Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The DU Lounge

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)

1. I don't know...

Reply to RushIsRot (Original post)

Tue Nov 5, 2013, 12:44 PM

Nov 2013

But I would say that for hours and it doesn't move much, the short is better.

The reason being, you need to figure out the minutes more often, and the closer the pointer is to the appointed minute, the easier it is to figure out which minute.

The shorter hand wouldn't be able to point to the exact minute that easily, or at least more people would have a harder time figuring it out.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clock Question [View all] RushIsRot Nov 2013 OP

I don't know... Xyzse Nov 2013 #1

Maybe people generally know the hour but need to know the minutes Sanity Claws Nov 2013 #2

A reason, not sure if it's the primary reason: sl8 Nov 2013 #3

It's thinner so it works, what I hate is a clock without numbers on it. /nt jakeXT Nov 2013 #4

On the wall clock at which I am looking as I write this... RushIsRot Nov 2013 #5

The first clocks only had one hand that showed the hour... cyberswede Nov 2013 #6

Yes. Chan790 Nov 2013 #7

Just get a digital clock and quit worrying about it! lastlib Nov 2013 #8

lol - that's the answer :) patricia92243 Nov 2013 #9

That thought did occur to me. RushIsRot Nov 2013 #10