Slashdot Mirror


Stephen Hawking Unveils "Time Eater" Clock

gyrogeerloose writes "Stephen Hawking unveiled an unsettling clock in Cambridge on Friday. Designed by John Taylor — a British horologist and inventor whose thermostatic switch is incorporated in millions of electric appliances worldwide — the clock was conceived as a tribute to another British inventor, John Harrison. Harrison invented the grasshopper escapement in the early 18th Century, which resulted in extremely accurate mechanical time keeping and was instrumental in solving the Longitude Problem. Taylor's clock, which in entirely mechanical in operation but has no hands, uses a fearsome-looking 'demon grasshopper' as its escapement. 'I... wanted to depict that time is a destroyer — once a minute is gone you can't get it back' Taylor said. 'That's why my grasshopper is not a Disney character. He is a ferocious beast that over the seconds has his tongue lolling out, his jaws opening, then on the 59th second he gulps down time.' It also (purposely) only tells correct time once every five minutes. An excellent video of the clock in action, with an explanation of its workings by its inventor, is available on YouTube."

198 comments

  1. beautiful but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    there has to be some sort of mechanism, a construct if you will, that keeps this clock going. it can not all be eating itself for it would not exist if it would. then how is it keeping time while eating itself? i find it hard to understand

    1. Re:beautiful but by fucket · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My best guess would be THE TIME CUBE

      The human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime.

      Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle.

      And, thus, the clock keeps going.

    2. Re:beautiful but by justdaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is Douglas Adams. A quote from Hitchhiker's guide...

    3. Re:beautiful but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just because it's been blinged up doesn't make the underlying mechanical mechanism any less impressive. Who says science can't be beautiful? The bank of LEDs just provide a constant light source; the light show at the front (which could be mistaken for electronics) is achieved using vernier slits and lenses - that's genius.

      -Ozbird http://slashdot.org/~ozbird (I've been naughty and pulled this to the top, but the ill-informed comments drove me to it) Only really seeing it in person will let you appreciate how much there is too this, and how much psudo-randomness and unexpected behaviour has been incorporated. Realising that what looks like a computer generated light show is mechanically produced is incredible.

    4. Re:beautiful but by spazdor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only on /. could you be modded Insightful for citing Time Cube.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    5. Re:beautiful but by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      If "time is an illusion" then how can there be a 'first post', 'second post' etc. as without time there is no chronology.

      QED: People claiming a 'first post' (or even more pathetically, a 'second') are just living in a massive pool of FAIL.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    6. Re:beautiful but by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      "First" and "second" don't imply time, they imply order, one of the methods of which is chronological. The posts could just as easily be sorted alphanumerically and there would still be a first and second, no chronology required.

    7. Re:beautiful but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no other websites use a modding system that includes the category 'Insightful'.

    8. Re:beautiful but by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      You are correct, but your argument is redundant as I *was* referring to a time-based event/claim.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    9. Re:beautiful but by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I should have used my psychic powers to determine that.

  2. Awesome by mazarin5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's just awesome. It looks like a grasshopper walking along the top. Lights spiral out from the center, until it reaches the creature, and then it starts again.

    But it says that it doesn't have hands - it has LEDs all around it, which displays the time. I think that's pretty much the same thing, no?

    --
    Fnord.
    1. Re:Awesome by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      it does look wicked-cool. Hollywood could make a whole movies based just on that monster and the "time-eater" concept. If only that queer-looking brain-monster at the end of The Watchmen looked nearly as cool as that!

      Only gripe is that it looks very out of place on that gaudy-looking gold face.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hollywood could make a whole movies based just on that monster and the "time-eater" concept.

      Somewhat done.

    3. Re:Awesome by caramelcarrot · · Score: 1

      It also seems really fucking loud. I'm sure that's going to be nice for the students with rooms opposite.

    4. Re:Awesome by morari · · Score: 1

      Nah. That film was just about a bunch of whiny people wandering around an empty airport for three hours.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    5. Re:Awesome by Zwicky · · Score: 5, Informative

      But it says that it doesn't have hands - it has LEDs all around it... I think that's pretty much the same thing, no?

      Sort of. The inventor is still accurate in saying that it doesn't have hands though ;) (& if you get too close to that grasshopper neither will you!)

      The bit I find interesting is the mechanism for the LEDs. Because of my way of thinking I had assumed that the LEDs would be controlled programmatically. It is actually a clever entirely mechanical implementation using vernier slits (3:42 in the Youtube video). I find it fascinating. I'll admit to having never heard of them so it has that whole "woah!" appeal for me.

      Besides, I'm not into bling but this thing is ostentatiously cool and doesn't IMHO look half bad. I'd love to own one if it wasn't so loud as to annoy the neighbors. Oh and if it wasn't one of a kind and I had that kind of money to hand of course.

      Some people don't seem to like it and that's fair enough. All the same I find it altogether novel.

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    6. Re:Awesome by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      Well, I do wish that they had used this clock bug instead of those embarrassingly ugly mutated flying pacmans who looked like they came straight from a Nintendo 64 game. A perfect way to completely ruin an otherwise pretty mediocre film and put in on the worst-films-ever-list.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lights spiral out from the center, until it reaches the creature, and then it starts again.

      Not true, it's not spiralling at all. Look closely at the video! I live just across the road from this clock, and since yesterday it has continuously drawn crowds. And the LEDs are behind the clock and permanently switched on - the sensation of the moving lights is created purely mechanically from two rotating disks with holes in them (one with 60 slots and the other with 61). The attention to detail in this device is remarkable: e.g. the "chronophage" grasshopper on top of the clock blinks with its eye (sometimes double-blinks), and this is controlled through a separate mechanical clock-work.

    8. Re:Awesome by JoCat · · Score: 1

      LEDs all around it is a bit of a misnomer. The inside is full of LEDs, but all of them are illuminated all the time. What it has is a set of disks that, when aligned, allow the light from inside to escape.

      You're right, though. A rose by any other name...

    9. Re:Awesome by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Book was good thou.

    10. Re:Awesome by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      This movie was made in late 1984, prior to the N64. Although I suppose it's possible they copied the Pac-mania 3D game.

      I thought it was a good film, although it would have worked better as an episode of Outer Limits. 3 hours was just too darn long to stretch the story.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    11. Re:Awesome by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      It's based on a 300-year-old mechanism. Of course it's loud. Back then making the "grasshopper mechanism" work at all was a challenge; quieting was not important (especially on-board a ship).

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    12. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clock is purely mechanic. Slits are used to show whatever is being the clock, in this case LEDs that are permanently lit, they are a completely separate entity.
      The clock could be placed in a round Window and it would have the same effect during daylight.
      It's to everyone to find clever stuff to place behind the clock for various effect.
      Art open to new ideas! I love it.
      The grasshopper does freak me out a bit. So ugly, but just what they wanted I guess.

    13. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah Bene't Street. Them were the days.

