always just decide to have races with this kind of car going the opposite direction on the track.

Or upside-down, clinging to the ceiling. (Now we only need to get a ceiling...)

Re:Turns only to the right?

[LostCluster]

The reason why they turn to the left in NASCAR is because that turn creates a downward force on the car. A right turn at such a high speed create an upward force, and could risk the cars loosing grip with the pavement which would send a car straight toward the wall at the curve.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Curly-Locks]

If the article is right and it is programmable which seems a little implausible, then it can make a claim to being the world's first computer "design", 300 years before Charles Babbage.
However the fact that it can only go "right" makes you think it is probably not object-oriented.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[corbettw]

That's odd, I thought the drivers in NASCAR races turned left mostly because they race on oval tracks in America. I'm sure if NASCAR suddenly became popular in Britain or Australia, they'd all be making right hand turns.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe they are cheapasses and only put in half a steering wheel.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Xzzy]

Uh, they turn left in NASCAR because they drive on an oval, and go counterclockwise.

If they turned right they'd slam into the wall, no matter what kind of downforce they lost. If the race was set up to go clockwise turning right would be exactly the same as turning left does currently. :P

Turning left is supposedly a trait carried over from horse races.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Emperor Igor]

I have a hard time believing that. I suppose it defies my instincts. Can you point me to some semi-official full explanation, perhaps?

I would like to understand this. I had no idea that direction mattered to centripetal, frictional or gravitational forces. Am I missing something?

Re:Turns only to the right?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No, that's only true in the Northern hemisphere. It's the other way around down South.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbest. Troll. Ever.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[idommp]

Am I missing something?

Yes, coriolis. Going fast in a straight line doesn't work well in a rotating coordinate system. The natrual tendency (north of the equator) is to veer to the left. There's less work involved if you turn left. NASCAR is devoted to racing without having to do much physical exertion--otherwise, they'd peddle the cars. Therefore, they turn left.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[E_elven]

Sure it's OO. The Observer simply doesn't react to LEEEEEEFFFFFFTTTTTTT!!!!!!! Messages.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[AndroidCat]

To turn left (or counter-clockwise), you'd need an anti-clockwork car, and that might be dangerous! Just race it in Australia where they go the other way around, no worries.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Emperor Igor]

Cariolis Effect, I believe, should have no effect on the movement of cars around a track unless the track is very big, as in spanning a large ways north and south (hundreds of miles) and the cars are floating above the track or something. As Cariolis Effect explains the motion of something like clouds traveling southward on the greath sphere that is the Earth (link).

Contrary to popular belief and that hilarious episode of the Simpsons water doesn't necessarily flush in a different direction on the southern hemisphere :P There is no "natural" tendency of rotation on the different hemispheres. Or, now, am I missing something even further about the Cariolis effect? I could be. I'm terrible at the sciences.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[CrowScape]

They can make that claim, but it wouldn't be true, as the first computer predated Da Vinci by about 1500 years. It's called the Antikythera Device which could calculate the positions of the sun, moon and planets.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[modecx]

Better make sure that a clockwork car dosen't collide with an anti-clockwork car... That could be a real mess.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[timmi]

My understanding was that the Cariolis Effect does indeed influence the direction that water spirals down the drain, but the influence is minimal, and by moving your hand in the opposite direcion, it is possible to make it spin the other way. I seem to recall that the rotation of the earth, (Cariolis Effect) is what makes the "Prevailing winds" that one finds out in the middle of the oceans blow in a diagonal direction.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Emperor Igor]

In fact, from what I have read, the effect is virtually undetectable except in laboratory conditions with very circular sinks :P

My beliefs about the Corialis force seem to match yours completely, otherwise.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Coriolis - not Cariolis.
Imagine standing at the northpole - or southpole - doesn't matter. Now run directly towards equator. You'll feel a sideways push on your feet. The faster you move the harder the push. Same with standing at the center of a rotating carousel and walking towards the edge. That's the Coriolis force.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[deimtee]

Much more important than the coriolis effect would be the gyroscopic effect of turning the rotating engine to the left or right. One way would make the car nose heavy, the other tail heavy.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[ChronoWiz]

Only turns to the right? Reminds me of certain Kilrathi ships in Wing Commander that had the same flaw.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[cammoblammo]

Contrary to popular belief and that hilarious episode of the Simpsons water doesn't necessarily flush in a different direction on the southern hemisphere

Okay, let's get right off topic!

I live in Australia, and I found that episode of the Simpsons amusing. The producers needed to do their research properly though. I have never seen a toilet in Australia flush the water in any direction except down (apart on one unfortunate but memorable occasion, when it was up).

We use a different style of flush in which the water sort of quickly floods the bowl and it drains itself quite chaotically with all sorts of foaming and splashing (if you want a cold surprise, pull the chain before you rise!)

I know a plumber who worked in the US installing Australian style toilets. He finds them so much easier to work on. Better him than me!

The Coriolis Effect is something of a Furphy at the smaller scale--it just isn't true. I've never been able to convince a drain to drain the same way every time without something like the toilet in the US Embassy. I remember watching a British science show in which the presenter, a man called Magnus Pike, tried flushing water down drains in England, South Africa and some hotel which apparently lay on the Equator. The only spin he got was in England, where it went the wrong way.

Back to the topic...!

Re:Turns only to the right?

[paganizer]

Linux kernel v0.0000000000000000000000000000001?

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

To demonstrate the coriolis effect in a toilet, you need to first, forget about using a toilet, and go for a nice large, shallow, *perfectly* round bowl.

Then, be patient :)

But, it can be done.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be Dubya's car!

Re:Turns only to the right?

[ArsenneLupin]

The only spin he got was in England, where it went the wrong way.

That's because water follows the cars. In this respect, England is indeed closer to Australia, and thus the water did not spin the wrong way, but the left way!

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Qeantk]

Gryroscopic effects are often counter-intuitive... but I, incorrectly as it turns out, figured most slashdotters would at least know junior-high school physcis ;) :p.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[operagost]

Now run directly towards equator.

Since you're at the pole, feel free to run in any direction for the proper effect.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[adamofgreyskull]

IF YOU DRIVE CLOCKWISE THIS PROBLEM DOES NOT ARISE.
Apologies for all caps, btw, but I think most people could grasp what he was getting at... :o)

Re:Turns only to the right?

[yRabbit]

I believe that somewhere in there, is the secret to anti-gravity.
All you need to do is keep turning to the right while accelerating (upward force, lose grip with the pavement), and you should go right over the wall and continue going upwards.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>We use a different style of flush in which the water sort of quickly floods the bowl and it drains itself quite chaotically with all sorts of foaming and splashing (if you want a cold surprise, pull the chain before you rise!)

OMG! What sort of nasty grogan are you leaving in the bowl if you need a chain to get rid of the evidence?

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Cthefuture]

Hmmm, maybe the parent is partly correct.

Because the driver sits on the left hand side of the car there is slightly less centrifugal force trying to pull the car off the road when making left turns. This is due to the weight being more towards the center of the pivot rather than the outside edge.

This allows you to go faster.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[flxkid]

I thought it had to do with what hemisphere you are in, you know, like the toilet flush, counterclockwise in the north, clockwise in the south :)

Re:Turns only to the right?

[ajs318]

Australian and British WCs are mostly of the "washdown" design. The entire basin is really just the belled-out mouth of a U-bend. The waste pipe (110mm is standard in the UK) goes over a weir of about 10cm., then usually exits backwards through an outside wall. As a result there is not much water in the bottom of the basin, just enough to seal the trap; this acts like a brewer's airlock to prevent sewer gases from entering the house. The flushwater pushes the contents of the basin backwards, up and over the trap. Usage and flushing are noisy, but the full-bore outlet is almost immune to blockage.

The syphonic closet is more popular in the USA. This has a specially-constructed trap within the pedestal which slows the egress of water. The waste pipe goes from the bottom of the basin, up and over and down within the pedestal - and suddenly widens out to full bore just below the level of the bottom of the basin. When flushed, the water level in the basin rises at first; then, as soon as the first drop begins to descend into the wider section, a syphonic action is set up which draws out the basin contents. The action is quieter, since the waste and the flushwater have less height to fall, but the more complex trap design -- particularly the necessity for a constriction in order to start the syphonic action -- make this design more prone to blockage.

There is also a twin-trap WC, which also uses a syphonic action in flushing. In the twin-trap closet, the flushwater passes over a venturi device into a plenum chamber which slows its progress towards the flushing rim. The venturi draught draws out the air from the space between the upper and lower traps. The lower trap has the deeper seal, so water is drawn over the weir of the upper trap. This starts a syphonic action, which continues until the basin is empty (the lower trap behaves like a traditional washdown WC trap). The plenum chamber holds enough water to recharge the basin and upper trap.

Despite their almost silent action, twin-trap WCs are not all that common, as they are expensive {due to all that complexity} and still somewhat susceptible to blockage.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find interesting is that you've all heard of it and sort of understand it, but you not only can't spell it, but misspell it in different ways. Even when the original poster spelled it right. Fascinating. ;)

(the Coriolis force - though it isn't in fact a "force")

Still waiting for Toyota to name a car "Coriolis" btw.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[dustmite]

Ah, there's the problem, using junior-high level "physics"! Next time try using, say, University-level physics.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[instarx]

Notice that cars are not bilaterally symmetrical. for example the batteries on cars are usually on the right to partly offset the weight of the driver. Gas tanks are often not located in the center of the vehicle but are offset to the right. Stock car racing started in the 30's and believe me no one back then was thinking of the weight of the driver and its effect on cornering. Stock cars probably began racing on CCW tracks because that was the direction horses raced.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[fifedrum]

You get the golden donut trophy for that answer.

At least, that's how it (counter clockwise) was explained to me when I worked at the horse track (Finger Lakes Race Track) watching the thoroughbreds run.

Of course, the person pouring out their knowledge upon me had no idea who started horses running left to begin with, or that horse races also used to be like road races today, left and right turns... ;-) but that's a different story.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[azaris]

Because the driver sits on the left hand side of the car there is slightly less centrifugal force trying to pull the car off the road when making left turns. This is due to the weight being more towards the center of the pivot rather than the outside edge.

NASCAR stock cars are heavily weighted to the left for better turning anyway so whatever mass the driver has doesn't matter much at that point. But it might also be a safety issue - if the car darts into the outside wall, do you want the driver's side to hit first?

The real answer is of course: "tradishun".

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Suidae]

Thats what I've heard. So my question is why does the whirlpool in the sink always form going the same way 'round?

Is it the threads in the drain?

Both sides of my sink (connected via a 'T' pipe) spiral in the same direction, every time that I have taken note of the direction.

Re:Turns only to the right?

[Qeantk]

*rolls eyes* University physics are a superset. I was pointing out that one needed only the far more insignificant, and hopefully better known, subset of junior-high level physics, in this case. What I learned about gyroscopic effects in Uni certainly reinforces this, not cancels it. What, exactl,y suoper-secret University physcis classes were you in that suddenly overturned gyroscopic effects?

Clockwork Car?

[haRDon]

I wonder if it'll get you to work on time?

Re:Clockwork Car?

[nacturation]

And what about the colors... does it come in Clockwork Orange?

Re:Clockwork Car?

[DarkHelmet]

Alex: "IT'S A SIN! IT'S A SIN!"

Dr: "Sin? What's all this about sin?"

Alex Points to the car... "THAT!"

Re:Clockwork Car?

[noidentity]

Oh nice, a car which in addition to taking up the driver's time, is also fueled by time.

Impressive....

[Yoda2]

...but the real headline will be when someone successfully pilots one of his flying machines!

Re:Impressive....

[electrichamster]

This has been done - There was a programme on Channel 4 (UK) about three weeks ago in which they successfully built his glider and flew it. It flew very well, although it was apparently like nothing that currently exists with regards to handling, and it had no yaw (I think thats the word) at all.

Re:Impressive....

[Yoda2]

Forgot about the glider. I was thinking more of that crazy helicopter thing.

Re:Impressive....

[uberdave]

People have been using parachutes for years.

Re:Impressive....

[Lt.Hawkins]

actually, the design of _his_ actual parachute was only recently tested. (essentially a pyramid of fabric around a square frame at the base)

This was documented on the Imax "Adrenaline Rush" film and was cool as hell!

Re:Impressive....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... his parachute design was already tested. There was a long documentary on PBS a year or two ago about it.

Re:Impressive....

[fenix down]

That's pretty good, really. A few early powered airplanes did without yaw control to cut down on the complexity. It indicates a pretty good understanding of what you want to do with an airplane, for the 1400s anyway. You'd sort of expect somebody trying to get through this from more-or-less scratch to go with just pitch and yaw.

I mean, your first idea would be that if you want to go up, have something that steers up and down, and if you want to go right, have something that steers right and left, and just leave it at that, because where else do you want to go besides up, down, left and right? Coming up with roll at all seems pretty good to me.

Re:Impressive....

[Ticklemonster]

I heard everyone was in awe of its yaw, ya'll

Re:Impressive....

[zeno_2]

Of course theres always the proof we saw in the movie, "Hudson Hawk".

Re:Impressive....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I sucked at Elite.

The other Leonardo's car

[Anonymous Coward]

They should create a replica of the turtle van used in the old cartoon, now that would be worthwhile science!

Re:The other Leonardo's car

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

It was called the party wagon

Is it just me...

[Chmcginn]

Or does it seem like there must be something else going on that makes them not want to test their model. Consider:

The springs are wound up by rotating the wheels in the opposite direction to the one in which it is meant to go.

"It is a very powerful machine," Professor Galluzzi said. So powerful that although they have made a full-scale "production model", they have not dared test it. "It could run into something and do serious damage," he said.

If the springs are wound by rotating in the opposite direction... why not just wind it up only a few meters in the middle of a large parking lot? Can't go any further than you wind it...

Re:Is it just me...

[trick-knee]

> Can't go any further than you wind it...

maybe it coasts?

still, you've a good point. THEY'RE HIDING SOMETHING!!

Re:Is it just me...

[physicsphairy]

If the springs are wound by rotating in the opposite direction... why not just wind it up only a few meters in the middle of a large parking lot? Can't go any further than you wind it...

Well, yes it can. As a matter of fact, it can go arbitrarily far with arbitrary impulse, depending on the mechanism inside it that stores the energy. (There are, of course, technological limitations and some limitations of physical law on the extreme end)

You don't know how much energy it takes to wind this thing back a few meters. It could easily be tend times the energy required to move it forward a few meters. Think of a cross bow. You only "wind" the bow back a fraction of a meter at most. Does in any way limit the distance the bolt will fly to just a fraction of a meter?

Re:Is it just me...

[general_re]

You don't know how much energy it takes to wind this thing back a few meters. It could easily be tend times the energy required to move it forward a few meters.

For a minute there, I was worried that I only imagined those spring-powered cars from my childhood, the ones that shot across the room after being pulled back a foot or two ;)

Re:Is it just me...

[Speare]

Can't go any further than you wind it...

You never owned a spring-loaded toy car? You back it up a few inches, and it drives forward more than a yard, until it disappears under your refrigerator. The spring stores the energy of your ARM, not the potential INCHES which you rolled it backward.

Re:Is it just me...

[AndroidCat]

A powerful machine that could run into something and do serious damage?

Yup, that sounds like a normal car. They should test it late on a Friday night and no one will notice it. Anyone for a clockwork booze cruise?

Re:Is it just me...

[t_allardyce]

The arrow is restricted by the amount of energy you put in - ie you can easily 'feel' that the force your pulling with will make the arrow embed itself into the nearest tree, or fall to the ground 2 meters away. similarly the car is restricted by the amount of energy put in which could be measured, or just put a stupidly small amount of energy in for a small amount of time and its safe. I dont know why they dont test it, maybe they're the sort of people who build domino's up and then pack them away without knocking them down!

Re:Is it just me...

[TummyX]

Perhaps they don't want to depreciate the value of the car by increasing the milage on the clock.

Re:Is it just me...

[Everlasting God]

No. Just no. Your ARM doesn't have energy, and the tiny capsule of gears and springs that runs the car cannot tap that non-existant energy. Once the spring has released the energy you put in it by pulling the car back the car coasts until it stops. Were there no friction in the moving parts of the car and no air resistance it would go forever.

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you by any chance a parrot?

Re:Is it just me...

[Cyno01]

Well then they could just wind it back again. Kinda the whole point of the car. :p

Re:Is it just me...

[p4ul13]

How the happy hell can you claim that your arm isn't transferring energy to the spring in the toy car?

Re:Is it just me...

[bigben7187]

I know!!! They could put it on a treadmill! Also, if its programmable, shouldnt they be able to program it not to hit anything? like take it to a race track and have it run circles? Or they could make it the next Mars rover. They could have it constantly wound on the trip to mars, and released when it gets there. That would be fun...

Re:Is it just me...

[timmi]

Right, those spring loaded toy cars have a mechanism much like that of a bicycle chain and gears. It's essentially a Ratchet-like clutch. When you stop pedaling your bike, it doesn't instantly stop. The rear hub has a clutch that allows it to spin freely in one direction. Ever notice that when you roll the tire backwards the pedals always move? Exactly the same principle.

Re:Is it just me...

[Donny Smith]

>Can't go any further than you wind it... Actually that's rather unimportant. They can wind it all they want and then put it on one of those things for testing car brakes (two sets of steel tubes that rotate as fast as one's wheels spin).

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I got to play with full-scale ballistas and trebuchets as a child...

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

SHUTUP dumbass. Fucking slashdot people always explain fucking simple shit to try to act real smart. Allow me to explain, he obviously means only wind it up enough to send it a short distance and used "a few meters" to demonstate this.

Re:Is it just me...

[dj245]

Perhaps they don't want to depreciate the value of the car by increasing the milage on the clock.

They probably don't want to be convicted of Odometer fraud

Re:Is it just me...

[MrScience]

They probably just don't have the time to test it.

(rimshot)

Re:Is it just me...

[fenix down]

I think there probably is, and I think you spell it "giant-ass springs held in place by nothing but Rennaisance-era carpentry."

"Ok, guys, just keep pulling it back, yeah, keep going, keep going, keep..."
*FWOING*
"Oh, Jesus, he's got an arm off!"

That can't be good for the university's insurace rates.

Re:Is it just me...

[VanillaCoke420]

Or put it on four concrete blocks or something and then just let it go.

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. When you "wind" the crossbow, you are pulling the arrow back, and pushing the bow forward. When you "wind" the car, you are only pushing the car back, and the ground is pushing it forward (by friction). Thus, you can only push it back so far so that the force the wheels exert on the ground does not exceed the frictional force between the car and the ground - else the car will just skid backward and stop winding the spring. To esimate the theoretical maximum speed this car can acheive, think of how fast a modern car can get by peeling out over a few meters from a dead stop. Then divide by two. That's faster than the spring loaded car can get by the time the spring is unwound.

Re:Is it just me...

[FauxPasIII]

> "Oh, Jesus, he's got an arm off!"

No I 'aven't! T'is but a scratch !

Re:Is it just me...

[K1-V116]

"...he's got an arm off!"

"It's only a flesh wound!"

Re:Is it just me...

[SoSueMe]

Hmmm.. Breaks, anyone? Even if they aren't in the specs, they might be a good idea.

Re:Is it just me...

[SoSueMe]

Jeff Foxworthy... is that you?

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

YES, having the car break before it crashes into something is ingenius. Or maybe you meant brakes?

Re:Is it just me...

[bodrell]

Someone pointed out that it could go much further, depending on how the energy was stored. But if the car were to go, say, ten times further than it was wound up, you'd have to put in ten times as much energy as it would take to push it. I'm ignoring hills, for the sake of simplicity.

At any rate, the bottom line is that what this guy said,

"It was - or is - the world's first self-propelled vehicle," said Paolo Galluzzi, director of the Institute and Museum of the History of Science in Florence, who oversaw the project.

is total BS. It isn't self-propelled anymore than one of those wind-up toy cars. It's propelled by whoever winds it. I can't think of any practical uses for such a car, either. Maybe you could roll down a hill backwards, then turn the car around at the bottom and take off. But how would you ever get back up the hill?

It can only turn right...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess DaVinci agrees that we should be Left Hand Drive...

Re:It can only turn right...

[xenotrout]

He was left-handed. It makes sense.

Not on the road?

[dankney]

"It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage."

And the SUV that nearly killed me this morning isn't?

The real reason it isn't on the road is government regulation. There needs to be a 10-year rigorous testing project to make sure it meets federal emmission standards.

Re:Not on the road?

[splerdu]

DaVinci's car does not have a driver, and could only follow a set program. At least the SUV you mentioned could be steered or stopped. As you imagine a full-scale model might be troublesome...

Re:Not on the road?

[Anonymous Coward]

A good number of the people I've seen driving SUVs have probably made the car worse than no steering at all. Tell me, how does doing your makeup while on the cellphone contribute to going straight at a constant speed?

Re:Not on the road?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the SUV you mentioned could be steered or stopped.

Really?? Could you please tell those soccer moms how this is done exactly. I guarantee you will win a Nobel prize for your work.

Re:Not on the road?

[dhalgren99]

" At least the SUV you mentioned could be steered or stopped."

Or AIMED!!!!!!

Yikes!

Re:Not on the road?

[E_elven]

I've found that those actions are impeccable for maintaining a steady course. That, of course, is a problem when there's an obstacle.

Re:Not on the road?

[drinkypoo]

It could be steered or stopped, but since it's a SUV there is some cosmic law that says it will not be steered or stopped any way but incredibly inefficiently and as sloppily as possible.

Re:Not on the road?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is so obvious that it almost proves that the model is a fake. I'm not going to give it, because these chumps have a good thing going and I won't fsck it up for them. Another solution would be Bonneville, like another poster suggests.

I can't wait...

[lewko]

Until homeless bums jump in front of your clockwork car at traffic lights, start cranking and then demand five bucks...

that's nothing...

[physicsphairy]

I will soon complete a modern version of Da Vinci's nuclear breeder reactor as soon as I can find a wood cog that decelerates neutron emissions.

Re:that's nothing...

[Tablizer]

I will soon complete a modern version of Da Vinci's nuclear breeder reactor as soon as I can find a wood cog that decelerates neutron emissions.

It would be interesting to see a Survivor episode between Da Vinci, McGiver, and The Professor on Gilligan's Island.

Re:that's nothing...

[Emperor Igor]

Maybe you should talk to the same furniture guys that the builders did...

Re:that's nothing...

[AndroidCat]

Wouldn't it cause a paradox if The Professor was voted off the island?

Re:that's nothing...

[FrYGuY101]

Naw. The Harlem Globetrotters would show up and grant him immunity at the last minute.

Re:that's nothing...

[hazem]

I think there was a Star Trek episode about this. They were all three the same man, who would have lived forever until he moved to another planet and made an android chick. She screwed it up, of course.

Really... have you ever seen Da Vinci, McGiver, and the Professor at the same time? Notice they all have 3 syllables?

Re:that's nothing...

[AndroidCat]

Oh sure, there'd always be *something* at the last minute, but like in Larry Niven's Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation, that something could get pretty drastic!

