Sunday, May 24, 2020
LIterally burning the midnight oil 2
Another Night Clock or Lamp Clock from the same 1895 SciAm article as the previous example. The first one was actually used by scribes in the 1600s. This one was never used. Supposedly Monsieur Gabry of Liancourt made one in 1819, but never produced it in quantity.
I've shown a transparent view here. The clock contained two pots connected by a pipe at the bottom. Both were filled with combustible oil. The front pot had a wick extending to the bottom.
As the flame consumed the oil in the front pot, the back pot lowered in unison, pulling the float down, and thus turning the dial. When you refilled the front pot, you'd have to rewind the float manually.
The first night clock was elegantly simple and 'patient', with the fuel doing all the work. This one was clunky and overcomplicated, with a lot of unneeded moving parts.
Why all the parts? I suppose Gabry wanted to have a circular dial, which was the standard by then. The magnificent Ridhwan clock had a linear and semi-digital way of consuming the day, and the 1600 scribe clock literally consumed the night, converting it to light.
Ergonomic or perceptual question. Would we think of time differently if we were accustomed to linear clocks? Would we value the rest of each day more, and use it more efficiently or enjoyably, if we could see and anticipate the consumption as we do on the Ridhwan and the scribal? I've found that modeling and animating these devices tends to steer my thinking in that direction. Constant exposure to the real thing should do even better.
Mechanical question: The mechanism in the original sketch was unclear but the symmetry was clear. I had to add the extra shaft and gears to keep both the float and the dial centered. If the back pot had been displaced to the right, or the dial displaced to the left, the rope pulley could have driven the dial directly. Here I agree with Gabry. Symmetry is crucial in a timekeeper. EQUIPOISE. The extra shaft is worth it to maintain symmetry. Clocks and cars fall into the category of intelligent helpers or pets, so they must be bilaterally symmetrical like actual life.
= = = = =
Continued here.
I've shown a transparent view here. The clock contained two pots connected by a pipe at the bottom. Both were filled with combustible oil. The front pot had a wick extending to the bottom.
As the flame consumed the oil in the front pot, the back pot lowered in unison, pulling the float down, and thus turning the dial. When you refilled the front pot, you'd have to rewind the float manually.
The first night clock was elegantly simple and 'patient', with the fuel doing all the work. This one was clunky and overcomplicated, with a lot of unneeded moving parts.
Why all the parts? I suppose Gabry wanted to have a circular dial, which was the standard by then. The magnificent Ridhwan clock had a linear and semi-digital way of consuming the day, and the 1600 scribe clock literally consumed the night, converting it to light.
Ergonomic or perceptual question. Would we think of time differently if we were accustomed to linear clocks? Would we value the rest of each day more, and use it more efficiently or enjoyably, if we could see and anticipate the consumption as we do on the Ridhwan and the scribal? I've found that modeling and animating these devices tends to steer my thinking in that direction. Constant exposure to the real thing should do even better.
Mechanical question: The mechanism in the original sketch was unclear but the symmetry was clear. I had to add the extra shaft and gears to keep both the float and the dial centered. If the back pot had been displaced to the right, or the dial displaced to the left, the rope pulley could have driven the dial directly. Here I agree with Gabry. Symmetry is crucial in a timekeeper. EQUIPOISE. The extra shaft is worth it to maintain symmetry. Clocks and cars fall into the category of intelligent helpers or pets, so they must be bilaterally symmetrical like actual life.
= = = = =
Continued here.Labels: Equipoise
¶ 9:20 AM