  3. Once again, in ENGLISH Please ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What language is this nerd-speak?

    1. Re:Once again, in ENGLISH Please ! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      You ignorant clod! As anyone from England can tell you, he's speaking in "Northern"!! :P

  4. uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep the steampunk on boingboin and off of slashdot , thank you

  5. 1m GBP? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    For that much they could have at least made it a self-winding automatic. jeebus.

    1. Re:1m GBP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i believe it is. it has a small electric motor for winding itself.

    2. Re:1m GBP? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. An its only right 5 mins at a time. Someone got screwed. I have a walmart clock that I paid 15 bucks for that is more accurate than that.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  6. STEVEN?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know he might not be Paris Hilton, but he should be here on slashdot. It's STEPHEN HAWKING.

  7. who is it by sveard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Steven Hawking? or Stephen Hawking??? I've never heard of a Steven Hawking

    1. Re:who is it by mazarin5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's Stephen Hawking's non-union equivalent.

      --
      Fnord.
    2. Re:who is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It also says "John Tayor". The man's name is "John Taylor".

    3. Re:who is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're thinking of Señor Hawkingo. Steven Hawking is the domestic-equivalent of the British version; buy American!

    4. Re:who is it by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sshhh... You'll wake the editors.

    5. Re:who is it by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Steven Hawking is is a only child who grow up in an orphanage. He desperately wants everyone's approval so he spends his days napping in a wheelchair to pass himself off as Stephen Hawking so he can get the admiration he thinks he deserves.

    6. Re:who is it by martinw89 · · Score: 1

      It's all the matter that slowly escapes over time when Stephen Hawking gets sucked into a black hole.

    7. Re:who is it by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      Some more info on John Taylor.

    8. Re:who is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Who?

  8. It works, I just watched some of the video by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is one minute of my life I'll never get back.

    1. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by dataninja · · Score: 1

      Reading this just cost me 5 seconds of my life I will never get back.

    2. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by menkhaura · · Score: 2, Funny

      How much did it cost to post the reply? Meh, I'm going to bed.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    3. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by willyhill · · Score: 1

      You can always sue the demonic grasshopper and try to get it back.

      Let us know how it goes...

      --
      The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
    4. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Just wait 8 hours. It's also a time excreter.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    5. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by symbolset · · Score: 1

      You need not be concerned about the loss of that minute. That minute is still there, from now until time ends.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I just love speaking a language where it's possible to say things such as "You can always sue the demonic grasshopper...", and not necessarily be a schizophrenic. We English speakers should probably be more appreciative of a language where nobody inventing the tongue could possibly have anticipated needing to say something like that, but when the need pops up, 'Bob's yer uncle' and English stretches to fit.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:It works, I just watched some of the video by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Well, if it saved you the minute that Crazyjim1 lost, that's a really 55 second net gain!

  9. Just a clock by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Misleading description...from TFA:

    The author of A Brief History of Time was guest of honour when the unique clock, which has no hands or numbers, was revealed at Corpus Christi College.

    Yeah, so the only think Hawking had to do with this clock is: he was a guest at its unveiling.

    But the clock is only accurate once every five minutes - the rest of the time the lights are simply for decoration.

    And the clock itself really isn't much of a clock. The only mildly interesting thing about it is the "time eating" grasshopper that travels around the outside.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Just a clock by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Hawking is a big name and he knows it. He probably made a point of being there to help Taylor out - a little bit of positive publicity.

      And if Hawking thinks this is cool enough to promote it, then it's probably wothwhile checking it out.

    2. Re:Just a clock by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      He probably made a point of being there to help Taylor out - a little bit of positive publicity

      gotta help out the homies...I went back and watched the video again (this time with the sound on) and the design inspiration for the concentric circles was very interesting, I must admit. Pity they couldn't have made it so it is accurate to the second...I'd still put it on my wall

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    3. Re:Just a clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem:

      From "TFA":

      "Professor Stephen Hawking unveiled the unique clock"

      "Hawking unveils 'strangest clock'" (Title)

      and finally:

      "A £1m clock called the "time eater" has been unveiled at Cambridge University by Professor Stephen Hawking."

    4. Re:Just a clock by Prune · · Score: 1

      > "And the clock itself really isn't much of a clock. The only mildly interesting thing about it is the "time eating" grasshopper that travels around the outside."

      This is a ludicrous statement, considering this is one of the most advanced mechanical clocks in existence (electricity is used simply for the lights and a motor to rewind the clock). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Clock

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    5. Re:Just a clock by makomk · · Score: 1

      But the clock is only accurate once every five minutes - the rest of the time the lights are simply for decoration.

      And the clock itself really isn't much of a clock. The only mildly interesting thing about it is the "time eating" grasshopper that travels around the outside.

      Actually, I'm pretty sure the summary is wrong - it's a perfectly functional mechanical clock, complete with hours, minutes and seconds, and it displays the correct time every second. The spinning lights are decorative, but the reason they appear to spin is due to the way it's built mechanically (clever use of slits). Watch the YouTube video.

    6. Re:Just a clock by makomk · · Score: 1

      I beg its pardon - it displays nearly the correct time about each second. Apparently, it speeds up and slows down visibly for artistic reasons or some such. I bet that was a pain to engineer.

    7. Re:Just a clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "time eating" grasshopper doesn't travel around the outside. It sits on the top and regulates the rate of the outside ring.

  10. :( Localized video........ by Slugster · · Score: 1

    Is there a work-around here? I wanna see....
    ~

  11. Relativity by dnwq · · Score: 1

    John Taylor freely switches between general relativity and philosophical relativity. Don't watch if you get easily irked by such musing.

    1. Re:Relativity by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      So did Einstein. The quote about time spent with a pretty girl compared to sitting on a hot stove was his answer when someone asked him to explain relativity. Not as good as his explanation of the wireless telegraph (imagine a cat stretched between two cities. When you pull the tail at one end, it makes a noise at the other. Wireless telegraph is like that, but with not cat).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Relativity by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Actually, the quote about time spent with a pretty girl compared to sitting on a hot stove was the sound of Einstein resigning himself to international fame and celebrity, despite the fact that none of his fans actually understood any of his accomplishments.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  12. Magnificent by Mortiss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is just like in the "old days" when the clocks were made by artisan-watchmakers and could be afforded by only the elite few. Something akin to Nuremberg eggs from the 16th century. http://www.love-watches.com/Invention-Watch.htm

    1. Re:Magnificent by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Nuremberg Eggs will be served immediately after a course of Versailles Croquettes.

      They're "just following hors d'oeuvres."

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  13. Technology? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who tagged this "technology"? This is 100% art. It uses nothing more technologically noteworthy than a bunch of blue LEDs and a grasshopper escapement. The irritating blue LED has been annoying us as we try to sleep for the better part of a decade, and the grasshopper escapement is almost 3 centuries old. Personally, I think blue LEDs are generally the sign of an INFERIOR designer. Too many things nowadays have bright flashing blue LEDs for no other apparent reason other than "look! we have bright blue LEDs now!"

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    1. Re:Technology? by east+coast · · Score: 2

      Too many things nowadays have bright flashing blue LEDs for no other apparent reason other than "look! we have bright blue LEDs now!"

      Uh, maybe they use them since they are so visible? Maybe the idea of a clock face or any other LED panel is to make it visible without having to walk right up to it to read it?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Technology? by sa1lnr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd call it craftmanship, engineering and art all rolled up into one.

    3. Re:Technology? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2

      Note the difference between "too many" and "all". In instances such as this clock, a bright blue LED has a purpose. My cell phone, however, does NOT need a blue LED flashing a bright spotlight on my bedroom ceiling every 6 seconds to tell me bluetooth is turned on.

      And for that matter, blue is not the only bright LED available.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Technology? by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "This is 100% art. It uses nothing more technologically noteworthy than a bunch of blue LEDs and a grasshopper escapement."

      Because a mechanical timepiece isn't "technology?" Or does it only qualify as "technology" if it's less than ten years old?

      "and the grasshopper escapement is almost 3 centuries old."

      Does it no longer work? Has the warranty expired?

      Without external communications capabilities (e.g. WWVB or NTP), I guarantee you that this clock keeps more accurate time than any timepiece you've ever owned.

    5. Re:Technology? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Does it no longer work? Has the warranty expired?

      It still works, but I think it's fair to say that it no longer qualifies as "News for Nerds".

    6. Re:Technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it can't be technology because the grass-hopper clock movement wasn't developed recently. I'm glad you cleared that up for us. According to your "logic", I guess that computers aren't technology either. They were developed in the middle of the last century, over fifty years ago. No more posts on computers on Slashdot!!! Hooray!!!

    7. Re:Technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be news for nerds if the grasshopper escapement was controlling the clock.

      But, I fear it is just decoration. The real timekeeping is electronic.

    8. Re:Technology? by Fred+Foobar · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think blue LEDs are generally the sign of an INFERIOR designer. Too many things nowadays have bright flashing blue LEDs for no other apparent reason other than "look! we have bright blue LEDs now!"

      Hear, hear!

      I would like to avoid buying any electronics that have blue LED's, but too many things have them these days that it kind of reduces the number of other options. My Sansa media player (a Christmas gift) has a blue scroll wheel, but I disabled it in software (thank you, Rockbox!). I also have some hand-me-down computer speakers, one of which has a bright blue LED power indicator, so I opened it up and put some opaque tape over the LED; now the power indicator still lights up but not as brightly. If I were more ambitious I would unsolder the blue LED and replace it with a good ol' red or green LED.

      --
      It was a really good paper.
    9. Re:Technology? by Nux'd · · Score: 1

      AFAIK if it does something other than look pretty, it's not art. Also note that this is not your usual LED job. Those are slits in the mechanism that could be just as easily illuminated by candles from behind.

    10. Re:Technology? by ozbird · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who tagged this "technology"? This is 100% art.

      Just because it's been blinged up doesn't make the underlying mechanical mechanism any less impressive. Who says science can't be beautiful?

      Yes, the LEDs are blue - but what other colour would you combine with gold? The bank of LEDs just provide a constant light source; the light show at the front (which could be mistaken for electronics) is achieved using vernier slits and lenses - that's genius.

    11. Re:Technology? by adisakp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who tagged this "technology"? This is 100% art.

      I disagree -- this is definitely Technology as well as Art. There's no reason it has to be only one or the other. Besides, the ancient Greeks felt all technology was art. The word "technology" itself comes from the Greek root "techne" which means art or skill.

      Not all technology is computers and transistors. Technology has existed and improved throughout the ages, from the ability to make fire and work with tools to the creation of the wheel. Clocks and geared mechanisms certainly make for interesting technology from large computers such as Babbage's Difference Engine to portable devices such as the Antikythera mechanism.

      It would be possible to even have "modern" technology without transistors although perhaps it wouldn't be the same as the high tech steam powered science of the Steampunk Genre.

    12. Re:Technology? by MisterBlueSky · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd call it a yellow clock.

    13. Re:Technology? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Note the difference between "too many" and "all".

      Your logic behind this statement? You're the one who said too many. If it were all wouldn't it still be too many?

      My cell phone, however, does NOT need a blue LED flashing a bright spotlight on my bedroom ceiling every 6 seconds to tell me bluetooth is turned on.

      There are multiple ways to approach this: turn off the alert (if possible),don't buy the product if that's such a big deal to you, turn the device in such a fashion that it doesn't illuminate your whole room.

      I have a phone that does this anytime I get an e-mail. I get about 15 e-mails in the same hours that I sleep. I have taken to just turning the phone over and I can't see the flash any longer.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    14. Re:Technology? by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      Yes. And the grasshopper escapement is not commonly used, so a contemporary clock that displays this ingenious mechanism is of technical interest.

    15. Re:Technology? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Without external communications capabilities (e.g. WWVB or NTP), I guarantee you that this clock keeps more accurate time than any timepiece you've ever owned.

      Citation needed. Tone down the karma-whoring hyperboles to yourselves and stick to what you KNOW to be a fact.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:Technology? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      I saw a documentary about John Harrison, what he did was just that, making a precise clock no matter the conditions it is in. By using wood, of all things! This carpenter son, just created the thing that was needed to know the exact relative location of any point on earth. Quite a respectable feat by this nerd-avant-la-lettre, and that honor is done to him certainly belongs on slashdot.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    17. Re:Technology? by tgd · · Score: 1

      You miss the point -- it doesn't have blinking blue LEDs -- it has blue LEDs being used to backlight an *entirely mechanical* mechanism.

      Put a floodlight behind it and you'd get the same effect.

      Its an amazing piece of engineering, because its a carefully *mechanically* timed mechanism moving slits in an interference pattern behind lenses that creates an effect you'd expect from using electronics.

    18. Re:Technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I have a phone that does this anytime I get an e-mail. I get about 15 e-mails in the same hours that I sleep. I have taken to just turning the phone over and I can't see the flash any longer.

      Damn it, stop telling people to do this! We here at the Gaffers' Tape Producers' Association do not support this solution!

    19. Re:Technology? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      No, the chronophage grasshopper is the real working escapement, and the whole clock is 100% mechanical, there are no electronics except probably a few resistors to protect the blue LED's in the back.

    20. Re:Technology? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Although in this clock, there is a bank of hundreds of bright blue LEDs, all on the whole time, of which only about four have a purpose at any given time.

      "Only consumes 60W." But the thing is, for the amount of actual illumination you get, that's actually disgracefully wasteful.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    21. Re:Technology? by johanatan · · Score: 1

      IT can't be that accurate. TFA says that it only tells time right every 5 minutes!!