Re:that's nothing...

[mattjb0010]

I will soon complete a modern version of Da Vinci's nuclear breeder reactor as soon as I can find a wood cog that decelerates neutron emissions.

No, to slow down neutrons you need glow-in-the-dark gun and bow sights. Any boy scout knows that!

Re:that's nothing...

[scheme]

It would be interesting to see a Survivor episode between Da Vinci, McGiver, and The Professor on Gilligan's Island.

Not really, since McGuyver and and the Professor are fictional characters, DaVinci wins by default.

Re:that's nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you win the prize, JACKASS!

Re:that's nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better, a Rough Science episode.

I think the total inability to work with others might hamper them, though. Also the desire to hack and play around instead of getting to the actual task at hand (rather like that chemist guy).

Re:that's nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

So is anyone on an "unscripted" Survivor-type show (fictional).

Helicopter

[rchatterjee]

Ok, that's pretty good now how about someone go and try to build one of these?

Helicopter

Re: Helicopter

[Undefined Parameter]

I stared at that for a while, and I think I have an idea of how it might work... well, if the spiral can actually create lift, and then if it can create enough lift to overcome the weight of the rest of the contraption, that is. (And I'm by no means certain of this.)

~UP

Re: Helicopter

[Anonymous Coward]

And if an hippo can flag it's ears fast enough to create enough lift to overcome it's weight, it can fly!!!

To summerize: DUH!

A clockwork...

[paul248]

I was going to say a witty pun related to "A Clockwork Orange," but I couldn't think of anything that rhymes with it...

Re:A clockwork...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "A Lockwork Carrage", you fool.

Re:A clockwork...

[xs650]

Door hinge

Re:A clockwork...

[vanman2004]

Well, does it have a clockwork door hinge?

Re:A clockwork...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a fucking H in it. door *H*inge. Not door inge.

Re:A clockwork...

[theTerribleRobbo]

You obviously don't 'ave a Cockney accent, sir.

Re:A clockwork...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't "flange" technically rhyme with orange? It's not a very good rhyme...but it's better than nothing, right?

The funny thing is though..

[msim]

I saw this in the news a few hours ago.
But unfortunately i had to get back to work so didn't get to submit it in..

Then again getting first post and modded +5 funny on something i submitted would be a bit egotistical ;-).

The secret has been revieled

[geekoid]

1) Make obscure drawings the kind of look like what you are thinkging of
2) Don't document, allow other to figure it out
3)Profit!

wait, that would be management.

Re:The secret has been revieled

[msim]

No i would have said that it would be the Marketing department.

But what do i know? i work in network management.

Re:The secret has been revieled

[yabiah]

More like IBM's Marketing department. Have u seen those IBM TV Ads lately..

Re:The secret has been revieled

[geekoid]

Marketing makes advertising that allows the potential buyers think the products does whatever they think it does.

Sales give vague statement until they find out what th customer is looking for, then assures them that this is it

Management, havine no communication with marketing or sales, is told to 'make it happen'. Since they don't know what 'it' is, they rely on marketings 'advertisments' and thus, interpet it to mean what ever they think it means. then send development a one paragraph email explaining they need it thursday...Last thursday.

development takes the managments email and slaps together a product. or specifically, the wrong product. Since no one will admit a mistake(in fact, know one has made one) The product begins to evolv through a series of 'functionality' requests into what sales has sold.

Meanwhile, Marketing is enjoing martinis and toasting each other on a job well done.

hmmm.. How does one go from development to marketing?

Re:The secret has been revieled

[msim]

"hmmm.. How does one go from development to marketing?"

Generally i would have thought "with a *VERY* blunt axe."

Re:The secret has been revieled

[Radar|TGS]

I do both development AND marketing. Imagine how confused I am!

Nothing new here

[jeephistorian]

I had one of those when I was young. A little plastic car that was pulled back and released. It even had a simple steering mechanism.

Okay, so it wasn't over 500 years old and the size of a golfcart, it was still cool!

______

Interesting feature...

[schmink182]

Open top three-wheeler. 2004 reg. Italian design and craftsmanship. Zero mpg. No emissions. Easy parking. Programmable steering
(Emphasis mine)

Not to pick nits, but shouldn't it have infinite miles per gallon? Zero miles per gallon implies that, no matter how much gas you put in it, it'll never go anywhere.

Re:Interesting feature...

[Nimrangul]

Exactly. How's the gas supposed to wind the mechanism? I suppose if it's a watermill design it may get some crummy milage out of it, but that's the only benefit I can see out of gassing it.

Re:Interesting feature...

[lostchicken]

...no matter how much gas you put in it, it'll never go anywhere...

Well, seeing as it doesn't run on gas, this would be correct. When it's wound down, I can pour gas on and into it all day, and it won't go any farther than the burning embers can fly.

Re:Interesting feature...

[Old Wolf]

Like the Nader campaign?

Re:Interesting feature...

[DeionXxX]

Well yeah.. putting gas into it won't make it go anywhere except maybe catch on fire if someone smokes near it...

:-P

Re:Interesting feature...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's a moot point. It ought to be null miles per gallon, as gasoline isn't the source of propulsion. Regardless of how much gas you put into (onto?) it, there is no bearing on how far it will go.

If you put in gas and it never moves, it's 0 miles per gallon.

If you put in gas and it runs forever (in spite of the gas) it's infinite miles per gallon, since not even the slightest of the gasoline was used to propel it!

Re:Interesting feature...

[Mulletproof]

Not to nitpick (we are anyway), but since there are no gallons, it is impossible to derive mile from them, thus no miles per gallon. granted, the statment is redundant, but fairly accurate at anyrate.

Re:Interesting feature...

[niktesla]

Well, if you put too much gas into it, the only place it'll go is up in flames! :)

Re:Interesting feature...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: the car was built in Europe where people use proper measuring systems, i.e. metric, i.e. litre/100km. In this case, the car uses 0 litres/100km. For the backward Americans, the conversion was done by NASA, 'nuff said.

Re:Interesting feature...

[Emperor Igor]

What if you spray the gas under high pressure from the front to wind it?

Re:Interesting feature...

[Captain Nitpick]

Not to pick nits, but shouldn't it have infinite miles per gallon? Zero miles per gallon implies that, no matter how much gas you put in it, it'll never go anywhere.

As others have stated, dividing by zero is undefined.

When people talk about X/0 equalling infinity, what they mean is that the limit as the denominator approaches zero from the appropriate direction is infinity. This is not the same as X/0 being equal to infinity, and is not true in all cases of division by zero.

In this case, taking the limit as the amount of gas approaches zero from the positive side yields zero miles per gallon, as it never goes anywhere for any amount of gas.

Re:Interesting feature...

[p4ul13]

Which brings to mind an excelent idea (to me). I think we should build one of these and add on a V6 engine to wind the motor for us. Think of the gas savings!!! =)

Re:Interesting feature...

[Banjonardo]

No. For as many gallons of gasoline you put into it, you'll get no miles. It's not gas powered!

Re:Interesting feature...

[Feanturi]

Not to pick nits, but shouldn't it have infinite miles per gallon? Zero miles per gallon implies that, no matter how much gas you put in it, it'll never go anywhere.

It has neither. Deny gas, or pour gas all over it to your heart's content and you will not affect the efficiency one iota... Unless someone nearby is smoking, in which case the 'Zero Miles per Gallon' statement would become true.

Re:Interesting feature...

[ynnaD]

I presume that what he means is that if you put even an infinitesimal amount of gas into it, it will go for an infinite distance.

Re:Interesting feature...

[Flingles]

rofl I came up with the stupidest scenario just then. All over the world these clockwork cars replace normal ones. Then people start getting lazy and put in engines to wind the clockwork.

Re:Interesting feature...

