NavList:

   

Reply

Thank you everyone for answers so far. The most economic solution is of
course a wristwatch. If it is worn all the time, it will have a more
constant temperature and be more accurate. I would love to see a graph
of error vs temperature.

There is a bit of the luck of the draw with them. I had one Timex that
would loose less than a second every three months, but it now beeps with
the fishes.  My present one is less accurate. The manufacturers
obviously have some standards, but they vary quite wildly.

Geoffrey Kolbe also warned us that there is a burn-in period of a few
months. He used a small quartz alarm clock as well as a wrist watch ,
but I can't recall how it was for accuracy.

I love fine mechanical devices and would not turn down a mechanical
chronometer if given to me, but they are getting a bit pricey for my
budget. If I had that kind of cash, I'd get a Bretling.

Cheers

Bruce Hamilton
Vancouver, BC

Peter Fogg wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Hamilton writes:
> I find my trusty Timex is off about 6 seconds a month ..
>
> How about a fresher Timex?  The one I bought about 6 months ago
> promises a 10-year cell life, cost about 50 bucks, keeps time
> excellently, and (I can now say) quite predictably as well.
>
> However, if you yearn to possess a chronometer in its timber case,
> then that is another issue.
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply