Talk:Escapement

Prof. Hall

Is there any information about Prof. Hall and his clock? The obituary quoted in the article is essentially content-free. "18 tons of concrete" isn't an interesting feature... and the alleged 0.01 seconds in 3 months would make it better than a Shortt clock. If that is true, it would be good to know how it was done; if there is no data perhaps it should be deleted as an unsupported tale. Paul Koning 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a technical article on the clock E. T. Hall (1996) The Littlemore Clock on NAWCC Horological Science website] with detailed results supporting the 0.01sec / 3 mo claim. I was most interested in Fig. 7B at the end, which compares results of precision clocks: chronometers, Riefler, Fedchenko, Shortt, and his - seeming to show that his beat them all. Also, apparently, the '18 tons of concrete' was important in getting the clock stable. However, this clock probably doesn't belong in an article on 'Escapement' since it was electromagnetically impulsed. --Chetvorno 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Interesting that he shows performance data for a number of other clocks. Shortt is shown as next best, and Fedchenko isn't nearly as good. Paul Koning 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for Fedchenko. I asked Google for help, but about the only real description I can find is a hobbyist reconstruction, which describes a mechanism that sounds fairly decent but is unlikely to be anywhere near as good as Shortt (and his measurements are reasonably good but not great, a few seconds per day). Paul Koning 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a Fedchenko clock for sale. The ad claims a precision of 0.001 sec/day. I also came across William Scolnik's Q1 that apparently has a stability of 300ms/year. Again, neither of these has a mechanical escapement. --Chetvorno 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The claim in the ad is just an unsupported claim. And the thing looks absurd -- a big pipe on a flimsy steel stand. Scolnik's clock looks interesting. So for now I believe that Hall's clock is real, and Fedchenko's clock is hype. Paul Koning 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Silicium escapement

A silicium escapement wheel is a revolutionary development in mechanical watchmaking. It does not require lubrication and is, in my humble opinion, superior to George Daniels Co-Axial Escapement. Such new development should not be deleted from the Escapement page. Please do not delete:

A major improvement is an escapement that does not require regular lubrication. Frédérique Constant of Geneva developped a mechanical movement that incorporates a silicium escapement wheel that will no longer need lubrication. Silicium is the ideal material for use in watch making as it is not magnetic, is extremely hard (1100 Vickers compared to 700 Vickers for steel), and is highly resistant to corrosion. The biggest advantage of a silicium escapement wheel is that it does not need to be lubricated. As it does not need to be lubricated, previously mentioned disadvantages such as age-related thinning and drying of lubrication will no longer occur. Pcstas 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) — Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is worth noting that this editor is apparantly the head of the company that sells the watches that use this method, who is trying hard to get his articles about himself, his company and his clockwork back into wikipedia after they were deleted for being non-notable. The Kinslayer 11:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is worth noting and fully correct. Nevertheless, should that be reason that an important development in mechanical watchmaking is left out? Please next article from an outside source: http://www.net2watches.net/default.aspx?PageName=iW-2005+May%3A+Reinventing+the+Wheel+p.2

This is an article on similar 'revolutionary' escapement wheel from Patek Philippe, a company that is extensively described on Wikipedia. Pcstas 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)— Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How does another companies notability apply to you and your company again? And those spa tags are there for a reason. Please stop vandalising the talk page by removing them. The Kinslayer 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article from Theodore Diehl explains the improvement and purpose of a Silicium Wheel. I have added this article so you can see there is outside verification for what I have described on Silicium Wheels. Do you understand the concept a silicium escapement wheel? And that with such a wheel, oiling is no longer necessary? And, that without oil on the escapement wheel, people do not have to return their mechanical watches for service every four years?

