# High Accuracy Timex?



## Precise

Over the years I've seen a few Timex watches which seemed to be higher accuracy than many pricier brands. During the past month, I tested several. Here are some results after one month and I'll post updates in the future. Readings were taken 
3/14/12 9:20P, 3/30 10:27A, and 4/12 9:30A:

Vibrator 0, +1/2 sec, +1








43mm Field Watch 0, -2, -4








Easy Reader 0, +0.5, +2








Expedition 0, +3, +2








Regards,

Alan


----------



## stratct

I didn't know timex made vibrators


----------



## Precise

stratct said:


> I didn't know timex made vibrators


It's a fine watch. See https://www.watchuseek.com/f296/praise-timex-vibrating-alarm-watch-608623.html?highlight=


----------



## LJUSMC

I have a timex easy reader like yours, and it's almost as accurate as my GS Quartz. I set them both to my atomic clock at the DST Change. My GS Quartz is +/-0 sec, and my timex easy reader is +0.75 (maybe +1 by now, this observation was made a few days ago).

Compare that with my G-Shock which I set on the same day: It was +22sec last week.



Precise said:


> Over the years I've seen a few Timex watches which seemed to be higher accuracy than many pricier brands. During the past month, I tested several. Here are some results after one month and I'll post updates in the future. Readings were taken
> 3/14/12 9:20P, 3/30 10:27A, and 4/12 9:30A:
> 
> Vibrator 0, +1/2 sec, +1
> View attachment 681168
> 
> 
> 43mm Field Watch 0, -2, -4
> View attachment 681173
> 
> 
> Easy Reader 0, +0.5, +2
> View attachment 681172
> 
> 
> Expedition 0, +3, +2
> View attachment 681176
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Alan


----------



## Catalin

*My only Timex ...*

Luck is the only major factor when the performance is not guaranteed :-d But to be honest it shows that a little more can be done by companies that are sometimes serious about it. The long-term factor is of course quartz aging :think:

My only Timex is far from high-accuracy - about +8 seconds/month - but to be honest that could be since it is not often worn :roll:


----------



## stratct

Precise said:


> It's a fine watch. See https://www.watchuseek.com/f296/praise-timex-vibrating-alarm-watch-608623.html?highlight=


It was a joke


----------



## Precise

*Re: My only Timex ...*

Here's an update on the three most accurate:

Timex Accuracy

3/14/12 9:20P, 3/30 10:27A, 4/12 9:30A, 4/27 9:15P
Vibrating Alarm 0, +1/2 sec, +1, +2
40mm Black -3, -1, -1, -2
Easy Reader +1, +1.5, +3(reset to 0 to fix date), +1/2


----------



## Hans Moleman

*Re: My only Timex ...*



Precise said:


> Here's an update on the three most accurate:
> 
> Timex Accuracy
> 
> 3/14/12 9:20P, 3/30 10:27A, 4/12 9:30A, 4/27 9:15P
> Vibrating Alarm 0, +1/2 sec, +1, +2
> 40mm Black -3, -1, -1, -2
> Easy Reader +1, +1.5, +3(reset to 0 to fix date), +1/2


They are doing pretty well.
May I ask how how they are kept?
Assuming off course you don't wear all three at the same time.
;-)


----------



## Precise

*Re: My only Timex ...*



Hans Moleman said:


> They are doing pretty well.
> May I ask how how they are kept?
> Assuming off course you don't wear all three at the same time.
> ;-)


I have worn the vibrating alarm a few days during this period. The others have not been worn.


----------



## DigitalSurf

*Re: My only Timex ...*

I have a 1440 sports Timex digital (I paid $12) which I hydro modded. Off the wrist it is now running less than a second fast per month. I live in a temperate climate, so that is probably influencing the accuracy, but my experience has been that my cheapo Timex digitals are more accurate than my G-shocks. My vibration alarm Timex is running about 3 seconds fast per month (worn about 1/2 the time I wear a watch (not at night), which still isn't bad.


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: My only Timex ...*



DigitalSurf said:


> I have a 1440 sports Timex digital (I paid $12) which I hydro modded. Off the wrist it is now running less than a second fast per month. I live in a temperate climate, so that is probably influencing the accuracy, but my experience has been that my cheapo Timex digitals are more accurate than my G-shocks. My vibration alarm Timex is running about 3 seconds fast per month (worn about 1/2 the time I wear a watch (not at night), which still isn't bad.


Much of the accuracy of non-TC quartz movements comes from the care given initial calibration. One can make any quartz with 0 spy error at any specific temperature. But picking that temperature and making sure all the movements are at that temperature seems to elude some makers.

Timex controls the manufacture of all of its designs, which are internally done. Evidently they care, at least for the class of Timexes you have. I wonder of the Easyreader series exhibits the same characteristics? (That's a low end product... of course a $12 digital is too...)


