"My watch shows thirteen minutes past six"
oneuse706...@mailinator.com
minutes past six." Then I wondered: why isn't it *"My watch is showing
thirteen minutes past six"? It's not as if it's somehow normal or
usual for my watch to show that particular time.
Jeffrey Turner
Frankly, Scarlett, either one would be fine.
--Jeff
--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
Jinsh
"Jeffrey Turner"
>> I said to my mother a few minutes ago, "My watch shows thirteen
>> minutes past six." Then I wondered: why isn't it *"My watch is showing
>> thirteen minutes past six"? It's not as if it's somehow normal or
>> usual for my watch to show that particular time.
>
> Frankly, Scarlett, either one would be fine.
>
Is it more popular that say "my watch shows six thirteen"?
Peter Tan
Both are OK, although I think the simple present form is more common.
The simple present is not only used for usual or habitual action/
events/occurrences - it is used to describe what is taking place at
the moment too. In stage directions in plays, this is used as if these
were happening at that particular instant: 'he jumps into the car and
whips out his gun and proceeds to shoot indiscriminately'.
Peter
Peter Moylan
Either form is OK. A person wearing a digital watch would probably say
"six thirteen", and someone wearing an analogue watch would probably say
"thirteen minutes past six". Unless extreme precision is required, those
of us who have learnt about delusions of accuracy would most commonly
say "about quarter past six".
This is correct for Australian English, and I think also for most
British dialects. In some dialects of English, especially in the USA, it
is common to say "after" instead of "past", but anyone will understand
either version.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
TakenEvent
<oneuse706...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1179181775.9...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Twice a day isn't normal or usual? If you're on "military" time it's still
once a day.
Nick Atty
Every digital watch I've seen shows a particular value for an infinite
number of instants a day.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Jinsh wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Turner"
> >>> I said to my mother a few minutes ago, "My watch shows thirteen
> >>> minutes past six." Then I wondered: why isn't it *"My watch is
> >>> showing thirteen minutes past six"? It's not as if it's somehow
> >>> normal or usual for my watch to show that particular time.
> >> Frankly, Scarlett, either one would be fine.
>
> > Is it more popular that say "my watch shows six thirteen"?
>
> Either form is OK. A person wearing a digital watch would probably say
> "six thirteen", and someone wearing an analogue watch would probably say
> "thirteen minutes past six". Unless extreme precision is required, those
> of us who have learnt about delusions of accuracy would most commonly
> say "about quarter past six".
>
> This is correct for Australian English, and I think also for most
> British dialects. In some dialects of English, especially in the USA, it
> is common to say "after" instead of "past", but anyone will understand
> either version.
I think I use "after" only with multiples of five. "Ten after six" or
"a quarter after six" but "six-fifteen". Same with "to" for the other
half of the clock face.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 22:53:51 -0400, "TakenEvent"
>
>
> ><oneuse706055475...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> >news:1179181775.9...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> I said to my mother a few minutes ago, "My watch shows thirteen
> >> minutes past six." Then I wondered: why isn't it *"My watch is showing
> >> thirteen minutes past six"? It's not as if it's somehow normal or
> >> usual for my watch to show that particular time.
>
> >Twice a day isn't normal or usual? If you're on "military" time it's still
> >once a day.
>
> Every digital watch I've seen shows a particular value for an infinite
> number of instants a day.
No digital watch I've seen shows more instants in a day than there are
seconds. The lap timers and chronometers sometimes show tenths of a
second, and maybe rarely hundredths of a second, but no physical
device can show an infinite number of subdivisions.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
Frank ess
Seems to me it may "show" a figure representing a subdivision with an
infinite number of subdivision-instants within. Shows "6:13", a minute
potentially divisible into infinitely small intervals.
--
Frank ess
Paul J Kriha
news:1179262606....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 12:44 pm, Nick Atty <1-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 May 2007 22:53:51 -0400, "TakenEvent"
> >
> > <lightbulbsn...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > ><oneuse706055475...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1179181775.9...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > >> I said to my mother a few minutes ago, "My watch shows thirteen
> > >> minutes past six." Then I wondered: why isn't it *"My watch is showing
> > >> thirteen minutes past six"? It's not as if it's somehow normal or
> > >> usual for my watch to show that particular time.
> >
> > >Twice a day isn't normal or usual? If you're on "military" time it's still
> > >once a day.
> >
> > Every digital watch I've seen shows a particular value for an infinite
> > number of instants a day.
>
> No digital watch I've seen shows more instants in a day than there are
> seconds.
I guess what Nick Atty was implying was that that particular
second (06:13:00) or minute (06:13) consists of infinite number
of infinitely short instances. :-)
pjk
Peter Tan
<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think I use "after" only with multiples of five. "Ten after six" or
> "a quarter after six" but "six-fifteen". Same with "to" for the other
> half of the clock face.
>
I was taught to say 'ten to one' and 'ten past one', but 'twelve
minutes to one' and 'twelve minutes past one' - ie saying 'minutes'
was obligatory if it wasn't in multiples of five.
I was told as well that some Americans use 'before' and 'of' instead
of 'to'.
Peter
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On May 16, 4:00 am, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I use "after" only with multiples of five. "Ten after six" or
> > "a quarter after six" but "six-fifteen". Same with "to" for the other
> > half of the clock face.
>
> Is that just you or is it true of most Americans?
If you think I'm going to answer that in sci.lang, you've got
another... I mean, I'm not.
I believe I've heard Americans say phrases such as "thirteen after
six", but I'm pretty sure most people I've heard don't say that.
> I was taught to say 'ten to one' and 'ten past one', but 'twelve
> minutes to one' and 'twelve minutes past one' - ie saying 'minutes'
> was obligatory if it wasn't in multiples of five.
I never say "minutes" there and I can't remember ever hearing it.
> I was told as well that some Americans use 'before' and 'of' instead
> of 'to'.
I don't remember hearing "before". "Of" was very common in my
childhood in suburban Cleveland, and I might say it myself. "Till"
seems to be the most common in the town where I live now, in northern
New Mexico.
--
Jerry Friedman
Bob Cunningham
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> said:
Was it "till" or "t-"? And was the "t-" pronounced as it
commonly is by Americans so that it sounds more like a "d"
than a "t"? I'm used to saying and hearing "tendanine" for
8:50, or "twennydanine" for 8:40.
Bob Cunningham
And "quarderdaleven" for 10:45.
Hear all three at http://preview.tinyurl.com/2a9uzn , or
www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/times_of_day.mp3
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
>
> - Show quoted text -
An analogue watch comes quite close. If you ignore Quantum Mechanics,
the hands are moving smoothly and won't be in exactly the same place
until 12 or 24 (*) hours later. The limitations of the precision are
imposed by your eyes rather than the device (as it is in most digital
watches). With good enough eyes, you could make do with a single hand
and read seconds, or less, from the hour hand.
(*) I have a Russian made 24 hour analogue watch. Because of the
familiarity of 12 hour analogue displays, it takes quite a bit of
getting used to. What looks like 6 o'clock is actually noon. Once
you are used to it, it is tempting to read 24 hour times with phrases
more common for 12 hour time such as "quarter past 16". This watch
has nice support for time zones. There is a rotating dial which can
be used to show the time in various other places. Most of the places
are Russian cities but a few major western cities (e.g. New York and
London) are included. Of course, the watch is for the military, these
cities are probably the ones that the bombs were aimed at. The watch
allowed them to know would they be spoiling our breakfast, lunch,
dinner, or sleep.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Peter T. Daniels
> On 15 May, 21:56, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On May 15, 12:44 pm, Nick Atty <1-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > Every digital watch I've seen shows a particular value for an infinite
> > > number of instants a day.
