Talk:Escapement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Prof. Hall

Is there any information about Prof. Hall and his clock? The obituary quoted in the article is essentially content-free. "18 tons of concrete" isn't an interesting feature... and the alleged 0.01 seconds in 3 months would make it better than a Shortt clock. If that is true, it would be good to know how it was done; if there is no data perhaps it should be deleted as an unsupported tale. Paul Koning 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Here's a technical article on the clock E. T. Hall (1996) The Littlemore Clock on NAWCC Horological Science website] with detailed results supporting the 0.01sec / 3 mo claim. I was most interested in Fig. 7B at the end, which compares results of precision clocks: chronometers, Riefler, Fedchenko, Shortt, and his - seeming to show that his beat them all. Also, apparently, the '18 tons of concrete' was important in getting the clock stable. However, this clock probably doesn't belong in an article on 'Escapement' since it was electromagnetically impulsed. --Chetvorno 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Interesting that he shows performance data for a number of other clocks. Shortt is shown as next best, and Fedchenko isn't nearly as good. Paul Koning 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for Fedchenko. I asked Google for help, but about the only real description I can find is a hobbyist reconstruction, which describes a mechanism that sounds fairly decent but is unlikely to be anywhere near as good as Shortt (and his measurements are reasonably good but not great, a few seconds per day). Paul Koning 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    • The claim in the ad is just an unsupported claim. And the thing looks absurd -- a big pipe on a flimsy steel stand. Scolnik's clock looks interesting. So for now I believe that Hall's clock is real, and Fedchenko's clock is hype. Paul Koning 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silicium escapement

A silicium escapement wheel is a revolutionary development in mechanical watchmaking. It does not require lubrication and is, in my humble opinion, superior to George Daniels Co-Axial Escapement. Such new development should not be deleted from the Escapement page. Please do not delete:

A major improvement is an escapement that does not require regular lubrication. Frédérique Constant of Geneva developped a mechanical movement that incorporates a silicium escapement wheel that will no longer need lubrication. Silicium is the ideal material for use in watch making as it is not magnetic, is extremely hard (1100 Vickers compared to 700 Vickers for steel), and is highly resistant to corrosion. The biggest advantage of a silicium escapement wheel is that it does not need to be lubricated. As it does not need to be lubricated, previously mentioned disadvantages such as age-related thinning and drying of lubrication will no longer occur. Pcstas 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) — Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is worth noting that this editor is apparantly the head of the company that sells the watches that use this method, who is trying hard to get his articles about himself, his company and his clockwork back into wikipedia after they were deleted for being non-notable. The Kinslayer 11:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is worth noting and fully correct. Nevertheless, should that be reason that an important development in mechanical watchmaking is left out? Please next article from an outside source: http://www.net2watches.net/default.aspx?PageName=iW-2005+May%3A+Reinventing+the+Wheel+p.2

This is an article on similar 'revolutionary' escapement wheel from Patek Philippe, a company that is extensively described on Wikipedia. Pcstas 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)— Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How does another companies notability apply to you and your company again? And those spa tags are there for a reason. Please stop vandalising the talk page by removing them. The Kinslayer 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The article from Theodore Diehl explains the improvement and purpose of a Silicium Wheel. I have added this article so you can see there is outside verification for what I have described on Silicium Wheels. Do you understand the concept a silicium escapement wheel? And that with such a wheel, oiling is no longer necessary? And, that without oil on the escapement wheel, people do not have to return their mechanical watches for service every four years?
Quite frankly, I do not see why such improvement should not be added to the escapement page. I have additional interesting information on the subject but after almost two hours trying to find out tags and protocols on Wikipedia, my enthusiasm is reducing fast. Moreover, now you even claim I am vandalising pages. One of the Wikipedia pages states that users should assume good faith. You seem to do otherwise. Pcstas 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC) — Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Good faith is a non-binding guideline. It certainly would be a stretch to apply it to someone who for the last two days has tried variously to get articles about himself, his company, and his products into wikipedia, especially after they, despite numerous good faith warnings, persist in removing tags from their own articles. And you still failed to explain how the source directly relates to your company. On the one hand we have this source about this process. On the other hand we have you running around saying your company 'created' this 'revolutionary' method sometime in the last 21 days. What's missing is a link between the two. You've established this Escapement exists, very good, no-one was claiming it wasn't. The Kinslayer 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, if, as you claim, your company created the silicium escapement wheel in February 2007, then why does the article about it date back to May 2005? This information is worth including in the article true, but not by you. You've repeatedly attempted to take false credit for the creation of it when you've put the information in. Someone independent can do it. The Kinslayer 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusions and accusations are invalid: Frederique Constant created and produced revolutionary silicium escapements wheel and we take full credit of it! Image:Frederique Constant Silicium Escapement2.jpg