[schmink182]

I completely disagree. This car can travel arbitrarily large distances independent of how much gas you pour on it. The same goes for if you add no gas at all (which happens to be the preferred method for getting it to work). So this case is infinity/x, where x is the amount of gas. If you set x to be one, then you see that it gets infinite miles per gallon.

Re:Interesting feature...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not infinite mpg since it's technically division by zero. It's more mathematically undefined miles per gallon.

Re:Interesting feature...

[Syrrh]

Unless of course, the addition of gasoline destroys parts of the mechanism. Pouring one gallon of gas over it (no tank to put it in) would ensure that it doesn't go anywhere, giving it a true 0 MPG.

Kind of like a bicycle... that also gets 0 MPG, since after drinking various quantities of gasoline the rider is too busy vomiting and/or dying.

Now the rest of his "inventions"

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard there were many more drawings, how about we build them all as well?

I wouldnt mind trying out a flying helicopter thought up by someone that lived hundreds of years ago, and knew more than others even today!

Not bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

For a stranded time traveler, Leonard did quite well, don't you think?

Re:Not bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Score:2 Got The Reference

Re:Not bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing about time travel. By fact, it does not exist. If in the future, time travel is indeed to be created, surely someone would have travled back in time by now and enlightened us. That hasnt happened. So, saddly, time travel into the past has been proven impossible with this devestating paragraph. Sorry. :)

Re:Not bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You will not has heardest the explanation tomorrow yet? Dude, where have you will be?

Re:Not bad...

[AndroidCat]

Too bad Twitchell had no guarantee that the balance mass he sent forward wouldn't emerge inside something in a few hundred years.

Re:Not bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless there's a finite amount of time to work with... which there is.

Picture of car

[Lord_Dweomer]

For those who don't want to RTFA and just want to see what it looks like:

Enjoy.

If anybody happens to have a link to a picture of the actual plans, I would be QUITE interested in getting a look at those.

Re:Picture of car

[msim]

A Picture of the original plans.

ahere however i have no idea about the plans of the modern one. time will tell if we can get hold of them

Re:Picture of car

[msim]

here.

I shoulda previewed my comment damnit!

Re:Picture of car

[chevybowtie]

For a hires version, try here

Re:Picture of car

[Spunk]

I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you

Yeah, sure thing Darth.

If Da Vinci had a 386??

[malia8888]

From the article A programmable steering mechanism allows it go straight, or turn at pre-set angles. But only to the right. Good in towns like today's Florence, with a one-way system. As ever, Leonardo was centuries ahead of his time.

Imagine if Da Vinci's genius would have been amplified by the use of computers--CAD simulations; and computation. He could have accomplished even more than his prodigious list of both scientific and artistic accomplishments.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily; imagine all of the time he would kill playing tetris!

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[kisielk]

Or reading slashdot.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[geekoid]

of course, he would be designeing cars, helicopter, and parachutes. Too bad they would already exist.

Kind of like the Gilligans 'tv movie' where they get off the island, and everything the professor comes up with already exists.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[TwinkieStix]

Translation: If he had a computer, his stuff would be even cooler.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[Anonymous Coward]

He would probably spend whole days staring at pr0n and /.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, most anyone here could potentially be a Da Vinci.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[solios]

.... or wasted years actually LEARNING the CAD system.

Computerized drafting and visualization are awesome once you know how to make the applications do what you mean. Until you get to the top of the learning curve, they're almost worthless, or extremely time consuming at best.

Re:If Da Vinci had a 386??

[infinite9]

Imagine if Da Vinci's genius would have been amplified...

I thought you were going to mention a beowulf cluster of DaVincis.

renaissance hazard

[tunabomber]

"It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage." ...and to make things worse, they also successfully reconstructed Da Vinci's design for a clockwork cell phone.

Re:renaissance hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the article about the clockwork beer robot?

Da Vinci bike

[John Harrison]

I made a Da Vinci bicycle my freshman year out of wood. Got a lot of odd looks riding it around campus. It was also quite loud. When I left at the year of the year I locked it to a bike rack and it wasn't there when I got back. If you ever see someone riding around Palo Alto on a primitive wooden bicycle knock them off it for me!

Re:Da Vinci bike

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this one - or is that the one?
http://www.petrelli.fsnet.co.uk/leonardo.htm
I can't tell from the picture how the steering works. It looks like the handle bars are adjustable - can be pulled towards the rider.
This claims it is a hoax
http://users.aol.com/PryorDodge/Leonardo_da_ Vinci. html

Re:Da Vinci bike

[John Harrison]

I wasn't nearly as nice as that one. I did the best I could with a hand held electric jigsaw, bunch of plywood, some 2x4s, and a few dowels. It isn't clear from the drawing (which might have been done by a student of Da Vinci and not Da Vinci himself) how the steering would work. I could have put a hinge in the frame but I didn't, so I steered by pulling a small wheelie and jerkign to one side. Not very effective. The drive train didn't work very well either, so both propulsion and stopping we difficult. Still I could get around on it faster than walking. I rode it for about a week after presenting it.

Found a picture

[insanechemist]

Was curious about the drawing and found a copy here (Google cache)

Re:Found a picture

[u-238]

Here's a direct link that will load a hi-res version of his drawings:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/l/leonardo/12engi ne /4device3.html

Re:Found a picture

[steveha]

Clickable link:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/l/leonardo/12engine /4device3.html

You can click on the drawing and get a toolbar that lets you resize it, even past 100%. It's convenient.

Straight to the drawing:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/l/leonardo/12engine/ 4device3.jpg

No toolbar, but if you click the drawing you zoom it to 100% size.

steveha

What the crap?

[boarder8925]

The Guardian (and several other news outlets) report on the attempt by Professor Paulo Galluci and his team to build a working model of Leonard Da Vinci's clockwork powered car, designed in 1478.

Um, how does "several other sources" translate into only two other sources?

According to Dictionary.com, several means "being of a number more than two or three but not many."

Re:What the crap?

[Emperor Igor]

You forgot to include Slashdot as one of those sources.

Re:What the crap?

[McCrapDeluxe]

Did they ever claim to have listed all of these several sources?
here

Updating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

They updated cars since then to fit modern needs. I also updated one of his paintings to reflect modern issues.

Re:Clockwork powered car Information from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Google News, news.google.com .

A program constantly monitors a bunch of news sites, one of which is Slashdot, and uses a nifty little algorithm to group them together. It keeps the results for 30 days.

Clockwork Door Hinge

[tunabomber]

...oh wait, it has to be witty.

There once was a poet.

[uberdave]

There once was a poet who was born John,
Who looked for a word to rhyme orange on.
He searched every dictionary,
including ones fictionary,
and he absolutely failed to find one.

Re:There once was a poet.

[p4ul13]

Zorange: n; a word I made up to rhyme with 'Orange' that most commonly means 'Word I made up to rhyme with "orange" '. see orange

Re:There once was a poet.

[Reziac]

You misspelled Plergb

;)

Here is an official explanation

[geekoid]

of that guys post here

Re:Here is an official explanation

[rco3]

Hey, when I went there it was the entry for 'moron'. Why was that?

Re:Here is an official explanation

[b!arg]

Because he thought you were from that city in eastern Argentina with a population of 641,541

Yeah

[splerdu]

I can see DaVinci reaping the rewards of his invention right now!

Just the quotes, ma'am.

[son_of_rotten]

Galluzzi explained "It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage."

Serious damage. Yeah, like to the whole genre of, "Hey, this guy didn't even have a "slide rule"; let's built it!"

Or... Serious damage. To my reputation. My tenure! Yikes! Mea Culpa.

Your other Left

[Mulletproof]

I know we're all throwing around the word genius and all, but exactly how hard was it to make the steering independent from the drive mechanism again? Left hand turns only? Hello? I'll give you the fact that the damn thing was WAY ahead of it's time, but really now...

