Telling the Time with Lasers and Mirrors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They are putting lasers on everything nowadays. Yet here I am still waiting for sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads.
 
Each of the four clock digits have six visible mirrors (for a total of 36)
Yeah... right.

It's quite cool though. Even if it could be a bit less reliable because of the "moving" mirrors, I'd still want one. It's futuristic in a retro kind of way.
 
Looks and sounds pretty awesome/geeky, but if the clock go hit by anything (waking up to a buzzer and smashing the snooze button?) it would throw out the calibration unless some crazy dampening was enforced.

Also,

Each of the four clock digits have six visible mirrors (for a total of 36)

You mean for a total of 24 right?
 
4x6=36

Good stuff.

The clock is cool though, I also enjoyed seeing the animated link with the mirrors moving to draw the numbers.
 
yeah. i like this. i really appreciate the artwork behind it and the effort gone into the different design concepts. i'd buy one one day...*if* they dont sell as "designer accessories" and cost about 3 million dollars...
 
from site:
Reflectius features sixty rotating mirrors that successively reflect a single laser beam at precise angles to draw numbers

so what happens when it gets knocked off the nightstand once or twice and even one (or more) of those "precise angles" get jolted and is off by even a tenth of a millimeter?

they better think of that and make sure that it has some kind of internal shock protection... otherwise i doubt it would even make it through UPS/FEDEX in working condition
 
[citation][nom]mrface[/nom]6 visible and 3 non-visible mirrors... 9X4=36learn to read...everyones a critic...[/rolleyes][/citation]
Where did you read about the 3 non-visible ones? Yes, we can assume that's what the author meant, but that's not explicit. What is is that we have 4 digits with 6 visible mirrors, totalling 32 for some reason, and "even more" invisible ones. The "even more" suggest that there might be more invisible mirrors than the 6 visibles ones per digit. All of that would sum up to more than 48 mirrors.

Learn to comprehend...
 
[citation][nom]Nakal[/nom]Probably flys like one too[/citation]

Oh I get it, because TIME FLIES!

...I had to point that out for everybody because I am banging my head on the keyboard for taking so long to figure that out.

This is what I look like doing it:

uygfdajkn;gjl;ngghjkghjkl
 
Where did you read about the 3 non-visible ones? Yes, we can assume that's what the author meant, but that's not explicit. What is is that we have 4 digits with 6 visible mirrors, totalling 32 for some reason, and "even more" invisible ones. The "even more" suggest that there might be more invisible mirrors than the 6 visibles ones per digit. All of that would sum up to more than 48 mirrors.

Learn to comprehend...

comprehension is obviously your problem buddy. first they said 36 in the article not 32, although i'll assume that as a typo. second, from context, you can say that when they put the words 6 "visible" mirrors, obviously there are other mirrors; unless there would be no need for the word visible. and finally from the actual article itself,

"Even more mirrors are hidden underneath the clock-face"

so now who is the one with comprehension problems?

Back to the article: I think it is a cool concept, although as 2zao states, i would hate to knock that off onto the ground by accident, :O.
 
So how do you see the beam between the mirrors. Last I remember you need some other media for the beem to reflect off of. Like smoke.
 
[citation][nom]IncinX[/nom]They are putting lasers on everything nowadays. Yet here I am still waiting for sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads.[/citation]

I only wish I had two thumbs to give
 
@mrface : It was indeed a typo, thanks for pointing it out. For some reason, I can't edit it from the forum. Still, I can't figure out where you took that "3 non-visible mirrors". There's a big difference between reading and assuming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.