>
> > No digital watch I've seen shows more instants in a day than there are
> > seconds. The lap timers and chronometers sometimes show tenths of a
> > second, and maybe rarely hundredths of a second, but no physical
> > device can show an infinite number of subdivisions.-
> An analogue watch comes quite close. If you ignore Quantum Mechanics,
> the hands are moving smoothly and won't be in exactly the same place
> until 12 or 24 (*) hours later. The limitations of the precision are
> imposed by your eyes rather than the device (as it is in most digital
> watches). With good enough eyes, you could make do with a single hand
> and read seconds, or less, from the hour hand.
The analog timepiece doesn't _show_ any divisions at all. They are
imposed by the reader.
Peter Duncanson
<jwla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>An analogue watch comes quite close. If you ignore Quantum Mechanics,
>the hands are moving smoothly and won't be in exactly the same place
>until 12 or 24 (*) hours later.
The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
The mechanism may be either purely mechanical or electromechanical.
Both types of mechanism result in the hands moving in steps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
True but that does not prevent someone with keen eyes interpolating
the times between the divisions. On most analogue watches, the hands
are in different places, and visibly so, on the minute, 15s, 30s, and
45s after it. Provided that the minutes are marked then it is usually
easy to determine the time to rather less than a minute even without a
second hand. On those that mark only hours, this can be difficult,
even more so on some watches that only mark 3, 6, 9 and 12.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> On 16 May 2007 04:13:45 -0700, Seán O'Leathlóbhair
>
>
> >An analogue watch comes quite close. If you ignore Quantum Mechanics,
> >the hands are moving smoothly and won't be in exactly the same place
> >until 12 or 24 (*) hours later.
>
> The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
> by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
I had expected that some would not work that way. Nonetheless a small
(*) increment. (*) That is in day to day terms, not quantum
mechanical terms.
> The mechanism may be either purely mechanical or electromechanical.
> Both types of mechanism result in the hands moving in steps.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch
I don't have time to study that article in detail. How small the
steps are does not seem to be mentioned. Some, but not all,
electronic watches move in whole seconds. How smooth the others are
is an interesting question. Certainly the steps are small enough on
some to give the illusion of continuous smooth movement. If that is
achieved then, as I said, the precision is limited by your eyes rather
than the device. Also, even if the mechanism is only kicking the
hands at a certain rate, they will acquire some momentum and not
necessarily stop completely between kicks. If you have a car with 4 or
fewer cylinders then its engine is not producing power continuously
yet it does not keep stopping.
I did notice this in the article: "its uninterrupted smooth (sweeping)
movement across the markers". Not so different from what I said.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Padraic Brown
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
He didn't say his watch shows "infinite number(s) of subdivisions"; he
said watches show "infinite number(s) of _instants_". There is a
difference.
Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On 15 May 2007 23:00:28 -0700, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"
I'm used to that too, and even "tennanine" and something like
[,twVni*n-'aIn]. But the pronunciation I'm talking about is clearly
"till". Most of the people where I live are Hispanic, and maybe as a
result of Spanish influence, they have a distinct [l], for that matter
often a "light l", in places where other Americans have a "dark l"
that's often rather indistinct. (Most of the people I'm talking about
speak Spanish less well than English, if at all.)
--
Jerry Friedman
contrex
My mother, born in London in 1920, used to say "It's five-and-twenty
past (or to) [hours: one to twelve, then one to midnight]", and I
catch myself doing it more and more as I get older.
Joe Fineman
It seems that verbs of display, like sensory verbs, are exceptions to
the usual preference for the progressive present:
I see him now.
I hear you loud and clear.
I feel sick.
The thermometer reads 56°F.
The signal says stop.
Now the conductor raises his baton.
I had not noticed this before.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: It's not who you know, it's whom. :||
Mark Brader
> The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
> by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
Not if it's a synchronous-motor electric clock. (The kind that runs
off the household electrical supply and either trusts the frequency
to be exactly 50 Hz, or to be exactly 60 Hz, as the case may be.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It's easier to deal with 'opposite numbers'
m...@vex.net | when you know you cannot trust them." --Chess
Peter Duncanson
>Peter Duncanson writes:
>> The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
>> by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
>
>Not if it's a synchronous-motor electric clock. (The kind that runs
>off the household electrical supply and either trusts the frequency
>to be exactly 50 Hz, or to be exactly 60 Hz, as the case may be.)
I implied, but did not clearly state, that I was limiting my
comments to timepieces with escapement mechanisms.
R H Draney
Naturally...a sundial is analogue, as is a clepsydra...an hourglass is a
judgement call....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Mark Brader
>>> The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
>>> by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
>> Not if it's a synchronous-motor electric clock.
> I implied, but did not clearly state, that I was limiting my
> comments to timepieces with escapement mechanisms.
No, you implied that those are the only kind of analog watches and clocks.
--
Mark Brader "Without nuclear weapons we will be nothing
Toronto more than a rich, powerful Canada...."
m...@vex.net -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing
Peter Duncanson
>Peter Duncanson and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>>> The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
>>>> by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
>
>>> Not if it's a synchronous-motor electric clock.
>
>> I implied, but did not clearly state, that I was limiting my
>> comments to timepieces with escapement mechanisms.
>
>No, you implied that those are the only kind of analog watches and clocks.
The implication was therefore wrong. I clearly did not express
myself clearly.
Apologies.
Robert Bannister
> I said to my mother a few minutes ago, "My watch shows thirteen
> minutes past six." Then I wondered: why isn't it *"My watch is showing
> thirteen minutes past six"? It's not as if it's somehow normal or
> usual for my watch to show that particular time.
>
I can't imagine either. I suppose we all have talking watches, because I
am sure I would say "My watch says 13 past 6".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I was brought up saying the time that way, and I think it was still
common up to about the 50s. I still say it occasionally.
--
Rob Bannister
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> Peter Duncanson filted:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 17 May 2007 07:39:06 -0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> >>Peter Duncanson writes:
> >>> The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
> >>> by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
>
> >>Not if it's a synchronous-motor electric clock. (The kind that runs
> >>off the household electrical supply and either trusts the frequency
> >>to be exactly 50 Hz, or to be exactly 60 Hz, as the case may be.)
>
> >I implied, but did not clearly state, that I was limiting my
> >comments to timepieces with escapement mechanisms.
>
> Naturally...a sundial is analogue, as is a clepsydra...an hourglass is a
> judgement call....r
Interesting examples.
A sundial must be as nearly as perfect an analogue time piece as it is
possible to get. As smooth as the rotation of the Earth and its orbit
around the sun. In practise, a sundial does not indicate the time to
a high precision but the limitation is certainly in our eyes rather
than the device.
Of course, there is the complex relationship between the time
displayed by a sundial and that of my atomically synchronised
wristwatch but we are already considerably outside the scope of
sci.lang and should probably resist going further outside it.
The hourglass is also interesting. I guess that you are thinking of
it being quantised by the grains of the sand.
My parents used to have one of those mains driven clocks. An odd
feature was that after a power interruption, it could not restart
itself. There was a little kick-start lever at the back. The motor
was powerful enough to keep it running but not to start it. I read
once a (possibly obsolete) standard for the power supply here in the
UK. The frequency was allowed to drift quite far from 50Hz but the
total number of cycles per day (or another period that I forget) was
more strictly controlled. I guess that they had these devices in mind
when they wrote the standard.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Skitt
> R H Draney wrote:
>> Naturally...a sundial is analogue, as is a clepsydra...an hourglass
>> is a judgement call....r
>
> Interesting examples.