----------



## DigitalSurf

*Re: My only Timex ...*



Eeeb said:


> Much of the accuracy of non-TC quartz movements comes from the care given initial calibration. One can make any quartz with 0 spy error at any specific temperature. But picking that temperature and making sure all the movements are at that temperature seems to elude some makers.
> 
> Timex controls the manufacture of all of its designs, which are internally done. Evidently they care, at least for the class of Timexes you have. I wonder of the Easyreader series exhibits the same characteristics? (That's a low end product... of course a $12 digital is too...)


Interesting information. I was just surprised that such an inexpensive watch would turn out to be so accurate. It seems that the limited market for temperature controlled quartz movements is not so much due to cost, but perhaps because of a lack of consumer knowledge about their existence and therefore lack of demand.

I really need to do a month with that watch on the wrist to see if it stays as accurate. I would guess they'd attempt to calibrate to a temperature that would be closer to a watch being worn on the wrist. The body should provide some heat to keep the watch from getting too cold.


----------



## Precise

*Re: My only Timex ...*

Yet another update on the three most accurate:

3/14/12 9:20P, 3/30 10:27A, 4/12 9:30A, 4/27 9:15P, 5/11 6:00P

Vibrating Alarm 0, +1/2 sec, +1, +2, +3 (avg ~ +1.5/month)

40mm Black -3, -1, -1, -2, -2 (avg ~ +0.5/month)

Easy Reader +1, +1.5, +3(reset to 0 to fix date), +1/2, +2 (avg ~+2/month)

Alan


----------



## Watch wrist: g.p.

*Re: My only Timex ...*

Random chance is interesting but not particularly significant.
I had a stopped watch in my luggage during a trip I went on last year; it was correct twice a day most of the time but when crossing timezones this occurred even more frequently.


----------



## Precise

*Re: My only Timex ...*



Watch wrist: g.p. said:


> Random chance is interesting but not particularly significant.
> I had a stopped watch in my luggage during a trip I went on last year; it was correct twice a day most of the time but when crossing timezones this occurred even more frequently.


You seem to be bothered by my passing along experimental information. Do you view it as harmful to you?

I've seen enough superior accuracy from Timex to contend that their accuracy is superior to many pricier brands.


----------



## stratct

Precise said:


> You seem to be bothered by my passing along experimental information. Do you view it as harmful to you?
> 
> I've seen enough superior accuracy from Timex to contend that their accuracy is superior to many pricier brands.


Glad you said it lol


----------



## dicioccio

*Re: My only Timex ...*



DigitalSurf said:


> Interesting information. I was just surprised that such an inexpensive watch would turn out to be so accurate. It seems that the limited market for temperature controlled quartz movements is not so much due to cost, but perhaps because of a lack of consumer knowledge about their existence and therefore lack of demand.


DigitalSurf, this is my opinion too and this makes me very angry towards the manufacturers. The TC parts to be added can add no more than 50$ to the final cost. But as long as the market (and the customers) won't rise up the demand of a greater accuracy these manufacturers won't produce nothing than a standard accuracy watch.

To achieve a greater accuracy there is also the Radio Controlling method but I am sure that the electronics are far more complex and cost more than the electronics to implement the Temperature Compensation. Not to mention the GPS technology that needs a big space and a huge energy...

So the weird fact is that the manufacturers are increasing the offer of RC watches while TC watches are getting rare (Seiko is discontinuing all the 8F watches). Not to mention that TC gives the watch an intrinsic accuracy not depending on external sources.

In this scenario I wonder why Timex and Casio (2 brands that dominate the low-end segment of watches) don't offer an increased accuracy watch at a very affordable price. The ability to sell is not given by the intrinsic value of the watch but by the advertising and the aura built around the watch.


----------



## The Naf

Agree agree agree. Surely a thermocompensated quartz doesn't have to cost $1000 and upwards. I'm sure if there was enough Consumer knowledge and demand a more reasonable prices thermocompensated watch would exist. But alas for the current mechanical bandwagon decent quartz watches are very difficult to find at a reasonable price. Don't get me wrong i love mechanicals too. But when you talk about the quality of the movement there Definately seems to be more variety on offer for those who love high end mechanicals when compared to that on offer for lovers of HAQ's. Mean while I have gained a new found respect for timex thanks to this thread  Just shows what decent quality control and attention to detail can achieve in even a standard quartz watch.


----------



## Andrew McGregor

Ever notice the accuracy of the clock in your car? They're thermocompensated, and the chip that does it costs $3 and change, in quantity. So it's a trivial thing to add, and would make a very small difference to the cost of most quartz watches.


----------



## stratct

Andrew McGregor said:


> Ever notice the accuracy of the clock in your car? They're thermocompensated, and the chip that does it costs $3 and change, in quantity. So it's a trivial thing to add, and would make a very small difference to the cost of most quartz watches.


Really? That's cool to know


----------



## dicioccio

Andrew McGregor said:


> Ever notice the accuracy of the clock in your car? They're thermocompensated, and the chip that does it costs $3 and change, in quantity. So it's a trivial thing to add, and would make a very small difference to the cost of most quartz watches.


