Talk:Clock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Power source section finishes unexpectedly

Title says it all. I went back to as far as March 2007 article but still couldn't find the missing part. 138.100.243.144 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Clocca

The introduction says that clocca is Celtic, but the first sentence of 1.3.1 (A new mechanism) states that it is Latin. Could someone who knows what he is talking about clarify or correct? (ChrisMP1 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

What about potato clocks?

Shouldn't there be a potato clock article? I mean, there are links to articles about various obscure forms of clocks. There doesn't seem to be an article on potato clocks! You know, those science-fair things that are basically clocks powered by potatoes? How does that work? I really think there should be a potato clock article (or a section on potato clocks in this existing one)4p0s713

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.20.231 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

That's just an electric clock powered by a potato battery. Just a gimmick, there's nothing notable going on there. Paul Koning 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

History Questions

Weren't the first town clocks maintained by hand?

How else?
Or do you mean some person rang a bell guided by psalm-singing or a sandglass? Kwantus 22:18, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
In the West, towns were (often, usually ?) not the first time-keepers, monasteries were. Some poor monk was responsible for waking the others up. There is some evidence that, in the West, the alarm clock mechanism, needed to wake up the bell-ringer, preceded the mechanical clock mechanism. Mechanical clocks were invented perhaps 1250-1300AD. Many of these early clocks were installed in town centers, but this is well before the Industrial Revolution. DCDuring 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that when clocks are on display in stores they are almost always set at 10:10. Does anyone know why this is? My grandfather read that there was some sort of significance to this in a trivia book but he can't remember what it was.

Displayed clocks used to be frequently set to 8:20. I was once told that this commemorates the time of evening that President Lincoln was fatally wounded by the assassin. More likely, 8:20 is nearly symmetrical and exposes the designer's logo, as does 10:10. WHPratt (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should really correct this page, and i don't have the skill to do so

a clock strikes the hour! a timepiece does not. you watch is a time piece, your grandfather clock is a clock!


--- I keep seeing that the length of an hour depended on the season (if away from equator, anyway) -- On sundials, was this done by tilting the face?

In some cultures daylight was 12 daylight hours and night 12 nighttime hours. () I don't know what they did with sundials, or why we wound up with the 12s in the middle of the intervals. Kwantus 22:18, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
The hour was DEFINED as one-twelfth of the time between sunrise and sunset in each place in the Middle Ages and, I think, in Classical times. It may go back to Babylon, a civilization in which the numbers 360, 60, and 12 had great meaning in astronomy and time-keeping. Or it may go back farther, to Egypt. DCDuring 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How did the earliest mechanical clocks work -- I see gears. Did they use hanging weights to provide the energy?

Yes. They were simple, and give the constant torque needed by a verge (although that was probably not keenly understood). Kwantus 22:18, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

In the History section there's a paragraph that begins

The earliest clocks

Shouldn't it start

The earliest table clocks
--> it says "The earliest clocks *that survive in any quantity*"
Q2.2: "any quantity" is so vague - Are we talking about mass production, or even clocks that are very much alike? Is this to say that town clocks did not survive in "any quantity" - wouldn't the standard of "any quantity" be different when there is only one per town? - is there any expectation that town clocks would be nearly identical? Who really cares about how many survived when they want to know how the technology developed? How small would these table clocks be & how long would they run before needing to reset the weights - or were springs used? --JimWae 18:30, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
-->

I've added this external link

--JimWae 02:42, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I'd like to see the History section improved. There's a hole in it - the early history of the mechanical clock has been glossed over somewhat, and the human intellectual achievements aren't mentioned. I've been reading John North's "God's Clockmaker: Richard of Wallingford and the Invention of Time", and I suggest that a precis of his less contentious material be included here. Briefly: around 1250 - 1280: fusion of water clock technology and experience, weight/gravity powered energy, oscillating striker from bell ringing devices, and the desire to produce both 'powered astrolabes' and 'automated signalling/alarm devices'. By 1280/1290, mechanical clock-making is beginning, judging from increasing mentions in English cathedral records: 1283 Dunstable Priory: big clock installed above rood screen (so probably not a water clock). 1290: "repair of clock" in Norwich. 1292: Canterbury Cathedral has a 'great horloge'. The 1322 clock in Norwich (presumably a replacement) was a huge (2 metre) astronomical dial with automata and bells - cost a fortune. And there should definitely be a mention of the great St Albans Clock of Richard of Wallingford, which was fully described by its builder. It had sun and moon dials, star map, wheel of fortune, showed the times of the tide at London Bridge, and had a 'dragon' plate which indicated the likelihood of an eclipse. North argues that this English activity predates the Italians, which is probably just scholarly rivalry (against Dohrn-van-Rossum's pro-Italian views), but also suggests that these expert clockmakers may have travelled around Europe as 'consultants'. :-) Mention should also be made of Dondi's incredible astrarium of 1364.

Cormullion 09:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at writing a better early history. Cormullion 18:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The History section is getting better (I hope) - but longer - and it's still incomplete. Perhaps it's time for the History of the Clock to be spun out of this main article into a separate article which could be better organized and cover the history of clocks better. Anyone think this is worth doing? Cormullion 09:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the history is getting a bit long, but I'd vote for at least an outline history here. One way to clean it up would be the 'hideable outline' form (don't know what it's called) I've seen on other pages. Clock history would appear in a box where only the section headings appear in an outline; clicking on one expands that section. Another idea: the topic Mechanical clock is currently unused; it redirects to Pendulum clock, which is only one type of mechanical clock. The early history referred to above could be spun off there. --Chetvorno 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I really like the idea of having a Mechanical Clock article that contains the history and prehistory of the mechanical clocks and doesn't get lost in all the older and newer means of time-keeping, which each merit their own articles as well as a unifying piece that relates each technology to the other in history, geography, and technical influence. DCDuring 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

old top

I've never heard of an "ideal clock" but you learn something every day! [1]

Elsewhere Andre Mirabelli presents this definition:

The ideal clock is the recurrent process that makes the most other recurrent processes periodic.

I found this somewhat confusing at first. I suspect that part of the confusion is the attempt to simultaneously define a clock and an ideal clock. Here is an approach by Charles Francis that breaks it into two definitions:

A clock is a repeating process and a counter.
A good clock is one whose mechanism enables you to say that each time the process repeats, it repeats under physical conditions identical to the last.

- Jeff

I wrote a quick paragraph on longitude; not sure if hour-candles are worth mentioning here (probably not worth a separate article). Vicki Rosenzweig

The problem with the definition of Charles Francis is that "identical" "physical conditions" are themselves defined in terms of clocks and rulers. That is why one needs statistical definitions of clocks and rods to develop thought experiments that can non-circularly reconstruct physical theories. Andre Mirabelli

After talking with Andre off-line we sketched out an approach to the clock definition:

  • A clock is a recurrent process and a counter
  • A good clock is one which, when used to measure other recurrent

processes, finds many of them to be periodic.

