I bought a Casio 'atomic watch" about 3 months ago, one which uses the '3405' module. I've also been running checks with radio setting turned off, and mine is coming in at just under 1 sec per month, based on seeing how long it takes to drift one second.
But I find that visual/aural coordination is a poor way to do business- if the error is near zero (or an integer number of seconds), my eye/ear/brain will shift to make it look like it's "right on" within a few seconds even if the initial look says it's a little bit off. I hadn't thought of the video approach- sure wish I had a means to record video and then view it frame by frame. Dana On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Esa Heikkinen <tn1...@nic.fi> wrote: > Hi! > > There seems to be some kind of comeback going on with 80's style digital > watches. You may find replicas of some 80's models or even re-makes of the > original models from original manufacturer. > > So I decided to get one. As a time-nut my primary goal was to have radio > controlled 'atomic' model. So I ended up to Casio Wave Ceptor > WV-59DE-1AVEF. There's many models available from basic digital models like > this to very nice ones with with full titanium body (analog style). But > because of the 80's is hot it had to be digital... > > Wave Ceptors suport all time signals formats (US, UK/German and Japan) and > correct standard is automatically selected when home city is set. > > One of the first things to do was to test the accuracy with radio > syncronization turned off. Correct time was fist set with DCF77. Then I > switched off the synconization. After beign about three days off there was > no significiant visible error on time. In the video we can see however > about one frame error, which means about 40 milliseconds. Still that's > pretty good result for wrist watch. Also, the syncronization will occur > once per day when the reception is good. > > So the watch must be at least calibrated in the factory. Don't know if the > watch performs any kind of self-calibration according to radio > syncronization results, most likely not - but it would be technically > possible. > > So far so good, it's accurate enough - at least as new. When > syncronization is turned on, there should never be visible error on time. > > Here's my test video: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A23buFeHd0 > > -- > 73s! > Esa > OH4KJU > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m > ailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.