Well, my car (a 7 years old Opel) doesn't show a great accuracy so the clock isn't TC.

Anyway once more your affirmation shows how easy and cheap it would be to fit a Temperature Compensation to a standard watch.


----------



## artec

*Re: My only Timex ...*

I don't think anyone who is not in the industry can know how much it costs to add thermo-compensation or radio-correction to an existing movement, though I very much doubt that the additional material cost of components per unit is significant in either case. I understand that electronic bits and pieces can be dirt-cheap if they are produced in sufficient quantity these days. Where the cost lies is more likely to be in the engineering, the selection and in the necessary quality control. Here again, I don't believe that anyone not in the industry is in a position to know how much these activities can add to production cost.

Advertising and marketing must be a huge cost for all manufacturers. A good deal of what we poor buyers have to shell out is most likely in the various layers of the distribution and the profit taken in those layers. The mere fact that most retailers can offer 20% to 30% discounts and still make a decent margin of profit tells us that retail price is about twice wholesale and there are usually other layers involved too.

The fact that the only two GPS corrected watches that exist (or will exist by the end of this year) both happen to be exceptionally large in diameter and thick doesn't necessarily mean that such size and thickness is demanded by the technology. The correction mechanism and radio reception can be built into quite reasonably sized watches (I have an RC Citizen with a 36 mm diameter bezel; it's also eco-drive which may add to or subtract from size demands). I have no idea what GPS reception needs in the way of size and I don't think anyone not in that industry is likely to know either, or what can be done by way of miniaturization either. There are plenty of watches, quartz, SD and mechanical, simple and complicated, that are 47 mm in diameter and bigger, so we know that there are reasons other than necessity for big watches. Although I don't believe there is any certainty that GPS reception makes huge energy demands, though it may do, that shouldn't raise the size of the watch that employs GPS correction because certainly the Seiko Astron is solar powered, like my little Eco-drive Citizen.

I'd like to know why there aren't more reasonably priced high accuracy watches, too. In theory, it could be simply because the manufacturers don't believe that high accuracy would increase the perceived value of the product, because they don't believe offering high accuracy would increase the total number of watches the could sell or because they don't believe offering such products would improve their profit. Any one or more of these beliefs would be enough. Another possible reason is that maybe there are costs involved in making and offering high accuracy watches that we don't know about and don't know enough about the manufacturing processes to speculate about.

As for what it is that sells watches, I would suggest that advertising and perceived reputation (largely formed by advertising) are important once you get away from what one might call baseline watches, the lowest priced models, but down at that bottom end, I think it's likely to be price more than anything else. At this level, I don't believe that accuracy, or even claimed accuracy, is likely to be a factor at all.


----------



## artec

Do you mind telling me where you got that information from? Aside from anything else, the chance that a tc chip for a car clock would be available separately is vanishingly small and that it would be available for $3 and change even smaller. Maybe your informant misunderstood what thermocompensation was about?
I don't like to be argumentative but I'm reasonably sure that car clocks are not thermo-compensated. I know that one should never generalize from the particular, but I have had a row of new BMWs and one M-B since 1997, ending with a 2011 335 now and the clocks have all needed to be corrected fairly frequently. This one needs correcting about once every five or six weeks, which implies a drift of 2 or 3 seconds a day..... definitely not tc territory. The Mercedes I had a few years earlier behaved about the same. There may be other makes that offer tc clocks but I'd be very surprised.


----------



## dicioccio

artec, we are just doing a rough evaluation of what tc cost more than a standard watch. It is quite reasonable that a TC movement cost no more than twice the standard movement. So if you can have a full module of a low end watch for no more than 50$, then it is quite reasonable that the same movement thermo compensated cannot cost more than 100$. It doesn't need to be a super expert or a watchmaker to affirm that.

Of course we know that the total cost of a watch is given by many factors and parts and the module is only a small fraction. What I said in my previous post was to just think to add TC to a *standard *quartz watch (so not an high-end like a GS 9F or a Citizen A660/A010 or a Breitling), that is a watch with no particular waterproof and no particular case, even a plastic one with a full digital display. In this scenario and considering a 50$ standard Timex or Casio, how do you really expect to be the price increase due to the added TC feature ? I hardly doubt it can double the price.

I agree with you that the low-end quartz watches need to be cheap to be sold, so even a small price increase would be a bad factor. You must agree also with me than the top-end models (The Citizen or the GS 9F or the Breitling) cannot justify their prices only because they are TC. They cost a lot because they are very well refined (the case, the bracelet, the dial and even the movement inside).

This leads me to the mid range (something like 300$-1500$). You know the question because we've talked about that so much: "why the manufacturers are no more buildin any high accuracy watch in this price range ?" Why Seiko discontinued all the 8F models (that you can find now on some 100$ models) ? Why no manufacturer is currently offering any TC movement in this price range but they are developing only the RC technology ?