  • An ideal clock is a clock (i.e., recurrent process) that makes the most

other recurrent processes periodic.

  • A recurrent process is ...
  • When we say that one recurrent process makes another recurrent process periodic we mean ...

There are still some gaps to fill in --Jeff 23:11 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

The definition of an ideal clock as one that makes most other recurrent processes periodic is very bad even if you substitute "apparently periodic" for "periodic". An ideal clock exposes all other apparently recurrent processes as not periodic (assuming they themselves would not make ideal clocks)!

Instead, I propose we define one type of clock A as better than another type B if different instances of type A clocks are statistically both more precise and more in agreement with one another in measuring intervals of time. Thus atomic clocks are better than grandfather clocks. An ideal clock is one that measures intervals of time with infinite precision and always agrees exactly with other clocks of the same type.

If I find no objection to this proposal by the next time the spirit moves me I'll edit the main page along these lines. - Heimdall 19:42 July 11, 2006 (UTC)

Analog and digital. According to the Wikipedia article on "digital", something is digital when it deals with discrete values, instead of a continuous spectrum of values. Some clocks are round with hands, but the hands go clunk-clunk instead of sweeping. Those clocks would then be digital! There are only a finite set of discrete values which the clock is (by design) capable of displaying.

So, I guess a clunk-clunk clock whose second-hand sweeps would be two thirds digital and one third analog, and since one third of the unit circle is two thirds of a pie, and since pie is tasty, and since I taste, and since I am either am or not, and since Being is digital, clocks are man-made, except when they're not.

-Todd

That's so beautiful. --DavidCary 06:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

counterclockwise clock(s)

Except for novelty items all clocks turn in the same direction these days. It wasn't always so; the Jewish clock in Prague is the best known example but there must surely be more (I cannot however find the German church one I distinctly remember seeing once).

Yes, I saw a counter-clockwise clock inside a famous church in Italy. (I'll probably remember the city and the church at the most inconvenient time to run back and edit Wikipedia). Also, ordinary sundials, when they happen to be in New Zealand, have a shadow that goes counter-clockwise around the gnomon. It has something to do with being south of the Tropic of Capricorn. --DavidCary 06:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"clock signal"

Most digital circuits rely on a "clock signal".

If we had a good definition for "clock signal", then the definition

  • A clock is a recurrent process and a counter.

could be reduced to

  • A clock is a "clock signal" and a counter.

--DavidCary 06:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took out "This word has led scholars to believe that these earliest timekeepers did not employ hands or dials, but ‘told’ the time with audible signals." Since surviving machines, eg that of Salisbury cathedral, have no provision for hands, we know some early clocks lacked them. This may have been a matter of scale or practicality: a verge escapement would be pathetically inaccurate burdened with a large exposed hand sometimes loaded by rain or snow or wind. And it's a pain knocking holes in a Norman tower and climbing up to hang such a thing. On the other hand, bells were probably already on-site, relatively easily accessed, and could be heard in conditions a dial is invisible—in alleyways, at distance, darkness, bad weather.

Conversely, a household clock would likely have had a dial to save the bother of a strike train.

The linguistics - esp if the widely-believed etymology of "clock" is correct - is easily explained by the fact the first widespread contact with a mechanical timepiece was these church-tower clocks. Kwantus 22:18, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Digital clock (formerly: I don't care what it's technically called)

I want to go to the article about digital clocks. I don't care what they are technically called. I can't find it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts, in a way that is accessible to anyone. Digital clock redirects here (to clock). Could someone please just figure out what they're called and make "digital clock" redirect to that article? Sorry for sounding harsh, but when you have to be an expert on something just to learn about it, it doesn't work. Twilight Realm 03:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This article addresses both analog and digital clocks. It could probably use some more distinction, and it definitely could use some pics of digital clocks, but until there is a lot more detail about each, there's not much point in creating a separate digital clock article. I'll put this on my to-do list, tho. --Tysto 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Added pic of a digital clock radio. I also have a fancy one with white noise settings as well as a pure digital clock with no radio. I'll snap them as well for a digital clock article. --Tysto 04:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there's enough difference for either a separate article or at least a single section devoted to digital clocks. This is progress, though, which I appreciate. But what I was looking for when I first came to this article was some information on how it works. I wanted to use digital clocks as an example in an essay on electronic components. Unfortunately, Wikipedia failed me, which is quite unusual. But there's definitely a big difference in the way it works. At the bottom of the article is a very long list of different types of clocks. But even though there are many different, unique types, all of them (or almost all; I didn't check them all) are similar in that they are all mechanical. Though it acheives the same function, mechanical timekeeping is very different from electronic timekeeping. I know there's a lot of variety in methods of mechanical clocks: springs, pendulums, etc. Quartz clocks can actually be either analog or digital. But mostly they're very different, and deserve to be treated that way.

You may earn the same amount of money if you are a sports player, a celebrity, or the inventor of something revolutionary. But they aren't all grouped in a single article ("Rich People"), even if their income is the same. The method of earning it is completely different. Twilight Realm 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I took several pictures of different kinds of digital clocks and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. I changed the "Displays" section to "Types" and expanded it to describe digital clocks more, then I created an separate main article for digital clock with the new pics. I think the "Ideal clock" section should be removed to its own article, since it seems to deal with an abstract scientific concept rather than a practical device for telling time, but then the article probably needs a bit of reorganization generally. --Tysto 23:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article about clock, but picture of watch?

I think that it's interesting that an article about clocks starts with a top picture of a "watch". I think a better top picture is in order. I like this one:

I think it's a lot more appropriate. Any other thoughts? Joe 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Twilight Realm 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, hearing no objection, I put the picture of a clock in the article about a clock and I put the picture of a watch in the article about a watch. Let me know what you think. Joe 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup?

does the article still need the cleanup tag' --Melaen 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I removed "Al Gore is a bozo the clown fanboy" from the segment on water clocks if that's ok with everybody. - 12 March 2007

Perhaps someone could help cleanup the first paragraph under "A new mechanism". - May 6 2007

the external link * Personalised Clocks - Design and build your own clock is an advert not information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.14.74 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbolism in various cultures?

