Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #214101 > unrolled thread

Speaking of time service

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Speaking of time service hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-10 11:09 -0700
    Re: Speaking of time service Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 19:24 +0100
      Re: Speaking of time service hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-10 11:52 -0700
        Re: Speaking of time service JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 15:05 -0500
          Re: Speaking of time service Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 23:29 +0100
            Re: Speaking of time service gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-11 19:18 +0100
            Re: Speaking of time service hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-11 11:42 -0700
              Re: Speaking of time service JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 15:24 -0500
          Re: Speaking of time service Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 16:12 -0700
            Re: Speaking of time service J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 19:40 -0400
              Re: Speaking of time service JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 09:14 -0500
            Re: Speaking of time service JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 09:10 -0500
          Re: Speaking of time service hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-11 11:45 -0700
          Re: Speaking of time service usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-11 19:10 +0000
            Re: Speaking of time service JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 15:26 -0500
              Re: Speaking of time service Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-11 16:21 -0700
              Re: Speaking of time service maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-09-12 12:36 +0000
        Re: Speaking of time service Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-10 23:34 +0000

#214101 — Speaking of time service

Here is an ad by the Self-Winding Clock Co which
made the clocks served by the Western Union time system.

https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1946-12/page/n101/mode/1up

Don't know when WU got out of the clock business.  But
for many years their offices featured one of their clocks.

Don't know if the once common IBM clock systems were
interconnected with the WU time service (which would've
made sense for accuracy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_Winding_Clock_Company

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#214102

On 09/10/20 19:09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Here is an ad by the Self-Winding Clock Co which
> made the clocks served by the Western Union time system.
>
> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1946-12/page/n101/mode/1up
>
> Don't know when WU got out of the clock business.  But
> for many years their offices featured one of their clocks.
>
> Don't know if the once common IBM clock systems were
> interconnected with the WU time service (which would've
> made sense for accuracy).

The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
to start. There were several models, but the standard model
was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...

Chris



>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_Winding_Clock_Company
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214106

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:

> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...

Better than my Casio watch.

The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
such men on the payroll for that reason).

My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
periodically. Generally keep very good time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214111

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>
>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>
>Better than my Casio watch.
>
>The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>such men on the payroll for that reason).
>
>My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>periodically. Generally keep very good time.

We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.

He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
a week.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214118

On 09/10/20 21:05, JimP wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>
>> Better than my Casio watch.
>>
>> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed
>> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>> such men on the payroll for that reason).

The IBM master clocks were a work of art. Internal mechanism had 3-4 mm
brass plates for the main frame and parts were gold plated to resist
corrosion. Don't know when the name changed, but the uk side of
the business was originally called International Time Recorders, with
dials of that name. At some stage, they were bought out by IBM and
the dial logo changed to IBM, possible late 30's, mid 40's. I wanted an
IBM model as a nod to history, IBM made clocks as well, right ?. Mine
needs another strip down, as the escapement wheel is not even, though
it does regulate well. Dare not buy any more clocks, as even one can
become something of an obsession in rating terms :-).

IBM have a clock page here:

https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/cc/cc_room.html

Mine looks most like a model 15, with the spidery hands and
slightly surreal dial numbers.

>>
>> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery
>> periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>
> We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
> quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
> chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>
> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
> a week.
>

Now that is a skill in itself. Wouldn't know where to start with that...

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214153

On 10/09/2020 23:29, Chris wrote:
>
> The IBM master clocks were a work of art.

I've a GEC Pulsynetic and a Post Office No 36
awaiting my attention when I get A ROUND TUIT.

Since retiring I've been more of a horologist
than a computist or a radio ham. (G4SDW)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214156

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 6:29:19 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
> The IBM master clocks were a work of art. Internal mechanism had 3-4 mm
> brass plates for the main frame and parts were gold plated to resist
> corrosion. Don't know when the name changed, but the uk side of
> the business was originally called International Time Recorders, with
> dials of that name. At some stage, they were bought out by IBM and
> the dial logo changed to IBM, possible late 30's, mid 40's. I wanted an
> IBM model as a nod to history, IBM made clocks as well, right ?. Mine
> needs another strip down, as the escapement wheel is not even, though
> it does regulate well. Dare not buy any more clocks, as even one can
> become something of an obsession in rating terms :-).

The IBM corporation was formed by a merger between
Hollerith punched cards, a time clock company,
and a grocery scale company.  They were Computing,
Tabulating, and Recording.  They hired TJ Watson
to bring it together and get it moving.

Watson sold off the scale division early on.
Watson Jr said the time division became
unprofitable and sold that off in the
late 1950s.  In his memoir, he blamed
the managers for poor sales, though it wasn't
their fault.

Watson Jr said the timeclock business
was falling since industry didn't use
time clocks as much as they used to.
I don't know if that's true, but I certainly
have seen tons of time clocks in many
places.  IBM also made school clocks
and as far as I know, that's still in
demand.

