Comments
ActionHousevh t1_ixcd48s wrote
Y2K was nothin. Wait till Y10K
ChrisRuss86 t1_ixcj0az wrote
Things were built to last back then, lol
SocksOnHands t1_ixcknwt wrote
Amazing it's so accurate if it is as bad as this quote makes it seem to be.
Der_Missionar t1_ixcly0b wrote
The clock is extraordinary... It does not say it will be accurate till 9999, rather, it says the date can "show" to 9999.... It does show "Approximate" moon phase, planetary positions, and accounts for leap years.
The glass globe that crowns the clock houses the planetary system as seen by Copernicus. We can see the planets’ orbit around the sun – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn – their relative positions in the zodiac, and the Moon’s orbit around the Earth. It indicates the two equinoxes, the two solstices and the solar and lunar eclipses, also the solar second.
By all accounts extraordinary... I would like to see something on it's accuracy - as that is the one thing we are not told - and is to what the post title seems to refer.
SocksOnHands t1_ixcmzpu wrote
What I meant was that the title says it has accurately shown the time since 1750, but this quote mentions grime, dust, wear, etc. It's amazing that friction or damages hadn't make the clock become less accurate over time. Was it that it was set in 1750 and is still correct today, or had the clock ever needed to be adjusted to correct the time?
Der_Missionar t1_ixcnejm wrote
>Was it that it was set in 1750 and is still correct today, or had the clock ever needed to be adjusted to correct the time?
This is exactly what I'm referring to... NOWHERE in the articles I've seen mention how accurate the clock is. I don't know a single mechanical clock that's ever been made that doesn't need to be adjusted from time to time. The post title leaves you thinking, this clock is accurate till 9999... and it's never been adjusted... that's not what this says at all.
Clocks of the day (1700's) often kept time to 1 second per day, and new mechanisms were coming out that could keep time to 1 second per month... John Harrison proposed a time-piece that could keep time to an astonishing 1 second per 100 days... His design, however, was never finished... until someone tried it out in 2009, and finished in 2012... proving you COULD keep time with his design, in a purely mechanical clock, (without crystals, like many of today's clocks), to within 1 second per 100 days.
DrugChemistry t1_ixcqlgh wrote
Why does it lack crystals? My understanding is that the jewels in a clock/watch movement are placed in places where things spin. The jewels lower the friction between pieces and are hard so they don’t need frequent replacement.
iamPendergast t1_ixcszt1 wrote
I think they mean quartz i.e. digital clocks
DrugChemistry t1_ixctr9a wrote
Duckbilling t1_ixcw4up wrote
"On December 31, 2000, the château’s staff also gathered around the clock: it went straight to the year 3000 and the clockmaker at the château had to push it back!"
https://www.gazette-drouot.com/en/article/the-secrets-of-claude-simeon-passemant-s-clock/35949
SocksOnHands t1_ixcx4uc wrote
It had a Y2K bug?
FallWithHonor t1_ixcx5cd wrote
They'll still put it off to the last minute.
SocksOnHands t1_ixcy063 wrote
Ok, sorry. My confusion was from the title saying that it "shown the correct date, time... from 1750". Any clock can be "correct" if it is constantly being corrected by someone.
Captain-Griffen t1_ixd41kw wrote
Based on zero research I'm going to tell you it doesn't keep time accurately. It's a mechanical clock.
The TIL is bullshit.
MuthaPlucka t1_ixd7u8o wrote
KRS-One explained it 10 years ago: https://youtu.be/5M7MZh_bvjg
/sits and spliffs
WilliamMorris420 t1_ixd8qjm wrote
I'm sure that humans keep correctimg the time and planetary movements. The clock has to be wound upnon probably a daily basis and it's impossible for a non-atomic clock to be accurate for thst long. Even a quartz watch (without radio or internet time corrections) will be out by a few minutes each year. And that's without taking into account leap seconds. Which the designer could never have considered as they only started in 1960-1972 and are irregularly placed with only about 6 months notice.
DirtyDanTheManlyMan t1_ixd9ld2 wrote
It would be so much better if it actually did though
Duckbilling t1_ixdoxwd wrote
Lol
Oui, c'est vrai.
SEND_PUNS_PLZ t1_ixdrl0q wrote
Hell yeah passemant that shit
[deleted] t1_ixe7gmf wrote
[deleted]
clichesaurus t1_ixej4hw wrote
What a headache new years eve in 9999 will be, did we learn nothing from y2k?
Der_Missionar t1_ixerhdp wrote
Yes, quartz crystals which have a very specific resonant frequency which can then be used to keep time.
HarryHacker42 t1_ixf6h9i wrote
Odd this didn't start in 1752. They had to move calendars forward over a week.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Give-us-our-eleven-days/
ExtonGuy t1_ixfdnhf wrote
France adopted the Gregorian (modern ) calendar in 1782. Since then,1800 and 1900 have not been leap years, but I presume this clock was built to the old rules where they would be leap years.
valhallaswyrdo t1_ixgadsj wrote
Oh good, so we know everything's gonna be okay til at least 9999.
Dr_Blarghs t1_ixgjrqa wrote
BUT WHAT ABOUT Y10K AND THE DECAMILLENNIUM?!?!?!
2KilAMoknbrd t1_ixgof99 wrote
Does anybody really know what time it is ?
snakeling t1_iy9gcc4 wrote
1582, not 1782.
snakeling t1_iy9ggqn wrote
In Britain only, though. France had gone through this in 1582, like a lot of Catholic countries.
Der_Missionar t1_ixccvw0 wrote
"Today, though, it is largely encrusted with dust and grime. The bronzes have taken on a uniform brown hue, masking the relief effects produced by the matt and burnished tones."
"The clock’s mechanism is so worn and grimy that many of its indications are malfunctioning and risk causing a gradual deterioration of the whole. The Passemant clock is also the only clock in the Palace whose chime no longer works. For the first time in the modern age, the mechanism will be entirely dismounted, cleaned, analysed and then restored."