Someone at Talk:Vernal equinox mentioned that myths shouldn't be added to encyclopedic articles about the object in question, but I think it's perfectly valid to include if it's significant enough. This person mentioned that for many Chinese, it is considered unlucky to give someone a clock as a gift, as it symbolizes death for that person. What kinds of things do clocks represent in other cultures? Should this be mentioned in the article, if it's significant enough, even if it's only a mild aside (such as "Symbolism" or some other heading)? I'd even consider mentioning Salvador Dalí's The Persistence of Memory or somesuch... I dunno, just some ideas. JC 09:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Types of clocks and See Also

These sections at the bottom seem a bit haphazard. Merge? Revise? Evertype 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Also - what category does a Mora clock fit into?Sreifa01 (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Clocks don't serve to measure years, months and so on?

The article states the following: "A clock [...] is an instrument for measuring time and for measuring time intervals of less than a day as opposed to a calendar". Then computers' clocks don't measure months? Computers have electronic calendars as part of their hardware? And, by the way, are calendars really used to measure time? Aren't they used more to know what day of the week a certain day is? MJGR 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Clocks vs. timepieces

I have added brief references to the nature of "timepieces," which lack striking mechanisms, and noted that this distinction sets them apart from "clocks," which usually have bells or gongs that announce the passage of time. It is hoped that this distinction will be helpful to those who investigate timekeeping instruments and their useful characteristics. Jack Bethune 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well. OK, I won't try to rewrite this again! I don't feel that strongly. But I remain unconvinced that you can keep the distinction clear, either in this article or the rest of Wikipedia. In common usage, a clock is something that keeps time, not something that definitely makes a noise. And a timepiece is really just another way of saying 'clock' or 'watch'. I really don't think the two concepts are distinct anymore. And the phrases 'correct' and 'proper' imply a clear authority, which you should probably quote... - my response is "says who?" :-) Cormullion 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cormullion, although some might think it’s time to abandon the longstanding distinction between CLOCK (a striking timekeeping instrument with a bell or chime) and TIMEPIECE (a silent timekeeping device (e.g., a watch) lacking such an announcing mechanism), there is ample evidence that this traditional distinction remains a useful one still recognized in horology.

A sampling of clock reference books, clock glossaries, online encyclopedias and dictionaries, horological museums, premier auction houses, and current watchmaker websites confirms not only that this distinction is firmly established, but also that it is widely observed in daily practice. Here is a list of sources/links providing the necessary confirmation:

1. Some standard clock references defining timepiece:

“Clock is a word derived from roots meaning “bell,” so that if we want to be slightly pedantic we shall call a non-striking mechanism a Timepiece rather than a clock.” Eric Smith, Clocks and Clock Repairing (2nd ed.), TAB Books (1989), p. 48.

“TIMEPIECE. Any clock which does not strike or chime.” G.H. Baillie, O. Clutton, & C.A. Ilbert, Britten’s Old Clocks and Watches and Their Makers (7th ed.), Bonanza Books (1956), p. 307.

“Timepiece: A time-telling machine which does not strike.” Brooks Palmer, The Book of American Clocks, The Macmillan Co. (1979), p. 19.

“TIMEPIECE: a clock or watch which simply tells the time, without any additional complications, such as a striking mechanism.” Philip Zea & Robert Cheney, Clock Making in New England – 1725-1825, Old Sturbridge Village (1992), p. 172.

2. Another reference defining timepiece:

“Strictly speaking, a time-measuring machine without a bell is a timepiece.” Edgar G. Miller, Jr., American Antique Furniture, 1937, vol. 2, p. 862. [2]

3. Some online encyclopedias defining timepiece:

“A clock … also has a mechanism by which it strikes the hours on a bell or gong, whereas, strictly, a timepiece does not strike, but simply shows the time”:[3],

“Timepiece … an instrument for recording or showing the time, especially one that does not strike or chime, e.g., a watch or clock.” MicroSoft Encarta:[4],

4. Some online dictionaries defining timepiece:

“…a Timepiece type clock, with no striking train.” British Horological Institute:[5],

“Timepiece: a device (as a clock or watch) to measure or show progress of time; especially: one that does not chime.” Merriam-Webster Online:[6],

“Timepiece: A clock that tells time only and does not strike or chime”:[7],

“Timepiece A clock which does not chime or strike”:[8],

5. A sampling of major auction houses that differentiate timepieces:

Sotheby’s: [[9]],

Christie’s:[10],

6. The National Watch and Clock Museum refers to clocks and wristwatches that lack strike mechanisms as timepieces:

--On wristwatches as timepieces:[11],

--On Willard’s patented (non-striking) banjo design as a timepiece:[12],

--On Job Wilbour’s patented (non-striking) banjo design as a timepiece: [13]

7. A sampling of typical watch manufacturers routinely describing their products as timepieces:

Seiko:[14], and here: [15],

Rolex:[16], and here: [17],

Patek Philippe:[18]

Based on the foregoing evidence, perhaps we can all agree that it would be premature to dismiss what has been a useful timekeeping distinction among horologists for centuries, so that its inclusion in Wikipedia is not only legitimate but also helpful to those learning about clocks and other timekeeping devices. Jack Bethune 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Jack! An impressive list. I have no problem with the theory. Perhaps I just want someone to say that the difference might be observed within 'horological' circles but isn't much observed much outside those circles... Like most people l'll still be referring to the items mentioned in the article as 'clocks', whether they're noisy or not. For example, the famous Shepherd Gate clock at Greenwich is never called a timepiece, and neither is the system clock on my computer... Cormullion 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I think the first quote above hits the nail on the head: "...if we want to be slightly pedantic we shall call a non-striking mechanism a 'Timepiece'." I don't have a problem with the distinction or anything... it just seems a bit pedantic. My clock radio doesn't have a striker, but I've never heard anyone called them "timepiece radios". Kafziel Talk 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Every definition that defines timepiece as "a clock that does not strike", marks timepiece as a type of clock, not as something other than a clock --JimWae 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim, for placing the distinction where it belongs and for creating the synthesis needed in this discussion. A timepiece is indeed a type of silent clock, for those who want to learn a little horology from all the pedants contributing to Wikipedia, including this one. Thanks also to Cormullion and Kafziel for your keen observations as well, as the results achieved by our recent discussion will be of benefit to Wikipedia readers. Jack Bethune 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In recognition of the valid points raised by all, I have proposed an improved description of "timepiece" to acknowledge the specialized nature of this historical term, which we all agree is generally not used by the public. Does this version produce a better perspective for the reader? Jack Bethune 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, much better! Thanks for the hard work, Jack. Cormullion 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I do not think "true clocks..." (last paragraph in intro) will stand up to examination. My analog clock on the mantle is truly a clock, and so is the analog one on the wall in the office, and so is my digital alarm clock. Some people truly use time-clocks to punch in & out of work too --JimWae 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