>
> A sundial must be as nearly as perfect an analogue time piece as it is
> possible to get. As smooth as the rotation of the Earth and its orbit
> around the sun. In practise, a sundial does not indicate the time to
"In practice", even in Rightpondia.
> a high precision but the limitation is certainly in our eyes rather
> than the device.
--
Skitt
Jes' fine!
contrex
> I can't imagine either. I suppose we all have talking watches, because I
> am sure I would say "My watch says 13 past 6".
Where I come from we have talking emails, newspapers, books, notices,
labels on sauce bottles, price tickets, and thermometers.
Mark Brader
> feature was that after a power interruption, it could not restart
> itself. There was a little kick-start lever at the back. The motor
> was powerful enough to keep it running but not to start it.
I've read that some of these clocks used motors that were equally happy
to turn either way, and had some sort of mechanical device that prevented
this; so if that broke, it was 50-50 whether the clock would start running
backwards each time power was restored to it. Perhaps the "kick-start"
mechanism was intended as another way of overcoming the same problem.
> I read once a (possibly obsolete) standard for the power supply here in
> the UK. The frequency was allowed to drift quite far from 50Hz but the
> total number of cycles per day (or another period that I forget) was
> more strictly controlled. I guess that they had these devices in mind
> when they wrote the standard.
I've read similar statements about power supplies in North America.
I don't know if it ever goes on now that we have power grids covering
large areas and connecting many generators, which must all remain in
phase or else they are just fighting each other.
--
Mark Brader "Well, I didn't completely test it, and
Toronto of course there was a power failure the
m...@vex.net next day." -- Louis J. Judice
My text in this article is in the public domain.
R H Draney
It must be like living in a Max Fleischer cartoon!...r
Robert Bannister
> On 17 May, 16:20, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Duncanson filted:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 May 2007 07:39:06 -0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>>>>Peter Duncanson writes:
>>>>
>>>>>The motion of the hands in an analogue watch or clock is quantised
>>>>>by the operation of the escapement mechanism.
>>
>>>>Not if it's a synchronous-motor electric clock. (The kind that runs
>>>>off the household electrical supply and either trusts the frequency
>>>>to be exactly 50 Hz, or to be exactly 60 Hz, as the case may be.)
>>
>>>I implied, but did not clearly state, that I was limiting my
>>>comments to timepieces with escapement mechanisms.
>>
>>Naturally...a sundial is analogue, as is a clepsydra...an hourglass is a
>>judgement call....r
>
>
>
> Interesting examples.
>
> A sundial must be as nearly as perfect an analogue time piece as it is
> possible to get. As smooth as the rotation of the Earth and its orbit
> around the sun. In practise, a sundial does not indicate the time to
> a high precision but the limitation is certainly in our eyes rather
> than the device.
>
> Of course, there is the complex relationship between the time
> displayed by a sundial and that of my atomically synchronised
> wristwatch but we are already considerably outside the scope of
> sci.lang and should probably resist going further outside it.
I'm sure I've seen an enormous sundial in somewhere like Uzbekistan that
was accurate to the second.
>
> The hourglass is also interesting. I guess that you are thinking of
> it being quantised by the grains of the sand.
>
> My parents used to have one of those mains driven clocks. An odd
> feature was that after a power interruption, it could not restart
> itself. There was a little kick-start lever at the back. The motor
> was powerful enough to keep it running but not to start it. I read
> once a (possibly obsolete) standard for the power supply here in the
> UK. The frequency was allowed to drift quite far from 50Hz but the
> total number of cycles per day (or another period that I forget) was
> more strictly controlled. I guess that they had these devices in mind
> when they wrote the standard.
I believe the power suppliers had to guarantee that electric clocks
would be accurate at least once every 24 hours. In fact, I have a vague
idea that 7 am figured in it somewhere, but I might be imagining that.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> I believe the power suppliers had to guarantee that electric clocks
> would be accurate at least once every 24 hours. In fact, I have a
> vague idea that 7 am figured in it somewhere, but I might be
> imagining that.
I'm sure that I have read somewhere that our electric company (PG&E) adjusts
the cycle count every day so that the result over the 24-hour period is
5184000.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Oleg Lego
>I believe the power suppliers had to guarantee that electric clocks
>would be accurate at least once every 24 hours. In fact, I have a vague
>idea that 7 am figured in it somewhere, but I might be imagining that.
They guarantee that your electric clock will have the same accuracy as
a 24-hr. one that is stopped?
Peter Moylan
>> My parents used to have one of those mains driven clocks. An odd
>> feature was that after a power interruption, it could not restart
>> itself. There was a little kick-start lever at the back. The
>> motor was powerful enough to keep it running but not to start it.
Mark Brader:
> I've read that some of these clocks used motors that were equally
> happy to turn either way,
Most single-phase a.c. motors have that property, and a clock of this
type must necessarily use an a.c. motor. (Three-phase motors do have a
preferred direction, but those are used only for heavy-duty
applications. It would not be cost-effective to build a clock-sized
three-phase motor. Besides, I think that most electric clocks now on the
market are made by the sort of people who simply copy existing designs,
and would not be able to design something new.) Because of symmetry, the
torque-speed graph of such motors goes through the origin. At zero
speed, the torque is zero. That is, there is no starting torque. As a
result, some sort of trick is needed to get them to start.
There are several kinds of a.c. motor, but they can all be classified as
either synchronous or asynchronous. A synchronous motor is the only kind
that can track the power supply frequency exactly, but it has a worse
problem than zero starting torque: it has no torque at any speed other
than synchronous speed. This means that it won't run at all unless you
first get it up to speed. In heavy-duty industrial applications a
typical approach is to use another motor to drive it up to speed before
connecting the power. (Not as bad a problem as you might think. It's a
nuisance getting the machine started, but once it's connected you just
leave it running for years.) Obviously this would be overkill for a
household clock. An approach that just _might_ work would be a
mechanical "kick start" that got the motor spinning at above synchronous
speed, with the hope that it would lock in as it slowed down past
synchronous speed. That would be considered a kludgey hit-and-miss
solution in most cases, but for a low-power application like a clock it
just might work. Even if you have to try 50 times before it starts,
that's still better than my lawn-mower.
In practice it's more likely that your clock has an asynchronous motor,
most likely a squirrel-cage induction motor. These run at slightly below the
power supply frequency, so they won't keep good time; but, let's face
it, nothing that depends on the power supply frequency will keep good
time, so why worry about a slight extra cause of error? The beauty of
these motors is that they're very cheap to build, they're simple and
robust, and the starting problem can be solved either with a deliberate
asymmetry or by a kick-starter.
If you want good time-keeping, don't rely on the mains frequency at all.
Use a vibrating crystal to control the speed.
> I've read similar statements about power supplies in North America. I
> don't know if it ever goes on now that we have power grids covering
> large areas and connecting many generators, which must all remain in
> phase or else they are just fighting each other.
To connect two power grids together, they must have precisely the same
frequency, or one or both grids will collapse. If they have very
different frequencies then you're stuffed. If they have slightly
different frequencies, the person who's throwing the switch must watch
for the precise moment when they're in phase, then make the connection.
What will happen then is that the two systems will force each other to
adjust to a compromise frequency. If they succeed, all is good. If they
start "slipping", then you disconnect them as quickly as possible before
they both go unstable.
