# Omega X-33 Cal. 1666D TC Movement Accuracy Tracking



## gaijin

I plan on recording the accuracy of my X-33 which I just received back from Omega service with the latest Cal. 1666D thermo-compensated movement.

Omega docs say it was calibrated to +002 seconds/month, but we shall see.

Not much to report this week, but it will set the groundwork for future reporting.

Hope you find it interesting.










;-)


----------



## ronalddheld

Looking forward to seeing the results before I decide what to do.


----------



## Watch wrist: g.p.

Thanks for taking the time to keep us up to date!
I know I am not the only one sitting on the fence as far as the 1666d goes, I have a transplant candidate picked out already.


----------



## gaijin

The graph will be updated weekly. For those who may not be familiar with my similar thread on accuracy tracking for my Bulova Precisionist, it will follow essentially the same format that has been used there: https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/precisionist-96b153-accuracy-tracking-634164.html

Depending on how the testing goes, I may include conditions like a week off the wrist, a week in the cold, a week in the heat, etc. just to test/verify the efficacy of the thermo-compensation.

I am not comfortable with measurement periods less than one week due to the accuracy goals I anticipate and the inherent errors in my measurement procedure - which will be diminished by a longer measurement time period.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

Different wearing habits and thermal regimes would be useful in accertaining how good the TC is.


----------



## nathantw666

FWIW, I received my X-33 back from Omega earlier this year and before it went to service it was running about -3 sec a week. Now it's running maybe +1 or 2 seconds every second or third week depending if I'm wearing the watch or not. So something is definitely different.


----------



## gaijin

After one week of wearing my X-33 for about 20 hours/day, the results are encouraging:










At 0.37 seconds fast after 7 days, that puts it at +19.31 seconds/year - within the COSC spec for quartz watches.

I will wear it for another week to confirm these results, then try different temperatures to see if the TC feature of the new movement really does control the rate at varying temperatures.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

After two weeks of regularly wearing my X-33:










At +0.92 sec in two weeks, that puts it at a rate of 23.99 sec/year. Still within the COSC spec, but just barely. Daily rate is +0.07 sec/day.

My X-33 is now in the watch box at Room Temperature. My plan is to leave it there for two weeks to see if it maintains the current rate.

Stay tuned. ;-)

HTH


----------



## Kiwi Mac

Wearing 20 hours a day? You only sleep 4 hours a day?!

I'm watching this with interest as my Breitling B1 is hovering around the limits of acceptable accuracy (just under 4 seconds slow in 49 days) following a maintenance service and new battery around 3 months ago. I wear it for about 9 hours per day.


----------



## gaijin

After one week in the watch box at an average temperature of approx. 24.5*C/76*F:










The results are very encouraging. The new 1666D TC movement exhibits essentially the same rate whether worn or not. Still plugging along at an average of +0.065 sec/day which calcs out to +23.6 sec/year - very close to the +2.0 sec/month to which Omega say they adjusted the movement at time of service.

I had originally planned to give it another week in the watch box, but in view of the consistency of the results so far (and my impatience), I have put the watch in an egg incubator calibrated to approx. 38.3*C/101*F. We'll see next week if the rate stays constant at this elevated temperature.

HTH


----------



## artec

Maybe I missed something but "..... before you decide what to do" about what?


----------



## ronalddheld

This seems to be good news if the residual curve is fairly flat.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> This seems to be good news if the residual curve is fairly flat.


I think this is very good news so far. If it continues to run at a constant rate regardless of temperature, then it should be a straightforward exercise to correct the rate to run close to +0.00. If the rate remains at +0.065 sec/day, then the Correction Value stored in the watch would need to be increased by 6.

Right now we're looking at a classic example of excellent precision with only fair accuracy. Precision is excellent because it is the same deviation every day (+0.065 sec), but accuracy is only fair because when measured against a reference, the time is gradually drifting. With proper correction, both precision and accuracy should be excellent.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. ;-)

HTH


----------



## gaijin

After a week at approx. 100*F (Max. 101*F, Min. 100*F):










The average rate jumped up a little to +O.O76 sec/day. Without TC this probably would have been a lot worse.

The X-33 is now in a cooler at approx. 50*F/10*C. This will conclude the testing and I can start wearing my watch again.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

After a week at approx. 50*F (Max. 51*F, Min. 50*F):










If I were to calibrate the movement -0.07 sec/day, the graph would look like this:










Two conclusions can be drawn so far:

1. The Omega Cal. 1666D is definitely Heat-Compensated (Omega's word for Thermo-compensated).

2. When Omega said they calibrated the movement to +002 sec/month they were pretty darn close.

I have no more extraordinary temperature tests planned, but I will keep track of the accuracy until it is time for the next battery change when I will re-calibrate the watch based on the overall accuracy results at that time.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

It would be nice if someone could compare the Z-33 performance against the 1666D's.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> It would be nice if someone could compare the Z-33 performance against the 1666D's.


Problem solved!

Please send me a Z-33 and I'd be happy to do the side-by-side comparison! ;-)

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

Where do I find one, since I have not seen any for sale?


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Where do I find one, since I have not seen any for sale?


That's OK. I'm willing to wait until they become available. ;-)


----------



## webvan

gaijin said:


> After a week at approx. 50*F (Max. 51*F, Min. 50*F):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to calibrate the movement -0.07 sec/day, the graph would look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two conclusions can be drawn so far:
> 
> 1. The Omega Cal. 1666D is definitely Heat-Compensated (Omega's word for Thermo-compensated).
> 
> 2. When Omega said they calibrated the movement to +002 sec/month they were pretty darn close.
> 
> I have no more extraordinary temperature tests planned, but I will keep track of the accuracy until it is time for the next battery change when I will re-calibrate the watch based on the overall accuracy results at that time.
> 
> HTH


I think you should annualize the drifts on top of showing the actual variance as they "talk" more to our spy oriented minds. I did it and found : 
Worn 1: 19.3 spy
Worn 2: 28.7 spy
76dF : 22.9 spy
100dF : 40.1 spy
50dF : 22.9 spy

I assume you had an offset at the beginning as hitting 0.00 when hacking is...well, impossible, at least it's never happened to me in 3 years of testing. If not that could explain the 10spy diffrence between weeks 1 and weeks 2, unless the wearing patterns changed?

Having said that I'm a bit surprised you get the same performance at 76dF and 50dF, especially since there is a significant variation when going up to 100, at 50, it should really be quite a bit slower, between 0 and 10 spy, based on my experience with ETA TC movements.

How do you measure the drift, video method ?


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> That's OK. I'm willing to wait until they become available. ;-)


I talked with an Omega boutique manager. He claimed the Z-33 would be out closer to the end of the year.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> I talked with an Omega boutique manager. He claimed the Z-33 would be out closer to the end of the year.


I would really like to see one of these in person. The pictures make it look bulky, especially the thickness, but I want to believe it is better proportioned in real life. I am also very anxious to see the display technology they are using. To my knowledge, there are no other modules out yet that use it.

It looks ugly, but I am oddly drawn to it ...

We'll see how I feel after I finally see and handle one. ;-)


----------



## ronalddheld

Maybe it is so ugly, thst it is worth having? I also want to see the display.


----------



## webvan

How's your 1666D based x-33 been doing accuracy wise, no news is good news I'm guessing ;-)


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> How's your 1666D based x-33 been doing accuracy wise, no news is good news I'm guessing ;-)


Still very consistent:










I'm just trying to screw up the courage to open it up and calibrate it. I still don't understand why Omega didn't calibrate to something better than +002 sec/month when they serviced it. :-(

I posted that I would not continue regular updates on the X-33 unless something unexpected came up - or I finally get around to calibrating it. ;-)

HTH


----------



## webvan

Are there any seals from the service that would show it's been opened in case something unrelated happens within the next two years?


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Are there any seals from the service that would show it's been opened in case something unrelated happens within the next two years?


There is nothing on the outside of the case, e.g. paint dots, etc. I imagine if one did not bugger the screws the caseback could be removed and replaced leaving no evidence.

HTH

ETA: Here's what the caseback looked like when it came back from service:


----------



## webvan

Makes it harder to resist then...I thought I'd read somewhere about a "blue seal from service" but I can't remember what watch it was or was it maybe the blue wrapping on the bracelet...


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Makes it harder to resist then...I thought I'd read somewhere about a "blue seal from service" but I can't remember what watch it was or was it maybe the blue wrapping on the bracelet...


I have seen pictures and read several posts from people talking about the "Red dots" or "Blue dots" that were painted on their watches at the caseback/case interface. Supposedly it is one color when the watch is new and another color after the watch has been serviced. However, I have never heard of anything like that on the X-33.

HTH


----------



## Chazman1946

I thought Omega was phasing out their Quartz line of watches? I know the Seamasters no longer are offered in Quartz, although many swear by them.


----------



## artec

The Omega Boutique near me said it would be out in September and would sell for $5600.


----------



## ronalddheld

Mine has it in already.


----------



## webvan

gaijin said:


> I have seen pictures and read several posts from people talking about the "Red dots" or "Blue dots" that were painted on their watches at the caseback/case interface. Supposedly it is one color when the watch is new and another color after the watch has been serviced. However, I have never heard of anything like that on the X-33.HTH


Just came across an x-33 that was serviced in 2010 that had a blue dot at 6, actually the whole screw is "painted" blue, that would make it hard to unscrew it without leaving any marks ;-)

Absent the calibrating to preserve the warranty, have you tried exposing your 1666D X-33 to different temperatures for a week to see how it reacts? That would give a good clue on the performance of the movement, not that there's any reason to doubt what Swatch USA told you about the 1666D...but then they could easily have calibrated it to better than 2 spm with just 5 or 6 extra taps!


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Just came across an x-33 that was serviced in 2010 that had a blue dot at 6, actually the whole screw is "painted" blue, that would make it hard to unscrew it without leaving any marks ;-)
> 
> Absent the calibrating to preserve the warranty, have you tried exposing your 1666D X-33 to different temperatures for a week to see how it reacts? That would give a good clue on the performance of the movement, not that there's any reason to doubt what Swatch USA told you about the 1666D...but then they could easily have calibrated it to better than 2 spm with just 5 or 6 extra taps!


See my post #25 above - 50*F for one week and 100*F for one week with no appreciable change in rate.

I agree Omega Service could have calibrated it a lot tighter than they did. :-(

HTH


----------



## webvan

ok, really small fonts! It's not really normal to have zero variation between 50F and 100F, never seen that on my ETA TC watches or on dwjquest's graphes, you'd expect at least 10 spy, it almost looks like you hit the sweet spot in the curve of a non-TC movement, something's up.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> ok, really small fonts! It's not really normal to have zero variation between 50F and 100F, never seen that on my ETA TC watches or on dwjquest's graphes, you'd expect at least 10 spy, it almost looks like you hit the sweet spot in the curve of a non-TC movement, something's up.


Something's up? What, for instance? Honestly, sometimes I think there is no pleasing some of you folks. :-(

Let me do the math for you:

@100*F for one week the observed rate was +40.15 seconds/year

@50*F for one week the observed rate was +22.94 seconds/year

@76*F for nine weeks the observed rate was +38.65 seconds/year

Now ... how about some data from you?

HTH


----------



## webvan

Really ? Your logic always takes me off guard :


gaijin said:


> See my post #25 above - 50*F for one week and 100*F for one week with *no appreciable change in rate.HTH*





> @100*F for one week the observed rate was +40.15 seconds/year
> @50*F for one week the observed rate was +22.94 seconds/year
> @76*F for nine weeks the observed rate was +38.65 seconds/year


How is that not an appreciable change in rate?! Yeah, I could have done the math trying to decipher your tiny numbers but frankly why not cut to the chase and make both your graphs and posts clearer?


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Yeah, I could have done the math trying to decipher your tiny numbers but frankly why not cut to the chase and make both your graphs and posts clearer?




Well ... here's another fuzzy post, with a fuzzy graph with unclear numbers for anyone who may still be interested:










HTH


----------



## webvan




----------



## webvan

Any more updates?

Coming up on the two year warranty I believe, are you still planning to take a peak inside to see if the regulation procedure can be applied?

Can't remember where you got the 1666D name (Omega paperwork or emails?) but it's been established (https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/omeg...uartz-finally-321-a-963431-3.html#post7241097) that the latest version is the 1666C that does appear to be TC, which at the end of the day is what we wanted here ;-)


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Any more updates?
> 
> Coming up on the two year warranty I believe, are you still planning to take a peak inside to see if the regulation procedure can be applied?
> 
> Can't remember where you got the 1666D name (Omega paperwork or emails?) but it's been established (https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/omeg...uartz-finally-321-a-963431-3.html#post7241097) that the latest version is the 1666C that does appear to be TC, which at the end of the day is what we wanted here ;-)


Latest summary is +23.57 sec/year on/off wrist, summer/winter, which is very close to the claimed +002 sec/month that Omega say they adjusted it to.

I got the 1666D info verbally from an Omega tech when talking about the specific work to be done on my watch. Perhaps he was mistaken - I do have the green backlight, however (used to be blue) and the watch is remarkably consistent irrespective of wear pattern. During this latest data set I did not do any extraordinary temperature testing, all was at RT indoors and on the wrist outdoors.

Have not opened it up yet to try my own calibration, that will happen when I change the battery. Still unhappy that Omega didn't spend a little more time adjusting it to something a little tighter than +002 sec/month.

HTH


----------



## daveya

It's not accurate to take a few weeks and extrapolate to a full year.


----------



## Hans Moleman

daveya said:


> It's not accurate to take a few weeks and extrapolate to a full year.


Nothing wrong with that!

It gives you the short term error.
The one that includes the temperature effects of the seasons.

The year term does not include those.


----------



## Sabresoft

Short term extrapolations can yield dubious errors in SPY predictions. A one tenth second reading error in initial offset and subsequent reading (say under in one case and over in the other) has the following effects:

(a) Second reading 7 days later --> 10.4 SPY error. 

(b) Second reading 365 days later --> 0.2 SPY error. 

Therefore errors in very short term readings can impact SPY estimates significantly, whereas over the long.term, they have much less impact on SPY estimates. 

As I have been conducting my long term tests on my TC watches, I have noticed that early readings resulted in very erratic SPY curves at the beginning, smoothing out significantly over the duration of the test.


----------



## jamal_GT

hi, I remember reading in the web that an astornaut was repairing his Omega X-33 in space . it broke down . I saw the video also.


----------



## ronalddheld

I should go to my Omega boutique and ask how much it would cost to replace my 1666A by a 1666D movement.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> I should go to my Omega boutique and ask how much it would cost to replace my 1666A by a 1666D movement.


For me it was just the cost of a regular quartz service at the Omega Service Center. See Category 3: OMEGA Watches: Complete maintenance service prices

HTH


----------



## artec

Where was the watch after 364 days? Unless you have a picture of how it performs every day or every week, you can't know whether it has stayed within the +/- tolerance or not. The fact that it happens to be almost dead on after a year may be no more than chance.


----------



## gaijin

artec said:


> Where was the watch after 364 days? Unless you have a picture of how it performs every day or every week, you can't know whether it has stayed within the +/- tolerance or not. The fact that it happens to be almost dead on after a year may be no more than chance.


I have published weekly accuracy data until I am blue in the face, and still get criticized and picked apart by some on this forum. I've just about had it.

If I give a spm number, I'm criticized because it wasn't spy.

If I publish graphs, I'm criticized because the font is too small.

My X-33 with the TC movement was within 2.0 spm every month for the last year, and within 24.0 spy for that same year. During that year, the watch was both on and off the wrist, but no extreme temperature tests were done.

