Talk:28-hour day

Discussion (February 2008)
The 28 hour day article is based on a personal web site that was set up as self promotion and a hoax (the 28 hour day website) therefore the article is nonesense. The creator of the 28 hour day website, which is linked in the 28 hour day article, must have had someone, or someone unwittingly did so.. It could be a user or an admin on wikipedia created an article about his 28 hour day hoax not knowing the background OR perhaps they have ties to the 28 hour day web site creator? I know the 28 hour day to be a hoax and a self promotion tool, I know this first hand. While amusing and even creative, it is pure nonesense and a shameless self promotion tool by the owner of the 28 hour day website. The problem is that such an article, undermines wikipedia, even if being posted in good humor. Attempts to remove the personal web site links to the 28 hour day web site, or challenge the veracity, are promptly undone by admins. Which means admins are helping clear policy violations. Perhaps the admins will see clear OR perhaps they have personal or professional ties to the author of the 28 hour day? You all will decide what you want anyway, just thought I would put it out there for thought. Enjoy! 199.74.155.50 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source talking about this concept, so it can't be a total hoax (e.g., something someone came up with in school one day and decided to put on Wikipedia, even knowing that it wasn't true). Do you have any reliable sources establishing that this is one of the things you assert it is: self-promotion, nonsense, or a hoax? Do you have any sources at all leading in that direction? I would like to see them. Note also that Wikipedia does not only cover truth; if someone posits a theory and reliable sources debate it and eventually decide that it was hogwash from the start, the fact alone that reliable sources covered it may make it notable enough to be included here. Vadder (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How strange, Vadder. Apparently you were writing here on Talk just as I was adding to (& partly debunking) the article.  It may well be nonsense (I don't see the self-promotion??), but it's appealing and may well work for very extreme evening types.  I may give it a try when I retire :-)
 * (If by "reliable source" you mean the Harvard Gazette article, that means you haven't read or understood same. Czeisler et al chose a 28-hour day specifically because normal people cannot adjust to that.  As that article makes clear, subjects were forced to wake and sleep on a 6-day week, but their circadian markers, such as hormones and temperature, continued on a 24-hour cycle.) --Hordaland (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the Harvard Gazette article does tend to disprove the concept of a 28 hour day as a desirable lifestyle. My point is that even disproven concepts can sometimes deserve articles here (appropriately including references to the fact that they are disproven) if they have been discussed in reliable sources. Thanks for improving the article! Vadder (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

xkcd
Does this mean it's gone mainstream?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * XKCD is mainstream? --Hordaland (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. 75.101.10.10 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit.
An anon, 86.135.218.115, has removed some text (diff) from the article with this edit summary: "removed OR/synthesis, the reference does not even mention 28 hour time". I've reverted. I believe that this anon has read neither the reference nor the discussions above. Hope we don't get into edit-warring here; Czeisler's use of the 28-hour day is explained both in the reference and above. - Hordaland (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I used my browser's find function to search the article for "28 hour" but didn't find anything; but I see now it was written as "28-hour". Again, sorry for the mistake. --86.135.218.115 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

does it matter?
Having just read the referenced article properly (see above...), I'm actually a little confused. I understand the experiment implies that the roughly 24 hour body clock is innate, but how exactly does this "disprove the idea of the 28 hour day as a desirable lifestyle"? If wakedness/tiredness are controlled with medication does it really matter if the innate biological clock can't be reset? People routinely use medication to control the menstrual cycle. Why not do the same with the day cycle? --86.135.218.115 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for apology above. It's unusual to have a dialogue with an anon.
 * A roughly 24-hour body clock is more than implied. Czeisler has been experimenting with it longer than (almost) anyone alive; he's one of the experts.  Our natural circadian rhythms shouldn't be messed with, and certainly not with addictive medications.  People with circadian rhythm sleep disorders sometimes must mess with them and it causes all sorts of problems. NASA has funded research to find out if space travellers would be able to adjust to the light/dark cycle on Mars, and it's not all that long.
 * Only people with an abnormally long circadian period, people with DSPS or non-24, would ever be able to live on the 6-day week. Some (very rare) such people have a built-in clock with a period of 26-27 hrs.  They might have less difficulty adjusting to 28 than to 24 hrs, but I don't know if anyone's tried. - Hordaland (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A Hoax?
I have lived something close to a 28 hour clock (i am not so strictly regimented as that) for 5+ years, cycling forward 2-6 hours every day. I was already doing this long before i first read the website, it is 'natural' for me and i find it a very hard rythm to break.

I am surprised and amused to learn that it is a 'hoax'!

Doing a bit of research, i come up with this: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1jScwMrsmAMC&pg=RA1-PA65&lpg=RA1-PA65&dq=experimenting+with+the+28+hour+day&source=bl&ots=9R4mo2fI1O&sig=om2zbYPnXnm_1HuZo2Tch6J1vyo&hl=en&ei=MBZeStGgIoyJkQWd17znDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

and, less reliably, this: http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/sept00/0769.html

On further investigation, this article does not seem to have gotten much attention since the 'hoax' change. I am reverting it, and citing the above book for the studies by Dijk and Czeisler.

Saktoth (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. You must have Non-24-hour sleep-wake syndrome and a fairly extreme version at that (it's usually defined as a 1-2 hour delay daily).  The book you cite says that the circadian period of one subject in 1938 moved in the direction of, not adjusted to, the 28 hours.  I think that only people with Non-24 or severe Delayed sleep phase syndrome could successfully (in good health) live on that 6 day week; the vast majority of human adults could not.  I've moderated the first sentence in the article (without re-introducing the word hoax) and tried to explain desynchrony protocols.
 * More power to you, if you manage to buck society's disapproval and live on your body's preferred schedule! Your natural schedule could qualify as a disorder/disability, but by definition only if you find it troublesome. - Hordaland (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually have a CFS related pain condition so i wouldnt be surprised if that has something to do with it. Saktoth (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)