- As well, the atomic clock at the university is also a clock. These are not misuses of the term clock, they are extended usages that differ from the origin of the word - and do not get me started on whether clocks measure time or are instruments for timing. --JimWae 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself: Every definition that defines timepiece as "a clock that does not strike", marks timepiece as a type of clock, not as something other than a clock. IF we are using sources for accepted usage of English, dictionaries are more authoritative than websites (composed by individuals who, for the most part, are unidentified) --JimWae 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Complicating all this, we have watches that chime the hour. The primary distinction these days is between clocks (some of which make sound(s) to mark the time) & watches--JimWae 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If timepieces were exclusively for silent devices, wouldn't English be left without a word for all devices used to mark time? Couldn't they all be timepieces? I think the order of presentation should show clocks as time-keeping devices that are not worn by people, with notation that some horologists (with source_ reserve that word for the subset of those devices that regularly make a sound to mark at least some hours (if not every hour & 1/2 h & 1/4 h)--JimWae 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard many people refer to a wristwatch as a clock. It seems common in the southern United States. I'd go into a department store asking where the clocks might be, and would invariably be led to a display of watches. WHPratt (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Big Ben" caption

The caption for the picture of the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster - the tower is only colloquially (and incorrectly) referred to as Big Ben, which is actually the name of the clock's biggest bell. Jberanek 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Protecting this page

Protecting this page is a good idea. This article seems to be the target of much minor vandalism. Cormullion 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Clocks and Watches

We have a challenging question, does clocks and watches go tic before tock or tock before tic? Example: (tic tock, tic tock or tock tic, tock tic).--Storesonline 00:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)-http://www.tictockclocks.com

Clocks "an instrument for measuring time"

Clocks don't measure time, time if defined by clocks. Clocks are a physical varible, according the June 2007 issue of Discover magizine and Ferenc Krausz, "So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physics variables as a function of other physical variables."

It also states " [Time] would work equally well if time ran backward. As far as we can tell, though, time is a one way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it." -TheNinjaPirate 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Moerou toukon

Moerou toukon (block log) has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies (block log · checkuser confirmed), who has a history of

The Arbitration Committee has found that Freedom skies has "repeatedly engaged in edit-warring" and placed him on revert parole. When examining Freedom skies' editing, be mindful of the following:

JFD 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Synchronizing to mains

Is it true that the power plant frequency is synchronized to an atomic clock? Everywhere? — Omegatron 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is true in large power grids, because it is necessary to keep all the generators in sync. Small grids, for example small islands with their own Diesel generators, are unlikely to be synchronized to anything. Paul Koning 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspect etymology

The intro says that the word clock "is derived ultimately (via Dutch, Northern French, and Medieval Latin) from ... Celtic words ...". I find that hard to believe; that line of derivation doesn't sound plausible from the point of view of historic linguistics. I know the Dutch and German cognates, but not the other ones. So I could believe a Germanic origin (if so, you'd find it in Anglo-saxon). If there are cognates in the Celtic languages and/or Latin, that would argue that it goes way back to proto-indo-european (which is not an attested language but can be reconstructed). That takes me beyond what I know of linguistics; I hope someone can fill in the details. Paul Koning 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It didn't sound plausible to me either, so I looked it up, in Percival Price (1984) "Bells and Man", a fairly scholarly work. First, apparently metal-working technology good enough for bells is believed to have originated in central Asia and proceeded both East and West from there. The Celts may have been among the carriers of that technology and certainly used bells, mostly small, a lot. Celtic Ireland was an imporant stronghold of Christianity in the "Dark" Ages. The monasteries of Ireland were apparently the transfer point for the word from Celtic to Medieval Latin and for the use of bells instead of wooden knocking boards into Church usage. Interesting, eh? DCDuring 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the verge escapement be mentioned?

In the section on the development of mechanical clocks (ambiguously titled 'A new mechanism') the escapement is just mentioned peripherally, and the verge escapement is nowhere mentioned. Every book on the origin of mechanical clocks I've seen says that the key invention that made them possible was the escapement, and that escapement was the verge escapement. Even though no one knows when or where it was first used, with one exception it was the only escapement found in early clocks, and it remained the only one for 400 years. Not only did the verge make possible the all-mechanical clock, it marked the switch from telling time with continuous processes (like flowing water in the Kaifeng tower) to repetitive, oscillatory processes (like verge & foliot) which are used today. I agree that other technological innovations necessary for mechanical clocks (such as power from falling weights) may have been ignored in the past, but to omit the verge leaves a big hole in the story. --ChetvornoTALK 08:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Paul Koning (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Clock /* */ Good clock /* */ Ideal clock

The present section Clock#Ideal_clocks is concerned with various notions of "clock" as "scientific principle" (or as may be put more concretely: as "thought-experimental definition" and "idealization"); appropriately closely related to the notion of "duration" (and consequently, how Duration is defined as a physical quantity).

A definition of a (any) "clock" in this particular context can be derived from how the notion of "clock" in turn is being used in the (Einstein's) definition of Time as "what the clock indicates"; where, as noted by Wheeler, these indicated instants "don't all happen at once" (but in particular order).

A (any) clock is accordingly a sequence (whose elements, "instants", serve as distinct indicators). (As far as the elements of a sequence can well be called "recurring in sequence", this is already reflected in the present section Clock#Ideal_clocks. However, an associated counter of sequentially recurring elements is not required -- not least because for any two distinct elements of the clock sequence, infinite other elements may have been indicated inbetween; thus rendering irreproducible any attempt at a sequential count of such elements.)

The notion of a "good clock" (vs. "bad clock") appears for instance in MTW#Gravitation_(book), Fig. 1.9. However, there it serves only to illustrate derived notions such as "force" or "freedom (from force)" or "uniform motion" etc. Considering attempts at thought-experimental definition of "force" etc. (such as Schelb, U. Foundations of Physics, Volume 30, Number 6, June 2000 , pp. 867-892(26)), and the familiar notion of Uniformity#Evenness_of_measure, therefore:

A good clock is a clock for which the duration between (pairs of) its instants has been measured (and may be suitably indicated, as proper time). (The description in the present section Clock#Ideal_clocks is plainly irreproducible: "periodicity" is a derived notion; "many other processes" is heuristic, not physics.)