Don't believe it? Too bad.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> I have published weekly accuracy data until I am blue in the face, and still get criticized and picked apart by some on this forum. I've just about had it.
> 
> If I give a spm number, I'm criticized because it wasn't spy.
> 
> If I publish graphs, I'm criticized because the font is too small.
> 
> My X-33 with the TC movement was within 2.0 spm every month for the last year, and within 24.0 spy for that same year. During that year, the watch was both on and off the wrist, but no extreme temperature tests were done.
> 
> Don't believe it? Too bad.
> 
> HTH


I appreciate any data you can contribute toward our efforts..


----------



## artec

I'm sorry if what I wrote read like a criticism and sympathise with the feelings you expressed in your most recent post. To an extent any recorded data that is less than complete can be subject to criticism, I suppose, so monthly data isn't yearly and isn't weekly or daily and if it's for mixed worn and not worn, it can be accurately described as incomplete.

I provided weekly data to South Pender both before he stopped posting here and after, he posted graphs for both on-the-wrist and off-the-wrist. I think they were for thirteen week periods, and were on another forum. They included my figures as well as his own. So I understand that it can be a thankless task.

My apologies for contributing to the thanklessness of your self-imposed task.


----------



## sierra2kilo

Ignore the haters. I, for one, have enjoyed your tracking, find no fault with it, and have made it a point to check back often.


----------



## webvan

gaijin said:


> Latest summary is +23.57 sec/year on/off wrist, summer/winter, which is very close to the claimed +002 sec/month that Omega say they adjusted it to.
> 
> I got the 1666D info verbally from an Omega tech when talking about the specific work to be done on my watch. Perhaps he was mistaken - I do have the green backlight, however (used to be blue) and the watch is remarkably consistent irrespective of wear pattern. During this latest data set I did not do any extraordinary temperature testing, all was at RT indoors and on the wrist outdoors.
> 
> *Have not opened it up yet to try my own calibration, that will happen when I change the battery*. Still unhappy that Omega didn't spend a little more time adjusting it to something a little tighter than +002 sec/month.
> 
> HTH


Is the battery showing any signs of weakness? ;-) Even if it isn't imagine the satisfaction of being able to trim it down to +/- 2 spy ;-)

Mine is amazingly consistent at +13 spy, hard to believe it isn't a compensated movement...


----------



## ronalddheld

Someday must find the funds to upgrade to the D movement.


----------



## webvan

Any battery change/calibration attempts? ;-)


----------



## fmracer

ronalddheld said:


> Someday must find the funds to upgrade to the D movement.


You won't be disappointed. Accuracy of new movement is incredible!

Just got mine back a couple months ago and it is still dead on.

drift


----------



## webvan

Good to hear, the remaining question is whether it can be user regulated or not...


----------



## ronalddheld

fmracer said:


> You won't be disappointed. Accuracy of new movement is incredible!
> 
> Just got mine back a couple months ago and it is still dead on.
> 
> drift


I can't get my Omega boutique to get the information from Bienne that would replace my 1666A with 1666D.


----------



## webvan

Possibly because it's only called "1666D" here following something gaijin was told (on the phone ?) by Swatch USA when he sent his watch in a couple of years ago. Someone associated with Omega posted (sorry don't have the link handy but we already talked about it) that this reference didn't actually exist just that X-33s sent in for a full service get a new TC movement.


----------



## Ray8

webvan said:


> Possibly because it's only called "1666D" here following something gaijin was told (on the phone ?) by Swatch USA when he sent his watch in a couple of years ago. Someone associated with Omega posted (sorry don't have the link handy but we already talked about it) that this reference didn't actually exist just that X-33s sent in for a full service get a new TC movement.


Attached is a photo of the "1666C" movement in my X-33. It was replaced during a service by the NYC boutique about 2 years ago. During the past year the watch gained about 9 sec, just under 1 sec/month. After an adjustment according to the technical bulletin about 1 month ago, it is currently running dead on.


----------



## webvan

Thanks, that picture probably finally puts ths 1666D confusion to bed ! Had you tried to enter the test mode for the 1666C described here : http://www.cousinsuk.com/PDF/categories/3503_Omega 1666.pdf


----------



## ronalddheld

Ray8 said:


> Attached is a photo of the "1666C" movement in my X-33. It was replaced during a service by the NYC boutique about 2 years ago. During the past year the watch gained about 9 sec, just under 1 sec/month. After an adjustment according to the technical bulletin about 1 month ago, it is currently running dead on.
> 
> View attachment 2537738


How does he have a D when you have a C? Yours was replaced later than his?


----------



## webvan

He doesn't, read my previous message, the one before last.


----------



## Ray8

webvan said:


> Thanks, that picture probably finally puts ths 1666D confusion to bed ! Had you tried to enter the test mode for the 1666C described here : http://www.cousinsuk.com/PDF/categories/3503_Omega 1666.pdf


I have successfully adjusted the movement according to those exact instructions. I use a very fine copper probe connected with copper wire to a similar probe. I touch and hold it against the appropriate C terminal, then take the other end and very deliberately touch the battery +. You can immediately see if the count changed, if it did not, simply repeat untill you have sucessfully changed the count. Be aware that every connection of the C+ and the battery + terminal increases the rate by .33 sec/month, decreasing the C value by 1; and each connection of the C- and battery + terminal decreases the rate by .33 sec/month, increasing the C value by 1.


----------



## webvan

Well done! Sorry, I had read your previous message too quickly and thought it was in fact a tech at Omega who had regulated it.

So at long last we have confirmation that the X-33s with an updated movement (starting in mid-2012 it seems) can be regulated by the end user and with the count being displayed on screen it's the most "user-friendly" one to boot. It was worth the wait!

It will make me feel better if my GEN2 starts losing the plot and I have to send it in at some point ;-)


----------



## ronalddheld

I might need 3 hands to regulate it easily.


----------



## MTJO

ronalddheld said:


> I can't get my Omega boutique to get the information from Bienne that would replace my 1666A with 1666D.


Why don't you get in touch with Bienne directly? I had two dive watches done there ( one of them the Ploprof ) and I have only great things to say about them.

Michael


----------



## webvan

Ray8 said:


> I have successfully adjusted the movement according to those exact instructions. I use a very fine copper probe connected with copper wire to a similar probe. I touch and hold it against the appropriate C terminal, then take the other end and very deliberately touch the battery +. You can immediately see if the count changed, if it did not, simply repeat untill you have sucessfully changed the count. Be aware that every connection of the C+ and the battery + terminal increases the rate by .33 sec/month, decreasing the C value by 1; and each connection of the C- and battery + terminal decreases the rate by .33 sec/month, increasing the C value by 1.


Amazingly enough I had completely forgotten about this so I'll bump it. Gotta love TC watch that can be easily regulated, how many are there out there ? ;-)


----------



## ronalddheld

Why bump such an old thread?


----------



## webvan

Explained (twice) in my post.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Omega X-33 Cal. 1666C TC Movement Accuracy Tracking*

I need to clean up several points in my original posts, but find I cannot edit my old posts. So, before I make a lengthy post, I'd like to get some feedback about three points:

1. Can folks access my tracking database on dropbox? Find it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qewxbciraoymy3/X-33 Rate(New)_16MAY17.xlsx?dl=0

2. Can folks clearly see the elements of this graph:










3. Any suggested format changes to make the info more in line with what this forum expects?

TIA


----------



## wbird

Gaijin I'll answer your questions:

1) nope can't see your data unless I download the drop box app and I'm guessing it will be hard to read on my phone anyway.

2) have to admit I would be guessing if I tried to explain what your graph is saying, and this is coming from someone who was trained and works in business, math and science

3) what would I want to see on a graph,
a) actual offset v. time cumulative ( for example simply plot what your watch is displaying versus reference if it gaining a 1s/mo than at the end of the year it will be 12s fast on your graph)
b) hard to conceptualize faster going down and slower going up on a graph. I think your graph is saying you have 1s/yr watch but I'm not sure
c) I assume the baseline offset (just guessing) is from your hack and is kinda of irrelevant since its a constant, so if you plot daily rate you can plot it with zero as a baseline and positive and negative numbers on the y axis

Just curious you've had the watch a long time how did it perform over the years? Is it 1s/yr watch or what? Don't even need a graph.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Omega X-33 Cal. 1666C TC Movement Accuracy Tracking*



wbird said:


> Gaijin I'll answer your questions:
> 
> 1) nope can't see your data unless I download the drop box app and I'm guessing it will be hard to read on my phone anyway.
> 
> 2) have to admit I would be guessing if I tried to explain what your graph is saying, and this is coming from someone who was trained and works in business, math and science
> 
> 3) what would I want to see on a graph,
> a) actual offset v. time cumulative ( for example simply plot what your watch is displaying versus reference if it gaining a 1s/mo than at the end of the year it will be 12s fast on your graph)
> b) hard to conceptualize faster going down and slower going up on a graph. I think your graph is saying you have 1s/yr watch but I'm not sure
> c) I assume the baseline offset (just guessing) is from your hack and is kinda of irrelevant since its a constant, so if you plot daily rate you can plot it with zero as a baseline and positive and negative numbers on the y axis
> 
> Just curious you've had the watch a long time how did it perform over the years? Is it 1s/yr watch or what? Don't even need a graph.


Thanks for the feedback, wbird. Since you were the only one to comment, you get to call the shots!

OK, forget dropbox - I'll include the pertinent data on the graph.

Does this graph make more sense?










It shows actual offset vs. cumulative time. After 30 days, the normalized offset from a zero baseline is 0.007 seconds slow. The "Limit Lines" expanding out from 0,0 show the area which represents +1 second/year, so the watch is running well within the 1second/year limits.

The reason I show faster as negative numbers and slower as positive numbers is simply an artifact of the data gathering method. If the measured offset is slower than zero, it is more than zero - a positive offset, and conversely if the measured offset is faster than zero, it is less than zero - a negative offset. Just ignore the +/- and look at it as anything above the zero line is slow and everything below the zero line is fast.

My original hack was 0.0760 seconds slow, but I have normalized the new graph so that the baseline is zero and all measured offset values are now referenced to a zero baseline.

As in the first few posts, my watch was sent off for service and the movement was replaced with a new calibre 1666C Heat-compensated movement. At the time of the service, the movement was adjusted to 002 seconds/month fast. Over time, I measured this to be approximately 23.35 seconds/year fast.

Last month I replaced the battery and adjusted the movement myself in an effort to achieve better performance. As described by Ray8 earlier in this thread, adjustment is accomplished by adjusting the Compensation Value (C). Since each increment/decrement of C changes the rate by approximately 4 seconds/year, it looks like I might have hit it with this adjustment - looks like I do indeed have a potential 1 second/year watch now.

So, yes, the Omega Calibre 1666C is user-adjustable and seems to offer excellent performace. Of course, and as always, time will tell.

HTH


----------



## wbird

Thank you gaijin. Very nice performance after you made the adjustments to the rate. I might add incredible resolution on your readings, it can't be easy to read down to 0.002 or 0.003s. As you said time will tell how well it ultimately performs, but you are certainly off to great start, and I'm definitely rooting for you to hit that 1 s/yr mark.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Omega X-33 Cal. 1666C TC Movement Accuracy Tracking*



wbird said:


> Thank you gaijin. Very nice performance after you made the adjustments to the rate. I might add incredible resolution on your readings, it can't be easy to read down to 0.002 or 0.003s. As you said time will tell how well it ultimately performs, but you are certainly off to great start, and I'm definitely rooting for you to hit that 1 s/yr mark.


The 0.002, 0.003s numbers by themselves do not reflect my ability to measure, but are more an artifact of the measurement process.

I use a stopwatch that displays to 0.001 seconds, but it is impossible for me to repeatedly measure a duration with that accuracy. I take 10 measurements, throw out the highest and lowest readings, and average the rest. That gives me the average offset measurement for that day. With practice, it has been commonplace to have those 8 remaining mesurements all fall within a 0.1 second range. I typically experience a Standard Deviation (SD) for any day's measurements of about 0.020 and a Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) of approximately 0.180.

Overall, however, If we step back from the numbers and look a little "big picture" at the exercise, if after a month I can't see 2 or 3 tenths of a second offset, then the watch is still well within 3 or 4 seconds/year. As time goes forward, let's say six months, and I still can't see 2 or 3 tenths offset, then I'll become much more confident in projecting the accuracy to less than one second per year.

Just FYI, here's a graph showing the daily average offset in seconds (left axis) and the SD of the 8 measurements (right axis):










This graph is not normalized to a 0.000 second baseline, it is still shown with a 0.076 second baseline (my original hack).

Thanks again for the comments. I'll update this thread as appropriate going forward.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Probably time for an update. Overall rate is still well within the +5 Sec/Year limits. I am unclear how to evaluate the results of exposing the watch to different temperatures, but perhaps that will become clearer as the test continues. Comments on the data are always welcome.

Normalized average offset:










After 57 days at room temperature, I decided to try exposing the watch to different temperatures to see what would happen. The 43 DegF stint was in the butter dish area of my refrigerator. Subsequent stints were in a refrigerator hooked up to a temperature controller.










Here are the Weekly and Yearly rates broken down by week and over the length of the test (Overall):










Too soon for any conclusions about the heat compensation of the movement, but it looks like the rate is at optimum adjustment considering that it is only adjustable in +4 Sec/Year steps.

HTH

Edit to add:

Here'a a temp graph that might be a little easier to read - the Median temps are labeled at the beginning of each week:


----------



## gaijin

It's time for a major update.

For a long time, I did not believe I had the hardware necessary to use the video rate measurement method and was using the stopwatch method. The stopwatch method was becoming more and more cumbersome, but despite heroic efforts to increase usefulness (larger sample sizes, data manipulation like throwing out high/low values, use of a stopwatch which measured to 0.001 sec, etc.), it became painfully clear that this was not yielding satisfactorily accurate or consistent results to be helpful in analyzing small rate differences in a "seconds/year" context.

After re-evaluating the hardware available to me, I discovered that my iPhone 7+ is capable of recording slow-motion video at 720p 240fps. It occurred to me that if I could examine frame-by-frame a video recorded at 240 frames per second then I should be able to repeatedly and accurately measure differences between a reference time and the watch's displayed time of as little as approximately +0.0042 seconds - obviously much better than even my best efforts using a stopwatch. I stumbled on Windows Movie Maker which was already loaded on my PC. This free program allows me to view the slow-motion videos shot with my iPhone frame-by frame starting Day 132. I was frustrated for awhile when I found that videos uploaded directly from my iPhone to my PC were somehow changed so that I could only step 120 frames every second. After a bit (Day 156) I discovered that if I e-mailed the videos from my iPhone and then saved the e-mailed videos on my PC I could step at the originally shot 240 frames every second. So in the following charts, everything up to Day 132 was measured using a stopwatch, everything from Day 132 up to Day 156 was measured with a video @120fps precision and everything from Day 156 was measured with a video @240fps precision.

As this exercise has progressed I have experienced various troubles with my time references. Time.gov was my standard for awhile, but several times it was either unavailable or off by several seconds. Also, Time.gov only displays whole seconds. Time.is was more reliable, but displays only in whole seconds. Finally I settled on the iPhone/iPad Emerald Sequoia App. This App has proven reliable and displays 0.1 second resolution.

So my new measurement system is far different than when I started all this. I now boot up Emerald Sequoia on my iPad, place my watch next to it and shoot a 240fps slo-mo video to compare the watch time to the reference time. Although I'm sure most (if not all) of this would be a "Duh" moment for most reading this far, but it was a real revelation for me and makes me more confident in the data I am analyzing and reporting.

Just for the record, here's a pic of my X33 Calibre 1666C movement:










Again, sorry for all the confusion caused by my misrepresentation of this as a "D" movement based on erroneous info I received over the 'phone from an Omega service rep.

Now, on to the data.

