# Anyone Bought a Bulova Precisionist and Tested it?



## UpstandingCitizen (Apr 3, 2008)

I know the watch has only been out for a little while, but I figured I ask anyhow.

I keep teetering between grabbing the Claremont or looking elsewhere. First I was 100% going to grab one, then I wasn't so sure after seeing real world pics, and then I saw the watch in person and thought I had decided that I liked it enough to purchase.

Now I'm 50/50 on it...lol.

Anyways, getting back to the thread title, has anyone tested a Precisionist yet?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

All I have seen are anecdotal reports of little use in determining the accuracy of Bulova's claims. 

I am going to wait until I can actually see them in hand before I buy one. The pics are not very attractive to my tastes. But they may be better in reality.


----------



## UpstandingCitizen (Apr 3, 2008)

Can anyone speak as to the inherent weaknesses of a snap on case back (as seen on the Claremont models)?


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

UpstandingCitizen said:


> ...
> Anyways, getting back to the thread title, has anyone tested a Precisionist yet?


See the preliminary results from _webvan_ at:

BestofWatch

Unfortunately he seems to be quite busy right now so there was no major update in a week or so ... :-(


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Catalin said:


> See the preliminary results from _webvan_ at:
> 
> BestofWatch
> 
> Unfortunately he seems to be quite busy right now so there was no major update in a week or so ... :-(


Those are interesting results, but they are based on far too short a time period to tell us much...yet. After, say, 30 days, the results will be more informative. I like the graph in webvan's article. Again, the question of what is meant by you and webvan by "warm," I think, is relevant. If the temperature you are labeling as "warm" is about equal to wearing temperature, then the Precisionist is doing quite poorly so far, registering _spy_ values around +25 (although, as noted, it's really way too early to tell). I would regard a temperature of about 86°F, as a pretty reasonable estimate, generally, of wearing temperature.

When I do timing tests, I like to do them at actual wearing temperature (with its ups and downs)--i.e, by wearing the watch during the testing period. The other temperature that is relevant, as far as I'm concerned, is that of off-the-wrist, storage conditions, which for me is generally between, say, 68°F and 73°F. Those two temperature conditions tell me all I need to know about my watches in my living conditions.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

I for one would like to thank webvan for doing these tests, and sharing the results with us!
|> |>


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

UpstandingCitizen said:


> Can anyone speak as to the inherent weaknesses of a snap on case back (as seen on the Claremont models)?


I wouldn't get too hung up on the snapback case concept. Remember, all these watches that everyone is so adamant about having screw in cases usually have snap on fronts. People don't think about that when they talk about how inferior a snap on system is.


----------



## 8point166 (May 28, 2010)

I bought a Champlain Titanium Sat. and have not taken it of since whearing 24/7,set to my comuters clock so +-0 second.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

8point166 said:


> I bought a Champlain Titanium Sat. and have not taken it of since wearing 24/7,set to my computers clock so +-0 second.


Well, 3 days isn't much time to show error. Drink the beers, leave it in that tub of ice and report on it's accuracy after a week. That would be a quick test that might produce some useful data.


----------



## Mtech (Jan 2, 2010)

There's a review on TZ, but it doesn't get into much accuracy details.


----------



## webvan (Dec 11, 2008)

I'll have some updated numbers tonight -> Bulova Precisionist Accuracy

@8point166 - since yours has a screw on back have you opened it up? Hard to do with my snap-on Claremont.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

webvan said:


> I'll have some updated numbers tonight -> Bulova Precisionist Accuracy
> 
> @8point166 - since yours has a screw on back have you opened it up? Hard to do with my snap-on Claremont.


Nice graph started. You must be using the same program I've been using--MS Graph Chart. It takes a little time to get the hang of it. Did you save your graph as a PNG file before posting? That was one trick that Hans Moleman told me about. You have put up some results for the 'warm' condition. Do you have an estimate of what the actual temperature would be? I'm wondering how close to "wearing" temperature it is.


----------



## webvan (Dec 11, 2008)

er...yes, been doing graphs in Excel and posting them on the internet for...12+ years ;-)

Results now updated, rather disappointing :-(


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

webvan said:


> er...yes, been doing graphs in Excel and posting them on the internet for...12+ years ;-)
> 
> Results now updated, rather disappointing :-(


OK. I wasn't questioning your competence, webvan, just inquiring, as I have been experimenting with improving graphical displays over the past few weeks. What are we to make of the 'warm' condition? "Wearing temperature"? 80 deg. F? 85 deg. F.? We need to be able to translate this 'warm' condition into everyday terms.

_Edit:_ Oh, OK. I've read your update. So "warm" is 36°C? If so, this is much warmer than wearing temperature. This doesn't really tell us what performance could be expected under normal wearing conditions--often calculated as about 30°C. Can you reduce the warming condition to the point that we might know something about how this watch might perform if, say, worn the 'approximately 12 hours per day' as recommended by Citizen and Seiko?


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> ...
> _Edit:_ Oh, OK. I've read your update. So "warm" is 36°C? If so, this is much warmer than wearing temperature. This doesn't really tell us what performance could be expected under normal wearing conditions--often calculated as about 30°C. Can you reduce the warming condition to the point that we might know something about how this watch might perform if, say, worn the 'approximately 12 hours per day' as recommended by Citizen and Seiko?


If you search a little you will see that in another thread I already said that his 'warm' test was clearly a lot warmer than mine - based on the results with the SBCM023 models (his and mine) which have been both bought this year and were showing very close results on room but a pretty big difference on warm - the kind of numbers which I have only seen when I was placing my watch face-up for maximum thermal contact (vs. crown-up when there is contact on a much-much smaller area). If _webvan_'s test is already 'crown-up' the only way to lower even more the temperature is to place some other 2-3 mm of plastic (or air) between the warm source and the watch ...


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

*Another question ...*

Do any of the existing models have timezone (or 1-hour) adjustment ?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Frankly, I don't think we're going to get the most relevant information on Precisionist accuracy until someone _wears one_ for a few months--at least one month--and reports on its accuracy in as precise a test as possible. Calculate its baseline offset before starting to wear it, and calculate its offset after each week until a month or more has been reached (or just once after the month). The difference in offset values from the baseline value (the drift) is what's needed.

I think it's true that what most potential owners of HEQ watches are interested in is how the watch will perform when worn. This is partly a function of insensitivity to temperature changes which occur during a day's wearing of a watch (this insensitivity enhanced by thermocompensation), and good calibration. Testing at one fixed temperature, although giving a precise estimate of accuracy for that one temperature, does not really give us a fully-informative answer to how the watch will perform when worn.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> Frankly, I don't think we're going to get the most relevant information on Precisionist accuracy until someone _wears one_ for a few months--at least one month--and reports on its accuracy in as precise a test as possible. Calculate its baseline offset before starting to wear it, and calculate its offset after each week until a month or more has been reached (or just once after the month). The difference in offset values from the baseline value (the drift) is what's needed.
> 
> I think it's true that what most potential owners of HEQ watches are interested in is how the watch will perform when worn. This is partly a function of insensitivity to temperature changes which occur during a day's wearing of a watch (this insensitivity enhanced by thermocompensation), and good calibration. Testing at one fixed temperature, although giving a precise estimate of accuracy for that one temperature, does not really give us a fully-informative answer to how the watch will perform when worn.


