Bulbdial Clock
Written on April 7, 2008 – 9:09 am | by Bogdan Alex |
Ancient people were pretty good at telling time with the aid of sundials, but there is some major problem with those devices. When time is so relative and we all feel its presence in our lives, knowing the exact minute or second becomes crucial. Oh yeah, and conventional sundials change their accuracy with the seasons, and the Southern hemisphere inhabitants are forced to read it backwards. Now, if you really are into ancient thingies and also want to know the exact time, I recommend you take a look at an improved version of the sundial.
It’s called the Bulbdial Clock and has no hands, just one pole in the center of the clock. Towards the outer rim we find three light sources of varying heights which revolve around the pole casting shadows on the dial. As you can see in the above image, the light sources are each attached to special rings, which rotate around the pole. There’s the innermost ring that rotates once per minute, analogous to a “second hand”. Then follows the middle ring, which completes a rotation once per hour and casts the “minute hand” shadow. Ultimately, the outer ring rotates once every 12 hours, casting the “hour hand” shadow.
You can use the Bulbdial Clock as a conventional sundial or you can mount it on walls for a more convenient way of telling time across large spaces. The Bulbdial Clock solves all the problems posed by the sundial, but comes with one little issue of its own: it doesn’t work in bright light environments. Heh, can’t be that perfect, eh? That’s why
the inventor recommends it for restaurants and nightclubs.
Loading ...
44 Responses to “Bulbdial Clock”
By Joe on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
How the hell do you have a shadow with a light shining on it? Stupid concept is stupid.
By Joe's brain, minus the dumbass on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Looks like an awesome concept!
And Joe, I suggest you go back to school to understand how light works.
By JoeDoesn'tKnow on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
You’ve never seen multiple shadows from an object, Joe? It’s not the concept that’s stupid.
By B on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
You’re stupid. It makes perfect sense and seems quite innovative.
By erdem on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
do u think when the lights go on there will be any shadow…even when the time is 6 or 3.47…opposite lights reduce others shadow…USELESS…
By Hyrum on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
At first I thought this clock was pointless but then I imagined how it would look in a night club or something and I think it would look really cool.
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Take it easy guys. No need to fight over this. It’s an updated ancient concept with its obvious flaws.
By Bela Reiner on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
WHERE CAN i BUY IT?
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
It’s just a concept, you can’t buy it yet.
By Digital on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
While I’m not going to say that you can’t read it because of the other lights on the clock (hahaha) I doubt it would be very visable in a well lighted house.
I’d be interested in seeing one and possibly having one on my wall though, I keep the house fairly dark… would depend how well youc an see it in moderate light
By Jach on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I’d rather take a Binary Watch, personally.
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Well, if you liked this one and the other things I’ve presented thus far, why not subscribe a bit? It’s simple. And we’ll be able to comment on some more cool things, you have my word.
By kalib on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I think you could do this concept with different light strengths in order to create the multiple shadows This of course doesn’t count for the fact that it wouldn’t work at all in a fully lit room and I think the real problem comes when the lamps overlap and create their own shadows by blocking the light.
By party pooper on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
How about some credit for the inventor? Oh, you don’t want to do that because then people will go there instead and you’ll lose revenue? Too bad.
http://www.ironicsans.com/2008/03/idea_the_bulbdial_clock.html
By Numair on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA OH GOD, YOU ALL FAIL! LEARN TO PHYSICS. SAUCE ON CLOX.
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
OK, I forgot to put that link. There you go, “the inventor” is hyperlinked now
By South'er on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Hmmm, am I “forced to read it backwards”?
No, I just need to point it in the other direction…
Fail.
By Jacob on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
It could be improved! If the tree lamps contained each one a different colour, the shadow problem would disappear as new colours would emerge^^! Using a CMY system would be wonderful, and coluorful too^^.
By ANdrew V on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I’m with Joe, soz. I really don’t see this working. It’s a great concept, but I will need to see a working model before I believe it’s practical.
By Milander on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
It looks like there are LEDs providing the light source, these are highly directional and powerful. While I admit that during daytime in strong sunlight you’d not be able to use it usefully at night or as an ornamental piece it would function fine. I think the commentors detrating from its usefullness are misinformed about the difference between diffuse light sources i.e. flurescent or filament bulb sources and LEDs.
