jim77...@gmail.com said:
>So when a member of the general public says:
>Why do we need really accurate clocks?
>What is your answer?
>The alternative is inaccurate clocks, would that ever be preferable?
Wouldn't that depend on how late for work you were?
_
Antonio I8IOV wrote:
>I wrote:
>>Well the best reason is that by our social convention it makes people
>comfortable.
>>
>>But that reason does have much logic behind it.
>One month ago a 38-year old wristwatch resurfaced from a junk box and I
>decided to return to it at least temporarily. It
Well the best reason is that by our social convention it makes people
comfortable.
But that reason does have much logic behind it.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tim
Charles wrote:
>And even with a WWVB reference, one needs an "internal
>measurement assurance program" to support a claim of traceability for
>the measurements that one makes.
Correct. You must not only maintain a laboratory condition for your lab,
but you must keep - and validate - your phase
OK, John Forster and I have been kicking around a few things off line, and he
suggested I should bring part of it back on line. Maybe I have a few details
wrong, or maybe I have them right and some folks are unaware of them.
My concern about the BPSK, and breaking my Spectracom oscillator, is r
So, I just recently started trying to resurrect a Spectracom 8160A reference
oscillator. I'm assuming this is proposed WWVB change going to bite me in the
butt on this project as well. Not sure how it differs from units like the HP
117, but my understanding is that most of the old VLF receivers
