4 ms·

Quartz crystals are inherently digital, where the quartz crystal itself oscilates at a stable rate, 32,768 Hz in most timepieces. That's counted by a digital a

Quartz crystals are inherently digital, where the quartz crystal itself oscilates at a stable rate, 32,768 Hz in most timepieces. That's counted by a digital accumulator, and a one-second advance occurs every 32,768 cycles. The display of a quartz timepiece may be digital (as in a liquid crystal display, or any other discrete display), or analogue, as with a watch or clock with hands. But the underlying timekeeping is digital at its heart. (One might make a similar argument for a pendulum- or spring-driven clock mechanism, with discrete periodic movements, or for an hourglass (discrete sand particles flowing through an orifice) though the more variable physical process tends to argue against this.)

Dylan16807 2y ago
There is very little that is "digital" about the crystal itself. Tuned oscillation is analog. The accumulator attached to it is digital, but it only has to be that way because it's so hard to make gears that tiny. If quartz was slower you could use the signal to directly drive a gear and have nothing digital in the entire timepiece.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Digital in the sense that there's a set of discrete countable events. Contrast with several other timekeeping systems: water clocks, hourglasses (sand glasses), sundials or astronomical observations (ultimately the definitive reference), in which periodic processes or entropic gradients serve as analogues to the passage of time. Modern atomic clocks are also to my mind inherently digital or quantum, where counts of discrete events are tallied. The discussion of DAC/ADC conversion process has some merits, but to me, thinking of ideas as interfaces, and as models of reality, "digital" fits far better than "analogue" in this case. Particularly as you'll find that same DAC/ADC process in what we manifestly call digital computers or digital memory/storage systems, where some other-than-discretely-varying signal is nonetheless abstracted to 1s and 0s. As occurs when tallying quartz crystal oscillations in a timepiece.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    That defines any clockwork clock as digital rather than analog and I think at that point the definition you're using needs to be rejected.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      I'd noted that in my initial comment. The counterargument is that whilst the escapement of a spring-driven or pendulum clock is in a sense digital (as, for that matter, was a Jaquard loom's card-based governor), the driving mechanism (gravity weights, spring) isn't. But then, quartz-crystal clocks utilise a battery.... Again: ideas are interfaces, ways we get a grasp and shared understanding of reality, and are models of that reality. To that extent, all definitions are both arbitrary and flexible, but ultimately are governed by their utility. Again: quartz crystal movements involve a manifestly digital accumulator which drives a display (character-based or analogue hands) based on accumulated ticks. The ticks are digital, a sequence of accumulated 1s and 0s, and are interpreted by logic rather than mechanism. (Yes, logic itself can be mechanically implemented, but it remains a mechanical implementation of logic rather than a purely mechanical process.) Escapement mechanisms lack such an accumulator, but rather utilise gears and cogs to match the movement's oscillation to the desired movement of hands on the display. That entire process is analogous of time, and hence, and analogue movement.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > I'd noted that in my initial comment. You said they "might" be in the same category and sounded unconvinced. Now that you're insisting on an expansive definition of digital, I'm addressing the problems it causes more directly. > To that extent, all definitions are both arbitrary and flexible, but ultimately are governed by their utility. And the utility of the term depends on clockwork clocks not being digital. > (Yes, logic itself can be mechanically implemented, but it remains a mechanical implementation of logic rather than a purely mechanical process.) Gears are a mechanical implementation of logic. If you make a distinction here, it puts clockwork clocks on the wrong side. The logic here is just a divider. The same thing the gears already do in a clock. Also you didn't really address one of my points, but I think it was an important one. If quartz crystals had a slower frequency, you could easily use them to directly push gears like a pendulum does. Since you're so focused on the crystal itself as being digital, would you call that a digital clock?
NobodyNada 2y ago
The quartz crystal itself is an analog component which resonates at some specific frequency. The crystal is placed within a feedback circuit to create a stable, sinusoidal oscillation; the analog sinusoid is then converted into digital pulses to be counted. It's the same principle as a "pendulum- or spring-driven clock mechanism, with discrete periodic movements"; just on a microscopic scale -- you're taking an analog physical system which naturally resonates at some specific frequency, and then converting the continuous motion of the system into discrete pulses.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I've expanded my reasoning in this thread, if you're interested: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621419>