"Fighting one another" is the pessimistic way to put it. What's really
happening is that the various generators are pushing against one another
so that they're all forced into lock-step. That's no different from any
large structure. In a bridge, for example, the various members are
applying force against one another such that they're sharing the load.
In a democracy, the multiple parties and pressure groups will force one
another to negotiate acceptable compromises. (Equitably, if it happens
to be a well-designed bridge or democracy.) For the most part this is a
Good Thing. The larger the power system, the better-controlled its
common frequency.
One thing we don't know is whether increasing the size of a power system
decreases stability. There was a long period in the 20th century where
power systems research became unfashionable and the research came almost
to a halt. For the past couple of decades large power systems design has
been at a level of "let's build it and see whether it works", because
theory has lagged behind practice. Small power systems are well
understood, but the implications of growing size and complexity are not.
The few experiments (many of them involuntary) that have been done tend
to suggest that making a power grid too big brings it closer to the edge
of the stability boundary. In non-technical terms, instability means
blackouts, and we all know how bad they can be. At our present state of
knowledge, we simply don't know enough to know how close we are to a
blackout.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
contrex
> contrex filted:
>
> >On 18 May, 03:18, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> I can't imagine either. I suppose we all have talking watches, because I
> >> am sure I would say "My watch says 13 past 6".
>
> >Where I come from we have talking emails, newspapers, books, notices,
> >labels on sauce bottles, price tickets, and thermometers.
>
> It must be like living in a Max Fleischer cartoon!...r
It says here...
Paul J Kriha
news:464ea0c9$0$26030$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
This is all well described and true.
However, the following isn't.
> In practice it's more likely that your clock has an asynchronous motor,
> most likely a squirrel-cage induction motor.
Since the 60s the digital clocks (remember the old mechanical
flick-a-number-every-minute) used a true synch motor. They kept
precise time for years, usually from one big earthquake to the
next one. (Note, during a real big shake the safety circuits in the
local transformer stations automatically cut the power to reduce
the danger of fires and gas explosions.)
An asynch motor clock would run noticeably slow at the end of
a single day. Depending on temperature and humidity it would
keep loosing seconds, probably even minutes, every day.
> These run at slightly below the
> power supply frequency, so they won't keep good time; but, let's face
> it, nothing that depends on the power supply frequency will keep good
> time, so why worry about a slight extra cause of error? The beauty of
> these motors is that they're very cheap to build, they're simple and
> robust, and the starting problem can be solved either with a deliberate
> asymmetry or by a kick-starter.
A little synch motor with a permanent magnet rotor is just as
cheap to make as a squirrel-cage rotor one.
> If you want good time-keeping, don't rely on the mains frequency at all.
> Use a vibrating crystal to control the speed.
That certainly hasn't been true for long decades.
Even today a private clock based on the vibrating crystal will not be
as accurate as an atomic clock time standard used by the utilities.
You'd have to have a system when your clock gets regularly
corrected via the LW radio time signals based on an atomic clock.
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
> Since the 60s the digital clocks (remember the old mechanical
> flick-a-number-every-minute) used a true synch motor. They kept
> precise time for years, usually from one big earthquake to the
> next one. (Note, during a real big shake the safety circuits in the
> local transformer stations automatically cut the power to reduce
> the danger of fires and gas explosions.)
>
> An asynch motor clock would run noticeably slow at the end of
> a single day. Depending on temperature and humidity it would
> keep loosing seconds, probably even minutes, every day.
About two years ago, I got a $10 wristwatch that has both a digital
display and an analog display (actual hands rotating, not digital
images of hands), and in the past week or so, they began to diverge:
the digital time remains accurate, but the hands are going slower and
slower. (The last time I reset them was maybe two days ago, and now
they're 45 minutes behind.)
Does this mean it has two different batteries, and one is dying and
the other not?
Don Aitken
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>There are several kinds of a.c. motor, but they can all be classified as
>either synchronous or asynchronous. A synchronous motor is the only kind
>that can track the power supply frequency exactly, but it has a worse
>problem than zero starting torque: it has no torque at any speed other
>than synchronous speed. This means that it won't run at all unless you
>first get it up to speed. In heavy-duty industrial applications a
>typical approach is to use another motor to drive it up to speed before
>connecting the power. (Not as bad a problem as you might think. It's a
>nuisance getting the machine started, but once it's connected you just
>leave it running for years.) Obviously this would be overkill for a
>household clock. An approach that just _might_ work would be a
>mechanical "kick start" that got the motor spinning at above synchronous
>speed, with the hope that it would lock in as it slowed down past
>synchronous speed. That would be considered a kludgey hit-and-miss
>solution in most cases, but for a low-power application like a clock it
>just might work. Even if you have to try 50 times before it starts,
>that's still better than my lawn-mower.
>
When I was a child, my parents had a clock that worked that way. There
was a little thumb-wheel at the back which you gave a flick to start
it going. It sometimes took two or three goes, but not more.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Bob Cunningham
> If you want good time-keeping, don't rely on the mains
> frequency at all. Use a vibrating crystal to control the
> speed.
That statement is not entirely nitpick immune.
What is commonly called a quartz movement, which is
controlled by a vibrating quartz crystal, may gain or lose
only a few seconds over months or years, and with zero
probability it may keep perfect time, but there's no reason
to expect it to keep perfect time. It would be clearly
impossible to grind a crystal to zero tolerance.
In the days when electric clocks plugged into the mains,
they could vary a small amount in any given period of time,
but there was a way for them to be kept to essentially
perfect time on average. According to what I've been told,
the power-line frequency was routinely controlled to make a
master electric clock show the right time. The master clock
was in turn synchronized with Naval Observatory time.
The old-fashioned plug-in clock might lose a second one day
and gain it back the next, but the quartz movement will
depart inexorably from the correct time at some small steady
rate.
Nowadays, I would expect to find that the line frequency of
a major power grid would be synchronized with the NIST
clock.
If you want a timepiece that will always show you the right
time to the nearest half second, you get an "atomic clock",
which will be synchronized by means of a radio signal with a
cesium standard at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology* (NIST) (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock ).
I have a clock that is synchronized by radio with NIST, and
also shows the temperature--and the maximum and minimum
temperatures since last reset--at the clock's location and
at three wireless remote locations up to 100 feet away. It
also shows the date and the day of the week. It cost me
about $40--plus $10 apiece for two remote sensors--but I've
since seen it going for $35.
Amazon has a variety of atomic clocks
( http://tinyurl.com/28o4rr ) and atomic wrist watches
( http://tinyurl.com/2vuzgr ).
Another way to have accurate time always available is to
have a cable TV connection and a digital video recorder. The
time display on the DVR is controlled by the cable company,
which presumably keeps its time in synch with NIST.
* Formerly the _National Bureau of Standards_
Nick Atty
wrote:
My parents still do!
At one time they had two mains powered clocks, one that restarted itself
and one that didn't.
So when the power had been off while you were out and since come back
on, you could work out when it happened, and how long it had been off
for.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Paul J Kriha
news:1179578705.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I can't really say. The only combined pocket or wrist digital/analog
clock I've ever seen had an LCD display of hour, minute, and
second hands.
My guess is that the hands are driven by a miniature stepper
motor driven off the digital oscillator with a frequency divider.
The battery is low or the stepper motor is affected by
accumulated moisture and dust and is not completeing
all steps.