At Day 175 I realized my watch would easily exceed the 5sec/year limit I was shooting for with my initial rate Correction factor (C) adjustment from 295 to 307. I looked at the rate from Day 133 to Day 175 and found it was pretty consistent at approximately 0.04067 sec/day. Since the C adjustment is in 0.010986 sec/day increments, I decided to decrement C by 4 from 307 to 303 (0.04067 / 0.010986 = 3.7 rounded up to 4).

Here is what the watch looked like from Day 1 to today:










Note that the points on the graph designated by the square symbol with a cross inside are those measured by video, all others are by stopwatch.

I'm not sure what happened at Day 53 or so to cause the watch to start running faster, or why the exposure to 43 DegF temps for about two weeks caused the watch to run slower.

Here is the temperature history during that time:










And the Rate Table from Day 1 until the watch was reset on Day 175:










Hopefully, the more robust measurement technique will provide more meaningful results going forward. Here's what future graphs will look like:

Measured offset:










Temperature history:










For the time being, it is my intent to maintain the temperature as close as possible to 73.4 DegF (23 DegC) to simulate that aspect of the COSC test protocol. This will also verify that my rate adjustment from C=307 to C=303 will bring the rate more in line with the 5 sec/year target.

As always, comments welcome.

Thanks for bearing with me as I learn/discover things new to me that are already givens to others.

HTH


----------



## wbird

Wow Gaijin that is very nicely performing and well studied Omega. 

Have you considered just using burst photography? Apple is really well suited for it since your phone will take a pic every 0.1s in burst. Based on your recent numbers the changes are on the order of tenths not hundreds of seconds, and burst is super fast to get results accurate to a 0.1s. Just place your watch on your Ipad with Emerald time running and hold the shutter down, find the two photos that correspond to the second hand moving, delete the others, and your done. Complete year history on your phone in 104 pics. Granted not as accurate as video, or as much work, but on a 3 s/yr watch a tenth is what 3% error. Not bad.

Now COSC also specs for humidity, and allows for 0.1 variation based on it. That aside your watch far exceeds COSC anyway, perhaps keeping it a temp that is closer to wrist temps, somewhere in the mid 80's F would be of more interest to you? Not realistic for me, and most people. My only options would be to wear it 24/7, or put my watches in the warmer drawer under my oven.

As always always nice to see watches and measurements performed well.


----------



## gaijin

It's been a good first week after the latest rate adjustment. The video measuring method is far superior to the stopwatch method I was using, just wish I had started using it long ago.

Here's the first week of normalized offset data after adjustment:










And the first week's temperature history:










As mentioned earlier, my short term goal is to maintain temperature at 73.4 DegF (23 DegC). In order to do that more accurately, I have installed a new temperature controller and am still in the process of calibrating it to my temperature sensor/data logger.

Here's what the temperature data logger data look like for this first week:










And what the last day looks like:










So ... with more accurate rate (offset) measurement and tighter control of temperature, going forward it should be possible to better examine long term rate stability as well as efficacy of thermal compensation when different temperatures are set.

HTH

Edit to add:

Just for fun, here's what the latest week looks like in relation the the rest of the test from the beginning:


----------



## Hans Moleman

I am fascinated by your Environmental Test Chamber. By the looks of it, it does something sensible every hour. That keeps temperature very well.

Did you just start with that or do I need to dig around in your previous posts?


----------



## gaijin

I just started this year. "Environmental Test Chamber" is just a fancy phrase for a small refrigerator with a heater installed in it that's hooked up to a temperature controller and monitored by a temperature data logger.

Components of the "Chamber:"

Refrigerator (no freezer): https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TY2KNHA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Temperatuer controller: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KMA6EAM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Isolation switches: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M69KDSP/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Data logger: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01AEQ9X9I/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Heater (apparently not currently available): https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MXCOGD8/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[Possible substitute heater - bypass included controller and use controller above]: https://smile.amazon.com/Motina-Pep...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FXWNXV27RYKEK2CXSPM5

Heater reflection pad to protect interior of refrigerator: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X3VRN91/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Setup is simple:

- Fill the refrigerator with bottles of water to increase the specific heat of the interior space. The mass of the water acts as a kind of "ballast" that stops the interior from heating up or cooling down too quickly.

- Place the heater in the bottom of the refrigerator and plug it into the "Heating" outlet of the controller.

- Plug the refrigerator into the "Cooling" outlet of the controller.

- Place the data logger on a shelf in the refrigerator near the temperature sensor for the controller, both should be near where the test watch is placed.

- Program the controller to the desired set temperature, heating delta, and cooling delta.

After setup is complete it is simply a matter of allowing the "chamber" temperature to equilibrate around the set temperature, then carefully monitoring for a few days to assure that the controller temperature is consistent with the data logger temp (both are independently adjustable). Then just sit back and let the hardware do all the work.

Note: When targeting a very narrow temperature range, it is better if the controller is used as either a heating controller or a cooling controller. If both are active, the system would continually bounce between heating and cooling and result in a wider realized temperature range. This is avoided by installing the isolation switches at the controller and plugging the heater and the refigerator into them. This allows the cooling or heating to be turned off independently of the controller thus preserving controller programming.

My current set temperature is 73.4 DegF. The setup is not perfect, but I'm calling it close enough for now. Here's the data log for the last week:










So for a relatively small investment (US$ 243.30) I have an "Environmental Test Chamber" that can control a set temperature within a fairly small delta over a range from about 40 DegF to about 110 DegF (I have not tested the full range yet, and there is some influence of ambient temp on the effectice control range).

Any questions, just let me know.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

The external thermostat is very clever!
I did a bit of digging around and that is home brew country. All standard stuff.

I was thinking about a peltier plate.

But I like your setup better.


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Two weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is 0.0208 seconds fast. That calculates out to 0.0015 Sec/Day, 0.0452 Sec/Month or 0.5427 Sec/Year; but we all know accuracy is more complicated than that. As the test goes forward we'll see how it goes.

Here are the offset data for the last two weeks:










I'm targeting a constant 73.4 DegF (23 DegC) to be able to compare my results with the part of the quartz COSC test protocol that is run at that temperature. Here are the temp data for the last two weeks:










And a more detailed record of the temps for the last week:










The "spec" for the quartz COSC test run at 23 DegC is +0.07 Sec/Day. I'm not sure whether that number is for the maximum one day variation measured one day to the next, or if it is an average over a number of days - I can't find the detailed quartz COSC test procedure anywhere. If anyone knows where I can find the detailed test protocol, I'd appreciate a link. Here's a chart I made to see how the latest week of my test would compare to the quartz COSC spec:










I think it's fair to say that by any interpretation of the spec, the watch is running well within spec.

And again, just for fun, here are the test data from the beginning:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Three weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.0250 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0012 Sec/Day*

*0.0362 Sec/Month*

*0.4348 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last three weeks:











The temperature history for the last three weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










A more detailed temperature history for the last week:










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

When measuring the offset using the video method, I have noticed that it is sometimes possible to "catch" second hand movement on the video just after or just before it actually starts moving. As a result, I have modified my video measurement procedure slightly in that I now shoot two 10-second videos one immediately after the other. I then take two measurements from each video and compare the four results, choosing the result which is most representative (and repeatable) among the four. However, at an order of granularity that's pointing toward < 0.5 seconds per year, or more directly +0.0042 seconds per frame, I'm not too worried about introducing any gross errors at this point by choosing one video frame earlier or later than actual. Over the course of just a few measurements, those slight variations should smooth out.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> ... I then take two measurements from each video and compare the four results, choosing the result which is most representative (and repeatable) among the four.


Sorry, I don't get it.

Are you preferring a measurement that uses a frame with moving second in it?
Why don't you go through both recordings and see if there are any?

Four results are just four numbers. What makes one more representative than the others?

Not to criticize, I just hate to miss something clever.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> Sorry, I don't get it.
> 
> Are you preferring a measurement that uses a frame with moving second in it?
> Why don't you go through both recordings and see if there are any?
> 
> Four results are just four numbers. What makes one more representative than the others?
> 
> Not to criticize, I just hate to miss something clever.


Usually what I see are four numbers that are the same - no drama. What I ran into occasionally when I was only looking at two measurements on the same video was one reading that was one frame faster or slower than the other. This raised a question as to which one was correct. Best solution, I thought, was more data. That's when I started to measure two points in two videos giving me four results.

Usually, all four are the same, but occasionally I will find three the same with one different. I simply discard the different result and report the result that was the same for three measurements. If I ever run into three different results, then I'll take three videos and probably measure three or even four points in each. I also try to always measure with the watch in the same position and at the same area of the dial (8H - 10H) just in case there is any area of the dial where the movement of the seconds hand might be different somehow.

Not very clever, I'll admit, but apparently effective.

HTH

Edit to add: Just a thought - averaging all the measurements does not seem appropriate because the rate is the same for any point measured. The sources of variation, assuming a stable reference, would all be mechanical in how the watch displays the time, not the way the watch is keeping time. I welcome thoughts on this - is there any merit to measuring all ten points (at least 8) and averaging them? With the minor variances I am seeing it just seems like a lot of work for very little benefit. Thoughts?


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> Usually what I see are four numbers that are the same - no drama. What I ran into occasionally when I was only looking at two measurements on the same video was one reading that was one frame faster or slower than the other. This raised a question as to which one was correct. Best solution, I thought, was more data. That's when I started to measure two points in two videos giving me four results.
> 
> Usually, all four are the same, but occasionally I will find three the same with one different. I simply discard the different result and report the result that was the same for three measurements. If I ever run into three different results, then I'll take three videos and probably measure three or even four points in each. I also try to always measure with the watch in the same position and at the same area of the dial (8H - 10H) just in case there is any area of the dial where the movement of the seconds hand might be different somehow.
> 
> Not very clever, I'll admit, but apparently effective.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Edit to add: Just a thought - averaging all the measurements does not seem appropriate because the rate is the same for any point measured. The sources of variation, assuming a stable reference, would all be mechanical in how the watch displays the time, not the way the watch is keeping time. I welcome thoughts on this - is there any merit to measuring all ten points (at least 8) and averaging them? With the minor variances I am seeing it just seems like a lot of work for very little benefit. Thoughts?


Assumptions, assumptions. Sooner or later its going to bite you.

Read up on 'inhibition'. Everyone falls in that trap. Everyone.


----------



## gaijin

I have seen no evidence that Omega is using inhibition compensation on the stepper motor of this movement. But I will keep an eye out for it.


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> Can you explain how an inhibition effect would affect measurements from the same video source?
> 
> Sorry, I don't see it.


The offset slowly increases until the movement decides that a correction is due. Once every 16 minutes for instance.
If you want to compare offsets, make sure you use a 16 min interval.

I sort of remember the periodic correction to be around 20 ms. Your resolution of 4 ms is detailed enough to pick that up.

It's a ETA thing unfortunately.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> The offset slowly increases until the movement decides that a correction is due. Once every 16 minutes for instance.
> If you want to compare offsets, make sure you use a 16 min interval.
> 
> I sort of remember the periodic correction to be around 20 ms. Your resolution of 4 ms is detailed enough to pick that up.
> 
> It's a ETA thing unfortunately.


That's very helpful, thank you. The application of inhibition correction could very well account for some of the measurements that are about 25ms fast one day but then 25ms slower on following days.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> Sorry, I don't get it.
> 
> Are you preferring a measurement that uses a frame with moving second in it?
> Why don't you go through both recordings and see if there are any?
> 
> Four results are just four numbers. What makes one more representative than the others?
> 
> Not to criticize, I just hate to miss something clever.


I thought about this, and I agree. Going forward, I will be averaging 8 results from 2 recordings for each day's reported measurement.

Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually I usually come around to accepting a better idea.


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> I thought about this, and I agree. Going forward, I will be averaging 8 results from 2 recordings for each day's reported measurement.
> 
> Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually I usually come around to accepting a better idea.


I had a look for the inhibition period of the 1666. Could not find anything official though. I can only assume(!) that Omega does it the ETA way.

You're quite right in questioning everything. If you had blindly averaged everything you'd have missed the inhibition thing.

The proof is in the pudding. As always.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> I had a look for the inhibition period of the 1666. Could not find anything official though. I can only assume(!) that Omega does it the ETA way.


Do you think this section on rate adjustment from the Calibre 1666 Technical Guide TG-19-C-069-E (http://www.cousinsuk.com/pdf/categories/3503_omega 1666.pdf) could be considered official confirmation of the inhibition period?










HTH


----------



## wbird

Actually additional readings and an average don't make any sense to me. Certainly doesn't fit with anything I would do or fit with any approach a lab would apply. Sampling and measurement is pretty well defined science that hit its stride in WWII. 

For example if you took 4 measurements and 3 were identical and one was different, and if this happens infrequently than a lab would look for an assignable cause, is it real or is the source of the error in the method. Is it the watch, the reference time, or the camera. Additional measurements do not answer this question, and an average just smoothes or introduces more error.

We would run a control side-by-side with in this case the test watch. You could use a cheap watch as a control, it is not going to vary enough during your measurements time to present a problem. Put them both in frame, so its really not much additional work.


----------



## gaijin

wbird said:


> Actually additional readings and an average don't make any sense to me. Certainly doesn't fit with anything I would do or fit with any approach a lab would apply. Sampling and measurement is pretty well defined science that hit its stride in WWII.
> 
> For example if you took 4 measurements and 3 were identical and one was different, and if this happens infrequently than a lab would look for an assignable cause, is it real or is the source of the error in the method. Is it the watch, the reference time, or the camera. Additional measurements do not answer this question, and an average just smoothes or introduces more error.
> 
> We would run a control side-by-side with in this case the test watch. You could use a cheap watch as a control, it is not going to vary enough during your measurements time to present a problem. Put them both in frame, so its really not much additional work.




Why don't you try it and let us know what you find?

HTH


----------



## wbird

I did. If you look at some of my older posts I was seeing odd numbers. So I added controls like my RC and RX watches. Also evaluated my reference time sources. Than looked at signals on my hard wired computer, wifi, and phone network.

Long story short wouldn't take a measurement till I had two sources that matched in frame with my watches and used burst photography to get 100ms accuracy. It seems like the clocks on my apps and computer would have a lag until they got in sync and were accurate. Once they were true, they held for long enough to get good measurements.

Now of course I wasn't shooting for 4ms accuracy on a couple of watches that were in the 10 s/yr range. I also wasn't reading with anywhere near the frequency you are. So I chose to use burst photography to ensure that the readings I did take were accurate to the resolution I required.


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Four weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.0339 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0012 Sec/Day*

*0.0369 Sec/Month*

*0.4422 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last four weeks:










The temperature history for the last four weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










A more detailed temperature history for the last week:










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

I know some of you prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, so I'm working on one - stay tuned!

And here it is:










As the noise from the measurement process becomes a lesser component of the Sec/Year calculation, it looks like the rate is around 0.5 Sec/Year fast - looking good so far.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Five weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.0385 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0011 Sec/Day*

*0.0335 Sec/Month*

*0.4018 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last five weeks:










The temperature history for the last five weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










A more detailed temperature history for the last week:










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> Time for another update.
> 
> Five weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.0385 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:
> 
> *0.0011 Sec/Day*
> 
> *0.0335 Sec/Month*
> 
> *0.4018 Sec/Year*
> 
> Here are the normalized offset data for the last five weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The temperature history for the last five weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more detailed temperature history for the last week:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical normalized offset data:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical temperature history:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.
> 
> As always, comments and questions are welcome.
> 
> HTH


Do you own the first oven/thermocompensated wristwatch?


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Do you own the first oven/thermocompensated wristwatch?


I hope not. We'll see when I start testing at different temperatures. I want to establish a stable baseline first.

TIA


----------



## odiefer1966

Have my eye set on one... Thanks for the insight!


----------



## williamstone

I have had mine since 2002 great watch no problems second battery change since I have had it.


----------



## heb

TMI, but I think all of it indicates: Great Precision; right?

heb


----------



## gaijin

heb said:


> TMI, but I think all of it indicates: Great Precision; right?
> 
> heb


Right.


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Six weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.0724 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0017 Sec/Day*

*0.0525 Sec/Month*

*0.6296 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last six weeks:










The temperature history for the last six weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










A more detailed temperature history for the last week:










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

If anyone is interested, this is what I look at every day when analyzing the videos I shoot:










I have the Emerald Sequoia App open on the iPad on the left and the X-33 positioned to the right.

The videos are shot in Slo-Mo @ 240 frames/second so each frame represents approximately 4 milliseconds.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Seven weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.0859 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0018 Sec/Day*

*0.0534 Sec/Month*

*0.6403 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last seven weeks:










The temperature history for the last seven weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










A more detailed temperature history for the last week:










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Eight weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.1240 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0022 Sec/Day*

*0.06740 Sec/Month*

*0.8088 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last eight weeks:










The temperature history for the last eight weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Time for another update.

Nine weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.1646 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0026 Sec/Day*

*0.0795 Sec/Month*

*0.9543 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last nine weeks:










The temperature history for the last nine weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same time, same channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers - time for another update.

Ten weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.2063 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0029 Sec/Day*

*0.0897 Sec/Month*

*1.0764 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last ten weeks:










The temperature history for the last ten weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same time, same channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers - time for another update.

Eleven weeks after the latest rate adjustment my X-33 is *0.2906 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0038 Sec/Day*

*0.1149 Sec/Month*

*1.3785 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last eleven weeks:










The temperature history for the last eleven weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still impressed with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same WUS time, same WUS channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers - time for another update.

Twelve weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.3651 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0043 Sec/Day*

*0.1323 Sec/Month*

*1.5875 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twelve weeks:










The temperature history for the last twelve weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










The historical normalized offset data:










The historical temperature history:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still satisfied with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers - time for another update.

Thirteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.4229 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0046 Sec/Day*

*0.1415 Sec/Month*

*1.6974 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last thirteen weeks:










The temperature history for the last thirteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still satisfied with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

*Tease:* We recognize that a vitally important component of any performance tracking at the HAQ level is a stable time reference. I have observed variance in my reference (Emerald Sequoia Time App on my iPad) that could be as much as 12ms (0.012 sec) for any one measurement session. I believe this variance is the source for a lot of the "jitter" in the offset mesurements. The 240 frame/sec video has proven very reliable, and is a less significant source for variation - typically +4.2ms or less. I owe a lot to others who regularly contribute to the HAQ forum for their efforts in this area, have read - again - many of the historical and more current posts on this subject, and am investigating the use of a better time reference. With any luck, this should be in place by next week's update and I should have more info then.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> Welcome back loyal followers - time for another update.
> 
> Thirteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.4229 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:
> 
> *0.0046 Sec/Day*
> 
> *0.1415 Sec/Month*
> 
> *1.6974 Sec/Year*
> 
> Here are the normalized offset data for the last thirteen weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The temperature history for the last thirteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical normalized offset data to date:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corresponding historical temperature history to date:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still satisfied with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.
> 
> As always, comments and questions are welcome.
> 
> Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.
> 
> *Tease:* We recognize that a vitally important component of any performance tracking at the HAQ level is a stable time reference. I have observed variance in my reference (Emerald Sequoia Time App on my iPad) that could be as much as 12ms (0.012 sec) for any one measurement session. I believe this variance is the source for a lot of the "jitter" in the offset mesurements. The 240 frame/sec video has proven very reliable, and is a less significant source for variation - typically +4.2ms or less. I owe a lot to others who regularly contribute to the HAQ forum for their efforts in this area, have read - again - many of the historical and more current posts on this subject, and am investigating the use of a better time reference. With any luck, this should be in place by next week's update and I should have more info then.
> 
> HTH


Replace emerald Time by a GPSDO?


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Replace emerald Time by a GPSDO?


Replace with this: https://store.uputronics.com/files/quickspecs_flyer.pdf

In the U.S., sourced here: https://v3.airspy.us/product/upu-leontp/

A User Guide for anyone interested: https://store.uputronics.com/files/LeoNTP-InstructionManual-Latest.pdf


----------



## gaijin

Bonus mid-week (almost) tease!

I am in the process of testing and qualifying a new Stratum 1 time reference:










This will really kick the offset measurement protocol up a notch - will provide more details during the regular weekly update in a couple of days.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Here's some interesting info which came to light during initial qualification and testing of the LeoNTP Startum 1 time reference. I believe I have confirmed my suspicion that the Emerald Time App on my iPad, which I had been using as a time reference, was contributing undefined and inconsistent variation to the measurements which resulted in "jitter" in the results.

I spent a couple of hours this morning taking measurements of my X-33 and Emerald Time App in reference to the LeoNTP. After optimizing lighting and camera setup, for each - the X-33 and iPad App - I shot five 15-second videos at intervals of 1 minute. The intent was to determine the offset and consistency of the measurements for the X-33 and the iPad App. Here's what I observed:










Please remember that positive numbers indicate an offset slower than the reference and negative numbers indicate an offset faster than the reference.

The iPad App started out with consistent results, but were consistently 0.0333 seconds (33.3 ms) slower than the reference. During the third minute, results started to drift slower which was continued through the fourth minute. During the fifth minute, both consistency and average offset were poor with a range of all test results for the duration of the five minute test spanning 20.833ms to 41.667ms (roughly averaging 31ms +10ms). Even though the iPad App consistently showed a correction of +0.000 over the entire duration of the test, the actual time displayed was inconsistent - and incorrect.

The measurements for the X-33 were pleasantly consistent. Over the course of each video and for the duration of the test, all measurements showed the X-33 126 frames (0.525) seconds fast in relation to the reference.

I suspect that continued use of the LeoNTP as a reference will significantly increase the consistency of the measurements going forward.

Don't miss the weekly update coming tomorrow!

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> Here's some interesting info which came to light during initial qualification and testing of the LeoNTP Startum 1 time reference. I believe I have confirmed my suspicion that the Emerald Time App on my iPad, which I had been using as a time reference, was contributing undefined and inconsistent variation to the measurements which resulted in "jitter" in the results.
> 
> I spent a couple of hours this morning taking measurements of my X-33 and Emerald Time App in reference to the LeoNTP. After optimizing lighting and camera setup, for each - the X-33 and iPad App - I shot five 15-second videos at intervals of 1 minute. The intent was to determine the offset and consistency of the measurements for the X-33 and the iPad App. Here's what I observed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please remember that positive numbers indicate an offset slower than the reference and negative numbers indicate an offset faster than the reference.
> 
> The iPad App started out with consistent results, but were consistently 0.0333 seconds (33.3 ms) slower than the reference. During the third minute, results started to drift slower which was continued through the fourth minute. During the fifth minute, both consistency and average offset were poor with a range of all test results for the duration of the five minute test spanning 20.833ms to 41.667ms (roughly averaging 31ms +10ms). Even though the iPad App consistently showed a correction of +0.000 over the entire duration of the test, the actual time displayed was inconsistent - and incorrect.
> 
> The measurements for the X-33 were pleasantly consistent. Over the course of each video and for the duration of the test, all measurements showed the X-33 126 frames (0.525) seconds fast in relation to the reference.
> 
> I suspect that continued use of the LeoNTP as a reference will significantly increase the consistency of the measurements going forward.
> 
> Don't miss the weekly update coming tomorrow!
> 
> HTH


Could you check iPhone 7 emerald time app against the LeoNTP?


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Could you check iPhone 7 emerald time app against the LeoNTP?


Hmmmmmmm....... nothing I like more than a good challenge.

I set up my iPhone 7+ running the Emerald Time App on top of the LeoNTP reference and shot a 240fps video using my Canon PowerShot G16 camera.

One video approximately 25sec long with the following measurements for each second:










Overall average was about 33ms slow compared to reference - not that much different from the App running on the iPad.

Is this what you are looking for?

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> Hmmmmmmm....... nothing I like more than a good challenge.
> 
> I set up my iPhone 7+ running the Emerald Time App on top of the LeoNTP reference and shot a 240fps video using my Canon PowerShot G16 camera.
> 
> One video approximately 25sec long with the following measurements for each second:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall average was about 33ms slow compared to reference - not that much different from the App running on the iPad.
> 
> Is this what you are looking for?
> 
> HTH


Yes it was. Is it too late to ask how your offsets compare with the apps estimates at the upper right?


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Yes it was. Is it too late to ask how your offsets compare with the apps estimates at the upper right?


The "apps estimates in the upper right" represent what the App adds or subtracts to the device's internal time to achieve the displayed time.

In the first case above, my post#118, the App was showing +0.000 which indicated it was not adding or subtracting any time to the internal time. I had to refresh the App several times until I reached this indicated value. This value was displayed throughout the duration of that test.

In your requested measurements above, my post# 120, the App was showing +0.003 which indicated it was adding 0.003 seconds to the iPhone's internal time to achieve the displayed time. After refreshing the App several times, this was the closest I could get to a +0.000 indicated value.

As a side note, my observation that the correction value displayed by the App would change with every referesh, led me to first question the consistency of the App in general. Displayed values could change 10's of milliseconds after several refreshes. I didn't think the NTP servers being accessed by the App would be changing that much, nor should the internal time on the device over such a short period of time - something was inconsistent.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers. Some significant refinements this week - let's get to it.

Fourteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.4885 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0050 Sec/Day*

*0.1517 Sec/Month*

*1.8207 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last fourteen weeks:










The temperature history for the last fourteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Since the Min/Max/Avg numbers for the most recent week are not truly representative, here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










Still satisfied with the stability of the new rate adjustment and the temperature control protocol.

The keener-eyed among you will have noticed that there is a new format for the latest data points. This is to indicate that a new video measurement protocol is in effect. The new protocol calls for a Stratum 1 time reference (LeoNTP) to be used in place of the Emerald Time App, and a Canon PowerShot G16 camera shooting in Super Slo-Mo mode ([email protected]) to shoot the videos used to determine the individual offset measurements. This new protocol should significantly increase the precision of reporting going frorward.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> The "apps estimates in the upper right" represent what the App adds or subtracts to the device's internal time to achieve the displayed time.
> 
> In the first case above, my post#118, the App was showing +0.000 which indicated it was not adding or subtracting any time to the internal time. I had to refresh the App several times until I reached this indicated value. This value was displayed throughout the duration of that test.
> 
> In your requested measurements above, my post# 120, the App was showing +0.003 which indicated it was adding 0.003 seconds to the iPhone's internal time to achieve the displayed time. After refreshing the App several times, this was the closest I could get to a +0.000 indicated value.
> 
> As a side note, my observation that the correction value displayed by the App would change with every referesh, led me to first question the consistency of the App in general. Displayed values could change 10's of milliseconds after several refreshes. I didn't think the NTP servers being accessed by the App would be changing that much, nor should the internal time on the device over such a short period of time - something was inconsistent.
> 
> HTH


Sounds as if that upper number is unreliable. Good enough for yearly checks but not for what you are doing.


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers. Some significant changes this week - let's get to it.

Fifteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.5938 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0057 Sec/Day*

*0.1721 Sec/Month*

*2.0656 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last fifteen weeks:










The temperature history for the last fifteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










*NOTE*: A new target temperature has been set to 80 DegF. This comes close to the internal temperature of a watch worn on my wrist which is currently running around 78-85 DegF as recorded by the internal temperature sensor in my Garmin tactix Bravo which I wear 23/7/365.

Since the temperatures were ramping up during the week, here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










*NOTE*: I use a lot of ballast (bottled water) in my test chamber to increase the Specific Heat of the chamber interior. This higher Specific Heat smooths out temperature measurements and limits excursions both above and below my set temperature. However, it takes much longer for my diminutive 7W heating pad to bring all this ballast up to temperature than it would for just air. As a result, it takes several days for the temperature to stabalize.

The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










The video measurement using the LeoNTP Stratum 1 source as a reference has been very consistent. 

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers.

Sixteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.6479 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0058 Sec/Day*

*0.1761 Sec/Month*

*2.1129 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last sixteen weeks:










The temperature history for the last sixteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back loyal followers. Read all the way to the end to find a special bonus chart this week!

Seventeen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.8021 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0067 Sec/Day*

*0.2052 Sec/Month*

*2.4619 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last seventeen weeks:










The temperature history for the last seventeen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










It's apparent that the rate is accelerating. This is not immediately evident based on the graphs I have been using so far, so I tried a new way to look at the data. I used the most recent data points derived using the LeoNTP time source and video recording - these are the most consistent. I then applied a rolling average to these data and found the following:











From day 273 to 281 the sec/year rate was fairly consistent bouncing around from about 5 sec to 6.4 sec. Then, inexplicably, on Day 282 there was about a 50ms jump in the Offset. The sec/year rate then continued at about the same rate as before the jump, 5.1 to 6.2 sec/year until Day 292 when the rate started increasing dramatically. The current Rolling Average Rate is almost 11 sec/year fast.

I am at a loss to explain this sudden, drastic change in rate. The temperature has remained fairly constant from Day 273 to date, so it must be something else.

In any event, will continue at the current temperature and see what happens.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

Nothing to suggest for the change in rate, unfortunately.

For the 50 ms jump I may have a, no doubt paranoid, suggestion:

I do not know where you get your time from.
What does the LeoNTP guarantee? 

The front panel may well exist for your convenience only.

What is the blinking light for? To tell you it is receiving?

I would not take the time from there.

The PPS signal on the other hand must be correct. It is the horse's mouth.


----------



## gaijin

The LeoNTP gets the time from GPS - currently indicates it is locked on to 17 satellites.

Here are the specs: https://store.uputronics.com/files/quickspecs_flyer.pdf Given the consistency of the measurements I have taken so far, I am confident the accuracy is much, much better than 50ms.

I take my video of the front display and the watch. If the display is not an accurate representation of the internal time, then, well, I guess I'm schrod (as we used to say at Harvard).

The blinking green light in the upper left is the PPS indicator. More info can be found in the manual: https://store.uputronics.com/files/LeoNTP-InstructionManual-Latest.pdf

Any suggestions on how I could use the PPS output to compare with the displayed time on my watch? Wouldn't running the output to some other display have at least as many potential pitfalls as relying on the built-in display? The built-in display is an OLED display with much faster refresh rate than my iPad AirII. The LeoNTP display refresh rate appears to be something on the order of 240Hz. From direct measurement I know the digits completely refresh in less than 8ms.

Thanks for the thoughts.


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> Thanks for the thoughts.


You're welcome.

Connect an LED with resistor to the PPS output. Record and compare. Over a few days if possible.

Search for LED and PPS.

This could be of interest.


----------



## gaijin

Yes, very interesting. Thanks again.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> Nothing to suggest for the change in rate, unfortunately.
> 
> For the 50 ms jump I may have a, no doubt paranoid, suggestion:
> 
> I do not know where you get your time from.
> What does the LeoNTP guarantee?
> 
> The front panel may well exist for your convenience only.
> 
> What is the blinking light for? To tell you it is receiving?
> 
> I would not take the time from there.
> 
> The PPS signal on the other hand must be correct. It is the horse's mouth.


You, sir, certainly planted the seed for some further research on my end about the whole video measurement procedure and the reliability of time references.

I don't believe this has anything to do with the 50ms jump I saw (primarily because the measurements before and after are very consistent), but here are some data to chew on:










What are we looking at?

I shot a 30-second video of the display on the LeoNTP @120 frames/sec and measured the number of frames between PPS light pulses and from one second to the next for the time indication on the display.

If, and that has turned out to be a big IF, the PPS light and the time display are in perfect sync, AND IF the video frame rate is precisely 120 frames/second, then there should be exactly 120 frames from one pulse or second to the next pulse or second and they should change at the same time. Also, for the 29 second duration of the measured pulses, there should be a total of 3,480 counted video frames.