Or he had sense of humor enough to screw with our heads a few hundred years into the future :p

Got to quaote witchy-poo

[geekoid]

oranges poranges, who cares!

Unless you are a rap star. In that case the proper rhyme for 'Oranges' is 'booty'.

Children's toys...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been playing with toy cars that work the same way... you pull them back and then let them go. How is what they did a huge achievement? Yes I did read the article. It just says you spin the wheels in the opposite direction of rotation. That's exactly what those toy cars do.

Damage

[neoshroom]

"It is a very powerful machine," Professor Galluzzi said. So powerful that although they have made a full-scale "production model", they have not dared test it. "It could run into something and do serious damage," he said.

Did they consider testing it outside perhaps?

Re:damage

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be more than happy to give you a hummer!

Re:damage

[Feanturi]

Is he talking about a hummer?

Possibly.. A hummer in a moving vehicle is often prone to cause great amounts of damage.

damage

[updog]

"It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage."

Is he talking about a hummer?

no gas == dividing by zero

[Anonymous Coward]

miles/gallon

anything divided by zero is infinite

Re:no gas == dividing by zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Dividing anything by zero is undefined.

Two words: Salt Flats

[sadangel]

If they think it worth the journey, the Utah Salt Flats would be an ideal location to test the full-size car. 30,000 acres of perfectly flat earth ought to be enough to elminate any chance of damaging anything larger than a dirt clod. The location is often used for drag racing and testing experimental vehicles.

Re:Two words: Salt Flats

[kd5ujz]

If they think it worth the journey, the Utah Salt Flats would be an ideal location to test the full size car. 30,000 acres of perfectly flat earth ought to be enough to elminate any chance of damaging anything larger than a dirt clod. The location is often used for drag racing and testing experimental vehicles.

Umm, I thought this was brought up before, the earth is ROUND. That is all, breaks over.

Re:Two words: Salt Flats

[JDevers]

With respect to the Earth's gravitational field, it IS perfectly flat. If it were perfectly flat in the true sense there would be a minor difference in gravity across it and wouldn't be flat from the perspective of the Earth.

Re:Two words: Salt Flats

[sadangel]

Umm, I thought this was brought up before, the earth is ROUND. That is all, breaks over.

No it's not

Re:Two words: Salt Flats

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking the salt and fine grit might do more to damage the shiny 14th-century metal technology in the car...

Really, wouldn't an empty Tesco parking lot after hours do the trick? I found that a lame reason not to test the buggy.

Re:Two words: Salt Flats

[Wowbagger5]

Hey! You're insensitive to clods!!!

OT: Helicopter

[E_elven]

Name: Chris
Date: 2002-01-23
Comments: Its amazing how Leonardo had these ideas hundreds of years before they were invented. ...
Good thing we didn't have to rely on Chris on that one.

Re:OT: Helicopter

[SeregonSandgrain]

(From same page)

Name: Unknown
Date: 2002-03-11
Comments: it is cool that he thought up these things he must have been a geneous

If you don't get it, read it again, if your IQ is above your belt size, you'll get it.

</ASP>

Here is a pic of the machine....

[cowmix]

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/automobile/

Re:Here is a pic of the machine....

[subtropolis]

Brilliant!. And check out the pdf link - it's the exploded view and zooms quite nicely

Re:Here is a pic of the machine....

[Provocateur]

Hey Martha, no need to order the faux wood paneling trim for the car!

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Brown made several flawed assumptions, rewrote history, and just plain lied about Da Vinci's clockwork car drawing, and claimed that his interpretation was fiction while he claimed that his interpretation was fact. Nevertheless, several mush-headed fools took his pseudo-scholarship at face-value and his ripoff of other similar yet already debunked theories sailed to the top of the best seller list.

poor performance

[Arctic Dragon]

"The wooden models spring forward several meters (yards) after a pair of back wheels are wound up, much like a kid's car zooms forward after the wheels are revved up against a surface."

Only several meters? Not a very quick machine, I imagine. A Supra rear wing and a dozen Type-R stickers would surely help.

Re:poor performance

[Anonymous Coward]

The fart can. Don't forget the fart can!

Your post was the funniest post in a while.

How do they know they got it right?

[harlows_monkeys]

My understanding is that people have tried to build this thing before, and failed.

So we assume that because DaVinci was such a genius, this failure must be due to people failing to understand his design. Bright people then try to figure out what he could have meant.

It seems to me there is a very real possibility that what we actually have is a new design by those bright people, somewhat inspired by DaVinci's ideas.

Re:How do they know they got it right?

[NSash]

It's well-known that he built subtle flaws into many of his designs. It was a common practice of inventors before patents were created: he alone knew the "mistakes" he had introduced, and could easily fix them, but anyone else who stole his notes would spend a long time making something that would never run.

(One example is the mechanical lion he built for the king of Spain. If you build it exactly as described in his design, it is impossible for it to move: its gears turn against each other. Yet DaVinci did build it, and it worked.)

Re:How do they know they got it right?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Yeah, like Tasty Wheat.

Re:How do they know they got it right?

[mrlsd]

Maybe he fixed the bugs and forgot to document the changes ;-)

526 years

[Magickcat]

Imagine 526 years of car registration fees.

Re:526 years

[Nom du Keyboard]

Imagine 526 years of car registration fees

...in California.

Bonneville!!

[soldeed]

They can take it out to the salt flats and establish the first land speed record for a clockwork powered vehicle!

T-Zeroe MPG

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

That is true, no mater how much gas you pour on it, it won't go anywhere... W/o a match that is.. 8')

SHEESH

[zors]

Why'd they bother posting this here? Doesnt everyone know that slashdot it American-Centric?

You'd think they read at 0 and above or something...

(And I'm by no means certain of this.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you pull a muscle whilst coming to that conclusion?

If daVinci were alive today he'd say...

[geekoid]

"HELP!,HELP!, I'm trapped in some sort of box!"

Re:If daVinci were alive today he'd say...

[Ravenrage]

na he'd say "aiuto!, aiuto!, Sono bloccato in una certa specie della scatola!."

Re:If daVinci were alive today he'd say...

[m1chael]

If they made alot of these things they could make a movie...

CUBE 3: Superhappyfuntimecube.

A giant hotwheels

[anethema]

Leonardo's car, 1.68m long and 1.49m wide (5ft 6ins by 4ft 11ins), runs on clockwork. The springs are wound up by rotating the wheels in the opposite direction to the one in which it is meant to go.

Like those little toys you pull back, then let them go. I guess I've been playing with scale models of the da Vinci's 'car' since I was VERY young.

And since I said it first I hereby copyright the idea. All users, past or present, of such vehicles will have to pay me for my IP, for the unauthorized memories in their heads.

none@none.com
send cash for licences or lawsuits will be filed.

Overated

[Intocabile]

daVinci's code wasn't that good.

Technical Details

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who are not into the engineering stream, or those who are and yet remain clueless.

This machine works on the potential energy of the spring.

Assume the spring has a spring constant k. The potential energy of the spring system would be 1/2k(x^2). This initial energy will have to be provided by some mechanical means. The power is transmitted to the wheels, which wind another pair of springs(paired for better power output) which wind in the opposite direction, while moving forward. Hence as the energy in the first pair is exhausted, the second pair is fully wound. Now power is obtained from this pair.

It is important to note that the second spring pair will have to have a spring constant k2 = log(k); k is that of the first pair.

The fluctuation in power is a result of the natural frequency of the springs. A powerful damper would be required to arrest the sudden surges. For a k of 10000, a damping factor of 0.99 is ideal.

The speed is again a function of k and k2. As k and k2 increase, speed improves. With a k of 10000 it is possible to attain 12.2 mph. If k = 10^6 we can reach the speed of light, but then such high values of k are impractical.