Pcstas 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, because it's the source you provided (the article from May 2005) that proves your claim (to have 'created' the system in February 2007) is false! The Kinslayer 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not false. The article of May 15 explains the benefits of a similar silicium escapement wheel by Patek Philippe. In February 2007, Frederique Constant created this revolutionary escapement system for their Heart Beat Manufacture. Meanwhile, our version has some additional unique features. The purpose of the May 15 article is to give an outside source on Silicium Escapement wheels. We do not claim (never did) that we are the first to have such an escapement. We claim however that it is verifyable new and revolutionary. Furthermore, we believe it is a valid addition to Wikepedia. Pcstas 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your original version of the article quite clearly stated that your company 'introduced' the escapement in the last 21 days, rather than merely used an already created procedure. And what your now saying is that you did not create the escapement, you have just devised your own method of production. What about these 'unique' features. The only source you've provided to support any of your peacock claims is a 2 year old article that ended up rubbishing your claim to have created the silicium escapement wheel in the last 21 days. What you appear to be trying to do is confuse two issues. The first: Is Silicium Escapements Wheels worth including in wikipedia? And my opinion is yes, it would make a good addition to this article. However, issue 2 is that you are trying to strongarm articles about your company, your product and even yourself onto wikipedia by making flase claims to notability. The only source you've provided to establish notability has actually DIS-proved the notability of your company. Your arguing that the SEW should be included in wikipedia, but your also trying to tack on incorrect information that your company introduced it, when this is not the case. The Kinslayer 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)The Kinslayer 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If the "silicium wheel" is retained it probably should be called "silicon wheel" since that's the usual English name for the element in question. But I don't see any reason for it. The other article is pretty blatant advertising for a minor variant. For one thing, not having to oil the escapement doesn't mean you don't have to oil the rest of the watch, of course. Oil-free escapements do have value, which is why chronometers have used them for several centuries. In other words, there's nothing new here, with the possible exception that this time the oil-free escapement is an anchor escapement. But so what? I suppose it could rate one or two sentences. Paul Koning 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If you could explain this to Pstas on my talk apge, I'd be grateful, as he has returned from a trip (I think) and is asking about the best way to proceed. The Kinslayer 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Two comments on reaction Paul Koning: 1) "Silicium" versus "Silicon", both are fine, Silicium is however the term used in watch industry. So, if you want the article to be in line with what is customary in watch industry, use Silicium. 2) The other comment on oiling is an interesting one: indeed other wheels still need to be oiled. However, please do not conclude that this makes the Silicium Escapement useless. The escapement is the part of the gear train that consumes most of the energy (60-70% depending on caliber). The Silicium solution is a major improvement that changes service time from 4 years to an estimated 6 years. You may find this not sufficiently relevant, but in watch industry the Silicium Escapement and other Silicium caliber parts are considered a major improvement and "revolutionary"[1]. If you open any watch specialty magazine worldwide, and there are many, there are articles on latest developments and new materials for parts of mechanical calibers"[2]. Pcstas 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that I said that oil-free escapements are useful -- but I also said that they have been around for a long time, so it is misleading to claim a major innovation here. It may be new in the context of the anchor escapement, but so what? The references are quite unimpressive. Robb Report is a fluff magazine aimed at rich people; I would expect to find marketing material there, not technical substance. Looking at some of the other references given in the "silicium wheel" article I see the same issue. Its reference 2 is an industry marketing piece. And the author of reference 1 doesn't know the meaning of "silicon" which leads me to the conclusion that his article also has no technical weight. Finally, note that there are two issues marked on the "silicium wheel" article -- (1) should it be merged, (2) is there a conflict of interest? Re (2) I believe the answer is clearly "yes". Re (1) -- yes, it could be merged here; I would do that by one or two sentences to cover the two points: (a) use of "alternative" materials for the escapement parts, and (b) the fact that some escapement designs don't need oil on the locking pallets. That would seem to capture adequately the technical substance of "silicium wheel" (as well as such escapements as the grasshopper and the chronometer escapement). Paul Koning 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We are talking here about Wristwatch escapements, not Marine Chronometers. Marine Chronometers, while still interesting, are not being used too much anymore... Even the co-axial escapement of George Daniels still needs lubrication. You compare a silicium escapement for wirst watches with Marine Chronometers and 18th Century Grasshoper escapements. Please consider the repercursions of current silicium developments in watch industry: mechanical calibers have been made for over hundred years and are the base of over 12 billion CHF export value for Swiss watch industry. All current mechanical movements require oiling and approx. 4 years service time. New mechanical movements with silicium parts (escapement wheel is first step) will enable mechanical watches that need to be serviced much less than in past. This effects eventually over 5 million mechanical watches annually. To merge such development in two lines seems a bit limited. Pcstas 12:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Who says we're talking about Wristwatch escapements only? The article is "escapements" which means all types. Besides, there are fundamentally only two types: escapments for pendulums, and escapements for balances. (Well, I suppose escapements for the foliot and for the torsion balance may be different yet again. In any case, the point is that there's nothing special about wrist watches. It uses escapements that came straight from pocket watches. Watch escapements have been used in chronometers, and vice versa. You might not use an Earnshaw escapement in a wrist watch for various reasons, but if you wanted to, it would be no big deal to build one. Paul Koning 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the "silicium wheel" article talks about a lever escapement, so the obvious place to merge it would be that article. Paul Koning 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There hasn't been any recent discussion. It looks to me like "rough consensus" in favor of a merge, with one vocal dissenter, and some suggestions that this dissenter has a commercial interest in the outcome... Paul Koning 15:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur --Chetvorno 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] References

