If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:50:48 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 02/11/2018 01:52 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! Did I really type "more better." Just a guess, but it probably was originally "more accurate" and I changed the "accurate" to "better," without remembering to delete the "more." Actually "much better". OK, no argument from me. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:38:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 02/11/2018 11:50 AM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital clock is more better. But rarely does any of us need that kind of precision. Ask me what time it is, and if the analog watch on my wrist points to 10:43‚ I'll say "a quarter to eleven." With analog, "to the minute" precision means looking at the clock longer I don't agree. so it makes sense to use approximate when you can. I use approximations because they are usually easy to say, and because they are usually good enough for the person who asked. With digital, one look gives you "to the minute" precision. At least. Some digital clocks (for example the one on my task bar) give you "to the second" precision. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 02/12/2018 11:09 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 02/12/2018 10:45 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 02/11/2018 12:28 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: [snip] About 1980 I purchased an Apple 2+ it came loaded wit 16K of ram,Yes 16K. I didn't get a computer until 1982 and it was a Commodore VIC-20 with 5K RAM. However, later I did add a 24K expansion. BTW, I wrote a BASIC expansion that fit in 8K. I got a lot in there. I used to enter programs from various Apple magazines on the keyboard, some were in basic and some were in machine language. one day a magazine had a machine language program for an Analog clock, But it required 24K of memory, I only had 16K. I wonder how much memory a digital clock would take. Probably a lot less. What to do? I agonized over it for a few days as I REALLY wanted that clock. So finally I went and bought the extra 8 1K chips I needed for $360.00 cdn, Well I got my clock and to this day I wear an analog wris****ch and have an analog clock hanging in the living room. :-) Rene We can still get the voice broadcasts of WWV and WWVH/nist on shortwave radio https://tf.nist.gov/stations/iform.html Rene Timepieces are really *necessary* couldn't live without one' Ferinstance I just did a series of time checks on my PC with these results. Boot time to desktop 56 seconds time to awake from sleep 3 seconds Time to shutdown 6 seconds Now I can spend the rest of the day knowing that the universe in general is running as it should. :-) Rene |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 2/12/2018 11:18 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/11/2018 11:19 AM, Paul wrote: Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: On 11/2/2018 23:31, Peter Percival wrote: In the lower right-hand corner of my screen is the time and date.* When I left click on it I see a calender and a digital clock.* Under Win7, I used to see an analogue clock.* How under Win10 can I get an analogue clock? Out of CURIOSITY: why do you want an analogue clock when a digital clock spells all information precisely? You don't need to judge the positions of two hands as in an traditional analog clock! Just out of curiosity... Look at the subtle shading in that clock. It's a work of art. http://www.tech-recipes.com/wp-conte...2-42-03-PM.png An analog clock implementation allows you to judge the "RT" capabilities of the OS better. So you can tell whether your OS is a slouch or not. That analog clock display should be "as smooth as can be". And you can see it jumps and jitters quite a bit. Yes, that is one reason for using an analog clock. When I was testing the one on my website, I noticed a big difference is smoothness between different computers and browsers. I have an option for "smooth seconds" which updates the screen every refresh interval (often 60Hz), so the second hand should move smoothly. Most of the time I do prefer the digital. Analog sort of has an advantage for approximate time, but I find that advantage is canceled out by the extra work of reading it (hand positions). It's faster and easier to read digital and convert to approximate mentally. Ah the fun of clocks and mental gymnastics! Not saying that I'm, like, real old or anything, but the clocks in my primary weren't just analog but the numbers were Roman numerals. :-) ...snip... *** Paul == -- Later... Ron C -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/11/2018 12:28 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: [snip] About 1980 I purchased an Apple 2+ it came loaded wit 16K of ram,Yes 16K. I didn't get a computer until 1982 and it was a Commodore VIC-20 with 5K RAM. However, later I did add a 24K expansion. BTW, I wrote a BASIC expansion that fit in 8K. I got a lot in there. I used to enter programs from various Apple magazines on the keyboard, some were in basic and some were in