4 ms·
The main thing I want from a watch is accurate time. This doesn't appear to have any sort of synchronization feature. Casio does make a variety of watches tha
by p1mrx 3y ago
The main thing I want from a watch is accurate time. This doesn't appear to have any sort of synchronization feature.
Casio does make a variety of watches that receive WWVB and similar time broadcasts.
- mewse-hn 3y agoYep. I tried to go down the wristwatch rabbit hole with a mechanical Seiko but it kept atrocious time. I suppose I could take it to an expert to get regulated but it would still drift. The casio watches with "waveceptor" / "atomic" radio sync are my favourites now, the feature has become a dealbreaker for me.
- porkbeer 3y agoI thought tgey were shutting down that signal...
- mewse-hn 3y agoI haven't heard anything about that. Wikipedia says defunding was proposed in 2019 but rescinded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB WWVB, along with NIST's shortwave time code-and-announcement stations WWV and WWVH, were proposed for defunding and elimination in the 2019 NIST budget.[6] However, the final 2019 NIST budget preserved funding for the three stations.[7]
- qbasic_forever 3y agoAs long as the watch time doesn't drift drastically, does it really matter? Set it once from your atomic source and it will be fine for seconds accuracy. It's not like you're going to be doing the timing for the LIGO experiment or similar with this watch. But to directly answer your question, since this board exposes some GPIO and digital buses there's no reason you couldn't built a GPS receiver add on that reads the atomic time from GPS satellite signals and sets the watch time. It would be extra bulk and battery drain of course.
- p1mrx 3y agoI've lived with a computer and a watch that beep on the hour for the last 20 years or so. I guess it doesn't actually matter, but I feel obligated to investigate when they're not in sync.