"Airy R. Bean" escaped from his straitjacket and wrote in
message ...

You may find that the concept of master oscillators in clocks
to be "a leap beyond" the credible, but that's an OU degree (6
'O' Levels at best) and an M3/CB licence for you.

Your calculations put Brian at least 12 'O' Levels ahead of you. Is that why
you're so jealous of him that you have to use sock puppet anagrams of his
name? Do yourself a favour, get some psychiatric help if it's not too late.
(_!_)

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
WRONG! It was intended as a joke, but from the headers,

Joke? I thought you said the posting was sent to the wrong NG?

Make up your mind please and stick to the lie.

The CB'er etc etc

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
WRONG! It was intended as a joke, but from the headers,

Joke? I thought you said the posting was sent to the wrong NG?

Make up your mind please and stick to the lie.

The CB'er etc etc

Your 5 minutes web search has not revealed the theory
behind the gravity escapement, a form of remontoire,
a means to decouple the pendulum from the going train

The impulse to the pendulum is dependent upon two
locally invariant properties, the acceleration due to
gravity, and the mass of the Impulse Arms
(Dennison/Grimethorpe version) and pendulum.
The pendulum is not impulsed by the (weight driven
not spring driven) Going Train.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
WRONG! Your comments relating to loss of accuracy are
WRONG in your assumption because I am considerng the
use of a gravity escapement.
The underlying problem is the same. Whatever the oscillating element
(balance wheel, pendulum etc) there is a problem with maintaining the
oscillation (by an impetus from the spring or weights via the drive chain)
and using energy from the oscillating element to release the escapement.
The former can be affected by spring tension (hence the use of the fusee
in
older watches, automatic winding in newer ones, and even the relative
success of the cylinder escapement) and the search over many years to
maximise the free swing portion of the oscillation (ie minimising the
energy
taken from the oscillating element to release the escapement.

Your 5 minutes web search has not revealed the theory
behind the gravity escapement, a form of remontoire,
a means to decouple the pendulum from the going train

The impulse to the pendulum is dependent upon two
locally invariant properties, the acceleration due to
gravity, and the mass of the Impulse Arms
(Dennison/Grimethorpe version) and pendulum.
The pendulum is not impulsed by the (weight driven
not spring driven) Going Train.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
WRONG! Your comments relating to loss of accuracy are
WRONG in your assumption because I am considerng the
use of a gravity escapement.
The underlying problem is the same. Whatever the oscillating element
(balance wheel, pendulum etc) there is a problem with maintaining the
oscillation (by an impetus from the spring or weights via the drive chain)
and using energy from the oscillating element to release the escapement.
The former can be affected by spring tension (hence the use of the fusee
in
older watches, automatic winding in newer ones, and even the relative
success of the cylinder escapement) and the search over many years to
maximise the free swing portion of the oscillation (ie minimising the
energy
taken from the oscillating element to release the escapement.

The turnip-brain of the M3/CB licensee and his sneer?

Your shameful support for the gangrenous degeneration that
is the M3/CB licence seems to have you proposing that because
you find fault, in YOUR opinion, with the technical viewpoint of those
who aspire to be _REAL_ Radio Hams, then that is full
justification for admitting the M3/CB licensees with no technical
viewpoint whatsoever. If that is your argument, then I disagree with you.

The _REAL_ Radio Ham will discuss technical issues, for example,
the dB, but the turnip brained will sneer at the age of a text-book without
actually citing or quoting the international conference in which his
falsely-believed redefinition took place.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
WRONG! It was intended as a joke,
Yes. Of course.

The turnip-brain of the M3/CB licensee and his sneer?

Your shameful support for the gangrenous degeneration that
is the M3/CB licence seems to have you proposing that because
you find fault, in YOUR opinion, with the technical viewpoint of those
who aspire to be _REAL_ Radio Hams, then that is full
justification for admitting the M3/CB licensees with no technical
viewpoint whatsoever. If that is your argument, then I disagree with you.

The _REAL_ Radio Ham will discuss technical issues, for example,
the dB, but the turnip brained will sneer at the age of a text-book without
actually citing or quoting the international conference in which his
falsely-believed redefinition took place.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
WRONG! It was intended as a joke,
Yes. Of course.

