I need some help with a problem.
My trusty Casio black plastic [nylon?] watch has given up the ghost after a mere 15 years of devoted service -broken case.
I'm picking up a replacement from Argos in the morning, cost £8.38 but I'll need to set the time. I'm something of a nerd about accurate time keeping and I wondered which of the available sources gives the most accurate Greenwich time signal. I'm great radio fan and listen on a variety of sources [DAB, analogue, TV both satellite and terrestrial] and I've noticed that there are time lags between the various transmissions. Does anybody know which is closest to the "right time"?
I tend to use the Casio as my reference point for setting my other watches, including a couple of vintage wind up pieces. Can someone enlighten me?
Quote from: cycletrak9 on December 30, 2016, 10:19:45 PM
watch has given up the ghost after a mere 15 years of devoted service - they don't make them like they used to
I am not sure which of the available sources would be the most accurate, but as an aside, I did read in the paper the other day that there will be one 'leap' second added at 23:59:59 tomorrow night!
Try the website time.is
https://time.is/about explains how it gets its time.
Steam radio will give you an accurate time signal, apart from the tiny amount of time it takes the signal travelling at the speed of light to reach the set.
Can't beat using the source ;)
https://greenwichmeantime.com/
Paul
Sadly, radio today is unlikely to give an accurate time signal. Now that the distribution links are digital, the time delays from the source of the "pips" can be quite variable depending on the route to the transmitter. (Even if the final hop from the transmitter to the radio is analogue FM). A couple of decades ago the distribution delays were minimal, but that cannot be relied upon anymore. DAB is even worse, as it takes an additional time for your radio to decode the signal, and this varies between makes. Time on a computer can be very accurate, as there is a protocol called NTP that measures the delays on the link (e.g. internet connection) and compensates accordingly. Radio clocks that receive either the signal from Anthorn in Cumbria or Frankfurt in Germany can be very accurate, though I do find some of the cheap ones can be a second out in their display. GPS time is very accurate (to nano seconds), but again you can lose accuracy in what is actually displayed on something that is really intended to be a satnav.
I did once see the equipment that generated the time pips in the basement of Bush House for the BBC. It was in the early days of GPS. Three GPS receivers and a 60 kHz Rugby MSF receiver for "patriotic" reasons. Since then Rugby radio has turned into a housing estate and the transmitter moved to Cumbria, feeding a rather inadequate antenna. This is why many radio clocks have become less good at keeping lock (unless you have a Frankfurt one from Aldi/Lidl....)
It's all relative..... doesn't everyone know it's 10.17am on Saturday? ;)
Full details of the NPL Time Service system here, that makes sure a computer shows accurate time data by reference to a reliable time source:
http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/tts_user_guide.pdf (http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/tts_user_guide.pdf)
When I was working as a Guard (OK, Train Manager, in 'Newspeak) on First Great Western I had two watches, both (officially) 'radio controlled by a broadcast 'time signal' and therefore (in theory) should have been showing exactly the same time.
In practise they sometimes showed up to 30 seconds difference.
Given I live in Swindon, where you'd expect FGW to show the correct time, if no where else on their system, one watch reads (at the time of writing)
05.50.17 and the other 05.50.45 ::)
How does anyone define the 'right time' to the second?
Thanks everyone
It seems that, as with so many things, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
I can't imagine that I'll ever need to worry about 30 seconds either way but it was good to have the benefit of your collected wisdom.
According to time.is, my laptop is 0.2 of a second out!
@oscar (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=49), I think it's time to panic! :o
With a leap second being added tonight to global clocks you will be totally out of step with mankind this time tomorrow. :D
Except of course for my tongue in cheek remark. ;D
However, time moves on, and we are just a couple of hours away from the new year here.
All the best for 2017, everyone!
Back on topic, cycletrak9, I do believe our local electronics mag published a design for a GPS clock a year or so ago. I'll try and dig it out. :thumbsup:
George
Daffy, at 77 I'm well out of step with the modern world! :-\
Quote from: oscar on December 31, 2016, 10:36:44 AM
Daffy, at 77 I'm well out of step with the modern world! :-\
i know exactly what you mean Oscar, and I'm only 64! :beers:
Quote from: Bealman on December 30, 2016, 11:12:38 PM
It's all relative..... doesn't everyone know it's 10.17am on Saturday? ;)
Damn missed it!
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Jerry:
:laughabovepost: :laughabovepost:
Well don't blink in two hours time when they let all the fireworks off in Sydney...... I won't, 'cos I intend to be asleep! :beers:
Me too, George
Fireworks in Sydney happens every year about this time - what a bore!
Webbo
For a mere £3-400 extra you can buy a Casio watch that can communicate with your mobile phone and set the time automatically :D
Best regards,
Joe
Quote from: cycletrak9 on December 30, 2016, 10:19:45 PM
I need some help with a problem.
