Yes, we have radio controlled clocks. Unfortunately they use a different time signal at a different frequency (DCF77.) There are clocks that can handle different time signals but as I understand it, those are the exception.
I see your point. Even though your watch would reset to any time zone, you almost need the manual handy.
One thing I like about a watch is the ability to check the time surreptitiously, without seeming time-conscious. A good conversation is a delicate thing which can easily be derailed by many things, time-checking for one. Yet sometimes you simply must do it. A watch is the only thing that works 100% in that situation.
Well, my curiousity obout “why haven’t atomic watches ‘taken over’,” has been satisfied. Responses tend to mention (1) there is no need for such absolute accuracy in a watch, and (1a) watches are accurate enough already.
Also, (2) there are alternate sources of accurate time, especially phones. (3) At least three posts were appalled at $32 for a watch, no matter what the technology, and all three mentioned $5 as the highest price they would consider.
In addition, (4) watches in general are falling out of use among the young. I thought I noticed an undercurrent of hostility to watches – especially radio controlled – and it surfaced in Post 25 with absolute strings of exclamation points and “dumb” and “unnecessary” in italics. I was anxious to reach the end of that Post, ‘chappachula’s’, to see his/her recommendation, thinking it would certainly be the almighty cell phone. But no, it was the $5 watch, surprisingly.
So, I’m no longer mystified, but the responses did surprise me. Accuracy for its own sake, whether inexpensive or not, seems a worthy thing. Why the recoiling at the very idea? And $30 doesn’t seem outrageous for a watch. A tank of gas costs that, or a haircut.
In any case, thanks for all the very nice input. As I said, I have had my question answered to my satisfaction.
Just to be contrary, they aren’t accurate enough for me. I’m used to working at places where all of the clocks are driven from a timing distribution system connected to a cesium beam frequency standard or a GPS timing receiver. Event times, even if noted and recorded by a human, are expected to be accurate to within a second. Even at home, the clocks on my computers are synchronized to UTC with an error of less than 50 ms.
There seems to be little commercial interest in making more accurate watches. The standard quartz crystal oscillator design used in watches was designed for low power consumption and small size, not frequency stability or accuracy. I’ve only heard of one watch, a discontinued Swiss model, that attempted to use an improved oscillator design. Even without changing the oscillator design, a smart watch could improve its accuracy by software compensation for drift, offset, temperature and aging. Technology makes it possible, within limits, to change a sow’s ear into a silk purse.
There are new GPS receiver chips that are much more sensitive than earlier models, allowing a GPS receiver to function inside buildings and other areas where reception used to be impossible. That makes it possible to design clocks with integrated GPS timing receivers. That would be a clock that could be used anywhere on the planet, with a guaranteed accuracy far better than any “atomic” clock or watch being sold today.
Bravo, ‘mks57.’ You started with a seemingly outrageous proposal and, in three short paragraphs, proved your point. I see there is far to go – perfect timekeeping doesn’t yet exist, and even atomic watches will be superceded. A very nice piece of writing!
Ah, apparently you haven’t seen any of our “You paid how much for a haircut?” threads. 
I do pay too much for a haircut. But thanks for the tip – I didn’t know the $5 watch people are only the tip of the iceberg. I would probably enjoy those threads.
To end on a thrifty note, the watch I described in the OP was $32 only a couple days – it’s back to its $62 price again as of today at amazon. (I paid about $50 2-1/2 years ago at Wal-Mart). In addition, those few sale days it was “sold and shipped by Amazon” and not a third party company, as it is now again. Free Super Saver Shipping applied to the sale price also, and *that * has been removed in today’s web page. Mine has a ship date the end of July, but in tracking the order I see it’s still $32 with free shipping.
I’ll match anybody on thriftiness, but some of those $5 people seemed young, especially Mr. Italicized Exclamation Points.
Do these atomic clocks take into account their distance from the transmitting station and the internal computer time it takes to update their time? Then how on earth can they be called “accurate” when they are inherently off by micro- or even milliseconds?
My Ruskie u-wind-it wrist ballast that gains a full minute every day is plenty accurate for me. If I have higher expectations than that out of a watch I start getting obsessive but if I know my watch is only accurate in a general way I can relax.