I tend to disagree - just measuring the watch when worn by a single person is a rather very subjective single measurement - it might be somewhere quite close to an 'average' but people tend to wear watches in very different ways in very different temperatures and with a very different pattern (some might wear 8/24, other 16/24, other 24/24) and also will not tell much on what kind of 'surprises' could appear or where the 'limits' are located - even an ordinary quartz with a certain amount of luck could be seen as very close to 10 s/y !

I am not saying that other measurements do not have a certain degree of uncertainty - of course all measurements do - but once we see the rates for 1 week around 21C, 1 week around 29C and eventually 2 weeks of 'normal wearing pattern' (whatever that might be for the person involved) we can have some general idea about the performance. And of course if we could have that from like 10 people that have bought their watches all over the world (and are testing in different climates) we will also have some idea of the variability of the above performance.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Catalin said:


> I tend to disagree - just measuring the watch when worn by a single person is a rather very subjective single measurement - it might be somewhere quite close to an 'average' but people tend to wear watches in very different ways in very different temperatures and with a very different pattern (some might wear 8/24, other 16/24, other 24/24) and also will not tell much on what kind of 'surprises' could appear or where the 'limits' are located - even an ordinary quartz with a certain amount of luck could be seen as very close to 10 s/y !
> 
> I am not saying that other measurements do not have a certain degree of uncertainty - of course all measurements do - but once we see the rates for 1 week around 21C, 1 week around 29C and eventually 2 weeks of 'normal wearing pattern' (whatever that might be for the person involved) we can have some general idea about the performance. And of course if we could have that from like 10 people that have bought their watches all over the world (and are testing in different climates) we will also have some idea of the variability of the above performance.


I certainly think that the 'room temperature' results are useful because that is pretty constant, I would think (at least within a few degrees, say from 20°C to 22°C), and that is one of the two conditions in which a watch lives. However, seeing bad results at 36°C doesn't necessarily mean that the watch will not perform adequately at normal wearing temperatures. We know that the temperature of the surface of the skin is about 33°C. If a person is indoors much of the time (as I would guess most of us are), we can assume an ambient temperature for the watch of about 30°C for much of the day. Outdoor forays will cause this to change for varying time intervals, either to warmer or cooler temperatures, but I don't think the variation is as great as you might think, although there will certainly be temperature fluctuations during the day. At night, with the watch worn, the temperature for the movement should be pretty close to a constant 28-29°C, I would think.

I absolutely agree that the results for a single wearer are insufficient to establish a truly definitive 'wearing' performance appraisal of the Precisionist. Lately, I've been thinking about this, and it has seemed to me that, in the end, any measurements taken in the wearing condition are, to some extent, unique to that wearer and all the elements of his temperature condition. When I test a watch, maybe what I'm really getting is an idea of how accurate this watch is when *I'm* wearing it, but not necessarily when _you_ are wearing it. Seen this way, a set of graded temperature tests would be very useful, as long as the various temperatures accurately spanned the range that obtains when watches are being worn, like, for example: 28°C, 30°C, 32°C. If, over that range, the drift values were very similar, we could be pretty certain, I think, that anyone wearing the watch would experience that level of accuracy.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

South Pender said:


> ... Lately, I've been thinking about this, and it has seemed to me that, in the end, any measurements taken in the wearing condition are, to some extent, unique to that wearer and all the elements of his temperature condition...


Mechanical watch adjusting (actually regulating if we are to be accurate) has the concept of 'adjusted to wearer'. The watch is regulated as best can be and then given to the owner. He returns after wearing for several weeks and, based on his specific experience, the watch is re-regulated.

This can be done to quartz movements that have trimmers and is how the Synchronar can be regulated to higher than normal quartz accuracy. (The adjustments on the Synchronar can be done from the exterior switches, making it a lot easier.)

If the Precisionist is 10 spy at only one temperature, it represents no improvement, unless it's curve is very flat.


----------



## webvan (Dec 11, 2008)

Doesn't look like it at this point, very much like the 8Fxx it slows down at higher temperatures, pretty much in the same proportions. I think I'll get the mini-fridge to keep it at constant temperatures over a week, unless someone gets to it first !


----------



## UpstandingCitizen (Apr 3, 2008)

webvan said:


> Doesn't look like it at this point, very much like the 8Fxx it slows down at higher temperatures, pretty much in the same proportions. I think I'll get the mini-fridge to keep it at constant temperatures over a week, unless someone gets to it first !


I thought I remembered Catalin saying that your warm test was conducted at an overly warm temp.?

I could be mistaken. :think:


----------



## webvan (Dec 11, 2008)

So ? The numbers are available for all to see, and there is no "rule", the fact is it slows down significantly when the temperature rises, showing poor thermal insensivity, like the 8Fxx movements, here's a refresher -> https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/tempe...movements-366862-post2741458.html#post2741458


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

webvan said:


> Doesn't look like it at this point, very much like the 8Fxx it slows down at higher temperatures, pretty much in the same proportions. I think I'll get the mini-fridge to keep it at constant temperatures over a week, unless someone gets to it first !


Yes, IMHO the results seem very similar - and I remember hearing you about testing it 'in parallel' with the SBCM023 - which I believe is a very good idea !


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

A year ago we would have had to take Bulova's word for it.
Now it is measured.
b-)

Better to measure a year? 
Nonsense!

This is exactly what COSC does. Measure the effect of three temperatures for a short period.
If the effect stays within limits it gets the COSC seal.
That is a good predictor for being exposed to all sorts of temperatures during its normal life and still be able to tell the right time.


----------



## UpstandingCitizen (Apr 3, 2008)

webvan said:


> So ? The numbers are available for all to see, and there is no "rule", the fact is it slows down significantly when the temperature rises, showing poor thermal insensivity, like the 8Fxx movements, here's a refresher -> https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/tempe...movements-366862-post2741458.html#post2741458


Thanks for the link.

Once again, I want to reiterate that I'm new to the H.E.Q. game, so I still have a lot of things to absorb before I can speak confidently about them.

So it appears that somewhere between 84F-86F is a rather common wearing temperature? If that's to be the case, then your observation at 32C (96.8F) tells me that the movement is likely to have poor thermal insensitivity (as you stated).

For me though, I'm really more concerned with accuracy at wearing temperature and at room temperature.

Thanks for giving us your results thus far, webvan.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

So who is going to get one and take the measurements?


----------



## UpstandingCitizen (Apr 3, 2008)

ronalddheld said:


> So who is going to get one and take the measurements?


I'm planning on getting the Claremont on bracelet, although I'm not well-versed in the timing techniques...lol.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Hans Moleman said:


> A year ago we would have had to take Bulova's word for it.
> Now it is measured.
> b-)
> 
> ...


With all due respect, Hans, I have to disagree a little with this. I think that we're coming to a realization that there are two (often different) actual measurements taking place here. One is a short-term measurement that indexes what the watch is doing (and, as you suggest, ideally at, say, three time points) in this particular slice of time, and expressing this result in seconds per year (_spy_) is just a convenient metric in which to understand results. These values should be understood as reflecting the watch's performance over a very short time period, but the process of prorating them into the _spy_ metric means that any error associated with the results (from clock inaccuracies, human perceptual error, and instrument limitations--like stopwatch precision or frames per second) are greatly magnified, which leads to large error bands in the _spy_ values. 