Finally, the notion of an "ideal clock" appears separately in MTW#Gravitation_(book), sect. 16.4, involving the notion of "number of ticks", which in the corresponding sketches are illustrated as ping counts (counts of roundtrip signals being exchanged between two clocks). Accordingly:

An ideal clock is the thought-experimental setup and procedure which serves to define duration as a physical quantity. (It involves taking ping counts between certain participating clocks.) (The present section Clock#Ideal_clocks states this initially, but then goes on to give a different, heuristic description.) (The description stated in MTW#Gravitation_(book) is of course not a reproducible definition either, since it requires the derived notions "free" and "geodesic".) Frank W ~@) R 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Clepsydra

Considering that clepsydra is a Greek word, a plural with "ae" doesn't look right. That's a Latin plural ending, not a Greek one. Paul Koning (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Mechanical Clock link

I removed this link as it was a redirection link back to Clock. Seemed stupid thats all 59.167.67.169 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for catching that, that was my screwup. --ChetvornoTALK 17:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Analog clocks

  1. Why does "digital clock" get its own article, but not "analog clock"? I would think that nowadays, digital would be the "default" with so many clocks on appliances, etc.
  2. Why is it not given anywhere an explanation of how to tell time on an ordinary 12-hour analog clock face? (Wikipedia contains much other "elementary" information, so why not this?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.149.181 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Clock face might be a good place for the latter explanation. --ChetvornoTALKCONTRIB 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That does not answer the first one though... if digital clock gets its own article then why not analog clock? We can always preserve the information on this article about analog clocks but add a "Main article: Analog clock" tag at the top of the section. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 10:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You can create an Analog clock article, but it may have a lot of overlap. I feel the clock articles are getting pretty fragmented, which makes it hard to find comprehensive information. Analog clock is kind of a broad term. The unique distinguishing feature of an analog clock is it's face, and that is already covered in Clock face. My feeling is Analog clock should redirect there. Just my opinion. --ChetvornoTALK 16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, and I guess the reason that digital clock gets its own article is that there is so much information on that page, huh? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, ideally I think that should be merged into Quartz clock or this article. --ChetvornoTALK 05:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
A Quartz clock is only one of many types of analog clock. There are others too, such as pendulum clocks and wind-up clocks. In my opinion, there could be a Analog clock article or there could be more information in the section in this article. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Silly me, know I know what you meant. Yes, for consistancy, Digital clock either should be merged into this article, or we create an Analog Clock article. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 03:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see with an 'Analog clock' article is that there are several types of analog clock, and they have almost nothing in common except their analog face. There are analog mechanical clocks, both pendulum clocks and alarm clock types that use a balance wheel. There are analog quartz clocks, that use digital logic but have analog hands. And there are analog electric clocks that keep time with a synchronous motor. It makes more sense to divide clock articles by their mechanism, and as shown by the links above there are already articles about them. 'Analog clock' would duplicate the material in these articles. An analog clock is simply a clock with an analog clock face, and should redirect there. --ChetvornoTALK 07:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Severe vandalism

I note the major vandalism that has occurred on this article in just the past 2 months! Most of the recent edits involve reverting vandalism. With the severe vandalism this article is getting, should it be protected? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture choises?

why are all mechanical clocks soooo old fashioned? why arent there any newer clocks? (besides digital clocks). i was looking for basic moder clock picture and all i found was 200 years old baroque clock pictures --128.214.133.2 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied text?

A bunch of text in section "early mechanical clocks" matches text from [25] (which is note 7 for this article). I don't know which is the original and which the copy, but items like "run to the clock" are too close to be coincidental.

Speaking of note 7, some text about "Henry de Vick" was inserted just before that reference, which makes that page look like an authority for this added text. But it isn't as far as I can tell, which makes me wonder if we could have a source for that claim. Paul Koning (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I think a lot of links are unneccessary not relating to clocks in general but are more like a bunch of links to programs and webpages that have clocks, like the Youtube link 69.136.72.16 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Clock ?

Just to say that I came here in search of information about the spiral clock... Seems there's no mention at all. See photo -- － Cy21 ➜ discuss 08:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

We got a link leading to a disambiguation. We might need to change it. It's the trigger mechanism one. --Newprofile001 on school computer.

time in Europe

It should be noted that the way to tell the time is different in different regions; 17:30 would be half past five in English but 'half zes' (half TO the next hour) in Dutch (the Germans use the same method). This is a wellknown source of missed appointments >;^)

Another thing; only last century there were three distinct times being used on the European continent; 

 - Greenwich mean time in Belgium (and the UK)
 - European time (Germany and elsewhere), one hour offset from GMT
 - Dutch (Amsterdam) time, 40 minutes off GMT and 20 minutes off European time

The Amsterdam time disappeared in WW II after the German occupation. Before the Amsterdam time became the standard there were local times (which made railway timetables really hard to figure out).

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the cleanup page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. Tobby72 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Review

This article for the most part is very well written and has few or no grammar or spelling errors. I do feel like certain sections of this article could be better place in other articles such as the article on time. For example there is a section talking about different systems of measuring time, and there is not very relevant to the article on clocks. This article also has a very small section about early mechanical clocks, which there is very little information in it. However the next section is titled “A new mechanism”, and this section is primarily about the further development of these early mechanical clocks that according to the above section we know little about, and we were never able to find any remains of. I feel like this section could be clarified to state whether they are talking about two types of early mechanical clocks, or if the contradictory information from the first section would be removed. In regards to the sections I feel like the seismology section of this article could be added to the usage of clocks section, as it is not necessary for it to be on its own. It may not also be a bad idea for this article to be divided into two articles as the Early Clocks are very different and would allow for more details to be displayed about the different types of eary clocks. This article is full of very helpful images for the first few sections however more images could be used to help to understand the operation of the older clocks such as the water clock and early mechanical clocks. In general the sources for this article look very reliable and relevant. Most of this come form either journals or books that are specifically about clocks, and there are not any references that are pointing to websites. This article covers the subject very well and in some ways covers more information than it needs to, as it covers items that could be placed in other articles. However despite the extra information, this article does not face detriment due to pointless rants or biased information from Wikipedia users. I feel like the article on this Wikipedia page is better than you will find in an encyclopedia as it is covering a broad range of clocks and in many section of the article has more images than you would be able to place in a regular encyclopedia. HIST406-10rlavoie (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

The Clock Have Min and How many time ? This time have 12 o Clock with 1 Clock beginning The Clock have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 o Clock.

File:Talk Clock
Home

To Clock Thank YouClock The Wikipedia article on the clock is poorly organized. This critique is focused on the beginning of the article, from “Sundials and other devices” through “Later developments.” These separate groups could all be combined to form one group entitled something along the lines of “History of the Clock.” The rest of the article has meaningful subheadings such as “How the Clock Works” and “Purposes” so the with the history being divided into 4 separate categories is clunky and unnecessary.

Beyond that, the article is rather poorly written. It is not chronological. A discussion of the word “clock” is for some reason included in the section about the development of a new mechanism (the escapement). A reorganization of ideas would allow the article to read more smoothly. I tried to use the article previously and it was difficult to get a good idea of the origins and development of time keeping because it was so back and forth and overall cluttered.

Another thing that could use work in this article is the references. Some of them are informative and helpful, but others are simply last names and a page number with a broken link that takes you nowhere. I wanted to investigate where the article got a lot of its historical information and could only find dead ends and no means of finding anything else out or verifying any of the information on my own. For example, reference number 2 simply says “Turner 1984, p. 1” with a broken link. There are multiple instances of this and it needs improvement. On another note, many of the facts are not cited at all and are marked as “citation needed.”

The images are one thing that is well done in the article. They show the clocks in their historical context. One critique I could give about them, however, is that it could use more pictures or illustrations of any actual clocks that were used at a given time. Most of the images are from manuscripts that show documentation that that culture had or used clocks or time keeping devices but little of the mechanics involved are depicted, even though that is a huge focus of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10seadams (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


The clock of Piazza dei Signori in Padua obviously hasn't original gears but the design is original of Jacopo Dondi 1344. Other old clock example is in San Giacomo di Rialto in Venice date 1410 and must have lot of original components.

"...I inherited my great-grandfather adze with a handle redone by my grandfather and the blade redone by my father... but it remains my great-grandfather adze...... "

I think it is the same for ancient mechanical clocks... in the numerous towers around the old Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.59.24 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

"Originally invented by Sam Lalruatpuia, the clock is one of the oldest human inventions..."

Who the hell is Sam Lalruatpuia??? In all the world wide web the only instance of Sam Lalruatpuia is here in Wiki on the entry for "clock".

Q: What does this mean: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

A: Nothing

Pretty well shows Wiki for what it is, a dumping ground for any and every one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResIpsaWiki (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That was just vandalism from an anonymous user. Surprising that one of the bots didn't catch it, but it was only up for about 25 mintes before you deleted it. Don't know what your second qa is supposed to mean. This page is vandalised frequently, because even stupid people have heard of a 'clock'. Cormullion (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Horloge-republicaine0.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Horloge-republicaine0.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the image in this article to File:Clock-french-republic.jpg from Wikimedia Cormullion (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Critique "Clock"

The Wikipedia article titled "Clock" covers a range of topics including the history of earlier timepieces, the development of the mechanical clock, variants of the mechanical clock, operation and components of clocks, and the usage of clocks. For the most part, the information covered in the article is accurate and objective. However, its lack of a logical structure coupled with verbose discussion makes this article a poor encyclopedic entry.

The main fault with this article is its lack of logical and chronological organization. The introduction of the article fails to summarize the contents as is common in well written Wikipedia articles; rather, it mostly discusses etymology. The larger issue regarding this article is its haphazard division of topics. Specifically, the article does not contain a concise history section, but separates the section into the discussion of various timepieces that themselves are not considered clocks. In a way, lengthy discussion of such pieces such as a water clock may be considered frivolous. This failure to accurately define and categorize topics is another fault in this article. For example: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a clock is defined as "a mechanical or electrical device for measuring time, indicating hours, minutes, and sometimes seconds by hands on a round dial or by displayed figures." Neither sundials, nor water clocks fit such a definition and must therefore be discussed as predecessors to the mechanical clock. This distinction is not evident by the structure of the article. A better structure of contents would be:

1) History of Clocks a. Preceding Timepieces i. Sundials ii. Hourglasses iii. Water Clocks b. Development of the Mechanical Clock i. Early Mechanism ii. Astronomical Clocks iii. Later Developments 2) Operation and Components a. Power Source b. Oscillator i. Synchronized or Slave Clocks c. Controller d. Counter Chain e. Indicator 3) Modern Variants a. Analog b. Digital c. Auditory d. Word e. Projection f. Tactile g. Multi-display.

A section dedicated to purpose is unnecessary as the purpose of the clock has evolved over time and may be discussed under History.

The sources of the article seem mostly appropriate and credible especially since no websites are used. However, the article lacks appropriate footnotes as many of them are missing pieces of information such as author, title, and page number.

The article includes several illustrations that help the reader visualize the complex changes in the evolution of the clock. I would recommend that more images be included, specifically those that clearly distinguish the features of the mechanical clock.

If this article were to contain the same information as it does now, I would recommend a rearrangement in structure as specified above. A more effectual improvement would be to divide the article into several articles. In fact, some topics such as water clocks already have very well written main pages. This article can be retitled "Mechanical Clocks" and include a "History" section with a chronological yet summarized analysis of their relationship to earlier timepieces and their development up to modern day mechanical clocks. Another section may discuss distinguishing features of a mechanical clock while a last may briefly list variants including the electric clock. Due to the vast differences in the different types of instruments used to monitor time, a combined discussion of all is impractical and confusing. By separating and specializing the different articles, the information may be provided in a more succinct, professional manner.

HIST406-13rgrover1 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a well-reasoned, useful critique. I agree with most of your points, and have thought for years this article desperately needs a reorganization and cleanup. One exception is I disagree with the proposal to divide the article. I think a central Clock article is needed, despite the fact that it's a huge subject which tends to bloat up with irrelevant detail if discipline is not exerted by editors. For one thing, as it says in How clocks work all modern clocks have underlying similarities and should be treated together. I agree in principle with removing most of the content on "non-clock" timekeepers such as sundials and candle clocks, but I'm not sure about water clocks; in spite of the OED def. they are called clocks and have clock faces. I think the "non-clocks" should be mentioned in brief sections with links to the main articles, and vigilance exerted by regular editors to make sure these don't grow. Cheers. --ChetvornoTALK 02:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Display vs Internal Technology

It should be one main article, that links to more detailed articles. I agree that the article categorization is problematic, but on a more fundamental level than has been mentioned. Aside from the history of clocks, there are two timeless concerns when it comes to clocks, internal technology (guts) and display method (face). Where the article (and perhaps academia) really screws up is by calling clocks "analog" when talking about the display method. Analog usually refers to electronic signal technology, which is only relevant to the guts of the clock.

My suggestion to fix this is to have three sections: History, Internal technology, and Display Method. Internal technology would talk about clockwork and clock generators. Display method would talk about changing symbols or numerals (e.g. flip clock) vs hands on clock face or sun dials. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, the two broadest subcategories of "Display Method" should be "Movable markers" and "Dynamic symbols." It's easy to see which category any device would fall under, including devices yet to be imagined. The hands on a clock face, the shadow of a sundial, and the amount of sand in the top portion of hour glass are all examples of movable markers. There are other methods that use dynamic (changing) symbols besides numerical digits such as a binary clock. I doubt there's any hybrids. But if there is ever a hybrid, we can add that as a third category.

Sundials, hour glasses, and water clocks can be discussed in the internal technology section regarding the physics in contrast to the display. I'm not sure much can be said about the latter two other than a link to hydraulics or gravity as the mechanism. However, I did see a link regarding an electric sundial, which would be a little more relevant to internal technology than a moving shadow as a display marker. It appears that as of the date this was referenced, that the technology is underdeveloped. But it could be mentioned as a possibility. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I like your division of the article into "History", "Technology" (or "How clocks work"?) and "Display methods". However, I feel your categories of display, "Moveable markers" and "Dynamic symbols" are better expressed by the standard engineering terms "Analog" and "Digital", which are the accepted terminology in horology. An analog display is one which is (potentially) capable of displaying a continuous range of values: a moving pointer or the height of sand in an hourglass. A digital display is one which is only capable of displaying a limited number of discrete values, such as digits.
A clock's display method (analog or digital) is a stylistic distinction which is independent of its timekeeping technology (analog or digital). A flip clock's placards are only capable of displaying time digitally to a resolution of one second. even though the driving works are analog (continuous). In contrast a quartz watch with a traditional clock face displays time on an analog dial which is capable of a continuous range of values, although the works are digital and the hands jump from one second to another. --ChetvornoTALK 02:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe subcategorize "History", "Mechanizing technology," and "Display methods", then subcategorize "Analog mechanisms" and "Digital mechanisms" in the "Mechanizing technology" section, and subcategorize "Analog display" and "Digital display" in the "Display methods" section? Something like a flip clock would be mentioned under "Analog mechanisms" and also under "Digital display." Oicumayberight (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I want to make sure I understand. Your section structure would look like this?

History
Mechanizing technology
Analog mechanisms
Digital mechanisms
Display methods
Analog display
Digital display

I could go along with that, although my personal preference is for a simpler, clearer section title than "Mechanizing technology", such as "Technology" or "How clocks work". I might also add a top-level section on "Accuracy". I have a half-written article on accuracy of clocks, discussing harmonic oscillators, Q factor and resonance width. --ChetvornoTALK 08:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the structure I had in mind. My reason for "Mechanizing Technology" was to distinguish from "display technology." Technology applies to both the internal mechanism and the external display. Even "how clocks work" could be confused with ""How clock displays work." But now that I think about it, there's display mechanisms too. "Display" is unmistakable. But maybe there's a better word or phrase for a section describing the initial source of automated timing. Maybe "Timing mechanism?"
I also considered "internal technology," but a sundial has no "internal" parts. I'm not against using single word section titles like "Technology" and "Display," but I prefer to err on the side of clarity at the risk of a little verbosity. Either way, it would be an improvement. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Another alternate would look like:
History
Timing technology
Analog timing
Digital timing
Display methods
Analog display
Digital display
Oicumayberight (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

HIST406 Critique, October 2011

I read about the history of the clock on Wikipedia by going to the "Clock" entry on Wikipedia and reading the "Early mechanical clocks" section and subsequent subsections. The section is about 2,000 words. The section itself is easy to read, which is one of the big benefits of Wikipedia -- the content is easy to follow and a lot of the more complicated terms are clickable, so you can find out exactly what the terms mean on other Wikipedia articles.

Still the section is a bit cluttered. The one big suggestion for the section I'd make so that it reads a little better is to knock out some of minor information about each step in the timeline of developing clocks so that the section doesn't read as a repetitive timeline of minor events. I'd try to focus on some of the bigger events a little more. Britannica's entry on clocks runs through the history of the clock in a little easier to understand and there's an emphasis on the bigger takeaways a reader should have. That said, the Wikipedia section covers the history of the clock extremely well. It touches on clockmaking from 1176 to the 20th century, hitting on tons of clocks, including water-powered clocks, astronomical clocks, and different mechanical clocks.

There are five illustrations within the confines of the section, and they add little if anything to the reader. None of the illustrations shown link back to anything said in the body of the section. I like when I see something written down in a paragraph and I can immediately see something that illustrates what I'm reading about. Two of the illustrations are of a pocket watch and French bracket watch, none of which are directly mentioned within the body of the section.

There are 23 sources tied to this section of the "Clocks" entry, so it's a fairly heavily cited section relative to Wikipedia standards. The majority of the sources are both authoritative and clickable, so I can easily go right to the linked source and make my own judgment on the source if I so please. But one of the source stands out over the rest due to its incompleteness. It just reads "History of Song 宋史, Vol. 340," without any link to take me to what the "History of Song" is. I found that odd and would want to have a better citation for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-11wjackso1 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent, detailed critique! It's really helpful to have someone with "fresh eyes" look at the article. I agree with most of your criticisms. --ChetvornoTALK 08:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of Cell Phone

I have changed this to mobile phone from cell, a term recognised (or handy) in the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.177.205 (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keeping time

If time is considered to be "what a clock reads", it is tautologous to say that a clock keeps time. I suggest that the word "keep" be deleted. DOwenWilliams (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. In the first place, even granting your definition, time is not what any one clock reads. Every clock has error. It is the task of a clock to "keep" as close to the scientifically defined ideal of perfect timekeeping as possible. More importantly, "timekeeping" is a common description of what a clock does, and perfectly appropriate for the introduction. That's why our article History of timekeeping devices includes clocks. --ChetvornoTALK 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Clock accuracy as an indicator of political and economic power

I am not sure if this is the right article for this discussion. However, this is the discussion that I expected to see in this article and I did not find it. Accurate timekeeping is critical to accurate seafaring navigation. Through great effort, the British invented the chronograph. To this day, time is expressed as a differential from GMT, Greenwich Mean Time. Jump forward: when you pull your boat into a London boat dock, you see Big Ben. That clock is not there to tell the locals what time it is. Big Ben is a huge proclamation of British technological dominance. It is there to proclaim that the British are supreme in the technology of time and therefore dominant in the navigation of the seas. Like a king of England, I would expect any foreign monarch, seeing Big Ben, to understand what this extremely ostentatious display of superiority to mean. I would expect any such monarch to hang his head in apathy. Anyway, that is the discussion that I expected to find in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.122.51 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Pendulum Clock Invention

" after 1656 with the invention of the pendulum clock. " - it is worth mentioning that pendulum clocks are mentioned in Arabic manuscripts from 1009 and 1242 CE (Source is in Arabic, though, hopefully I'll find English sources soon).--عبد المؤمن (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about 10th century Egyptian astronomer Ibn Yunus? --ChetvornoTALK 18:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A disambiguity for Wiki Clock ?

This alternative description is offered as the basis for a more factual, universal, permanent description, for all clocks of every type. All clocks, including the atomic clock, operate on the same basic principle expressed here. Use this, edit it, or discard it, as you choose.

A clock is a constructed device. The essence of the device is the "measured motion" within the device. The measured motion is harnessed, as an "iterative Count". The count is displayed incrementally, and the increments are summed on the display as units of time.

Comment:

The essence of all clocks is the motion within them, which is harnessed to provide a usable Count. The source for the motion that is harnessed for use, can be described as natural (planetary), mechanical, electrical, atomic (radiated).

When the motion is consistent (undisturbed) the Count is reliable and useful. When the motion is inconsistent (disturbed) the Count is unreliable. (The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom - is one second). That is a description of undisturbed measured motion, used for a Count.

Acceleration is a "g" force, I'll refer to it as being pseudo gravity. Resistance to gravity consumes energy. The effect of pseudo gravity, on the motion that provides the Count of the flying clock experiment, is to slow the motion within the clock.

Pseudo gravity (force of acceleration) began affecting the motion of the "flying clock" from the moment the engines were started (airframe vibration, taxi, takeoff, turns, any turbulence, landing). Throughout the experiment, pseudo gravity (from several sources), continued to affect the motion within the "flying clock". The effect was cumulative. To my knowledge this effect was not measured or accounted for, before drawing a conclusion from the experiment.

If my assertion is correct, then may I humbly suggest, that the conclusion drawn from the experiment is questionable, and the basis for "time dilation" theory is therefore questionable. Nothing is immune to gravity or pseudo gravity, not even an atomic clock. Layman1 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Clock & Calendar

I've seen various proposals that wish to update the article in relation to the various "definitions." Most have been too simplistic or too complex. In aiming to acheive a balance between the two, I'd like some discussion on retracing the clock to it's origins, it's mechanism, and it's current and future state.

For instance: how the clock relates to the sundial, that is something more like a calendar and a clock; clockworks mechanical invention; to digital non-clockwork timepiece mechanisms; and self-adjusting digital timepieces, that are something more like a clock yet introduces self-adjustment that makes it somewhat, if only a little, like a calendar.

From this point, introduce atomic clocks and GPS time. Perhaps also GPS/INS. Essentially to make the neat summary, for the articles sake, that clocks are integrating with the environment to be more like calendars again.

I think this also serves as a departure point to negotiate the vague differentiation between clocks, timepieces and watches, and ultimately the clocks origins as a public bell with a non-self-adjusting automative mechanism.

Essentially, with GPS(& /INS) timepieces are now more like public sundial bells again than non-self-adjusting clockwork. Although it doesn't have a bell either!

Clocks are nevertheless in use, yet, private and self-adjusting in relation to one another with GPS(& /INS) such that all but relate to planetary motions again. At the point they do, they shall cease to be clocks.

An inspiring Wikipedia article? WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Early mechanical clocks - flag

Information in the section Early mechanical clocks here seems to conflict with that in the Escapements article, in particular with respect to the citation of Philo of Byzantium's words there. Perhaps some detail is needed to tie up this/these refernces to escarpments with the Chinese technology (and its use), and the general functionality and distribution of timekeeping devices to "concretise" time (as opposed to being specialist or hobbyist equipment or pieces of sculpture or decoration). Although from Philo's words it seems clear that the original use of the escarpment was in water clocks around 2,500 years ago, an account to describe the impact this had on "timekeeping" within society would clarify the significance of the fact. An example of invention (potential) vs use (impact) is that although the Chinese invented gunpowder it was used chiefly for fireworks and it's later use specifically for armaments made it effectively a different "thing" entirely. When viewing history it seems to me that this "paradigm shift" of detail is as important as the invention/discovery/use itself. Hope that makes sense. LookingGlass (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Escapement article is correct while this article is in error, and the section on the Chinese clocks should be rewritten. This is a common error that got started with misreading of Joseph Needham's excellent books publicizing the mechanical inventions of early China. The ancient Chinese scientists Yi Xing and Liang Lingzan built "escapement" clocks which kept time with a bucket which repeatedly tipped when it filled with water from a spout, moving the gear train forward by an increment each time the bucket tipped. Although this was an "escapement" of sorts, the resulting clock was not a "mechanical clock" in the horological sense; it was a water clock. As with water clocks found in other ancient civilizations, the timekeeping was still dependent on the rate of water flow though an orifice.
The big advance in timekeeping was the invention of the verge escapement around 1300 in Europe, which led to the first ALL-mechanical clocks, which kept time with an oscillating timekeeper, a foliot or balance wheel. The crucial point is that an oscillating object can be a better timekeeper than the continuous flow of liquid, because its period of oscillation depends only on its physical characteristics, while the rate of liquid flow through an orifice varies with the level of liquid in the supply container, changes in viscosity and density with temperature, etc. All modern clocks are oscillating clocks. --ChetvornoTALK 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Please read this. This is why I'm constantly reversing your innacurate information, –IsambardKingdom–, –NewByzantine–.2.139.207.131 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Graphic showing accuracy versus year

Can we obtain a plot showing the increasing accuracy of the most precise clocks over history, culminating with the present atomic clock accuracy? I've looked around, but haven't found such a graphic. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clock. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clock. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sundials were more accurate than clocks

(Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science) And they were used to set early clocks too. I don't think we can accept this as a source but they got it from somewhere. The various articles that would contain this information should be improved if we can find evidence the statement was true. History of timekeeping devices is featured and I can't believe a featured article wouldn't have this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm...no, that's not an acceptable source. Also mechanical clocks, and especially early mechanical clocks were comparatively poor. To say that a sundial is or is not more accurate than something like an atomic clock just makes no sense, because you cannot in any meaningful way talk about how well a sundial may measure time down to a billionth of a second or over a billion years. GMGtalk 20:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The precision of a sun dial is, by definition, pretty poor. This is because the sun has a finite (and, indeed, quite large) angular size. However, precision is not the same thing as accuracy. Over a long period, a sun dial is quite accurate, provided that the known variables are taken into account. In fact in pre-atomic days, it was theoretically perfectly accurate, because the definition of time was based on the sun. Obviously, nowadays, time is defined in terms of atomic time so the sun itself is, by definition, inaccurate. --Roly (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Clocks (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Different Types of Atomic Clocks and the materials used to generate them

It would helpful and insightful to include a list of the different materials that can be used to create atomic clocks, such as ytterbium, cesium, rubidium, strontium, etc. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are able to write such a list, along with advantages/disadvantages, then please do. --Roly (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree this would be a very useful addition, but I think this is not the appropriate article for it. This article has an extremely broad scope, it has to cover all types of clocks, while the table only covers one specialized type. The place for it is in the atomic clock article, which really needs such a table. --ChetvornoTALK 10:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
You're probably right, with a "main article" link in this article to the Atomic Clock article. --Roly (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Problematic edits June 2022

This series of edits by IP user 117.215.186.232 in June 2022 seems to have been intended to remove references to the development of timekeeping instruments in the Islamic world. I don't know enough about the subject to make sense of the changes, but I'm surprised that those major changes seem to have gone unchallenged. Could someone look over the changes and revert or modify as appropriate? Thanks. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clock/Archive_1&oldid=1200068277"