You have to agree with me that a RC technology is much more complicated because it needs an antenna (more space inside the case), more energy to receive the signal (in fact we found RC joined with solar charge) and a dedicated circuit to drive the antenna, decode the signal and resynch the quartz watch. You have to agree with me that TC is much more simple because the only advanced part is the logic to compensate the temperature fluctuations and this is only firmware.

Therefore in my opinion the manufacturers are promoting RC over TC only because it is a new advanced technology that can be advertised with great emphasis with sentences like "accurate up to 1 second in a million years", while a TC could be marketed only with a simple "20 seconds in a year".

Sorry for the long post that is also quite off-topic. And sorry artec if I am pushing hard on my opinions: this is not a personal attack, really ^_^ You can call it just frustration because time passes and I don't see any logic in the watch development nor marketing...


----------



## artec

I take it that your most recent post was in response to my earlier one. In response to your first paragraph, please re-read my first paragraph. I'm not disagreeing about the additional cost of compensating a movement, I'm saying that any additional cost is likely to be in the initial engineering and possibly in any necessary extra qc. The same arguments apply to cheap, mid-range and expensive watches except of course that any additional cost, whether labor, mechanical or electronic, would make up a much smaller proportion of the total cost of movements above the cheap ranges.

As I also said earlier, I'd like to know why there aren't more tc movements, I wish there were more. I don't think the reasons are technical or cost-related but more likely marketing based, but this is speculation, too.

I don't "have to agree" with you that RC tech is more complicated than tc. I don't know if it is or not. It may be or it may not but since there are a good many reasonably priced rc watches, it looks to me as if rc can't be all that complicated or expensive. My point, however, is that we don't know so whatever we say has to be speculation and arguing about your speculations against some-one else's speculations (or even mine) is a fruitless passtime. Maybe there are more RC watches than tc ones because it's easier for the manufacturers and sellers to go into ecstasies of exaggeration about them..... but again, if we don't know, we're arguing about speculation and that's a waste of breath because, by definition, you don't, and can't, know who is right, if anyone is.

And no, I know it wasn't a personal attack and didn't take it as one.

Partly as a result of the limitations of tc as such, and partly because rc and gps-correction are inherently better at maintaining accuracy than tc can ever be, I'm beginning to come round towards rc and gps. I'm still disappointed by the size of the only gps models (as well as unconvinced that the size is demanded by the technology) but hopeful that smaller models will emerge in time. At least the Astron, though it has a more complicated dial that seems necessary, is in infinitely better taste than the ghastly, garish Citizen Appleseed.


----------



## Sabresoft

artec said:


> I'm still disappointed by the size of the only gps models (as well as unconvinced that the size is demanded by the technology) but hopeful that smaller models will emerge in time. At least the Astron, though it has a more complicated dial that seems necessary, is in infinitely better taste than the ghastly, garish Citizen Appleseed.


I suspect that these are intended (like auto show special models) to launch the new technology with a bit of a splash and that eventually more mainstream models will be added to their lines. It might even be that SC (satellite controlled) or GPS technology eventually replaces RC, which appears to be replacing TC.

Still flogging a probably dead horse here, but to me the ultimate would be a TC movement with RC or SC. You'd get great accuracy with the RC/SC, and the TC would keep good time during periods when RC/SC synchronization fails. On a recent trip to the middle east I was able to get my Skyhawk AT to sync with the European signal (despite being theoretically out of range) for the first three days, but then it failed to sync after that. My G-Shock just plain refused to sync. There are situations where SC/GPS will fail to sync too (buildings/weather).


----------



## stratct

artec said:


> Do you mind telling me where you got that information from? Aside from anything else, the chance that a tc chip for a car clock would be available separately is vanishingly small and that it would be available for $3 and change even smaller. Maybe your informant misunderstood what thermocompensation was about?
> I don't like to be argumentative but I'm reasonably sure that car clocks are not thermo-compensated. I know that one should never generalize from the particular, but I have had a row of new BMWs and one M-B since 1997, ending with a 2011 335 now and the clocks have all needed to be corrected fairly frequently. This one needs correcting about once every five or six weeks, which implies a drift of 2 or 3 seconds a day..... definitely not tc territory. The Mercedes I had a few years earlier behaved about the same. There may be other makes that offer tc clocks but I'd be very surprised.


Lol my s10 keeps better time than your BMW and Merc's


----------



## Andrew McGregor

artec said:


> Do you mind telling me where you got that information from? Aside from anything else, the chance that a tc chip for a car clock would be available separately is vanishingly small and that it would be available for $3 and change even smaller. Maybe your informant misunderstood what thermocompensation was about?
> I don't like to be argumentative but I'm reasonably sure that car clocks are not thermo-compensated. I know that one should never generalize from the particular, but I have had a row of new BMWs and one M-B since 1997, ending with a 2011 335 now and the clocks have all needed to be corrected fairly frequently. This one needs correcting about once every five or six weeks, which implies a drift of 2 or 3 seconds a day..... definitely not tc territory. The Mercedes I had a few years earlier behaved about the same. There may be other makes that offer tc clocks but I'd be very surprised.