    22. Re:Technology? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      It's funny that Slashdot runs articles about building a working Babbage style difference engine or reconstructing the Antikythera mechanism, and nobody complains that they're not news for nerds. Maybe the connection between this grashopper escapement and solving a big problem in oceangoing navigation is historically a little more esoteric.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    23. Re:Technology? by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess I am ambitious because on my last case, I replaced the green LEDs with ultra-bright blue ones. In my defense, I also replaced the springs under the power and reset switches with some screen door closer parts, so the average 5 year old lacks the strength to push the buttons that are now so attractive since I put in those bright blue LEDs.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    24. Re:Technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes! 60 watts are being wasted!

      Get some perspective: there are literally megawatts being wasted in industrial plants, in every city, all over the world. That adds up to terawatts.

      This clock is a work of art, and I would gladly have more of those. If you want to save the planet, start with the real wasteful parts of the economy.

    25. Re:Technology? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      While it is true that John Harrison made wooden clocks, his attempts to win the Longitude prize were all made of metal. You can see them in the Royal Observatory in Greenwich.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    26. Re:Technology? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      I've come to learn that when you combine craftsmanship and engineering, you end up with something that doesn't tend to break, and is almost always extremely useful.

      Throw "art" into the mix, and you end up with something that is marginally useful, full of potential design flaws introduced for the sake of art that may cause it to break, and not terribly fun to look at.

      This seems to fit. I put art into parentheses because I believe that a good craftsman is an artist. He makes the art seem invisible, and you admire the design for its utility - for how it fits you. Seems like art to me.

      To me, it'd be cooler if they unveiled a clock that will always keep accurate time and won't need repairs or replacements except once every fifty years or so.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    27. Re:Technology? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Citation needed. Tone down the karma-whoring hyperboles to yourselves and stick to what you KNOW to be a fact."

      A quartz timepiece, such as the ones used in just about all consumer clocks, watches, computers, cell phones, GPS receivers, etc. will typically gain or lose about half a second every day (up to 15 seconds a month) without correction. On the other hand, much smaller mechanical timepieces than this, which are substantially similar but don't have the luxury of relatively massive moving parts to easily overcome friction, will typically gain or lose about a tenth of a second every day (up to 3 seconds a month) without correction.

      So at least half an order of magnitude more accurate than the clock used in the computer you're reading this on, and with this particular clock I'd be surprised if it was even that close.

    28. Re:Technology? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "TFA says that it only tells time right every 5 minutes!!"

      Every five minutes precisely, not 4:59, not 5:01.

    29. Re:Technology? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      And how do you know the original poster doesn't have access to a much more precise clock? Serious question here: for all I know, you two might know each other from "real life", and may be privy to what his/her private and professional lives are.

      Otherwise, kindly STFU.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    30. Re:Technology? by johanatan · · Score: 1

      Yea, but I think that modern man prefers a timepiece that that is precise to a little smaller than 5 minute granules!! What about all of those minutes and seconds in between?! If we were to calculate the precision of this clock across all seconds (let alone tenths of seconds), it would be woefully low (as a percentage).

      In fact, here's a quick calculation to the second: 1 / (5 * 60) = 0.333%

      and to the tenth of a second: 1 / (5 * 60 * 10) = 0.0333%

      I wouldn't exactly call that precise or useful for anything other than a wall clock.

    31. Re:Technology? by clare-ents · · Score: 1

      When I saw it on Saturday night there was a crowd of twenty to thirty people looking on. That's 2W each, much better than I get out of the 11W flourescents in my house most of the time.

      It looks fantastic, not having been aware of any of the publicity I saw it, stopped and stared and the chronophage ate ten minutes of my life as I stared and marvelled at hour fantastic it was.

      I haven't yet managed to translate the latin inscription beneath though. If anyone knows the answer do tell.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
  14. nice design by floatingrunner · · Score: 0

    helloooooo steampunk! needs more clockwork (no pun intended) and gearwork...

  15. Oblig. by srussia · · Score: 1

    "When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper, then one minute has gone by."

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  16. LEDs by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He blew it. He sould at least have used a carbon-arc and hundreds of mirrors and lenses.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:LEDs by mrbobjoe · · Score: 1

      I was at least pleased that the lights aren't electronically controlled, all just showing through slits in the various wheels. But yeah, the particular choice of lighting isn't too great. Though it does take 60 W...

    2. Re:LEDs by duffel · · Score: 3, Informative

      He blew it. He sould at least have used a carbon-arc and hundreds of mirrors and lenses.

      Would you find solace in the fact that the LEDs are always illuminated, and only let light through when slits in a wheel align?

    3. Re:LEDs by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Funny

      No. Best would be hundreds of oil lamps. Gas lamps might be acceptable as long as they used coal gas. Limelight might be acceptable.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:LEDs by Prune · · Score: 1

      The face plate was made by exploding a steel sheet to a mold underwater. This also happens to be one of the most advanced mechanical clocks in existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Clock

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  17. Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I thought it was going to demonstrate some sort of amazing breakthrough in physics.

    Talk about a time eater, this post just ate my five minutes.

  18. Jim Henson would be jealous by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This clock would have fit right in with the sets for The Dark Crystal.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  19. I'm just disappointed... by nuttycom · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... that the inventor isn't named "Reg"

    1. Re:I'm just disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's not like Jeremy would have comfortable with a clock that's only accurate every five minutes.

  20. Re:It's art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well duh, after being submitted to digg and reddit about a hundred times, the people who just copy and paste entries from there to slashdot would follow suit. It just takes longer for slashdot to post the queue.

  21. Nice timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok about 10 seconds after listening to Captian Picard tell Will Riker that someone said that time was a destroyer, but he believes time is a companion that goes with us (Star Trek Generations). I take a look at /. and look what i see.

    "I [...] wanted to depict that time is a destroyer â" once a minute is gone you can't get it back".

  22. "Time Eater" by mcbutterbuns · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on, this is slashdot. Do we need to articles about how to waste even more time?

  23. Because /. Nerds Worship Hawking as God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They worship Hawking because Hawking believes in time travel. Slashdot nerds love all that Star-Trek physics crap. ahahaha...

    1. Re:Because /. Nerds Worship Hawking as God by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      no, we worship him cos he is the ultimate nerd, all he does is sit in a chair behind a computer all day. He never even gets up, he only moves 1 muscle to control his computer, he even communicates entirely through his computer all the time, that is something we can only aspire to.

    2. Re:Because /. Nerds Worship Hawking as God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mere god? How limited.

  24. Re:It's art. by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    I dunno. I'm not one for the idle crap, but I kind of like this.

    I suppose it's the same reason /. discusses Anathem. Not exactly pertaining to linux or science, but still an interesting bit of info likely to appeal to people interested in nerdy stuff.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  25. one every five minutes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing in the video or the story indicates that the clock is only accurate once every five minutes. Where does that claim come from?

    In fact, it appears that the clock is constantly accurate just like any "standard" clock.

