What should really blow your mind is the precision of the original metalworking and gearing, well before the age of clockmaking and watchmaking.
An item like that to spring in to existence without any record of a history leading up to it or a history of devices descending from it really makes you wonder whose imagination it sprang from and why it wasn't recognized that these principles had further application, or, alternatively could point to lots of stuff (including knowledge) getting lost.
An explanation for that fact that so few devices remain that a record of history seems to be missing, could be that they were made of metals (copper, bronze, etc) which were quite precious in that time, so the devices probably got recycled. Image that, some warrior smelting a few antikythera machines to forge a sword!
Sure, but there is a bit of a difference in precision between a man sized gear or one that would not be out of place in a modern gear driven clock.
I think you got confused by the wording of "precision of the original metalworking and gearing", original as in 'not the lego version', not suggesting it was the first use of gears.
In a clock precision in the metalwork in the gears is important to cut down on friction, etc. But I'm not sure if the saem can be said for this ancient computer.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what is important here is simply the ratios of the number of teeth on the different gears.
I mean obviously all the parts have to mesh when the device is cranked but it doesn't have to turn terribly smoothly to work.
I disagree. Devices like Antikythera would have probably cost a lot more than their weight at their time. One of the reasons that artifacts don't last is that some metals like iron don't last because of oxidation. Bronze however resists corrosion, and especially sea corrosion really well. And Antikythera is one of those bronze devices that we got out of the sea, it lasted two thousand years underwater.
In particular, this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1992756 has a link to a blog post by the guy that made the video with some of the background on that, which is particularly value-added.
Just a clarification on the source story. I work at Digital Science, who commissioned this video. Andy had actually already built this device (we didn't sponsor building it), along with a Babbage difference engine. He brought them a long to Sci Foo this year, and i believe the filming took place around that time.
I've seen both the devices in the flesh, and they are little works of art. Not sure if he's planning on building any more.
The video is definitely very impressive, but I'm still far more impressed by the fact someone made this in 100 BC than that someone re-created it in 2010 AD. I had never heard of the Antikythera mechanism before.
Say what you will about Apple, their products, or their business model, but I've always found their engineers to be the pinnacle of quality and hacker culture.
For me the professional production of the video makes a ridiculous difference to how much I enjoy news like this. It's really nicely put together.
Related to that, the way it was posted on CNET added nothing to the information in the video and reminded me that I'm getting increasingly irked by reposting culture.
Hacker News is good because it links to original content with a snappy title and then space to discuss below. Which leads me to wonder why this item links to the CNET article and not straight to the youtube video?
Beautiful! When I first read about Antikythera sometime back, it fascinated me to learn that 2000 years ago, someone has created what seems to be the first computer.
I wonder if the Ancient Astronaut theories could actually hold water.
Just while we're thinking this sort of thing, people might be interested to see http://www.meccano.us/. I believe Tim helped Andrew on his Lego difference engine, and he's now working on the Analytical Engine.
"Astronomers and astrologers probably could not have afforded it. It could have been used as an education tool. Most likely it was built for wealthy Romans who had some interest in its features, probably not too different from early adopters who wanted to have the first iPhone with all the cool apps."
This is offtopic, but it makes me angry every time someone uses Lego (singular) as a collective noun. When I was a kid they were always called "Legos". I never heard someone say "I built X out of Lego". I don't know if it's worse that they try to enforce this artificial use of language, or that everyone goes along with it. "Lego bricks" sounds artificial too, but at least it sounds plural.
LEGO(TM) is a trademark, which means (in the USA at least) that it should not be used as a noun. The company risks losing the ability to assert its trademark if they don't enforce this. The "proper" use is: LEGO(TM)-brand toy building blocks.
Yeah, I know it sounds dumb and no one will ever call them that, but calling them "Legos" or "Lego" isn't correct either.
According to Aristotle, we uncover theoretical knowledge by exploring that which has no practical (action-based) or productive (product-based) result; and what we possess is that which is known only for its own sake, for the sheer pleasure of knowing.
I've often thought a similar distinction can be made in engineering, where the product is created for its own sake, for the sheer pleasure of seeing it exist. This is one of those. An amazing piece of work. Bravo.
An item like that to spring in to existence without any record of a history leading up to it or a history of devices descending from it really makes you wonder whose imagination it sprang from and why it wasn't recognized that these principles had further application, or, alternatively could point to lots of stuff (including knowledge) getting lost.