machine language. one day a magazine had a machine language program for an Analog clock, But it required 24K of memory, I only had 16K. I wonder how much memory a digital clock would take. Probably a lot less. In the old days, there were different tradeoffs. Making an analog watch hand might be nasty, if you needed to do sin() or cos(). So you might use pre-computed tables, pre-computed bitmaps, and so on, so that the CPU doesn't have to work as hard at runtime. When I wrote an electric organ to run on a CPU without a lot of horsepower, I precomputed a sine wave table, and interpolated to get the values I needed (standard practice back then). Because the integer math used was "cheaper" than just writing sin(kt) in some code, and making the CPU grunt to do it. I could imagine that 24KB of code, being mostly quadrants of a bitmap clock face. To make drawing the hands easier. You could probably step through the binary with a hex editor, and spot the presence of some sort of "table" as opposed to the more random looking "pure code", to understand what percentage of the program was pre-computed tables. To make a digital clock back in that era, you'd probably keep the digits 0..9 as a "font" stored as bitmaps. Because you might not have any platform routines to do otherwise. Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 2/12/2018 11:29 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/11/2018 11:44 AM, Wolf K wrote: [snip] Most of the time, I don't want to know the time, but how much time is left. Analogue shows that at a glance, and most of the time, one doesn't need to know it to the minute, let alone the second, so digital precision is just annoying overkill. See? I find it a lot easier to start with that "annoying overkill" and mentally convert as appropriate. BTW, I just looked at my digital clock and say "10:21" and really wanted to know not that, but minutes until 11. It was quick, starting with the approximation of 20 after and I already KNOW that means forty until. If I needed it more exact (and I don't this time) I'd notice the one-minute error and make that 39. Estimated times: 1. doing what I just explained: 1 second 2. doing the equivalent on an analog clock: 3 seconds 3. EXPLAINING #1: 1.2 minutes With digital, I spend much less time looking at the clock. (PS: Related: The reason I use both imperial and metric units is that they are suited to different scales.) I spend a lot more time searching for my reading glasses so I can do said ~4 second calculation above. I can read my analog watch without reading glasses. :-) I'm not even going to estimate how long it takes when I'm on the ski lift: Remove goggles, unzip jacket, pull out glasses, put on glasses, look at watch, remove glasses, put in pocket, zip up, goggles back on. :-) [YMMV] == -- Later... Ron C -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/11/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Percival wrote: Ken Blake wrote: If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital clock is more better. How come? There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't be wrong. Sorry, I used the wrong work there. It should be "precision". However, some clocks are now controlled by internet or radio, and are more accurate. The radio are really the best, because you never have to adjust them. All they need is a source of power, and they don't need a 60Hz reference to keep time. The radio that does that, is at low frequency, like 60KHz. The frequency used, varies with country or locale. (And this is not GPS either. This works even if GPS was knocked out. The reason for not using GPS, is the GPS constellation might not be receive-able inside your house. 60KHz penetrates buildings a lot better.) You may not get a usable signal during the entire 24 hour day, but in good circumstances, your "radio clock" is synced at least once a day. Even if your clock has a 100ppm xtal, it doesn't matter, because the radio sync will bring it back to where it should be. You don't have to have an atomic clock in the box. The antennas used, come two ways. You can use a wire loop with huge dimensions (i.e. you'd better be on a farm). However, using ferrite rods, you can make a compact design that is just as good. The one pictured here, might have been removed from the back of a commercial wall clock. That's to give an idea of how big a non-hobbyist one is. https://electronics.stackexchange.co...-wwvb-receiver The Russians make the best ferrite rods for this. Ferrites are available in a number of compositions, and I don't think there's much commercial interest in making the rods for this application. But I've seen hobbyists who claim some Russian-sourced rods worked well. I've seen some designs, that have multiple ferrite rods with the wire wrapped around the whole bundle. This is one of those niche hobbyist activities (if you want to build your own, rather than buy one). I think most people who dabble in this, they want the sync info to be available all day, and that's why they want their design to be more sensitive than a store-bought one. If the central transmitter goes down, then no more sync for you. You're on your own then. An EMP could easily knock out such a site. Or government cutbacks. You can also buy the pre-built ones if you want. But you'll need something to decode the serial output and actually use it. You know, the rest of your "clock" :-) https://www.ebay.com/p/3-Pcs-WWVB-60...38#UserReviews Paul |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 02/12/2018 1:25 PM, Paul wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote: On 02/11/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Percival wrote: Ken Blake wrote: If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital clock is more better. How come?Â* There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't be wrong. Sorry, I used the wrong work there. It should be "precision". However, some clocks are now controlled by internet or radio, and are more accurate. The radio are really the best, because you never have to adjust them. All they need is a source of power, and they don't need a 60Hz reference to keep time. The radio that does that, is at low frequency, like 60KHz. The frequency used, varies with country or locale. (And this is not GPS either. This works even if GPS was knocked out. The reason for not using GPS, is the GPS constellation might not be receive-able inside your house. 60KHz penetrates buildings a lot better.) You may not get a usable signal during the entire 24 hour day, but in good circumstances, your "radio clock" is synced at least once a day. Even if your clock has a 100ppm xtal, it doesn't matter, because the radio sync will bring it back to where it should be. You don't have to have an atomic clock in the box. The antennas used, come two ways. You can use a wire loop with huge dimensions (i.e. you'd better be on a farm). However, using ferrite rods, you can make a compact design that is just as good. The one pictured here, might have been removed from the back of a commercial wall clock. That's to give an idea of how big a non-hobbyist one is. https://electronics.stackexchange.co...-wwvb-receiver The Russians make the best ferrite rods for this. Ferrites are available in a number of compositions, and I don't think there's much commercial interest in making the rods for this application. But I've seen hobbyists who claim some Russian-sourced rods worked well. I've seen some designs, that have multiple ferrite rods with the wire wrapped around the whole bundle. This is one of those niche hobbyist activities (if you want to build your own, rather than buy one). I think most people who dabble in this, they want the sync info to be available all day, and that's why they want their design to be more sensitive than a store-bought one. If the central transmitter goes down, then no more sync for you. You're on your own then. An EMP could easily knock out such a site. Or government cutbacks. You can also buy the pre-built ones if you want. But you'll need something to decode the serial output and actually use it. You know, the rest of your "clock" :-) https://www.ebay.com/p/3-Pcs-WWVB-60...38#UserReviews Â*Â* Paul My La Crosse weather forecast station has a built in one tuned to WWVB, If I want to set all the other clocks in the house this is the reference I use. Rene |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
Peter Percival wrote:
Ken Blake wrote: If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital clock is more better. How come?Â* There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't meant digit*al* sorry be wrong. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 12/2/2018 01:49, Peter Percival wrote: It is a matter of taste and not subject to rational explanation. Also a good excuse, It wasn't meant to be an excuse. "I prefer analogue clocks to digital ones" is a statement of taste just as is "I prefer green socks to red ones" and is no more subject to rational explanation. though not strong enough. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 02/12/2018 1:25 PM, Paul wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: On 02/11/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Percival wrote: Ken Blake wrote: If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital clock is more better. How come? There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't be wrong. Sorry, I used the wrong work there. It should be "precision". However, some clocks are now controlled by internet or radio, and are more accurate. The radio are really the best, because you never have to adjust them. All they need is a source of power, and they don't need a 60Hz reference to keep time. The radio that does that, is at low frequency, like 60KHz. The frequency used, varies with country or locale. (And this is not GPS either. This works even if GPS was knocked out. The reason for not using GPS, is the GPS constellation might not be receive-able inside your house. 