    1. Re:one every five minutes?? by Tyger · · Score: 2, Informative

      The clock only tells the correct time once every 5 minutes. The rest of the time it can run fast, slow, pause, etc. You can see this in the video near the beginning where it slows down very drastically, or near the end when it chimes the hour and is just going back and forth a few times before advancing.

    2. Re:one every five minutes?? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      A running mechanical clock is correct never. A stopped mechanical clock is correct twice each day. Some would say a stopped clock is more accurate, and Einstein might agree.

      Despite the obvious absurdity, I would have included works for geologic and astronomical time so the clock could (absent wear) show the correct time from The Beginning to The End. It would suit my Absurd Limit theory.

      A clock that symbolically destroys current moments as the moving hand writes is outside both Einstein's philosophy and his works. Attaching his name to it does him an injustice. That "The moving hand writes and having writ, moves on" does not imply that the moment that just was exists no more. That moment travels out subjectively from its origin to the end of the universe at the speed of light at least. Some would say, and with this Einstein might demur, the moment that was not has some existence too, in some place we cannot see. With this last Schroedinger might agree. The difference could be argued by Cant and Liebowitz.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  26. Fry hole by nickthisname · · Score: 1

    Damn, I remember when this joint had drunken robot jokes. Damn kids! Get off my lawn!

  27. Salad fingers? by Joao · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does the guy the the Youtube video sound exactly like Salad Fingers?

  28. Your guarantee... by msauve · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've got a Rb oscillator (and Efratom FRS, easily found for less than $200), which I will guarantee is much more accurate than any mechanical timekeeper. Stability of +- 1e-10/yr., which is better than 3 ms the first year, 6, the second, etc.

    There's nothing in the article to indicate what it uses as a timebase, except a comment about an "electric motor." AC line frequency, the same as my bedroom alarm clock? European line frequency can vary by seconds per day.

    Exactly what was your "guarantee," because I think you owe me.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Your guarantee... by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "There's nothing in the article to indicate what it uses as a timebase, except a comment about an "electric motor." AC line frequency, the same as my bedroom alarm clock?"

      The base is the grasshopper escapement, the entire point of the clock, what it commemorates, and what the article is all about. The motor is used to wind the clock's spring, which is released from tension at a steady rate by the swinging of the escapement.

      And because you didn't RTFA in your effort to be a smart-ass, you've come out looking like a dumb-ass for not understanding the concept of a pendulum clock. This right here is an indicator of why the "technology" tag is appropriate for this: people here (such as yourself) don't know how it works.

    2. Re:Your guarantee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sucker and his $200 are soon parted...

  29. Re:It's art. by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    News for the tasteless, kitsch that matters.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  30. Only a chauvinist would say this clock isn't tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It does appear to use blue leds - But there is no circuitry to control their 'flashing'.

    This clock is a masterpiece of mechanical engineering.

    The time is displayed with the lights by rotating a series of annular overlapping disks which have slots in them. The slots are precisely engineered in a "vernier" fashion, so they don't all line up at once, but only as the clock very subtly moves. There isn't a "seconds" hand, rather there is a "hand" that seems to rotate around the entire clock once per second, and it purely shows the rotation of the fastest outer annulus, with which the grasshopper escarpment engages.

    The thing is, if this were purely "art" then it wouldn't work.

    You're forgetting that all technologies are "art".

    The defining feature that makes such things be labelled as tech rather than art is that tech works.

    Tech doesn't just refer to "electronic". In fact if this clock were electronic, it would be one hell of a lot less impressive.

    This clock works, (perhaps with a "bug" or two...) therefore it is tech. It doesn't "cop out" and use cheap and easy electronics, therefore it is impressive. It's designer shows he can make mechanical assemblies with such precision that it's dynamic motion can be used to keep time - a skill which is becoming rapidly lost with our current state of cheap electronics from China.

    Is is Important Tech? Perhaps not, unless some circumstance conspires to require precise timekeeping in say an environment where electronics dare not go. Maybe some day we might need clocks that work near a lot of high energy ionising radiation, who knows.

  31. Unfortauntely I just missed it by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I was annoyed that I forgot about this. I even walked about one street away from the unveiling near the time but I just wasn't thinking.

    I'm going to take a look at it Monday on my way to work. It looks quite cool in the videos I've seen.

  32. Sorry if you want to know about time eaters by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Funny

    you actually can get the minutes back by reversing time.

    There are real time eaters out there, they exist beyond three dimensions and exist in several dimensional space. If you saw how they really look, you'd go insane like I did when I first saw them.

    First learn about super strings and then we can discuss how the universe and multiverse actually work. Hawking got a lot of things wrong, the Hawking paradox was but one of them and the information and matter and energy does not simply disappear, it ends up in a different dimension. One you Terrans have not discovered yet. But keep guessing, you'll find it eventually and then learn how to reverse time.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Sorry if you want to know about time eaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're out of your fucking mind. Saw time eaters, did you? Didn't happen to be drinking a bottle of mommy's Robitussin at the time you had that little revelation by any chance? Or are you just some worthless fucking schizo who hasn't taken his meds?

  33. do you sence the Irony by Ryogo · · Score: 0

    do you get the Irony. The article said every minute passes is a minute you won't get back. this just took a minute out of my life. oh, the Irony... it kills us all

  34. The proper owner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This belongs in Clive Barker's house.

    1. Re:The proper owner by w32jon · · Score: 1

      i'd like one of these in a garden or something

  35. Re:It's art. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Because it looks like one of those timepieces in Predator vs Alien, and some people are worried it's going to explode?

  36. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Steven Hawking might as well be Paris Hilton. He believes that time travel is possible because (he claims) it is not contradicted by Einstein's General Relativity"! Omg, just like Paris Hilton!

  37. Why is it only accurate every 5 minutes? by BobSixtyFour · · Score: 1

    Read the article, but don't quite understand why someone would make a clock that is so inaccurate?

    1. Re:Why is it only accurate every 5 minutes? by tgd · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, but my impression is that the clock keeps precise time, but the ability to accurately read it from the dial was sacrificed somewhat for artistic reasons. Once every five minutes you get an alignment that you can be entirely sure is the current time, in between its an approximation that works best for the effect of the motion, etc.

      That's the impression I got, at least, reading about the mechanism over the last couple of weeks.

  38. It also (purposely) only tells correct time... by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    ...once every 5 minutes? Pray tell, why would that be? Not being new here, I made a valiant effort to not RTFAs, only to be drawn in by this teaser and succumb to the wiliest of temptations. Yes, I RTFAs, but I am no more enlightened than before...

  39. We're sorry, this video is no longer available. by this+great+guy · · Score: 0

    I am really pissed of: Youtube has removed the video. Anyone has a mirror ? How come it always happen to me. 80% of the Youtube videos people send are taken down before i have time to watch them.

    1. Re:We're sorry, this video is no longer available. by martinw89 · · Score: 1

      It's working for me. Are you using http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHO1JTNPPOU?