DS3234 Extremely Accurate SPI Bus RTC with Integrated Crystal and SRAM - Overview

It's that chip. It's intended for automotive use, and they cost $3.23 each in quantity. Maybe they are not used in the dashboard clock, but then I've had Subarus from the early 90s that had suspiciously accurate dash clocks. And the data sheet gives uncorrected accuracy of 60s/year or better (in a watch, it would be much better).


----------



## Andrew McGregor

Compared to TC, GPS is rather expensive: 14 Channel 20Hz GPS Receiver - Venus638FLPx-L - SparkFun Electronics (that's retail, it would be about $26 in production quantities), but the real issue with GPS is how much power the chip uses. That requires a chunky battery and solar power (you're not going to get enough energy from a kinetic mechanism). The GPS antenna is pretty trivial though: Antenna GPS Chip-Scale - SparkFun Electronics

I can't find an example radio time signal receiver right now, however the considerations are these: the circuitry is pretty cheap ($15-ish), the power requirement is low, but the antenna is big enough that it probably has to be wound right round the edge of the whole movement if it is going to work.


----------



## dicioccio

Hi artec,
I agree with what you said in your post and I know that nor me neither you are able to do exact calculations about the impact of modifying a production movement; also both of us are unaware about the true reasons behind not selling more TC movements.

But it is just because of this that I have nothing better than trying to do speculations. Speculation are not a wast of time since they are an attempt to understand the strategy of a manufacturer only getting informations "from outside". What's wrong with that ? Am I not free to share them with other people that would really like to know the reasons ? In the end I am wasting my own time: if you like contribute, I am happy to hear your valuable opinions. But on the contrary I don't see any advantage if you spend your time trying to say that mine are just speculations because I already know that, as everybody knows since I never said I work for a watch company.

For example Andrew McGregor spent his time finding some useful informations on the net with a rough evaluation of how much a GPS or a RC cost. Other useful informations are about the size.

So I would like to know your opinions about what we said rather that knowing that mine are just speculations, not because I don't like to be disagreed (I know I say oh so many bullshits ^_^) but rather because I would like to know more.


----------



## ronalddheld

How much more costly would adding TC/GPS to a TC watch be, assuming only a manual synch?


----------



## Andrew McGregor

That's hard to work out.

If it's a fly-by-wire movement or a digital, not too hard, but basically you're trying to figure out what it would cost to write the code. Estimating software is notoriously hard, but I'd say an additional development cost of a couple of hundred thousand, minimum. Amortised over the production of the watch, that's the biggest chunk of cost, not the hardware.


----------



## artec

In answer to dicioccio, I agree that there's nothing wrong with speculations or speculating but they shouldn't be presented as fact. The explanation of how the Seiko Astron works its magic that was provided by Ronald Held was justifiably presented as fact so that neither of us have to speculate any more. But we still don't have a clue about how big it has to be.


----------



## Andrew McGregor

Yes we do... it's limited by two things. One, the surface area of solar cell required to power it, and two the volume of lithium battery chemistry required to store that up for the times it turns the GPS on. Work it out, and you get a fairly chunky watch, but not silly. It will only get better as batteries and GPS chips continue to improve.


----------



## Hans Moleman

Andrew McGregor said:


> Ever notice the accuracy of the clock in your car? They're thermocompensated, and the chip that does it costs $3 and change, in quantity. So it's a trivial thing to add, and would make a very small difference to the cost of most quartz watches.


Now that you mention it, my car clock isn't doing too badly.
My exposure to it is very limited: I need to be in the car on the whole hour, listen to the radio and have the time to look at the clock when the hourly beeps are send.

Sometimes when I hear the beeps, I press its reset button. But it is usually a second or two off. Not bad for a clock that has to endure all sorts of temperatures.

With a bit of Googeling (that's a word now isn't it?) I found this link:

clockchip

If these are used, and by whom, I don't know. But the energy requirements of a 4.2 MHZ crystal can be safely ignored in a car.

Interesting. 
Maybe one day I'll take it out and have a look.


----------



## artec

I'm sure that those are factors involved.... maybe even all the factors..... but still we have no numbers, so we can't draw any conclusions about the necessary size, which is what I was talking about. For example, does a GPS watch actually need more surface area or volume than an RC watch? If it needs twice the area, that's 41% bigger diameter. Do we need twice the volume of lithium battery to provide the wattage needed for the GPS reception? That would be about 25% more volume. And both those increases assume that the RC watch with which we are comparing is making the best use of its size.

Even knowing what the factors are, we still don't know the effect of those factors on the physical size of the beast, do we?


----------



## Andrew McGregor

I expect it's more like eight times the volume of battery for GPS compared to anything else, but negligible surface area (a GPS antenna is about 1x4 mm, they're tiny... that's about the lume area on the hour hand of the Seiko I'm wearing today). The GPS chip itself will add a bit of volume as well, they're about 8x8x1 mm which is actually quite a bit to squeeze in to a watch. But a clever designer can certainly get the CPU and other logic in that GPS to do all of the processing required, so some silicon will go away from the rest of the movement.