I have two large brass replicas of naval barometer and clock
mounted on the wall. The clock has a battery driven timepiece
with a crystal oscillator. The second hand makes a large jump
every second. When the battery runs low the timekeeping
circuitry still keeps running but the stepper mechanism doesn't
have enough power to step and lock properly. The minute
and second hands get usually stuck going upwards near
the digit "9". The second hand keeps jumping up and falling
back once every second.
My guess is that both digital and mechanical parts of your
watch are driven off the same battery and the battery is
running low. Eventually the digital display will also fail.
My bet is that if you replace the batery (if it can be replaced)
all will be hunky dory again.
pjk
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> > R H Draney wrote:
> >> Naturally...a sundial is analogue, as is a clepsydra...an hourglass
> >> is a judgement call....r
>
> > Interesting examples.
>
> > A sundial must be as nearly as perfect an analogue time piece as it is
> > possible to get. As smooth as the rotation of the Earth and its orbit
> > around the sun. In practise, a sundial does not indicate the time to
>
> "In practice", even in Rightpondia.
Woops, especially this side, I would have thought.
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> Seán O'Leathlóbhair:
>
> >> My parents used to have one of those mains driven clocks. An odd
> >> feature was that after a power interruption, it could not restart
> >> itself. There was a little kick-start lever at the back. The
> >> motor was powerful enough to keep it running but not to start it.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> > I've read that some of these clocks used motors that were equally
> > happy to turn either way,
Thanks for that. Thanks to the others for the follow-ups as well I
once knew most of the following but had long forgotten it. The
reminder could be useful since I have a resident niece studying A
level physics.
I don't think that we ever needed 50 attempts but it rarely started
first time. It also deteriorated with age (or maybe it was our
fingers which deteriorated). It needed a similar number of kicks to
my motorbike which also rarely started first time but didn't need 50
kicks either.
> In practice it's more likely that your clock has an asynchronous motor,
> most likely a squirrel-cage induction motor. These run at slightly below the
> power supply frequency, so they won't keep good time; but, let's face
> it, nothing that depends on the power supply frequency will keep good
> time, so why worry about a slight extra cause of error? The beauty of
> these motors is that they're very cheap to build, they're simple and
> robust, and the starting problem can be solved either with a deliberate
> asymmetry or by a kick-starter.
Unfortunately "clock had", I don't know where it is now. It had a
Bakelite case and would be an interesting piece of 50s kitsch.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
It suggests that they are determining the time independently and by
different means but not necessarily that they have different power
sources. It could that the digital and analogue systems are reacting
differently to the low voltage. The analogue system is degrading
gracefully (i.e. going slow) but the digital system will either cope
or not. At some point the digital system will probably suddenly stop.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:56:26 +0100, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com>
I had forgotten but we also had a second mains driven clock (in the
cooker) that did restart itself.
> So when the power had been off while you were out and since come back
> on, you could work out when it happened, and how long it had been off
> for.
You need a third clock (or a watch) that was not interrupted at all.
Also, you cannot distinguish an hour long failure starting at 3pm from
several shorter failures with a total length of an hour and the first
at 3pm.
> --
> On-line canal route planner:http://www.canalplan.org.uk
>
> (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
> My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Paul J Kriha
news:1179644571.3...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On 19 May, 13:45, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On May 19, 5:35 am, "Paul J Kriha"
>>
>> > Since the 60s the digital clocks (remember the old mechanical
>> > flick-a-number-every-minute) used a true synch motor. They kept
>> > precise time for years, usually from one big earthquake to the
>> > next one. (Note, during a real big shake the safety circuits in the
>> > local transformer stations automatically cut the power to reduce
>> > the danger of fires and gas explosions.)
>>
>> > An asynch motor clock would run noticeably slow at the end of
>> > a single day. Depending on temperature and humidity it would
>> > keep loosing seconds, probably even minutes, every day.
>>
>> About two years ago, I got a $10 wristwatch that has both a digital
>> display and an analog display (actual hands rotating, not digital
>> images of hands), and in the past week or so, they began to diverge:
>> the digital time remains accurate, but the hands are going slower and
>> slower. (The last time I reset them was maybe two days ago, and now
>> they're 45 minutes behind.)
>>
>> Does this mean it has two different batteries, and one is dying and
>> the other not?
>
>It suggests that they are determining the time independently and by
>different means but not necessarily that they have different power
>sources.
I don't think what PTD sees happening suggests that.
The independent time displays do not mean the time is
determined independently. When the battery runs low,
the electromechanical display method (using stepper
or synch motor) is likely to start failing first.
pjk
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
wrote:
> Seán O'Leathlóbhair <jwlaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Indeed, that could easily be the explanation.
> > It could that the digital and analogue systems are reacting
> >differently to the low voltage. The analogue system is degrading
> >gracefully (i.e. going slow) but the digital system will either cope
> >or not. At some point the digital system will probably suddenly stop.
However, this would still apply. Analogue and digital system will
commonly react differently to low voltage. Which behaviour is
preferable depends on circumstances: sometimes one, and sometimes the
other.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Robert Bannister
> I don't think what PTD sees happening suggests that.
> The independent time displays do not mean the time is
> determined independently. When the battery runs low,
> the electromechanical display method (using stepper
> or synch motor) is likely to start failing first.
> pjk
I used to have a watch that had 2 digital displays and an analogue one -
very useful when travelling. The 2 digital displays were linked; the
"hands" were not, although they used the same power source. I have a
vague idea that the analogue display did run very slightly slow most of
the time; not that the digital displays were 100% accurate.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter T. Daniels
Until last week, the two modes didn't drift apart.
Peter T. Daniels
Until last week, the two modes didn't drift apart.
Peter T. Daniels
Until last week, the two modes didn't drift apart.
new...@clupeid.demon.co.uk
The Jantar Mantar in Jaipur? http://www.jantarmantar.org/
> that
> was accurate to the second.
_Precise_ to the second, maybe. _Accurate_, certainly not, since the
sun itself wanders by many minutes over the course of the year (see
the analemma on your favourite terrestrial globe), the width of the
shadow corresponds to a couple of minutes (of time), and atmospheric
refraction produces a similar error.
Paul J Kriha
news:1179740158.6...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Unless you live near the equator the sun timekeeping wanders
by more like hours than just minutes.
However, in some countries it was perfectly accurate in medieval
times :-) when each 12 hour day started at sunrise and finished
precisely at sunset. In summer, day hours were long and night
hours were short, and vice versa in winter.
pjk
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
wrote:
I have seen a Japanese clock which told time in that fashion.
However, solar (sundial) time is not affected quite so much by the
season as the length of the day. I have also seen clocks that
attempt to show sundial time. I have just looked briefly at the
Wikipedia articles on sundials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial
and solar time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time. They appear
to be good. The relationship between apparent solar time (the direct
reading from a simple sundial) and mean solar time (with an equal day
length) has been known for a very long time. A sophisticated sundial
can indicate mean solar time. However, I could not, in a few minutes,
determine when mean solar time ceased to be regarded as the correct
time. Up to this point, a good sundial would have been very
accurate.
> >(see the analemma on your favourite terrestrial globe), the width of the
> >shadow corresponds to a couple of minutes (of time), and atmospheric
> >refraction produces a similar error.
Refraction is a problem that is hard to correct. There are factors
which limit the potential accuracy as well.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 21 May 2007 23:13:18 +1200:
> <new...@clupeid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1179740158.6...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >On May 19, 2:46 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sure I've seen an enormous sundial in somewhere like Uzbekistan
> >
> >The Jantar Mantar in Jaipur? http://www.jantarmantar.org/
> >
> >> that
> >> was accurate to the second.