Consider a timing test consisting of attempting to assess the drift over a single day. A considerable component of the result is error, but now imagine how much this adds to a _spy_ estimate by multiplying your one-day drift estimate by 365. The confidence interval (a form of error-band assessment) will be very large, and the single point estimate will, without exception, be a pretty poor one. Imagine, on the other hand, an experiment in which the drift value is assessed after 3 months. The same error will attend the measurements that is present in the one-day test, but the prorating to _spy_ will only multiply this by 4, rather than by 365. Thus, a very short-term test (such as one week) is, at best, a time-specific snapshot of a watch's performance, and using the _spy_ metric for such short-term results makes for a great deal of error in the stepped-up numbers.

The other measurement that we may be interested in is not what the watch is doing over a 1-day or 1-week interval (albeit expressed in _spy_), but rather what we might expect the watch to do over the period of an actual year. Here, in addition to the time-point error fluctuations, we have to consider any internal variations in the movement itself caused by factors other than simply temperature changes. I gave an example a while back of a Citizen Chronomaster left unworn for over a year. There was very little temperature variation in the house, even though outside temperatures changed, of course, over the year, because we have a heat pump that does a good job of equalizing temperatures inside from one season to the next. Our indoor temperatures over that whole year may have ranged from, say, a low of 66°F to a high of maybe 73°F. Between August and February, the watch gained 4.25 seconds (for a _spy_ estimate of 8.5), but between February and the next August, it lost about a second, ending up at 3.30 _spy_ over the period of one year (so no prorating was needed).

Thus, if we truly want to know what a particular watch will do over a full year, we need much, much longer-term testing periods than the 1-day or 1-week ones used to capture short-term performance.

I'm running out of gas and time here, but I hope this makes sense....


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> ...
> Thus, if we truly want to know what a particular watch will do over a full year, we need much, much longer-term testing periods than the 1-day or 1-week ones used to capture short-term performance.
> ...


Well, of course it depends a lot on the accuracy and reliability of the measurements but as a general rule a single test of one full year interval (without temperature references or sub-intervals) is telling us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would be RELEVANT TO OTHER SIMILAR CALIBERS/WATCHES - as you can see in my results there is a Seiko 7223 which will most likely end the year under 10 s/y - but to somehow only consider that annual result relevant to all 7723 models would be obviously naive.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Catalin said:


> Well, of course it depends a lot on the accuracy and reliability of the measurements but as a general rule a single test of one full year interval (without temperature references or sub-intervals) is telling us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would be RELEVANT TO OTHER SIMILAR CALIBERS/WATCHES - as you can see in my results there is a Seiko 7223 which will most likely end the year under 10 s/y - but to somehow only consider that annual result relevant to all 7723 models would be obviously naive.


It's true that this annual information would be most useful to me, since it is my watch on my wrist in the conditions in which I find myself. However, it's going far too far to say that my results would tell others absolutely nothing about watches with that movement. I'm certainly not claiming that my results with a 9F Seiko will be relevant to someone with an 8J or 8F Seiko, but to others with a 9F Seiko, my full-year results will tell them quite a bit. For those living in very cold climates, my results will be off a little from what I would have obtained in their climate (and similarly for hotter climates).

Frankly, I don't think most HEQ owners are terribly interested in what their watch does when worn and exposed to warmer outside temperatures than usual at times, and colder ones at other times. I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that what they do want to know about is how their watch will perform--when on the wrist--through whatever weather the year brings. As noted earlier, when worn close to 24/7, the temperature variations are nowhere near those appearing in, for example, webvan's tests (36°C). What I want to know is what gain or loss in rate I can expect over a long period of time, say one year. Since we can't control the temperatures we're in to any great extent, building in naturally-occurring temperature fluctuations makes for a more practical interpretation of accuracy.


----------



## webvan (Dec 11, 2008)

Don't get stuck up on the 36 degrees celsius, that was just one temperature point. The testing Catalin and I do is designed to measure the accuracy of the two states for a watch : worn or in its box. Then you can prorate the results for your wearing pattern. Thanks to his setup Djwquest takes it several steps further by using many temperature points, something that could probably be done on the cheap with the "mini-fridge".

We should also keep in mind that depending on the age of the watch, absolute accuracy is going to vary, so using various temperatures will help show the relative accuracy, i.e. the response to temperature changes. We've seen this with the 8fxx movements. The Precisionists are interesting because having just been released they are of the same "age".


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> ...
> Frankly, I don't think most HEQ owners are terribly interested in what their watch does when worn and exposed to warmer outside temperatures than usual at times, and colder ones at other times. I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that what they do want to know about is how their watch will perform--when on the wrist--through whatever weather the year brings. As noted earlier, when worn close to 24/7, the temperature variations are nowhere near those appearing in, for example, webvan's tests (36°C). What I want to know is what gain or loss in rate I can expect over a long period of time, say one year. Since we can't control the temperatures we're in to any great extent, building in naturally-occurring temperature fluctuations makes for a more practical interpretation of accuracy.


Again I disagree - most HEQ owners don't even know what is our criteria for HEQ and don't really measure the accuracy of their watches :-d

That being said the few HEQ owners that are really very interested in the actual HEQ subject (of which a large percentage are found around here and in other similar places on the net) always have more than a single watch - so to say that it does not matter to know the accuracy at around room temperature is obviously neglecting a very practical problem! (and add the fact that not many people sleep with their HEQ watch on their hand). And yes - we can control temperatures - we can choose to wear or not wear a watch, and when not wearing it we can choose to leave a watch in the coldest part of the room/house or on a warm device (router, cable/satellite box ...)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Catalin said:


> Again I disagree - most HEQ owners don't even know what is our criteria for HEQ and don't really measure the accuracy of their watches.


You may be right, but I'm not sure how we'd know that. In any case, I think that a person would buy a HEQ watch because he would be interested in having a watch that stayed very, very close to the correct time over a long period. That period is probably going to include a mixture of wearing and storing the watch. Thus, he would want it to do well under both conditions. The wearing condition means temperatures experienced _by the watch_ (meaning body temperature plus ambient temperature) of somewhere in the 84°F- 88°F range; the storing condition would mean something on the order of 66°F -73°F. Thus, it seems to me that the owner's concern--if he thought about it in these terms--would be for the watch to be close to dead-on in those two ranges. If we wanted to operationalize this a little more, we might aim for dead-on at 86°F and at 70°F. 

I very much doubt, however, that he will care much about 40°F, for example, because, although it might be 40°F outside, his watch will not experience 40°F in the relatively brief periods he is in that temperature, but rather something much higher than that because of resting against the 91°F skin on his wrist, and, in addition, will be under a jacket sleeve that will keep the ambient temperature above the skin far warmer than the outside 40°F.

Similarly, extremely hot temperatures are likely not very relevant either. When the outside temperature is, say, 90°F, we're probably not exposing the watch to this for terribly long periods of time, since we will be indoors (where it might be air-conditioned) a lot of the time that the outside temperature is this high. But, if he were out in this heat, the temperature felt by the watch would be around 91°F. Say he's out in this for three hours of a 24-hour day--and thus having his watch experience about 5°F warmer temperature than it would when he was inside for those three hours. This would mean that, over the 24-hour period, that watch would experience a wearing temperature averaging about 86.63°F. For this reason, determining performance at _watch-experienced_ temperatures of 40°F and 90°F will, in my opinion, have little relevance for most HEQ owners.


Catalin said:


> That being said the few HEQ owners that are really very interested in the actual HEQ subject (of which a large percentage are found around here and in other similar places on the net) always have more than a single watch - so to say that it does not matter to know the accuracy at around room temperature is obviously neglecting a very practical problem! (and add the fact that not many people sleep with their HEQ watch on their hand). And yes - we can control temperatures - we can choose to wear or not wear a watch, and when not wearing it we can choose to leave a watch in the coldest part of the room/house or on a warm device (router, cable/satellite box ...)


I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it does not matter to know the accuracy at around room temperature, as it very definitely does (as noted above). My point has been that room temperature is one of the two conditions that we _are_ interested in, so those tests are certainly relevant. How do you know that most don't sleep with their HEQ watch on? I do, for one, and I wouldn't have a clue about whether most do or don't--not that this is terribly important. As for my comment about controlling temperatures, I was referring to controlling the outside temperatures--the weather. :-d


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

The 'high maintenance thermo-regulating integrated circuit' caught my eye.

Original is here:
Bulova Precisionist

Who writes that stuff?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Hans Moleman said:


> The 'high maintenance thermo-regulating integrated circuit' caught my eye.
> 
> Original is here:
> Bulova Precisionist
> ...


Surely you don't expect truth and accuracy in advertising.... ;-)

You know, I used to think that there were some standards that had to be observed re truth in advertising. But I guess I was wrong (naive too). I think that a company can now (and maybe has always been able to) say anything that they want in an advertisement, truth or completely made up.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

It doesn't take much to lose your credibility.
And if it is just to gain a few minor points like that, its just wasteful.


----------



## webvan (Dec 11, 2008)

Yes, that makes no sense and adding insult to injury there is ZERO info about the movement in the "manual", shameful.

By the way here are pics of the movement, not much to look at I'm afraid : Bulova Precisionist Movement Pictures and Info - P102, 8 jewels










7 More pictures here : http://www.bestofwatch.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22#p22


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

What?
No movement only a battery? 


I guess technically they are correct.
It does not use a high maintenance thermo-regulating integrated circuit.
Nor a low maintenance thermo-regulating integrated circuit.
Or even a blue thermo-regulating integrated circuit.

In fact it does not use a thermo-regulating integrated circuit at all!

Sigh.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> What?
> No movement only a battery?...


Yes, but what a battery: 3V lithium battery! It should run for 10 years or so till battery needs replacement.
They deserve some credits for using long-lasting lithium battery.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

ppaulusz said:


> Yes, but what a battery: 3V lithium battery! It should run for 10 years or so till battery needs replacement.
> They deserve some credits for using long-lasting lithium battery.


...and yet they are claiming 3-year battery life, I believe. :think:


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

South Pender said:


> ...and yet they are claiming 3-year battery life, I believe. :think:


If that is the case then it's a fairly high price to pay for the sweeping second-hand, in my opinion.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> ...and yet they are claiming 3-year battery life, I believe. :think:


It is rather normal - after all I believe the stepper is activated 16 times more often - so a bigger power consumption is to be expected ! (not a huge lot different than in my Citizen F230 - about 3 years from a CR1616 which I think is rated for 5 years in 4F32 - but the F230 only has 5 steps/second).


----------



## rex (Feb 12, 2006)

Perhaps someday, Bulova will introduce a "higher end" Precisionist, One that is sapphire crystal equipped, screw-down crown/caseback, a better finished movement/w/non plastic spacer, and battery life greater than 3 years.

Something else...How can they claim the "World's most accurate watch" at 10 spy?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

rex said:


> ...How can they claim the "World's most accurate watch" at 10 spy?


Read their claim carefully: "THE WORD'S MOST ACCURATE WATCH _*WITH A CONTINUOUSLY SWEEPING SECOND HAND*_"


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

First time I noticed you have a timer in your watch list George!

You'll be in for some right real revelations.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> First time I noticed you have a timer in your watch list George!
> 
> You'll be in for some right real revelations.


Well, Hans, that's my _Witschi Q Test 6000!:-!_
It's very handy to use with any watch. For me it's greatest feature is it's capability to work even with thermocompensated ETA movements that have long inhibition periods:
- 4 minutes (240 seconds)
- 8 minutes (480 seconds)
- 16 minutes (960 seconds)
The Japanese quartz testers (the ones I am aware of from Citizen, Seiko, Ricoh and other manufacturers) cannot measure over 2 minutes (120 seconds) of inhibition period so they cannot be used with thermocompensated ETA movements. Even among the Witschi models only the top of the range ones can go as high as 960 seconds.
That instrument can measure, analyze everything about quartz watches and many things about tuning-fork and mechanical watches. I only use it for checking the accuracy of my watches though it could do so much more.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

I would prefer a TC movement over the smoothly moving seconds hand.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

ppaulusz said:


> Well, Hans, that's my _Witschi Q Test 6000!:-!_
> It's very handy to use with any watch. For me it's greatest feature is it's capability to work even with thermocompensated ETA movements that have long inhibition periods:
> - 4 minutes (240 seconds)
> - 8 minutes (480 seconds)
> ...


That's a very impressive-looking piece of equipment. Can you tell us briefly how it works (for example, does the watch have to be opened) and what information you get.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

South Pender said:


> That's a very impressive-looking piece of equipment. Can you tell us briefly how it works (for example, does the watch have to be opened) and what information you get.


There are measurements that require an open watch but I'm only interested with accuracy-related measurements and for those the watch does not need to be opened.
Here is the official leaflet:
http://www.witschi.com/download/Leaflet_qt6000.pdf
Please read it and then if you have any question I'm happy to answer them if I know the answer.
This instrument can do much more than I know about watch service. I tested for quartz accuracy measurements (a pretty simple task with this gear) and it did it very well. It is not new and I suspect that it might have one or two problems that are not related to my quartz accuracy measurements still I'd like them sorted out as soon as possible.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

Sounds like you'll be busy for a while.
So much better than waiting for months to see what the watch is doing.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> Sounds like you'll be busy for a while.
> So much better than waiting for months to see what the watch is doing.


Yes, nothing beats it for convenience.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Hans Moleman said:


> Sounds like you'll be busy for a while.
> So much better than waiting for months to see what the watch is doing.


Yes, I see your point, and you're right if your objective is to see what the watch is doing at that exact temperature at that instant in time. However, it seems to me that, if we were to repeat the experiment a week or two later--again at the same temperature--the result you would get at _that_ instant in time might well be a little different. Why? Same temperature, so what's going on. From what I've seen in timing experiments, movements are not absolutely constant, even at the same temperature, from one time to another. We might label the causes 'random factors' or 'machine deviation,' but it has seemed to me that an extremely-precise measurement at 4:00 p.m. on October 17, 2010 really just describes that movement's performance _at that single instant_. Can we infer long-term performance (say at that temperature) from that single-point-in-time measurement? It hasn't seemed to me that we can. What do you think, Hans?


----------



## dwjquest (Jul 22, 2006)

South Pender said:


> Yes, I see your point, and you're right if your objective is to see what the watch is doing at that exact temperature at that instant in time. However, it seems to me that, if we were to repeat the experiment a week or two later--again at the same temperature--the result you would get at _that_ instant in time might well be a little different. Why? Same temperature, so what's going on. From what I've seen in timing experiments, movements are not absolutely constant, even at the same temperature, from one time to another. We might label the causes 'random factors' or 'machine deviation,' but it has seemed to me that an extremely-precise measurement at 4:00 p.m. on October 17, 2010 really just describes that movement's performance _at that single instant_. Can we infer long-term performance (say at that temperature) from that single-point-in-time measurement? It hasn't seemed to me that we can. What do you think, Hans?


There is definitely truth in your statement. Here are the results of a long term test of the Citizen A660H movement over a period of about two years. All readings taken at 86 deg. F.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

dwjquest said:


> There is definitely truth in your statement. Here are the results of a long term test of the Citizen A660H movement over a period of about two years. All readings taken at 86 deg. F.