60KHz penetrates buildings a lot better.) You may not get a usable signal during the entire 24 hour day, but in good circumstances, your "radio clock" is synced at least once a day. Even if your clock has a 100ppm xtal, it doesn't matter, because the radio sync will bring it back to where it should be. You don't have to have an atomic clock in the box. The antennas used, come two ways. You can use a wire loop with huge dimensions (i.e. you'd better be on a farm). However, using ferrite rods, you can make a compact design that is just as good. The one pictured here, might have been removed from the back of a commercial wall clock. That's to give an idea of how big a non-hobbyist one is. https://electronics.stackexchange.co...-wwvb-receiver The Russians make the best ferrite rods for this. Ferrites are available in a number of compositions, and I don't think there's much commercial interest in making the rods for this application. But I've seen hobbyists who claim some Russian-sourced rods worked well. I've seen some designs, that have multiple ferrite rods with the wire wrapped around the whole bundle. This is one of those niche hobbyist activities (if you want to build your own, rather than buy one). I think most people who dabble in this, they want the sync info to be available all day, and that's why they want their design to be more sensitive than a store-bought one. If the central transmitter goes down, then no more sync for you. You're on your own then. An EMP could easily knock out such a site. Or government cutbacks. You can also buy the pre-built ones if you want. But you'll need something to decode the serial output and actually use it. You know, the rest of your "clock" :-) https://www.ebay.com/p/3-Pcs-WWVB-60...38#UserReviews Paul My La Crosse weather forecast station has a built in one tuned to WWVB, If I want to set all the other clocks in the house this is the reference I use. Rene Does it have a LED that indicates when the 60KHz carrier is present ? There is a coverage map for the USA, and the signal strength contours change with time of day. Paul |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 02/12/2018 11:53 AM, Ron C wrote:
[snip] Ah the fun of clocks and mental gymnastics! Not saying that I'm, like, real old or anything, but the clocks in my primary weren't just analog but the numbers were Roman numerals. :-) IIRC, a lot of analog clocks use Roman numerals. Do you remember if 4 was IV or IIII? * ...snip... *** Paul == -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic." [Thomas Szasz] |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
Peter Percival wrote:
Peter Percival wrote: Ken Blake wrote: If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital clock is more better. How come? There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't meant digit*al* sorry be wrong. They even make digit ones. http://www.electronixandmore.com/pro...ock/index.html That clock, the LED indicates which digit, the digit is showing at the moment. So it's a multiplexed clock using a single position of readout. ******* I really like the VFD tubes and as a kid I made my own clock with those for readouts. I think the VFD were easier to get than Nixie tubes, and a bit more practical. I got years of use from it. The only mistake I made, is the copper tracks on the PCB weren't plated, and the copper corroded on me, chewing the tracks to bits. In university, we used to silver plate the copper, as one form of protection. And in a real PCB shop, there are other techniques you can use to protect the copper. But mine is ruined now, and that's the end of that. For the analog guys out there, they even make a VFD analog clock. I've never seen a display like that one. It must be fun figuring out a filament scheme to do that. VFD tubes have filaments, but the filament wires don't have to "glow" for the thing to work. The filament current can be a lot lower than old vacuum tube table radios. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Analog-styl...-/141587914193 Another neat thing about VFDs, is they're magnetic field sensitive. If you hold a permanent magnet near a VFD, you can cause the flow of electrons to be pulled to the side, and it changes the appearance of the segments a bit. Paul |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 02/12/2018 12:15 PM, Ron C wrote:
[snip] I spend a lot more time searching for my reading glasses so I can do said ~4 second calculation above. I can read my analog watch without reading glasses. :-) OK. There are some situations where analog is better. I'm not even going to estimate how long it takes when I'm on the ski lift: Remove goggles, unzip jacket, pull out glasses, put on glasses, look at watch, remove glasses, put in pocket, zip up, goggles back on. :-) [YMMV] == -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic." [Thomas Szasz] |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Clock
On 02/12/2018 01:54 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
[snip] My La Crosse weather forecast station has a built in one tuned to WWVB, If I want to set all the other clocks in the house this is the reference I use. I've been using a cell phone. It is a portable device that gets the time automatically. Usually it (setting all the clocks) isn't when I want to it's that &*$%! DST. Rene -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic." [Thomas Szasz] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|