Dylan16807 2y ago

There is very little that is "digital" about the crystal itself. Tuned oscillation is analog. The accumulator attached to it is digital, but it only has to be that way because it's so hard to make gears that tiny. If quartz was slower you could use the signal to directly drive a gear and have nothing digital in the entire timepiece.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Digital in the sense that there's a set of discrete countable events. Contrast with several other timekeeping systems: water clocks, hourglasses (sand glasses), sundials or astronomical observations (ultimately the definitive reference), in which periodic processes or entropic gradients serve as analogues to the passage of time. Modern atomic clocks are also to my mind inherently digital or quantum, where counts of discrete events are tallied. The discussion of DAC/ADC conversion process has some merits, but to me, thinking of ideas as interfaces, and as models of reality, "digital" fits far better than "analogue" in this case. Particularly as you'll find that same DAC/ADC process in what we manifestly call digital computers or digital memory/storage systems, where some other-than-discretely-varying signal is nonetheless abstracted to 1s and 0s. As occurs when tallying quartz crystal oscillations in a timepiece.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  That defines any clockwork clock as digital rather than analog and I think at that point the definition you're using needs to be rejected.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    I'd noted that in my initial comment. The counterargument is that whilst the escapement of a spring-driven or pendulum clock is in a sense digital (as, for that matter, was a Jaquard loom's card-based governor), the driving mechanism (gravity weights, spring) isn't. But then, quartz-crystal clocks utilise a battery.... Again: ideas are interfaces, ways we get a grasp and shared understanding of reality, and are models of that reality. To that extent, all definitions are both arbitrary and flexible, but ultimately are governed by their utility. Again: quartz crystal movements involve a manifestly digital accumulator which drives a display (character-based or analogue hands) based on accumulated ticks. The ticks are digital, a sequence of accumulated 1s and 0s, and are interpreted by logic rather than mechanism. (Yes, logic itself can be mechanically implemented, but it remains a mechanical implementation of logic rather than a purely mechanical process.) Escapement mechanisms lack such an accumulator, but rather utilise gears and cogs to match the movement's oscillation to the desired movement of hands on the display. That entire process is analogous of time, and hence, and analogue movement.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > I'd noted that in my initial comment. You said they "might" be in the same category and sounded unconvinced. Now that you're insisting on an expansive definition of digital, I'm addressing the problems it causes more directly. > To that extent, all definitions are both arbitrary and flexible, but ultimately are governed by their utility. And the utility of the term depends on clockwork clocks not being digital. > (Yes, logic itself can be mechanically implemented, but it remains a mechanical implementation of logic rather than a purely mechanical process.) Gears are a mechanical implementation of logic. If you make a distinction here, it puts clockwork clocks on the wrong side. The logic here is just a divider. The same thing the gears already do in a clock. Also you didn't really address one of my points, but I think it was an important one. If quartz crystals had a slower frequency, you could easily use them to directly push gears like a pendulum does. Since you're so focused on the crystal itself as being digital, would you call that a digital clock?

NobodyNada 2y ago

The quartz crystal itself is an analog component which resonates at some specific frequency. The crystal is placed within a feedback circuit to create a stable, sinusoidal oscillation; the analog sinusoid is then converted into digital pulses to be counted. It's the same principle as a "pendulum- or spring-driven clock mechanism, with discrete periodic movements"; just on a microscopic scale -- you're taking an analog physical system which naturally resonates at some specific frequency, and then converting the continuous motion of the system into discrete pulses.

dredmorbius 2y ago
I've expanded my reasoning in this thread, if you're interested: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621419>