Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446378 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-06 11:22 +0530 |
| Last post | 2017-02-09 04:57 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
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
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 11:22 +0530 |
| Subject | OT: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <o792ut$ooh$1@news.albasani.net> |
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?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 22:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f50a1321-ae5e-4968-b0f0-39d20cb28a7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
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? > ** The Quartz standard, of course. Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml ..... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:15 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <o79nlk$1f5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #446379 |
On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >> > > ** The Quartz standard, of course. > > Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: > > http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml > Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch nowadays. For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its accuracy. I do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer clock. It's now exactly one month since I synced it to the computer clock. The analog section is ahead by 6 seconds and the digital one is behind by 35 secs. The errors may not be linearly cumulative but I think it's pretty good for a US$7 watch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 05:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1544285-0970-4212-88f9-c533dc3aab02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446391 |
Pimpom is a Boring Fuckwit Troll: > >> > Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level > of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch > nowadays. ** Then read the FUCKING LINK - ASSHOLE !! Wot a boring fuckhead. .... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 19:30 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <o79vh9$dcv$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #446399 |
On 2/6/2017 6:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote: > Pimpom is a Boring Fuckwit Troll: > >> >>> >> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level >> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch >> nowadays. > > > ** Then read the FUCKING LINK - ASSHOLE !! > > Wot a boring fuckhead. > Ah, good old Phil. Nice to see that you're still your old sunny self. Anyway, I did read the link. But do you really want me to choose one web article to the exclusion of the collective opinions of several readers here? The question was not in the nature of "What is 1+1?" It was more like "What do you think?" BTW you should really think up some new insults. The ones you've been using year after year are getting stale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 06:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e732ebe-eca1-421b-81b1-f5d595add98a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446405 |
Pimpom is a Boring Fuckwit Troll: > > > >>> > >> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level > >> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch > >> nowadays. > > > > > > ** Then read the FUCKING LINK - ASSHOLE !! > > > > Wot a boring fuckhead. > > > > Anyway, I did read the link. > ** Then completely ignored it. > But do you really want me to choose > one web article to the exclusion of the collective opinions of > several readers here? > > ** So you did not read my first post either. ALL you want to do is troll, because your life is worthless. Means you consider other people's time worthless too. Makes you a pathetic sociopath and all round prize cunt. FOAD. ... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nub12 <nub12@null.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 07:57 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <-6SdnTbxRczwkATFnZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #446412 |
On 06-Feb-17 10:33 PM, Phil Allison wrote: > > Pimpom is a Boring Fuckwit Troll: >> > >> >>>>> >>>> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level >>>> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch >>>> nowadays. >>> >>> >>> ** Then read the FUCKING LINK - ASSHOLE !! >>> >>> Wot a boring fuckhead. >>> >> >> Anyway, I did read the link. >> > > ** Then completely ignored it. > > >> But do you really want me to choose >> one web article to the exclusion of the collective opinions of >> several readers here? >> >> > > ** So you did not read my first post either. > > ALL you want to do is troll, because your life is worthless. > > Means you consider other people's time worthless too. > > Makes you a pathetic sociopath and all round prize cunt. > > FOAD. > > > > ... Phil > > > > > > > > Good to see you are still in form Phil. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 20:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <JURmA.869$YA7.332@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #446399 |
Phil Allison wrote: > Pimpom is a Boring Fuckwit Troll: > >> >>> >> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level >> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch >> nowadays. > > > ** Then read the FUCKING LINK - ASSHOLE !! > > Wot a boring fuckhead. > > > > > > .... Phil Wisdom comes from not being a jerk...IOW, NOT you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 20:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <o7aefh$8o3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446391 |
On 6.2.17 13:45, Pimpom wrote: > On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >>> >> >> ** The Quartz standard, of course. >> >> Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: >> >> http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml >> > Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level of > accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch nowadays. > > For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from > www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its accuracy. I > do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer clock. It's now > exactly one month since I synced it to the computer clock. The analog > section is ahead by 6 seconds and the digital one is behind by 35 secs. > The errors may not be linearly cumulative but I think it's pretty good > for a US$7 watch. In my books the watch is suspect if the analog and digital sections get out of sync from each other. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 00:12 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <o7ag37$1ki$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #446437 |
