What's Wrong With This Picture?

The waves emanating from the watch?

Brandon, "The waves emanating from the watch?" No, I think what you're referring to are the broadcast waves emanating from Fort Collins, Colorado, station WWVB. Now I see what you mean, but that's not what I had in mind. Regards, Don

Apart from the fact that the fist looks disproportionaly bigger than the wrist, you need at least three broadcast points to correct for transmission delay.

Don: Not the thin yellow lines. The thick, light gray circles.

My guess: the wrist is a certain width going into the watchband and a much larger width upon exit. I don't know about you guys, but my wrist doesn't do that.

Arthur, Apart from the fact that the fist looks disproportionaly bigger than the wrist, you need at least three broadcast points to correct for transmission delay.

 Signal path delay will be less than 20 milliseconds, especially at 60khz with no ionospheric reflections involved, so no significance for 1 second resolution displays.

All: Don't take the question too literally.

Regards, Don

Well, the waves aren't exactly emanating from Fort Collins Colorado in the picture, if my guesstimate is right. Closer to Kansas. (No, I don't have a photographic memory, just access to Google Maps.)

I think Arthur is right about the wrist.

It bugs me that the image only shows the contiguous US. I would feel more comfortable with a picture that made it unmistakable that the watch would update itself anywhere in the world. And if it really only works in North America, I'm not interested.

I don't know about how it looks for you all, but for me the watch is fast by a minute. When it was 2:04 (the digital display read 2:04:00, same as my computer clock), the watch unmistakably read 2:05. The second hand is exactly in sync with the digital readout but the minute hand is exactly one minute fast.

Constant,

I don't know about how it looks for you all, but for me the watch is fast by a minute. When it was 2:04 (the digital display read 2:04:00, same as my computer clock), the watch unmistakably read 2:05. The second hand is exactly in sync with the digital readout but the minute hand is exactly one minute fast.

That wasn't what I saw, but you're right, except that it looks like a minute and a half fast.

How about the accuracy of the digital time display?

Regards, Don

Now that I look at it after noon, I see that it is showing "04:04:00" which I would generally interpret as 4:04 AM. I always understood the preceding "0" in front of the hour as meaning 24 hour time, particularly in the absence of an AM/PM indicator.

But maybe that's just me...

Mark,

Now that I look at it after noon, I see that it is showing "04:04:00" which I would generally interpret as 4:04 AM. I always understood the preceding "0" in front of the hour as meaning 24 hour time, particularly in the absence of an AM/PM indicator.

Yes, it doesn't appear that it can distinguish between AM and PM without having such an indicator if it doesn't use the 24hr clock. I don't know about your leading zero indicator, however.

My complaint was that the display didn't really provide any time information, but just copied the system clock. This wouldn't be obvious if you had your system setup for automatic update and didn't deliberately offset the time.

 Regards, Don

I've seen many web-based real-time time displays, and as far as I could tell they all use the computer's clock. So I was expecting that in this case and not bothered by it.

Here's one of my favorites. It is a "hand-drawn" digital clock.