Simon Mason wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
A friend was given a clock that syncronizes itself to the 60kHz time
signal broadcasts. I know there are stations in the US (WWV?) and one in
Germany. The clock cannot receive either here in Israel.


The time signal here in the UK uses 60 kHz (MSF Rugby) which I have picked
up in N. Italy on my clock. My wrist watch is updated by DCF 77 in Germany
on 77 kHz.

From this list it seems MSF is the only one in range.

• Rugby, UK (MSF) 60kHz, 15kW
• Mainflingen, Germany, (DCF77) 77.5kHz, 50kW
• Colorado, USA, (WWVB) 60kHz, 50kW
• Fukushima, Japan, (JJY) 40/60kHz, 10kW
• Kyushu, Japan, (JYY) 60kHz, 10kW

Can you pick up BBC Radio 4 on 198 kHz at night (say 0300 UTC)? If so, you
*might* be able to receive Rugby.

What's the problem? Tune in any one of the available frequency and time
standards around the world and set your clock.

I've never used a 'synchronous clock', seems like a waste of money.

If you've a need for absolutely precise time you'd be better off using some
other, better method than one of those clocks.

dxAce

I can't imagine anyone really needing a continually synchronizing clock. But
need is never a reason not to buy something cool.

I should know... in the past year, I've bought three of those clocks myself.
Why? Why not? It's cool to listen to WWV on one of my radios and watch my
clocks tick exactly in sync with the radio. It's kind of like my clock make
the radio beep.

A true gadget freak can NEVER have enough gadgets.

"lsmyer" ) writes:
I can't imagine anyone really needing a continually synchronizing clock. But
need is never a reason not to buy something cool.

When they hit the thirty dollar level here, I was tempted and kept putting it
off. I don't have a need for such "absolute" time. But then when one went
on sale for twenty dollars back in February, I bought one. It is indeed
a neat gadget.

It turns out to be a nice portable clock, at the very least, and as cheap as
many non-"atomic". But I do find it useful to know that this is the time, and
it is still set with the standard. While I still say such clocks have
now become common simply because we have clocks everywhere (compared
to years ago when there were only a couple in a house), none of which get
set to the exact same time and then drift a tad, it is useful to have
a standard so one can set the rest of the clocks.

Michael

I should know... in the past year, I've bought three of those clocks myself.
Why? Why not? It's cool to listen to WWV on one of my radios and watch my
clocks tick exactly in sync with the radio. It's kind of like my clock make
the radio beep.

A true gadget freak can NEVER have enough gadgets.

"lsmyer" wrote

I can't imagine anyone really needing a continually synchronizing clock.
But
need is never a reason not to buy something cool.

I should know... in the past year, I've bought three of those clocks
myself.
Why? Why not? It's cool to listen to WWV on one of my radios and watch my
clocks tick exactly in sync with the radio. It's kind of like my clock
make
the radio beep.

A true gadget freak can NEVER have enough gadgets.


Syncronization is a requirement for communications systems receiving inputs
from multiple sources. Besides the requirement for accuracy in logging, one
such syncronized system compares the inputs from several Rescue Coordination
Center and coastal station feeds, takes the check-sums with the fewest
errors and feeds the best signal back to the whole system, writing the
information to all stations. Only when all stations send exact timestamps
can the comparators perform correctly. This is how Global Marine Distress
Safety System inputs are compared at the Global Station, New Zealand.
Microsoft computer clocks are hopelssly innacurate for such connection, and
programs such as Dimension 4 (free) update your computer clock as often as
you require. Every 15min it makes significant adjustments to mine, running
minimized you never know it's there. Download at:

http://www.thinkman.com/dimension4/

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
What's the problem? Tune in any one of the available frequency and time
standards around the world and set your clock.

I've never used a 'synchronous clock', seems like a waste of money.

Spending hundreds of dollars on a Rolex is a waste of money ;-)

I've one of these watches and it's worth the money to have a timepiece that
never needs correcting, especially for a DXer waiting for a station to come
up on the hour.

http://www.casio-europe.com/euro/watch/waveceptor/

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Simon Mason wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
What's the problem? Tune in any one of the available frequency and time
standards around the world and set your clock.

I've never used a 'synchronous clock', seems like a waste of money.

Spending hundreds of dollars on a Rolex is a waste of money ;-)

I've one of these watches and it's worth the money to have a timepiece that
never needs correcting, especially for a DXer waiting for a station to come
up on the hour.

http://www.casio-europe.com/euro/watch/waveceptor/

But is that critical if one is waiting for the station to come up? I set my
clocks here around once a month, never had a problem, and I've certainly done my
share of DX'ing.

Rolex's are nice.

dxAce

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Spending hundreds of dollars on a Rolex is a waste of money ;-)


Hundreds of dollars would be fine if it were a real Rolex for that money.
Usually costs a few thousand for a stainless steel one.

Mark.

Mark wrote:

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Spending hundreds of dollars on a Rolex is a waste of money ;-)


Hundreds of dollars would be fine if it were a real Rolex for that money.
Usually costs a few thousand for a stainless steel one.

Ahhhh... the good 'ol days when I was in the Navy. The ships store often had
various Rolex in stock. One could buy a Submariner for around $475 dollars or
so. GMT Masters were a bit less as I recall.

dxAce

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Mark wrote:

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Spending hundreds of dollars on a Rolex is a waste of money ;-)


Hundreds of dollars would be fine if it were a real Rolex for that money.
Usually costs a few thousand for a stainless steel one.

Ahhhh... the good 'ol days when I was in the Navy. The ships store often
had
various Rolex in stock. One could buy a Submariner for around $475 dollars
or
so. GMT Masters were a bit less as I recall.

Yeah but my Casio Waveceptor is more accurate than any Rolex :-)

Simon M.

Simon Mason wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Mark wrote:

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Spending hundreds of dollars on a Rolex is a waste of money ;-)


Hundreds of dollars would be fine if it were a real Rolex for that money.
Usually costs a few thousand for a stainless steel one.

Ahhhh... the good 'ol days when I was in the Navy. The ships store often
had
various Rolex in stock. One could buy a Submariner for around $475 dollars
or
so. GMT Masters were a bit less as I recall.

Yeah but my Casio Waveceptor is more accurate than any Rolex :-)

That may be true, but not everyone can afford a Rolex, that's part of the
mystique, and the watch of spies.

dxAce