Hey Jim,

I added the battery backed real-time-clock in the NADSBox so it could put 
timestamps on files written to the SD card.  However during extended testing, I 
learned that the clock is not that accurate and drifts over time.  I’m not sure 
if this is due to a PCB layout issue, a mismatch in the 32KHz crystal 
capacitance or what.

But it will loose or gain seconds and minutes over time.  Just keep that in 
mind.  Not sure about the +32 minute thing.

Ken

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2019, at 12:57 AM, Jim Anderson <jim.ander...@kpu.ca> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 
>>>> Got mine too!  THANKS!
>>> 
>>> Biting my nails waiting for mine (it'll be a few weeks yet, because
>>> Canada) :)
>> 
>> least the mail carrer will say "sorry eh"
> 
> Imagine my amazement when I got home from work today (Wednesday - yes I know 
> it's after midnight now) and there was the box from Ken!  I don't know how 
> you got them to do it but this is quite literally the fastest I have ever 
> received a parcel from the U.S. and I am so happy with the NADSbox - a great 
> piece of work!
> 
> Only one question for Ken: files I copy onto the SD card seem to be 
> timestamped exactly 32 minutes ahead of the time set in the NADSbox.  I did 
> notice when I first set it up that the time was set behind current, and I 
> fixed it but didn't make a note of how far behind it was, so I'm wondering if 
> you had shipped it out with the clock set 32 minutes slow to compensate for 
> this?
> 
> After a little experimentation I found that if I set the time and 'copy con' 
> a file from the terminal interface, the file has the correct timestamp.  If I 
> then use TS-DOS to copy a file into the NADSbox it will have a timestamp that 
> is +32 minutes, and if I *then* go to the terminal interface and 'copy con' 
> another new file it will now have a timestamp +32 minutes...
> 
> I've got the time set 32 minutes slow now and it seems to be reliably 
> creating files with the correct timestamp so I'm not sure if this is the fix 
> or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>        jim

Reply via email to