4 ms·
I'll tell you exactly why it's nine minutes. Because in the olden days where everything was made with discrete components, the math of 9 minutes is WAY cheaper.
by BarkingOven 13y ago
I'll tell you exactly why it's nine minutes. Because in the olden days where everything was made with discrete components, the math of 9 minutes is WAY cheaper.
Let's say it's 6:00, and you hit the snooze button. Save the current value of the minute minus 1, into a comparitor, Trigger the alarm when the comparitor goes off automatically.
If you save the current value into the comparitor, the alarm triggers immediately. Now you need to add delay logic. Just use current minus 1, since it's only a few half-adders.
You can't use the high order minute digit because then your snooze length will depend on your current low order minute digit. Any logic to compensate starts adding a multiple of the number of components required.
- sajidnizami 13y agoYour argument makes most sense around here :)
- gojomo 13y agoThank you, I would bet on this. Examining an early digital clock with 9-minute snooze could probably confirm that the 9 minutes is implemented using some smaller number of components than any 10-minute system could be. I also vaguely recall that such on such clocks, the alarm itself (if not silenced) would tend to run for 9 minutes before self-silencing. The same logic might apply: it's the longest finite interval that doesn't require some sort of multi-digit carry-logic. I wouldn't be surprised if early circuit layouts even made it so that the wiring to toggle some [digit ± 1] triggering state was shortest/cheapest, in a circular arrangement, compared to any other potential offset. (I don't even think there was anything binary in the earliest digital-display clocks, rather some [10m, 6h, 24h] or even [10m, 6h, 12h, 2meridiem] cyclical counters.)
- mtdewcmu 13y agoThis rings true.
- mehwoot 13y agoIt was established in the age of mechanical clocks. Because of the way the gears were generally configured, the two sane options were 9 minutes or a bit more than 10. They chose 9. Digital clocks followed suit.
- raverbashing 13y ago"In the old days when everything was made with discrete components" and you talk about "comparitor" (comparator) and "minus one" No, this is too advanced. For that you would be looking at 4 bits storage + comparator + the "minus one" circuit (which is very complicated) for a BCD counter.
- mhandley 13y agoYou don't need the "minus one" circuit. Just always store the previous minute value whenever the minute is incremented, and then latch that value when the alarm goes off.
- BarkingOven 13y agoYes, of course. You are correct. Saves even more logic real estate. :-)
- troels 13y agoBut are clocks using a base-10 counting system? I'm thinking no.
- colomon 13y agoThe oldest digital clock my family had used a mechanical display, so it had ten values for the right-most digit, six for the next, and twelve for the left-most. So this explanation would definitely make sense for it. But I don't recall if it actually had a snooze button...
- Brashman 13y agoUsually BCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary-coded_decimal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary-coded_decimal)
- vidarh 13y agoIn the olden days, our clocks were analogue/mechanical. Even the ones showing digits.