That's just a terrific set of data, dwjquest. It shows a range of about 1 _spy_ (sigma of .25 _spy_)--which is actually less than I would have expected. Still, we have no way of definitively explaining this range of values that I can think of.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

A movement's rate moves up and down in sync with its surrounding temperature. It is the only thing that changes the rate.

And that very predictably: Always the same rate at a certain temperature.

How much is it affected? Depends on its thermo-sensitivity. The flatness of one of Dwjquest's graph.

I have never made any long term measurements. But on the aging effects I remain to be convinced.

And when you realize that you're only taking snapshots of a moving target, a target that moves up and down with temperature, you see that you can get all sorts of results depending on when you take those snapshots.

A "yearly rate" is bogus.
And a god-sent for advertisers.
It is entirely dependent on temperature.
It is the sum of the effect of every little temperature change experienced during that year.

Remember: The COSC don't promise anything about yearly rates. The only thing they can genuinely promise is the flatness of the graph. The rest is up to luck. Temperature that is.


----------



## dwjquest (Jul 22, 2006)

Some of the range is due to small changes in temperature of the constant temperature chamber, some is due to the inaccuracies of the rate measurement, and some is due to the watch movement. The watch movement could be affected by changes in battery voltage, the method of thermo-compensation, etc.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

I think Dwjquest that the graph shows that your temperature setup is phenomenal.
Just to be able to repeat the experiments with such accuracy.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Hans Moleman said:


> A movement's rate moves up and down in sync with its surrounding temperature. It is the only thing that changes the rate.


If true, how would you explain dwjquest's findings? Temperature is constant....


----------



## dwjquest (Jul 22, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> I think Dwjquest that the graph shows that your temperature setup is phenomenal.
> Just to be able to repeat the experiments with such accuracy.


Typically, the standard deviation of the temperature during a two hour measurement is 0.03 deg. F.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

South Pender said:


> If true, how would you explain dwjquest's findings? Temperature is constant....


You can only measure up to a certain level of accuracy.
One way to find out what that level is, is by doing several measurements after one another.
The spread of those measurements gives you an idea of the accuracy you're dealing with.

In Dwjquest's case the spread is one second per year. Quite impressive!


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Hans Moleman said:


> You can only measure up to a certain level of accuracy.
> One way to find out what that level is, is by doing several measurements after one another.
> The spread of those measurements gives you an idea of the accuracy you're dealing with.
> 
> In Dwjquest's case the spread is one second per year. Quite impressive!


That would be assuming that the one-second range is entirely measurement error. However, given dwjquest's extremely tight temperature control--having a standard deviation of .03° F, which means, in turn, that the range of the temperatures was very likely about 85.95° F to 86.05° F--where is this error coming from? Surely this tiny spread of, maybe, .10° F isn't a factor. And I think we can assume that dwjquest's rate measurements are similarly precise. Isn't it just more likely that the one-second range is unexplained movement variation--what those in measurement theory refer to as "function fluctuation"?

That is what I was getting at earlier. A single measurement at one point in time can be misleading. With dwjquest's A660H movement, is the movement's true rate at precisely 86° F the -6.2 _spy_ observed at about Day 445 or is it the -7.25 _spy_ observed a little earlier at Day 438? In my opinion, the two-year average of -6.79 _spy_ is the more correct and informative depiction of this movement's true rate at 86° F. To get this kind of stability of obtained measurement, multi-month testing is required.

And, of course, there is the whole issue of how representative dwjquest's A660H movement is of the population of such movements. That's why getting (even a small) sample of such movements is really necessary to make inferences about this movement in general. Tests of a single movement are certainly very informative about that particular specimen, and, in many cases, this is sufficient. And dwjquest's experiments represent the highest level of precision. I just wish he had about 4 or 5 A660Hs so that we could get a group mean and infer how the population of A660Hs can be expected to perform....


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

ppaulusz said:


> There are measurements that require an open watch but I'm only interested with accuracy-related measurements and for those the watch does not need to be opened.
> Here is the official leaflet:
> http://www.witschi.com/download/Leaflet_qt6000.pdf
> Please read it and then if you have any question I'm happy to answer them if I know the answer.
> This instrument can do much more than I know about watch service. I tested for quartz accuracy measurements (a pretty simple task with this gear) and it did it very well. It is not new and I suspect that it might have one or two problems that are not related to my quartz accuracy measurements still I'd like them sorted out as soon as possible.


Looks as if this model is no longer in Witschi's current lineup. Pity. Are they available from used-equipment suppliers? Can you get better resolution than the .01 seconds per day noted in the fact sheet? If, in fact, that is the best resolution available, how would you time a super-accurate HEQ movement? Could you work around that resolution figure? Perhaps I'm not understanding the resolution factor, but would this mean that you would get, on the machine, a rate of .01 sec./day even it the actual rate were .006 sec./day?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

South Pender said:


> Looks as if this model is no longer in Witschi's current lineup. Pity. Are they available from used-equipment suppliers? Can you get better resolution than the .01 seconds per day noted in the fact sheet? If, in fact, that is the best resolution available, how would you time a super-accurate HEQ movement? Could you work around that resolution figure? Perhaps I'm not understanding the resolution factor, but would this mean that you would get, on the machine, a rate of .01 sec./day even it the actual rate were .006 sec./day?


- This model was available between 1991-2004 then it got replaced by the current model (Witschi Analyzer Q1).
- Just as is the case with every used gear, the availability is a matter of luck.
- No, you cannot get a better resolution than .01 (by the way, this has not changed with the release of the new model - the Q1). However you can get some finer indication by the machine as it can distinguish between *0.00* and *-0.00*.
- If the actual rate were .006 sec./day then the machine would indicate 6 times out of 10 measurements a reading of *0.01* and 4 times out of 10 measurements a reading of *0.00 *(common sense would suggest to carry out more than just a single measurement if possible).
The resolution of .01 is based on practicality for a number of reasons:
- The +/- 3.65 sec./year accuracy is more than enough as it only indicates a performance in the environment where the measurement took place. It won't and cannot replace real-world measurements (that is when you check the accuracy of the watch on the long run - eg: 12 months on the wrist or 12 months off the wrist). 
I give you an example of the above and by doing so I will reveal the easy calibration procedure of my Witschi Q Test 6000 (yes, it can be calibrated within a matter of minutes provided one has a trusted timesource that has to be a watch in this case).
Calibration: the instrument can be calibrated via a trimmer without opening the machine. The access to the trimmer is located at the back of the machine covered by a removable plastic plug. The high-frequency quartz crystal (its actual frequency is not published but in my opinion is somewhere in the range of 8.38MHz - 33.55MHz) is "oven heated" and well insulated from outside temperature. According to the manual it takes 3 minutes from power on to heat up the quartz crystal to performance-level (according to my test - carried out at room temperature - it is rather less than 2 minutes but I'm sure Witschi calculated with a more extreme environment). So back to the calibration. I do happen to have a thermocompensated Citizen Exceed (Cal.0330G) that I've never worn in the past 18 months. It stays in its wooden box and every now and then I check its accuracy. This watch is very stable as its accuracy has been always +4.5 sec./year in the past 18 months. That accuracy translates to 0.012 sec./day. My Witschi measured it for 0.06 sec./day before the calibration of the Witschi. So I learnt that the machine needed calibration then when I found the calibration/trimmer terminal I asked my Brother (he is the handyman) to adjust the machine to read 0.01 when this Citizen is measured. It took 3 or 4 takes in other words 3-4 minutes to calibrate the machine because each take was followed by 60 seconds of accuracy measurement to see the result. The trimmer is not as sensitive as a watch trimmer so it's easier to have a feel of it, according to my Brother. Just to see that we were not fooling ourself, I did a second measurement with the finally calibrated Witschi and for this I used my other Citizen Exceed, the Euros model with Cal.510G. That watch has been on my wrist all the time in the past 4 weeks and I estimated by eye-test (I'm very experienced in that ;-)) an accuracy of within +6 sec./year. The calibrated Witschi measured +0.01 sec./day for that watch that is as close to my estimated figure as possible with the 0.01 resolution the Witschi offers. So the calibration of my Witschi was no doubt successful!:-! Of course thermocompensation is not fool-proof as we already know in this forum so my unworn Citizen would have different accuracy if I worn it all the time (so is the case with my other Citizen, that would have a different accuracy too if I kept it unworn in its box) - hopefully not a great deal different but different enough that my Witschi with its limited resolution of 0.01 would pick it easily and that is why I can confirm the validity of the 0.01 resolution: it is perfectly adaquate for every practical purpose.|> One other thing about the resolution and its adaquateness: it is a touch finer than the 4 sec./year digital calibration steps of the finest ETA thermocompensated movements so even the smallest adjustment can be monitored and checked by the Witschi within a couple of minutes (depending on the inhibition period of the given movement it can be between 4-16 minutes) - so what else one can ask for?!;-)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

ppaulusz said:


> - This model was available between 1991-2004 then it got replaced by the current model (Witschi Analyzer Q1).
> - Just as is the case with every used gear, the availability is a matter of luck.
> - No, you cannot get a better resolution than .01 (by the way, this has not changed with the release of the new model - the Q1). However you can get some finer indication by the machine as it can distinguish between *0.00* and *-0.00*.
> - If the actual rate were .006 sec./day then the machine would indicate 6 times out of 10 measurements a reading of *0.01* and 4 times out of 10 measurements a reading of *0.00 *(common sense would suggest to carry out more than just a single measurement if possible).
> ...


Thanks for that detail. I think you're right; it is sufficient resolution for all practical testing--a very very nice addition to your horological toys. I'd like to get one, but my guess is that they are extremely rare now. Ppaulusz, can you tell us what the inhibition period is for _The Citizen_ and the Seiko 9F series? If it were 60 seconds or less, the available, and much less-expensive, Witschi Tech Handy II would provide the same resolution. However, I expect that it is longer than 60 seconds for both. :-(


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Duplicate post.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

South Pender said:


> ...Ppaulusz, can you tell us what the inhibition period is for _The Citizen_ and the Seiko 9F series? If it were 60 seconds or less, the available, and much less-expensive, Witschi Tech Handy II would provide the same resolution. However, I expect that it is longer than 60 seconds for both. :-(


- _The Citizen (Cal.A660)_: inhibition period is 60 seconds
-_ Seiko 9F series_: inhibition period is 160 seconds
- _Witschi New Tech Handy II_: it can measure up to 480 seconds, only the thermocompensated ETA chronographs (both the analog and ana/digi movements) are out of this range as those have an inhibition period of 960 seconds - the rest (including the thermocompensated Japanese movements) could be measured by this instrument.


----------



## dwjquest (Jul 22, 2006)

ppaulusz said:


> - _The Citizen (Cal.A660)_: inhibition period is 60 seconds
> -_ Seiko 9F series_: inhibition period is 160 seconds
> - _Witschi New Tech Handy II_: it can measure up to 480 seconds, only the thermocompensated ETA chronographs (both the analog and ana/digi movements) are out of this range as those have an inhibition period of 960 seconds - the rest (including the thermocompensated Japanese movements) could be measured by this instrument.


I have not been able to find any observable inhibition period on the Seiko 9F62 movement over the temperature range of 52-98 deg. F. Same with the Citizen A660 and Seiko 8J56 movements. I was beginning to believe that these movements used a more sophisticated (but not necessarily more accurate) method of adjusting for temperature than the step changes found in the ETAs. Could be just a less observable method.

Did the inhibition periods you mention come from the Witschi literature?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

dwjquest said:


> I have not been able to find any observable inhibition period on the Seiko 9F62 movement over the temperature range of 52-98 deg. F. Same with the Citizen A660 and Seiko 8J56 movements. I was beginning to believe that these movements used a more sophisticated (but not necessarily more accurate) method of adjusting for temperature than the step changes found in the ETAs. Could be just a less observable method.
> 
> Did the inhibition periods you mention come from the Witschi literature?


No, not from the Witschi literature but from the Citizen and Seiko literatures. In both cases the word inhibition was not used instead they put it similarly to this: temperature is checked in every X seconds and adjustments are made upon those results. We've already discussed this in this forum.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

ppaulusz said:


> No, not from the Witschi literature but from the Citizen and Seiko literatures. In both cases the word inhibition was not used instead they put it similarly to this: temperature is checked in every X seconds and adjustments are made upon those results. We've already discussed this in this forum.


This is the Japanese Citizen link about the "inhibition" time of the The Citizen:
"N�·�}5•b‚Ö‚Ì‚±‚¾‚í‚è�mCITIZEN-ƒVƒ`ƒYƒ"˜rŽžŒv�n

and here is its English translation:
Translation result for http://citizen.jp/the-citizen/story/5seconds.html

Now, Citizen claims to adjust the frequency which is different to the inhibition technology used by ETA. That would explain why you did not find any observable inhibition period! Seiko might use similar technology.
Rolex used frequency adjustments as a method in its thermocompensated OysterQuartz watches but the end results were far from as accurate as the Seiko (9F) and Citizen (A660) results 16-18 years after the introduction of the Rolex's technology.
I don't know what the secrets are of the Citizen and Seiko methods but I'm pretty sure that the other modern thermocompensated movements from Citizen and Seiko use the same technology: no ETA-style inhibition but rather adjustment of the frequency of the quartz crystal. The ETA solution looks to me the simpler one. The Japanese solution is harder to manufacture, in my opinion. Accuracy performance-wise I can't see differences.
My question is this: Are the Japanese really adjusting the frequency of the quartz crystal instead of using ETA-like inhibition method?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

ppaulusz said:


> ...My question is this: Are the Japanese really adjusting the frequency of the quartz crystal instead of using ETA-like inhibition method?


And one more question: If the answer is yes to the above question then how can we explain the digital calibration terminal of the Seiko 9F series?:-s


----------



## dwjquest (Jul 22, 2006)

ppaulusz said:


> This is the Japanese Citizen link about the "inhibition" time of the The Citizen:
> "N�·�}5•b‚Ö‚Ì‚±‚¾‚í‚è�mCITIZEN-ƒVƒ`ƒYƒ"˜rŽžŒv�n
> 
> and here is its English translation:
> ...


Wonder how they manipulate the frequency? Assuming that the change can only be in 1 frequency unit, that would be 1 in about 32,000 or 3 parts in 100,000. That large a change would be easily visible with my equipment, yet I see no large changes. So I wonder how it all takes place?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

dwjquest said:


> Wonder how they manipulate the frequency? Assuming that the change can only be in 1 frequency unit, that would be 1 in about 32,000 or 3 parts in 100,000. That large a change would be easily visible with my equipment, yet I see no large changes. So I wonder how it all takes place?