On 2/6/2017 11:46 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote: > On 6.2.17 13:45, Pimpom wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison wrote: >>> Pimpom wrote: >>> >> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level of >> accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch nowadays. >> >> For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from >> www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its accuracy. I >> do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer clock. It's now >> exactly one month since I synced it to the computer clock. The analog >> section is ahead by 6 seconds and the digital one is behind by 35 secs. >> The errors may not be linearly cumulative but I think it's pretty good >> for a US$7 watch. > > > In my books the watch is suspect if the analog and digital > sections get out of sync from each other. > I used to think that the analog and digital sections in a combo watch would share the same time base generator. But I began to doubt that assumption when I changed the batteries (plural) in a friend's watch some years ago. It was easy to verify that the two sections used separate batteries and, by inference, separate time bases. The disparate errors in my own watch confirm it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o7agso$ijm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446437 |
On 2/6/2017 11:16 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: > On 6.2.17 13:45, Pimpom wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >>>> >>> >>> ** The Quartz standard, of course. >>> >>> Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: >>> >>> http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml >>> >> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level of >> accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch nowadays. >> >> For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from >> www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its accuracy. I >> do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer clock. It's now >> exactly one month since I synced it to the computer clock. The analog >> section is ahead by 6 seconds and the digital one is behind by 35 secs. >> The errors may not be linearly cumulative but I think it's pretty good >> for a US$7 watch. > > In my books the watch is suspect if the analog and digital > sections get out of sync from each other. "A man who owns two clocks is never sure what time it is..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 05:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7bn7d$op4$2@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #446391 |
On 2017-02-06, Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> wrote: > On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >>> >> >> ** The Quartz standard, of course. >> >> Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: >> >> http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml >> > Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level > of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch > nowadays. > > For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from > www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its > accuracy. I do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer > clock. It's now exactly one month since I synced it to the > computer clock. The analog section is ahead by 6 seconds and the > digital one is behind by 35 secs. The errors may not be linearly > cumulative but I think it's pretty good for a US$7 watch. about half a second per day was typical of inexpensive quartz crystal watches in the 1980s About 1987 I decided watches were't worth the bother, especially cheap watches that pulled hairs from my arm. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 02:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7btns$k90$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446607 |
On 2/7/2017 12:50 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2017-02-06, Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >>>> >>> >>> ** The Quartz standard, of course. >>> >>> Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: >>> >>> http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml >>> >> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level >> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch >> nowadays. >> >> For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from >> www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its >> accuracy. I do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer >> clock. It's now exactly one month since I synced it to the >> computer clock. The analog section is ahead by 6 seconds and the >> digital one is behind by 35 secs. The errors may not be linearly >> cumulative but I think it's pretty good for a US$7 watch. > > about half a second per day was typical of inexpensive quartz crystal > watches in the 1980s > > About 1987 I decided watches were't worth the bother, especially > cheap watches that pulled hairs from my arm. I remember a *long* time ago I had one that had a trimmer cap in it. I would tweak that until it barely gained or lost time at all. But like all watches on my wrist, eventually it got beat up and quit working. I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a widely distributed network? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 14:53 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <o7c3n0$917$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #446610 |