Maybe the clock division didn't fit in
with IBM's computer division, perhaps
the profit margins weren't there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214164

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:42:13 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 6:29:19 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>> The IBM master clocks were a work of art. Internal mechanism had 3-4 mm
>> brass plates for the main frame and parts were gold plated to resist
>> corrosion. Don't know when the name changed, but the uk side of
>> the business was originally called International Time Recorders, with
>> dials of that name. At some stage, they were bought out by IBM and
>> the dial logo changed to IBM, possible late 30's, mid 40's. I wanted an
>> IBM model as a nod to history, IBM made clocks as well, right ?. Mine
>> needs another strip down, as the escapement wheel is not even, though
>> it does regulate well. Dare not buy any more clocks, as even one can
>> become something of an obsession in rating terms :-).
>
>The IBM corporation was formed by a merger between
>Hollerith punched cards, a time clock company,
>and a grocery scale company.  They were Computing,
>Tabulating, and Recording.  They hired TJ Watson
>to bring it together and get it moving.
>
>Watson sold off the scale division early on.
>Watson Jr said the time division became
>unprofitable and sold that off in the
>late 1950s.  In his memoir, he blamed
>the managers for poor sales, though it wasn't
>their fault.
>
>Watson Jr said the timeclock business
>was falling since industry didn't use
>time clocks as much as they used to.
>I don't know if that's true, but I certainly
>have seen tons of time clocks in many
>places.  IBM also made school clocks
>and as far as I know, that's still in
>demand.
>
>Maybe the clock division didn't fit in
>with IBM's computer division, perhaps
>the profit margins weren't there.

Yeah, that is kinda of an odd claim, as one of the companies I worked
for this century had time clocks. Only part of it was mechanical, most
of the innards were digital. I didn't see one, so I don't know if the
time was put onto their cards digitally or punched. I worked miles
away in another office.


-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214119

JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>> 
>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>> 
>> Better than my Casio watch.
>> 
>> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>> such men on the payroll for that reason).
>> 
>> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>> periodically. Generally keep very good time.
> 
> We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
> quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
> chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
> 
> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
> a week.
> 

Sounds like something out of the middle ages.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214126

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:12:41 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>> 
>>> Better than my Casio watch.
>>> 
>>> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>>> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>>> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>>> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>>> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>>> such men on the payroll for that reason).
>>> 
>>> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>>> periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>> 
>> We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
>> quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>> chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>> 
>> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>> a week.
>> 
>
>Sounds like something out of the middle ages.

If that pocket watch was a certified chronometer they should not have
been adjusting it.  With chronometers you monitor the rate and keep an
correction chart.  Adjusting a chronometer will often change the rate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214149

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 19:40:04 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:12:41 -0700, Peter Flass
><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>>> 
>>>> Better than my Casio watch.
>>>> 
>>>> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>>>> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>>>> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>>>> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>>>> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>>>> such men on the payroll for that reason).
>>>> 
>>>> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>>>> periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>>> 
>>> We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
>>> quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>>> chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>>> 
>>> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>>> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>>> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>>> a week.
>>> 
>>
>>Sounds like something out of the middle ages.
>
>If that pocket watch was a certified chronometer they should not have
>been adjusting it.  With chronometers you monitor the rate and keep an
>correction chart.  Adjusting a chronometer will often change the rate.

He may have been just telling the new guy a sea story, but they did
adjust the clock in our tech office for the correct time. It rarely
needed adjustment.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214146

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:12:41 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>> 
>>> Better than my Casio watch.
>>> 
>>> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>>> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>>> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>>> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>>> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>>> such men on the payroll for that reason).
>>> 
>>> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>>> periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>> 
>> We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
>> quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>> chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>> 
>> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>> a week.
>> 
>
>Sounds like something out of the middle ages.

We had LORAN for determining where we were. But they kept in practice
so if the LORAN quit, they could still determine location. On our way
back from the Med one trip, it did fail. The Exec and the
quartermaster were out on the bridge wing taking noon sun sights.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214157

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 4:06:35 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:

> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
> a week.

Here is more information on Western Union's time service
WU time from the stars 1948
https://books.google.com/books?id=QtkDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA232&dq=%22western%20union%22%20%22time%20service%22&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false

WU Keeping clocks by wire 1931
https://books.google.com/books?id=BCgDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA37&dq=%22western%20union%22%20%22time%20service%22&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214161

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:05:27 -0500, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>
>>Better than my Casio watch.
>>
>>The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>>me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>>worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>>accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>>inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>>such men on the payroll for that reason).
>>
>>My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>>periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>
>We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
>quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>
>He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>a week.