At the start of the recorded video clip, the PPS pulse indicator was first illuminated and the indicated time first displayed were in sync at 14:44:30Z - a good place to start. Also at the end of the video clip, the PPS pulse and the indicated time were in sync at 14:44:59Z - a good place to end. All of the times where the PPS pulse and the indicated time were in perfect sync are indicated in the Time column - if there is no time in that column, either the PPS pulse illuminated before the indicated time or the indicated time changed before the PPS pulse illuminated.

Overall, if the video frame rate was truly 120 frames/second, I should have counted a total of 3,480 video frames, but I only counted 3,476. What happened to the 4 "missing" frames? I did a little digging (Canon specifications for their high end video cameras), and found that even though "120 fps" is commonly used to describe a "Super Slow Motion" video frame rate, the actual frame rate could be 119.88 frames/second - rounded up to 120 for convenience. IF this were the case, then the expected total number of frames for this 29-second test would be 3476.52 frames - much closer to the actual 3,476 frames measured.

My current measurement protocol has been as follows:

1. Shoot two 30-second videos 5 minutes apart @120fps of my watch and LeoNTP in the frame.
2. Measure the number of video frames from the time the second hand on the watch first starts to move until the PPS pulse light on the LeoNTP display first illuminates, and divide that number by 120 (the video frame rate).
3. Take 16 measurements for each video and average the 32 measurements for the reported result (normalized to a base measurement of zero on the graphs).

My plan going forward is to continue this protocol so as to remain consistent with past mesurements. For each reported measurement, whether I divide the frame count by 120 or by 119.88, the result would be minimal in the context of the overall measurement. For example, today my measured offset was 117 video frames. Divided by 120, this yielded a reported value of 0.975 seconds fast. If I were to divide by 119.88, the value would be 0.976 seconds fast - 1ms different. At 120 frames/second, one video frame is 0.00833 seconds and at 119.88 frames/second, one video frame is 0.00834 seconds - only 0.01ms different.

Before I get even more wound up in what might or might not be important, I would really appreciate any thoughts on what I have observed and the validity of my assumptions and methods.

Nothing is sacred, thoughts?

TIA


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> ...
> Before I get even more wound up ...


Don't. But I like the fact that you're checking things.

The maximum number of frames that you will ever count is 120. That error can't accumulate to much in 120 frames. You've mentioned that.

It is good to see that the PPS light is consistent. It will probably match the hardware PPS output.

All good.


----------



## gaijin

The suspense is over! So get off the edge of your seats and enjoy the latest update.

Eighteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *0.9750 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0077 Sec/Day*

*0.2355 Sec/Month*

*2.8263 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last eighteen weeks:










The temperature history for the last eighteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











In light of the recent rate fluctuations, I am reminded of what is written on the cover of that cultural icon _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:_ "Don't Panic." I will continue at the present temperature and we'll see what happens.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

Just another unproven theory:

You may have to reduce the temperature a tiny, tiny notch. You may just be unlucky and find yourself between two temperature bands. That makes the correction flutter between two values.

All depending on how the watch sees temperatures. 

That'll be proven when you start varying temperature. 

I definitely agree. The more you see, the more you learn.


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Nineteen weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *1.1625 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0087 Sec/Day*

*0.2660 Sec/Month*

*3.1925 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last nineteen weeks:










The temperature history for the last nineteen weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## Bill R W

Hans Moleman said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> Connect an LED with resistor to the PPS output. Record and compare. Over a few days if possible.
> 
> Search for LED and PPS.
> 
> This could be of interest.


I have a LeoNTP unit too. The green PPS indicator light on the front dial is made up of pixels when you look closely. So I suspect there may be a screen refresh rate that is relevant to the PPS display and could have some effect on its accuracy. I also have a Garmin 18 LX unit with the PPS output wired to an LED. I have run them together and shot video at 400 fps. The PPS indicator on the LeoNTP unit usually, but not always, lights in the same frame as the Garmin driven LED. I suspect the Garmin unit may be more accurate, as it is lighting the LED directly and has no screen refresh involved. When testing my Morgenwerk, I generally shot 400 fps video with both the LeoNTP unit and Garmin driven LED next to the watch. I used the LED for measurements. The LeoNTP let me be sure I had the right second and was also a check.

As to Emerald Time, I did a much lest extensive testing of it a while back and found over 10 measurements that it was 35-55 milliseconds slow against the Garmin driven LED PPS signal, with an average around 42 milliseconds slow. Whether this is important certainly depends on the length of the testing period and the magnitude of the drift in the watch you are attempting to measure.

Both items discussed more in the reference time thread.

Thanks for reporting on your testing. Very interesting both as to the watch and the methodology.


----------



## ronalddheld

Is some of the Emerald Time delay now long it takes to activate the display, versus an LED?


----------



## Hans Moleman

ronalddheld said:


> Is some of the Emerald Time delay now long it takes to activate the display, versus an LED?


Most of the 40 ms will be caused by network variability. 
Maybe 10 ms is caused by the computer.

If you ask a computer to do something 'now', its response will be, if only muttered, "I've put it on my urgent to do list". Computers need to juggle their resources to complete all the work that is required of them. They won't stop everything at the drop of a hat.

The result is that nothing gets done immediately. Sometimes it will be done fast, sometimes it takes far too long. All depending on whatever else is going on.

Have a read of computer scheduling on how a computer seemingly does everything immediately, but really does not.


----------



## gaijin

The target temperature has changed to 86 DegF/30 DegC. Along with this change, I have made some refinements to my test chamber - removed the water bottle "ballast" and replaced the heat source with an incandescent light bulb. The chamber has equilibrated pretty well to the new target, but I will probably change the bulb and fixture to include a dimmer so I can better control the amount of "overshoot" in temp after the bulb switches off.

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *1.3771 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0098 Sec/Day*

*0.2994 Sec/Month*

*3.5928 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed showing the transition from the old target temperature to the new target:










This is a more detailed temperature history for the latest 24 hours demonstrating the precision of the new equipment:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

The target temperature remains 86 DegF/30 DegC.

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-one weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *1.6167 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0110 Sec/Day*

*0.3348 Sec/Month*

*4.0170 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-one weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-one weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

The target temperature remains 86 DegF/30 DegC.

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-two weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *1.9063 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0124 Sec/Day*

*0.3768 Sec/Month*

*4.5213 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-two weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-two weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph. The graph has been changed to a weekly rolling average to improve legibility and better recognize trends:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Using the ETA guide which specifies performance for one of their movements to + 10s/y within the temperature range of 20 - 30 DegC (centered at 25 DegC), I have decided to allow the temp in my test chamber to fluxuate around 25 DegC (77 DegF). The new target temperature is now 77 DegF + 3 DegF. Since I can only set one target temperature on my controller, it is set at 77 DegF. As the same controller is used for both Heating and Cooling, if the ambient temp is below the set temp, then only Heating will be required - this will result in test temps <77 DegF, but still within the range of 77 DegF + 3 DegF. Over the next few weeks, as the ambient temp rises above the set temp, then only Cooling will be required - this will result in test temps >77 Deg F, but still within the range of 77 DegF + 3 DegF. Hopefully, this will be a close simulation of a "normal" pattern of wearing and not wearing over time.

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-three weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *2.1958 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0136 Sec/Day*

*0.4151 Sec/Month*

*4.9815 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-three weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-three weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










Let's take a second and examine these historical offset data. With the original Correction Value of 307, the watch ran fairly consistently for a few weeks and then started to increasingly slow until it was outside the +5 s/y limit at around 22 weeks and continued to slow at an increasing rate after that. That is when I decided to adjust the rate by speeding it up from a Correction Value of 307 to a Correction Value of 303. Now, at the new Correction Value of 303, the watch has run fairly consistently for a few weeks and then started to increasingly speed up until now, 23 weeks, when it is about to cross outside the -5 s/y limit. From a macro perspective, this would suggest that perhaps another rate adjustment of one half the prior adjustment might just land in the "sweet spot" that would allow the watch to run for longer at a rate closer to + 0 s/y. If the watch rate continues to accelerate faster (currently running about 15 s/y fast), then I will have to decide whether to make another adjustment to the Correction Value from 307 to 305, or just let it go and see where it finally ends up.

The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph. The graph has been changed to a weekly rolling average to improve legibility and better recognize trends:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome. I would be particularly interested in hearing thoughts as to whether I should attempt another rate adjustment, or just continue as is.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> I would be particularly interested in hearing thoughts as to whether I should attempt another rate adjustment, or just continue as is.


I vote for continuing as is: I don't understand the changing rate. You're keeping the temperature constant, why should the rate change?

And what's the use in making an adjustment if it drifts away again after a few weeks?

Something isn't right.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> I vote for continuing as is: I don't understand the changing rate. You're keeping the temperature constant, why should the rate change?
> 
> And what's the use in making an adjustment if it drifts away again after a few weeks?
> 
> Something isn't right.


I agree, I don't understand why the rate is changing, either. And not by just a little bit, either. The rate has gone from <-5 s/y to > -15 s/y in just 8 weeks.

Understanding that I do not know the mechanism behind the change, my rationale was that when I slowed the rate with a +4 CV adjustment, it wound up +2 sec slow after 22 weeks, and when I sped up the rate with a -4 CV adjustment it is -2 sec fast after 22 weeks - so, why not split the difference with a further +2 adjustment?

I'll let it go for awhile longer, but I'm pretty sure it will continue to speed up. Anyway, we'll see.

If nothing else, it is an interesting study of how instantaneous/short term s/y rate calcs can be way off when compared to an actual calendar year of data.

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## DaveM

gaijin said:


> I agree, I don't understand why the rate is changing, either. And not by just a little bit, either. The rate has gone from <-5 s/y to > -15 s/y in just 8 weeks.
> 
> Understanding that I do not know the mechanism behind the change, my rationale was that when I slowed the rate with a +4 CV adjustment, it wound up +2 sec slow after 22 weeks, and when I sped up the rate with a -4 CV adjustment it is -2 sec fast after 22 weeks - so, why not split the difference with a further +2 adjustment?
> 
> I'll let it go for awhile longer, but I'm pretty sure it will continue to speed up. Anyway, we'll see.
> 
> If nothing else, it is an interesting study of how instantaneous/short term s/y rate calcs can be way off when compared to an actual calendar year of data.


Thanks for the excellent data.
This would be my check-list :-
1) Temperature
2) Electromagnetic fields
3) Battery voltage
4) Ageing of xtal

1) You have covered 1, I guess 2 is unlikely during your test and 4 is the elephant in the room (but this xtal has a bit of age to it).
How about 3 ?


----------



## gaijin

DaveM said:


> Thanks for the excellent data.
> This would be my check-list :-
> 1) Temperature
> 2) Electromagnetic fields
> 3) Battery voltage
> 4) Ageing of xtal
> 
> 1) You have covered 1, I guess 2 is unlikely during your test and 4 is the elephant in the room (but this xtal has a bit of age to it).
> How about 3 ?


New battery installed 07 MAY 2017 - should still be OK.


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> New battery installed 07 MAY 2017 - should still be OK.


To me it looks like the offset increases exponentially. You'll quickly find out if that's true. It will get into silly territory soon.

If that's the case then I'd wonder if the rate correction is applied in a compounded way.


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-four weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *2.4490 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0146 Sec/Day*

*0.4437 Sec/Month*

*5.3244 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-four weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-four weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-five weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *2.7146 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0155 Sec/Day*

*0.4721 Sec/Month*

*5.6658 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-five weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-five weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-six weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *2.9854 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0164 Sec/Day*

*0.4993 Sec/Month*

*5.9913 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-six weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-six weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-seven weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *3.2583 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0172 Sec/Day*

*0.5247 Sec/Month*

*6.2968 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-seven weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-seven weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-eight weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *3.5396 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0181 Sec/Day*

*0.5497 Sec/Month*

*6.5961 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-eight weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-eight weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:











As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Twenty-nine weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *3.8250 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0188 Sec/Day*

*0.5735 Sec/Month*

*6.8822 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last twenty-nine weeks:










The temperature history for the last twenty-nine weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:










As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update.

Thirty weeks after the latest rate adjustment my Omega X-33 is *4.1177 seconds fast* when compared to my normalized 0.0000. That calculates out to:

*0.0196 Sec/Day*

*0.5968 Sec/Month*

*7.1619 Sec/Year*

Here are the normalized offset data for the last thirty weeks:










The temperature history for the last thirty weeks (Mean Temperature is labeled at the end of each week):










Here's a supplemental temperature history for the last week which is more detailed:










The historical normalized offset data to date:










The corresponding historical temperature history to date:










And for those who prefer a simple Seconds/Year graph, here it is:










And back by overwhelming popular demand - the Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year bonus graph:










 It's pretty clear this watch, as currently adjusted, will not make 10 Seconds/Year. This means I will probably make another adjustment this week to bring the Correction Value back from 307 to 305. This will represent an approximate 8 Sec/Year (slower) adjustment - we'll see how that affects the rate over the coming year.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update and to see whether I adjusted or not!

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Wecome back, the saga continues...

I have adjusted the rate on my X-33 by adjusting the Correction Value (CV) from 307 to 305. My goal is to adjust the rate as close as possible to +5spy and it was evident that it was not going to happen with the CV at 307. The amount of the rate adjustment was based on the past year's measured performance at CV's 303 and 307. At CV 303, the watch was 2.945 seconds slow after 25 weeks and at CV 307, the watch was 2.715 seconds fast after 25 weeks. Since it was almost the same amount slow at one setting as it was fast at the other, it seemed logical that the best CV would be halfway between both - 305. We'll see how it works out. I also took the opportunity to replace the battery while I had the watch open.

I have less than one day of data so far, so obviously too soon to tell what's going on, but the graphs I will publish weekly going forward are the Normalized Average Offset graph with +5spy limit lines:










and the temperature history graph:










I don't have enough data to publish yet, but the overwhemingly popular Weekly Rolling Average Seconds/Year graph will be back next week.

My measurement protocol has settled on the video method @120fps (+8.3ms precision). I shoot a 30 second video, measure the difference between indicated time on the watch and indicated time on the LeoNTP Stratum 1 reference (using the PPS LED) for all seconds recorded and average all 30 measurements. This has proven to be the most consistent - and manageable from the point of view of time required. The watch is measured with the crown pulled out to "Position 2" which is the crown position recommended by Omega for rate measurement and, I believe, prevents the watch from applying any rate adjustment during the measurement period.

For any interested, the Omega Technical Guide TG-19-C-069-E for Calibre 1666 Version C (Heat-compensated) is available for download here:

http://www.cousinsUK.com/pdf/categories/3503_omega 1666.pdf

Thank you to all who continue to follow this thread and for all the comments and suggestions.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for another exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Welcome back, loyal followers!

The results of the first week after adjustment have been ... interesting. It's clear that I don't understand exactly how Omega manages the rate adjustment system in the Calibre 1666C movement. Yes, I understand very well what is written in the Technical Guide, and that based on a current rate measurement and adjustment that each increment of the Correction Value (CV) should be roughly equal to 4 Seconds/Year (SPY). What is confusing me is that I adjusted my watch, which was running fairly consistently around 14-15 SPY fast for about 6 weeks by 2 increments which should have slowed it down by about 8 SPY, but instead resulted in a rate of just a little more than 10 SPY fast - 4-5 SPY less than expected.

This leads me to believe that the CV's are not absolute, i.e. a CV of 305 is not always the same absolute rate. It appears the CV is a dynamic function that can vary based on historical performance. I don't know. What I will do, however, is continue to measure performance with the current CV of 305 and see if the rate remains as consistent as it is around 10 SPY.

The good news is the current rate is very consistent, just not what I expected.

Here are the graphs I will be reporting going forward and what the represent.

