Friday, December 12, 2008
00:53 by FoxTwo
Image via WikipediaLong long time ago, when man finally made a miniature clock small enough to put into the pocket, the watch industry was created. Through the years, the Swiss made a name for themselves in their craftsmanship in making watches.
Fast forward to modern day, the 21st century.
Now we have watches with tiny pieces of rocks inside it, called "quartz watches". They are supposed to keep very accurate time. Because quartz's (quartzes? quartzi?) need a current to be passed through them to cause them to vibrate and keep time, our watches no longer are just mechanical. Now, they have a power source, and are electrically powered! Witness the advent of Casio, Seiko, Citizen and a whole slew of other non-swiss watchmakers. The quartz truly did revolutionise the industry!
With this spawned a whole breed of humans, who are known as watch fanatics (or "fan" for short). Like any other fans, be it sounds (audiophiles), cars, bikes, planes etc. These people know everything there is to know about their favourite topic.
One particular argument that keeps popping up with watches and fans is the debate about "accuracy". Swiss or Japan? Which is more accurate?
Some people don't mind the watch being off by a few seconds a day. Some people are anal-retentive about their watches being off by even 1 second a week. Yes, even with a quartz, watches DO gain or lose time. Like all things man-made, it's not perfect. A quartz vibrates at a frequency that enables time to be kept more accurately than say, a pendulum, or water drips from a water clock. However, it still isn't "perfect". Perhaps the vibration is off by a few hundred beats a second, and the makers think that these few hundred beats equate to less than a few millionth of a second, so it's "ok" to ignore it.
It's just like 22/7 is a rough approximation of pi. It's close, but not a match.
Personally I don't mind that the watch loses or gains a few seconds a MONTH. However, I do adjust the watches I have every month to sync with atomic time. Why? It's just something I enjoy doing - to correct the time on my watches every month.
Eventually I learned that my Casios are the "least accurate" of all my watches. My oldest Casio G-shock can gain as much as 40 seconds a month. The most accurate was a Victorinox watch given to me by good old SAF to thank me for my years of Reservist training. That watch was only out 1 second every TWO MONTHS. Unfortunately, this particular watch died an early death. I replaced the battery on it one day, and then it died. Getting it fixed would cost me almost $100. I decided to not fix it. I may as well go out there and buy a new watch. If I added up all the costs of replacing all my watch batteries, I'd have spent like $50 every couple of years just to keep all of them running.
Hence, I have decided to stop buying watches that require battery replacements. That meant kinetics or solar powered watches. There's really only 1 brand that does kinetic watches - Seiko. Yes I own one of those. Not really the most accurate - it gains 1 second every 2 days. In other words, it'll be always 15 seconds too fast every month.
(No, an "automatic" is technically not a "kinetic", even if both use the body movements to generate power. An automatic watch is purely mechanical. Gears and springs make it work. A Kinetic watch uses electricity and a quartz crystal to keep time)
As for my solar powered watches - I have a cheap Casio. That one loses 1 second every 3 days. In other words, it's 10 seconds slow every month. Well it's cheap - only $50. What is ironic, is that my $50 Casio is "more accurate" than my $600 Seiko Kinetic (15 seconds fast every month). It also points something out - even if the watch is made by the same maker, it's not a given that it has the same kind of accuracy in every watch that it makes. Note my earlier reference to a Casio G-shock watch that is out 40 seconds a month which I bought way back in 1994 or so.
My Timex is also solar powered, and thus far it's more accurate that any watches I have that is still working. This is only my 2nd week owning it, and so far it's lost 2 seconds. Extrapolating, it will be 4 seconds slow every month. Not bad for a "cheap" $120 watch. But it still hurts to think my $600 watch is not the most "accurate".
Why all these talk about accuracy, especially when it's only mere seconds "off"?
No, it's not because my life is ruled by time down to the last second. It's just the watch geek in me that would like to have bragging rights about the watches I own. Unless someone owns a working atomic watch here in Singapore (such as one of those in the Waveceptor series by Casio), there is no way to automatically adjust the time-keeping function of a watch.
So I guess, "accuracy" is relative. Compared to the early 19th century watches, what we have today are highly accurate. Our watches are just mere seconds "off" every month.
ps: the clocks in your computer is also not accurate. It uses the CPU frequency to regulate time, and thus, computers do not need a quartz crystal. That is why we have clock-sync software to sync your computer time with atomic clocks on the Internet. If you pay attention to your computer clock, you will notice that on some days, it loses more seconds per day than other days. Why? Because different software you run, stresses your CPU differently. Running CPU-intensive apps will slow your computer clock down, because CPU time is taken away from updating the clock.
pps: the clocks on your mobile phones work on the same priciple too - your phone has a CPU, and the time is regulated the same way. Unless your telco is able to send clock-sync signals to your phone, your phone will be "off" every month by a few seconds too.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=30cbfc27-3c1d-4ca8-99ba-b9116616673f)
00:53 by FoxTwo
Let's Talk About Accuracy In Watches
Image via WikipediaLong long time ago, when man finally made a miniature clock small enough to put into the pocket, the watch industry was created. Through the years, the Swiss made a name for themselves in their craftsmanship in making watches.Fast forward to modern day, the 21st century.
