Talk:Flip clock

message: This article needs a diagram of the analog mechanism that drives the digit wheels.
:I agree. It would certainly be useful here. 67.10.111.125 17:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a digram of a flip mechanism from an analog-digital clock. Epolk 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram request 

message: Electronic is not equivalent to digital!!! Tube radios are electronic, e.g.
This article is a farce. It should be deleted. It is based on bogus information from the howstuffworks site. 
The following statement from the article is wrong; it is a misnomer:
: "Analog clock with digital display / This type of clock is a variant of the digital clock that displayed time digitally but kept the time mechanically."
Does mechanical equal analog? Does electronic equal digital? The answer is NO. 
This is apparently a misnomer gotten from this Web page:
    http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-clock1.htm
If the clock uses an hour and minute hand, it is analog. If it displays the time in digits, it is digital. You can count the cycles in the 60 Hz electric power for either type of clock. Digital watches usually count the cycles of a vibrating crystal of quartz. That's mechanical! So would you say that digital watches are really analog? Of course not. Non-electronic digital clocks have been around for decades. Some computer programs display an analog clock, even though it is electronic in origin. You wouldn't call that a digital clock now, would you?
From www.m-w.com:
analog ... c: being a timepiece having hour and minute hands
digital ... 5: providing a readout in numerical digits <a digital voltmeter>
A voltmeter! What a great example to straighten this out. Both analog and digital voltmeters read a voltage between two points (analog!!!) yet the digital one shows the result digitally (using a single numeric display) whilst the analog one moves a pointer across a scale. THAT is the difference between analog and digital. The clock pictured in this article is a digital clock. In fact, as I said above, it probably gets its "time source" by measuring the 60 Hz of the alternating current supplying the clock (actually probably by using a synchronous motor). Funny, so do many analog clocks!
Yes, this misnomer in the article (quoted above) is from a "reference", but not a very good one!!!
I think the howstuffworks site should be banned as a reference for Wikipedia. It is a pain to read and is chock full of ads and apparently some articles are outright wrong (at least for this!).
This article is entirely bogus and should be deleted immediately and the digital clock article corrected to not include this nonsense.
AEF 72.68.10.176 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite the rant.  The article is quite clear. And using the phrase "digital" to refer to such clocks is both technically correct and in common usage. You don't need microchips to make a timepiece that involves digits.  You might also be interested in the concept of a  digital sundial, an ingenious method of casting shadows in the shape of numbers depending on the angle of the incoming light. APL (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article confuses analog vs. digital with mechanical vs. electronic 

message: In addition to the problem of the hours and minutes not being mutally synchronised (presumably because of a lack of mentioned 'teeth' on some of the minute flaps), with some clocks, the minutes change with a detrimental noticeable tolerance to true timing, not just because of deficiencies of the timing mechanism (I am, here, of course, making the flap assembly distinct from, rather than part of, the rest of the mechanism), but because they are reliant upon retention of flaps by a small tooth overhanging the flaps; any flap that is shorter, even slightly, than what it should be will flip over prematurely; wearing down of this tooth will add to this, causing the minutes (the clock) to run faster and faster over time.  All of these problems could be dimished with an active, rather than passive, flipping of the flaps.
Also, the 'philosophical' debate on analogue and digital is another thing to get into a flap over; flippin' 'eck!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.126.190 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display Problems And The 'Philosophy' Of Analogue And Digital 

message: Flip cocks were apparently available as early as 1969- and were quite common by 1973 (I owned a popular 1973 GE clock radio model, and they were considered modern tech). LED clocks became available less than ten years later. Others with better knowledge of the history of portable clock displays, please contribute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needed.  

message: Why would a 24 hour clock not simply have 24 leaves?  Its been a long time but i cant say i ever noticed the hour digit flipping on the half hour so i'm questioning if this description is even correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  why 48 leaves?? 

message: The inability of some digital clocks to be manually set back is yet another passionate cry to abolish Daylight-Saving Time.  There's no longer any justification for it -- the war is over and factories no longer rely on natural light -- and there's just no reason to continue tolerating this obsolete and problematic custom.
This is not a recommendation to add rants about DST to the Flip_clock page. Drcampbell (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daylight-Saving Time