Talk:Oxford Electric Bell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low importance within physics. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Oxford University Physics Department may be able to help! |
[edit] Ring?
What is it, and what does the article mean by "ring"? --The_stuart 19:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- The PDF reference has a picture of it. Its actually two brass bells, underneath two batteries, and a clapper. Electrostatic forces cause the clapper to oscillate between the two bells, striking each in turn. linas 02:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Novelty?
The article states the following about the bell:
- Although the device can now be considered to be a novelty…
Um, novelty? The experiment was set up in 1840; how exactly is that novel? It seems to me that another word was intended.—Kbolino 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster disagrees. (Emphasis added) --59.121.193.237 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Main Entry: nov·el·ty Pronunciation: 'nä-v&l-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English novelte, from Anglo-French novelté, from novel 1 : something new or unusual
[edit] Wording problem
The article says that "It was purchased by Robert Walker, Professor of Physics at Oxford from 1839 to 1865". I am assuming the "1839 to 1865" refers to the dates of Walker being a professor at Oxford rather than when it was purchased, and am therefore changing the sentence to read "It was purchased by Robert Walker, who was Professor of Physics at Oxford from 1839 to 1865". If this is not correct, please explain. The date the bell was purchased would be a useful addition as well. -- Infrogmation 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
