Time synch

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of
    latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two
    together again, and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have
    a question I guess, unless you know an explanation for this.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Dogpoop Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:
    > A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    > synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    > nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    > computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    > the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of
    > latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two
    > together again, and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have
    > a question I guess, unless you know an explanation for this.


    They know you're watching.

    --
    Dogpoop

    Stand by me.
    Dogpoop, Aug 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2007-08-23, Rôgêr <> wrote:
    > A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    > synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    > nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    > computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    > the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of
    > latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two
    > together again, and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have
    > a question I guess, unless you know an explanation for this.


    Unscrupulous factory owners used to push the factory clock forwards in the
    morning and then set it to run slow during the working day, so as to
    squeeze more work out of the workers without paying extra. Workers were
    of course forbidden to own clocks or watches of their own.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    Whiskers, Aug 23, 2007
    #3
  4. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Mike Easter Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:
    > A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    > synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    > nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near
    > the computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal
    > from the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large
    > degree of latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just
    > checked the two together again, and they only disagree by about 8
    > seconds. I don't have a question I guess, unless you know an
    > explanation for this.


    Long story with a bottom line. Scoot to the end if all you want is my
    theory.

    I have an 'atomic clock' which has an additional function of giving me
    an outside temperature reading.

    In order to do its outside temperature reporting, it has to be within
    'range' of the outside temperature sensor/transmitter. When it can't
    get that temperature radio signal, the outside temperature reading is
    'blanked'. But the time display doesn't work like that.

    On my atomic clock, it expects to be able to access the time information
    from the satellite in the eastern sky when it is best received at the
    early hours of the morning before dawn, so it needs to have an
    'unobstructed' radio frequency portal to that sky for time adjustments.
    But the time display shows the time all the time, whether the clock has
    received a signal recently or not. But there is a difference in the
    display regarding recent time setting update.

    When the signal has been 'synched' within the last 24 hours, there is a
    little beacon displayed. When the signal has not been synched recently,
    the beacon doesn't display. Sometimes I have to temporarily move the
    clock to give it a eastern sky window exposure so that it can get its
    signal to set its time appropriately. There is another or 3rd type
    display which shows the beacon icon blinking instead of absent or
    present. That is when it is 'wanting' the radio signal.

    I also have a NIST time client on my computer. The utility can be
    configured for which server to use and whether or not to 'fudge' some
    fractions of a second for any delay of the signal to me. When my NIST
    time is set and my atomic clock is set they are not anything like 8
    seconds difference. They are 'exactly' the same time.

    I suspect that your atomic clock is not getting its signal regularly and
    maybe it doesn't have a display to tell you that it isn't.

    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Aug 23, 2007
    #4
  5. Whiskers wrote:
    > On 2007-08-23, Rôgêr <> wrote:
    >> A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    >> synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    >> nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    >> computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    >> the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of
    >> latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two
    >> together again, and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have
    >> a question I guess, unless you know an explanation for this.

    >
    > Unscrupulous factory owners used to push the factory clock forwards in the
    > morning and then set it to run slow during the working day, so as to
    > squeeze more work out of the workers without paying extra. Workers were
    > of course forbidden to own clocks or watches of their own.


    I think I used to work for one of them. I was making tennis shoes in
    China at the time.
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 23, 2007
    #5
  6. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2007-08-23, Mike Easter <> wrote:

    [...]

    > On my atomic clock, it expects to be able to access the time information
    > from the satellite in the eastern sky when it is best received at the
    > early hours of the morning before dawn, so it needs to have an
    > 'unobstructed' radio frequency portal to that sky for time adjustments.
    > But the time display shows the time all the time, whether the clock has
    > received a signal recently or not.


    My 'radio controlled' clock uses a terrestrial long-wave time service (the
    British one), and checks once an hour. Europe is well covered by such
    signals, but for other parts of the world I can see that using eg the GPS
    satellites would be more practical.

    > But there is a difference in the
    > display regarding recent time setting update.


    That's a feature my radio-controlled clock lacks - but it does have a
    'reset' button which sets the hands to 1200 and then gets a new
    time-check.

    I also have a radio-controlled wrist-watch that tunes in once a day to a
    long-wave signal from Germany; that does have a means of confirming
    whether or not it has managed to get a time-check recently.

    (Both were made by Junghans).

    It's fun to watch the hands whizzing round when the clocks go forward or
    back :))

    [...]

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    Whiskers, Aug 23, 2007
    #6
  7. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Mike Easter Guest

    Whiskers wrote:
    > Mike Easter


    >> On my atomic clock, it expects to be able to access the time
    >> information from the satellite in the eastern sky


    Due to your comments I doublechecekd. On further research, it turns out
    this is 'a lie' -- ie I was wrong/mistaken about what I was receiving
    from in the eastern sky. See below. <in each instance, what follows
    the link was snipped from the article there>

    >> when it is best
    >> received at the early hours of the morning before dawn, so it needs
    >> to have an 'unobstructed' radio frequency portal to that sky for
    >> time adjustments.


    That part is correct. The best radio transmission is 'in the dark' --
    when it is dark at both the source of the radio signal and the source of
    the receiver. The radio signal is actually WWVB being broadcast from
    Fort Collins, CO US.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB WWVB is a special NIST time signal
    radio station near Fort Collins, Colorado, co-located with WWV. WWVB is
    the station that radio-controlled clocks throughout North America use to
    synchronize themselves. The signal transmitted from WWVB is a continuous
    60 kHz carrier wave, derived from a set of atomic clocks located at the
    transmitter site. [...] There are two identical antennas [...] used to
    radiate the WWVB signal. Both antennas are 122 meters tall, and their
    centers are separated by 857 meters.