In serious time transfer applications, corrections are made for propagation delay. That’s one of the reasons for using LF (60 kHz) to broadcast time signals. Its propagation delay is more predictable than that of HF signals, which may bounce off the ionosphere in an unpredictable fashion. The estimated ground wave propagation delay can be calculated if you know the locations of the transmitter and receiver. Local delays due to signal processing and cabling can also be characterized and compensated for.
A cheap “atomic” clock or watch isn’t going to bother with the fine points of compensating for propagation and processing delay, since those errors are small enough to be ignored for most applications.
GPS has made life much easier for anyone who need precise and accurate time. A relatively simple and inexpensive GPS timing receiver, like this, can provide time accurate to within about 15 nanoseconds. That is much more accurate than other methods that have been used in the past. High quality time has never been cheaper or more widely available than today, thanks to all the money that has been invested in the GPS system.
GPS knows both, while the radio-controlled watch’s location is never known, making GPS inherently superior even though timekeeping is not its purpose, if I understand correctly. It only *uses * accurate timekeeping (the GPS satellites have onboard atomic clocks, don’t they?) to calculate location of the receiver.
Is a valid conclusion, then, radio-controlled watches are at the practical limit of their accuracy, while GPS has already bypassed that system but is impractical, at present, in wristwatch application?
I really wanted to buy one of those atomic watches. So I shopped them carefully. Here’s why I didn’t buy one:
- They’re bleemin’ huge. I don’t want to wear a watch the size of a hubcap.
- The ones I’ve seen were lousy quality - plastic cases, cheap fittings.
- Battery life. I hate changing watch batteries. From what I’ve read, the batteries don’t last that long in these watches.
- Lots of complaints online from various owners of these watches claiming that they don’t work reliably, they can be fussy to operate, etc. You may be close enough to Ft. Collins that you don’t need to put the watch on the windowsill, but for me in Canada, I probably would. And that’s a deal breaker. Atomic accuracy is not important enough to me that I’m going to develop a daily routine for synchronizing my bleemin’ watch. It would be faster to just hit one of the web pages that has the current atomic time and set my watch to it.
So in the end, it seemed like a cool idea that was just too clunky to be really useful.
Bear,
If you get transferred to Camp Zama, you’ll need another clock. Japan uses yet another pair of frequencies, JJY. If someone made a watch or small clock that syncs to all the major radio timebases, I’d get it in a minute. I hate resetting time when I travel.
From that site: "Casio Wave Ceptor watches are Dual-region, Multi-region 1 or Multi-region 2. "
Does that mean ALL Wave Ceptor watches? Or just ones sold in Europe? If my Wave Ceptor works here in the US, can I assume it is at least Multi-Region 1 or Multi-Region 2? Or do they sell some other version in the US that only picks up US signals. The .com site doesn’t seem to mention anything about other signals or, for that matter, other countries at all. Typical American mentality, I guess.
Maybe my watch will work over there as well, though??
After digging through the .com site, looks like the US watches have the American (WWVB) and the Japanese (JJY) receivers, but no European receivers. Some of their G-Shock watches supposedly have “multi-band 5” receivers, which receive the US station, the two Japanese stations, and the two European stations. I have yet to find one, though.
Crescend,
Wow, consider ignorance fought and vanquished. That “multi-band 5” seems to answer the need perfectly. Next time I’m in Akihabara I’ll have to stop by a Casio shop and ask them what’s available here in Japan.
I did a quick search and found this:
Signal: US WWVB, UK MSF, Germany DCF77, Japan JJY40/JJY60
Frequency: US 60kHz, UK 60kHz, Germany 77.5kHz, Japan 40/60kHz
IIRC 2001’s Kier Dullea starred in short story in the late 50s/early60s about an obsessive inventor who proposed selling a line of watches which were radio recievers picking up the broadcasts ofan ultra-accurate atomic clock.
He was bitterly frustrated by the investor’s lack of interest: why would anybody want or need a timepiece so accurate all the time?
Life imitates art in this case. That is the stranger-than-fiction but inescapable verdict of this thread.
The only reason I haven’t bought an atomic watch is I didn’t know they made 'em. And damn! I’ve owned a an atomic clock for maybe 8-10 years.
Okay, so it’s off to amazon I go.
Thank you Mark Ryle.