    2. Re:We're sorry, this video is no longer available. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I put a copy of the video here for you for a while. Hurry up and get it before that server gets slashdotted.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    3. Re:We're sorry, this video is no longer available. by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      Bizarely the video works from one of my other machines running Firefox 2.0.0.14, but not from my machine running Firefox 1.5.0.13. I tracked down the pb to a 403 Forbidden reply received from a *.googlevideo.com server for the URL http://v21.cache.googlevideo.com/get_video?video_id=pHO1JTNPPOU&origin=mia-v232.mia.youtube.com&signature=... Now go figure why one gets a 403 while the other streams the video just fine. I don't have time to debug youtube's website and their architecture make it difficult anyway (see the signature=xxx parmeter in the query string).

    4. Re:We're sorry, this video is no longer available. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      They have some of the craziest URLs on YouTube that I have seen. I can only imagine the huge nightmare of that design.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  40. you would probably prerfer news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with no imagination

  41. Like a fool... by msauve · · Score: 1, Informative

    you jump to conclusions. Yes, it has an escapement. An escapement is just a mechanism to link the movement to something with periodicity. No, there isn't anything in the article to indicate that it is pendulum driven, or (as I said) exactly what it uses as a timebase.

    Escapement timepieces without pendulums are common (e.g. most any mechanical wristwatch, which uses a balance wheel), people have corrected pendulums with atomic sources (typically using magnetics to delay or accelerate the pendulum).

    It is actually you who are playing the smart ass, since you're obviously unaware of the full range of timekeeping mechanisms.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Like a fool... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "No, there isn't anything in the article to indicate that it is pendulum driven,"

      It's not pendulum driven, it's spring driven, as mentioned at 4:02 in the linked YouTube video. The pendulum only regulates the release of the tension in the spring.

      And if you click on the linked Wikipedia article, which has a direct link to this particular clock, you'll find that

      The Corpus Clock's clockwork is entirely mechanically controlled, without any computer programming, and electricity is used only to power an electric motor, which winds up the mechanism, and to power the blue LEDs that shine behind the slits in the clock's face.

      "An escapement is just a mechanism to link the movement to something with periodicity."

      Like, say, the bob swinging underneath the clock?

    2. Re:Like a fool... by Prune · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. A simple consult of Wikipedia would have told you the timebase is provided by a pendulum (and it wouldn't have made sense to expect anything else) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Clock

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  42. some of the effects are technically interesting by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I mean, fundamentally, a giant mechanical clock with a large escapement on the outside functioning as both sculpture and working escapement is kind of cool, technologically.

    Some of the variations that make this an art piece are also interesting technologically, though I haven't seen them all explained, mostly the ways it varies from operating in a purely predictable way "like clockwork". For example, the pendulum sometimes appears to catch slightly, the time lags backwards, then races ahead, etc.

  43. Antique clocks by Sam36 · · Score: 0

    If you like that clock you might also like antique pendulum wall clocks. I got into them a few years ago. There is just something about full mechanical clocks driven by weights. Ebay is a good starting place, something like these: http://tiny.cc/V5orM http://tiny.cc/vRuF7 http://tiny.cc/tFp5h

  44. Faster than the speed of light by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Notice how the intersection of the slots "moves" at a rate faster than the actual movement of the material having the slots. Now imagine something containing those slots moving at a speed approaching the speed of light relative to another stationary thing like it. You are located near the end the slot intersections are approaching. But from your perspective, the slot intersections would appear to be going away from you because the nearer intersection events arrive first.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  45. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by spazdor · · Score: 1

    AC, I don't understand your use of the word "move" in the context of a spacetime object. When looking at Einstein's block universe, all "time travel" means is that a particular world-line is not a monoparametric function of t.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  46. right... by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 1

    you mean, they could have at least made it a perpetual motion machine? automatic mechanical clocks are only available in watches because they are wound by an internal mechanism that is spun by very slight movements

    1. Re:right... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      The clock could have been put on a mounting which would have been slightly jostled by the foot traffic of passers by.

    2. Re:right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and use the same exact mechanism as the watches use in your clock.

    3. Re:right... by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 1

      if it could work, that would be amazing. i'm not sure that foot traffic would generate enough movement to wind the spring. :shrug: that also makes me wonder if larger clocks use scaled mechanisms... to google!

  47. Re:Only a chauvinist would say this clock isn't te by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > It doesn't "cop out" and use cheap and easy electronics, therefore it is
    > impressive.

    It "cops out" by using LEDs instead of doing something clever with mirrors and sunlight or similar. They're an ugly anachronism.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  48. Re:Only a chauvinist would say this clock isn't te by tgd · · Score: 1

    Its a clock going on a building... that has to be readable at night...

    Mirrors and sunlight won't hack it.

    Cool, maybe, but this is a case of an engineer actually knowing, designing and building to the requirements, not what is cool.

  49. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by symbolset · · Score: 1

    "Steven Hawking might as well be Paris Hilton. He believes that time travel is possible because (he claims) it is not contradicted by Einstein's General Relativity"

    Uh, cite?

    Oh, and BTW... Stephen Hawking is so often right and others wrong that if he believes in the possibility of time travel I'm willing to take his word for it in the absence of contrary evidence.

    And yes: He's admitted he was wrong before. More the better.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  50. Usual caveats seem to apply by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    The rotating cylinder, while an improvement in some respects, suffers from the same limitation as all other relativity compatible time travel schemes. You can only navigate to points in space time occupied by (certain areas of) the rotating cylinder. So while it would be cool to start one of these up, and maybe someone from the future could come out of it (unless future Luddites destroy it), it won't help to go back and change history.

    And of course there is the usual practical caveat - the sheer size of the mass and energy required to try it out with humans. I have always maintained that time travel researchers need to forget about macroscopic time travel for a while - and focus on nano time travel. If a nano-scale time travel device capable of conducting photons or other particles can be constructed (a big if) - it can be done within reachable energy budgets for today. And information time travel would be amazing enough. Keep it secret and play the stock market to fund future development.

    Of course, how do you know you can trust whoever is communicating with you through the device from the future? Maybe they want to ruin you to prevent the catastrophe caused by your device!

    1. Re:Usual caveats seem to apply by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Interesting ideas, but just to let you know there will be electro-magnetic fields a human being will pass through with such a device that would stop the heart and fry the brain unless it was properly shielded. When anything goes through an Einstein-Rosen Bridge, you have to properly shield it. Once you uncover the grand unified theory and prove that, you will discover how to shield against electro-magnetic fields to prevent damage. Another way is to convert the matter into energy, pass it through such a device, and then convert the energy back into matter after passing through, much like those Star Trek transporter technology if you don't mind your molecules being taken apart and put back together.