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to an ideal overall rate of +10 SPY:










This graph shows that the rate is pretty consistently just a tad (that's a highly technical term) faster than the -10 SPY limit. Precision looks good, but if our goal is accuracy, then this watch will have to be adjusted again to get closer to desired performance.

The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










I have set the temperature controller to maintain a temperature of about 77 DegF +2 DegF. The plan is to keep testing at this temp to confirm whether the watch has sufficient intrinsic accuracy to go further with testing at different temps. No different temps will be tested until and unless the watch performance can be demonstrated to satisfy a consistent +5 SPY at this temp.

The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph:










Now we get to the meat of the matter - SPY graphs.

How, exactly, should we be looking at SPY? I'm not sure there is any one best answer, but rather validity in examining SPY in a number of ways to better identify consistency (or lack thereof) and any trends. With that in mind, I will be reporting three SPY graphs.

The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










We can see by examining this graph that the rate is actually trending slower over time. Obviously, because we are concerned with Seconds per *YEAR* and have only examined one *WEEK* worth of data, it is too early to conclude whether this is a real, sustainable upward trend or just normal variation for this watch. Continued observation will inform the correct conclusion. Also, please note that the first 6 SPY data points are grayed out because they do not yet include a full week's worth of data.

The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time. I will continue to report this, but I am not convinced it tells the whole story:










We also see on this graph that the rate is trending slower, but it is still too early to conclude whether this is just an artifact of measurement variance or a real trend - again, time will tell.

As always, comments and questions are always welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After 14.59 Days my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *0.388 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

-0.027 Seconds/Day
-0.186 Seconds/Week
-0.809 Seconds/Month
-9.71 Seconds/Year

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to an ideal overall rate of +10 SPY:










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time. I will continue to report this, but I am not convinced it tells the whole story:










As always, comments and questions are always welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After 21.57 Days my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *0.551 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.179 Seconds/Week
-0.778 Seconds/Month
-9.33 Seconds/Year

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to an ideal overall rate of +10 SPY:










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *28.61 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *0.725 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.025 Seconds/Day
-0.177 Seconds/Week
-0.771 Seconds/Month
-9.256 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *35.624 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *0.892 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.025 Seconds/Day
-0.175 Seconds/Week
-0.762 Seconds/Month
-9.146 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *42.583 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.028 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.024 Seconds/Day
-0.169 Seconds/Week
-0.735 Seconds/Month
-8.818 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *49.540 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.128 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.023 Seconds/Day
-0.159 Seconds/Week
-0.693 Seconds/Month
-8.317 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *56.601 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.208 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.021 Seconds/Day
-0.149 Seconds/Week
-0.650 Seconds/Month
-7.795 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## luxury554

The result is what i look forward to seeing


----------



## gaijin

luxury554 said:


> The result is what i look forward to seeing












Enjoy the ride :-!


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *63.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.266 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.020 Seconds/Day
-0.139 Seconds/Week
-0.606 Seconds/Month
-7.272 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## isendono

thumbs up for the dedication.


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *70.602 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.316 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.019 Seconds/Day
-0.130 Seconds/Week
-0.567 Seconds/Month
-6.809 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *77.600 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.360 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.018 Seconds/Day
-0.123 Seconds/Week
-0.533 Seconds/Month
-6.400 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *84.607 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.393 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.016 Seconds/Day
-0.115 Seconds/Week
-0.501 Seconds/Month
-6.014 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *91.602 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.429 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.016 Seconds/Day
-0.109 Seconds/Week
-0.475 Seconds/Month
-5.697 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *98.601 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.475 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.015 Seconds/Day
-0.105 Seconds/Week
-0.455 Seconds/Month
-5.464 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *105.598 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.536 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.015 Seconds/Day
-0.102 Seconds/Week
-0.443 Seconds/Month
-5.311 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *112.606 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.609 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.014 Seconds/Day
-0.100 Seconds/Week
-0.435 Seconds/Month
-5.220 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *119.619 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.694 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.014 Seconds/Day
-0.099 Seconds/Week
-0.431 Seconds/Month
-5.174 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *126.599 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.787 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.014 Seconds/Day
-0.099 Seconds/Week
-0.430 Seconds/Month
-5.155 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *133.592 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *1.889 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.014 Seconds/Day
-0.099 Seconds/Week
-0.430 Seconds/Month
-5.164 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *140.592 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.000 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.014 Seconds/Day
-0.100 Seconds/Week
-0.433 Seconds/Month
-5.196 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## DaveM

Thanks for the info.
I really like the way that you have done it, you deal with all of my worries about reading too much into accuracy-tests made over short time.

Having posted a few times I thought that I should try a test on a couple of my watches.
I think that I can make a good (to within 1spy) rate-trend using a 1-hour measuring-period if I have access to a very accurate 'master' oscillator.
I found the Connor-Winfield oven-compensated oscillator model OX200-DK on Digi-plan
> 10Mhz within +/-100 parts per billion initial calibration (not a worry, can eliminate in my scaling)
> +/- 5 parts per billion (+/- 0.16 spy) between -20 and 70C (amazing)
> +/- 1.9 spy over 5 years aging (very good)
> £76 in the UK, acceptable for performance like this !

I have a digital clock made from PLC so can easily write a program to rate the PLC oscillator (no temperature compensation xtal) against the OCXO.
I think that the key is to read a rate-estimate (based on 1 hour measuring-period) about every 30s and then apply a 30 minute filter (or rolling average) to the results. 

In the final implementation I need to rate the 'ticks'measured from a watch against the OCXO. The rate-estimate followed by filter method is then important to cope with noise on the watch-ticks (measure using a magnetic probe). The one-hour basic period should be enough to cope with errors due to delays in my program readings and remove colouration due to inhibition. 
Does this make sense ? Any comments are welcome


----------



## gaijin

You're very welcome, glad you enjoy the postings.

Your project sounds very interesting - looking forward to seeing your results.

So as not to get lost in the mass of this thread, it might be better to start your own thread highlighting your tests.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

I will delete the post here after he starts his own thread.


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *147.589 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.118 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.014 Seconds/Day
-0.100 Seconds/Week
-0.437 Seconds/Month
-5.241 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *154.607 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.252 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.015 Seconds/Day
-0.102 Seconds/Week
-0.443 Seconds/Month
-5.319 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## JayLecoe

cool


----------



## JayLecoe

Every try the Grand Seiko 9f? on a meter?


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *161.587 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.399 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.015 Seconds/Day
-0.104 Seconds/Week
-0.452 Seconds/Month
-5.422 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *168.591 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.564 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.015 Seconds/Day
-0.106 Seconds/Week
-0.463 Seconds/Month
-5.555 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

-Deleted-


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *175.596 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.751 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.016 Seconds/Day
-0.110 Seconds/Week
-0.477 Seconds/Month
-5.722 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *182.628 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *2.951 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.016 Seconds/Day
-0.113 Seconds/Week
-0.492 Seconds/Month
-5.903 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *189.592 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *3.162 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.017 Seconds/Day
-0.117 Seconds/Week
-0.508 Seconds/Month
-6.092 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## sertse

gaijin said:


> Wecome back, the saga continues...
> 
> I have adjusted the rate on my X-33 by adjusting the Correction Value (CV) from 307 to 305. My goal is to adjust the rate as close as possible to +5spy and it was evident that it was not going to happen with the CV at 307. The amount of the rate adjustment was based on the past year's measured performance at CV's 303 and 307. At CV 303, the watch was 2.945 seconds slow after 25 weeks and at CV 307, the watch was 2.715 seconds fast after 25 weeks. Since it was almost the same amount slow at one setting as it was fast at the other, it seemed logical that the best CV would be halfway between both - 305. We'll see how it works out. I also took the opportunity to replace the battery while I had the watch open.
> HTH


I noticed that it has just been over half a year since the tracking restart so I went back to the initial post to catch up on the whole saga. Has the adjustment worked compared to the previous 25 week blocks? Or is the watch going to keep running for a full year to get an 'actual' SPY result.


----------



## gaijin

sertse said:


> I noticed that it has just been over half a year since the tracking restart so I went back to the initial post to catch up on the whole saga. Has the adjustment worked compared to the previous 25 week blocks? Or is the watch going to keep running for a full year to get an 'actual' SPY result.


The adjustment from CV=307 to CV=305 certainly has not worked as well as I had hoped.

At CV=307, the watch was 2.715 seconds fast after 25 weeks and at CV=305, the watch was 2.751 seconds fast after 25 weeks - not any better.

I'm the first to admit that I don't know what I don't know - why the rate of this watch is changing despite stringent control of the temperature in which it is operating.

If the rate does not slow down over the next 4 weeks or so, I'm thinking about just resetting the watch to the correct time without changing the CV (Correction Value) at all. Perhaps the adjustment of the CV is not simply a straight adjustment to the watch's rate. It would be interesting to see if the then current rate (approx. 11-12 S/Y fast) wouold change with just a time reset as opposed to a rate adjustment.

In any event, it is instructional to observe the actual current rates over a long period.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *196.662 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *3.381 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.017 Seconds/Day
-0.120 Seconds/Week
-0.523 Seconds/Month
-6.280 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *203.627 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *3.606 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.018 Seconds/Day
-0.124 Seconds/Week
-0.539 Seconds/Month
-6.469 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *210.603 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *3.846 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.018 Seconds/Day
-0.128 Seconds/Week
-0.556 Seconds/Month
-6.671 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *217.610 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *4.100 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.019 Seconds/Day
-0.132 Seconds/Week
-0.573 Seconds/Month
-6.882 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *224.617 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *4.361 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.019 Seconds/Day
-0.136 Seconds/Week
-0.591 Seconds/Month
-7.091 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *231.626 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *4.624 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.020 Seconds/Day
-0.140 Seconds/Week
-0.608 Seconds/Month
-7.291 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":









The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:









The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:









The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:









The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:









The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:









As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *238.631 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *4.893 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.021 Seconds/Day
-0.144 Seconds/Week
-0.624 Seconds/Month
-7.489 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

Are you planning adjustments in the future?


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Are you planning adjustments in the future?


I was going to reset to zero without a rate adjustment if the rate continued to increase, but for the last 3 weeks the rate has remained fairly steady right around 14 Sec/Yr. When I did the quick calcs, if it stays steady or slows down going forward, I should hit the full year right around 10 Seconds or maybe a little less.

So... unless the rate changes for the worse, i.e. speeds up even more, I will probably carry the test to its conclusion at one year. If the rate does speed up, then I will most likely reset to zero without a rate adjustment and see where it goes from there.

Make sense?


----------



## ronalddheld

gaijin said:


> I was going to reset to zero without a rate adjustment if the rate continued to increase, but for the last 3 weeks the rate has remained fairly steady right around 14 Sec/Yr. When I did the quick calcs, if it stays steady or slows down going forward, I should hit the full year right around 10 Seconds or maybe a little less.
> 
> So... unless the rate changes for the worse, i.e. speeds up even more, I will probably carry the test to its conclusion at one year. If the rate does speed up, then I will most likely reset to zero without a rate adjustment and see where it goes from there.
> 
> Make sense?


Yes that sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *245.618 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *5.165 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.021 Seconds/Day
-0.147 Seconds/Week
-0.640 Seconds/Month
-7.681 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *252.603 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *5.440 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.022 Seconds/Day
-0.151 Seconds/Week
-0.655 Seconds/Month
-7.866 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *259.634 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *5.723 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.022 Seconds/Day
-0.154 Seconds/Week
-0.671 Seconds/Month
-8.051 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *266.648 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *6.010 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.023 Seconds/Day
-0.158 Seconds/Week
-0.686 Seconds/Month
-8.232 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *273.625 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *6.294 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.023 Seconds/Day
-0.161 Seconds/Week
-0.700 Seconds/Month
-8.401 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *280.607 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *6.574 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.023 Seconds/Day
-0.164 Seconds/Week
-0.713 Seconds/Month
-8.557 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *287.581 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *6.855 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.024 Seconds/Day
-0.167 Seconds/Week
-0.726 Seconds/Month
-8.706 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *294.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *7.133 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.024 Seconds/Day
-0.169 Seconds/Week
-0.737 Seconds/Month
-8.843 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *301.610 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *7.404 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.025 Seconds/Day
-0.172 Seconds/Week
-0.747 Seconds/Month
-8.966 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *308.597 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *7.672 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.025 Seconds/Day
-0.174 Seconds/Week
-0.757 Seconds/Month
-9.080 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *315.585 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *7.937 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.025 Seconds/Day
-0.176 Seconds/Week
-0.765 Seconds/Month
-9.186 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *322.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *8.192 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.025 Seconds/Day
-0.178 Seconds/Week
-0.773 Seconds/Month
-9.275 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *329.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *8.432 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.179 Seconds/Week
-0.779 Seconds/Month
-9.344 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## wbird

Just curious, do you plan to issue any conclusions or results based on your long term experiment on the X-33? 

At this point I'm not sure if you are trying to answer any questions other than the spy rate at constant temperature. If that's the case I'm not certain any additional detailed data is required or will expand or change any conclusions you can make right now.

It's a slightly better than a 10 spy watch that exhibits very small daily variability at 77F. I'm pretty certain any variation from these conclusions will have an assignable cause like a bad battery.

But if in addition to rate, you were exploring trim response, thermocompensation capabilities, or anything else; I'd be curious what you've concluded in any additional performance parameters, or if any of this is applicable to the Z-33.


----------



## espiga

Hi gaijin,

thank you, very much for the very detailed report.

I also have questions, since you said they are welcomed:
A- Are you going to introduce positions/change in positions (DU, DD, 3U...) in future tests?
B- Are you going to do an "on wrist use/real world" report to compare with this data?

Thank you, very much.

Best regards.


----------



## ronalddheld

My question would be if you plan to do any rate adjustment in the near future?


----------



## gaijin

espiga said:


> Hi gaijin,
> 
> thank you, very much for the very detailed report.
> 
> I also have questions, since you said they are welcomed:
> A- Are you going to introduce positions/change in positions (DU, DD, 3U...) in future tests?
> B- Are you going to do an "on wrist use/real world" report to compare with this data?
> 
> Thank you, very much.
> 
> Best regards.


You're very welcome, glad you are enjoying the unfolding data.

In answer to your questions:

A- I have no plan to test different positions. All testing to date has been performed in the DU (Dial Up) position, but I have not ruled out positional testing for future tests. Certainly position testing is critical for mechanical movements, and is part of the COSC testing of mechanical movements. There has been very little mention of positional effects on quartz movements, but there has been some - however, no data representing the degree position may affect quartz movements. Positional testing is also not a part of the COSC testing of quartz movements as explained in the following extract from COSC:

"To take into account the technological characteristics of these products [i.e. quartz instruments], the COSC has adapted its tests and the precision requirements. To acquire the COSC label, a quartz instrument must benefit from thermo-compensation and rigorous encapsulation. Each quartz chronometer is tested for 13 days, in one position, at 3 different temperatures and 4 different relative humidity levels. The criteria are less numerous, but the tolerance levels are much more stringent."

B- Yes, that's the plan. However, in order to better evaluate the "on wrist/real world" data, it is important to have established a stable baseline performance for this watch. I'm not sure I'm there yet due to the cyclic nature of observed rates so far. As I see it now, there are four possible next steps in testing - listed in order of probability, most to least:

1. Reset the time on the watch and continue testing under the same conditions
to see if the observed rate "settles down" to a more constant rate. So far, all
watch resets have been accompanied by an adjustment to the CV (Correction
Value), or rate adjustment. In hindsight, some of these rate adjustments may
have been premature. I am very curious to see what the observed rate would
be when only the time is reset without any rate adjustment. Logically, there
should be no effect, but I'm not sure that would be the case based on the
apparent lengthening of the rate fluctuation frequency observed so far - it piques
my curiosity.

2. Reset the time and adjust the CV and continue testing at the same constant temp-
erature. This is less exciting and I'm not sure it would advance the understanding
of this watch's performance as it would re-introduce variables.

3. Reset the time with no adjustment to the CV and test at different temperatures.
This option is interesting, but unless the rate cycling has stabilized, it might be
difficult to discern a "normal" rate fluctuation from one induced by a temperature
difference.

4. Reset the time with no adjustment to the CV and wear the watch. This would be
a "real world" performance test, but under a widely varying set of unrecordable
temperature, humidity, position, etc. conditions. As mentioned earlier, without
a stable baseline performance it would lose some value.

We'll see where it goes.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> My question would be if you plan to do any rate adjustment in the near future?


Please see my response to @espiga.

HTH

BTW: The forum is extremely slow right now - it has taken more than 17 minutes to post this response.


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *336.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *8.665 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.180 Seconds/Week
-0.783 Seconds/Month
-9.402 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *343.613 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *8.884 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.181 Seconds/Week
-0.787 Seconds/Month
-9.443 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the latest update!

After *350.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *9.093 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.182 Seconds/Week
-0.789 Seconds/Month
-9.472 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Please enjoy the penultimate update!

After *357.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *9.293 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.182 Seconds/Week
-0.791 Seconds/Month
-9.491 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the next exciting update.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Phase 1 Test Conclusion*

Please enjoy the final update on this project. The goal was to determine whether my Omega X-33 had the intrinsic capability of performing to a +10 Sec/Year standard. This was attempted by eliminating temperature as a variable and accurately measuring offset against a standard (almost) every day for (almost) a year. This test was all about accuracy, i.e. performance against a standard - not precision, i.e. autonomous performance.

Conclusions are simple:

- Yes, my X-33 is capable of performing within a +10 Sec/Year standard for a year.
- Measured rate varied considerably over the course of the test going all the way from approx. 1.0 Sec/Year fast to approx. 16.0 Sec/Year fast.
- Performance could probably be improved by adjusting the Correction Value (CV) and testing again.

So... with this report the Phase 1 Accuracy test which established intrinsic capability is over; but where do we go from here? Please see my next post below to see the outline for the Phase 2 Precision test and suggested options for Phase 3.

After *364.608 Days* my Omega X-33 with Calibre 1666C @ CV=305 is running *9.478 Seconds fast*. That calculates out to roughly:

*-0.026 Seconds/Day
-0.182 Seconds/Week
-0.791 Seconds/Month
-9.494 Seconds/Year*

The first graph shows the Normalized Average Offset and answers the question, "How is the watch running in relation to overall rates of +10 SPY?":










The next graph is a record of the temperature at which the watch was kept during the test period:










The third graph is simply a more detailed temperature graph of just the data for the last week:










Here's a bonus graph which shows a more detailed view at temperature over the past year:










The first SPY graph is the Current SPY. This answers the question, "What was the SPY rate from the last measurement to the current measurement?" This is the most volatile of the three graphs because the measurement period is the shortest. It is not very good at clearly indicating longer term trends, but it is the best for early identification of any significant rate changes:










The next SPY graph is the Weekly Rolling Average SPY. This answers the question, "What was the average Current SPY rate over the last week?" This graph smooths the Current SPY data and enables us to better see overall trends:










The last SPY graph is the Overall SPY. This graph answers the question, "What is the SPY rate based on the latest measurement compared to the beginning measurement?" The longer the measurement period, the more precise the SPY calculation becomes. This probably best represents the consensus understanding on this forum of what SPY means; e.g. if a watch is 12 seconds slow after a year the rate is +12 SPY. All one needs to derive this value is two measurements (beginning and current) and time:










As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Don't forget to tune in next week - same HAQ time, same HAQ channel - for the first exciting report on a new project.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Phase 2 Precision Testing*

The Phase 1 Accuracy test was completed successfully, so let's move on to Phase 2 Precision testing.

The COSC testing standards are all about precision. Here are the current applicable COSC standards as best I can determine:










I'd like to focus on the three variable temperature rate tests:

+0.07 Sec/Day @ 23 DegC (73.4 DegF)
+0.20 Sec/Day @ 8 DegC (46.4 DegF)
+0.20 Sec/Day @ 38 DegC (100.4 DegF)

The way I understand these specs, from one day to the next (over 24 hours) the ending rate can be no more than the specified amount different from the beginning rate. Each day is discrete, i.e. individually separate and distinct. When reporting the rates over the course of several days, each reported rate would be the difference between the current day's rate and the immediately preceding day's rate - and must fall within the specification.

It is my intention to continue daily rate testing to establish precision as it relates to COSC specifications. I will measure daily rates for one week at each specified temperature - or as close as I can manage with my test setup, to determine whether measured precision is within COSC specs. After one week of daily testing at 73.4 DegF, I will test for one week at 46.4 DegF, and finally for one week at 100.4 DegF. I will then return to 73.4 DegF to see of there is any difference from the first week of testing.

Since I will not reset the time on the watch, or adjust the CV, I will be able to continue the comparison of the daily time offset to the normalized initial time set over a year ago. Basically this will be a continuation of Phase 1 testing to see whether the Phase 2 temperatures have any effect on the established rate at Phase 1 temp.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, results will be evaluated and parameters for further testing will be established.

As always, comments and questions are always welcome.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

*Re: Phase 2 Precision Testing*

Interesting explanation of the COSC rules. I did not know about the maximum measurement period of one day only. 
That explains this 'rate stability'.

How are you measuring something like 0.2 seconds? I could not find how you did the measurements.
And does the watch need to come out of it temperature controlled environment?


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Phase 2 Precision Testing*



Hans Moleman said:


> Interesting explanation of the COSC rules. I did not know about the maximum measurement period of one day only.
> That explains this 'rate stability'.
> 
> How are you measuring something like 0.2 seconds? I could not find how you did the measurements.
> And does the watch need to come out of it temperature controlled environment?


My guess about "Rate Stability" spec'd at 0.05 Sec/Day is that even if a rate is observed within the specs of +0.07 and +0.20 Sec/Day, no one rate can be greater than 0.05 Sec/Day different from the immediately preceding measurement.

I'm using the LeoNTP Stratum1 Time Server:










One can find the specs for the LeoNTP here: https://store.uputronics.com/files/quickspecs_flyer.pdf

A 30 second video of the watch and time server together (as in the photo) is shot at 120 frames/second. A frame by frame review of the video is performed and the frames are counted from the first frame where the seconds hand is observed to begin moving to the first frame where the LeoNTP display is observed to start changing. I take 30 measurements and average them all. One frame is 1/120 second, or 0.00833 seconds, or 8.33 milliseconds - well within the capability to measure 0.2 seconds which would be 24 video frames.

The watch is out of the environmental chamber for a maximum of 2 minutes - not enough to significantly affect the core watch temperature. Based on my experience with ABC/T watches which have an internal temp sensor, it usually takes about 20 minutes at ambient for the internal temp to equilibrate after removing it from one's wrist - depending on the Delta temp from ambient, of course. The larger the Delta, the longer it takes.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

The LeoNTP Stratum1 Time Server is a GPSDO?


----------



## Hans Moleman

*Re: Phase 2 Precision Testing*

Good choice. A GPS clock is beyond reproach.

But I would be cautious about using its digital display for video work. A digital display is supposed to be used by human eyes. "They can't tell the difference" kind of accuracy. The PPS output on the back, I would completely trust.

Attach an LED to the PPS output and record that too. Just to be sure.

Bill did find some oddities with the display.

Personally I would mistrust that display more that a 2 minute temperature change. But you should not take my word for it.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Phase 2 Precision Testing*



Hans Moleman said:


> Good choice. A GPS clock is beyond reproach.
> 
> But I would be cautious about using its digital display for video work. A digital display is supposed to be used by human eyes. "They can't tell the difference" kind of accuracy. The PPS output on the back, I would completely trust.
> 
> Attach an LED to the PPS output and record that too. Just to be sure.
> 
> Bill did find some oddities with the display.
> 
> Personally I would mistrust that display more that a 2 minute temperature change. But you should not take my word for it.


Good thoughts. Thank you.

I have been using the LeoNTP/Video method since February last year. With very rare exception, my 30 measurements usually span only two frames or 0.00833 seconds covering the whole 3600 frame recording. In other words, for any given reported measurement, the average is of only two different measured numbers of frames.

For example:

My last reported offset measurement was an average of 30 frame counts where each value was either 50 frames (from time of first observed hand movement to first observed display change) or 51 frames. The 50 frame count = 9.4167 seconds offset while the 51 frame count = 9.4250 seconds offset. For one reported value, this means a Max value of 9.4250 and a Min value of 9.4167 or a total range of 0.0083, or, one video frame for the entire 30 measurement population.

I did have to experiment with various video frame rates and lighting to yield repeatable results, but I have high confidence in my current setup to be able to accurately measure within +0.00833 seconds.

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

*Re: Phase 2 Precision Testing*

If your measurements are solid and repeatable then the display is not an issue.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## gaijin

I hope it turns out to be delicious.


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> I hope it turns out to be delicious.


Something else, I think you're missing.

Inhibition.

Everyone falls into that trap. Including me. And there will be hordes more to come.

ETA movements don't correct continuously. They accumulate the error and correct once every 8 minutes, or whatever the inhibition period they've chosen.

It makes a difference if you're measuring before or after the ETA correction.

Extrapolating that over a year can make quite a difference.

Averaging things, could work, but that would take hours of measurements to get lots of points before or after ETA corrections.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> Something else, I think you're missing.
> 
> Inhibition.
> 
> Everyone falls into that trap. Including me. And there will be hordes more to come.
> 
> ETA movements don't correct continuously. They accumulate the error and correct once every 8 minutes, or whatever the inhibition period they've chosen.
> 
> It makes a difference if you're measuring before or after the ETA correction.
> 
> Extrapolating that over a year can make quite a difference.
> 
> Averaging things, could work, but that would take hours of measurements to get lots of points before or after ETA corrections.


I don't think I'm missing anything - well aware of inhibition.

If I were taking instantaneous rate measurements once a day, then yes, all your points are valid and a cause for concern.

By measuring the offset from a standard once every 24 hours, I would only be "missing" a very few (if any) error corrections. If error correction is implemented every 8 minutes, that would mean it takes place 180 times every 24 hours. So from one of my measurements to the next, 24 hours later, 180 adjustments would have taken place. If my measurement from one day to the next is a difference of +0.025 seconds, for example, that would reflect the accumulation of 180 adjustments of approximately +0.00014 seconds - "missing" an adjustment would simply fall within the noise of the test procedure and not have any significant effect on the reported result.

Further, all my measurements are taken with the crown pulled out to Position 2 per the instructions in the Omega Technical Guide for the Calibre 1666C. Although not specifically stated in the Guide, it is my assumption that with the crown in position 2, rate adjustments (inhibition) are suppressed so as not to affect the ongoing rate measurement. So, even during the 30 seconds of testing, there should be no inhibition trigerred adjustments that wouold affect the measurements.

Seems like a non-issue with my test protocol.

HTH

Edit to add: Technical Guide for Calibre 1666 can be found here: http://www.cousinsuk.com/PDF/categories/3503_Omega%201666.pdf


----------



## Hans Moleman

dwjquest has a good explanation of inhibition:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/eta-2...rature-correction-method-unveiled-300533.html


----------



## gaijin

*Phase 2 Modified COSC Precision Testing*

Here are the COSC specs for quartz watches which I believe are the latest available:










It is my intention to test the daily rate of my X-33 at the three specified temperatures and compare the results to the COSC specs(Limits).

I was unable to find a detailed explanation of the exact test protocol used by the COSC other than the entire test takes 13 days, is performed at three different temperatures and different humidities. I also understand there is a shock resistance test, but I was unable to find any details on it.

It has also proven difficult to find an official explanation for what exactly is meant by "Rate Stability" as it pertains to quartz watches. The explanation for mechanical watches is the Rate Stability is, "...calculated by subtracting the average of the rates in the vertical (V) position (first and second days) from the average of the rates in the horizontal(H) position (ninth and tenth days)." However, quartz watch testing is performed in only one position (dial up) and over a shorter period than mechanical watches. There is no comparable explanation that deals specifically with quartz watches that I can find. That being the case, I will not be testing for Rate Stability.

As I was unable to determine over how many days each temperature is tested by COSC (only that the whole test takes 13 days), I have decided to test each temperature for one week - seven days. Assuredly, this is longer than COSC testing, but if anything should be a more stringent test.

Testing will follow the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week will be reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 will be compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption falls within the specification.

Now that the boring groundwork is established, we can get to the first week's results.

Here is a tabular summary of the first week's results which will fill out as the test proceeds:










Measured Daily Rates ranged from a minimum of -0.0152 Sec/Day to a maximum of -0.0203 Sec/Day and averaged -0.0167 Sec/Day - well within the spec of +0.07 Sec/Day.

Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during the week-long test:










Week 2 testing will be conducted at approximately 8 DegC/46.4 Deg F. Tune in again next week to see how that goes.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Posting to test why thread has lost 3 days of reads.

This is just a test.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Modified COSC Precision Testing Week 2*

This is becoming exciting.

Testing according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week will be reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 will be compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption falls within the specification.

Week 1 testing was well within COSC Limits. Week 2 is also well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the first two weeks' results which will fill out as the test proceeds:










Measured Daily Rates ranged from a minimum of +0.0031 Sec/Day to a maximum of +0.0170 Sec/Day and averaged +0.0100 Sec/Day - well within the spec of +0.20 Sec/Day.

Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 2 testing:










Week 3 testing will be conducted at approximately 38 DegC/100.4 Deg F. Tune in again next week to see how that goes.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Modified COSC Precision Testing Week 3*

I like doing this test - kind of a "rubber meets the road" scenario. Hope you enjoy this latest update.

Testing according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week will be reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 will be compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption falls within the specification.

Week 1 testing was well within COSC limits. Week 2 is also well within COSC limits. Week 3 results are still well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the first three weeks' results which will fill out as the test proceeds:










Measured Daily Rates ranged from a minimum of -0.0343 Sec/Day to a maximum of -0.0480 Sec/Day and averaged -0.0395 Sec/Day - well within the spec of +0.20 Sec/Day.

Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 3 testing:










Week 4 testing will be conducted at approximately 23 DegC/73.4 Deg F. Tune in again next week to see how that goes.

In the meantime, here's a teaser graph showing the Average Daily Rates at the three test temperatures:










I like that the relationship is very linear. This will figure prominently in my decision as how to proceed for future testing.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Modified COSC Precision Testing Week 4 Final Results*

This was a very rewarding test. Not only did I confirm that my Omega X-33 performs extremely well when tested to the COSC specs, but I also gained a new appreciation for just how forgiving the COSC specs are.

I used to think of COSC certification as validation that a watch would perform within very strict performance parameters and was difficult to engineer a watch that would gain the certification. Results show that is not really the case. When tested at 8 DegC/46.4 DegF and at 38 DegC/100.4 DegF the watch under test could exhibit a daily rate of +73.05 Seconds/Year and still be within spec - and gain certification. This has further supported my position that just because a watch has gained COSC certification, it does not automatically earn admittance into the realm of HAQ.

My hope is that, going forward, those who wish to claim HAQ status will provide the requisite data to support that claim - not simply point to the "Chronometre" branding on the dial and believe that is good enough.

Here are the results:

Tested according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week were reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 were compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption fell within the specification.

All test results were well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the results:










Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 4 testing:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced for the entire duration of the test:










Thisis a graph showing the Average Daily Rates at the three test temperatures (73.4 DegF data are an average of Week 1 and Week 4 data):










This graph will figure prominently in my decision as to how to proceed for future testing.

