Quartz

[ceagle]

For the last couple of months, I've been conducting a fairly simple test. I found an amazing deal recently, one quartz watch and a digital watch, together for $15! (so I bought four)..
And, I've been keeping tabs on them to see how they fare... because, alas, digital doesn't = accurate.

I used to think "digital, how could it NOT be accurate?", but I've seen so many digital time apparatus phail at being accurate.... VCRs, watches, phones, car clocks, etc...

Quartz though... now THAT is supposed to be accurate. Or at least much closer to it.
I think the standard is that they shouldn't veer off more than a minute a year? Pretty good, but I was hoping to split the difference and find one that is close to dead-on some time. And if anything, I prefer a timepiece that runs a bit fast, rather than slow.

The report so far is: after almost three months, Quartz watch #1 is 7 seconds slow, Quartz watch #2 is 5 seconds slow, digital watch (#3) is 15 seconds slow, and digital watch (#4) is 40 seconds fast.

;P

Drat.

None of them are really all that spot-on, but *sigh* I guess they aren't too bad.

Comments

[orv.livejournal.com]

Quartz watches are only accurate compared to spring-and-balance-wheel watches. Accuracy depends entirely on how well the crystal is ground, and also to some extent on its temperature — if you wear it all the time to keep it at a stable temperature, the accuracy will vary less.

If you need a really accurate watch your best bet is one of the "atomic" radio-synced ones. They pick up a signal from WWVB in Ft. Collins and correct themselves once a day.

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

What he said. You can have a watch with a quartz oscillator, but the accuracy is only as good as the quartz crystal that the oscillator is referenced to. If it's off frequency or temperature sensitive/drifty, it'll be inaccurate.

For accuracy, yes, you want a clock that's tied to the WWVB transmitter or an NIST time server. (I haven't seen anything like a watch that uses the latter, but it must exist).

[furahi.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, Atomic watches are not that expensive. You can find them for < $30

Normal digital watches are always off several minutes per week or two for me, which is very annoying; so now I'm not going back to a non atomic one (though ATM I don't have a watch at all)

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

I haven't worn mine in a year because the battery is dead and I've been too lazy to open it (assuming I could even figure out how). I usually check the time on the phone, since that's synchronized up with an NIST time server.

I'm surprised nobody has come out with a watch that synchs up with a phone/smartphone via bluetooth or Zigbee.

[furahi.livejournal.com]

I believe this one could do it at least in theory, but you'd have to write the software yourself

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

Oooh...that's cool! Too bad I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag. Maybe somebody else will write some software for it though :)

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

They discontinued the phone service for us over here... :/

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Yaw... It looks like that is probably the absolute best option, all things considered...

One thing that I've noticed over the years (considering trends you've noticed too)... analog watches don't like me too much ;D ... I can wear them on special occasions, but they tend to not last very long on me when I try for extended times... ;P

But digital watches.. WOW!... I've even had some Casio ones that have fallen into scalding chemicals, and start working again two days later! :D

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

*nod* I was wondering that :D
Certainly it's not a perfect 'practical' test... because they are sitting in one place and not being worn. Maybe, as you say, if I test it on the wrist for three months, it'll be more accurate. *waggletail*