      Black holes are not really black, there is a nano aspect to them in the lower dimensions that does not resemble a singularity as is commonly thought, and in some cases they are nicknamed as time eaters because they eat time and space as well as matter and energy, but regurgitate it back up in a different dimension as the Super Nova or high gravity that caused it to form punched a hole in our universe to a different universe or dimension, and the black hole appears hungry and eats all matter, energy, time, and space, to the observer, and the other end is somewhere else where everything it ate comes out eventually.

      Paranoia is a survival trait, but how does a person from the future know they can trust someone in the past to not change things so their future won't exist anymore? Trust is a two-way street.

      Still Chronodymanics and Chrononaughts haven't been developed or thought up yet, as this century is still stifled by atheistic and secular scientists who lack the imagination and do not even believe that such science or technology is possible and don't believe in the nano dimensions or other universes or dimensions, so they force their "version" of the Truth(TM) on us that nothing exists outside of our universe and that there are only three dimensions and completely ignore space and time as dimensions, ignore Spinosa and Einstein's theories on God and all the work on it that Hawking based on Einstein and Spinosa's work in "A Brief History of Time which explains the scientific theories that came from Christianity and religion and what God really is and the universe. That makes this modern science with a very myoptic "caveman" view of reality. But we are learning new information every year.

      Ironically 4000 to 6000 years ago some of the beings who helped our civilizations gave knowledge of the universe and it was to be a user's manual for the "program" our machine (universe) runs but it got easily confused for religion when it was actually science and all of the parts the people 4000+ years ago couldn't understand rejected it and rewrote it so it made more sense to their "cavemen" mentality, but the philisophies and theories came to form ancient science and moved away from "magic" as alchemy evolved into chemistry, astrology evolved into astronomy, theology evolved into physics, etc and we got modern science thanks to the Aztecs, Babylonians, Jewish people, early Christians (Monks in a Monastery came up with scientific theories before Newton did).

      God is a time traveler, he traveled back to the past to become his own son, and then traveled back to the beginning of time and became his father, and then traveled again and became the holy spirit, and has tried to change history for the good of humanity. In the original time line, Hitler won WWII, but God changed that, yet in doing so other bad things had happened, but not as bad as Nazi Germany controlling the entire world. This universe is an accident, really, The Devil worked for God and thought he could do a better job but started a war in Heaven that created this universe, and God has been cleaning things up every since. Since The Devil stole some of God's ideas, but flawed them, Jesus had to be born to try and fix things and set us back on the right path. We are all part of a program and don't know it.

      Not everyone will believe me, most will

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Usual caveats seem to apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most would call you insane or crazy because it's TRUE, you fucking schizoid maniac. Take your meds and stop posting on public forums for fuck's sake, people like you don't belong in normal society. You need to be locked up in a rubber room where you and your fucking retarded fantasies about being from the future are far, far away from being a danger to anyone around you. Better yet, hang yourself and save us the tax dollars. No one will miss you, you're probably a burden to anyone who has to be around you.

  51. John Harrison: Greatest Unsung Hero Ever by gelfling · · Score: 2, Informative

    John Harrison's story chronicled in "Longitude" is the story of the greatest unsung hero of science and engineering since the Renaissance. Working on his own for nearly 50 years and in the face of fanatical opposition of the Board of Longitude Society he singlehandedly invented modern chronongraphy and all the particular horological advancements required up through the invention of electronic time pieces. To that end he solved the longitude problem which directly lead to British Naval supremacy as well as all commercial shipping and the advent of safe ocean passage without loss of life or cargo.

    1. Re:John Harrison: Greatest Unsung Hero Ever by Sparkio · · Score: 1

      Great book, great man. The idea that the invention of a more accurate timepiece could transform such a well established art is really thought provoking.

  52. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not matter what time parameter you use to describe motion, t or tau. Neither can change. Why? Because, if you use tau to parametrize t, you must be prepared to show how tau can change because time is time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To show a change in tau, you must use a meta-tau and a meta-meta-tau for the meta-tau, ad infinitum. No bueno.

    And no, you cannot use t to parametrize tau as a way to show that tau can change because that would be circular. I do note that you agree with me that spacetime is Einstein's block universe, as Popper and other thinkers (stupid Slashdot moderators are excluded from that group, ahahaha...) have correctly pointed out. Nothing can change in a block universe by definition, so why talk of time travel? It does not make any sense.

    Mod me down if you worship the little con artist in the wheechair. And see if I care. ahahaha...

  53. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by spazdor · · Score: 1

    All you're doing is taking "change", like what is implicit when we talk about time, and reinterpreting it from a variable to a locus of its values over its entire domain.

    There's a neat bit in Godel, Escher, Bach that illustrates this concept nicely, where he's got a picture of a dragon, which is cut up and folded into a 3d thing, and then a photo is taken of that 3d thing, and that photo is in turn cut and folded.

    But in order for "time travel" to take place, all you need is a loop-de-loop shaped world-line. That world-line doesn't need to "move" in any meta-time sense.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  54. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in order for "time travel" to take place, all you need is a loop-de-loop shaped world-line. That world-line doesn't need to "move" in any meta-time sense.

    There can be no motion along a world line. What the fuck is wrong with you? You're talking out of your ass. I don't feel like arguing with a time-travel idiot right now. See ya. ahahaha...

  55. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, cite?

    Sure. Here it is from Hawking's own site, emphasis added:

    Since we can't change the way the universe began, the question of whether time travel is possible, is one of whether we can subsequently make space-time so warped, that one can go back to the past. I think this is an important subject for research, but one has to be careful not to be labeled a crank. If one made a research grant application to work on time travel, it would be dismissed immediately. No government agency could afford to be seen to be spending public money, on anything as way out as time travel. Instead, one has to use technical terms, like closed time like curves, which are code for time travel. Although this lecture is partly about time travel, I felt I had to give it the scientifically more respectable title, Space and Time warps. Yet, it is a very serious question. Since General Relativity can permit time travel, does it allow it in our universe? And if not, why not.

    As any relativist worth his/her Phd can tell you, GR does not permit time travel. Why? Because spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Why? Because time cannot change by definition and simple logic. IOW, Hawking is full of shit. He does not understand the very theory he's supposed to be an expert in. Why should we take the crackpot's word about his other crap, black holes, etc.

    Oh, and BTW... Stephen Hawking is so often right and others wrong that if he believes in the possibility of time travel I'm willing to take his word for it in the absence of contrary evidence.

    The evidence is right in your face but you are too stupid to see it. Here goes, ahahaha... You are a fucking moron, a gutless ass kisser, a boot licker, a sycophant, a believer in Star-trek voodoo physics and a Hawking dingleberry. ahahaha... You deserve every piece of crap that comes out of Hawking's asshole. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

  56. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by symbolset · · Score: 2, Informative

    The evidence is right in your face but you are too stupid to see it. Here goes, ahahaha... You are a fucking moron, a gutless ass kisser, a boot licker, a sycophant, a believer in Star-trek voodoo physics and a Hawking dingleberry. ahahaha... You deserve every piece of crap that comes out of Hawking's asshole. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

    Excuse me. I think you may have lost your train of thought here. I would suggest you check your meds.