Quite frankly, I do not see why such improvement should not be added to the escapement page. I have additional interesting information on the subject but after almost two hours trying to find out tags and protocols on Wikipedia, my enthusiasm is reducing fast. Moreover, now you even claim I am vandalising pages. One of the Wikipedia pages states that users should assume good faith. You seem to do otherwise. Pcstas 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC) — Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good faith is a non-binding guideline. It certainly would be a stretch to apply it to someone who for the last two days has tried variously to get articles about himself, his company, and his products into wikipedia, especially after they, despite numerous good faith warnings, persist in removing tags from their own articles. And you still failed to explain how the source directly relates to your company. On the one hand we have this source about this process. On the other hand we have you running around saying your company 'created' this 'revolutionary' method sometime in the last 21 days. What's missing is a link between the two. You've established this Escapement exists, very good, no-one was claiming it wasn't. The Kinslayer 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if, as you claim, your company created the silicium escapement wheel in February 2007, then why does the article about it date back to May 2005? This information is worth including in the article true, but not by you. You've repeatedly attempted to take false credit for the creation of it when you've put the information in. Someone independent can do it. The Kinslayer 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusions and accusations are invalid: Frederique Constant created and produced revolutionary silicium escapements wheel and we take full credit of it! File:Frederique Constant Silicium Escapement2.jpg

Pcstas 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because it's the source you provided (the article from May 2005) that proves your claim (to have 'created' the system in February 2007) is false! The Kinslayer 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not false. The article of May 15 explains the benefits of a similar silicium escapement wheel by Patek Philippe. In February 2007, Frederique Constant created this revolutionary escapement system for their Heart Beat Manufacture. Meanwhile, our version has some additional unique features. The purpose of the May 15 article is to give an outside source on Silicium Escapement wheels. We do not claim (never did) that we are the first to have such an escapement. We claim however that it is verifyable new and revolutionary. Furthermore, we believe it is a valid addition to Wikepedia. Pcstas 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your original version of the article quite clearly stated that your company 'introduced' the escapement in the last 21 days, rather than merely used an already created procedure. And what your now saying is that you did not create the escapement, you have just devised your own method of production. What about these 'unique' features. The only source you've provided to support any of your peacock claims is a 2 year old article that ended up rubbishing your claim to have created the silicium escapement wheel in the last 21 days. What you appear to be trying to do is confuse two issues. The first: Is Silicium Escapements Wheels worth including in wikipedia? And my opinion is yes, it would make a good addition to this article. However, issue 2 is that you are trying to strongarm articles about your company, your product and even yourself onto wikipedia by making flase claims to notability. The only source you've provided to establish notability has actually DIS-proved the notability of your company. Your arguing that the SEW should be included in wikipedia, but your also trying to tack on incorrect information that your company introduced it, when this is not the case. The Kinslayer 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)The Kinslayer 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the "silicium wheel" is retained it probably should be called "silicon wheel" since that's the usual English name for the element in question. But I don't see any reason for it. The other article is pretty blatant advertising for a minor variant. For one thing, not having to oil the escapement doesn't mean you don't have to oil the rest of the watch, of course. Oil-free escapements do have value, which is why chronometers have used them for several centuries. In other words, there's nothing new here, with the possible exception that this time the oil-free escapement is an anchor escapement. But so what? I suppose it could rate one or two sentences. Paul Koning 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could explain this to Pstas on my talk apge, I'd be grateful, as he has returned from a trip (I think) and is asking about the best way to proceed. The Kinslayer 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Two comments on reaction Paul Koning: 1) "Silicium" versus "Silicon", both are fine, Silicium is however the term used in watch industry. So, if you want the article to be in line with what is customary in watch industry, use Silicium. 2) The other comment on oiling is an interesting one: indeed other wheels still need to be oiled. However, please do not conclude that this makes the Silicium Escapement useless. The escapement is the part of the gear train that consumes most of the energy (60-70% depending on caliber). The Silicium solution is a major improvement that changes service time from 4 years to an estimated 6 years. You may find this not sufficiently relevant, but in watch industry the Silicium Escapement and other Silicium caliber parts are considered a major improvement and "revolutionary". If you open any watch specialty magazine worldwide, and there are many, there are articles on latest developments and new materials for parts of mechanical calibers". Pcstas 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said that oil-free escapements are useful -- but I also said that they have been around for a long time, so it is misleading to claim a major innovation here. It may be new in the context of the anchor escapement, but so what? The references are quite unimpressive. Robb Report is a fluff magazine aimed at rich people; I would expect to find marketing material there, not technical substance. Looking at some of the other references given in the "silicium wheel" article I see the same issue. Its reference 2 is an industry marketing piece. And the author of reference 1 doesn't know the meaning of "silicon" which leads me to the conclusion that his article also has no technical weight. Finally, note that there are two issues marked on the "silicium wheel" article -- (1) should it be merged, (2) is there a conflict of interest? Re (2) I believe the answer is clearly "yes". Re (1) -- yes, it could be merged here; I would do that by one or two sentences to cover the two points: (a) use of "alternative" materials for the escapement parts, and (b) the fact that some escapement designs don't need oil on the locking pallets. That would seem to capture adequately the technical substance of "silicium wheel" (as well as such escapements as the grasshopper and the chronometer escapement). Paul Koning 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We are talking here about Wristwatch escapements, not Marine Chronometers. Marine Chronometers, while still interesting, are not being used too much anymore... Even the co-axial escapement of George Daniels still needs lubrication. You compare a silicium escapement for wirst watches with Marine Chronometers and 18th Century Grasshoper escapements. Please consider the repercursions of current silicium developments in watch industry: mechanical calibers have been made for over hundred years and are the base of over 12 billion CHF export value for Swiss watch industry. All current mechanical movements require oiling and approx. 4 years service time. New mechanical movements with silicium parts (escapement wheel is first step) will enable mechanical watches that need to be serviced much less than in past. This effects eventually over 5 million mechanical watches annually. To merge such development in two lines seems a bit limited. Pcstas 12:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Who says we're talking about Wristwatch escapements only? The article is "escapements" which means all types. Besides, there are fundamentally only two types: escapments for pendulums, and escapements for balances. (Well, I suppose escapements for the foliot and for the torsion balance may be different yet again. In any case, the point is that there's nothing special about wrist watches. It uses escapements that came straight from pocket watches. Watch escapements have been used in chronometers, and vice versa. You might not use an Earnshaw escapement in a wrist watch for various reasons, but if you wanted to, it would be no big deal to build one. Paul Koning 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the "silicium wheel" article talks about a lever escapement, so the obvious place to merge it would be that article. Paul Koning 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• There hasn't been any recent discussion. It looks to me like "rough consensus" in favor of a merge, with one vocal dissenter, and some suggestions that this dissenter has a commercial interest in the outcome... Paul Koning 15:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• I concur --Chetvorno 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re "silicium": Pcstas says, a few paragraphs up this page, "Silicium" versus "Silicon", both are fine, Silicium is however the term used in watch industry. So, if you want the article to be in line with what is customary in watch industry, use Silicium'. I'm sorry, I believe this is a mistranslation. The chemical is invariably known as "silicon" in English. However, the French chemical name for it is "silicium", and the German name for it is "Silicium" (non-chemical German speakers also call it "Silizium"). Despite Pcstas's confident assertion that "silicium" is the term used in English horology, I can find almost no examples of this, and lots of examples of "silicon". Do a Google search for silicium site:www.timezone.com and you will find one example of silicium. Now search for silicon site:www.timezone.com and you will be shown 12 results, several of which contain the word "silicon" several times. I am quite sure that when "silicium" appears in English horology, it is simply because someone has been reading French or German articles about watchmaking and not realised what the correct English translation was. I can see no evidence that this mistranslation has become the standard English horological term. UBJ 43X (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mistranslation, its a pompous marketing term that some high-end European watchmakers have tried to introduce to hawk their silicon-component watches in the American market, because the European term "silicium" sounds more classy in English than "silicon". Here are some articles that use the term: 1 2. The expensive-watch industry, like the cosmetics industry, thrives on jargon and buzzwords to dress up their technology and make it seem new, mysterious, and exclusive. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove the impostor animation!

Shouldn't the escape wheel turn counter-clockwise in the animation? The way it is drawn shows the recieving pallet on the left, and the discharge pallet on the right.

Absolutely. And it doesn't look like an actual escapement. Does anyone here know how to do animations for Wikipedia? A simple animation of, say, the Graham deadbeat escapement would be nice. And for completeness the anchor escapement from a watch. Paul Koning 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic escapement

There should be a section on magnetic escapement, used principally and for many years in watches of the tuning-fork type.

Clifford magnetic escapement: http://p098.ezboard.com/fhorofindfrm13.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

Elgin magnetic escapement: http://p098.ezboard.com/fhorofindfrm13.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

--Wfaxon 06:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that the escapement used in the Accutron? If so I think there should be something. I came to the Escapement article looking for information on the Accutron, and there is nothing here. Rees11 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically tuning fork watches don't have an escapement. The tuning fork is excited by a transistor electronic oscillator circuit, like a quartz watch. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lever escapement

Under 'anchor escapement', it says "The anchor escapement is the immediate ancestor of the escapements used in nearly all modern mechanical wristwatches." Unfortunately, the article does not tell us which escapement is actually used in nearly all modern mechanical wristwatches... Can someone add this? --Wws 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Removed that sentence since the anchor escapement is only distantly related to the lever escapement. I quickly added very brief comments on the lever, chronometer and cylinder escapements. Wrs1864 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

lock and draw

I was wondering whether 'lock' and 'draw' were, in reference to escapement. Could this be added?

Good job on Shortt clock

I want to compliment whoever wrote the description of the Shortt free pendulum escapement. I've read a number of explanations of that escapement, and this is the first one I've really understood. Thanks! --Chetvorno 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What about writing an article on the Shortt clock? It has lengthy descriptions here and in pendulum clock which could be broken out into an article. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Chinese escapements

Under History it says that the earliest known escapements were Chinese: in Xi Ying's 723 astronomical globe and Su Song's 11th century clock tower. Is it known what type of escapement they were? Were they verges? I believe the Chinese government has constructed a working model of the Song clock, so they must know about the mechanism. --Chetvorno 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looked it up, they weren't verges --Chetvorno^TALK 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seiko Spring Drive - Is it really a new escapement?

I'd like to question whether Seiko Spring Drive deserves a heading as a separate escapement. As I understand it, it's simply a quartz watch whose power comes from a generator run by the spring, with an electromechanical linkage to move the sweep hand smoothly. This sounds like a typical watch company marketing-driven novelty, rather than an actual technological improvement. What qualifies as an escapement? I think it should have something to do with the timekeeping part of the watch, not just the indicating part. This section should be merged into Quartz clock, Watch#Electronic movements, or somewhere else. --Chetvorno 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I'm going to merge the Seiko Spring Drive section into Watch#Electronic movements. --Chetvorno 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Chetvorno 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may revive this old discussion point (for whoever is interested), I think there's an argument for including the Seiko Spring Drive as a type of escapement.

As mentioned in the article's introduction, an escapement's goal is to control the flow of energy stored mechanically so that (1) it is released ("escapes") in a controlled, time-regulated fashion, and (2) some of it gets delivered to the time-keeping element to keep it going (replacing energy lost to friction). The escapement is the interface between the power-storage (main spring) and the time-keeping (balance wheel, pendulum, etc.) parts. It's what connects them, makes them work together, and allows the clock to function as a time-keeping device.

In the Seiko Spring Drive, the energy storage and transmission system is a traditional, mechanical main spring and wheel train. You wind the main spring to store energy, and that energy is used to drive the whole clock mechanically through wheels, not just to be converted into electrical energy for a purely electronic movement. The Spring Drive's central innovation is precisely its escapement, where the motion of the escapement wheel is restricted/controlled by electromagnets, which are in turn coupled to an electronic time-keeping circuit (a quartz oscillator). Electrical energy is not used to directly move any mechanical part (on the contrary: it's used to slow down a part). And through clever engineering, instead of requiring a separate battery to power the quartz-based circuit, a tiny amount of energy is extracted from the main spring and converted to electrical energy to power it -- fulfilling an escapement's second goal. Here's an official video by Seiko about it.

And from a practical encyclopedic standpoint, as a reader I came to the article expecting to find at least a mention of the Spring Drive. Perhaps that means that it does have a place in this article?

Meithan (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sub-article proposal

The current article is solely concerned with clock escapements. A contribution I made concerning another type of escapement was removed with subsequent notice to me as follows"

Hi! I removed your recent addition of use of escapements in model airplanes from the Escapement article. As I mentioned in my comments, I think the stuff you added as interesting, useful, and referenced, but I don't think it is in the appropriate article. While the system you described used escapements, as well as relays and magnets, I think the subject matter is really about model airplanes and it should not really be mentioned in the article about escapements, relays nor magnets. If the model airplane article is too long, you might want to just make a new article and put a reference in other places. You can recover your text by looking through the article history. If you need help doing so, let me know, and I'll help. Wrs1864 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this was considered "off topic".

In addition to this material was about to add escapements as used in piano keyboard actions, typesetters, and other devices.

I suggest that it would be more appropriate to move the bulk of the existing article (those sections discussing particular types of clock escapement in detail) to Escapement (clock), to make room for an article here appropriate to the title. Clock specific articles would reference the new article. Should any other article become too weighty it too could be moved partially to an appropriate subarticle (e.g. Escapement (radio control), Escapement (electric typewriter), etc.).

Comments here are solicited. - Leonard G. (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make the same suggestion. I agree that having both subjects in one article is confusing. The standard solution is just as you describe it: create new articles for each of the different topic. Then rename the original article and create a disambiguation page for "Escapement". Alternatively, if the consensus is that most people who type in "Escapement" are looking for a clock/watch escapement, the standard approach is to leave the existing article with its existing name, and put a template at the top that produces text like "For other uses, see "Escapement (disambiguation)"." You can see the latter at work in [Clock]. Paul Koning (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the current article is too clock-centric, considering that many other timekeeping devices use them. If this article gets renamed, I would suggest "Escapement (horology)". Judging by a google search on "escapement", it appears that most uses are horological in nature, so keeping this article as "escapement" and creating a "escapement (disambiguation)" page seems like the best to me, but that's just my opinion. Another advantage of not renaming this article is we wouldn't need to chase down all the wikilinks and point them to the new article. Wrs1864 (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am used to fixing links and volunteer for that task, so that should remove that consideration. - User:Leonard G. 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have seen no further response here, I am proposing to move this to Escapement (horology), with the article becoming a general article on escapements with small sections on the various types, with appropriate main templates and various inline "see also" inserts as appropriate. This will include changing referring articles appropriately. I think that this is better than a disambiguation page which would not be appropriate for a general article on escapements of various types and their diverse applications. This work will be done next week (without objection), otherwise I will solicit opinions from contributors to this and also to related articles on objects that employ escapements. - Leonard G. (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is vastly more material on horological escapements and much more interest in them than any other use. I googled the word 'escapement', and out of the first 76 hits referring to mechanical escapements only 14 even mentioned non-horological uses, and most of those were just dictionary definitions. Going through another page is an unreasonable complication for the vast majority of readers who are looking for info on clock or watch escapements. I favor Paul Koning's suggestion that this article not be renamed, but links be added at the top to take readers to articles on non-horological escapements. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence: It also keeps the pendulum or balance wheel moving by giving it small pushes. since it didn't seem to make any sense. If I'm mistaken, feel free to put it back. - Special-T (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the sentence back. It's correct; each time the escapement is released, it gives a tiny push to the pendulum, carefully designed so as to disturb its motion as little as possible, just enough to keep it swinging. However I admit that this description (which I wrote) is unclear, and I don't know how to make it clearer. I'm glad you brought up this point. An escapement is a difficult mechanism to understand, because it is doing two things at once, in opposite directions. Energy from the clock's mainspring is applied through the escapement to keep the pendulum going, and in return the pendulum, through the escapement, controls the clock's wheels, moving them forward at precise time intervals. If you can come up with a better way of explaining this in a few sentences, go ahead. My feeling, however, is that this may be the best that can be done in the brief introductory paragraphs. Maybe the following sections should be rewritten to provide a really good explanation. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - sorry to make extra work! It is a complicated mechanism to describe. - Special-T (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gravity escapement

Double three-legged gravity escapement

Would the Escapement page benefit from an animation of the Gravity Escapement? I've done this one in order to explain the operation of the Trinity College Clock Hughhunt (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes! What a great animation, reveals the operation of the escapement perfectly! Go ahead and add it. Can I ask what application you used to make it? --Chetvorno^TALK 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Glad you like it. Produced using Matlab. Hughhunt (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) It's annoying that rescaling of gifs has been disabled. I've changed the size of the gif to avoid the need for rescaling. Hughhunt (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem with references.

The article contains 54 references in support of its content. However, only the first 37 appear in the 'Notes' section at the end of the article. I cannot figure out how to make the missing 17 appear. Also should not the 'notes' section be entitled 'references' to match the majority of other articles? 86.149.78.201 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. There was an unclosed comment in #37 which must have confused the software. I'm surprised it didn't loose the rest of the text itself.--Roly (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Organizing mechanical escapements?

Mechanical escapements can be categorized into three categories, which also follow roughly the historical order of their invention: (a) recoil escapements; (b) deadbeat escapements; (c) free escapements. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to organize the currently 13 mechanical escapements under these headings (as does, e.g., the German WP)? haraldmmueller 16:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)--

Number of mechanical escapements in "widespread" use?

The article states twice that only about 10 escapements "stood the test of time and were widely used" / "about 10 have seen widespread use." Of course, the truth of this depends on what is meant by "widespread" - but I am quite sure that the number of "important" (my word) escapements is higher. For example, Riefler's free escapement (which even has its own article here in the English WP) and Riefler's gravity escapement are definitely worth mentioning as the climax of mechanical escapement design for astronimical clocks. Of course, the number built of these two is small (at most a few 100), but in the world of high-precision clocks, this already amounts to "widespread" use. In the same vein, a number of escapements for tower clocks must IMHO be added to those in "widespread use".

Together, I am very sure that the number will then be more on the order of 20 or even 25, not 10.

Therefore, I propose to change the two 10s to 20s.

(And if challenged, I might find time to create a short list here about these "important escapements" to prove my point ... ;-) )

haraldmmueller 16:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

Most people think of "widespread use" as use in consumer clocks, not astronomical regulators. Plus you'll need a WP:RS. I agree about adding the Reifler escapement to the article, however. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Escapement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mvhw/anchor.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/waterburywatch/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Escapement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218171021/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611094453/http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631670193290479607 to http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631670193290479607
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050219011511/http://www.bhi.co.uk/hj/August04AoM.PDF to http://www.bhi.co.uk/hj/August04AoM.PDF
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010816/ai_n14411695

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Escapement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mvhw/anchor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224123113/http://www.iinet.com/~holmstro/hsn_article.php to http://www.iinet.com/~holmstro/hsn_article.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/waterburywatch/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Floating balance escapement

​Is there someway the floating balance escapement can be added?  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 02:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A floating balance escapement in motion (but slower)

@Glosome: Awesome gif! From what I read here the floating balance escapement was a version of the pin pallet escapement (a cheaper version of the lever escapement) that was used instead of short pendulums in some mantle clocks beginning in the 1950s. That might be good for a sentence in the "Lever escapement" section. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: Thanks for clarifying that. I was wondering why sources about the floating balance escapement were so scarce. I would’ve never figured out that the floating point escapement was simply another version of pin pallet escapement without you. Also, thanks for the feedback about my GIF. It truly took quite a while to make sure it looped correctly. I added the GIF at regular speed alongside.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 01:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A floating balance escapement in motion (at regular speed)

@Glosome: Hope you don't mind, I put your gif in the Pin pallet escapement article, it really illustrates well how the escapement works. That article should probably have a couple of sentences mentioning that the floating balance escapement was the version of the pin pallet escapement used in mantle clocks, if you would like to add them.

Could I ask what app you used to make the gif? I've never made a gif and I'd like to learn how. Cheers--Chetvorno^TALK 21:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: I don’t mind at all that you used the GIF in the pin pallet escapement article. Also, to make a gif, one needs to take a video and convert that video to a GIF. Usually, I like to use a video editor to convert a video to a GIF, but this gadget should do the job just as well. Optionally, one can make a GIF repeat perfectly, like the way my escapement GIF does (or forward and reverse constantly, as shown here), but that requires more steps. I can tell you these steps, but you need to be more specific with the way you want your GIF.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 01:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph in Coaxial section

The Coaxial escapement section's last paragraph says:

>Although a highly ingenious escapement design, the Daniels coaxial nevertheless still needs lubrication to the lever pallet pivots. In addition, because of its geometry the impulse wheel can only have a limited number of teeth, thus it is necessary to have an extra wheel and pinion in the wheel train the pivots of which also need lubricating. Therefore, the advantages of this escapement over the lever are of an uncertain value.

This has no citation, and I think it's also incorrect. Daniels and Omega used to mate the driving gear with the teeth of one of the impulse wheels, but both Omega and R. W. Smith now instead stack a driven pinion co-axially with the two impulse wheel layers, just like the lever escapement does with its impulse wheel. Therefore there isn't an "extra" wheel and pivot in the wheel train.

Also, the first sentence describes another similarity the coaxial escapement shares with the lever escapement, and is superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poultryjimmy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not ALL modern clocks use oscillating timekeepers

Under the heading "History" the final sentence makes the claim that "Oscillating timekeepers are used in every modern clock." This is incorrect, so I qualified it by adding "mechanical", as in "Oscillating timekeepers are used in every modern mechanical clock". User:Roly Williams reverted this, claiming that "Even modern electronic clocks rely on a quarts crystal oscillator for time keeping." This is patently false. There are indeed modern timekeepers which do NOT have oscillators. To cite just two examples: clocks with synchronous DC motors were the most common kitchen clocks in the US between the 1930s and 1980s. And here is an electronic digital clock that likewise has no oscillators; it simply uses the incoming AC current at 50 (or 60)hz and decade dividers to drive the readout: [1]https://hackaday.com/2010/04/07/logic-clock-without-an-on-board-oscillator/ No, these are not clocks with oscillators; they are clocks without oscillators that happen to tap into the oscillations of externally-supplied DC power. That is not a trivial difference. Consequently I am going to change the sentence in question to read as follows: "Oscillating timekeepers are used in most modern clocks." (emphasis added) Anyone who wants to revert this had damned-well better debate it here first. Bricology (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume you understand that the clocks in the examples you give still use oscillating timekeepers; it's just that the timekeeper is the utility's master atomic oscillator which controls the frequency of the AC power line. The shafts of the synchronous motors in synchronous electric clocks make exactly one rotation in an integral number of cycles. So all modern clocks are controlled by oscillating timekeepers, which is the important point for general readers to comprehend. Whether the oscillator is located in the clock itself is a minor point.

Your change from "all" to "most" is going to mislead readers into thinking that some modern clocks use some other timekeeping technique besides oscillation. I think the wording needs to be changed. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)