On 2/7/2017 1:13 PM, rickman wrote: > On 2/7/2017 12:50 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: >> On 2017-02-06, Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >>>>> >>>> >>>> ** The Quartz standard, of course. >>>> >>>> Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: >>>> >>>> http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml >>>> >>> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level >>> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch >>> nowadays. >>> >>> For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from >>> www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its >>> accuracy. I do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer >>> clock. It's now exactly one month since I synced it to the >>> computer clock. The analog section is ahead by 6 seconds and the >>> digital one is behind by 35 secs. The errors may not be linearly >>> cumulative but I think it's pretty good for a US$7 watch. >> >> about half a second per day was typical of inexpensive quartz crystal >> watches in the 1980s >> >> About 1987 I decided watches were't worth the bother, especially >> cheap watches that pulled hairs from my arm. > > I remember a *long* time ago I had one that had a trimmer cap in it. I > would tweak that until it barely gained or lost time at all. But like > all watches on my wrist, eventually it got beat up and quit working. > > I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a > trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power > line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes > later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that > wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol > > Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it > would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? > I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running > up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a > widely distributed network? > We don't have the resources for generating large amounts of power here (no coal, no large rivers) and we import most of our requirement from neighbouring states. My son is in charge of monitoring the system, communicating with the external power companies, advising those responsible for distributing power within the state, and so on. He says that one basis used by the power company in allotting power is the frequency. When it falls to 49.9 Hz (from 50Hz), it indicates that the generating plants are being overworked and we are urged to cut down our consumption. It also incurs a penalty in what the state pays out. The point of all this is that, at least in some parts of the world, power line frequency is nowhere near accurate enough to serve as the time base for RTCs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k21k9chpteo8tls1lf92ouou1rm88f067d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446621 |
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:53:42 +0530, Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> wrote: >On 2/7/2017 1:13 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 2/7/2017 12:50 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: >>> On 2017-02-06, Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> On 2/6/2017 11:43 AM, Phil Allison 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? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ** The Quartz standard, of course. >>>>> >>>>> Goolge has heaps of info on this topic: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml >>>>> >>>> Perhaps I should rephrase the question. I meant to ask what level >>>> of accuracy would be considered good for a consumer wristwatch >>>> nowadays. >>>> >>>> For example, I bought a Chinese analog-digital wristwatch from >>>> www.aliexpress.com last month and have been monitoring its >>>> accuracy. I do this by comparing it to a freshly synced computer >>>> clock. It's now exactly one month since I synced it to the >>>> computer clock. The analog section is ahead by 6 seconds and the >>>> digital one is behind by 35 secs. The errors may not be linearly >>>> cumulative but I think it's pretty good for a US$7 watch. >>> >>> about half a second per day was typical of inexpensive quartz crystal >>> watches in the 1980s >>> >>> About 1987 I decided watches were't worth the bother, especially >>> cheap watches that pulled hairs from my arm. >> >> I remember a *long* time ago I had one that had a trimmer cap in it. I >> would tweak that until it barely gained or lost time at all. But like >> all watches on my wrist, eventually it got beat up and quit working. >> >> I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a >> trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power >> line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes >> later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that >> wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol >> >> Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it >> would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? >> I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running >> up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a >> widely distributed network? >> >We don't have the resources for generating large amounts of power >here (no coal, no large rivers) and we import most of our >requirement from neighbouring states. My son is in charge of >monitoring the system, communicating with the external power >companies, advising those responsible for distributing power >within the state, and so on. > >He says that one basis used by the power company in allotting >power is the frequency. When it falls to 49.9 Hz (from 50Hz), it >indicates that the generating plants are being overworked and we >are urged to cut down our consumption. It also incurs a penalty >in what the state pays out. > >The point of all this is that, at least in some parts of the >world, power line frequency is nowhere near accurate enough to >serve as the time base for RTCs. Line frequency varies in the US, too (it's unavoidable) but the long-term accuracy is very good. Other than outages, atomic-standard good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 02:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <753bb8a0-7cb9-4c20-a149-cde496eb85fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446610 |
bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > From memories of some fairly general descriptions, the power line > frequency goes up when the consumer load drop and whatever is > rotating the generators has some free torque left over to speed > them up, and drops when the consumer load increases and the > generators end up sacrificing some rotational energy to the grid. > > > The control gear matches driving power to load as fast as it can, > and there is integrator somewhere in the system that makes sure > that average mains frequency ends up as exactly 50Hz (or 60Hz in the US). > > ** On the East cost of Australia, the frequency of the grid is controlled by Hydro power stations in the Snowy Mountains - cos of their ability to vary the torque applied to their generators much faster than steam driven turbines can be varied. Over the short term, variations up to of 1 part in 500 are normal while the long term accuracy is within a few cycles per day. Makes synchronous AC clocks worth owning. The producers of those gadgets must have one hell a lobby going. .... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | upsidedown@downunder.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m6rj9ctrb76kmetgvmk966eiqqqovlsvlp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446610 |