> >
> >_Precise_ to the second, maybe. _Accurate_, certainly not, since the
> >sun itself wanders by many minutes over the course of the year
>
> Unless you live near the equator the sun timekeeping wanders
> by more like hours than just minutes.
Not so. A properly constructed sundial is never more than 16m33s off.
From: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time>
The equation of time is the difference, over the course of a year,
between time as read from a sundial and a clock. The sundial can be
ahead (fast) by as much as 16 min 33 s (around November 3) or fall
behind by as much as 14 min 6 s (around February 12). It is caused
by irregularity of the motion of the Sun in the sky, due to a
combination of the obliquity of the Earth's rotation axis and the
eccentricity of its orbit. The equation of time is visually
illustrated by an analemma.
--
Nick Spalding
Robert Bannister
Hasn't the definition of minutes and hours changed since those days? In
other words, wasn't time defined by what the sun was doing rather than
being the sort of abstraction that it is today?
--
Rob Bannister
Don Aitken
Yup. In the early days of mechanical clocks, much ingenuity was
devoted to getting them to show an approximation to "real" time,
rather than just hours od equal length, which obvisously had no
relation to anything found in nature.
Paul J Kriha
> Paul J Kriha wrote, in <4651...@clear.net.nz>
> on Mon, 21 May 2007 23:13:18 +1200:
>
> > <new...@clupeid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1179740158.6...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > >On May 19, 2:46 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >> Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure I've seen an enormous sundial in somewhere like Uzbekistan
> > >
> > >The Jantar Mantar in Jaipur? http://www.jantarmantar.org/
> > >
> > >> that
> > >> was accurate to the second.
> > >
> > >_Precise_ to the second, maybe. _Accurate_, certainly not, since the
> > >sun itself wanders by many minutes over the course of the year
> >
> > Unless you live near the equator the sun timekeeping wanders
> > by more like hours than just minutes.
>
> Not so. A properly constructed sundial is never more than 16m33s off.
Yes, you are right.
I just read Seán's message posted about 12 minutes before
you did yours and it made me think about the relevant 3D geometry
for a few more moments than before and realize that the length
of the day is much more affected than the shadow angles
(between noon and current time) on the sundial.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:0od453durg57dpeam...@4ax.com...
A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
as Hanuš).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
measured starting with 1 at sunset.
Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
town and airport is on their own time. :-)
Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
pjk
> Don Aitken
new...@clupeid.demon.co.uk
> new...@clupeid.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > On May 19, 2:46 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >>Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
>
> >>I'm sure I've seen an enormous sundial in somewhere like Uzbekistan
>
> > The Jantar Mantar in Jaipur? http://www.jantarmantar.org/
>
> >> that
> >>was accurate to the second.
>
> > _Precise_ to the second, maybe. _Accurate_, certainly not, since the
> > sun itself wanders by many minutes over the course of the year (see
> > the analemma on your favourite terrestrial globe), the width of the
> > shadow corresponds to a couple of minutes (of time), and atmospheric
> > refraction produces a similar error.
>
> Hasn't the definition of minutes and hours changed since those days?
Not for astronomical purposes. "Those days" for the Jantar Mantar are
1727-1734. That's the same period as "Longitude" Harrison was
constructing his first chronometer.
> In
> other words, wasn't time defined by what the sun was doing rather than
> being the sort of abstraction that it is today?
>
Yes, but there's a difference between time _of day_, defined by the
sundial, and time _intervals_, defined by hour-glasses etc. Until more
precise means of measurement came along, there was no great need for
them to be consistent.
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
wrote:
> Nick Spalding <spald...@iol.ie> wrote in messagenews:de9353tf558k05koh...@4ax.com...
> > Paul J Kriha wrote, in <46517...@clear.net.nz>
> > on Mon, 21 May 2007 23:13:18 +1200:
>
> > > <new...@clupeid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:1179740158.6...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > > >On May 19, 2:46 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >> Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
>
> > > >> I'm sure I've seen an enormous sundial in somewhere like Uzbekistan
>
> > > >The Jantar Mantar in Jaipur? http://www.jantarmantar.org/
>
> > > >> that
> > > >> was accurate to the second.
>
> > > >_Precise_ to the second, maybe. _Accurate_, certainly not, since the
> > > >sun itself wanders by many minutes over the course of the year
>
> > > Unless you live near the equator the sun timekeeping wanders
> > > by more like hours than just minutes.
>
> > Not so. A properly constructed sundial is never more than 16m33s off.
>
> Yes, you are right.
>
> I just read Seán's message posted about 12 minutes before
> you did yours and it made me think about the relevant 3D geometry
> for a few more moments than before and realize that the length
> of the day is much more affected than the shadow angles
> (between noon and current time) on the sundial.
>
> pjk
However, there have been systems that worked the way you were
expecting e.g. traditional Japanese time. It is described in this
article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadokei
One way to see that sundials are not significantly affected by the
seasons is to go to extremes and consider using one at one of the
poles. It would work very well in the summer even though the sun
never set. However, it wouldn't be much good in the winter.
>
> > From: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time>
>
> > The equation of time is the difference, over the course of a year,
> > between time as read from a sundial and a clock. The sundial can be
> > ahead (fast) by as much as 16 min 33 s (around November 3) or fall
> > behind by as much as 14 min 6 s (around February 12). It is caused
> > by irregularity of the motion of the Sun in the sky, due to a
> > combination of the obliquity of the Earth's rotation axis and the
> > eccentricity of its orbit. The equation of time is visually
> > illustrated by an analemma.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> as Hanuš).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
US. When did Europe standardize?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> as Hanuš).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
>US. When did Europe standardize?
May 1940. Hitler. Before that, we had Amsterdam time, GMT plus 20
minutes.
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com
Roland Hutchinson
> A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> as Hanuš).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
Not so much for the planes, which were invented after standard time had
become -- er, -- standard.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
jwla...@gmail.com
I don't know about the rest of Europe but in Britain it was more than
30 years before that. See the history section in this Wikipedia
article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone To save you a click,
here is the relevant sentence:
"The first time zone in the world was established by British railways
on December 1, 1847 — with GMT hand-carried on chronometers."
I know you don't like Wikipedia but I believe this is correct and I
expect that other good encyclopaedias will agree. Not everything was
invented in the US. Do you know what the G in GMT represents?
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
jwla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> 22 May 2007 05:56:31 -0700: "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
> >US. When did Europe standardize?
>
> May 1940. Hitler. Before that, we had Amsterdam time, GMT plus 20
> minutes.
But was that just for Amsterdam or the whole of the Netherlands? If
the whle country, it could still be called a time zone just unusual by
today's standards. Even today, not all times zones are whole hours
away from GMT / UTC. India is +05:30 and Nepal is +05:45. I find it
hard to understand why it needs to differ from its neighbour by 15
minutes unless it is just to emphasise that they can.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Oleg Lego
Newfoundland is half an hour ahead of Atlantic time. It made for a
rather nice cross-language pun by the folks who wrote the Dr. Bundolo
show (Dr. Bundolo's Pandemonium Medicine Show).
They were talking about a show having to do with prostitution, and
gave the time of airing as:
3:00 Eastern time, 4:00 Atlantic time, and "cinq heures et demi" in
Newfoundland.
Ruud Harmsen
>> May 1940. Hitler. Before that, we had Amsterdam time, GMT plus 20
>> minutes.
>But was that just for Amsterdam or the whole of the Netherlands?
I think the whole country, both before and after. It's only between
150 and 200 km wide.
I think that was also the moment when daylight saving time was
introduced. Abandoned again after the war, reintroduced in the 1970s.
