Talk:Drinking bird

The drinking bird in popular culture
it also appears in a episode of Cowboy Bebop, can't remember which one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceredir (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image
The image should be replaced with a photograph or a realistic 3D render. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.103.47 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have added and actual photo, and moved the render to below the info box. RobinLeicester (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

History
Nice article. It could use some mention of who invented it and especially when. --Karuna8 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a wealth of information about this invention on the internet. The dunking bird is arguably one of the most successful physics toys of all time. It was invented by Miles V. Sullivan in 1945. More information can be found about him at http://www.annesullivanflute.com/miles/Miles_Sullivan.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJansen (talk • contribs).

No, it was not. Sullivan was NOT the first to create the drinking bird. It originated in China but was never commercialized. It was PATENTED by Sullivan, this you are correct but NOT invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.126.27 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references roundup
I took out a sentence "The Generation II Pokémon Porygon2's design and movements seems to be based on the drinking bird." The target article said it didn't appear in an episode, and after looking up some images and a video I still don't see the resemblance.

I'm thinking the cultural references in general should go in chronological order. Wnt (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I ended up stripping out the following: "In an episode from The Wild Thornberrys, Kip and Neil attempt to sell red drinking birds at a foreign market for money, but when Donnie shows up at their stall they abandon the scheme and instead attempt to use Donnie instead. Later when they take Donnie to perform as "the wild boy" at a theater, the curtain opens and reveals Donnie holding one of the drinking birds, (possibly to show how gentle he is), but when Kip and Neil show Donnie chocolate from backstage, Donnie begins to act wild (hence why Kip and Neil gave him the stage name "wild boy") and throws the bird away." The information about the episode is irrelevant here, and unfortunately, the relevant information needed is what episode so that readers could track it down. I suppose I can ask at the show's talk page. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I see someone reorganized the text by use after that, and much shortened the irrelevant plot descriptions. I was thinking of doing something along the line but couldn't decide how, so I'll just say, more or less, "mischief managed". Wnt (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I particularly wanted to make it look less inviting for people to post trivia, hence the "Notable usage" in the title. I still think it's a little more inclusive than it should be in a really good article, but I'm really pleased with how much it's improved. BTW, I stripped out some context in the process, like the names of the actual Simpsons and Mad Men episodes; maybe it would be helpful to have that info in some hidden comments or something. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Elmer Fudd would have cared about a dipping bird at all. Simicich (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hillery patent and 1881 patent
The "History" section now makes mention of an earlier patent, "Activated Amusement Device", which is by Arthur M. Hillery from 1944, and seems to be a similar claim with drawings of a drinking bird. The document has "CANCELLED" stamped at the top. I'm not sure how to read patentese... does anyone understand how this relates to Sullivan and Shackley having invented it? Also worth noting, the same source (http://www.borderschess.org/MintoWheelCalculationUpdate.pdf) mentions an 1881 patent for a basic Minto wheel design, which definitely seems like part of the history of the drinking bird (being such a similar mechanism and coming some 60 years earlier). &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried sorting this out. We're dealing with two patents: (1944 Arthur M. Hillery) and  (1945 Miles V. Sullivan.) In the wikipedia article the name "George H. Shackley" also appears. Searching google books I find nothing on Hillery and Shackley. But a search for Sullivan  gives two results: "Dr. Sullivan also holds patents on several novelty items such as the well-known drinking bird."Electrochemical technology: Volume 6 1968 and "Miles V. Sullivan [..] is a member of the Photolithography Group in the Bipolar IC ... He is probably best known as the inventor of the “perpetually” drinking bird novelty."Bell Laboratories record: Volume 52 1974. As far as the http://www.borderschess.org/MintoWheelCalculationUpdate.pdf source goes, it states: "As far as I know the original Dippy Bird patent is U. S. Patent 2,384,168, granted in June of 1944." which doesn't sound like a firm fact from someone who is an expert on the topic. As such I'm including only a mention of Sullivan's patent, see diff. Siawase (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As fare as I know, the US-Patent law is based on how invented it first. (other then European patent law, where it is "first to paper").
 * Given the statement "Chinese Craftspeople much earlier than 1920" I some what doubt, that the two 1944/1945 patents would have hold up in court. So, either no patent is relevant or both are. I go for "both are relevant" as for any invention/improvement made today on drinking bird and alike, those two patents prove without a doubt, what is "state of the art" from 1945 onward (offcourse, there could be prior art predating those patents).
 * -- MichaelFrey (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Its Behavior in "The Alien" does not Comply with the Stated Circumstances.
It appears at the start of the movie busily dunking its head into a glass containing water. The crew of the spaceship have been in "suspended animation" for many years as a way of traveling great distances without enduring the boredom or physical aging of decades of journey time. The water in the glass would have all evaporated within a year unless the air was kept at 100% relative humidity and in that special case the bird would still not operate as there would be no evaporation from the beak and consequently no cooling and thus no operating "heat engine." Also unless "artificial gravity" was generated the bird would also not operate (Science fiction stories and films should at least get the science right when they are supposedly showing "science fact." Ecstatist (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drinking bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310185119/http://www.thefilmcynics.com/blog/?p=2203&cpage=1 to http://www.thefilmcynics.com/blog/?p=2203&cpage=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion
I'd challenge the sentence "they are sometimes incorrectly labelled as a PerpetualMotion device."

Now, before you call me scientifically illiterate, I do understand that the bird is harnessing the energy from the latent heat of the evaporation of water. But I think it's fair to say that, since the laws of thermodynamics render true perpetual motion impossible, in common parlance the phrase "perpetual motion machine" has come to mean "something that looks like an example of true perpetual motion, but actually isn't. And the drinking bird fits that description to a tee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.194.189 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Perpetual motion means just that and is impossible. Besides, to me, it doesn't even look like a perpetual motion. It only runs as long as there's water there. --Roly (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)