Talk:Clock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Comment[edit]

"A clock is an instrument to indicate, keep, and co-ordinate time." Speling12345 (talk) 8:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A disambiguity for Wiki Clock ?[edit]

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)

Early mechanical clocks - flag[edit]

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)

Clock & Calendar[edit]

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)

Graphic showing accuracy versus year[edit]

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)