Talk:Corpus Clock

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Corpus Clock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

A fact from Corpus Clock appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 18,200 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Corpus Clock (pictured), a large sculptural clock at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge featuring the world's largest grasshopper escapement, is entirely accurate only once every five minutes?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Secret military base

According to the Guardian article about the clock:

The rippling gold-plated dial was made by exploding a thin sheet of stainless steel onto a mould underwater: none of the team actually saw it happen because the only place in the world which could make it was a secret military research institute in Holland.

That sort of WTF statement seems like it would require a ^{[citation needed]} and perhaps be note worthy of mention in the main article. Autopilot (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. 'The Guardian' is already a Reliable Source, so presumably this fabrication description is accurate. The burden is on editors to cite another RS to contradict the information. David Spector (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appeared to have stopped for a period of many minutes, but did it really?

it says it appeared to have stopped working, but did it really stop working or that was a result of it's complex behavior and it stayed working all along? and if it did stop working, was it fixed by someone? what was the cause? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy

There is a statement in the article about accuracy that seems to suggest it won't drift even a single second in 200 years, however the citation mentioned just says that the clock is expected to still function after that amount of time. So my question is whether anyone knows how easily the clock will drift and whether for example a new time needs to be set every few years to bring it back into alignment. 68.175.118.95 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this business of its accuracy, TBH. Ipresume if it is purely mechanical, it won't adjust for leap seconds. So I can't see it will be accurate with mean time after 200 years. I think we have had about 30 of 'em since the early seventies, alone.

If you remind me I will go round when we put the clocks forward and see what happens. You reckon it will change? If so, in what sense is it "purely mechanical" and not controlled from outside sources for accuracy? I suppose he could have built in a mechanical mechanism for daylight saving adjustment, but those rules change quite often-- the US (and presumably Canada, not sure about Mexico) changed their autumn (fall) date only a couple of years ago.

I guess if there is a device build into the clock that "corrects" the counted time to a displayed local time (or Universal Time or whatever) BY SOME GOOD RULE e.g. leap second, daylight saving, local time (Cambridge is close to but not on the meridian), etc, that is not "cheating", but if such a device was used arbitrarily that would really be cheating.

I might go ask the porters at Corpus tomorrow, they know everything. It's only round the corner. (I was there at the unveilinging woohoo!)

SimonTrew (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went and asked the porters early this morning. The actual time setting is computer-controlled. SimonTrew (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Inscription

I dissent on the translation of the Latin inscription from the Vulgate — 1 John 2:17: mundus transit et concupiscentia eius ("the world passeth away, and the lust thereof") — so I put in my fiftieth of a currency unit. Concupiscentia needn't mean 'lust'. Let's take the apparent roots of the word: con=with & cupiscentia => cupiens=[desiring, longing, eager] or cupere=[to desire, long for, wish for]. Make up your own mind on the meaning of the inscription. I say it means: "The world has gone, along with its ambition."

Rather than bothering to debate me on the Latin translation here, find a scholar in Greek that can take this skepticism to its proper forum. Anyone?

The translation given here is as per the KJV / Authorised Version of the Bible, so seems a reasonable translation to give...The NRSV has the rather less poetic "the world and its desire are passing away" MatthewVernon (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the KJV because (a) it's the best-known English translation; (b) it's out of copyright; and (c) its portentousness goes well with the clock. (In any case, "lust" here is being used to mean any strong desire, not in the narrow sense of purely sexual desire.) Gdr 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

Why is this article entitled Corpus Clock? It's almost universally called the Chronophage, which would seem to be a better title for this article?MatthewVernon (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I am not sure that is true. I live about 200 yards from Corpus; on their postcards it has it as the "Corpus Clock" (or "Corpus Christi Clock" i forget which but not the "Chronophage". It seems that John Taylor is one of the few to call it that. I think on Corpus' website it is also called the "Corpus Clock". Unfortunately it was taken down at the weekend-- not sure if it is back up yet. Some teething problems I think (pardon the pun).

SimonTrew (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2009 (GMT)

According to this press release, the terms aren't synonymous. This Telegraph article and a few others like it suggest that "Chronophage" is used by Dr Taylor only to refer to the escapement mechanism (the grasshopper), which is one part of the Corpus Clock as a whole. However, MatthewVernon has a point - the whole thing is frequently called the Chronophage. I've been guilty of that myself. --Muspilli (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critique?

I think this page needs a Critique section. I am not entirely sold on the notion that this clock is purely mechanical. you cannot speed up and slow down a mechanical resonator (the pendulum) without a) an outside influence and b) without loosing accuracy. If the clock remains accurate, and if indeed it is mechanical, there HAS to be a second hidden pendulum.

Note: the above contribution is unsigned and undated.

Disagree. There is no need for a Critique section if no reliable critique has been published. Original Research does not qualify as a reliable critique. Besides, I think that this unsigned critique is incorrect. There is no claim in the article that the pendulum speeds up or slows down, merely that energy is fed back into it to prevent it from gradually slowing down. This is precisely what any escapement tries to do. David Spector (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]