Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

Page 1 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 212
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,103

    Cool Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    On Jan 1st 2010 I have decided to start some 'extreme timing tests' (with a computer and a digital camera in movie mode together with one of my older programs slightly adjusted so that it will also display milliseconds) - I was initially thinking only at the new E510/E410 pair but in the end I started with 8 watches and today I had the first 'intermediary test' at around 10 days (actually 9) - I will not give yet detailed numbers, only a few things that I have noted:

    - the tests for 8 watches take a lot more than I initially though - well over one hour if I include both the time to make the movies (around 3 * 8 about 10-20 seconds each, plus some extras when I see that the focus or light was not that good) plus the time to inspect those movies almost frame-by-frame and calculate the most likely interval ... this also places in the right context some of the results I have seen posted on this forum without really understanding the amount of time lost on them (even if the methodology was probably very different on many);

    - this also means that I will probably only do in the future tests at around 2 weeks apart - so as to minimize the time spent yet still have two control points on each month;

    - the 8 watches currently in the test are:
    2 * E510
    1 * E410
    1 * 8F56 (JP 2008)
    1 * 8F33 (US apx2000)
    1 * 9923 (JP 1978)
    1 * 5E31
    1 * 7223 (non-heq from around 1980, but it seems that this is the second 7223 that I own from a total of 5 that is under 3s/month and I was curious on this one since it came only 1.5 months ago back from a full service at my watchmaker - which apparently did a great job);

    - the results on 9 days seem to be in line with what I was expecting;

    - the more interesting part of the test is that each month another group of watches 'sleeps' on my warm WiFi router (very close to wearing the watch all the time) - in January I decided to keep there the 8F56 and the initial E510 titanium, with the new steel pair E510/E410 going next on February, most likely together with the twin quartz which I might be tempted to adjust after that !

    Small update - here is the procedure using:

    a) a fast (>1 GHz) PC connected to the internet on a decent connection and synchronized to one of the major internet time servers just before the tests (this probably provides better than 10 milliseconds errors on the time on the computer - I use AboutTime);

    b) a decent 'watch program' on the computer that will display the time including some fractions of a second in a very careful way (so as to always have very constant and small delays); unfortunately none of the major operating systems around are not even soft-realtime but I have modified one of my own programs on Windows and I believe the errors are in the same 10-20 ms interval and more important - very constant;

    c) a decent (LCD) display with 60Hz refresh rate or better; the newer 120 Hz (some of which are also '3D ready') are even better!

    d) a decent camera that can do movies at 25/30 (maybe even 50/60 or 100-200 if you have a 120 Hz monitor) frames/s ; ideally it should also do those movies in 'macro mode'!

    e) a program that can display the movie from the above camera 'frame by frame' (VLC, even BSPlayer).

    With all the above I believe you can easily measure with a precision clearly better than 100 milliseconds (and even down to the actual time for each frame on the monitor) - of course probably nothing better than 10 ms but even at 50-100 ms the results will be more than 10 times better than what we normally get with a 'human eye' ...

    You can also see in a later post below a few frames extracted from one of the movies.

    SECOND UPDATE:

    The program I use can be now found at:

    http://caranfil.org/timing/setup_ear...0_122_beta.exe

    You will note that the 'main window' stays normally hidden and can be shown with either a click on it or just 'hoovering' with the mouse over it (there is a setting to configure that) - normally the milliseconds are not shown,but if on activation either SHIFT or CTRL is pressed the 'millisecond mode' is activated. If both SHIFT and CTRL are pressed the 'seconds beep' mode is also activated. See below a post with pictures from the mini-movies I am using for timing tests.

    All WUS members that want to use it will be offered (when the final version is ready) a registered copy - you only need to use it and send me a private message here!

    ANOTHER UPDATE with links to the pictures of the watches:

    8F56 - http://caranfil.org/tz/R0016809_s.jpg
    Exceeds - http://caranfil.org/tz/R0017434b.jpg
    twinquartz - http://caranfil.org/tz/R0017293c.jpg
    5e31 - http://caranfil.org/tz/R0017165_s.jpg
    8F33 - http://caranfil.org/tz/R0017373c.jpg
    7223 - http://caranfil.org/tz/R0017420d.jpg
    Last edited by Catalin; February 16th, 2010 at 13:09. Reason: UPDATED with quick info on how measurement is done

  2. #2
    Member Mechanikus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    46

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Thanks for sharing your plans.
    I am interested in and waiting for the results.

    Myself keep running my long term tests with with two new players just starting the qualification year:

    http://www.mechanikus.hu/w_TheC.htm

    http://www.mechanikus.hu/w_Ci4M.htm

    Special thanks to ppaulusz to help me possesing Citizen Crystron 4 Mega in excellent condition.
    Last edited by Mechanikus; January 11th, 2010 at 18:51.
    Best regards,
    Mechanikus
    Hidden Content

  3. #3
    Member uktrailmonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    659

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Am I missing something here? If you just synchronise your watches with an atomic clock and check them again a month later, you'll get results accurate to within a few hundredths of a second per day. What more are you hoping to achieve?
    Omega Speedmaster Pro X-33
    Omega Speedmaster Professional
    Omega Speedmaster Date Automatic
    Girard-Perregaux Traveller II
    Glycine Airman 18
    Sturmanskie 3133
    Oris WF1
    Casio G-Shock GW-M5600BC-1ER


    "I started off with nothing and I've still got most of it left"

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster View Post
    Am I missing something here? If you just synchronise your watches with an atomic clock and check them again a month later, you'll get results accurate to within a few hundredths of a second per day. What more are you hoping to achieve?
    Well, first of all it is nice to actually measure those errors and not just assume things

    Second - the more complex method used will probably accelerate the process of measuring the real accuracy with at least one degree of magnitude compared to the 'generic visual' approach - so for instance instead of having to wait for 1-2 years to have some reliable results for the new E510/E410 pair I might get them in two months (including the research on the next point).

    Third - as I have also described at the end of the initial post - I will also have a generic idea on how the precision is actually related to the (average) temperature for wildly different calibers, including a thermocompensated one more than 30 years old (which if possible I would also like to adjust somewhere back to the original performance).

  5. #5
    Member Mechanikus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    46

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster View Post
    Am I missing something here? If you just synchronise your watches with an atomic clock and check them again a month later, you'll get results accurate to within a few hundredths of a second per day. What more are you hoping to achieve?
    I am not sure you are missing something just my focus on accuracy is a bit different than most of others I discuss it.


    I am interested in the long term 'maintainable' accuracy what I can count on for a long time. That is why I consider the standard deviation of daily (mechanical watch) or monthly (quartz watch) deviations.


    That is my primary qualifier of accuracy.


    Obviously as a result I can check the yearly deviations against the manufacturers' specs as well.


    I adore the hunt for microseconds and read the results with interest, but it is not in my focus so I do not put together computerised camera system connected to atomic clock.


    If I had the opportunity I would rather run more HEQ tests in parallel.

    If you are interested in the results of that approach please be my guest on my site.
    Best regards,
    Mechanikus
    Hidden Content

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,254

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechanikus View Post
    I am interested in the long term 'maintainable' accuracy what I can count on for a long time. That is why I consider the standard deviation of daily (mechanical watch) or monthly (quartz watch) deviations.

    That is my primary qualifier of accuracy.
    I must say that I don't get this at all. Could you explain for us--using some empirical data on, say, a quartz watch--how SDs tell us more than do the actual measurements or means of these?

    Let me give you an example of how I'd evaluate long-term accuracy("maintainable" accuracy?). I'd (a) start by setting it to precise atomic time, and then (b) test it against atomic time once a month (or perhaps more frequently), prorating the result to annual time (12 months) each time. Suppose, by doing this, I got the following results--each month's actual deviation prorated to 12 months:

    Month 1: 3.5 sec./year; Month 2: 3.75 sec./year;
    Month 3: 3.25 sec./year; Month 4: 3.63 sec./year;
    Month 5: 3.38 sec./year; Month 6: 3.55 sec./year;
    Month 7: 3.45 sec./year; Month 8: 3.70 sec./year;
    Month 9: 3.30 sec./year; Month 10: 3.65 sec./year;
    Month 11: 3.60 sec./year; Month 12: 3.40 sec./year;

    and, therefore:

    Months 1-12: 3.50 secs. total. (Don't concern yourself with how I got these results; let's just say that I took several measurements at the end of each month and averaged them.)

    The standard deviation values are: (a) .153 (as a parameter) and (b) .160 (as a parameter estimate). To some extent, these SD values can be seen as indexing measurement error (which is inevitable regardless of how carefully measurements are made). However, the actual data points, and their mean or total, are far more important than month-to-month variation in the prorated values. For example, the fact that, in 12 months, this particular watch gained 3.5 seconds is far more important to the accuracy enthusiast than the monthly wobble in prorated values, unless, I suppose, they were phenomenally large, something that we'd never expect from a quartz watch. In quartz watches, time deviations are almost always part of linear function of time. Standard deviation analysis would have to assume that some significant random factors were at work too, and such a random component--at least in my own observations--is generally negligible.
    Vancouver

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,254

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Catalin View Post
    Second - the more complex method used will probably accelerate the process of measuring the real accuracy with at least one degree of magnitude compared to the 'generic visual' approach - so for instance instead of having to wait for 1-2 years to have some reliable results for the new E510/E410 pair I might get them in two months (including the research on the next point).
    Suppose you got results in 2 months using your method. Would you have the same confidence in prorating these to annualized values that you would have in observing the deviation from perfect time after 12 actual months?
    Vancouver

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by South Pender View Post
    Suppose you got results in 2 months using your method. Would you have the same confidence in prorating these to annualized values that you would have in observing the deviation from perfect time after 12 actual months?
    Most likely the confidence interval for predicting next 12 months will not be the same but IMHO will not be a lot different either - and actually if we also consider the fact that in this setup I can probably get some better results on keeping 2-3 watches under more constant conditions over two consecutive single months (than if I would try to keep those conditions unchanged for an entire year) I think that the effort is most likely worth it (I really can't see myself wearing just one watch for 1 year or not wearing some of my favorites for an entire year).

    I also find very interesting the experiment in itself, and I am also VERY curious how precise the initial two months will be able to predict the results that I'll see at the end of one year ...

    Also I would really like to adjust the twin quartz before getting too bored of it
    Last edited by Catalin; January 14th, 2010 at 20:48.

  9. #9
    Member Mechanikus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    46

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by South Pender View Post
    I must say that I don't get this at all. Could you explain for us--using some empirical data on, say, a quartz watch--how SDs tell us more than do the actual measurements or means of these?

    Let me give you an example of how I'd evaluate long-term accuracy("maintainable" accuracy?). I'd (a) start by setting it to precise atomic time, and then (b) test it against atomic time once a month (or perhaps more frequently), prorating the result to annual time (12 months) each time. Suppose, by doing this, I got the following results--each month's actual deviation prorated to 12 months:

    Month 1: 3.5 sec./year; Month 2: 3.75 sec./year;
    Month 3: 3.25 sec./year; Month 4: 3.63 sec./year;
    Month 5: 3.38 sec./year; Month 6: 3.55 sec./year;
    Month 7: 3.45 sec./year; Month 8: 3.70 sec./year;
    Month 9: 3.30 sec./year; Month 10: 3.65 sec./year;
    Month 11: 3.60 sec./year; Month 12: 3.40 sec./year;

    and, therefore:

    Months 1-12: 3.50 secs. total. (Don't concern yourself with how I got these results; let's just say that I took several measurements at the end of each month and averaged them.)

    The standard deviation values are: (a) .153 (as a parameter) and (b) .160 (as a parameter estimate). To some extent, these SD values can be seen as indexing measurement error (which is inevitable regardless of how carefully measurements are made). However, the actual data points, and their mean or total, are far more important than month-to-month variation in the prorated values. For example, the fact that, in 12 months, this particular watch gained 3.5 seconds is far more important to the accuracy enthusiast than the monthly wobble in prorated values, unless, I suppose, they were phenomenally large, something that we'd never expect from a quartz watch. In quartz watches, time deviations are almost always part of linear function of time. Standard deviation analysis would have to assume that some significant random factors were at work too, and such a random component--at least in my own observations--is generally negligible.

    I do not want to 'sell' it that is simply my view and I do not want you to adopt it.
    For details please visit my site:
    http://www.mechanikus.hu/
    Tests menu item.

    Just see the test of 32 tests (one is done by another guy) 919 measurements and the longest run is 7 years.
    The pre-qualification to be admitted to the table is one year.
    If you click on the type of watch you can see the time series of deviations.

    You will see the random effect even in the case of top 10. That is reality.

    If you have time take a look to the tuning fork and mechanical tests as well.
    Best regards,
    Mechanikus
    Hidden Content

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,254

    Re: Quick info on my 2010 timing tests ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechanikus View Post
    I do not want to 'sell' it that is simply my view and I do not want you to adopt it.
    For details please visit my site:
    http://www.mechanikus.hu/
    Tests menu item.

    Just see the test of 32 tests (one is done by another guy) 919 measurements and the longest run is 7 years.
    The pre-qualification to be admitted to the table is one year.
    If you click on the type of watch you can see the time series of deviations.

    You will see the random effect even in the case of top 10. That is reality.

    If you have time take a look to the tuning fork and mechanical tests as well.
    I'd really like to understand your methodology here. When I look at the series of tests with quartz watches, I see two watches at the top of the list (in terms of their standard deviations)--01420 and Longines VHP. For 01420, I see that its monthly average is a loss of 3.89 sec., which would presumably prorate to -46.68 sec./year. In second place, the Longines VHP shows a monthly average of +.50 sec., which prorates to +6.0 seconds per year.

    As for the Monthly Standard Deviation values (.465 for 01420 and .503 for Longines VHP), are these the standard deviations of the monthly values over the period of the test (36 months for 01420 and 84 months for Longines VHP)? That is, do you have 36 monthly deviations from perfect time for the 01420 and take both the mean of these and the standard deviation for your reported values?

    The graph and table seem to indicate that by your standards, you'd consider 01420 superior in accuracy to Longines VHP. Is this correct?
    Vancouver

Page 1 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

LinkBacks (?)

  1. September 6th, 2011, 18:14

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •