# Bulova Accutron II Alpha. Very cool!!!



## sblantipodi

I love this watch from bezel.









very very cool

Bulova Accutron II Alpha Watch Hands-On: The New & Affordable Spaceview With A Precisionist Movement | aBlogtoWatch


----------



## ronalddheld

Likely to have the same poor accuracy as the other Precisionist models


----------



## WnS

It's a beautiful watch, and I'd buy it for its looks as opposed to its accuracy.


----------



## sblantipodi

ronalddheld said:


> Likely to have the same poor accuracy as the other Precisionist models


are you joking?


----------



## ronalddheld

sblantipodi said:


> are you joking?


Have you seen this thread: https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-timekeeping-not-standard-quoted-664261.html


----------



## sblantipodi

they are talking about 30 seconds in one year instead of 10.
if you are interested in 20 seconds a year you are authorized to be serious.


----------



## WnS

In the HAQ forum, watches will always be criticised for their accuracy. 

But I don't see this watch as a HAQ, I see it as a sexy quartz with a quasi-continuous seconds hand. Perhaps in due time, even the most hardcore of HAQ fans can see this watch for the beauty it is.


----------



## gaijin

I want to like this watch, but I can't get the original Spaceview out of my mind:









(Photo courtesy of MyBob.net)

The original showed actual working bits and pieces of the "guts" of the watch - pretty cool.

This new version just has non-functional "pretty" bits - not cool.


----------



## artec

At the risk of being accused of nit-picking, I think watches are criticised for their inaccuracy, though I supposed there is both positive and negative criticism. I don't know whether I'm "hardcore" or not, but the Accutron II isn't a beauty in the eye of this beholder.


----------



## GlennO

The original Spaceview is much more interesting to look at. But credit to them for finally putting the movement into something wearable that is not an eyesore.


----------



## Andrew McGregor

I'm pretty sure that's the actual stepper core, so while most of the functional bits (the crystal and IC etc) are out of sight, what you do see is the real deal.


----------



## John MS

Nice follow-on to the limited edition tuning fork released by Bulova a couple of years ago. I like it.


----------



## alexwatch

I am glad Bulova has come out with this new design would not mind having one myself.


----------



## everose

I have no desire to be negative but i perceive this, sadly, as little more than a continuation of the degrading of what was previously a significant and innovative watch company.


----------



## ten13th

Personally I'm sold on this. Can't wait for it to come out. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Divingwatchfan

Does anyone know if it's coming to the UK?


----------



## chris01

Perhaps somebody can enlighten me: what is so important about this watch? Please note that I am not trying to pick a fight; I just can't see what anyone would care about.

We have another Precisionist, declared to be less accurate than the original (which is itself of debatable accuracy in an HAQ environment).

The original Spaceview showed its working parts, and this was quite a novelty in the days when electronic watches were NEW. This model appears to ape the Spaceview by showing one movement component - a coil - and an asymmetric metal plate that contributes nothing of interest, and could have come from any watch. The rest of the movement could presumably be displayed through the back of the watch. There is a good reason that even very high-priced quartz watches with nicely finished and decorated movements (e.g. Rolex and Grand Seiko) don't have display backs: there is nothing worth looking at.

So, what is the appeal?


----------



## ken_sturrock

chris01 said:


> Perhaps somebody can enlighten me: what is so important about this watch?


First, I agree with you. Having said that:

1.) Despite having no visually interesting components, at least it isn't as "controversial looking" as previous Precisionists.
2.) Although not really HAQ, it's more accurate than most watches and the advertising lubricates this idea.
3.) A lot of people are oddly obsessed with seconds hands that tick on anything other than an actual second.

In other words, I think a lot of people want to like the Precisionist line and this one is, um, better.


----------



## chris01

ken_sturrock said:


> First, I agree with you. Having said that:
> 
> 1.) Despite having no visually interesting components, at least it isn't as ugly as previous Precisionists.
> 2.) Haven't you seen the advertisements for a different model? It's the most accurate watch *ever*? :roll:
> 3.) A lot of people are oddly obsessed with seconds hands that don't tick on the actual second.
> 
> In other words, I think a lot of people want to like the Precisionist line and this one is less bad.


1. Isn't a great recommendation, but I'd slightly agree
2. Hmm!
3. But is a "smooth" seconds hand the cure? It certainly makes timing the watch more difficult.

I think your final point is is the key. My question is WHY do they. Is it something to do with Bulova's US background invoking a brand loyalty?

I'm very surprised that Citizen have allowed them to pursue the Precisionist line, in view of their (Citizen) ability to produce a wide range of generally very attractive and technically competent watches at every price point (if you include the market-specific models).

Edit: I see that I 'captured' your post before you edited it. I think we're still on the same track.


----------



## balloons

Divingwatchfan said:


> Does anyone know if it's coming to the UK?


yes I have mine ordered from watches 2 u but they keep putting the arrival date back.


----------



## Hans Moleman

chris01 said:


> ... and an asymmetric metal plate that contributes nothing of interest, and could have come from any watch. ...



It made me laugh. 
It makes the world a happier place.

I'll glue on a condenser on my watch. Makes it more space age too.


----------



## chris01

Hans Moleman said:


> It made me laugh.
> It makes the world a happier place.
> 
> I'll glue on a condenser on my watch. Makes it more space age too.


I discovered that it is in fact a battery-saving device. On a sunny day you unfold the coil so it stands vertically and you have a sundial!


----------



## Hans Moleman

chris01 said:


> I discovered that it is in fact a battery-saving device. On a sunny day you unfold the coil so it stands vertically and you have a sundial!


Bulova needs our congratulations for a novel way to recycle junk.

If it tickles your fancy, I am all for it, but this is what the movement looks like:









source


----------



## chris01

Hans Moleman said:


> Bulova needs our congratulations for a novel way to recycle junk.
> 
> If it tickles your fancy, I am all for it, but this is what the movement looks like:
> source


All it needs is côtes de Genève and blued screws ...

although it looks better than the dial already


----------



## ken_sturrock

chris01 said:


> Edit: I see that I 'captured' your post before you edited it. I think we're still on the same track.


Yup. Same page. I was trying to figure out a way to make the post sound nicer ("sucks less" vs. "less bad" vs. "better")


----------



## everose

Hans Moleman said:


> Bulova needs our congratulations for a novel way to recycle junk.


Apologies to those who think otherwise but that one *really* made me laugh. :-d

Another Moleman classic! 
For those of us who are a tad cynical about this, it gets right to the crux of the issue in an amusing but concise way.

Hans i really should start recording/compiling all your classic quotes from over the years. 
It would make for a great little handbook! :-!


----------



## Hans Moleman

everose said:


> Apologies to those who think otherwise but that one *really* made me laugh. :-d
> 
> Another Moleman classic!
> For those of us who are a tad cynical about this, it gets right to the crux of the issue in an amusing but concise way.
> 
> Hans i really should start recording/compiling all your classic quotes from over the years.
> It would make for a great little handbook! :-!


Thank you!
I guess we simply need to laugh at the emperor without any clothes.
Any other reaction slowly poisons our world.

sblantipodi: You like the watch, you buy it. Don't listen to cynics like me.
Read up on accuracy tests done on it though. Some were not impressed.


----------



## Kratsmoose

In the article linked by the OP, the following: "...the movements are accurate to about 5-10 seconds a month. According to Bulova, even with this lowered frequency the Accutron II movements are still six times more accurate than "normal" quartz movements.

Is this a joke? Are we supposed to believe a "normal" quartz movement is off 30-60 seconds per month? I've always found mine to be 3-15 seconds per month, depending on the watch, and This includes some really cheap watches!

I still kind of like the look, and bold hands/indices, but accuracy seems completely normal and not a selling point. And the old ones were more interesting, visually. And I don't even like a sweep seconds hand on a quartz watch! Looks wrong. And I'm not sure I like the case...

But, I'm glad they're releasing it, and I do thing it looks kind of cool.


----------



## ronalddheld

My view is that you should buy a vintage Spaceview before this watch.


----------



## Redrum

Some people take watches way too seriously...


----------



## chris01

Redrum said:


> Some people take watches way too seriously...


In particular, Bulova's marketing department.


----------



## richdirector

just bought one from nigel o hara who does a price match


----------



## RejZoR

I seem to be the only one who likes their Accutron II models. 96B209, 98B219, 96B213 and 96B214 look awesome. Precisionists, while i liked some models were too flashy and with way too busy dials. Had the black champlain in my sights for ages and never could finally decide for it. But with Accutron II, despite slightly lower accuracy, they look so much better i'm having hard time deciding which one to take...


----------



## gordon9999

I'm just glad to see the Precisionist in some nice-looking watches.

The new Spaceview looks decent, but not nearly as interesting as the old 214 SpaceViews. Since I already have one of those, I decided to pick up the 96B212. It's a fairly attractive pseudo-vintage design. The size does have me concerned though. Apparently all the Accutron IIs are 42mm, which to me seems just too large for a vintage-inspired dress watch (virtually all the original Accutrons were 36mm, which I consider to be a perfect size.)

Honestly, it's the smooth seconds hands that really interests me. I love smooth seconds (I have a decent collection of Accutron and Omega tuning fork watches.) and there are really only three choices in this regard: Vintage tuning forks, Precisionists, or Seiko Spring Drive. I've always found the precisionist line to be pretty hideous&#8230;


----------



## Alpinist

Actually i find this guy quite attractive, 
Bulova

200M diver with citizens "semi HEQ" movment, and fluid seconds hand, classic coushion 70´s diver look.


----------



## ronalddheld

To paraphrase Yoda, there is no semi HAQ. there is or is not.


----------



## Alpinist

then its not, they promise 10-12 seconds a year and real life testing has shown them being around 30-45 seconds a year.


----------



## MrSteed

ronalddheld said:


> My view is that you should buy a vintage Spaceview before this watch.


You'll wind up paying more than its worth to fix it when your vintage spaceview 214 breaks, unfortunately. Also, it's a woman's watch by modern standards unless you have tiny wrists.


----------



## RejZoR

The 10 seconds a year target only applies to contries where they change the time only once a year. For example, here in Slovenia, we change the DST twice a year (first we enable it and then disable), so this means it doesn't really matter if it's 10 or 30 seconds a year as both would remain way more accurate than any other watch. If you're so obsessed with accuracy, get yourself a radio controlled watch. Only those are super accurate tot he second every single day through entire year, with or without DST.


----------



## ronalddheld

RejZoR said:


> The 10 seconds a year target only applies to contries where they change the time only once a year. For example, here in Slovenia, we change the DST twice a year (first we enable it and then disable), so this means it doesn't really matter if it's 10 or 30 seconds a year as both would remain way more accurate than any other watch. If you're so obsessed with accuracy, get yourself a radio controlled watch. Only those are super accurate tot he second every single day through entire year, with or without DST.


Please be more careful posting such claims on this forum. RC/GPS watches have no intrinsic accuracy and even with a sync they can be off a fraction of a second in between. Without syncs they display normal quartz accuracies


----------



## shtora

RejZoR said:


> The 10 seconds a year target only applies to contries where they change the time only once a year. For example, here in Slovenia, we change the DST twice a year (first we enable it and then disable), so this means it doesn't really matter if it's 10 or 30 seconds a year as both would remain way more accurate than any other watch. If you're so obsessed with accuracy, get yourself a radio controlled watch. Only those are super accurate tot he second every single day through entire year, with or without DST.


The 10 seconds a year target is great and applies to all countries if the watch has a timezone feature (Longines VHP, SEIKO 8J56, 8J86, etc.)


----------



## Sabresoft

ronalddheld said:


> Please be more careful posting such claims on this forum. RC/GPS watches have no intrinsic accuracy and even with a sync they can be off a fraction of a second in between. Without syncs they display normal quartz accuracies


And for many places on the planet, including most of the Southern Hemisphere, RC will never sync (I understand that North Eastern Australia can sometimes sync with the RC signal from China). And even if one day a few RC transmitters were introduced to the region, all the current RC models would not be able to sync as they wouldn't even look for them.


----------



## Hans Moleman

I don't think there will be any transmitters in Australia.
They are really dinosaurs anyway. Very large and energy costly.

The low frequency gives them a large range, but it costs a lot to run them.
Not something, you can set up in a back garden.









The German transmitter.
From: DCF77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andrew McGregor

They don't have to be that big to work, that's only required to give them thousands of kilometers of range. It can be done with a pretty small device if you only need to cover the spot where you keep your watches at night.


----------



## Hans Moleman

Andrew McGregor said:


> They don't have to be that big to work, that's only required to give them thousands of kilometers of range. It can be done with a pretty small device if you only need to cover the spot where you keep your watches at night.


The area of the entire house? That would be more practical.

Unfortunately not that easy.


----------



## sdog

Replicating the simple coded time signal oughtn't very difficult.
Replicating the frequency standard ought.

Are there HAQ watches that use radio to improve accuracy (Not speaking of synchronicity here!)? I was thinking of either calibrating the quartz with the frequency standard or using the coded time signal for gain control? Check how much the watch deviated from the last received signal and adjust accordingly. (Would DCF77 reception even be accurate enough for that?)


To come back on the original thread: For me the original Bulova looks like a watch that says, look i've got a cool new quartz, while you have still mechanic watches. Similar to those horrible skeleton watches popular for a while when mechanical watches suddenly became a fashion statement again.


----------



## ronalddheld

No HAQ with RC/GPS as of now. Maybe Morgenwerk if it comes to market.


----------



## Hans Moleman

sdog said:


> ... Replicating the frequency standard ought. ...


Do you mean getting a good reference clock?

You can get GPS clocks for very little these days.

I made a local transmitter for the British protocol. The range of the thing was the main problem.
I could not get more than a meter or so.

The radio signal is using 50 kHz. Compare that with GHz from your WIFI. A different cattle of fish.


----------



## RejZoR

ronalddheld said:


> Please be more careful posting such claims on this forum. RC/GPS watches have no intrinsic accuracy and even with a sync they can be off a fraction of a second in between. Without syncs they display normal quartz accuracies


What claims? I have a radio controlled G-Shock and it's always absolutely accurate. Even if it won't sync for a day or two, it will go off for what, 0,00001 sec? It's probably still less than HAQ watch without syncing which will just continue to go off. While radio watch will become absolutelly accurate again next day. And you don't go and buy a radio watch if you're not inside the radio reception radius. So, my claim still stands true and i can back it up anytime you want.


----------



## sdog

Hans Moleman said:


> Do you mean getting a good reference clock?
> 
> You can get GPS clocks for very little these days.
> 
> I made a local transmitter for the British protocol. The range of the thing was the main problem.
> I could not get more than a meter or so.
> 
> The radio signal is using 50 kHz. Compare that with GHz from your WIFI. A different cattle of fish.


The modulated signal where time is encoded is only a secondary feature packed on it. The main purpose is the carrier frequency itself, as a frequency standard. (For others reading it's not just 77 kHz, but 77.000000000 kHz.)
You could run your own oscillator and repeatedly tune it to this signal. I don't know much about the UK signal, but i shouldn't be surprised if the carrier was also a frequency standard.

Wikipedia:



> The DCF77 transmitted carrier frequency relative uncertainty is 2 x 10





> [SUP]−12[/SUP] over a 24-hour period and 2 x 10[SUP]−13[/SUP] over 100 days, with a deviation in phase with respect to UTC that never exceeds more than 5.5 ± 0.3 microseconds.[SUP][24][/SUP] The four German primary caesium (fountain) atomic clocks (CS1, CS2, CSF1 and CSF2) in use by the PTB in Braunschweig ensure significantly less long term clock drift than the atomic clocks used in the DCF77 facility in Mainflingen. With the aid of external corrections from Braunschweig the control unit of DCF77 in Mainflingen is expected to neither gain nor lose a second in approximately 300,000 years.


Sorry too tired to answer properly, building your on transmitter is rather nifty! Didn't even manage to use the dispersion relation to calculate the wavelength at 50 kHz. Do you have to use a λ/2e6 antennae?

edit:
did you mean GPS disciplined oscillators? Using one to simulate highly accurate carrier frequency and then modulate it with a time-signal would be the ultimate nerd project! hard to find any use for it, but fascinating without limits.


----------



## sdog

RejZoR said:


> What claims? I have a radio controlled G-Shock and it's always absolutely *accurate*. Even if it won't sync for a day or two, it will go off for what, *0,00001 sec*? It's probably still less than HAQ watch without syncing which will just continue to go off. While radio watch will become absolutelly accurate again next day. And you don't go and buy a radio watch if you're not inside the radio reception radius. So, my claim still stands true and i can back it up anytime you want.


_highlighted by me_

You confuse accuracy with synchronicity. The watch is synchronous within one or two seconds with standard time, because it synchronized. It is not accurate as the quartz crystal does not oscillate reliably at the correct frequency.

I rather doubt you have measured the time of that watch within 10 μs, this is by the way far better than you can expect from the DCF77 synchronisation as your watch doesn't know anything about where it is. Thus it can't correct the 2 ms the signal is delayed by the 600 km from Mainflingen to Slovenia. That's 200 times longer. Some people in F17 measured a bit and found that Casio didn't even bother and is not better than half a second when synchronizing the watch to the time signal. (Which is fair enough for a display showing only increments of a second.) Even if your watch was nearly perfect, and would only go wrong 1 s a year, this would amount to an average of 2.8 ms a day!

Based on my own tests my Casio watch is, when i turn off 'atomic' sync, over a few weeks only within one or two seconds off. However i can't assume the average over this time period as deviaton, say 2/14 s a day. Over the course of a day this might fluctuate quite a bit, one day it's more than 2/14 s faster, another day it is a lot more than 2/14 s behind. These values compensate over longer time periods.


----------



## Sabresoft

RejZoR said:


> What claims? I have a radio controlled G-Shock and it's always absolutely accurate. Even if it won't sync for a day or two, it will go off for what, 0,00001 sec? It's probably still less than HAQ watch without syncing which will just continue to go off. While radio watch will become absolutelly accurate again next day. And you don't go and buy a radio watch if you're not inside the radio reception radius. So, my claim still stands true and i can back it up anytime you want.


Standard quartz, which includes all RC, and so far all GPS, watches are rated at +/- 10-15 seconds per month. That translates into a potential daily rate of +/- 0.33-0.5 seconds per day. COSC requirements are +/- 0.07 seconds per day. What you actually get depends on the thermal range during that day or month, and how the caliber is adjusted at time of manufacture/assembly. It is possible under the right conditions to get quite good performance from a standard quartz watch, but generally you will find that TC watches do much better than standard quartz.

I use my Citizen Skyhawk when checking the performance of my other watches, and it sets nightly by the signal from Boulder, CO, usually at 2:00 am. I usually check my watches in the morning between 8:00 and 10:00 am. Before starting a test I calibrate the Skyhawk against a known source (NNTP Servers). Most times it will be within 0.01 to 0.05 seconds of the calibration time. Over the six to eight hours since the sync, that translates to between 0.03 to 0.2 seconds per day. Most days it is closer to the 0.05 reading 6 hours after sync, hence 0.2 seconds per day. This is not a huge gap, but definitely a lot larger than 0.00001 that you indicated.


----------



## Hans Moleman

sdog said:


> The modulated signal where time is encoded is only a secondary feature packed on it. The main purpose is the carrier frequency itself, as a frequency standard. (For others reading it's not just 77 kHz, but 77.000000000 kHz.)
> You could run your own oscillator and repeatedly tune it to this signal. I don't know much about the UK signal, but i shouldn't be surprised if the carrier was also a frequency standard.
> 
> Wikipedia:
> 
> Sorry too tired to answer properly, building your on transmitter is rather nifty! Didn't even manage to use the dispersion relation to calculate the wavelength at 50 kHz. Do you have to use a λ/2e6 antennae?
> 
> edit:
> did you mean GPS disciplined oscillators? Using one to simulate highly accurate carrier frequency and then modulate it with a time-signal would be the ultimate nerd project! hard to find any use for it, but fascinating without limits.


Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea.

I used a coil within a coil over a ferrite rod as antenna. Similar to a reception antenna inside an AM radio. They still exist!

Antenna design is a black art to me. I gathered a fraction of the wavelength would be far too long an antenna.

I did try tuning the antenna, but achieved next to no gains.

About a meter is its maximum reach.

The GPS gives my computer the right time, and my computer generates the pulses for the time and date encoding.

The frequency of 50 kHz (I think) came from a simple 555 timer oscillator. Rough as guts. The radio clock did not mind much. It picked it up anyway.

I believe there used to be very strict rules about transmitting on that band. They are relaxed a bit now in NZ. I think the US rules use a 100mW maximum. 
Try to be discrete with your 500m dipole antenna


The reach really must be the whole house. The radio clock next to the bed and in the kitchen must be within reach.


----------



## ronalddheld

RejZoR said:


> What claims? I have a radio controlled G-Shock and it's always absolutely accurate. Even if it won't sync for a day or two, it will go off for what, 0,00001 sec? It's probably still less than HAQ watch without syncing which will just continue to go off. While radio watch will become absolutelly accurate again next day. And you don't go and buy a radio watch if you're not inside the radio reception radius. So, my claim still stands true and i can back it up anytime you want.


Again please be more careful with your assertions A nornal quartz movement is +/-15 sec/month. Your 0,00001 sec without a sync is unphysical. For RC watches add the time travel delay and processing the signal delay to the offset.


----------



## chris01

Once again, we have an inability or refusal to understand the purpose of this forum, leading to the usual pointless RC vs HAQ argument.

There is a certain irony in the fact of ludicrous claims of extreme accuracy being made in a thread with the current title.


----------



## sdog

Almost turned on the computer again last night, as i forgot to wish you a "happy winter solstice". Now, since you're so far ahead in NZ it's too late. (not really refering to the actual solstice, but the longest night).


Hans Moleman said:


> I used a coil within a coil over a ferrite rod as antenna. Similar to a reception antenna inside an AM radio. They still exist!
> 
> Antenna design is a black art to me. I gathered a fraction of the wavelength would be far too long an antenna.
> 
> I did try tuning the antenna, but achieved next to no gains.
> 
> About a meter is its maximum reach.


I suspect that the problem here is in the impedance matching receiver to antenna. I suppose for your house you don't need strong signals. I've faint memories of some of the techniques from a ham radio course in school, 19 years ago. Likewise electrical engineers designing Ku band downlinks for scientific payloads who stated in 2002 that then state of the art simulations were completely useless and they had to rely completely on experience. "Black Art" appears to describe it extremely well: The only engineer, past pension age, working 60+ hours a week _pour la sport_, who had that experience was looking for a worthy 'apprentice'.



> The GPS gives my computer the right time, and my computer generates the pulses for the time and date encoding.


A GPS is rather sophisticated, question why not just using NTP?

This really is a very interesting, useful and beautiful project!


> The frequency of 50 kHz (I think) came from a simple 555 timer oscillator. Rough as guts. The radio clock did not mind much. It picked it up anyway.
> 
> I believe there used to be very strict rules about transmitting on that band. They are relaxed a bit now in NZ. I think the US rules use a 100mW maximum.
> Try to be discrete with your 500m dipole antenna
> 
> 
> The reach really must be the whole house. The radio clock next to the bed and in the kitchen must be within reach.


Those watch manufacturers could have made your sleep so much easier had they chosen to tune their receivers to 13.6 MHz instead! Doing it in-house oughtn't give you a lot of trouble though.

I remember the receiver of our kitchen radio controlled clock. Very large solenoid with a screw in ferrite core to tune it, must have been very wide band.


----------



## Andrew McGregor

sdog said:


> Almost turned on the computer again last night, as i forgot to wish you a "happy winter solstice". Now, since you're so far ahead in NZ it's too late. (not really refering to the actual solstice, but the longest night).
> 
> I suspect that the problem here is in the impedance matching receiver to antenna. I suppose for your house you don't need strong signals. I've faint memories of some of the techniques from a ham radio course in school, 19 years ago. Likewise electrical engineers designing Ku band downlinks for scientific payloads who stated in 2002 that then state of the art simulations were completely useless and they had to rely completely on experience. "Black Art" appears to describe it extremely well: The only engineer, past pension age, working 60+ hours a week _pour la sport_, who had that experience was looking for a worthy 'apprentice'.


A dark art it is... 






sdog said:


> A GPS is rather sophisticated, question why not just using NTP?
> 
> This really is a very interesting, useful and beautiful project!
> 
> Those watch manufacturers could have made your sleep so much easier had they chosen to tune their receivers to 13.6 MHz instead! Doing it in-house oughtn't give you a lot of trouble though.
> 
> I remember the receiver of our kitchen radio controlled clock. Very large solenoid with a screw in ferrite core to tune it, must have been very wide band.


You can't conclude the bandwidth of an antenna solely from its design... the Q is a function of the rest of the circuit as well, and those ferrites can be really quite narrow.


----------



## Hans Moleman

sdog said:


> Almost turned on the computer again last night, as i forgot to wish you a "happy winter solstice". Now, since you're so far ahead in NZ it's too late. (not really refering to the actual solstice, but the longest night).
> 
> I suspect that the problem here is in the impedance matching receiver to antenna. I suppose for your house you don't need strong signals. I've faint memories of some of the techniques from a ham radio course in school, 19 years ago. Likewise electrical engineers designing Ku band downlinks for scientific payloads who stated in 2002 that then state of the art simulations were completely useless and they had to rely completely on experience. "Black Art" appears to describe it extremely well: The only engineer, past pension age, working 60+ hours a week _pour la sport_, who had that experience was looking for a worthy 'apprentice'.
> 
> A GPS is rather sophisticated, question why not just using NTP?
> 
> This really is a very interesting, useful and beautiful project!
> 
> Those watch manufacturers could have made your sleep so much easier had they chosen to tune their receivers to 13.6 MHz instead! Doing it in-house oughtn't give you a lot of trouble though.
> 
> I remember the receiver of our kitchen radio controlled clock. Very large solenoid with a screw in ferrite core to tune it, must have been very wide band.


Those time stations have been around a fair while. 1930 and still going strong.
Not bad.

The ones who have experience with those frequencies are submarine sparks. They are just too odd.

I've started reading up about antennas. The man mentioned that even when you understood all the formulas, they weren't any good to you. It was experience and intuition. If that doesn't put you off, nothing will.

Andrew had given me an idea. Maybe I should try and find the peak. If there is one. Can't remember if I've done that before.

I am afraid I will need a few kilo's of copper wire to get something to resonate.

You're right, GPS is totally overkill. NTP would have been perfect. No one will miss 10 ms. I already had a GPS to keep track of my watch. It has been invaluable for that. To have a time source one can blindly trust to below the ms is a blessing.

AM radio transmitters for home use do exist. They start at 500 KHz. No idea, if that's useful.

Winter solstice over here! Yes, I've been looking forward to that. We've had such a late summer here, so I can't wait for the next one.

I had to go to the on-line Nautical almanac to get a rough idea when exactly the solstice was:

http://www.tecepe.com.br/scripts/AlmanacPagesISAPI.dll


----------



## RejZoR

ronalddheld said:


> Again please be more careful with your assertions A nornal quartz movement is +/-15 sec/month. Your 0,00001 sec without a sync is unphysical. For RC watches add the time travel delay and processing the signal delay to the offset.


Like it ....in matters. Geez i thought i'm a wacko and i see some of you are proper lunatics. And i was defending HAQ's accuracy where people were saying like it matters where 99% of things in this world aren't accurate at all, you don't need a HAQ watch. Does your bus, taxi or shop arrive/open at precisely 8:00 AM atomic world time? Not a microsecond later or sooner. At EXACTLY that time. ******** it does. But i was still defending the point of HAQ watches. So why the hell you all rage like you're all mental when someone doesn't state something to the 0.0000000000000000000000000001 millisecond accuracy? Get a damn life. Whenever i compare my Atomic G-Shock with the online atomic clock, it's dead on accurate with seconds switching at exactly same time, be it in the morning, afternoon, evening or in the night. But if you're all so obsessed with unmeasurable thousands of a second (that you can't actually even see unless if you observe your analog HAQ with a microscope), seriously, get a friggin life. I'm all in for watch technology, but some of you here are just plain crazy. There, i said it.

EDIT:
And GPS is NOT overkill. Some of you are clearly missing the point, why Astron GPS for example is using GPS receiver. It's there for watch to know in which timezone it is (physically), being able to sync through GPS signal with accuracy is just an bonus extra in a way.


----------



## chris01

RejZoR said:


> Like it ....in matters. Geez i thought i'm a wacko and i see some of you are proper lunatics. And i was defending HAQ's accuracy where people were saying like it matters where 99% of things in this world aren't accurate at all, you don't need a HAQ watch. Does your bus, taxi or shop arrive/open at precisely 8:00 AM atomic world time? Not a microsecond later or sooner. At EXACTLY that time. ******** it does. But i was still defending the point of HAQ watches. So why the hell you all rage like you're all mental when someone doesn't state something to the 0.0000000000000000000000000001 millisecond accuracy? Get a damn life. Whenever i compare my Atomic G-Shock with the online atomic clock, it's dead on accurate with seconds switching at exactly same time, be it in the morning, afternoon, evening or in the night. But if you're all so obsessed with unmeasurable thousands of a second (that you can't actually even see unless if you observe your analog HAQ with a microscope), seriously, get a friggin life. I'm all in for watch technology, but some of you here are just plain crazy. There, i said it.
> 
> EDIT:
> And GPS is NOT overkill. Some of you are clearly missing the point, why Astron GPS for example is using GPS receiver. It's there for watch to know in which timezone it is (physically), being able to sync through GPS signal with accuracy is just an bonus extra in a way.


Thank you for your interesting contribution. Is it really necessary to hurl gratuitous insults at people you don't know, when I think you'd be unlikely to do the same in our physical presence? Just a take a deep breath and accept that this forum is what it is, and you aren't going to change it. If you want a good fight, go over to the German watch forum and start shouting at Damasko enthusiasts. We're too busy with our OCD to waste time listening to rants.


----------



## RejZoR

I wasn't insulting anyone in particular, but if you managed to find yourself in that post, well, then congratulations to you.


----------



## ronalddheld

ReJZor, I suggest you moderate your tone.


----------



## pantagruel

chris01 said:


> If you want a good fight, go over to the German watch forum and start shouting at Damasko enthusiasts.


Hahaha!!! Pretty damn funny!


----------



## RejZoR

ronalddheld said:


> ReJZor, I suggest you moderate your tone.


And then you talk like i started it. Srsly? Certain people here were giving me warnings like someones life depends on 0.000001 sec of accuracy. I mean like wtf.


----------



## Hans Moleman

RejZoR said:


> ... GPS is NOT overkill. ...


Agreed. I was wrong.

What is noticeable or not isn't important.

However...









From: Clock Powers of Ten

Take a look at how a Junghans RC watch synchronizes over 10 days.
If you don't care about milliseconds you can stop reading now.

It can miss a synchronization at 1 am by 30 ms.

Sending a signal that is accurate to 1 ms is clearly wasted on a Junghans.


----------



## ronalddheld

Hans Moleman said:


> Agreed. I was wrong.
> 
> What is noticeable or not isn't important.
> 
> However...
> 
> View attachment 1537705
> 
> 
> From: Clock Powers of Ten
> 
> Take a look at how a Junghans RC watch synchronizes over 10 days.
> If you don't care about milliseconds you can stop reading now.
> 
> It can miss a synchronization at 1 am by 30 ms.
> 
> Sending a signal that is accurate to 1 ms is clearly wasted on a Junghans.


Would you generalize that statement to all RC watches?


----------



## dicioccio

RejZoR said:


> And then you talk like i started it. Srsly? Certain people here were giving me warnings like someones life depends on 0.000001 sec of accuracy. I mean like wtf.


In this forum technical approach means a lot. You cannot write figures without giving them any importance... I am a huge fan of RC watches and you can see it from my posts. But there is a huge difference about intrinsic high accuracy movements and external source synchronised movements. You cannt write things without being a lot more informed or specifical. Here at HAQ we like to discuss about accuracy rather than other topics so you should understand that this is a very technical area. As other users told you many times in this thread, you should focus on true data, not on your guess.

And everyone of us knows perfectly that life goes on even with a 10 seconds per day accuracy BUT this is not the topic of this thread, nor of this forum. You can consider everyone of us as "accuracy obsessed" and you could be true. But this also implies that we like to talk about facts and true data, while on the other hand we don't write figures that aren't true. There are valuable users that collected a lot of data to show how accuracy works. Other users did a lot of calculations and studied a lot of physical models.

If you like to participate to these thread, be sure you want to have the same approach and you like to have the same approach. Otherwise if you like to generically have a much more light discussion about accuracy, without any technical approach, then there are a lot of other places where to have generic and less rigorous chats.


----------



## Hans Moleman

ronalddheld said:


> Would you generalize that statement to all RC watches?


That would be a reckless generalization.

I've read enough reports of imperfect synchronization to be wary of them as a time reference.

Over time and with experience one can get to trust them more. Or at least know their limits.

I don't have one. Not much point in NZ.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> That would be a reckless generalization.
> 
> I've read enough reports of imperfect synchronization to be wary of them as a time reference.
> 
> Over time and with experience one can get to trust them more. Or at least know their limits.
> 
> I don't have one. Not much point in NZ.


Casio, one of the largest (the largest?) makers of RC watches only claims an accuracy of + < 1sec immediately after successful synchronization. No doubt a large factor driving this spec is the resolution of the watch which is only in whole seconds. Additionally, there appears to be some variable amount of processing overhead within the watch that is required after the time signal is successfully received which results in a variable offset from the RC time when it finally "reaches" the watch display.

In comparison to this Casio spec, the Junghans looks pretty good.

I learned by experience not to trust RC watches as an accurate time reference.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> Casio, one of the largest (the largest?) makers of RC watches only claims an accuracy of + < 1sec immediately after successful synchronization. No doubt a large factor driving this spec is the resolution of the watch which is only in whole seconds. Additionally, there appears to be some variable amount of processing overhead within the watch that is required after the time signal is successfully received which results in a variable offset from the RC time when it finally "reaches" the watch display.
> 
> In comparison to this Casio spec, the Junghans looks pretty good.
> 
> I learned by experience not to trust RC watches as an accurate time reference.
> 
> HTH


tf.nist.gov/.../2429.pdf


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> tf.nist.gov/.../2429.pdf


Do you mean this?

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=903649

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> Do you mean this?
> 
> http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=903649
> 
> HTH


I guessed this one:
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2429.pdf


----------



## gaijin

That works :-!


----------



## dicioccio

gaijin said:


> Casio, one of the largest (the largest?) makers of RC watches only claims an accuracy of + < 1sec immediately after successful synchronization. No doubt a large factor driving this spec is the resolution of the watch which is only in whole seconds. Additionally, there appears to be some variable amount of processing overhead within the watch that is required after the time signal is successfully received which results in a variable offset from the RC time when it finally "reaches" the watch display.
> 
> In comparison to this Casio spec, the Junghans looks pretty good.
> 
> I learned by experience not to trust RC watches as an accurate time reference.
> 
> HTH


I have a Casio RC and I had in the past 2 Citizen RC. They all synchonise pretty well, almost all days, and when comparing with other time they are all displaying the same time. Therefore they are all coherent to what they promised to do and that's enough for me ^_^


----------



## chris01

dicioccio said:


> I have a Casio RC and I had in the past 2 Citizen RC. They all synchonise pretty well, almost all days, and when comparing with other time they are all displaying the same time. Therefore they are all coherent to what they promised to do and that's enough for me ^_^


Here's some data I collected last year, for my two Oceanus RCs. Both watches synchronised successfully each night, and the variation measurement was taken about 6 to 8 hours later. I have no information about which transmitter was used as, if the UK is unreadable, both watches automatically use Germany.

With no RC the S100 runs at about +14 SPY (0.04 SPD) and the S1050 at +40 SPY (0.11 SPD). The daily differences are significantly larger than I see when timing my TC watches, so I think that they are due to real variability rather than measurement error.

There is a fairly consistent positive offset due to processing delays in the display of the PC reference clock that I was using at that time. I'd estimate it somewhere in the 100-150 millisecond range.


----------



## ronalddheld

Hans Moleman said:


> I guessed this one:
> http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2429.pdf


Yes i meant that one, but my phone did not do the correct job of saving the link.


----------



## dicioccio

@chris: thanks for your valuable graph, very interesting - by the way I have an S100 too and I'm quite satisfied - from your graph tha maximum daily error seem 0,27s so for me that's enough and I think this is mainly due to signal processing rather than from quartz error

but anyway, whatever would be the reason, to me 0,27s are enough to see the watches running synchronously and I'm satisfied with that ^_^


----------



## chris01

dicioccio said:


> @chris: thanks for your valuable graph, very interesting - by the way I have an S100 too and I'm quite satisfied - from your graph tha maximum daily error seem 0,27s so for me that's enough and I think this is mainly due to signal processing rather than from quartz error
> 
> but anyway, whatever would be the reason, to me 0,27s are enough to see the watches running synchronously and I'm satisfied with that ^_^


It does illustrate that a decent RC watch can be a perfectly good way to have usefully accurate time on your wrist. Not the ultimate, but still more consistent than almost any other portable timepiece. I find that the S100 is perfect for European travel (within range of MSF or DCF77), and is beautifully light and comfortable, with good lume, and very easy to adjust for time zones. However, it still isn't HAQ!


----------



## Hans Moleman

chris01 said:


> It does illustrate that a decent RC watch can be a perfectly good way to have usefully accurate time on your wrist. Not the ultimate, but still more consistent than almost any other portable timepiece. I find that the S100 is perfect for European travel (within range of MSF or DCF77), and is beautifully light and comfortable, with good lume, and very easy to adjust for time zones. However, it still isn't HAQ!


The biggest advantage I see is how it takes care of itself. Supposedly anyway.
Do DST and date annoyances.


----------



## dicioccio

chris01 said:


> It does illustrate that a decent RC watch can be a perfectly good way to have usefully accurate time on your wrist. Not the ultimate, but still more consistent than almost any other portable timepiece. I find that the S100 is perfect for European travel (within range of MSF or DCF77), and is beautifully light and comfortable, with good lume, and very easy to adjust for time zones. However, it still isn't HAQ!


I know, I know but I can live with that since I live in Rome and I'm here 95% of the time. Being away for nothing more than 2 weeks won't affect accuracy so much.

It's a compromise, not the perfection... Unfortunately, the more I look for perfection the more I am disappointed - therefore better to accept that and look for a reasonable compromise that wouldn't cost that much.


----------



## artec

Different people, different kinds of compromise. An RC is one kind and one price, a TC is another kind and another price. Even a combination, an RC using a TC movement, would be a compromise.

I won't compromise on the issues of perpetual calendar and independently adjustable hour hand but maybe to you, dicioccio, the lack of those is easily accepted. Different strokes!

Besides the accuracy issue, we have to compromise on the aesthetics. I find the Accutrons completely unacceptable in that respect but that view only affects my compromise and is of no interest to anyone else. I only mention it as an example.


----------



## chris01

artec said:


> Different people, different kinds of compromise. An RC is one kind and one price, a TC is another kind and another price. Even a combination, an RC using a TC movement, would be a compromise.


Agreed.



artec said:


> I won't compromise on the issues of perpetual calendar and independently adjustable hour hand but maybe to you, dicioccio, the lack of those is easily accepted. Different strokes!


The RC that dicioccio and I both like, the Oceanus S100, has (in practical RC operation) a fully automatic calendar with DST changes, and also has the easiest time-zone adjustment I've ever seen on a decent watch. No compromise there.



artec said:


> Besides the accuracy issue, we have to compromise on the aesthetics. I find the Accutrons completely unacceptable in that respect but that view only affects my compromise and is of no interest to anyone else. I only mention it as an example.


No argument about the Bulovas! The S100 is not exactly ugly, although I would lose the "TOUGH MVT." inscription:


----------



## ronalddheld

I think there are always compromises to be made for now and the foreseeable future.


----------



## artec

That's my first look at the Oceanus S100 and there's a lot about it that I like. I certainly agree that we can lose the tough movement and, for me, some of the blue. But it's much closer to the minimalist look that I like about The Citizens. Very nice and clean!

And one has to agree with Ronald Held that there will always be some compromise. Perfection eludes us!

PS, I just Googled the watch and found that it had the world time zones round the outside of the chapter ring. That kills it for me. It's one of my hates!


----------



## dicioccio

artec, the watch looks absolutely stunning, believe me

the outer ring with the names of the city is really unnoticeable and the minimalist look you were talking about is really "implemented" on this watch

every function of the watch works flawlessy and intuitively - the movement has one stepper motor per each hand and one for the calendar wheel

the alignment is perfect - the lume is bright - the sapphire glass is slightly domed

I cannot think of a better RC watch - in august 2013 I've been in Japan and I've got the chance to see personally your Citizen CB3000: the Citizen is a beautiful watch and, compared to the Casio, is a bit smaller - the bracelet is more elaborated than the Casio - the Citizen is more classic while the Casio has a more futuristic look (without exaggeration)

but as for the quality, they look both similar while the Casio costing almost half the price of the Citizen - it looks to me as a terrific value for money


----------



## chris01

dicioccio said:


> artec, the watch looks absolutely stunning, believe me
> 
> the outer ring with the names of the city is really unnoticeable and the minimalist look you were talking about is really "implemented" on this watch
> 
> every function of the watch works flawlessy and intuitively - the movement has one stepper motor per each hand and one for the calendar wheel
> 
> the alignment is perfect - the lume is bright - the sapphire glass is slightly domed
> 
> I cannot think of a better RC watch - in august 2013 I've been in Japan and I've got the chance to see personally your Citizen CB3000: the Citizen is a beautiful watch and, compared to the Casio, is a bit smaller - the bracelet is more elaborated than the Casio - the Citizen is more classic while the Casio has a more futuristic look (without exaggeration)
> 
> but as for the quality, they look both similar while the Casio costing almost half the price of the Citizen - it looks to me as a terrific value for money


Be careful, or Ronald will move your post to the sales Forum.


----------



## dicioccio

Never in a million years !!!


----------



## artec

I went and had a look at the titanium version on the website. Although there are a number of features that kill it for me, it does look pretty good. And it appears to be selling for a bit under $1000, which is two thirds of what my Eco-drive The Citizen cost. 

Has anyone had one for long enough to know whether they live up to their 10 sec per year spec?

Enlighten me dicioccio, please, what does the   mean?


----------



## Sabresoft

artec said:


> Enlighten me dicioccio, please, what does the   mean?


I'll hazard a guess that ** means tongue in cheek, and ** means a big smile. The colon is the eyes. Goes back to the days of all text communication before we had graphical displays and emoticons.

Others include: 
** for smile
** for sad
** for surprised 
** for wink

There are more, but I don't remember them all.


----------



## artec

Thank you Sabresoft. I knew the smile because dicioccio used it a while ago, but I find that I evidently led a sheltered life!


----------



## dicioccio

List of emoticons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Study them ! hahahah...

The reason of the emoticons is that they help the way to understand what one is writing. For example, not always is evident if one is joking or if it is serious, if he is happy or if he is angry. Since English is not my mother tongue, I want to avoid misunderstandings so adding emoticons makes me feel more comfident that what I'm writing would be understood the right way.

Not to mention that they save a lot of keystrokes to describe my mood.

Now I can't remember of a thread we've been so off topic as this one - Ronald is probably getting angry...


----------



## chris01

artec said:


> I went and had a look at the titanium version on the website. Although there are a number of features that kill it for me, it does look pretty good. And it appears to be selling for a bit under $1000, which is two thirds of what my Eco-drive The Citizen cost.
> 
> Has anyone had one for long enough to know whether they live up to their 10 sec per year spec?


So far, I seem to be the only source of detailed timing results. Since the DS-2 thread is now rather long, here are my two most recent posts that should help:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/certina-ds-2-precidrive-chronograph-940252-29.html#post7808993

https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/certina-ds-2-precidrive-chronograph-940252-30.html#post7982820


----------



## webvan

So...has anybody received their Accutron II ? The UK has been shipping the Alphas apparently.


----------



## RejZoR

webvan said:


> So...has anybody received their Accutron II ? The UK has been shipping the Alphas apparently.


I'm getting my 96B213 from UK on monday if everything goes well...


----------



## CCCP

gaijin said:


> I want to like this watch, but I can't get the original Spaceview out of my mind:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Photo courtesy of MyBob.net)
> 
> The original showed actual working bits and pieces of the "guts" of the watch - pretty cool.
> 
> This new version just has non-functional "pretty" bits - not cool.


+1
I saw it today window shopping in Turin, and I got the same impression.... pretty bits *BUT not functional*, meh!!!


----------



## chrisca70

got one for Christmas, will report when I receive it!


----------



## artec

I think this is a classic proof that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To my eye, there's nothing beautiful about it.


----------



## denny73

Nice!


----------



## ronalddheld

I will pass.


----------



## chrisca70

Just wanted to share my take on the Alpha II SS. I got one for x-mas and was not impressed by it. I was initially fascinated by the whole story of the Accutron design and the high frequency quartz movement. Unfortunately once I opened the box it look to large and I realized how much I like simple dials. I tried it in my 6.5 in wrist and looked large for my taste. Also the deployment buckle is not the easiest one to use. So its going back to the seller...


----------