Well, I'm not an engineer so I could be wrong here: let's assume that the increase of temperature speeds up the oscillation of the quartz crystal. Let's also assume that reducing the voltage slows down the oscillation of the quartz crystal. Now, if that 2 effects are applied equally at the same time then the 2 cancell out each others. It's an analog process and temperature is checked in fine resolution of 0.1 degree of Celsius. Your equipment would not see a thing as there would be nothing to see.
Again, my above theory can be garbage so you're warned!;-)


----------



## dwjquest (Jul 22, 2006)

ppaulusz said:


> Well, I'm not an engineer so I could be wrong here: let's assume that the increase of temperature speeds up the oscillation of the quartz crystal. Let's also assume that reducing the voltage slows down the oscillation of the quartz crystal. Now, if that 2 effects are applied equally at the same time then the 2 cancell out each others. It's an analog process and temperature is checked in fine resolution of 0.1 degree of Celsius. Your equipment would not see a thing as there would be nothing to see.
> Again, my above theory can be garbage so you're warned!;-)


That could be what is happening. I don't know if it is possible to change the frequency in less than 1 Hz increments. If so, anything is possible. Maybe one of our forum crystal experts can shed some light here.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

dwjquest said:


> That could be what is happening. I don't know if it is possible to change the frequency in less than 1 Hz increments. If so, anything is possible. Maybe one of our forum crystal experts can shed some light here.


I am not an expert, but I am sure a crystal can do any frequency you desire. Within a range. Change the capacitor to suit and it will do whatever you're after.

The way Seiko and Citizen do their TC thing is as yet unknown I believe. There are lots of theories around though. None of them really proven for what I can recall.

The discussion at the time was about whether The Citizen needed a thermometer or not. And it did. The design by itself wasn't enough.

Another thing;
Resolution isn't the same as accuracy.
The resolution is 0.01 seconds per day. A step less than that can't be displayed. The display only has three digits.
The accuracy of the Witschi Q Test 6000 is 0.02 seconds per day. It's clock is guaranteed to 0.02 seconds per day.

An honest manufacturer always keeps the resolution reasonable so as not to mislead the user on the accuracy. More than three digits on the display of the Witschi Q Test 6000 would have been misleading.

A timer reference needs to be a lot more accurate than the clock it is measuring. It came up before.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> ...The accuracy of the Witschi Q Test 6000 is 0.02 seconds per day. It's clock is guaranteed to 0.02 seconds per day...


No, it's not, according to the *User's Guide and Technical Reference of the Witschi Q Test 6000* (from page #24 and #25):

*Measuring periods:*​_• __Measurement via the quartz frequency: 1 s._
_• __Measurement via the stepping motor pulses or the LCD frequency: adjustable from 2 to 960 s._
_• Mechanical and tuning fork watches: 4 s._
_• __Display of the time left until the end of the current measurement._

*Sensors*_:_
_• __Built-in, highly sensitive and selective sensors for acoustic, magnetic and capacitive coupling._
_• __Signal detection by means of the module supply current._
_• __LED's to display signal intensity._​
*Display of results:*​_• __Large, 3-digit LC-display._
_• __Display mode switchable to s/day or s/month._
_• __Measuring range 9.99 s/day, or 300 s/month._
_• __Resolution 0.01 s/day, or 1 s/month._

*Time base:*​_• __Pre-aged, oven-controlled high frequency quartz crystal oscillator._
_• __Temperature deviation: 0.01 s/day max in the range of 10 - 30 degree of Celsius._

According to the above the accuracy of the instrument is within *0.01 s/day*. We are talking about a pre-aged, oven-controlled high-frequency (MHz-range) quartz crystal oscillator - it has to have an accuracy of better than 0.01 s/day based on the applied technology.​
Even a properly calibrated Citizen Crystron 4 Mega (4.19MHz) should perform well within +/-0.02 s/day (when worn for most of the time). The Witschi's quartz crystal does not have a watchcase-like space limitation, most probably it employs a higher than 4.19MHz crystal, its oven control for temperature is much more reliable than the human wrist and the equipment is not subjected to an ever changing environment as it is stationed in a room - these benefits have to result in tighter accuracy when compared to a high-frequency quartz watch, in my opinion.
I too have a Witschi Q Test 6000 leaflet that claims (by mistake, in my opinion) an accuracy of +/- 0.02 s/d between 15 degree of C and 30 degree of Celsius.​​​


----------



## ronmiller65 (Jul 8, 2009)

UpstandingCitizen said:


> I know the watch has only been out for a little while, but I figured I ask anyhow.
> 
> I keep teetering between grabbing the Claremont or looking elsewhere. First I was 100% going to grab one, then I wasn't so sure after seeing real world pics, and then I saw the watch in person and thought I had decided that I liked it enough to purchase.
> 
> ...


I just purchased the titanium cased Precisionist with the carbon fiber dial. They are currently 25% off at Macys, in addition if you have their credit card, they give you an additional 15%. Retail $599.00. My price $350.00 + tax. 
Getting back to your question. I have not checked the accuracy yet, but just checking against my cell phone, it is dead on.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

ppaulusz said:


> No, it's not, according to the *User's Guide and Technical Reference of the Witschi Q Test 6000* (from page #24 and #25):
> 
> *Measuring periods:*​_• __Measurement via the quartz frequency: 1 s._
> _• __Measurement via the stepping motor pulses or the LCD frequency: adjustable from 2 to 960 s._
> ...


Sorry George. I can be as subtle as a warthog.
There was no need to be so blunt.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> Sorry George. I can be as subtle as a warthog.
> There was no need to be so blunt.


Sorry, Hans!


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

ppaulusz said:


> no, it's not, according to the *user's guide and technical reference of the witschi q test 6000* (from page #24 and #25):
> ...
> *time base:*_• __pre-aged, oven-controlled high frequency quartz crystal oscillator._
> _• __temperature deviation: 0.01 s/day max in the range of 10 - 30 degree of celsius._
> ...



Actually according to that wording ONLY the precision of the internal time-base is 0.01 s/day - the ACCURACY OF ANY MEASUREMENT is SMALLER THAN THAT and seriously depends on the interval used for the measurement. (you should be already familiar with the multiplying of inherent measurement errors when scaling from errors over one small measuring interval to much longer intervals so I will not go into details).

It is interesting that they apparently do not make any claim on actual measurement accuracy - but that obviously depends on a number of factors - I would also include the type of signal used as a 'trigger' - a pure electromagnetic signal can be a lot more accurate than a sound signal!​


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Quartz based OCXOs can be accurate to about 0.004 spd based on my research on the Citizen CQT-101

George, interested in setting up a HEQ calibration business? I can't find anyone in the States who has this equipment who cares or even understands what I am talking about when I ask -- LOL


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> Quartz based OCXOs can be accurate to about 0.004 spd based on my research on the Citizen CQT-101
> 
> George, interested in setting up a HEQ calibration business? I can't find anyone in the States who has this equipment who cares or even understands what I am talking about when I ask -- LOL


Hmm, the easier to find OCXO that I have seen specify their accuracy in parts per billion in 2 or 3 situations - like ppb max. error after one day, ppb max. error after one year and ppb max. error after 10 years - with very, very good values in the range of 0.1 ppb/day, 10 ppb/year and 100 ppb / 10 years - which - while allowing a 0.004 s/day generic claim - actually means at best 0.4 s after one year for a brand-new device and up to 4 s/year of error for a device about 10 years old - and many higher-frequency or higher-temperature OCXO have errors that can be 10 to 25 times worse!

Also an interesting application note:

http://www.vectron.com/products/appnotes/ocxo.pdf


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

Catalin said:


> Actually according to that wording ONLY the precision of the internal time-base is 0.01 s/day - the ACCURACY OF ANY MEASUREMENT is SMALLER THAN THAT and seriously depends on the interval used for the measurement. (you should be already familiar with the multiplying of inherent measurement errors when scaling from errors over one small measuring interval to much longer intervals so I will not go into details).
> 
> It is interesting that they apparently do not make any claim on actual measurement accuracy - but that obviously depends on a number of factors - I would also include the type of signal used as a 'trigger' - a pure electromagnetic signal can be a lot more accurate than a sound signal!​


It would be great if all watches came with a connector where timers could read from. 
If you're willing to open it and measure directly from the movement you've got a lot more options.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Catalin said:


> ...I would also include the type of signal used as a 'trigger' - a pure electromagnetic signal can be a lot more accurate than a sound signal!


They are included:"_Built-in, highly sensitive and selective sensors for acoustic, magnetic and capacitive coupling_."
The magnetic sensor reads the "signal" from the stepping motor.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Catalin said:


> Actually according to that wording ONLY the precision of the internal time-base is 0.01 s/day - the ACCURACY OF ANY MEASUREMENT is SMALLER THAN THAT and seriously depends on the interval used for the measurement...


Strange enough the manuals contains typos and other errors...
However if the applied technology is not good enough of delivering better than +/-0.01 sec./day accuracy then how on Earth we would expect better than +/-0.02 sec./day from a thermocompensated watch?​


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Eeeb said:


> Quartz based OCXOs can be accurate to about 0.004 spd based on my research on the Citizen CQT-101
> 
> George, interested in setting up a HEQ calibration business? I can't find anyone in the States who has this equipment who cares or even understands what I am talking about when I ask -- LOL


I could guarantee the best/most accurate calibration on any watch provided the watch is fitted with a (either an analog or a digital) calibration terminal. I would do the calibration at room temperature (between 20-25 degree Celsius).

About the accuracy of the quartz based OCXOs, you are right: it's about 0.004 sec./day and Witschi has used that figure describing the current model Witschi Analyzer Q1 that - in my opinion - has the same or very similar quartz timebase as my Witschi Q Test 6000 has (the description of the quartz used in the two instruments are identical almost to the letter: "pre-aged, oven-controlled, high frequency quartz" for the _Q Test 6000_ and "pre-aged, thermo-stabilized, high-frequency quartz, OCXO" for the _Analyzer Q1_)


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

ppaulusz said:


> They are included:"_Built-in, highly sensitive and selective sensors for acoustic, magnetic and capacitive coupling_."
> The magnetic sensor reads the "signal" from the stepping motor.


My point was that those sensors will have a slightly different error range one from another (most likely with the acoustic one being the less precise), and as such the accuracy of the full measurement of the device would have to be specified 3 times in order to be really precise.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

ppaulusz said:


> Strange enough the manuals contains typos and other errors...
> However if the applied technology is not good enough of delivering better than +/-0.01 sec./day accuracy then how on Earth we would expect better than +/-0.02 sec./day from a thermocompensated watch?​


Well, from 0.01 to 0.02 there is a 100% difference ;-) And initially calibrating the watch at factory with direct electronic contacts and presumably with an OCXO which is annually calibrated (or calibrates itself from GPS or an inexpensive rubidium standard) could certainly deliver better than 0.01 s/day.

My point was mostly about aging - MHz-range OCXO is aging much more significantly (compared to the original precision, not necessarily in absolute terms) than non-ovenized 32 kHz; and generally the builder of the device could not make assumptions on the very long-term results without any later re-calibration of the device (which I understand that now you have done).


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Eeeb said:


> Quartz based OCXOs can be accurate to about 0.004 spd based on my research on the Citizen CQT-101...


I'd say that accuracy-wise your Citizen CQT-101 (designed in the early 1980s), my Witschi Q Test 6000 (designed in the early 1990s) and the current Witschi Analyzer Q1 (designed in the early 2000s) are identical and all three can deliver better than +/-0.01 sec./day.
The differences are in the added features that are not accuracy related (except the very useful GPS option on the Analyzer Q1 that can offer atomic clock accuracy via its optional GPS receiver but that is an external help, if you like).


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Catalin said:


> Well, from 0.01 to 0.02 there is a 100% difference ;-) And initially calibrating the watch at factory with direct electronic contacts and presumably with an OCXO which is annually calibrated (or calibrates itself from GPS or an inexpensive rubidium standard) could certainly deliver better than 0.01 s/day.
> 
> My point was mostly about aging - MHz-range OCXO is aging much more significantly (compared to the original precision, not necessarily in absolute terms) than non-ovenized 32 kHz; and generally the builder of the device could not make assumptions on the very long-term results without any later re-calibration of the device (which I understand that now you have done).


As you mentioned MHz-range quartz crystals are ageing much more significantly than the standard 32kHz oscillators. However every watch or instrument that is fitted with a MHz-range oscillator offers a method for calibration. In case of my Witschi the manufacturer recommends yearly calibration. According to certain factory details inside the instrument I concluded that my gear was manufactured around 1994. Now that would make it about 16 years old. We know that the ageing of the quartz crystal is getting less and less significant as time passes by so I'm quietly optimistic that my Witschi won't need yearly calibration.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

Catalin said:


> http://www.vectron.com/products/appnotes/ocxo.pdf


From that PDF:

When the required temperature stability is beyond that which can be achieved with a standard proportionally controlled oven, a double oven system can be employed in which the standard oven is housed within a second oven. The outer oven then buffers the ambient temperature changes to the inner oven, which contain the oscillator circuit.

:-d


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Hans Moleman said:


> From that PDF:
> 
> When the required temperature stability is beyond that which can be achieved with a standard proportionally controlled oven, a double oven system can be employed in which the standard oven is housed within a second oven. The outer oven then buffers the ambient temperature changes to the inner oven, which contain the oscillator circuit.
> 
> :-d


That second "oven" can be an airconditioned room as well!;-)


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

ppaulusz said:


> As you mentioned MHz-range quartz crystals are ageing much more significantly than the standard 32kHz oscillators. However every watch or instrument that is fitted with a MHz-range oscillator offers a method for calibration. In case of my Witschi the manufacturer recommends yearly calibration. According to certain factory details inside the instrument I concluded that my gear was manufactured around 1994. Now that would make it about 16 years old. We know that the ageing of the quartz crystal is getting less and less significant as time passes by so I'm quietly optimistic that my Witschi won't need yearly calibration.


My feeling is that OCXO is still changing (aging might not be the 100% appropriate term) for at least 10 years and potentially much more - and you have both quartz changes and changes from the thermal element used to measure the temperature.

Also note that the 0.004 s/day is pretty precise the actual 0.1 ppb number usually quoted on the highest-end OCXO by the manufacturer - and which always is accompanied by numbers like 10 ppb/year and 100 ppb / 10 years !


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Catalin said:


> My feeling is that OCXO is still changing (aging might not be the 100% appropriate term) for at least 10 years and potentially much more - and you have both quartz changes and changes from the thermal element used to measure the temperature.
> 
> Also note that the 0.004 s/day is pretty precise the actual 0.1 ppb number usually quoted on the highest-end OCXO by the manufacturer - and which always is accompanied by numbers like 10 ppb/year and 100 ppb / 10 years !


Everything is changing, nothing is perfect not even the atomic clock.


----------