As an experiment I set up 3 LED torches (I love them, so much better than others) around a pencil stuck in a lump of bluetack and I did indeed get 3 totally distinct shadows, after using 6 torches it got a lot harder to make out the different shadows unless the room was blacked-out.
This does work, experiment for yourself before posting stupid comments about how it wouldn’t work.
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Good point there, Milander, and reasonable too.
By Adi on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Milander
By lahaha on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Maybe there are other, more important design problems that you could discuss, and that would make a difference.
By Mike on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Awesome concept!
By Wayne Zeller on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Remember “Gatten’s Rule of Internet Discussions”: It it better to think without posting than to post without thinking.
Physics: You’re doing it wrong.
Anybody who has never seen two shadows has never stood between two lights.
By Mercurybullet on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Another option is to use three different color LEDs.
Like milander said, LEDs don’t really block out each other’s shadow because they are mostly directional. Even if they do, the colors wouldn’t block out each other.
By Alex on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I think it’s a cool concept, might even have a go at making one myself.
The detractors are also neglecting the possibility of using 3 different coloured lights to help it stand out in a well lit room.
Also if the rail that the lights rotate on were a few centimetres in height they could help darken the clock face.
Thirdly, if you know which light is which you can tell the time because it will be opposite to the actual time!
It might be better without the seconds hand though.
By David on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I’d buy it.
By Sierra on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
I like this concept here but i prefer the OLED Watch concept because of the white dots floating on the display and when you shake your hand they arrange to form the watch hands. Isn’t it cool?
By Steev on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
If you’re going to re-post ideas from other people then you could at least say where you got it from rather than trying to look clever.
http://www.ironicsans.com/2008/03/idea_the_bulbdial_clock.html
Thieving little shit.
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Dude, watch your language. Try reading the entire post and then spill your guts whenever needed. “The inventor” is hyperlinked but I guess you are a bit blinded by the bulbs :)))
By Scatman Dane on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Talk about wasting energy.
By sierra on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
An editor is not obligated to post the name of the designer. It’s just an opinion about a concept, not a copied article.
By will on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
to everyone above who thinks it wouldn’t work and the tools who have gone about disproving them: look at the shadows cast by people in a stadium with multiple floodlights.
To me this “cool concept” represents a dumbed down horrible squishy turd laid all over the ancient and timeless creation that is the sundial. I can understand why retards might think it’s “cool”. After all, in this modern era, who could be bothered learning how to use an ancient perpetually accurate timepiece. The stress of latitude calibration and pointing the little bugger to true north.
“an improved version of the sundial”?
Leave one of those running for 10 years in your condo (lets say it has a super duper battery thingie in it)… and leave a sundial running for 80 years in a sunny place! You should find that the shitty improved version of a sundial thingie loses out to the grand daddy sundial being powered by the sun…. I’m just vexed that you referred to this as an improved version of the sundial. Electricity sucks when compared to the rotation of the earth around the sun and the rotation of the earth itself. Sundial wins.
In anycase it’s an ugly concept and I definately would never want one.
By Bogdan Alex on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Will, you’re kinda right, but not quite. The sundial doesn’t work at night or when you have cloudy weather. So it’s fair to say that the bulbdial is a somewhat improved version although it has its obvious flaws. The inventor could take into consideration everything we discuss in here and could change a thing or two to further improve it.
By yalda on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
bacgrand website pleze
By yalda on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
photos bagrande webloge &imeil
By Sierra on Apr 11, 2008 | Reply
I’d really like the inventor to come on this site and say something. He must know more and clarify this. So where is the inventor?
By kai on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Joe, you dumb!
By Natovr on May 27, 2008 | Reply
Seems really cool! I would love to have one. But when I look at my window and my desk lamp.. when I shine the lamp on my hand, with the sun through the window. The sun makes a shadow, but the lamp weakens it, but also makes a shadow on the other side. It would still be readable, but the light makes the dark area of the shadow much weaker than in the concept photo.
By Natovr on May 27, 2008 | Reply
oh yeah.. stumbled
dont like it… love it ^_^ i woudl love to see this in the real world.
By jb on Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
Photoshopped!