Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446978

Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision
Date	2017-02-09 00:48 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o7gvot$bq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<o792ut$ooh$1@news.albasani.net> <aORmA.866$YA7.737@fx03.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/8/2017 10:59 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
> Pimpom wrote:
>> What would be considered a "good" wristwatch today in terms of
>> timekeeping precision? Forget about build quality, price, shock- and
>> waterproofing, etc.
>>
>> Half a century ago, a wristwatch with a-minute-a-month accuracy might
>> have been labelled a chronometer. What standard would you apply now?
>   I do not know the standard for Railroad Watches back then, but they
> were considered the elite for timing.
>   Correction: Wikipedia states: maximum variation of 30 seconds
> (approximately 4 seconds daily) per weekly check".

Yes, railroads were a major driver in timekeeping in order to keep the 
trains on time.  Not only did they want their clocks to be accurate, 
they wanted them to be synchronized.  There was more than one design for 
clocks connected via telegraph wires so they were always in sync. 
Adjust one in the main office and they others stayed in step.

The advancements made in mechanical clocks was truly amazing.  One of 
the ultimate clocks was the Shortt clock which used a free pendulum to 
control a standard pendulum by means of switches and relays.  It was the 
first clock accurate enough to measure the deviations in the length of 
the day.  It was not for some 20 years that other designs topped or even 
matched it.

There was one whose maker's name escapes me that corrected the 
non-linearity of the pendulum equation with a dual element spring. 
Seems a pendulum's swing is not exactly constant with varying length of 
swing.  The Shortt clock sought to keep that swing length constant by 
minimizing disruptions.  This clock used a compound spring to correct 
for the non-linearity in the pendulum equation.  So simple!  Of course 
it still had to be made to minimize all other losses, etc. and so was no 
trivial timepiece.

-- 

Rick C

Thread

OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 11:22 +0530
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 22:13 -0800
    Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 17:15 +0530
      Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 05:11 -0800
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 19:30 +0530
          Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 06:33 -0800
            Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision nub12 <nub12@null.com> - 2017-02-07 07:57 +0800
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:06 -0800
      Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-02-06 20:16 +0200
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 00:12 +0530
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 11:58 -0700
      Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-07 05:50 +0000
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 02:43 -0500
          Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 14:53 +0530
            Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:32 -0500
          Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 02:33 -0800
          Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-07 17:56 +0200
            Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:32 -0500
              Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-07 14:52 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-08 10:25 +0200
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 03:37 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 09:01 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:24 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 09:08 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:04 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-09 08:12 +1100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:28 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 16:19 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:36 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:38 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-09 18:39 +1100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 04:16 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 09:46 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:03 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-09 11:45 +0100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:12 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-09 13:31 +0100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 12:14 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:25 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-10 09:17 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-10 10:45 +0100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 21:56 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 02:06 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-10 22:24 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 01:54 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-10 18:10 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:34 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 15:49 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 15:55 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 16:08 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2017-02-09 03:24 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 20:34 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-02-08 23:26 -0600
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 23:28 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-09 00:48 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-09 06:52 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-09 20:37 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:11 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-09 23:13 +0200
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:17 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 19:29 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 20:16 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 17:13 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-02-08 12:54 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:35 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:50 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:14 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 11:35 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-08 23:16 +0200
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-09 09:59 +0100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:41 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:15 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 01:46 +0000
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:12 -0500
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-09 15:25 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-10 10:38 +1100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:42 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-08 11:01 +0100
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 04:06 +0000
              Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 21:02 -0500
          Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-07 10:24 -0800
            Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-07 10:48 -0800
              Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 11:12 -0800
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Mikko OH2HVJ <mikko.syrjalahti@nospam.fi> - 2017-02-08 09:33 +0200
                Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-08 06:31 -0800
      Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 09:58 +0000
    Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:00 -0800
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-05 23:01 -0800
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-02-06 03:21 -0800
    Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 17:25 +0530
  Re: Current standard for watch precision "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-06 06:57 -0600
    Re: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 19:10 +0530
      Re: Current standard for watch precision "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-06 08:13 -0600
        Re: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 21:04 +0530
      Re: Current standard for watch precision Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-06 09:30 -0500
        Re: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 06:56 -0800
      Re: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:11 -0800
    Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 12:04 -0700
      Re: Current standard for watch precision Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 14:58 -0700
        Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:21 -0700
          Re: Current standard for watch precision Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 16:06 -0700
            Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:19 -0700
              Re: Current standard for watch precision Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 17:52 -0700
                Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:55 -0700
      Re: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:44 -0500
    Re: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:04 -0800
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-06 09:06 -0500
    Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 21:04 +0530
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision TTman <pcw1.cad@ntlworld.com> - 2017-02-06 14:31 +0000
    Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 08:54 +1100
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-02-06 17:33 -0600
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:23 -0500
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision prairiesky <outgoing.server@mozilla.com> - 2017-02-06 23:00 -0800
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 18:29 +0000
  Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 19:59 -0800
    Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:48 -0500
      Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-02-08 23:54 -0600
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-02-09 00:00 -0600
        Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 04:57 -0500

csiph-web