Talk:Orrery

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Derby Museum and Art Gallery High‑importance

	This article is related to the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Derby Museum and Art GalleryWikipedia:GLAM/DerbyTemplate:WikiProject Derby Museum and Art GalleryDerby Museum and Art Gallery-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture

This page seems like it could really use a picture to illustrate what an orrery would look like. Does anyone have a picture, especially of one of the orreries mentioned? --Edward Tremel 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a picture, but not really a clear/good one. Something like this is a lot more illustrative. 66.229.160.94 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

"Similar tricks can be used to show Pluto and its six-thousand seventeen moons." This sentence seems odd--I was under the impression that pluto had three known moons.

David L. Kutzler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deliverance (talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Making an Orrery

If i wanted to make a realistic orrery, how would i go about that, does anyone have a site that could help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaedra (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look on ebay for plans  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.184.36 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clockwork orange

I wonder if orrery is the origin of the phrase "as queer as a clockwork orange". Of course I don't want to intro some folk etymology. But looking here

http://webapp1.somerset.gov.uk/her/details.asp?prn=24750

there is some history where Orange and Orrery could be connected. Now if the phrase origins can be found this can be verified beyond my sepcualtion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.64.194 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size and Scale

I just removed a bit of text: "Orreries are usually not built to scale. Some fixed solar system scale models have been built and are often many kilometres in size."

"usually not built to scale" is ignorant as something that deals with PLANETS could never be built to scale outside of Magarthea, and then the "often many kilometres in size" shows a complete disconnect from reality.

Most mechanical orreries are not built to proper relative scale with the actual solar system. An orrery depicting all of the planet out to Uranus or Neptune or Pluto, would have the inner planets of tiny size and closeness to the sun and impossible to be seen.

Scale models of the solar system ( which are not moving, clockwork, type models ) have indeed been built to scale sizes which are many kilometres in size. There is a well known example in Australia where the planets are depicted at scaled sizes and distances from the observatory near Coonabarabran. The large balls representing Jupiter and Saturn at the appropriate relative diameter in proportion to their distance from the "sun", are indeed tens of kilometres from the centre of the display.

Newton's Orrery

From http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/ANF07/FOOTNOTE/FN5.HTM#P506_200720 Note 54; "54 Illa vera. [Newton showed his orrery to Halley the atheist, who was charmed with the contrivance, and asked the name of the maker. "Nobody," was the ad hominem retort.]

69.92.23.64 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I WOULD love to see some accurate details on larger orreries, though. Anyone got the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.109.45 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting. The sources are in the linked pages. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readers want to know...

...how to pronounce it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of static solar system models

I removed (see: [[1]]) a bunch of unrelated static solar system models that were put in the Notable Orreries tab. With those I also removed some descriptive texts on a place called the Salish Sea.

As these projects are not orreries they -if actually notable- can maybe be included in the outdoor-scale-model list on Solar_System_model.

Koster2005 (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I hadn't seen you had posted here. There are several problems here- your definition of Orrery seems to be tighter than that in general use, and viewers wont find the Solar_System_model which is a list not an article. Ideally there would be an article on Solar_System_models which would refer to List of Solar_System_models that would take the existing content. I don't think it is acceptable to delete referenced text- one has to go to the trouble of creating the new article to house it and cross link. If one does run up against notability then the text probably will be returned to the former article! (Unless the article is a GA candidate). Have you any evidence that this is a copyvio- Earwigs tool may help. I don't think any of that makes the problem any easier to solve. ClemRutter (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just writing to you on your user-talk page before I remembered checking here.. As to the definition: the one in general use is in the first line on this page. That is a mechanical model with positions and motions. A bunch of static nice looking planet spheres are definitely not that. They, just like orreries, are solar system models, but a completely different subset.

Additional reasons I removed it all at once were that these bits were placed mostly by one user (a self described Salish Sea fan) in a short time in the Notable section without being part / referenced in the rest of the article and actually contradict the definition in the introduction.

As an example for the copyvio. The paragraph with the words 'septic tank is from this page: https://www.york.ac.uk/solar/html/construction.html

Do you agree that IF we include these things on the page we at least should A) make sure the article actually discusses them outside of the Notable section, B) we don't spend half the page on it (the Salish Sea Walk of the Planets is almost a page in itself), and C) we include actually notable ones instead? Koster2005 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and will remove -bit by bit, and with explanations- many of the vandalism / NPOV / non-referenced bits that were added (all by one user) in 2016. If you decide to revert something please explain why it belongs in the article (if only because an argument FOR inclusion was never given in the first place) Koster2005 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orrery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724091137/http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/child.asp?txtKeywords=&lstContext=&lstResourceType=&lstExhibitionType=&chkPurchaseVisible=&txtDateFrom=&txtDateTo=&x1=&y1=&x2=&y2=&scale=&theme=&album=&resource=5230&viewpage=%2Fengine%2Fresource%2Fexhibition%2Fstandard%2Fdefault.asp&originator=&page=&records=&direction=&pointer=&text=&exhibition=1652&offset=0 to http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/child.asp?txtKeywords=&lstContext=&lstResourceType=&lstExhibitionType=&chkPurchaseVisible=&txtDateFrom=&txtDateTo=&x1=&y1=&x2=&y2=&scale=&theme=&album=&resource=5230&viewpage=%2Fengine%2Fresource%2Fexhibition%2Fstandard%2Fdefault%2Easp&originator=&page=&records=&direction=&pointer=&text=&exhibition=1652&offset=0

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Earliest Orreries

Modern orreries - Text says "Clock makers George Graham and Thomas Tompion built the first modern orrery around 1704 in England".[8] Ref: Carlisle, Rodney (2004). Scientific American Inventions and Discoveries, p. 189. John Wiley & Songs, Inc., New Jersey. ISBN 0-471-24410-4. On p189, this says, "The first orrery was made before 1719 by George Graham and Thomas Tompion...", not 1704. Kylenano (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to modern software

Software like Stellarium or Celestia (and other Planetarium software) could be considered modern or computerized orreries. They serve the similar purpose of illustrating the solar system. A note about this could be added to the article, but I'm not sure whether/how it fits. Columbus240 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]