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

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446621

Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision

From Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com>
Newsgroups sci.electronics.design
Subject Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision
Date 2017-02-07 14:53 +0530
Organization albasani.net
Message-ID <o7c3n0$917$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References <o792ut$ooh$1@news.albasani.net> <f50a1321-ae5e-4968-b0f0-39d20cb28a7a@googlegroups.com> <o79nlk$1f5$1@news.albasani.net> <o7bn7d$op4$2@gonzo.alcatraz> <o7btns$k90$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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