Now we have watches with tiny pieces of rocks inside it, called "quartz watches". They are supposed to keep very accurate time. Because quartz's (quartzes? quartzi?) need a current to be passed through them to cause them to vibrate and keep time, our watches no longer are just mechanical. Now, they have a power source, and are electrically powered! Witness the advent of Casio, Seiko, Citizen and a whole slew of other non-swiss watchmakers. The quartz truly did revolutionise the industry!
With this spawned a whole breed of humans, who are known as watch fanatics (or "fan" for short). Like any other fans, be it sounds (audiophiles), cars, bikes, planes etc. These people know everything there is to know about their favourite topic.
One particular argument that keeps popping up with watches and fans is the debate about "accuracy". Swiss or Japan? Which is more accurate?
Some people don't mind the watch being off by a few seconds a day. Some people are anal-retentive about their watches being off by even 1 second a week. Yes, even with a quartz, watches DO gain or lose time. Like all things man-made, it's not perfect. A quartz vibrates at a frequency that enables time to be kept more accurately than say, a pendulum, or water drips from a water clock. However, it still isn't "perfect". Perhaps the vibration is off by a few hundred beats a second, and the makers think that these few hundred beats equate to less than a few millionth of a second, so it's "ok" to ignore it.
It's just like 22/7 is a rough approximation of pi. It's close, but not a match.
Personally I don't mind that the watch loses or gains a few seconds a MONTH. However, I do adjust the watches I have every month to sync with atomic time. Why? It's just something I enjoy doing - to correct the time on my watches every month.
Eventually I learned that my Casios are the "least accurate" of all my watches. My oldest Casio G-shock can gain as much as 40 seconds a month. The most accurate was a Victorinox watch given to me by good old SAF to thank me for my years of Reservist training. That watch was only out 1 second every TWO MONTHS. Unfortunately, this particular watch died an early death. I replaced the battery on it one day, and then it died. Getting it fixed would cost me almost $100. I decided to not fix it. I may as well go out there and buy a new watch. If I added up all the costs of replacing all my watch batteries, I'd have spent like $50 every couple of years just to keep all of them running.
Hence, I have decided to stop buying watches that require battery replacements. That meant kinetics or solar powered watches. There's really only 1 brand that does kinetic watches - Seiko. Yes I own one of those. Not really the most accurate - it gains 1 second every 2 days. In other words, it'll be always 15 seconds too fast every month.
(No, an "automatic" is technically not a "kinetic", even if both use the body movements to generate power. An automatic watch is purely mechanical. Gears and springs make it work. A Kinetic watch uses electricity and a quartz crystal to keep time)
As for my solar powered watches - I have a cheap Casio. That one loses 1 second every 3 days. In other words, it's 10 seconds slow every month. Well it's cheap - only $50. What is ironic, is that my $50 Casio is "more accurate" than my $600 Seiko Kinetic (15 seconds fast every month). It also points something out - even if the watch is made by the same maker, it's not a given that it has the same kind of accuracy in every watch that it makes. Note my earlier reference to a Casio G-shock watch that is out 40 seconds a month which I bought way back in 1994 or so.
My Timex is also solar powered, and thus far it's more accurate that any watches I have that is still working. This is only my 2nd week owning it, and so far it's lost 2 seconds. Extrapolating, it will be 4 seconds slow every month. Not bad for a "cheap" $120 watch. But it still hurts to think my $600 watch is not the most "accurate".
Why all these talk about accuracy, especially when it's only mere seconds "off"?
No, it's not because my life is ruled by time down to the last second. It's just the watch geek in me that would like to have bragging rights about the watches I own. Unless someone owns a working atomic watch here in Singapore (such as one of those in the Waveceptor series by Casio), there is no way to automatically adjust the time-keeping function of a watch.
So I guess, "accuracy" is relative. Compared to the early 19th century watches, what we have today are highly accurate. Our watches are just mere seconds "off" every month.
ps: the clocks in your computer is also not accurate. It uses the CPU frequency to regulate time, and thus, computers do not need a quartz crystal. That is why we have clock-sync software to sync your computer time with atomic clocks on the Internet. If you pay attention to your computer clock, you will notice that on some days, it loses more seconds per day than other days. Why? Because different software you run, stresses your CPU differently. Running CPU-intensive apps will slow your computer clock down, because CPU time is taken away from updating the clock.
pps: the clocks on your mobile phones work on the same priciple too - your phone has a CPU, and the time is regulated the same way. Unless your telco is able to send clock-sync signals to your phone, your phone will be "off" every month by a few seconds too.