But grandfather kept records on the last page of an old book, which I
continued until there was a fixed rule for all of Europe.
Ruud Harmsen
>But was that just for Amsterdam or the whole of the Netherlands? If
>the whle country, it could still be called a time zone just unusual by
>today's standards. Even today, not all times zones are whole hours
>away from GMT / UTC. India is +05:30 and Nepal is +05:45. I find it
>hard to understand why it needs to differ from its neighbour by 15
>minutes unless it is just to emphasise that they can.
I agree. On the other hand China seems to all in one time zone now,
although it physically spans three. It has its pro and cons, I
suppose.
See http://www.clocklink.com/ and others for more details.
Peter T. Daniels
> On May 22, 1:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 2:31 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> > wrote:
>
> > > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> > > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> > > as Hanuš).
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> > > It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> > > measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> > > Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> > > for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> > > town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> > > Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
>
> > And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
> > US. When did Europe standardize?
>
> I don't know about the rest of Europe but in Britain it was more than
> 30 years before that. See the history section in this Wikipedia
> here is the relevant sentence:
>
> "The first time zone in the world was established by British railways
> on December 1, 1847 — with GMT hand-carried on chronometers."
>
> I know you don't like Wikipedia but I believe this is correct and I
> expect that other good encyclopaedias will agree. Not everything was
> invented in the US. Do you know what the G in GMT represents?
Britain isn't exactly wide enough to need more than one clock-setting
for the entire island! How can it have had "time zones"? Presumably
the railroads got together and agreed on a standard time, not "time
zone[s]." (It was the railroads, not the government, that initially
drew the lines in the US.) A single "time zone" makes no sense.
The G is for Greenwich, because at some international conference, the
Brits exercised their imperialism and got _their_ meridian named Top
Meridian (rather than that of Paris or Washington, both of which had
had some currency).
Paul J Kriha
Perhaps they have excessively fussy cows like they have in Queensland.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:1179876146.4...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I think it was indeed a matter of agreeing on the common time
standard. Until then the different towns had their own times.
AFAIR, even long after 1847 many British towns persisted at
having their town clocks running at local times defined by their
local solar noons. Even decades after 1847, some railway
timetables keep refering to nonstandard local times.
>The G is for Greenwich, because at some international conference, the
>Brits exercised their imperialism and got _their_ meridian named Top
>Meridian (rather than that of Paris or Washington, both of which had
>had some currency).
I guess the major advantage of 0 degree meridian going through
Greenwich rather than Washington was that on the opposite side
of Earth the 180 degree dateline didn't intersect any landmass
or large islands.
pjk
mb
> AFAIR, even long after 1847 many British towns persisted at
> having their town clocks running at local times defined by their
> local solar noons. Even decades after 1847, some railway
> timetables keep refering to nonstandard local times.
Let me see, does AFAIR stand for "as far as I remember"?
Impressive.
Paul J Kriha
news:5bgdepF...@mid.individual.net...
> Paul J Kriha wrote:
> > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> > as Hanuš).
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
> > It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> > measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> > Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> > for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> > town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> > Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
>
> Not so much for the planes, which were invented after standard time had
> become -- er, -- standard.
I wasn't suggesting they really existed.
I said "just imagine". With a boggling mind. :-)
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:1179893771.3...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:-)
AFAIR FWIRAI (as far as I recall/remember from what I read about it)
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1179876146.4...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 22, 2:08 pm, jwlaw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On May 22, 1:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > On May 22, 2:31 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> >> > > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> >> > > as Hanuš).
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> >> > > It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> >> > > measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> >> > > Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> >> > > for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> >> > > town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> >> > > Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
>
> >> > And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
> >> > US. When did Europe standardize?
>
> >> I don't know about the rest of Europe but in Britain it was more than
> >> 30 years before that. See the history section in this Wikipedia
I have heard that was the case. Many places wanted to be 0 but it
came down to Washington, London, and Paris. Washington was forced to
drop out for the reason that you mention, leaving London and Paris.
The Americans then supported our bid. Sometimes, the US and the UK
manage to be friends.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> On May 22, 2:08 pm, jwlaw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 1:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 2:31 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> > > > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> > > > as Hanuš).
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> > > > It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> > > > measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> > > > Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> > > > for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> > > > town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> > > > Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
>
> > > And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
> > > US. When did Europe standardize?
>
> > I don't know about the rest of Europe but in Britain it was more than
> > 30 years before that. See the history section in this Wikipedia
> > here is the relevant sentence:
>
> > "The first time zone in the world was established by British railways
> > on December 1, 1847 — with GMT hand-carried on chronometers."
>
> > I know you don't like Wikipedia but I believe this is correct and I
> > expect that other good encyclopaedias will agree. Not everything was
> > invented in the US. Do you know what the G in GMT represents?
>
> Britain isn't exactly wide enough to need more than one clock-setting
> for the entire island! How can it have had "time zones"? Presumably
> the railroads got together and agreed on a standard time, not "time
> zone[s]." (It was the railroads, not the government, that initially
> drew the lines in the US.) A single "time zone" makes no sense.
Well the notion of standard time is an obvious prerequisite of time
zones and even your time zones are referenced to our standard time.
> The G is for Greenwich, because at some international conference, the
> Brits exercised their imperialism and got _their_ meridian named Top
> Meridian (rather than that of Paris or Washington, both of which had
> had some currency).
Actually, Washington supported London's bid after Washington was
forced to drop out. Having the zero line through Washington would
have caused the date line to pass through a lot of land. London had a
distinct advantage - nothing to do with imperialism. Paris would
probably have been equally suitable but London won thanks to American
support.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> On 23 May, 00:22, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 2:08 pm, jwlaw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 1:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 22, 2:31 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> > > > > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> > > > > as Hanuš).
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> > > > > It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> > > > > measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> > > > > Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> > > > > for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> > > > > town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> > > > > Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
>
> > > > And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
> > > > US. When did Europe standardize?
>
> > > I don't know about the rest of Europe but in Britain it was more than
> > > 30 years before that. See the history section in this Wikipedia
> > > here is the relevant sentence:
>
> > > "The first time zone in the world was established by British railways
> > > on December 1, 1847 — with GMT hand-carried on chronometers."
>
> > > I know you don't like Wikipedia but I believe this is correct and I
> > > expect that other good encyclopaedias will agree. Not everything was
> > > invented in the US. Do you know what the G in GMT represents?
>
> > Britain isn't exactly wide enough to need more than one clock-setting
> > for the entire island! How can it have had "time zones"? Presumably
> > the railroads got together and agreed on a standard time, not "time
> > zone[s]." (It was the railroads, not the government, that initially
> > drew the lines in the US.) A single "time zone" makes no sense.
>
> Well the notion of standard time is an obvious prerequisite of time
> zones and even your time zones are referenced to our standard time.
>
> > The G is for Greenwich, because at some international conference, the
> > Brits exercised their imperialism and got _their_ meridian named Top
> > Meridian (rather than that of Paris or Washington, both of which had
> > had some currency).
>
> Actually, Washington supported London's bid after Washington was
> forced to drop out. Having the zero line through Washington would
> have caused the date line to pass through a lot of land. London had a
> distinct advantage - nothing to do with imperialism. Paris would
> probably have been equally suitable but London won thanks to American
> support.
Have a look at this: On 23 May, 09:40, Seán O'Leathlóbhair
<jwlaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 23 May, 00:22, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 2:08 pm, jwlaw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 1:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 22, 2:31 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
> > > > > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan Růže (also known
> > > > > as Hanuš).
