Bloomin digital.

wrote in message news
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:34:45 -0800 (PST)
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 15:24:59 UTC, wrote:
The mains frequency can be off by a significant amount for timekeeping
purposes. The clock could lose or gain a second every 5 or 10 minutes in
some
circumstances. I can't imagine why any manufacturer would use it in
preference
to quartz.

--
Spud

It's cheaper if it is mains connected.

Given you can get a reliable quartz crystal casio watch for less than a
tenner
I think thats unlikely.

Once or twice I've seen wattless dropper radio alarm clocks - but most have
a not so cheap mains transformer.

wrote in message news
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:38:57 -0000 (UTC)
Tim+ wrote:
wrote:
The mains frequency can be off by a significant amount for timekeeping
purposes. The clock could lose or gain a second every 5 or 10 minutes in
some
circumstances. I can't imagine why any manufacturer would use it in
preference
to quartz.


Because, at least as I've always understood it, the total cycles per day
was always constant so clocks wouldn't drift from day to day.

Not sure I'd want to rely on that tbh. It all depends on the network load.

The load was the whole point - the peak time load tended to drag the
generator RPM down, the electricity company was expected to make good during
off peak time.

On 20/01/2017 01:14, Johnny B Good wrote:
You forget that back in those days of expensive early adoption, very few
people invested in more than one DAB radio per household so were unlikely
become aware of the delay unless they also happened to tune into the same
broadcast on an analogue radio.

You forget that back in those days of expensive early adoption very
few people threw away all their analogue radios when they purchased
their first DAB radio.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 25/01/2017 21:49, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 21:44:39 -0000, "Benderthe.evilrobot"
wrote:

I have no need for OCD - all but two of my clocks set themselves to the
right time automatically.

You're lucky. I have one radio controlled clock, and the rest is a
right old mixture. One of my alarm clocks uses mains frequency as a
reference,

It used to be the case that mains frequency could vary up to a set % of
50Hz, and had to average out at that value over a set period of time.

The synchronous motor clocks of the day could be several minutes out at
any given time, but must have no net loss or gain overall.

No idea whether this still holds true.

Yes, see for instance:
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~shild/results/report_sean.pdf

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 20/01/2017 03:57, Johnny B Good wrote:
The more a digitised broadcast is compressed, no matter how cleverly,
the larger the 'latency' that results within the system. The latency in
such systems is one of those trade offs against improved data capacity
for any given channel bandwidth.

That doesn't follow at all.
I don't think the minimum delay achievable with, say, 320kbps MP3 would
be different from the minimum delay achievable with 24kbps MP3.
I believe in both cases it's close to 13.3333ms (actually 13â…“ms).

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 28/01/2017 00:14, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:41:01 +0000
Brian wrote:

You forget that back in those days of expensive early adoption very
few people threw away all their analogue radios when they purchased
their first DAB radio.

That's if they ever bought a DAB radio, of course.

I never did.

My sister has two DAB radios, one in the kitchen downstairs and one in
her bedroom upstairs. They tune into two different station sets.
I will stick to my FM radio that gives me the same stations wherever I
am in my house. It it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Jim

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 10:30:31 GMT, pamela wrote:
On 20:29 20 Jan 2017, Johnny B Good wrote [TRIMMED]:

I don't know about you or anyone else but during the intervening
four decades since the advent of the LCD quartz wris****ch,
absent any analogue pretentiousness, I've gotten well used to
reading the time from a digital display and have enough
experience of the genuinely old fashioned analogue displays of
time exemplified by countless examples of the art in public
places as well as hanging on various walls around the home
sufficient to let me seamlessly switch between the two
mainstream ways to display the time of day.

In short, I simply don't need or desire an analogue display on
a wris****ch. I just want to be able to tell the time of day at
a glance and readily check which day of the week I'm living my
life in with just a modicum of additional effort to garner that
extra information from the display.

I wouldn't be seen dead wearing a digital watch.

I can't understand why anyone needs such a thing for normal
everyday living. As timepieces, they look ugly.

Much as I like Euan

Evan. Euan is one of my grandsons :-)

Davies , when I saw him wearing an awful black
resin digital watch on Newsnight he went down in my estimation.
Surely the producer could have pulled Euan aside and told him his
watch better suited a 10 year old school boy.

You're very old fashioned. People wear what they want now. Even ties are optional.

Maybe he got it as a Freebie from a failed Dragons' Den contestant.

Who tend to do rather better than those who 'succeed' in selling out huge
proportions of their businesses for peanuts.

You can't go to any airport now without tripping over at least half a dozen Trunkis.

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 28/01/2017 00:14, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:41:01 +0000
Brian wrote:

You forget that back in those days of expensive early adoption very
few people threw away all their analogue radios when they purchased
their first DAB radio.

That's if they ever bought a DAB radio, of course.

I never did.

My sister has two DAB radios, one in the kitchen downstairs and one in her
bedroom upstairs. They tune into two different station sets.
I will stick to my FM radio that gives me the same stations wherever I am
in my house. It it ain't broken, don't fix it.

The station I use isn't available on FM in my area.

Mostly I've hung on to a few multi-band SW radios - most of those include
the AM & FM BC bands.

Your favourite FM station could suddenly vanish - then you may not have much
choice.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 20:29 20 Jan 2017, Johnny B Good wrote [TRIMMED]:




I don't know about you or anyone else but during the intervening
four decades since the advent of the LCD quartz wris****ch,
absent any analogue pretentiousness, I've gotten well used to
reading the time from a digital display and have enough
experience of the genuinely old fashioned analogue displays of
time exemplified by countless examples of the art in public
places as well as hanging on various walls around the home
sufficient to let me seamlessly switch between the two
mainstream ways to display the time of day.

In short, I simply don't need or desire an analogue display on
a wris****ch. I just want to be able to tell the time of day at
a glance and readily check which day of the week I'm living my
life in with just a modicum of additional effort to garner that
extra information from the display.




I wouldn't be seen dead wearing a digital watch.

I can't understand why anyone needs such a thing for normal
everyday living. As timepieces, they look ugly.

My Casio Waveceptor watch is essentially analogue, but there's a small LCD
window just above the 6. When I can remember which buttons do what - I can
set it to display all kinds of different info. Usually I leave it on date &
day of the week, there are various information formats, and I can set what
time zone it synchronises to, or enter a hand set mode if for some bizzare
reason I want it to tell the wrong time.

On 28/01/2017 10:30, pamela wrote:
I wouldn't be seen dead wearing a digital watch.

I can't understand why anyone needs such a thing for normal
everyday living. As timepieces, they look ugly.

Every mechanical watch I have ever owned has broken within a few years.
They've never been accurate to more than a minute or so a week.

I have a digital watch which is accurate to a minute or so a year,
doesn't break whatever I do to it, and is cheap enough that I can throw
it away when the battery dies, or the seals fail.

Mechanical watches are just jewellery.

Andy