But the greatest advantage is that:
This machine is self-propelled as in the cnn article, and does not consume any fuel. In fact, the design cannot consume fuel. The mechanical losses due to friction are overcome by the dual spring pair, auto-winding mechanism.

Perhaps, this would boost the interest of the scientific community in spring research.

Re:Technical Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't this get a score for being funny and not informative?

that's IT?!

[ShallowThroat]

is that seriously all they had to go on? because that would really be one helluva job if they did.

oh waih, i should probably RTFA properly and look at it in the mirror first...yup... still nothing.

god damn.

Re:that's IT?!

[subtropolis]

Agreed. I'm hoping the group which put this thing together releases the plans they came up with. It'd be really interesting to see how they reasoned it out. Anyone know if they've published anything?

Funny this comes up after seeing yesterday's steampunk link on /.

Here lies another victim of the slashdot mods

[Anonymous Coward]

R.I.P. the parent post was funny, too.

Or, perhaps he would be put off . . .

[Idou]

by having to compete with omnipotent corporations with armies of lawyers and patent specialists.

I mean, if genius is innate, should we not have like 10 Da Vincis just due to probability and the increase in population?

Maybe an environment that recognizes and protects novel ideas is also required besides just having access to the technology. Unfortunately, it is harder these days to protect one's own ideas and the environments that have the resources to protect ideas (corporations) usually cultivate environments that fear change (the status quo is what made them big in the first place).

I don't know about you, but I believe that today's Da Vincis are hacking away on some Open Source project somewhere, since that appears to be the last free haven of free thinking . . .

MOD PARENT UP!!

[Anonymous Coward]

funniest thing i've heard all week, +5

Possible applications?

[Teclis]

If you can store potential energy in a spring (nano-springs?) Why not make use of this concept in modern cars much as hybrid cars do. Use braking to "wind-up" the spring, then energy from which can be used to give a good boost to acceleration.

Of course, the question is how much energy can we store in a spring and is it practical? Perhaps some research is required.

Thoughts?

Re:Possible applications?

[DarkOx]

Actually they use a variation of that technology all the time in modern machines, not so often cars but it has been done. Its called "the fly wheel"

Car made of wood?

[skinfitz]

Wooden work.

Re:Car made of wood?

[Resound]

Naughty, evil punster. You made me giggle. Most undignified.

Dear McGuyver....

[NarrMaster]

"I have enclosed a paper clip, a rubberband, and a pen top. Please save my dog."

-Peter Griffin

Re:Dear McGuyver....

[NarrMaster]

Yeah, someone just wasted a perfectly good mod point modding a joke as a troll. Way to go. You should feel proud. Dipshits.

retards.

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone thinks so big nowadays. "nuclear this" and "fusion that". we really need to get down to the issues involing energy at the subatomic level.

imagine if all you cared about was making a very tiny thing move a vary small distance. if you have that licked, you can scale it up.

by the time you are done, all the atoms of a car (really a floating platform) move on their own, on command.

no energy souce except that which is harnessed from the exanding universe! oh god, it's all so simple.

Antikythera, Shroud of Turin, Cars, Helicopters,

[dameron]

pyramids, the Baghdad Battery...

Is there nothing that Leonardo can't explain?

I'm only half serious, but he's recently become a catch basin for sceptics who attribute "anachronistic" scientific achievements to him.

Last weeks news about the Shroud caused quite a stir, and CNN reported one the current theories regarding the origins of the Shroud of Turin has Leonardo creating it using some as yet un(re)discovered method of self portraiture...

Perhaps he knows where Saddam's WMDs are...

-dameron

He was told...

[Tablizer]

"Sorry Leo, you can't drive it until you first invent car insurance."

Re:He was told...

[Anonymous Coward]

you might be the only one that actually watches that crap ;-)

Alias's Rambaldi

[shachart]

Am I the only one who thinks that Alias's Rambaldi is based on Da Vinci?

Re:Alias's Rambaldi

[JazzXP]

I was thinking the same thing.

How do they know they got it right?-History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's well-known that he built subtle flaws into many of his designs. It was a common practice of inventors before patents were created: he alone knew the "mistakes" he had introduced, and could easily fix them, but anyone else who stole his notes would spend a long time making something that would never run."

Something the "abolish all patents" crowd needs to keep in mind.

fascinating-Eminate Domain.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government often employs its own patent systems to protect the ideas embodied in its war machines, since those 'secrets' never remain secret very long after a device is actually produced.

Perhaps that's an underlying reason why governments have been so willing to extend the protections of patents beyond all normal reason."

Not quite. Most patent systems in place have a provision were your patent can be seized for govermental purposes. e.g. A new means to kill everyone on the planet, A super decrypter that breaks everyone's code. Try reading "The Puzzle Palace".

I don't think the two are related. Remember military secrets. Once in the wild, no patent on earth is going to protect that, from an enemy using against us.

500 years uh?

[pablodiazgutierrez]

I was going to make a joke about Doom 3... but it's too obvious.

If he was such a genius.....

[Anonymous Coward]

How come he didn't invent the brake!

Skater's dream

[mdielmann]

Where the hell are you going to sit on this thing? I can just imagine a bunch of people in Victorian clothing pushing it backwards and getting on their skateboards while still holding on for a ride down the cobbled streets.

The gas companies...

[dawg ball]

... must be worried.

Safety concerns?

[mdielmann]

How can you tell this car was built by academics? They spend god knows how many hours building a car out of wood, from purposely obfuscated plans that are half a thousand years old, and have never heard of the Utah salt flats. I mean come on, they test rocket cars there! Do they really think a giant wind-up toy is going to do better than that?

"Slashdot subculture" joke follows...

[xigxag]

Me and my buddy Leonardo's contribution to juvenilia, sarcasm, deliberately bad jokes, and tasteless nonsense.

1) Invent auto 400 years early
2) ???
3) Prophet!!!

A real wise guy, that Leo. Pun intended.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the h*ll modded that informative? It is pure bullshit: "auto-winding" - yeah right. That would imply a perpeetum mobile. If the springs were to wind up other springs the energy used for that cannot simultaneously be used to power the wheels, so while it might be possible to get energy to oscillate between the springs for a while no useful work would be produced.

tech specs

[Anonymous Coward]

This site contains a lot of the original da vinci models and drawings

Leonardo bike is first goat link ever!

[ArsenneLupin]

You sir are a genius! You discovered that Leonardo did not only design the first helicopter, the first car, the first flying machine. No, he also rose to fame by including the first "goat" link in his codex Atlanticus:

The drawing was hidden by collector Leoni because of the crude doodles of a walking penis with a tail, a hairy anus and a keyhole vagina on the same page.

(It's about halfway through the page)

Re:Leonardo bike is first goat link ever!

[whig]

It couldn't have been by Leonardo da Vinci. He wouldn't have drawn a vagina. :-P

no research required, we already got batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

and springs make for bad batteries

Re:How do they know they got it right?-History les

[Anonymous Coward]

this had nothing to do with patents. In that time, you had patrons. So you got payed anyway. And:
a) we have no way of knowing that perhaps he was a bit disregarding details and making errors in his design. Even the best programmer creates bugs. but then you test and run your program and you fix them. Actually, you will notice many times that the most creative people make all kinds of stupid small errors.
b) he encoded his military designs, not because he was afraid someone would claim those ideas as his own, but because he (or his patrons) wouldn't like some people to use those war machines against his city/country.
c) sometimes people like to obscure things.

Someone Email the Doc

[bruthasj]

It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage.

Email Galluci and tell him about the Salt Flats in Utah. Maybe someone will rig a rocket engine to their car as well...

Oooh....naughty...

[adamofgreyskull]

Expect one of these over-zealous posts in the near future.

Hopefully in the near future...

[Terragen]

... 3D Realms will finally figure out DaVinci's "Duke Nukem : Forever" sketches.

Meme's floating around

[bigattichouse]

It really makes me think about the human "meme cloud"..

