Talk:Striking clock

Time Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

"Striking clocks are the chief reason why a 12-hour clock is in general use, as opposed to a 24-hour clock; a clock that rang 24 times at midnight would be inconvenient both to build and to understand correctly. "

I'm not convinced that this is true, and I think it gives the wrong impression too. Most of the early clocks in the 14th century did have 24 hour striking, as far as we can tell, and appeared to be popular enough at the time. Here's a very famous quote, one of the very earliest references to any clock doing anything. [The famous clock of the Beata Vergine (later San Gottardo) in Milan, built around 1330, was one of the earliest to strike a bell a number of times to tell the time (not just striking once on the hour). In 1335, Galvano Fiamma writes:] "There is there a wonderful clock, because there is a very large clapper which strikes a bell 24 times according to the 24 hours of the day and night, and thus at the first hour of the night gives one sound, at the second two strokes, and so distinguishes one hour from another, which is of greatest use to men of every degree."

Plainly, therefore, 24 hour striking wasn't too inconvenient or too difficult for the citizens of Milan in 1335. Perhaps a rewrite to something like this:

"Early clocks may have struck up to 24 strokes, particularly in Italy, where the 24 hour clock, keeping Italian hours, was widely used in the 14th and 15th centuries. The 12 hour clock, and 12 hour striking, became more popular, particularly in Northern Europe and England." Cormullion 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited in line with above comments - see Landes etc. Cormullion 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information: I uploaded a good number of pictures and videos regarding striking clocks and their mechanisms. If they are usefull to you, you can find them on commons, either http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Clocks or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HNH . --84.56.110.137 (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vs. Chiming

A chiming clock typically plays four notes at a quarter after the hour, eight notes at two quarters after the hour (half past), twelve notes at a three quarter after the hour, and sixteen notes on the hour. After the hour chime (or after four quarters), the clock strikes the hours. There is a difference between strike and chime. On the hour - it first chimes 4 times and then you hear a "bong" to count out the actual hour of the day. I replaced "strike" with "chime" where appropriate. Also reworded the electronic chiming and striking. The simulated sounds do not attempt to imitate the mechanical strikes and chimes, it does imitate them. Possibly not well, but it does imitate them. JackOL31 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com material

Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]