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Orloj
>
> > > > > It showed time in Old Czech Time (also known as Italian Hours),
> > > > > measured starting with 1 at sunset.
> > > > > Mind boggles. Just imagine the train and airport time tables
> > > > > for trains and planes travelling east and west where each
> > > > > town and airport is on their own time. :-)
> > > > > Which, IIRC, was actually the case not that long ago.
>
> > > > And that's why time zones were invented -- I think in the 1880s in the
> > > > US. When did Europe standardize?
>
> > > I don't know about the rest of Europe but in Britain it was more than
> > > 30 years before that. See the history section in this Wikipedia
> > > article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zoneTosaveyou a click,
> > > here is the relevant sentence:
>
> > > "The first time zone in the world was established by British railways
> > > on December 1, 1847 — with GMT hand-carried on chronometers."
>
> > > I know you don't like Wikipedia but I believe this is correct and I
> > > expect that other good encyclopaedias will agree. Not everything was
> > > invented in the US. Do you know what the G in GMT represents?
>
> > Britain isn't exactly wide enough to need more than one clock-setting
> > for the entire island! How can it have had "time zones"? Presumably
> > the railroads got together and agreed on a standard time, not "time
> > zone[s]." (It was the railroads, not the government, that initially
> > drew the lines in the US.) A single "time zone" makes no sense.
>
> Well the notion of standard time is an obvious prerequisite of time
> zones and even your time zones are referenced to our standard time.
>
> > The G is for Greenwich, because at some international conference, the
> > Brits exercised their imperialism and got _their_ meridian named Top
> > Meridian (rather than that of Paris or Washington, both of which had
> > had some currency).
>
> Actually, Washington supported London's bid after Washington was
> forced to drop out. Having the zero line through Washington would
> have caused the date line to pass through a lot of land. London had a
> distinct advantage - nothing to do with imperialism. Paris would
> probably have been equally suitable but London won thanks to American
> support.
Have a look at the proceedings of the 1884 International Meridian
Conference here: http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/scans-meridian.html
In particular, this on page 87: "Rutherford (US) proposes Greenwich as
prime meridian for longitude"
Not imperialism but negotiation. Do you think that Britain managed to
coerce the US?
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Nick Spalding
<1179909640....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
on 23 May 2007 01:40:40 -0700:
> Actually, Washington supported London's bid after Washington was
> forced to drop out. Having the zero line through Washington would
> have caused the date line to pass through a lot of land. London had a
> distinct advantage - nothing to do with imperialism. Paris would
> probably have been equally suitable but London won thanks to American
> support.
The excellent French IGN 25,000 scale maps still have their principal edge
markings in grades referenced to the meridian of Paris. Degrees from
Greenwich are clearly secondary, and these days they have a UTM grid as
well.
--
Nick Spalding
dcw
>Greenwich rather than Washington was that on the opposite side
>of Earth the 180 degree dateline didn't intersect any landmass
>or large islands.
A better fit would have been 10 degrees or so further East.
David
Peter Duncanson
<jwla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 23 May, 04:49, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
>wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1179876146.4...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 22, 2:08 pm, jwlaw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On May 22, 1:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> > On May 22, 2:31 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > A good example of such complicated mechanism is the town clock
>> >> > > constructed in 1490 by Prague clockmaster Jan R?že (also known
I read somewhere that the French defined (maybe still define) the 0
meridian by reference to a point in Paris.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
<paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
> >The G is for Greenwich, because at some international conference, the
> >Brits exercised their imperialism and got _their_ meridian named Top
> >Meridian (rather than that of Paris or Washington, both of which had
> >had some currency).
>
> I guess the major advantage of 0 degree meridian going through
> Greenwich rather than Washington was that on the opposite side
> of Earth the 180 degree dateline didn't intersect any landmass
> or large islands.
Which would hold for Paris, too. Or Berlin, for that matter.
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
As I mentioned in an earlier post, London won due to American
Paul J Kriha
Not as far as we down'ere in .nz are concerned.
We are oh so proud to be the first country in the world
to see the sunrise every single day.
:-)
The next millennium comes and we'll be awash with
tourist dollars again.
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> dcw <D.C.W...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:11...@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk...
> > >I guess the major advantage of 0 degree meridian going through
> > >Greenwich rather than Washington was that on the opposite side
> > >of Earth the 180 degree dateline didn't intersect any landmass
> > >or large islands.
>
> > A better fit would have been 10 degrees or so further East.
> > David
>
> Not as far as we down'ere in .nz are concerned.
> We are oh so proud to be the first country in the world
> to see the sunrise every single day.
> :-)
Except, of course, for Kiribati.
Paul J Kriha
> On May 24, 1:13 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> wrote:
> > dcw <D.C.W...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:11...@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk...
> > > >I guess the major advantage of 0 degree meridian going through
> > > >Greenwich rather than Washington was that on the opposite side
> > > >of Earth the 180 degree dateline didn't intersect any landmass
> > > >or large islands.
> >
> > > A better fit would have been 10 degrees or so further East.
> > > David
> >
> > Not as far as we down'ere in .nz are concerned.
> > We are oh so proud to be the first country in the world
> > to see the sunrise every single day.
> > :-)
>
> Except, of course, for Kiribati.
No, I don't think so.
AFAIK, both Auckland, the capital Wellington and most of
North Island are closer to the date line then Kiribati or Tarawa.
Groups of smaller islands belonging to the Republic of Kiribati
straddle the date line but so do islands belonging to NZ.
For example, Kermadecs(NZ) and the large Chatham Island(NZ)
are several degrees on the wrong side of the dateline but
officially still considered in the same time zone as NZ.
Niue(NZ) is more than 10 degrees into the Western hemisphere
and it officially sits in the yesterday's timezone.
From places like Tonga, Kermadec, Chatham, etc which
are officially still in our timezone you can see the sunrise
almost 30 to 45 minutes earlier than from Kiribati.
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
<paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1180005399....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 1:13 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> > wrote:
> > > dcw <D.C.W...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:11...@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk...
> > > > >I guess the major advantage of 0 degree meridian going through
> > > > >Greenwich rather than Washington was that on the opposite side
> > > > >of Earth the 180 degree dateline didn't intersect any landmass
> > > > >or large islands.
>
> > > > A better fit would have been 10 degrees or so further East.
> > > > David
>
> > > Not as far as we down'ere in .nz are concerned.
> > > We are oh so proud to be the first country in the world
> > > to see the sunrise every single day.
> > > :-)
>
> > Except, of course, for Kiribati.
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> AFAIK, both Auckland, the capital Wellington and most of
> North Island are closer to the date line then Kiribati or Tarawa.
>
> Groups of smaller islands belonging to the Republic of Kiribati
> straddle the date line but so do islands belonging to NZ.
> For example, Kermadecs(NZ) and the large Chatham Island(NZ)
> are several degrees on the wrong side of the dateline but
> officially still considered in the same time zone as NZ.
> Niue(NZ) is more than 10 degrees into the Western hemisphere
> and it officially sits in the yesterday's timezone.
The International Date Line is not the same as the 180th meridian, and
it is in fact Tonga, not the NZ dependencies mentioned above and
below, that is the first land in the new day. (Eastern Kiribati, e.g.
Christmas Island, is apparently a day behind western Kiribati -- which
would seem to make the administration somewhat inconvenient.)
Peter Moylan
> I read somewhere that the French defined (maybe still define) the 0
> meridian by reference to a point in Paris.
You probably read it in "The Da Vinci Code". Not the most reliable of
sources.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.