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 | 19 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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 16:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <k10i9c143m4bhlpfu0tpp97n7k98qlcfc4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446484 |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:21:17 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
>On 2/6/2017 2:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> Here, we don't have that folly so we don't have to keep tweeking clocks.
>>> OTOH, we're always asking ourselves if <somebody>, <somewhere> is an hour
>>> ahead of us, or two... (etc).
>>>
>>> So, its almost WORST than having to be consciously aware of the time changes!
>>
>> Some of us don't have to endure daylight savings time ;-)
>
>I don't -- but, I have to deal with folks elsewhere in the country who *do*.
>So, have to consider: it's 11A here. Is it just BEFORE lunch, there? Or,
>just AFTER? Is DST in effect (for THEM)? Or not?
>
>[Even worse to discover it's just a bit before *6*PM when you think it's
>actually just before *5*!]
Go to...
<https://www.timeanddate.com/>
and create your own World Clock... it's free... and _very_ handy if
you have clients worldwide as I do...
<http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/MyWorldClock.png>
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <o7b3mm$qup$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446495 |
On 2/6/2017 4:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:21:17 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> > wrote: > >> On 2/6/2017 2:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> Here, we don't have that folly so we don't have to keep tweeking clocks. >>>> OTOH, we're always asking ourselves if <somebody>, <somewhere> is an hour >>>> ahead of us, or two... (etc). >>>> >>>> So, its almost WORST than having to be consciously aware of the time changes! >>> >>> Some of us don't have to endure daylight savings time ;-) >> >> I don't -- but, I have to deal with folks elsewhere in the country who *do*. >> So, have to consider: it's 11A here. Is it just BEFORE lunch, there? Or, >> just AFTER? Is DST in effect (for THEM)? Or not? >> >> [Even worse to discover it's just a bit before *6*PM when you think it's >> actually just before *5*!] > > Go to... > > <https://www.timeanddate.com/> > > and create your own World Clock... it's free... and _very_ handy if > you have clients worldwide as I do... We solve most problems by simply resorting to email. Lets me keep my "current" sleep-wake schedule without having to synchronize to their *work* schedules. OTOH when SWMBO needs to chat with her friends, it requires a pause to consider where they actually LIVE (given that cell phone area codes no longer correspond to physical locations) and what their local time is likely to be. Assuming, of course, that they aren't currently IN TOWN due to seasonal residence changes! Or, traveling "elsewhere"...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <tf6i9cprr22ndnkihc894tjgmu0sjjg7bo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446522 |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:19:12 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
>On 2/6/2017 4:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:21:17 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2017 2:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Here, we don't have that folly so we don't have to keep tweeking clocks.
>>>>> OTOH, we're always asking ourselves if <somebody>, <somewhere> is an hour
>>>>> ahead of us, or two... (etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, its almost WORST than having to be consciously aware of the time changes!
>>>>
>>>> Some of us don't have to endure daylight savings time ;-)
>>>
>>> I don't -- but, I have to deal with folks elsewhere in the country who *do*.
>>> So, have to consider: it's 11A here. Is it just BEFORE lunch, there? Or,
>>> just AFTER? Is DST in effect (for THEM)? Or not?
>>>
>>> [Even worse to discover it's just a bit before *6*PM when you think it's
>>> actually just before *5*!]
>>
>> Go to...
>>
>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/>
>>
>> and create your own World Clock... it's free... and _very_ handy if
>> you have clients worldwide as I do...
>
>We solve most problems by simply resorting to email. Lets me keep
>my "current" sleep-wake schedule without having to synchronize to their
>*work* schedules.
>
>OTOH when SWMBO needs to chat with her friends, it requires a pause
>to consider where they actually LIVE (given that cell phone area codes
>no longer correspond to physical locations) and what their local time
>is likely to be.
>
>Assuming, of course, that they aren't currently IN TOWN due to seasonal
>residence changes! Or, traveling "elsewhere"...
One of my main clients is in Hong Kong... 9 hour gap :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <o7b5qc$nh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446533 |
On 2/6/2017 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:19:12 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> > wrote: > >> On 2/6/2017 4:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:21:17 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/6/2017 2:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> Here, we don't have that folly so we don't have to keep tweeking clocks. >>>>>> OTOH, we're always asking ourselves if <somebody>, <somewhere> is an hour >>>>>> ahead of us, or two... (etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, its almost WORST than having to be consciously aware of the time changes! >>>>> >>>>> Some of us don't have to endure daylight savings time ;-) >>>> >>>> I don't -- but, I have to deal with folks elsewhere in the country who *do*. >>>> So, have to consider: it's 11A here. Is it just BEFORE lunch, there? Or, >>>> just AFTER? Is DST in effect (for THEM)? Or not? >>>> >>>> [Even worse to discover it's just a bit before *6*PM when you think it's >>>> actually just before *5*!] >>> >>> Go to... >>> >>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/> >>> >>> and create your own World Clock... it's free... and _very_ handy if >>> you have clients worldwide as I do... >> >> We solve most problems by simply resorting to email. Lets me keep >> my "current" sleep-wake schedule without having to synchronize to their >> *work* schedules. >> >> OTOH when SWMBO needs to chat with her friends, it requires a pause >> to consider where they actually LIVE (given that cell phone area codes >> no longer correspond to physical locations) and what their local time >> is likely to be. >> >> Assuming, of course, that they aren't currently IN TOWN due to seasonal >> residence changes! Or, traveling "elsewhere"... > > One of my main clients is in Hong Kong... 9 hour gap :-( That would probably come close to aligning with my sleep-wake schedule!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 21:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <uuci9cpjjrm6gmedlfbp434e2ulsvnajfk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446444 |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:04:52 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 2/6/2017 5:57 AM, Tim Williams wrote: >> FWIW, the most accurate clock I have, is in my car. I don't know quite how >> they managed it, but it runs on battery power (admittedly, it has quite a >> reserve to draw from!), tolerates wide temperature swings (at least -20 to 60C >> that I know of), and regularly goes a full year without skipping a minute. >> (It's within a minute of accuracy, throughout the year, too -- no noticeable >> seasonal error.) The only reason I have to set it is because of stupid >> Daylight Savings... > >This was always the joke with stated accuracies of clocks -- if you're going >to have to reset it every ~6 months, just how far out of sync *can* it get? > >Here, we don't have that folly so we don't have to keep tweeking clocks. >OTOH, we're always asking ourselves if <somebody>, <somewhere> is an hour >ahead of us, or two... (etc). > >So, its almost WORST than having to be consciously aware of the time changes! Pretty sad that you can't be bothered to change your watch twice a year. Even so, mine corrects itself to my cell phone, which is set by the cell provider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 20:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Current standard for watch precision |
| Message-ID | <8TRmA.868$YA7.706@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #446397 |
Tim Williams wrote: > FWIW, the most accurate clock I have, is in my car. I don't know quite > how they managed it, but it runs on battery power (admittedly, it has > quite a reserve to draw from!), tolerates wide temperature swings (at > least -20 to 60C that I know of), and regularly goes a full year without > skipping a minute. (It's within a minute of accuracy, throughout the > year, too -- no noticeable seasonal error.) The only reason I have to > set it is because of stupid Daylight Savings... > > If it's a TCXO, that wouldn't be too bad for a watch; an OCXO is also > plausible given the available current, but obviously that wouldn't work > so well for a watch*. > > *While worn, the watch temperature is pretty consistent (10-30C?). But > if it's taken off regularly, that goes out the window. > > Anyway, I'd be more than happy with a minute per year. That seems nice > and solid. I have no reason to believe my car does WWVB or GPSDO, so > it's certainly achievable without that assistance. > > But personally? As with most people, I just reach for my phone when I > need to know the time... * Timing from the cloud - beware of lightning! > > Tim >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o80h9ct9si4vvhm8lehd5i5b1ro8vrb198@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:22:26 +0530, the renowned Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> 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? Most internet-connected computers, cell phones GPS's, and TV set-top boxes all keep perfect time for most human purposes. For whatever reason, mechanical watches, including the highly touted tourbillon movements, do not often mention accuracy in a usable form. --sp -- Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 21:04 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <o7a521$t46$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #446406 |
On 2/6/2017 7:36 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:22:26 +0530, the renowned Pimpom > <pimpom@invalid.com> 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? > > Most internet-connected computers, cell phones GPS's, and TV set-top > boxes all keep perfect time for most human purposes. > > For whatever reason, mechanical watches, including the highly touted > tourbillon movements, do not often mention accuracy in a usable form. > > --sp > Actually, I was asking about standalone wristwatches without any auto-updating feature. I adjust all the timepieces in my house from time to time. The wall clock in my sitting room loses roughly a minute a week, the kitchen clock is fast by about the same amount. The ones in my home office and the bedroom are good to within a minute a month. One of my digital desk clocks is slow by 3.25 secs a day and another gains 3.73 secs a day (both averaged over a long time). Still another gains about 10 minutes a day! These are all $1 Chinese junk and I don't bother setting them. They're all a kind of experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TTman <pcw1.cad@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7a17v$lb9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