I mean, its not the leonardo necessarily was the first person to think about these sorts of things, but its more like it takes a genius to synthesize all the little meme's floating out there. The steam engine was employed by the greeks to open temple doors in Socrate's time... How long did it take for someone to combine the idea with the cart meme?

Seems that if you have a genius on hand, they can have a flash of insight and put this sort of stuff together.

Which is probably why science fiction has lead to so many inventions.. it sort of gives you a "pre-patent" description... I have this idea, and here's a plausable description of its operation. Given enough time, some genius will connect it with all the ideas that currently DO exist, and will create the ide ain question. So these geniuses (like Leonardo) might not be creating much of anything, just incredible synthesists. Or, given that many of them were also very talented artists, they are able to create *just* enough themselves to fill in all the "*poof* a miracle occurs" spots in the plan.

Re:Meme's floating around

[CRCulver]

The steam engine was employed by the greeks to open temple doors in Socrate's time...

I'm afraid that's incorrect. From Wikipedia:

The first steam device, the aeolipile, was invented by Heron of Alexandria, a Greek, in the 1st century AD, but used only as a toy.

Socrates died around 400 BCE, so nearly half a milennium before the invention of the first steam device.

Ford / Swatch SUV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Fuel prices ever increasing,
the wind up car sounds like a great idea!
(He was WAY ahead of his time...)

The New Ford/Swatch 'Escape WU'
(wind up!)

Recipe fudging?

[No Such Agency]

Like how some people, when they give you a recipe, will change the amounts so yours never turns out as well as theirs does.

Re:Antikythera, Shroud of Turin, Cars, Helicopters

[No Such Agency]

CNN are idiots, that's all the explanation you need for the Turin thing. I've never heard the "Baghdad battery" or the pyramids attributed to Leonardo though. Real "skeptics" know that since at least the neolithic age, people have always been as smart as they are now, capable of inventing all sorts of cool things if they have a need, a little spare time and a few sticks to rub together. There have been thousands if not millions of "Leonardos" in the last 10,000 years.

The most important question. . .

[bentron3030]

I may have overread this, but what's the top speed this puppy can go at? The quote "It could run into something and do serious damage" is quite vague...

you've discovered the Unity of Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic Church believes truth is truth, whether discovered by theological or scientific means. It also takes no stand on the evolution/creation debate, either way God made us and it isn't our place to quibble over methods.

Obviously, not all Protestant faiths believe in this. And the argument it had with Galilleo has been entirely misrepresented.

You are correct in that humans knew the earth was round long before Columbus, but there was debate on the exact diameter, although everybody was within 10% of each other.

Offtopic, but does this mean....

[thrill12]

...that Windows actually has built-in protection against patent infringement ??

hmm,

[way2trivial]

I always just changed my scantron form to make it indicate it was the new 'master' scantron machines (the ones my school had) scored cards marked as masters as a perfect score (0 missed) and to the hell with the forms folliwng mine.

Re:hmm,

[ajs318]

Marking machines?!

I'm glad I'm British, where teachers still read pupils' answers. In my day, we almost always used to have to answer in complete sentences rather than giving an answer from among multiple choices. That taught us to form proper sentences.

Re:hmm,

[bluGill]

As I recall teachers were onto that trick. I don't recall how, I think the machine beeped differently after that master page was run though. Even if not though, it only takes a moment to check for that box while coping the score down. At least they all said they were, I never tried it, it is easy for someone to catch if they are looking for it so you have to assume someone who says they are onto it really is.

Re:hmm,

[cft_128]

The US is a big country, just because one school uses them doesn't mean they all do. The only time I had multiple choice bubble tests were SATs (and their grade-school equivalent).

Nice comments..

[unity]

You are on a roll with the good commentary about this article/subject.

This is why I read slashdot.

Clockwork Car, My A**

[Herkum01]

They should have called that thing the Clockwork table.

Dinner for people who always want to make the Right moves.

Re:How do they know they got it right?-History les

[ArsenneLupin]

"It's well-known that he built subtle flaws into many of his designs. It was a common practice of inventors before patents were created: he alone knew the "mistakes" he had introduced, and could easily fix them, but anyone else who stole his notes would spend a long time making something that would never run."

Something the "abolish all patents" crowd needs to keep in mind.

Actually, you just made a perfect argument against software patents: why should software need patents, it has a far better protection already built in: BUGS!

Missing a Step betwwen 2 and 3

[PetoskeyGuy]

DIE

The problem of recognition

[cgenman]

I mean, if genius is innate, should we not have like 10 Da Vincis just due to probability and the increase in population?

We probably have hundreds of Da Vinci's, struggling along in fields nobody has heard of with genius ideas that nobody understands. The mathematician Physicists working with 22 dimentional string theory are probably Da Vinci level of genius, but unlike Da Vinci they are utterly incomprehensible and make things irrelevant to most people's lives. The computer engineer who invented Hash tables might have a Da Vinci level of intelligence, but good luck explaining what Hash tables are to an overstimulated population. What about genetic researchers who combine intuition with intelligence to stimulate cells in the human body whose physiology we still don't fully understand to make it do things it has never done before? I can't even pretend to know what they're doing behind closed doors, let alone shout "genius" from the corners of the streets, like Da Vinci's followers.

In short, we've gotten far too advanced for any real stroke of genius to make any comprehensible sense to the layman. We truly are at the point of magic, which people accept and move on. But genius cannot be declared if nobody can understand what they are saying, intelligent as it may be.

Re:The problem of recognition

[Suidae]

+1 insightful

Perhaps someday the fields now being pioneered by todays geniuses will be as accessable to the general population as da Vinci's ideas are to the population of today.

Hopefully the designs will only seem as absurd as some of da Vinci's because of new progress :)

The fact that the won't test it...

[Banner]

Shows that they don't believe it will work. So why all the hoopla about this?

I must read Da Vinci's original schematics

[Gax]

... I've always wanted to know what makes these things tick.

Really: fascinating

[Slowleggs]

Hackus said, 'Christ said while he was here that you shall see, but not understand, read but not comprehend.'

What? me no understand!

Back to beeing serious: What do you think Jesus would say about you calling people fools and idiots? :)

Unwilling to test the car?

[ChodeMaster]

Back onto the topic of the creators not being willing to test it because of the damage it might cause, does anyone else think that this essentially means they have (at least partially) wasted the production of the car?
Surely they can do a test under safe conditions (eg: on the Utah Salt flats as was suggested previously, with some form of automated or remote braking system added)
It just seems an incredible waste to construct this car, and not test it and thus miss out on any of the numerous applications it could be used in.

Da Vinci the poser...

[hung_himself]

It's not hard to make pretty drawing of things that can never be built. Can anyone name me just one invention that Lenny actually carried to fruition that worked? For that matter, can anyone name one theory , one discovery, one theorem, one miniscule contribution to science or philosophy that he made - other than speculating that seashells on mountainsides proved the biblical flood? And no I don't like the Mona Lisa either...

Pussies

[A55M0NKEY]

Come on! They should drive the darn thing and see how it goes!

Can't test? Let us have it.

[sparkywonderchicken]

"It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage."" That never stopped the US military. Why not let them have a go?

(expanding on that thought...)

[solios]

There's also the fact that computer applications are still horribly, horribly limited for simple things, like the ability to sketch in a notebook. I have pages of design notes with drafts and sections of the vehicle or piece of equipment in question next to them, all drawn out on the bus, at a bar, etceteras- doing the equivalent of a quick sketch inline with notes in software is murderously time consuming. You completely LOSE the spark of inspiration in the process of loading the application, configuring the file, setting your tools, and finally getting the thing out. :P

Re:(expanding on that thought...)

[Suidae]

I wonder if anyone is working on that problem? Designing software that can take a scanned sketch and turn it into a draft 3D image?