----------



## artec

Those are interesting numbers, thank you. I don't know how much battery volume is required by, as an example, my Citizen RC watch, which certainly is one of the smaller ones, but unless that's a lot more than what one would expect to find in an ordinary quartz watch, even 8 times that doesn't come anywhere close to explaining the difference in size between the Citizen and the Seiko Astron..... very roughly 2.7 times the total volume. Still, based on your 8 times the battery volume, it does appear that a GPS corrected watch would have to be bigger than an RC one. Of course, we don't know how efficiently the inside of a watch is used. A battery 8 times the volume could be any shape but assuming the same form, it would need all its dimensions to be doubled.


----------



## Andrew McGregor

Of course, Garmin make a whole line of GPS capable watches, and there's also the Suunto Ambit. Now, all of those are navigation devices, so they run their GPS more or less continuously, and therefore can run their batteries down in less than a day. None of them attempt solar charge, because at that power level it's pointless. However, their batteries are similar to what you would need.


----------



## artec

I may have misled you in my questions.... if so, I'm sorry. I have no intention of doing anything like making or modifying a watch to be GPS corrected. I was trying to figure out whether the size of the Seiko Astron was justified by its GPS correction and its light-powered battery charging. Trying to do this by comparing the size of the Astron with that of my RC Citizen Brightz. The numbers you gave seem to indicate that, while a GPS corrected, light-powered watch would have to be bigger than the Brightz, it wouldn't have to be as big as the Astron, volumetric efficiency being more or less equal.
Actually, I didn't know Garmin made GPS capable watches, I must look into them!
Thanks anyway!


----------



## Andrew McGregor

You might not intend to make a GPS watch... but I'm seriously thinking about it!


----------



## dicioccio

artec, you always say that I present my speculations as facts. Therefore I add some more details:
- Seiko Astron is big
- Citizen Appleseed is big
- Garmin GPS watches are big (Garmin GPS Watches - a model for every activity and price range)
- Timex GPS watches are big (Timex Ironman)
- Suunto GPS watches are big (Suunto launches the AMBIT GPS watch | Suunto)

Now the *fact* is that the GPS watches currently available are all big, very big...

We can speculate about why they are big: it is only a matter of design or it is really something needed to accomodate the GPS additional circuitry and antenna ?

I can see that nowadays the big watches (> 39mm without crown) are very appreciated. Anyway more than 45 mm means thay are not just big, they are "huge". In my very personal opinion it is not simply something required by the design but probably something needed to accomodate the technology.

Another *fact* is that GPS devices requires a lot more energy. The mobile devices (such as smarphones, as well as GPS navigators) quickly drain their batteries. In particular a smartphone reduces its stand-by time at least by 20% when GPS module is active. Some watches state that they can remain with their GPS modules for only a couple od days, if not less. Therefore actually the energy consumption is a vital point. A fact is that both Appleseed and Seiko are also light-powered while the others, when GPS is active, needs to be recharged in a day or two.

It is also stated, for example, in the Seiko Astron advertising (Seiko Astron. The World's First GPS Solar Watch.(March 5, 2012) - Newsroom - Epson) where they say "_Only Seiko's advanced energy-efficiency technology could invent the miniature GPS receiver that requires so little energy to receive GPS signals from four or more satellites. Only Seiko's unrivalled skills in micro-engineering could package this technology into a watch that is just 47 mm in diameter_". I am not a literate and my mother tongue is Italian, but this sentence says that their GPS watch required a lot of effort to control the extra-power required and a lot of effort to maintain the size of the watch in a "human package" (47mm !).

I don't know the relation between size of the battery and its capacity. Anyway it is a *fact* that the bigger, the longer the battery will provide its energy.

Doing just rough calculations, a 39 (dia) x 13 (thick) watch has a gross volume of 15.53 dm3, while a 45 x 15 has a gross volume of 23.86 dm3, that is 53,6% more. 45x15 is just the minimum size of the actual GPS watches.

On the contrary, even the early Radio Controlled watches weren't so big. So the RC technology is intrinsically more efficiant (in terms of space and energy) than the GPS. And in fact the actual Citizen Exceed (artec, you have one of them) have "normal" size.

One factor that could be discussed is the frequency used to carry the signal. The signal broadcasted by the time sources use long waves (40-80 kHz) while GPS uses roughly 1.6 / 1.2 GHz. As you know an oscillator requires more energy the higher is the frequency. So even if the GPS module is activated for a short time, it will require much more energy than a standard RC module. Another fact is that a RC module "listens" only a frequency at time, while a GPS needs to create multiple connections to different satellites in order to get the position. I don't know if a GPS watch needs only one connection or multiple, but for sure it has to find a "visible" satellite and connect to it. This process (often called "cold start" in the GPS navigators systems) is much more difficult for the device who listens rather than the simple listening of a given frequency used by RC devices.