Does anybody know which is closest to the "right time"?
I tend to use the Casio as my reference point for setting my other watches, including a couple of vintage wind up pieces. Can someone enlighten me?
The Number 14 bus that passes our village every 2 hours is about the most accuate and never fails to be more than a couple of hours off its shedule :angel: :angel:
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Used to be 123 in the UK :thumbsup:
Paul
Looking up "Speaking Clock" bought both the info about the old telephone service, and an online replacement.
http://www.speaking-clock.com (http://www.speaking-clock.com)
It's useful as long as it's accurate, as we all need to be accarate. :D
Edit - despite its name, I've turned my iPad volume up full but can't here it saying anything at all, not even "At the second stroke it will be .........."
An Englishman in Ireland who pointed out to the Station Master that the clock on the opposite platform was not
at the same hour as the clock on the adjacent platform.
The reply was "Now sir what would we be needing two clocks for if they were to be telling the same time" :?
Quote from: Sprintex on December 31, 2016, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Used to be 123 in the UK :thumbsup:
Aha! My memory very vague! I stand corrected ;)
Paul
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 02:58:05 PM
Quote from: Sprintex on December 31, 2016, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Used to be 123 in the UK :thumbsup:
Aha! My memory very vague! I stand corrected ;)
Paul
I remember when it was "TIM"
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 02:58:05 PM
Quote from: Sprintex on December 31, 2016, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Used to be 123 in the UK :thumbsup:
Aha! My memory very vague! I stand corrected ;)
Paul
:confused2: How that happen? My response ended up embedded in the 'qoute'
Quote from: Sprintex on December 31, 2016, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Used to be 123 in the UK :thumbsup:
Paul
If you have a BT landline, it still is 123, but now it costs 45p a minute, whereas it was free when I was a lad a couple of years ago. ;)
From Wiki- "The service was obtained by dialling the letters TIM (846) on a dial telephone, and hence the service was often colloquially referred to as "Tim". However this code was only used in the telephone systems of the cities of London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Other areas initially dialled 952 but with the introduction of Subscriber Trunk Dialling it was changed to 80 and later 8081 as more 'recorded services' were introduced and was standardised to 123 by the early 1990s."
Quote from: daffy on December 31, 2016, 03:02:43 PM
Quote from: Sprintex on December 31, 2016, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jimbo on December 31, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Didn't it used to be 1181 on the telephone for the speaking clock? Or am I a bit behind the times as well? :uneasy:
Used to be 123 in the UK :thumbsup:
Paul
If you have a BT landline, it still is 123, but now it costs 45p a minute, whereas it was free when I was a lad a couple of years ago. ;)
From Wiki- "The service was obtained by dialling the letters TIM (846) on a dial telephone, and hence the service was often colloquially referred to as "Tim". However this code was only used in the telephone systems of the cities of London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Other areas initially dialled 952 but with the introduction of Subscriber Trunk Dialling it was changed to 80 and later 8081 as more 'recorded services' were introduced and was standardised to 123 by the early 1990s."
Aha! That was it, I knew it had some 8s and 1s in it at some time, :thumbsup:
And if you was very clever you could dial the number on the payphone without paying by tapping number on the hook switch,although dial a disc was much easier as that was 16
FM or Long Wave pips used to be accurate as they had a direct line from NPL to BRoadcasting House. The BBC compensated for the fixed link digital delay. I.e. They sent the pips early to Scotland. The long tone should be Used to set your sundials.
Quote from: Bealman on December 31, 2016, 10:48:01 AM
Jerry:
:laughabovepost: :laughabovepost:
Well don't blink in two hours time when they let all the fireworks off in Sydney...... I won't, 'cos I intend to be asleep! :beers:
Typical Australians - always jumping the gun re New Year - it doesn't happen for another 6 hours (or just over) but they have already celebrated - just like last year!
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on December 31, 2016, 05:52:23 PM
Typical Australians - always jumping the gun re New Year - it doesn't happen for another 6 hours (or just over) but they have already celebrated - just like last year!
It's an Aussie dodge to get an extra 6 hours of drinking time. :beers:
Take the time to read this. So I've been told/somewhere once that time travel is possible. Scientists say the most accurate time peices are atomic clocks. They left one in London and flew one out somewhere cannot remember where. The one that was on the plane lost something like 0.9of a second. So if we could travel at the speed of light. In theory we could travel back in time as th difference was due to the flight speed. We could only go back and not forward as the future has not happened yet. Will scour the net (in time) to find the article if I can. Just wanted to let you know.
Craig
OK, but (getting off topic - slightly) if we can only travel one way in time then that means we can never get back to the present - but then were I to return to c1965 - 70, the WR as it was - all worked by Hydraulics :D :thumbsup: and no steam engines :beers: then I'm not sure I'd want to come back.