My immediate plans are to set my test chamber to 30 DegC/86 DegF and observe whether the observed daily rate conforms to the graph. If it does, then I will replace the watch battery and adjust CV (Correction Value) to slow the watch down by approximately 8 Seconds/Year. If the correction is confirmed, I will then repeat the COSC test with the new CV to confirm not only that the rate adjustment is consistent across test temps, but that the temp/rate curve is the same slope.

I have new batteries on order which could delay when I can make the rate adjustment, so next week's report may be shorter than usual.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Omega X-33 Cal. 1666C CV=307 Next Stage Testing*

I have replaced the battery and adjusted the CV from 305 to 307 which should slow the watch down.

The watch is currently in my test chamber at 23 DegC/73.4 DegF. I will measure the rate daily to confirm that it is stable and slower than it was.

The next step is to repeat the COSC test to confirm performance. After that? I might just wear it for awhile.


----------



## gaijin

*Specification Question*

Here's a question for the group to which I invite comment.

We have discussed a specification of +10 Sec/Year for a thermo-compensated quartz watch as a guideline for defining "HAQ" in the context of this forum.

Based on these data:










Is it fair to say that this thermo-compensated watch performs to a specification of +3.6/-14.4 Sec/Year (or +9 Sec/Year) from 8 DegC - 38 DegC and thus qualifies as HAQ?

If not, why not?

Other comments?

TIA


----------



## PetWatch

*Re: Specification Question*



gaijin said:


> Here's a question for the group to which I invite comment.
> 
> We have discussed a specification of +10 Sec/Year for a thermo-compensated quartz watch as a guideline for defining "HAQ" in the context of this forum.
> 
> Based on these data:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say that this thermo-compensated watch performs to a specification of +3.6/-14.4 Sec/Year (or +9 Sec/Year) from 8 DegC - 38 DegC and thus qualifies as HAQ?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> Other comments?
> 
> TIA


That's a good question that deserves clarification in order to set an acceptable guideline or standard here, same as the HAQ definition.

My take is that irrespective of marketing mumbo jumbo - no.

+- 9 Sec/Year - This is an average derived from the performance stated, and not noted as such.

-14.4 SPY is outside stated rating and HAQ performance.

In my opinion to be HAQ, a watch must pass the 10 sec/year test any and every day I check to see the time (365 days p/year), or it's simply not HAQ everyday.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Specification Question*



PetWatch said:


> That's a good question that deserves clarification in order to set an acceptable guideline or standard here, same as the HAQ definition.
> 
> My take is that irrespective of marketing mumbo jumbo - no.
> 
> +- 9 Sec/Year - This is an average derived from the performance stated, and not noted as such.
> 
> -14.4 SPY is outside stated rating and HAQ performance.
> 
> In my opinion to be HAQ, a watch must pass the 10 sec/year any and every day I check to see the time (365 days p/year), or it's simply not HAQ everyday.


Valid points - thanks for posting.

So, since this precision test based on the COSC precision test does not (if I understand your points correctly) present good enough data to relate to an accuracy spec (i.e. the +10 Sec/Year forum spec), then it cannot be used to determine whether a watch meets the HAQ spec?

Then how is the COSC test as currently structured at all valid for certifying a quartz chronometer? COSC testing is based on averages. All specs are, indeed, either averages themselves or based on the relationship of one average to another. The Average Daily Rates are just that, the average of the measured daily rates - and the spec is applied to the average, not the individually measured daily rates.

Since the COSC test is precision, not accuracy, my transition from the actual measured data (+3.6/-14.4 Sec/Year) to my proposed spec (+9 Sec/Year) was merely shifting the center point of the range. None of the precision data have any relationship to the actual time, but rather simply one day's rate as it relates to the previous day's rate. If we were to think of these data as accuracy instead of precision, i.e. each days mesured offset from standard time as opposed to each days rate of time change, then shifting the center point would be like resetting the time displayed on the watch to bring it more in line with the accuracy requirements based on measured precision. Like finding your watch runs 10 Sec/Year fast and setting it 5 Sec slower than standard time resulting in a yearly accuracy of +5 Sec/Year rather than +0/-10 Sec/Year which would be observed if the watch were set exactly to standard time.

But your points are well taken. I'll see if I can augment my next set of test results to better reflect your considerations.

HTH

Edit to add: Do you think the HAQ spec should include temperature? Now, there is no consideration for temperature or temperature range; just that thermocompensation should be employed (possibly only in the absence of higher frequency)?


----------



## gaijin

*Modified COSC Precision Test #2 Week 1*

The adjustment of the Rate Correction Value (CV) from 305 to 307 has obviously moved the rate in the right direction, i.e. slowed the rate down. I am a little concerned that the rate appears to be drifting a little during the first week of testing - maybe the watch needs some time to stabilize after an adjustment. In any event, we'll see how it plays out going forward.

Hope you enjoy this latest update.

Testing according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week will be reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 will be compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption falls within the specification.

Week 1 testing was well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the first week's results which will fill out as the test proceeds:










Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 1 testing:










Week 2 testing will be conducted at approximately 8 DegC/46.4 Deg F. Tune in again next week to see how that goes.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## PetWatch

Thank you for the explanation. To answer your last question, operational parameters such as temperature should not be required but should be stated when an HAQ claim is made.

My remark to marketing was in reference to manufacturers accuracy claims, usually, always?, stated as a potential even spread deviation around an accuracy axis point, +- 10 sec/, 15, etc. Based on my observations user data doesn't seem to support this claim to a very high degree of confidence. For example a range of 20 sec., is confined to 10 sec. deviation in either direction from accuracy. When it wanders beyond 10 sec., the manufacturer rep. stated to wait until a year is up to see if it falls back within the 10 sec. parameter, which would conform, as has been reported on this forum. 

To my understanding COSC issues a daily rate certification. Their methodology is quite robust thus it extends over a set of data points into the future. How far and how precise is it, they don't test or make claims to this affect as far as I know, nor have I seen any data in this regards. How well do their calculations handle data point interactions that an averaging method does not reveal, though it accounts for to an extent, but that may accumulate over a large data set is unknown, since they do not certify for an extended range such as a year's precision, for example. 

They state that their certification measurement is valid at a specific point in time for a specific sample, thus it's likely to change over time, and that it does not attempt to simulate real world usage.

Your measurements appear sound to me, I would add that since an average doesn't reveal how the rolling data points interact, it would be useful to include range distribution to account for most statistical dispersion. I would expect performance to fall within a distribution range based on you data, which you can minimize given that you have demonstrated this watch is not capable of consistent performance at the extremes, with the caveat of real world usage variance. 

I don't recall if you have performed a usage simulation temperature variability study over a few days to see what data comes out. 

In short, these type of tests go a long way but only so far, even the most robust sampling calculations will encounter greater offsets over a very large data set, such as a year or years, especially when performing under varying user conditions. Just want to add, that I am not an expert in this type of data analysis, so I could be off on some points, and you seem to know what you're doing.

Once you finish these test, I like to see how well they conform to real world usage


----------



## MBQ

A bit OT maybe, but how do you think this watch wears? It’s pretty big at 45mm and looks quite thick so probably a no go for my 6.5 inch wrist.


----------



## gaijin

MBQ said:


> A bit OT maybe, but how do you think this watch wears? It's pretty big at 45mm and looks quite thick so probably a no go for my 6.5 inch wrist.


Are we talking about the same watch?



















It's quite modest in size and wears small on the wrist.

Also being all Titanium, it's very light.

HTH


----------



## MBQ

Sorry, saw that the older one is a more managable 42.25mm. It makes it an interesting watch for sure.


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Modified COSC Precision Test #2 Week 2*

Hope you enjoy this latest update.

Testing according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week will be reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 will be compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption falls within the specification.

Week 2 testing was well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the results so far which will fill out as the test proceeds:










Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 2 testing:










Week 3 testing will be conducted at approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF. Tune in again next week to see how that goes.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Modified COSC Precision Test #2 Week 3*

Hope you enjoy this latest update.

Testing according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset will be measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset will be compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week will be reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 will be compared to the results for Week 1 to determine whether the Rate Resumption falls within the specification.

Week 3 testing was well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the results so far which will fill out as the test proceeds:










Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 3 testing:










Week 4 testing will be conducted at approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF. Tune in again next week to see how that goes.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

*Modified COSC Precision Test #2 Week 4 [Magnum Opus Conclusion]*

Hope you enjoy this last update.

With this post I conclude my magnum opus, the object of which was to determine just how accurate my Omega X-33 Calibre 1666C is, and whether it could be shown to meet HAQ specifications. I did, it does, end of story.

I feel confident in stating that my X-33 when set to CV=307 performs within a range of +10/-5 Seconds/Year within a temperature range of 8 DegC / 46.4 DegF to 38 DegC / 100.4 DegF.

I learned a lot, evolved in my understanding and in my test methods. I hope others have found it at least interesting, and perhaps even informative.

Testing concluded according to the following protocol:

Week 1 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 2 - At approximately 8 DegC/46.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 3 - At approximately 38 DegC/100.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Week 4 - At approximately 23 DegC/73.4 DegF Normalized Offset was measured using the LeoNTP Time Server by evaluating a 30-second video shot @120 frames/second. Each day's Offset was compared to the immediately preceding day's Offset to determine the Daily Rate in Seconds/Day.

Results for each week was reported and compared to the applicable specification.

Results for Week 4 were compared to the results for Week 1 and fell well within the specification.

Week 4 testing was well within COSC limits.

Here is a tabular summary of the test results:










Here's what the data look like on a graph showing each day's rate, upper and lower COSC spec limits and a Sec/Year value for reference:










Here's a graph of the temperature history:










And a more detailed recording of the temperatures experienced during Week 4 testing:










And a more detailed recording of the temperature history for the duration of the test:










After completing COSC Test#1, I used this graph to show what an adjustment from CV=305 to either CV=306 or CV=307 might look like (Note: 73.4 data are an average of weeks 1 and 4):










After adjusting to CV=307, actual results were as shown here:










I found it interesting that rate adjustment at 73.4 DegF was about as expected, but the slope of the adjustment was different such that the rate difference observed after adjustment at both 46.4 DegF and 100.4 DegF were less than expected - i.e., not as slow as expected at 46.4 DegF and not as fast as expected at 100.4 DegF.

It's been fun.

HTH


----------



## webvan

That was a belated but great read !
I suppose the next step would be to look at aging and see if 3+ years down the road the rates at the three COSC temperatures have changed.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> That was a belated but great read !
> I supposed the next step would be to look at aging and see if 3+ years down the road the rates at the three COSC temperatures have changed.


Well, what I can tell you is that after sitting on my desk for the last 41 months - still on the same battery - it is about 1.2 seconds slow. 

Oddly enough, the average temperature for the last year was 72.9 DegF - not that far off from the COSC base test temp of 73.4 DegF.

Last year's temp history which we can take as typical for the last 41 months as I don't have the actual desk temp data beyond these presented:










So... 1.2 seconds slow (+1.2 sec) @ 72.9 DegF after approximately 1,245 days, or about +0.3518 sec/year @72.9 DegF now compared to the test result 41 months ago of +0.4293 sec/year @73.4 DegF.

I am not planning any more detailed testing.

Very glad you enjoyed the read!

HTH


----------



## DaveM

gaijin said:


> Well, what I can tell you is that after sitting on my desk for the last 41 months - still on the same battery - it is about 1.2 seconds slow.
> 
> Oddly enough, the average temperature for the last year was 72.9 DegF - not that far off from the COSC base test temp of 73.4 DegF.
> 
> Last year's temp history which we can take as typical for the last 41 months as I don't have the actual desk temp data beyond these presented:
> 
> View attachment 17150551
> 
> 
> So... 1.2 seconds slow (+1.2 sec) @ 72.9 DegF after approximately 1,245 days, or about +0.3518 sec/year @72.9 DegF now compared to the test result 41 months ago of +0.4293 sec/year @73.4 DegF.
> 
> I am not planning any more detailed testing.
> 
> Very glad you enjoyed the read!
> 
> HTH


Modified rate-tests make sense apart from the last ( rate resumption ) result.
I mention this because I have noticed similar results in my tests

week 1 rate at 23C is 0.4spy
week 2 rate at 8C is 10.0spy
week 3 rate at 38C is -4.2spy
week 4 rate at 23C is * 4.6spy*
Last 3.4 years at an average of 22.7C is 0.4spy
Any ideas why the week 4 rate is so bad, but the subsequent 3.4 year average has recovered ?
Has anybody else noticed rate-resumption problems ?
Why are the COSC limits on rate resumption so generous ?


----------



## webvan

gaijin said:


> Well, what I can tell you is that after sitting on my desk for the last 41 months - still on the same battery - it is about 1.2 seconds slow.
> 
> Oddly enough, the average temperature for the last year was 72.9 DegF - not that far off from the COSC base test temp of 73.4 DegF.
> 
> Last year's temp history which we can take as typical for the last 41 months as I don't have the actual desk temp data beyond these presented:
> 
> So... 1.2 seconds slow (+1.2 sec) @ 72.9 DegF after approximately 1,245 days, or about *+0.3518 sec/year* @72.9 DegF now compared to the test result 41 months ago of +0.4293 sec/year @73.4 DegF.
> 
> I am not planning any more detailed testing.
> 
> Very glad you enjoyed the read!
> 
> HTH


Well that's impressive ! My Gen 2/1666A is at around +20spy so I wonder if it isn't due for a service and upgrade to 1666C ;-)

I saw you explained how you did the timing but did you show your testing setup with the "Test Chamber" and the Temperature sensor ? I have some Xiaomi and NetAtmo sensors I could use for the sensor part.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Well that's impressive ! My Gen 2/1666A is at around +20spy so I wonder if it isn't due for a service and upgrade to 1666C ;-)
> 
> I saw you explained how you did the timing but did you show your testing setup with the "Test Chamber" and the Temperature sensor ? I have some Xiaomi and NetAtmo sensors I could use for the sensor part.


With a service the update to the 1666C movement is part of the service - no additional charge. I highly recommend it.

The "Test Chamber" is definitely crude, but proved very effective.

The basic box is just a 1.7 cubic foot refrigerator:









Plugged into a temperature controller:









Which controls power to either the cooling pump in the refrigerator or to a small wattage heating pad inside the refrigerator:










Temperature sensor for recording the temperature inside the refrigerator are from SensorPush and recorded on a phone App:



















HTH


----------



## webvan

Nice setup, thanks for sharing the details.

I'll inquire with Omega to see how much the X33 service runs these days.

EDIT - according to their website they service quartz chronographs for 500€, not too bad for the X33 since you get an upgraded movement that can be calibrated.


----------



## gaijin

DaveM said:


> Modified rate-tests make sense apart from the last ( rate resumption ) result.
> I mention this because I have noticed similar results in my tests
> 
> week 1 rate at 23C is 0.4spy
> week 2 rate at 8C is 10.0spy
> week 3 rate at 38C is -4.2spy
> week 4 rate at 23C is * 4.6spy*
> Last 3.4 years at an average of 22.7C is 0.4spy
> Any ideas why the week 4 rate is so bad, but the subsequent 3.4 year average has recovered ?
> Has anybody else noticed rate-resumption problems ?
> Why are the COSC limits on rate resumption so generous ?


Good questions - I share many of them.

My best guess as to why the week 4 rate is so high (I have trouble calling 4.6 spy "bad") is that there is some software in the control algorithm that limits the amount of correction that can be applied, or the amount of correction that can be applied over a period of time. That would help explain why the rate would "recover" over a period of time longer than the relatively short test period.

As to why the COSC rate resumption limits are so generous, we'd have to ask them; but perhaps the same mechanism is taken into consideration - i.e. time for the rate adjustment algorithm to "recover" to some more normal pace and degree of correction which would result in a delayed (not immediate) return to the base rate. But again, just a guess.


----------

