Talk:Oxford Electric Bell/Archive 1

Novelty?
The article states the following about the bell:


 * Although the device can now be considered to be a novelty&hellip;

Um, novelty? The experiment was set up in 1840; how exactly is that novel? It seems to me that another word was intended.&mdash;Kbolino 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Main Entry: nov·el·ty Pronunciation: 'nä-v&l-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English novelte, from Anglo-French novelté, from novel 1 : something new or unusual
 * Merriam-Webster disagrees. (Emphasis added) --59.121.193.237 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

haha pwnd

Wording problem
The article says that "It was purchased by Robert Walker, Professor of Physics at Oxford from 1839 to 1865". I am assuming the "1839 to 1865" refers to the dates of Walker being a professor at Oxford rather than when it was purchased, and am therefore changing the sentence to read "It was purchased by Robert Walker, who was Professor of Physics at Oxford from 1839 to 1865". If this is not correct, please explain. The date the bell was purchased would be a useful addition as well. -- Infrogmation 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright clarification
A lot of the text appears to be copied verbatim from http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/history.asp?page=Exhibit1 - what's their copyright policy? I couldn't find it. --CTho 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism Edit
As the previous commentor also appears to have noticed portions of this article were lifted verbatim from the Oxford University Physics page http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/history.asp?page=Exhibit1. I believe the rest of the content that likely originated on the Oxford page is not problematic since it was presented here in a significantly different manner and the Oxford page is listed as one of two references for the article as a whole, though specific portions are not attributed to it. I only removed those few sections that, though interesting, were directly copied or perhaps minimally altered. Until I looked over the history and saw that the plagiarism was added by a single user at one time I had the strong impression that most of the article would fall under the class of plagiarism, which shows just one reason why you are hurting, not helping wikipedia by adding plagiarised content. I saw the same information rearranged somewhat with a minority directly copied, but those copies made the rest read as plagiarism. The "author" who added the plagiarism detracted from the efforts of those who had put in the effort to write the article properly since since the reader likely approaches the article as if it were a single cohesive piece rather than a collection of edits, though it is both. Please do not plagiarise. --Fitzhugh 05:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ring?
What is it, and what does the article mean by "ring"? --The_stuart 19:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The PDF reference has a picture of it. Its actually two brass bells, underneath two batteries, and a clapper. Electrostatic forces cause the clapper to oscillate between the two bells, striking each in turn. linas 02:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most awesome things I have ever heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.17 (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated
I work for Oxford Physics and have made some updates regarding the current status of the bell. --Mwongozi (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a photo. --Mwongozi (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost Continuously?
Any more information concerning this line "which has rung almost continuously ever since."? Is it known to have stopped? Or is it just that since it's impossible to constantly observe it, we can't be certain it's never stopped? 216.80.34.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, how does "has rung almost continuously ever since, with only brief interludes for maintenance and replacement of the battery cell" reconcile with "Nobody is certain what they are composed of"? How can one replace the batteries and not know what they're made of? 76.31.52.102 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)`


 * That stuff was vandalism, article is now semi-locked so there shouldn't be too many more problems. --Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Location
I've updated the text to reflect the fact that its new location is permanent. (I work in the Clarendon Lab.) --David G (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Occasional short interruptions"
Does the source actually say that there have been "occasional short interruptions caused by high humidity" and that it has run "nearly continuously"? Has it always been inside a glass jar? What is the mechanism for humidity stopping the bell? What gets it going again?

Also, I see the figure 2000 volts thrown around, but that appears to be an estimate based on what they think is inside the battery. Has this actually been measured? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Why no W-h capacity figure for the battery included in the article?
93.185.17.215 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

They don't know what is in the battery, only that the outside is solid sulfur. They don't want to ruin the excitement by messing with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Witchcraft?
... Who exactly made this device? :) 75.82.213.48 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not witchcraft. Science. It was made in 1825 by London-based instrument makers Watkins and Hill. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)