  1. ^ Seeds of Revolution (English). Retrieved on March 16, 2007.
  2. ^ Unlocking the Silicium Code (English). Retrieved on March 16, 2007.

[edit] Remove the impostor animation!

Shouldn't the escape wheel turn counter-clockwise in the animation? The way it is drawn shows the recieving pallet on the left, and the discharge pallet on the right.

Absolutely. And it doesn't look like an actual escapement. Does anyone here know how to do animations for Wikipedia? A simple animation of, say, the Graham deadbeat escapement would be nice. And for completeness the anchor escapement from a watch. Paul Koning 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic escapement

There should be a section on magnetic escapement, used principally and for many years in watches of the tuning-fork type.

Clifford magnetic escapement: http://p098.ezboard.com/fhorofindfrm13.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

Elgin magnetic escapement: http://p098.ezboard.com/fhorofindfrm13.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

--Wfaxon 06:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lever escapement

Under 'anchor escapement', it says "The anchor escapement is the immediate ancestor of the escapements used in nearly all modern mechanical wristwatches." Unfortunately, the article does not tell us which escapement is actually used in nearly all modern mechanical wristwatches... Can someone add this? --Wws 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Removed that sentence since the anchor escapement is only distantly related to the lever escapement. I quickly added very brief comments on the lever, chronometer and cylinder escapements. Wrs1864 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] lock and draw

I was wondering whether 'lock' and 'draw' were, in reference to escapement. Could this be added?

[edit] Good job on Shortt clock

I want to compliment whoever wrote the description of the Shortt free pendulum escapement. I've read a number of explanations of that escapement, and this is the first one I've really understood. Thanks! --Chetvorno 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What about writing an article on the Shortt clock? It has lengthy descriptions here and in pendulum clock which could be broken out into an article. --ChetvornoTALK 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Chinese escapements

Under History it says that the earliest known escapements were Chinese: in Xi Ying's 723 astronomical globe and Su Song's 11th century clock tower. Is it known what type of escapement they were? Were they verges? I believe the Chinese government has constructed a working model of the Song clock, so they must know about the mechanism. --Chetvorno 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looked it up, they weren't verges --ChetvornoTALK 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seiko Spring Drive - Is it really a new escapement?