    > My 'radio controlled' clock uses a terrestrial long-wave time service
    > (the British one), and checks once an hour. Europe is well covered
    > by such signals, but for other parts of the world I can see that
    > using eg the GPS satellites would be more practical.


    I didn't realize before now that y'all did that differently.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock Atomic clock -- Radio
    clocks - There are a number of longwave radio transmitters around the
    world - in particular DCF77 (Germany), HPG (Switzerland), JJY (Japan),
    NPL or MSF (United Kingdom), TDF (France), WWVB (United States). Many
    other countries can receive these signals (JJY can sometimes be received
    even in Western Australia and Tasmania at night), but it depends on time
    of day and atmospheric conditions. There is also a transit delay of
    approximately 1 ms for every 300 km the receiver is from the
    transmitter. When operating properly and when correctly synchronized,
    better brands of radio clocks are normally accurate to the second.

    > I also have a radio-controlled wrist-watch that tunes in once a day
    > to a long-wave signal from Germany; that does have a means of
    > confirming whether or not it has managed to get a time-check recently.


    I set my digital wristwatch manually to a second periodically from the
    NIST from the computer or from the 'atomic' radio clock. Also, when I'm
    adjusting the minute hand and winding my pendulum clock I 'think about'
    how much different timekeeping was in the days of the pendulum clocks
    compared to the days of NIST clients and atomic radio clocks/watches.

    > It's fun to watch the hands whizzing round when the clocks go forward
    > or back :))


    Heh.

    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Aug 23, 2007
    #7
  8. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Stickems. Guest

    Your atomic clock is correct. The NASA server is slow due to it having to
    pass the signal through the Internet. If you were to compare, as I have
    done, the time signals received with the BBC news on the radio and on the
    Internet you will find that there is a delay of about 14 seconds on the
    Internet. This delay varies, I suppose, according to how busy the Internet
    is.


    "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    |A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    | synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    | nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    | computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    | the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of
    | latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two
    | together again, and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have
    | a question I guess, unless you know an explanation for this.
    Stickems., Aug 23, 2007
    #8
  9. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    why? Guest

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:25:09 GMT, Stickems. wrote:

    >Your atomic clock is correct. The NASA server is slow due to it having to
    >pass the signal through the Internet. If you were to compare, as I have


    I would hope any fairly good time sync software on the PC would take
    care of that if the source is sending,

    reference, originate and transmit time stamps.

    >done, the time signals received with the BBC news on the radio and on the
    >Internet you will find that there is a delay of about 14 seconds on the
    >Internet. This delay varies, I suppose, according to how busy the Internet
    >is.
    >
    >
    >"Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >|A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    >| synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    >| nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    >| computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    >| the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of
    >| latitude of accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two
    >| together again, and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have
    >| a question I guess, unless you know an explanation for this.
    >


    Me
    why?, Aug 23, 2007
    #9
  10. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Chris Syn Guest

    reformat and reinstall..opps

    "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to synch
    >time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was nearly two
    >minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the computer
    >desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from the U.S.
    >defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of latitude of
    >accuracy. But just now, 5AM here, I just checked the two together again,
    >and they only disagree by about 8 seconds. I don't have a question I guess,
    >unless you know an explanation for this.
    Chris Syn, Aug 23, 2007
    #10
  11. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Plato Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:
    >
    > A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    > synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    > nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    > computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    > the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of


    darnit i hope you dont launch any nukes :)
    Plato, Aug 24, 2007
    #11
  12. Plato wrote:
    > Rôgêr wrote:
    >> A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    >> synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    >> nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    >> computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    >> the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of

    >
    > darnit i hope you dont launch any nukes :)


    I have a nuclear clock on it's way to NJ right now. It should land
    within the next 48-96 hours.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 24, 2007
    #12
  13. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Plato Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:
    >
    > >> A few days ago there were some posts regarding which server to use to
    > >> synch time and I tried the NASA server. Worked fine, except it was
    > >> nearly two minutes off from one of those "atomic clocks" I keep near the
    > >> computer desk. I know it's not atomic, it picks up a radio signal from
    > >> the U.S. defense system. But still, two minutes is a large degree of

    > >
    > > darnit i hope you dont launch any nukes :)

    >
    > I have a nuclear clock on it's way to NJ right now. It should land
    > within the next 48-96 hours.


    Iv'e been using:

    64.236.96.53 for over five years and it's been perfectly accurate.
    Plato, Aug 25, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. eddi rox

    Palm synch with Outlook on TS

    eddi rox, Sep 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    403
  2. Keyboard Cowboy

    Palm synch with Outlook on TS

    Keyboard Cowboy, Sep 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    618
    Laura A. Robinson
    Sep 25, 2004
  3. Windows 2000 time synch on startup

    , Feb 14, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,012
    Blinky the Shark
    Feb 14, 2005
  4. Colin

    Re: Internet time synch failure

    Colin, May 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,566
    Rod Speed
    May 25, 2005
  5. Rod Speed

    Internet time synch failure

    Rod Speed, May 23, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    707
    Unknown
    May 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page