We in theory could come back. As what you come back to has already happened. So it not the future. .
One question re time travelling:
Why? ???
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 01, 2017, 09:55:08 AM
OK, but (getting off topic - slightly) if we can only travel one way in time then that means we can never get back to the present - but then were I to return to c1965 - 70, the WR as it was - all worked by Hydraulics :D :thumbsup: and no steam engines :beers: then I'm not sure I'd want to come back.
I have to admit that the fascination of some for diesel hydraulics is curious as they have been proven to be a dead end in locomotive development. Less efficient and less reliable than diesel electric. Hydraulic transmissions seem to be suitable for low horsepower applications but not for serious power. Am I waving a red flag in front of a bull?
Webbo
Quote from: Webbo on January 01, 2017, 10:31:35 AM
Am I waving a red flag in front of a bull?
Webbo
Probably ;)
Nothing wrong with discussing the merits or otherwise of different types of locos though as long as it's objective and constructive, rather than just running other peoples' preferences down :thumbsup:
Paul
Fair enough Paul
I apologise if my post caused offence to anyone - not meant. Hand on heart.
Webbo
No point in time travel. If I would to change history in the past, it means the next man would and so on and so on, so where we are now we would not be doing. Sorry for the past posts. Going off the subject some what. Would go back in time to change if I could..... OK. I am sorry now. Leave it a that. Lol
Quote from: Webbo on January 01, 2017, 08:51:24 PM
Fair enough Paul
I apologise if my post caused offence to anyone - not meant. Hand on heart.
Webbo
I was making the point that your post
IS objective and constructive and in no way being offensive :thumbsup:
Paul
Quote from: Beans39 on January 01, 2017, 08:59:11 PM
No point in time travel. If I would to change history in the past, it means the next man would and so on and so on, so where we are now we would not be doing. Sorry for the past posts. Going off the subject some what. Would go back in time to change if I could..... OK. I am sorry now. Leave it a that. Lol
Hey, no apology needed at all. My question, short as it was, may have been misunderstood.
And there is always room for discussion, and it's entirely on topic, sort of, for as this thread is titled, it's only a matter of time.
And I have travelled in time - when I get off the plane in Zurich it seems I have been transported thus by a full hour! ;)
:beers:
Webbo and I are eleven hours in the future to you guys! :D
Not sure where I am. Half bottle of jd and work at 8.30.
Diesel hydraulics inspired one of the biggest forms of mass transport think V200 and
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/46/1970-020117032316.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=46770)
Not knowing what a V200 is, I resorted to Google which tells me that it can be a German diesel hydraulic loco built in the 50s or a type of Chinese ute (pick-up truck). I exclude the Chinese ute even though it can be bought with a turbo diesel motor.
I don't follow the reference to the Kombi van except that the V200 locomotive shows some resemblance to it. Right?
Webbo
I think the reference is to this loco @Webbo (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=4229)
"DB Class V 200.0 (from 1968: Class 220) was the first series production diesel-hydraulic express locomotive of the German Deutsche Bundesbahn and - as Am 4/4 - of the SBB-CFF-FFS in Switzerland. 86 built, retired in 1984." Wiki.
But like you I fail to see the VW reference at all. :confused2:
The v200 locomotive and the VW Type 2 Transporter were part of the post war German industrial resurgence . The appearance of VW was said to be based on the V200 . Some re engined V200s were operational in Italy as late as 2012 ,
Quote from: Webbo on January 01, 2017, 10:31:35 AM
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 01, 2017, 09:55:08 AM
OK, but (getting off topic - slightly) if we can only travel one way in time then that means we can never get back to the present - but then were I to return to c1965 - 70, the WR as it was - all worked by Hydraulics :D :thumbsup: and no steam engines :beers: then I'm not sure I'd want to come back.
I have to admit that the fascination of some for diesel hydraulics is curious as they have been proven to be a dead end in locomotive development. Less efficient and less reliable than diesel electric. Hydraulic transmissions seem to be suitable for low horsepower applications but not for serious power. Am I waving a red flag in front of a bull?
Webbo
Your opinion - NOT a fact. The truth is simply that Diesel Hydraulics in BR use were defeated by the 'not invented here' mentality in the boardroom, not because of any fault in design or operation.
And beyond this I will keep quiet as I don't want to risk getting kicked off the Forum!
I read somewhere that in the beginning there were serious problems with the hydraulics especially the torque converter but at the end they were more reliable and efficient than diesel electrics. Their looks were great. The Hymeckś beauty was in its ugliness but the Western just breathed power.
When I were lad.. at Swindon loco, I used to cadge the odd lift on freights and parcels trains back cab or up front if (I was lucky. The Swindon drivers LOVED the hydraulics as they always reckoned they could push them that little bit harder than their counterparts.
Jerry