To me it is very logical (and not only a simple speculation) that the actual technology requires more energy (and therefore a more space for the battery). Probably they will require less space in the future, probably the specific capacity of the batteries (that is the capacity related to the unit volume) will increase in the future, but who knows ?

If you take a look at some wrist shots of the Seiko Astron (you can find them on the advertising or in the promotional videos on YouTube) you will easily notice how HUGE the watch looks on a normal wrist. So ok that actual tastes like big watches but hey man, it looks just... huge ! I am sure than people on Seiko will reduce the size as soon as they can or the watch will not sell.

So artec, instead of saying that I present my speculations as a facts, I would appreciate much more that your efforts would be turned to find interesting informations rather than to dismantle my speculations.


----------



## ronalddheld

There are several companies with GPS watches, but the style may not be appealing to people here.


----------



## artec

I agree with almost all of your *facts* and agree that your conclusion (that GPS watches most likely do need to be substantially bigger than RC or uncorrected watches). I've always agreed with that position. What I was arguing about (and I apologize if I trod on your feet when I complained about facts and speculation) was how much of the Astron's monstrous size was really necessary (certainly some of it) and how much was due to Seiko's belief that big watches were fashionable/accepted, especially if they used some new high technology. As an engineer yourself, I'm sure you understand my preference for clarity in differentiating between fact and speculation.
From what little I know about the Garmin GPS watches, it appears that they are more than just GPS watches in that they do some navigating, too. How much of their bulk is needed for that we don't know.

I did similar gross volume calculations comparing my RC Citizen with the Astron, arriving at a factor of about 2.7 times bigger. I find it difficult to believe that all of that additional bulk is really needed for the differences between the two but I have to admit that this belief is really no more than belief and is somewhat steered by the fact that I want a GPS corrected watch!

You say: "I can see that nowadays the big watches (> 39mm without crown) are very appreciated. Anyway more than 45 mm means thay are not just big, they are "huge". In my very personal opinion it is not simply something required by the design but probably something needed to accomodate the technology."

I understand your belief and agree with it but my point was, and is, that we don't know how much of the "huge-ness" is needed and how much is, to use a single word where many are probably needed, fashion, and simply accepting that the size of the Astron is all due to necessity can only be speculation. 

I like the idea of the GPS corrected watch and while I'd prefer a dial less busy than the Astron's, I quite like its appearance and "styling" (horrible word!) better than those of most watches that try to deliver a lot of information. So I was trying to convince myself (so far without success) that I would be able to deal with the size of the Astron in order to get the world-wide correction capability that it offers.

I have no wish to dismantle your speculations, Alessandro, I only want to make sure that they admit to being what they are and can't be read as anything more. We all speculate about what's coming along, how it will look, how it will work, how accurate it will be (more, I hope) and, in order to talk about the future, as well as some elements of the present, we have no choice.


----------



## ronalddheld

How large are GPS digital watches compared to the GPS astron?


----------



## artec

I had no idea that there were any digital GPS watches..... are there?

My next project is to explore Garmin GPS watches, both the see how big they are and what they do.


----------



## artec

I have just briefly explored Garmin GPS watches. They are digital and they do a whole lot more than tell time, such as measure heart rate and tell you where you are. Whether the time that they deliver digitally is GPS corrected or not I don't yet know but I wanted to provide a first-cut answer to their sizes. There are rectangular watches, also digital, that are about 48 mm across and round faced ones that appear to be about 41 mm in diameter. I will pursue the issue of whether the digital time reading is GPS correct or not and will report when I am reasonably confident of my answer. At first blush, I don't think so, but logic says they ought to be.


----------



## Andrew McGregor

They are GPS corrected, and I suspect thermocompensated as well although Garmin have never said so. Suunto GPS watches are not GPS corrected now, but Suunto promises that feature in a firmware update.


----------



## artec

Most of the Garmin watches have a 1 inch diameter, round, digital display, according to the website, and they appear to be quite a bit less enormous than the Seiko Astron. I have no idea how much volume is taken up by the other capabilities of the Garmins....heart monitors, mapping etc..... but on the face of it, it looks as if it ought to be possible for someone to make a GPS corrected model smaller than either Seiko's or Citizen's, though it would need room for the gear train if it were to have an analogue display. 
Not all that much evidence on which to base expectations but at least a bit more positive than the Astron and Appleseed pointers!


----------



## dicioccio

Hi artec,
if I'm not wrong the Garmin are made with plastic: do you think this can save a couple of mm if compared to the all-metal and sapphire glass Astron ?

What surprises me a lot is especially the thickness of the Astron (16,5mm !): you can hide a nuclear power plant inside such a huge volume


----------



## artec

The round Garmins appear to be a reasonable size, though using a metal case versus the plastic one could probably save a bit more volume still.

If there's room for a power plant in the Astron, maybe you could find room for an atomic clock?