I'd like to question whether Seiko Spring Drive deserves a heading as a separate escapement. As I understand it, it's simply a quartz watch whose power comes from a generator run by the spring, with an electromechanical linkage to move the sweep hand smoothly. This sounds like a typical watch company marketing-driven novelty, rather than an actual technological improvement. What qualifies as an escapement? I think it should have something to do with the timekeeping part of the watch, not just the indicating part. This section should be merged into Quartz clock, Watch#Electronic movements, or somewhere else. --Chetvorno 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I'm going to merge the Seiko Spring Drive section into Watch#Electronic movements. --Chetvorno 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Chetvorno 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-article proposal

The current article is solely concerned with clock escapements. A contribution I made concerning another type of escapement was removed with subsequent notice to me as follows"

Hi! I removed your recent addition of use of escapements in model airplanes from the Escapement article. As I mentioned in my comments, I think the stuff you added as interesting, useful, and referenced, but I don't think it is in the appropriate article. While the system you described used escapements, as well as relays and magnets, I think the subject matter is really about model airplanes and it should not really be mentioned in the article about escapements, relays nor magnets. If the model airplane article is too long, you might want to just make a new article and put a reference in other places. You can recover your text by looking through the article history. If you need help doing so, let me know, and I'll help. Wrs1864 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this was considered "off topic".

In addition to this material was about to add escapements as used in piano keyboard actions, typesetters, and other devices.

I suggest that it would be more appropriate to move the bulk of the existing article (those sections discussing particular types of clock escapement in detail) to Escapement (clock), to make room for an article here appropriate to the title. Clock specific articles would reference the new article. Should any other article become too weighty it too could be moved partially to an appropriate subarticle (e.g. Escapement (radio control), Escapement (electric typewriter), etc.).

Comments here are solicited. - Leonard G. (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make the same suggestion. I agree that having both subjects in one article is confusing. The standard solution is just as you describe it: create new articles for each of the different topic. Then rename the original article and create a disambiguation page for "Escapement". Alternatively, if the consensus is that most people who type in "Escapement" are looking for a clock/watch escapement, the standard approach is to leave the existing article with its existing name, and put a template at the top that produces text like "For other uses, see "Escapement (disambiguation)"." You can see the latter at work in [Clock]. Paul Koning (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the current article is too clock-centric, considering that many other timekeeping devices use them. If this article gets renamed, I would suggest "Escapement (horology)". Judging by a google search on "escapement", it appears that most uses are horological in nature, so keeping this article as "escapement" and creating a "escapement (disambiguation)" page seems like the best to me, but that's just my opinion. Another advantage of not renaming this article is we wouldn't need to chase down all the wikilinks and point them to the new article. Wrs1864 (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am used to fixing links and volunteer for that task, so that should remove that consideration. - User:Leonard G. 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I have seen no further response here, I am proposing to move this to Escapement (horology), with the article becoming a general article on escapements with small sections on the various types, with appropriate main templates and various inline "see also" inserts as appropriate. This will include changing referring articles appropriately. I think that this is better than a disambiguation page which would not be appropriate for a general article on escapements of various types and their diverse applications. This work will be done next week (without objection), otherwise I will solicit opinions from contributors to this and also to related articles on objects that employ escapements. - Leonard G. (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is vastly more material on horological escapements and much more interest in them than any other use. I googled the word 'escapement', and out of the first 76 hits referring to mechanical escapements only 14 even mentioned non-horological uses, and most of those were just dictionary definitions. Going through another page is an unreasonable complication for the vast majority of readers who are looking for info on clock or watch escapements. I favor Paul Koning's suggestion that this article not be renamed, but links be added at the top to take readers to articles on non-horological escapements. --ChetvornoTALK 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)