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:43:33 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a >trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power >line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes >later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that >wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol > >Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it >would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? >I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running >up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a >widely distributed network? This is exactly how synchronous AC generators are operated. A changing load will slightly change the frequency and the primary mover (water, steam) are adjusted accordingly. The variation is small and the error in a mains synchronized clocks is usually below 10 to 15 s. During the night, the network is running slightly above nominal frequency, in order to catch up before the next morning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7dhq2$opl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446646 |
On 2/7/2017 10:56 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:43:33 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a >> trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power >> line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes >> later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that >> wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol >> >> Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it >> would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? >> I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running >> up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a >> widely distributed network? > > This is exactly how synchronous AC generators are operated. A changing > load will slightly change the frequency and the primary mover (water, > steam) are adjusted accordingly. The variation is small and the error > in a mains synchronized clocks is usually below 10 to 15 s. During the > night, the network is running slightly above nominal frequency, in > order to catch up before the next morning. I think there is more to it than that. We aren't talking about a single generator, we are dealing with a country wide network that has to stay very close to in phase. I would be *very* surprised to find the grid would drift by multiple seconds within a day. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 14:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4120ef3-f2b0-4bd6-be60-66e76fa4737b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446695 |
Den tirsdag den 7. februar 2017 kl. 23.32.16 UTC+1 skrev rickman: > On 2/7/2017 10:56 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:43:33 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a > >> trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power > >> line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes > >> later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that > >> wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol > >> > >> Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it > >> would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? > >> I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running > >> up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a > >> widely distributed network? > > > > This is exactly how synchronous AC generators are operated. A changing > > load will slightly change the frequency and the primary mover (water, > > steam) are adjusted accordingly. The variation is small and the error > > in a mains synchronized clocks is usually below 10 to 15 s. During the > > night, the network is running slightly above nominal frequency, in > > order to catch up before the next morning. > > I think there is more to it than that. We aren't talking about a single > generator, we are dealing with a country wide network that has to stay > very close to in phase. I would be *very* surprised to find the grid > would drift by multiple seconds within a day. on the page Jeff linked to it says they can catch up ~17 seconds a day, once they get 20 seconds out of sync and it is just country wide, the synchronous grid of Continental Europe 667 gigawatts in 20 some countries
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | upsidedown@downunder.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 10:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <27ll9c1rn1mg14c2t9rgtpvee6sedka25n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446696 |
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:52:09 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >Den tirsdag den 7. februar 2017 kl. 23.32.16 UTC+1 skrev rickman: >> On 2/7/2017 10:56 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:43:33 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I also remember building a clock with a vacuum florescent display with a >> >> trimmer. I was adjusting it by beating a 60 Hz output against the power >> >> line. I could get it very, very close, but then ten or fifteen minutes >> >> later it would drift again! It took me awhile before I realized that >> >> wasn't the clock, it was the power line. lol >> >> >> >> Does the power line still drift like that? Is there a reason why it >> >> would in this day with the many sources of accurate timing available? >> >> I'd expect the many generators could do a much better job of not running >> >> up and down in frequency so much, or is this an inherent aspect of a >> >> widely distributed network? >> > >> > This is exactly how synchronous AC generators are operated. A changing >> > load will slightly change the frequency and the primary mover (water, >> > steam) are adjusted accordingly. The variation is small and the error >> > in a mains synchronized clocks is usually below 10 to 15 s. During the >> > night, the network is running slightly above nominal frequency, in >> > order to catch up before the next morning. >> >> I think there is more to it than that. We aren't talking about a single >> generator, we are dealing with a country wide network that has to stay >> very close to in phase. I would be *very* surprised to find the grid >> would drift by multiple seconds within a day. > >on the page Jeff linked to it says they can catch up ~17 seconds a day, >once they get 20 seconds out of sync > >and it is just country wide, the synchronous grid of Continental Europe >667 gigawatts in 20 some countries There are thousands of generators connected in parallel and the fluctuating frequency ensures that there are proper load sharing between generators. This method has been used for more than a century.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web