On 06/02/2017 05:52, 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? Buy a radio updated watch....forget accuracy it will always be spot on then you never have to worry. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 08:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <5898f0af$0$29144$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #446411 |
On 07/02/17 01:31, TTman wrote: > On 06/02/2017 05:52, 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? > Buy a radio updated watch....forget accuracy it will always be spot on > then you never have to worry. There are no radio time beacons in most of the world, including where Pimpom lives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tYydnUfRIb1_mgTFnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:22:26 +0530, 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? Well, you are asking this question in a world that has KickStarter: <https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/846511652/the-worlds-first-true- atomic-wristwatch-the-cesium> -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com I'm looking for work -- see my website!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 21:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dqbi9c5rd3nus2jp522do2fgcsf5h8djk2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:22:26 +0530, Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> 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? A second, absolute. They update themselves from Internet time standards. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | prairiesky <outgoing.server@mozilla.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o7br9i$ham$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
On 02/05/2017 09:52 PM, Pimpom wrote: > What would be considered a "good" wristwatch today in terms of > timekeeping precision? Forget about build quality, price, shock- and > waterproofing, etc. > > Half a century ago, a wristwatch with a-minute-a-month accuracy might > have been labelled a chronometer. What standard would you apply now? A Man With One Watch Knows What Time It Is, A Man With Two Watches Is Never Sure. Author : Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7d3ml$org$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446378 |
On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:22:26 +0530, Pimpom wrote: > What would be considered a "good" wristwatch today in terms of > timekeeping precision? Forget about build quality, price, shock- > and waterproofing, etc. > > Half a century ago, a wristwatch with a-minute-a-month accuracy might > have been labelled a chronometer. What standard would you apply now? I've had a lot of high-end Swiss watches that fall into the "certified chronometer category" over the years, all with self-winding mechanical movements. The best of them would keep to well within 20s over 3 months. Obviously that's unimpressive compared with even the cheap quartz/digital watches, but perfectly acceptable for my purposes anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 19:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aORmA.866$YA7.737@fx03.iad> |
| 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? 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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 00:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7gvot$bq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446958 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 23:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8uCdnTtekZ-AmQHFnZ2dnUU7-bWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #446978 |
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:48:56 -0500, rickman wrote: > 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. Dunno how common it was, but you can correct for the pendulum's nonlinearity by hanging it from a thin metal ribbon that's constrained by cycloidal guides on each side. A "regular" pendulum bob describes an arc -- you want the center of gravity to describe a parabola (I think that's right), in order to have a period that's independent of the size of the swing. You can also minimize the nonlinearity by minimizing the angle of the swing -- i.e., use a long pendulum that doesn't swing much. -- Tim Wescott Control systems, embedded software and circuit design I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested http://www.wescottdesign.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 00:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8uCdnTpekZ_imAHFnZ2dnUU7-bWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #446979 |
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 23:54:37 -0600, Tim Wescott wrote: > On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:48:56 -0500, rickman wrote: > >> 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. > > Dunno how common it was, but you can correct for the pendulum's > nonlinearity by hanging it from a thin metal ribbon that's constrained > by cycloidal guides on each side. > > A "regular" pendulum bob describes an arc -- you want the center of > gravity to describe a parabola (I think that's right), in order to have > a period that's independent of the size of the swing. > > You can also minimize the nonlinearity by minimizing the angle of the > swing -- i.e., use a long pendulum that doesn't swing much. Oops -- not a parabola -- the arc is a cycloid, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid#Cycloidal_pendulum -- Tim Wescott Control systems, embedded software and circuit design I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested http://www.wescottdesign.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 04:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7hebk$84u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446979 |
On 2/9/2017 12:54 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:48:56 -0500, rickman wrote: > >> 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. > > Dunno how common it was, but you can correct for the pendulum's > nonlinearity by hanging it from a thin metal ribbon that's constrained by > cycloidal guides on each side. > > A "regular" pendulum bob describes an arc -- you want the center of > gravity to describe a parabola (I think that's right), in order to have a > period that's independent of the size of the swing. Is that practical in the context of a clock? I've not heard of a clock like this although that is in effect what the Fedchenko AChF-1 clock does, just it uses a spring to adjust the restorative force rather than changing the path of the pendulum. > You can also minimize the nonlinearity by minimizing the angle of the > swing -- i.e., use a long pendulum that doesn't swing much. There must be some limitation to what you can do with that or you would see longer pendulums in the more accurate clocks. They seem to mostly use 1 meter pendulums as this gives a 2 second period. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web