    General relativity does not consider - neither allow nor permit "time travel." To suppose it does so would be to presume that some specific mathematical theory could encompass and deny evey possible interpretation of that term, which would be ridiculous - in the definition of "made an object of ridicule".

    As any relativist worth his/her Phd can tell you, GR does not permit time travel. ...

    Did you know that you can get a Phd in underwater basketweaving? Our current education system is broken and measuring what is true or not based on which degrees are offered or what grants you can get regarding the subject is perhaps naive.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  57. Corpus Clock by Xfacter · · Score: 0

    DOODILY DING DONG, TICK TOCK
    DOODILY DING DONG, TICK TOCK
    DOODILY DING DONG, TICK TOCK
    DOODILY DING DONG, TICK TOCK
    DOODILY DING DONG, TICK TOCK

    Dethklok!
    Dethklok!
    Dethklok!
    Dethklok!

    I'm... ticking... for... the...
    Dethklok!
    Dethklok!

    Skwisgaar Skwigelf taller than a tree,
    Toki Wartooth not a bumblebee,
    William Murderface Murderface Murderface,
    Pickles the Drummer doodily doo ding dong doodily doodily doo,
    Nathan Explosion.

    from the hammers of the hellspawn, to the deep dark cliffs of the underworld, there lies a horrible thing, THE DETHKLOK

    We're Serious!

  58. Longitude by Sparkio · · Score: 1

    The story of John Harrison and the accurate timepiece is actually really interesting - I'd strongly recommend the book Longitude for people interested in the history of technology.

  59. Chef Goes Nanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol you guys sound like the people in South Park when Chef goes nanners about their flag depicting a black guy being hanged. When asked about it they go:

    Man 4: [angry] Well, I think the flag is racist! [turns pensive] Huh, but then again, it is part of our history.
    Man 5: Well, I guess the flag is part of history, ...but I can see how it is racist.
    Man 6: [flatly, slowly] I think it is history. I think it is racist.

  60. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me.

    Uh, No.

  61. omg steven hawking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAMN IT FOOL

    this is the second time I see steVen hawking on this site instead of stePHen

    is this a site for nerds or what? have you ever read anything by dr hawking?

    this suxx!

  62. the problem is the name by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    how is it keeping time while eating itself? i find it hard to understand

    "Time Eater" is a very misleading name. It should really be called a CLOCK GOBBLER.

    1. Re:the problem is the name by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

      You know, I read your comment and it was only when I had scrolled out a couple of posts that I reacted.

      +1, coke-out-the-nose funny

    2. Re:the problem is the name by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      +1, coke-out-the-nose funny

      Heh, you really shouldn't be snorting coke at work anyway ;)

  63. Re:obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not only that, he wants to rape middle-aged white women like Sarah Palin.

  64. Needs some Naphthalene. by aqk · · Score: 1

    It may be found about 400 light-years from here.
    Guaranteed to kill any time-eating grasshopper. Or moth.
    .

  65. the name by Burz · · Score: 1

    At 120 Watts, it should be called the "Energy Gobbler" instead.

    1. Re:the name by Sebilrazen · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Time Eater" is a very misleading name. It should really be called a CLOCK GOBBLER.

      At 120 Watts, it should be called the "Energy Gobbler" instead.

      Apparently the sound it makes when the programmable alarm goes off is:

      "Whooooooosh!"

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  66. The Langoliers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112040/

    and this too!

    http://www.vincentguastiniproductions.com/LANGO1.jpg

    Real scary man!!! I gotta get some sleep. Whoops!! I'm at work, shit!!!

  67. You soooo wrong but maybe your right!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.vincentguastiniproductions.com/LANGO1.jpg

    I shit my pants and ran like hell. Although the solution was to allow the weed to wear-off thus letting my mental state to re-sync itself in normal time. Stay away from fucking brownies!!!!!!

  68. Re:It's art. by gigne · · Score: 1

    If you look superficially at the whole clock, it could be seen as a dubious art piece. If you looks closer at the workings, it is art and technology. The grasshopper escapement is very interesting mechanically and beautifully simple. The vernier slits in the rotating dics, which are used to allow the led light out at the correct time is very clever.
    As a nerd I found this very very interesting and worthy of publication.

    Are we only allowed to appreciate future technology, or can we be awe-stuck with the technological marvels of the past?

    --
    Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
  69. Don't wake them for this either: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "which in entirely mechanical in operation but has no hands"

  70. Meanwhile, many children are still starving ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we continue to squander and waste lavishly.

    Way to go, you overly affluent, first world upper-classers!

  71. Oh Goody by naich · · Score: 1

    This is on my route to work. Another bloody gaggle of tourists standing in the road for me to try to avoid mowing down with my bike.

  72. Re:Hawking Is a Time Travel-Believing Crackpot by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    One of my Dads physicist friends said of Hawking "he's never done enough original work to justify his reputation. He's just a populariser of other people's work. People only worship him because he looks like Davros".

    Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!

    What I like about this story is a tribute to John Harrison, one of the many smart people that Newton tried to destroy professionally.

    Hawking who has Newton's job at Cambridge and wrote a great essay about Newton's nastiness

    http://www.bluekaffee.com/topicview.php?post=1628670

    So in an odd sort of way he's apologising to Harrison for being screwed by a previous Lucasian Professor. It's like the Vatican apologising to Galileo.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  73. AAAAAA First Post, alphanumerically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AAAAAA Does this count as a First Post, then?

  74. Erm... by Samah · · Score: 1
    From TFA's video clip:

    Cannot play media. Sorry, this media is not available in your territory.

    WTF???

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  75. Which makes... by msauve · · Score: 1
    your claim...

    Without external communications capabilities (e.g. WWVB or NTP), I guarantee you that this clock keeps more accurate time than any timepiece you've ever owned.

    ...all the more ridiculous.

    Pendulum accuracy tops out about 1 s/month, unless it's a Shortt mechanism. Well designed quartz watches can do better.

    Your attempt at using a red herring to distract attention from your incorrect and unsupported statement fails.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  76. ok.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care... It's probably a cool clock and all, but I just want to see some new physics. Keep this for high-society-UK section of slashdot plz.

  77. Time wasted. by jobst · · Score: 1

    If we keep on wasting time (and our energy) with stupid and useless applications like this there will be nothing left in the near future to waste our time with.

    --
    to code or not to code, that is the question.
  78. Re:It's art. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    Note my nickname. I'm the one who submitted the article and I do not read either Digg or Reddit. I saw an article in my local paper, thought it might be something that Slashdot readers would like and wrote up a summary with links to the BBC Web site and YouTube. All copy-and-paste stuff was in quotes.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  79. Hmm by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    A big flashy mostly useless clock made out of gold that only tells accurate time once every 5 minutes and the rest of the time just makes noise? You sure this thing is English? Sounds more French to me.