Let us consider each sneer of the turnip-brained M3.....
1. I do not attack M3/CBers. I may defend myself
against the gratuitous insults habitually emitted by such
licensees, but otherwise I speak out against the
gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB license. Such
degeneration is well illustrated in this NG by those having such
a toy licence sneering at all technical matters without
understanding and without discussion. Consider the
remarks quoted below from M3OSN.....
2. The joke did not require any research, I have been for
some time now a clock maker and restorer.
3. Nuclear emissions? Remind me of that one. Did I make
a rare mistake?
4. dB - defined as the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of
two powers. I have been consistent in my assertion of this. There
has never been any error on my part, save for when I repeated
someone else's figures without checking them.
5. DSP - You sneered (as does a turnip-brained M3/CBer) at my
tentative proposal of "Big K", but were incapable of answering
my challenge to your sneer.
6. The time of owning an 830 did not coincide with the phase in
my life when I experienced a severe loss of self confidence. I explained
the typo in this respect; an intelligent person with the gentlemanly
traditions
of Ham Radio would have taken this on, but someone with the turnip-brain
of an M3/CBer would just carry on sneering regardless.
7. Slope Detection - I was discussing the use of 25kHz channel-spacing, Xtal
controlled ex-PMR gear to receive NBFM. My assertion was that the wide
bandwidth (remember the Pye hermetically sealed blue boxes?) would result
in no detectable demodulation of an on-channel NBFM signal. Did you
discuss this technically as might be expected from a _REAL_ Radio Ham,
or did you just sneer ignorantly as is to be expected from a turnip-brained
M3/CBer?
8. Next joke? From the above it would seem to be Mr.Reay.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
Yes, it rather looks like he is too upset to attack M3s etc.
No doubt he is off 'reseaching' his next "joke".
What will it be?
"Nuclear Emissions"
"dB"
"DSP"
"Nerves the art of not repairing a TS830"
"Slope Detection"

Let us consider each sneer of the turnip-brained M3.....
1. I do not attack M3/CBers. I may defend myself
against the gratuitous insults habitually emitted by such
licensees, but otherwise I speak out against the
gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB license. Such
degeneration is well illustrated in this NG by those having such
a toy licence sneering at all technical matters without
understanding and without discussion. Consider the
remarks quoted below from M3OSN.....
2. The joke did not require any research, I have been for
some time now a clock maker and restorer.
3. Nuclear emissions? Remind me of that one. Did I make
a rare mistake?
4. dB - defined as the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of
two powers. I have been consistent in my assertion of this. There
has never been any error on my part, save for when I repeated
someone else's figures without checking them.
5. DSP - You sneered (as does a turnip-brained M3/CBer) at my
tentative proposal of "Big K", but were incapable of answering
my challenge to your sneer.
6. The time of owning an 830 did not coincide with the phase in
my life when I experienced a severe loss of self confidence. I explained
the typo in this respect; an intelligent person with the gentlemanly
traditions
of Ham Radio would have taken this on, but someone with the turnip-brain
of an M3/CBer would just carry on sneering regardless.
7. Slope Detection - I was discussing the use of 25kHz channel-spacing, Xtal
controlled ex-PMR gear to receive NBFM. My assertion was that the wide
bandwidth (remember the Pye hermetically sealed blue boxes?) would result
in no detectable demodulation of an on-channel NBFM signal. Did you
discuss this technically as might be expected from a _REAL_ Radio Ham,
or did you just sneer ignorantly as is to be expected from a turnip-brained
M3/CBer?
8. Next joke? From the above it would seem to be Mr.Reay.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
Yes, it rather looks like he is too upset to attack M3s etc.
No doubt he is off 'reseaching' his next "joke".
What will it be?
"Nuclear Emissions"
"dB"
"DSP"
"Nerves the art of not repairing a TS830"
"Slope Detection"

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...

Your 5 minutes web search has not revealed the theory
behind the gravity escapement, a form of remontoire,
a means to decouple the pendulum from the going train


One of the fundamental problems in time pieces is the decoupling of the
escapement from the oscillating element- not from the going train. The issue
is ensuring that the oscillation period is not changed by the two functions
of the escapement a) to provide the impulse b) to allow the going train to
advance at a rate controlled by the oscillator (eg the pendulum). If you
think about it, there is an analogy to Q here. In (a) I include the added
complications of ensuring an impulse largely constant despite variations in
the state of the spring (if used).

Over the years many approaches have been tried - verge, deadbeat, cylinder,
duplex, and (of course) the lever are the ones that spring to mind from my
watch repairing days. I suggest you get hold of deCarl(e)s book on the
escapement- I forget the title as it must be 25 years since I read it.

Incidently, for a 'joke' you seem to be putting in a lot of effort.

The impulse to the pendulum is dependent upon two
locally invariant properties, the acceleration due to
gravity, and the mass of the Impulse Arms
(Dennison/Grimethorpe version) and pendulum.


The pendulum is not impulsed by the (weight driven
not spring driven) Going Train.

Regardless of where the energy comes from, and this is about energy, the
fundamental issues are the same:

1. Getting energy 'into' the pendulum to maintain the oscillation.

2. Minimising the interference of the escapement on the pendulum (or other
timing element) - also an energy matter.
(This could be helped by increasing the 'swing' but that then brings into
play other errors due to pendulum length variation with temperature.)

The above is true regardless of where the energy for the impulse comes from.