|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:59 am
I've pointed this out in a couple of other threads, but the basic logic behind clockpunk and steampunk are as follows:
Steampunk
The most advanced technology available is primarily based on steam engines and other forms of steam power.
Clockpunk
The most advanced technology available is primarily based on winding coils, falling weights, and other forms of potential energy (common modern physics term) in mechanical form, possibly including machines which run by man-power, such as bicycles and manual printing presses. Just like it's not mandatory for Steampunk to be set in Victorian England circa 1875, it's not mandatory for Clockpunk to be set circa 1775.
Gears, Cogwheels, Sprockets, Etc.
These are extremely common and simple implements necessary in almost any mechanical device. Modern internal combustion engines, modern bicycles, factory robots, and even electric cars all have some sort of gears involved in them. Gears are NOT inherently steampunk, or clockpunk, and to call something "gearpunk" makes no sense, because gears are fairly useless by themselves. There has to be SOMETHING making them move, even if it's magic, which would mean you were probably looking at some sort of fantasy setting. You could have gears in Cyberpunk, too, but you probably wouldn't see them and they'd be set in motion by some mess of electronics -- but even then gears may very well be made obsolete in Cyberpunk by advanced hydraulics, electromagnets, and magnetic fields, plus whatever crazy stuff the creator pulls out of his hat. I'm saying the more low-tech types of Cyberpunk are more likely to have gears, but I'm getting off track here.
EDIT P.S.
I do agree with a lot of people that think that separating Clockpunk and Steampunk is sort of splitting hairs, but only because I find it unlikely that such highly efficient steam machines would be possible without first developing highly efficient (or at least competent) clockwork machines, and then basically replacing the limited mechanical power with steam power and taking it from there. However, I see NO reason why you couldn't have a Steampunk world without Clockpunk elements if you really wanted to, and of course there's no reason why there'd have to be steam power in a Clockpunk world. Sure, the two may go hand-in-hand, but they are not inseparable.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:02 am
I always put them together. For me they are one in the same. I think of it this way, If I were to take the steam factor out and only focus on the clockwork I would feel like I was missing out, and the same goes for the clockwork aspect. I feel that in (at least my variation of) Steampunk you need BOTH clockwork and steampowered machines, hand and hand, to make one beautiful counter culture..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:19 pm
Dixie Dellamorto I always put them together. For me they are one in the same. I think of it this way, If I were to take the steam factor out and only focus on the clockwork I would feel like I was missing out, and the same goes for the clockwork aspect. I feel that in (at least my variation of) Steampunk you need BOTH clockwork and steampowered machines, hand and hand, to make one beautiful counter culture.. I see what your getting at; but to me they are very distinct things, and don't need to be combined. Especially since clockpunk is typically earlier (100 years or more, 18th century to da Vinci) - and as such relies of clockwork for power, steam technology not existing yet. Whilst the two can be 'mixed' (see below), clockpunk is perfectly valid on its own. Steampunk more subsumes clockpunk as you progress through time. You can still have clockwork, but the important and defining part is that you've got advanced steam power. That's what makes it steampunk; not the clockwork. You can still have advanced clockwork by all means, but it's not necessary is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:26 pm
Captain Amaranth clockpunk is typically earlier (100 years or more, 18th century to da Vinci) - and as such relies of clockwork for power, steam technology not existing yet.
Ooo I like that. I never really thought of it in a different time period, which I think is why I have been so confused this whole time. I've always just assumed they took place at the same time, in which case it would be silly to split them. In that case I do agree, they are removed from one another. But, I think there is a very large place in steampunk for clockwork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:39 pm
Dixie Dellamorto Captain Amaranth clockpunk is typically earlier (100 years or more, 18th century to da Vinci) - and as such relies of clockwork for power, steam technology not existing yet. To me, both are mixed. Then again, I like to mix things, so it seems normal to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:51 pm
Dixie Dellamorto But, I think there is a very large place in steampunk for clockwork. Indeed, very much so!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:02 pm
don't most steam devices have clockwork parts????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:15 pm
tatteredoll don't most steam devices have clockwork parts???? I'm going to say: No.
This answer may be confusing, mostly due to the stupidity of the English language. To elucidate; a vast number of mechanical devices use cogs and gears - from simple winding mechanisms, to those used in clocks, to steam engines, internal combustion engines to electric drive systems. However, these are not all clockwork. Clockwork uses cogs, but not everything with cogs is clockwork. Moreover, clockwork is the term applied to devices (not just clocks) which rely on winding mechanisms (e.g. springs, first wound by human power) etc. to produce force and movement. Steam devices do not have such mechanisms.
Also worth mentioning: steam devices can function with no cogs at all (e.g. just pistons).
It's all about what produces the power, really.
Simply mechanisms rely on direct human power.
Clockwork relies on springs, and also weights (i.e. mechanical storing of force) - typically with a very specific escapement mechanism.
Atmospheric engines use air pressure.
Steam engines use steam pressure.
etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:37 pm
Captain Amaranth tatteredoll don't most steam devices have clockwork parts???? I'm going to say: No.
This answer may be confusing, mostly due to the stupidity of the English language. To elucidate; a vast number of mechanical devices use cogs and gears - from simple winding mechanisms, to those used in clocks, to steam engines, internal combustion engines to electric drive systems. However, these are not all clockwork. Clockwork uses cogs, but not everything with cogs is clockwork. Moreover, clockwork is the term applied to devices (not just clocks) which rely on winding mechanisms (e.g. springs, first wound by human power) etc. to produce force and movement. Steam devices do not have such mechanisms.
Also worth mentioning: steam devices can function with no cogs at all (e.g. just pistons).
It's all about what produces the power, really.
Simply mechanisms rely on direct human power.
Clockwork relies on springs, and also weights (i.e. mechanical storing of force) - typically with a very specific escapement mechanism.
Atmospheric engines use air pressure.
Steam engines use steam pressure.
etc. etc.I've already pointed out so much of this, are some folks ignoring my posts? Maybe I should cut down on the wall-of-text stuff? xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:47 am
Xeigrich I've already pointed out so much of this, are some folks ignoring my posts? Maybe I should cut down on the wall-of-text stuff? xp
It's more like an impenetrable fortress of text. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:48 pm
Xeigrich I've already pointed out so much of this, are some folks ignoring my posts? Maybe I should cut down on the wall-of-text stuff? xp Apologies Xeigrich, I did not see your earlier comments on the matter - and I felt it best to reply to tatteredoll. Sometimes I keep re-writing posts to make them have all the important bits in them, but without being windy and (most importantly) patronising. I hope I don't fail that last bit. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Xeigrich I've already pointed out so much of this, are some folks ignoring my posts? Maybe I should cut down on the wall-of-text stuff? xp Naw man, write what you feel. As a fellow wall of text-er, I think you should just rock what you do. And I agree, separating Clockpunk from Steampunk is micromanaging your genres.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:19 pm
Steampunck to me it a style that bases itself in Victorian/neo-Victorian as well as the individualism of the inventors of that time. Clockpunk is more of a distilled style of steampunk, that focuses more on the clockwork tech as the base of it's style.
it's not complicated to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:58 pm
Both are awesome. That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:58 pm
I will agree about the clock work being from an earlyer time.
Though i know a lot of people at the renaissance festival that i work at are steam punk. So I might bring this up with them.
And we have a crank powered clock there so I can see how the two may cross. ( Renaisance and steam that is. smile )
-goes off cause the weather is getting bad-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