Sighting the sun can give you your latitude -- but you have to know when it's
(solar) noon.  (Otherwise you need to make a series of sightings around
estimated noon and pick the one of greatest extent.)  But time and longitude are
linked. You can get one if you know the other, but if you don't know either then
you're lost.  This was a big problem until a solution was found for accurate
timekeeping at sea.  The usual means of the day -- water clocks, pendulum
clocks, et. al. -- got screwed up by the ship's motion at sea.  The story is
recounted in Dava Sobel's book, "Longitude," also the basis for a PBS NOVA
episode.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214165

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:10:28 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:05:27 -0500, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>>
>>>Better than my Casio watch.
>>>
>>>The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>>>me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>>>worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>>>accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>>>inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>>>such men on the payroll for that reason).
>>>
>>>My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>>>periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>>
>>We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
>>quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>>chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>>
>>He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>>chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>>take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>>a week.
>
>Sighting the sun can give you your latitude -- but you have to know when it's
>(solar) noon.  (Otherwise you need to make a series of sightings around
>estimated noon and pick the one of greatest extent.)  But time and longitude are
>linked. You can get one if you know the other, but if you don't know either then
>you're lost.  This was a big problem until a solution was found for accurate
>timekeeping at sea.  The usual means of the day -- water clocks, pendulum
>clocks, et. al. -- got screwed up by the ship's motion at sea.  The story is
>recounted in Dava Sobel's book, "Longitude," also the basis for a PBS NOVA
>episode.

I remember we deliberately steered well south of our home port. That
way the bridge personnel knew they just had to turn north when we
picked up the U.S. on radar.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214171

JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:10:28 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:05:27 -0500, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>>>>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>>>>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>>>>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>>>>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>>>>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>>>>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>>>> 
>>>> Better than my Casio watch.
>>>> 
>>>> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
>>>> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
>>>> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
>>>> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
>>>> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
>>>> such men on the payroll for that reason).
>>>> 
>>>> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
>>>> periodically. Generally keep very good time.
>>> 
>>> We had mechanical clocks aboard ship. Once a week one of the
>>> quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>>> chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>>> 
>>> He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>>> chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>>> take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>>> a week.
>> 
>> Sighting the sun can give you your latitude -- but you have to know when it's
>> (solar) noon.  (Otherwise you need to make a series of sightings around
>> estimated noon and pick the one of greatest extent.)  But time and longitude are
>> linked. You can get one if you know the other, but if you don't know either then
>> you're lost.  This was a big problem until a solution was found for accurate
>> timekeeping at sea.  The usual means of the day -- water clocks, pendulum
>> clocks, et. al. -- got screwed up by the ship's motion at sea.  The story is
>> recounted in Dava Sobel's book, "Longitude," also the basis for a PBS NOVA
>> episode.
> 
> I remember we deliberately steered well south of our home port. That
> way the bridge personnel knew they just had to turn north when we
> picked up the U.S. on radar.
> 

This was pretty standard in olden days (AFAIK). Since you could determine
latitude, just sail west (or east) until you hit land, and then up (or
down) the coast looking for your destination.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214186

On 2020-09-11, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:10:28 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:05:27 -0500, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>quartermasters, not supply but kept the ship's log and wound these
>>>chronometers, would stop by our office and check the time on it.
>>>
>>>He had a mechanical pocket watch, he told me it was also a
>>>chronometer. The Executive Officer and the head quartermaster would
>>>take noon sightings of the sun and adjust that pocket chronometer once
>>>a week.
>>
>>Sighting the sun can give you your latitude -- but you have to know when it's
>>(solar) noon.  (Otherwise you need to make a series of sightings around
>>estimated noon and pick the one of greatest extent.)  But time and longitude are
>>linked. You can get one if you know the other, but if you don't know either then
>>you're lost.  This was a big problem until a solution was found for accurate
>>timekeeping at sea.  The usual means of the day -- water clocks, pendulum
>>clocks, et. al. -- got screwed up by the ship's motion at sea.  The story is
>>recounted in Dava Sobel's book, "Longitude," also the basis for a PBS NOVA
>>episode.
>
> I remember we deliberately steered well south of our home port. That
> way the bridge personnel knew they just had to turn north when we
> picked up the U.S. on radar.
>

Sailing ships, I believe, would take soundings and reduce speed 
when they got them, either going west or east. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214124

On 2020-09-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>
>> The IBM clocks, with a Graham escapement, were quite accurate
>> to start. There were several models, but the standard model
>> was rated at 15 seconds / month, electrically wound spring,
>> and a more accurate weight driven model at 10 secs / month.
>> I rebuilt one of the standard models and got it rated to better
>> than 20 seconds in 3 months. Bit more effort may have done
>> even better. Not bad for a purely mechanical design...
>
> Better than my Casio watch.
>
> The care and feeding of old time mechanical devices amazes
> me.  For instance there used to be a popular railroad
> worker watch, Hamilton.  Supposedly very durable and
> accurate. Expensive to buy Yet periodically they needed 
> inspection and service by a trained watchmaker (railroads had
> such men on the payroll for that reason).
>
> My cheap electronic watches only need a battery 
> periodically. Generally keep very good time.

My 40-year-old Timex, given to me by a friend, gains
a second a day and takes a new battery once a year.
Takes a licking and keeps on, uh...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web