That's a very sloppy article right there. The lede is ridiculous, saying it is "still running... since 1864" which is contradicted in the body. The mechanism that actually powers it, not mentioned in the lede for some reason, but instead we are briefly led to believe that it was powered by a wind-up mechanism that hasn't been touched.
Lastly, a rather pitiful assortment of references. This could be a better article if someone cared enough.
If I made a clock powered by a solar panel, and it was still working without adjust in the year 2173, would it not be correct to say that the clock was still running 150 years later?
First, congratulations for conceiving of a clock which ceases to function during the dark hours, therefore about half of the day in an average season. The makers of ancient sundials would like a word.
Second, you've indeed created a novel interpretation of "still working... without adjust... still running" for such a lousy timepiece.
If you choose to write those claims without qualification, then indeed I would say you epitomize the cliché that "even a stopped clock is correct twice a day."
Oversized solar panel, oversized battery bank and capacitors, and the sundial problem is solved. If that operates continuously for 150 years, then whether it's "running continuously" despite having daily energy input is more of a hair-splitting linguistic distinction.
I think the main issue you may be having is you are applying excess amounts of creativity in finding new meanings for the words you read, and then assuming that what you've come up with must be what the author initially meant.
I wonder, if you put all that mental energy instead into attempting to understand the author's intent when you read, if the things you read might begin to make more sense.
7 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 29.2 ms ] threadLastly, a rather pitiful assortment of references. This could be a better article if someone cared enough.
If I made a clock powered by a solar panel, and it was still working without adjust in the year 2173, would it not be correct to say that the clock was still running 150 years later?
Second, you've indeed created a novel interpretation of "still working... without adjust... still running" for such a lousy timepiece.
If you choose to write those claims without qualification, then indeed I would say you epitomize the cliché that "even a stopped clock is correct twice a day."
I think the main issue you may be having is you are applying excess amounts of creativity in finding new meanings for the words you read, and then assuming that what you've come up with must be what the author initially meant.
I wonder, if you put all that mental energy instead into attempting to understand the author's intent when you read, if the things you read might begin to make more sense.
It is - it's just that it can be wound by the change in atmospheric pressure raising the weight rather than by human interaction.
See https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2017/06/still-going/ for a better description including "Arthur Beverly is the only person who ever wound the clock, and he only wound it once."