![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Account of this edit was suspended for vandalism and there are some unfinished sentences but has added what appears to me some good info http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anchor_escapement&oldid=212238546
The article states that the way to tell if a clock has an Anchor escapement is to observe the second hand. If it moves bacwards a little during each cycle then the ascapement is an Anchor escapement. However, the article on the Verge escapement says that the same observed bacward movement shows that the escapement is a Verge escapement. Thus the method must be wrong (on both articles). 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing the difference between the anchor and the deadbeat. They are a slightly different shape; is this really the entire difference? -- Doradus ( talk) 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO it would be helpful to understand the difference between anchor and deadbeat if there was a simple drawing overlapping the shapes of the pallets and escapement teeth. Perhaps some force vectors might help too.
What happened to Chetvorno's SVG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"When the deadbeat was invented, clockmakers initially believed it had inferior isochronism to the anchor, because of the greater effect of changes in force on the pendulum's amplitude." -- This is TRUE. Deadbeat escapements are very rarely found in spring-driven movements. The only way to solve the mentioned problem is to apply a constant force, as provided by a weight-driven clock. Coiled springs do not give constant force at all, which makes the deadbeat escapement very inaccurate. -- 94.208.42.4 ( talk) 11:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating information about the Tekippe clock, Boettcher, and the cancellation of circular error was an important point to add. It should probably be mentioned that, at least by the 19th century, clockmakers were aware of the cancellation, and used it in anchor regulators until the deadbeat took over. I'll see if I can find a source. -- Chetvorno TALK 17:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The article states that the earliest invention of the anchor escapement was in 1657, in Britain. However, the first pendulum clock was built in the same year, and made use of a verge escapement. I find it hard to believe that the invention could have followed so soon, especially because there was only one person (Salomon de Coster) who was allowed to build pendulum clocks as per Huygens' patent. The sources given do not seem very professional to me either, I suggest further research is done in this direction.-- 145.118.160.65 ( talk) 12:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The use of the term "backlash" on this page is not how I as an engineer understand it, or how it is explained in the referenced Wiki page.
Backlash is the name of an effect that can result from small imperfections in the way that gears or screws fit together. If components don't fit together exactly, then when a motion is reversed, backlash can occur. For example, if a screw is being turned to advance a nut, e.g. in a lathe cross slide, and the screw is then turned in the opposite direction, the screw may have to turn a way before clearance between the thread of the screw and those of the nut is taken up and the nut starts to advance in the opposite direction; that is backlash. Backlash can be prevented by either very precise engineering, such as in a micrometer, or by loading the parts so that they always remain in contact, such as if a spring is used to hold a screw and nut together.
In a clock the components are held together by the force of the weights or the mainspring. During recoil the train reverses a little and the weights are lifted slightly, or the mainspring pushed backwards a little, but the same faces of the teeth on the wheels and pinions remain in contact with each other, they are held in contact by the force of the weights or mainspring, and therefore backlash in the sense that I understand it does not occur.
David.Boettcher 18:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Boettcher ( talk • contribs)
The 1669 measurement without reference is given as 39.1 inches (990mm). But 39.1 inches is not equal to 990mm. I don't know which is right or how to look it up. The 1672 measurement of 39.09 inches (993mm) converts ok, but I could'nt access the book on my phone. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can fix this. Thanks! 24.156.181.13 ( talk) 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Account of this edit was suspended for vandalism and there are some unfinished sentences but has added what appears to me some good info http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anchor_escapement&oldid=212238546
The article states that the way to tell if a clock has an Anchor escapement is to observe the second hand. If it moves bacwards a little during each cycle then the ascapement is an Anchor escapement. However, the article on the Verge escapement says that the same observed bacward movement shows that the escapement is a Verge escapement. Thus the method must be wrong (on both articles). 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing the difference between the anchor and the deadbeat. They are a slightly different shape; is this really the entire difference? -- Doradus ( talk) 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO it would be helpful to understand the difference between anchor and deadbeat if there was a simple drawing overlapping the shapes of the pallets and escapement teeth. Perhaps some force vectors might help too.
What happened to Chetvorno's SVG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"When the deadbeat was invented, clockmakers initially believed it had inferior isochronism to the anchor, because of the greater effect of changes in force on the pendulum's amplitude." -- This is TRUE. Deadbeat escapements are very rarely found in spring-driven movements. The only way to solve the mentioned problem is to apply a constant force, as provided by a weight-driven clock. Coiled springs do not give constant force at all, which makes the deadbeat escapement very inaccurate. -- 94.208.42.4 ( talk) 11:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating information about the Tekippe clock, Boettcher, and the cancellation of circular error was an important point to add. It should probably be mentioned that, at least by the 19th century, clockmakers were aware of the cancellation, and used it in anchor regulators until the deadbeat took over. I'll see if I can find a source. -- Chetvorno TALK 17:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The article states that the earliest invention of the anchor escapement was in 1657, in Britain. However, the first pendulum clock was built in the same year, and made use of a verge escapement. I find it hard to believe that the invention could have followed so soon, especially because there was only one person (Salomon de Coster) who was allowed to build pendulum clocks as per Huygens' patent. The sources given do not seem very professional to me either, I suggest further research is done in this direction.-- 145.118.160.65 ( talk) 12:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The use of the term "backlash" on this page is not how I as an engineer understand it, or how it is explained in the referenced Wiki page.
Backlash is the name of an effect that can result from small imperfections in the way that gears or screws fit together. If components don't fit together exactly, then when a motion is reversed, backlash can occur. For example, if a screw is being turned to advance a nut, e.g. in a lathe cross slide, and the screw is then turned in the opposite direction, the screw may have to turn a way before clearance between the thread of the screw and those of the nut is taken up and the nut starts to advance in the opposite direction; that is backlash. Backlash can be prevented by either very precise engineering, such as in a micrometer, or by loading the parts so that they always remain in contact, such as if a spring is used to hold a screw and nut together.
In a clock the components are held together by the force of the weights or the mainspring. During recoil the train reverses a little and the weights are lifted slightly, or the mainspring pushed backwards a little, but the same faces of the teeth on the wheels and pinions remain in contact with each other, they are held in contact by the force of the weights or mainspring, and therefore backlash in the sense that I understand it does not occur.
David.Boettcher 18:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Boettcher ( talk • contribs)
The 1669 measurement without reference is given as 39.1 inches (990mm). But 39.1 inches is not equal to 990mm. I don't know which is right or how to look it up. The 1672 measurement of 39.09 inches (993mm) converts ok, but I could'nt access the book on my phone. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can fix this. Thanks! 24.156.181.13 ( talk) 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)