Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wobbly clock

somethingorotherwhatever.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 209 posts

Re: Wobbly clock

#171

Post by SamBam »

capableweb wrote: post #72
franky47 wrote: post #58

I saw somewhere on the internet a clock where the hand of the seconds moves at random irregular intervals, but averages out to 60 moves a minute. Extremely frustrating to watch. Edit: here's a video of it running (somehow the seconds hand runs backwards) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKU-zmNFSxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1XSp5FmXBo > This clock is inspired by a post by ILAMtitan on the 43oh.com forums, which was in turn inspired by Vetinari's clock from the Discworld series of novels. Although the movement of the second hand is quite erratic, it ticks exactly 32 times in 32 seconds, and so keeps quite accurate time overall. The clock started life as a cheap $3 clock from KMart. It's mechanism was kept…

Both this and the clock above are quite, quite mad, and quite brilliant.

I will have to buy some cheap clocks and start tinkering.

Re: Wobbly clock

#172

Post by stavros »

lxgr wrote: post #147
ipqk wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gym has about 15 different clocks on the walls, and they all tell a different time, some of them egregiously so. Every few months (often after I mention it), someone will go around and fix the worst ones.

That's one good thing about daylight savings time, I suppose: It's a good opportunity to correct any non-synchronized clocks.

Or to haphazardly ruin any synced ones.

Re: Wobbly clock

#175

Post by SamBam »

drdaeman wrote: post #103
jedberg wrote: post #83

This clock is great for teaching kids how to tell time! When learning to read a "circle clock", they have a heck of a time understanding what it means when the hour hand is almost but not quite pointing at a number. So when it's 3:45 they will say 4:45 because they know the big hand on 9 means "45" but they get confused because the little hand is almost pointing at 4. This clock solves that problem. Anyone know if I…

If my presumption that analog watchfaces are dying and only used for "classical" looks (as evidenced by all those trendy "artistic" watchfaces that frequently don't even have marks), then I suspect it'll be another lie of a generation, just like I've been told to learn how to do math in my head because "there won't be any calculators around". I mean, analog watchfaces are bad at telling precise time - it's just that…

> (as evidenced by all those trendy "artistic" watchfaces that frequently don't even have marks)

If you grew up reading analog time, these aren't at all hard to read, even to the minute. Really, it's not an affectation, I would find a mark-less analog watch faster to grok than a digital watch. Most people who grew up on analog watches will similar have no problem with them.

The only kinds of watches that are more about "rough" time are ones without marks and without a minute hand. Those I can only read to about 15 minutes.

Re: Wobbly clock

#176

Post by Slava_Propanei »

technothrasher wrote: post #169
bmitc wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they know when the next hour started without digital communication?

In the Standard Electric Time Company slave clocks that I've got, the master sends about a 12ms pulse once a minute, which pulls in a solenoid and allows a lever to ratchet one tooth on the minute wheel and advance the movement. Then once every twelve hours, the master sends a longer pulse, which pulls in a stronger second solenoid that allows the wheel to turn freely. There's a weight on the hour wheel which will pu…

[dead]

Re: Wobbly clock

#177

Post by hamburglar »

SamBam wrote: post #170
orlp wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This clock solves that problem. In English! In Dutch this would actually create a problem, as when it is 3:45 we say it is "15 before 4". I noticed that I actually struggled to interpret the wobbly clock when it was close to changing the hour.

We do this on English too. 3:45 is "a quarter to four." I always think that the prevelance of saying "three forty-five" is a result of digital watches.

My kids hate the "quarter to four" construction because, in their words, it makes them do math in order to tell time. Which, of course makes me prefer it just to force them to get comfortable with it. I've even pointed out how 60 is nicely divisible by a lot of numbers, so we can say "a twelfth to 4" just to be a pain in the butt. :)

Re: Wobbly clock

#178

Post by SamBam »

hamburglar wrote: post #177
SamBam wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do this on English too. 3:45 is "a quarter to four." I always think that the prevelance of saying "three forty-five" is a result of digital watches.

My kids hate the "quarter to four" construction because, in their words, it makes them do math in order to tell time. Which, of course makes me prefer it just to force them to get comfortable with it. I've even pointed out how 60 is nicely divisible by a lot of numbers, so we can say "a twelfth to 4" just to be a pain in the butt. :)

I really think it simply depends on whether you're used to analog or digital. I actually learned to tell time by someone telling me that one side of the clock if the "past" side and the other is the "to" side (a little hand-wavey around 30-40 past). This made sense to me. What was important was the closest hour, and how many minutes (or fractions) past or to it was.

I taught my kids similarly. Starting with the hours, and then "half past" and then "quarter to" and "quarter past."

Only after all that was second-nature did I even explain to them the idea of 60 minutes.

Re: Wobbly clock

#179

Post by fsckboy »

stavros wrote: post #172
lxgr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one good thing about daylight savings time, I suppose: It's a good opportunity to correct any non-synchronized clocks.

Or to haphazardly ruin any synced ones.

I raise my glass, half empty, to you! you and me, we're the optimists, things can only get better from here!

Re: Wobbly clock

#180

Post by dpcx »

ok123456 wrote: post #155
jaywalk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that the success of the Apple Watch proves that you're incorrect.

Success? I've never seen one worn in real life. Personally, they're a less cool version of an 80s swatch.

I see more of them worn than regular wrist watches. Considering they sold more watches than the Swiss watch industry (2019), it's not surprising.
Post reply on HN