(We need to be careful with these attempts at humor!)


----------



## Catalin

artec said:


> Most of the Garmin watches have a 1 inch diameter, round, digital display, according to the website, and they appear to be quite a bit less enormous than the Seiko Astron.
> ...
> Not all that much evidence on which to base expectations but at least a bit more positive than the Astron and Appleseed pointers!


You should also keep in mind that Garmin devices are supposed to need a recharge from some external source like every 1-2 days, while Astron / Appleseed are supposed to be self-sufficient in the power department 

Oh, and can we cut a little on the huge fonts - like using those just for really important stuff and not all the message? (some people really get to look at the forum from tiny displays) :-d


----------



## artec

I'm the one who habitually uses the big font..... I just find it a whole lot easier to read than these little squinchy ones. The size choices offered are limited and I usually pick "4". 

I'm not sure what you mean by people "really get to look...... from tiny displays". Wouldn't bigger fonts be easier to read than tiny fonts on tiny displays?

But if you prefer tiny, I guess I can do tiny.


----------



## ronalddheld

There is a tradeoff on phones between font size and amount of content on those screens.


----------



## petew

Some of the Garmin watches are quite reasonable in size. My Garmin GPS golf watch is pretty small. Problem is, I have to recharge it quite frequently so there is a big tradeoff between size and power reserve. My Suunto Ambit has a longer power reserve but...the watch itself is quite a lot larger too. I suspect that the huge sizes of the Appleseed and upcoming Astron have as much to do with the size of the battery within as anything else.


----------



## artec

I think your suspicion may well be on the money, so what we have to hope for now is improvements battery efficiency, charging efficiency and/or light collection or conversion. I would guess that Garmin chose small size over long battery life because a round of golf has a more or less finite duration?


----------



## Catalin

artec said:


> I'm the one who habitually uses the big font..... I just find it a whole lot easier to read than these little squinchy ones. The size choices offered are limited and I usually pick "4".
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by people "really get to look...... from tiny displays". Wouldn't bigger fonts be easier to read than tiny fonts on tiny displays?
> 
> But if you prefer tiny, I guess I can do tiny.


Sorry about that - I was trying to be funny :roll:

The thing is that everybody can read easier with bigger fonts but (as already mentioned by Ronald) on certain devices the amount of "screen real estate" is very limited. On the other hand when I read on a more decent display I still get to bigger fonts for all the page with simple browser tricks (CTRL +/-), but when I do that it looks OK for most of the page but again some part is a lot bigger or smaller - so the point is that the optimum is to have all text somewhere in the same range, so as to be able to control all at the same time.


----------



## Defiant4Ever

I couldn't resist buying a Timex Expedition with resin case. Afer two weeks it is spot-on as far as the eye is concerned, and a 10 year battery as well.

Timex Expedition Khaki Resin Watch, Indiglo, 50 Meter WR, Date, T49832 | eBay









I emailed Timex to ask where they get the movement from, but no answer.

Be interested to hear other reports of accurate Timex watches.

I went resin because the silver ones are brass with a silver finish - I could see me chipping the paint. BTW, it's a loud ticker, which is standard for Timex, it seems.

I replaced the strap with a black leather - I'm too old for a resin strap!


----------



## Andrew McGregor

Timex do their own movements.


----------



## Defiant4Ever

Andrew McGregor said:


> Timex do their own movements.


Thanks. Surprised to hear that - got more respect for them.


----------



## Eeeb

Defiant4Ever said:


> Thanks. Surprised to hear that - got more respect for them.


Not only has Timex always made their own movements, they are also the longest operating mass market vendor and have sold more watches than anyone else. Indeed, some years they outsold all their competition combined (US sales only).

Seiko is the only company that is similar -- but they don't have Timex's numbers.


----------



## Sodiac

Andrew McGregor said:


> Ever notice the accuracy of the clock in your car? They're thermocompensated, and the chip that does it costs $3 and change, in quantity. So it's a trivial thing to add, and would make a very small difference to the cost of most quartz watches.


I haven't owned a car yet with a clock that's anywhere near as accurate as any of my cheapest quartz watches...


----------



## Andrew McGregor

Sodiac said:


> I haven't owned a car yet with a clock that's anywhere near as accurate as any of my cheapest quartz watches...


Fair enough... many of them are not. However, the chip exists (Dallas DS3231 or DS3234, for example).


----------



## harris498

FWIW, I have a 1991 Audi 200, the dash clock of which seems extremely accurate. A few days ago I synchronized it with a HEQ running -1 second, so I'll have to see how it does.


----------



## hoss

All of my Timex LCD quartz digital watches, including my vibration shock resistant Timex LCD lose seconds. They all lose between -12" to -20" seconds per month. I don't think that it's normal for a Timex LCD digital watch to lose seconds. I'm used to owning quartz lcd watches that gain seconds, not lose seconds.
Why does Timex make their lcd digital quartz watches nowadays to lose time?


----------

