>For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
>to the correct time.
>
>Other clocks to consider:
>
>VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
>Gary
>
>P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
>never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
>convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
>now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
>We have it here!

Gary Edstrom bedacht in news:7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca74cp@4ax.com:

> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> to the correct time.
>
> Other clocks to consider:
>
> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
> Gary
>
> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> We have it here!

> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> to the correct time.
>
> Other clocks to consider:
>
> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
> Gary
>
> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> We have it here!

> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
>> to the correct time.
>> Other clocks to consider:
>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>> Gary
>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
>> would
>> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
>> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
>> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
>> We have it here!
>
> It's also time to replace the batteries in your smoke detectors.
>
> The time change is a good reminder.

"Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:Ks6dncZHVLb_2q3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> philo wrote:
>> "BrianEWilliams" <sorry_no_em***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143996949.726623.323720@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>> Except when your bedroom smoke detector starts chirping at 3 am, and
>>> you are trying to sleep.  This happened to me a few weeks ago.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes...that has happend to me several times!!!
>>
>> I now replace the batteries once a year
>
> I just took the Make My Day pistol from under my pillow and... Never a
> problem since.

> "Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:Ks6dncZHVLb_2q3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "BrianEWilliams" <sorry_no_em***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1143996949.726623.323720@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Except when your bedroom smoke detector starts chirping at 3 am, and
>>>> you are trying to sleep.  This happened to me a few weeks ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes...that has happend to me several times!!!
>>>
>>> I now replace the batteries once a year
>> I just took the Make My Day pistol from under my pillow and... Never a
>> problem since.
>
>
> well i was all ready for that last year...
> it seems that my pager for work...if i miss a page...
> makes little beeping sounds that sound just like the smoke detector
> warning...
>
> at 3am i was waken and replaced the battery in the smoke dector right
> outside my bedroom...
> only to hear it beeping again...
> so i then replaced the battery in the downstairs smoke detector
>
> only to still hear the beeping
>
> which i eventually traced to my pager...after going around the house and
> checking
> everything that had a 9 volt battery on it!!!!
>
> AARGH!!!   that was not a very restful night
>
>

> philo wrote:
>> "BrianEWilliams" <sorry_no_em***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143996949.726623.323720@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>> Except when your bedroom smoke detector starts chirping at 3 am,
>>> and
>>> you are trying to sleep.  This happened to me a few weeks ago.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes...that has happend to me several times!!!
>>
>> I now replace the batteries once a year
>
> I just took the Make My Day pistol from under my pillow and... Never a
> problem since.

> philo wrote:
>> "BrianEWilliams" <sorry_no_em***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143996949.726623.323720@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>> Except when your bedroom smoke detector starts chirping at 3 am, and
>>> you are trying to sleep.  This happened to me a few weeks ago.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes...that has happend to me several times!!!
>>
>> I now replace the batteries once a year
>
> I just took the Make My Day pistol from under my pillow and... Never a
> problem since.

> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
>> to the correct time.
>>
>> Other clocks to consider:
>>
>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
>> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
>> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
>> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
>> We have it here!
>
> It's also time to replace the batteries in your smoke detectors.
>
> The time change is a good reminder.
>
> -G

>> It's also time to replace the batteries in your smoke detectors.
>>
>> The time change is a good reminder.
>>
>> -G
>
> My smoke alarm is right behind my head when I am at the computer, and
> believe me, there is NO CHANCE of forgetting to change battery!  It lets
> out a 100db 'beep' every 15 minutes until it gets a new battery.  The
> batteries last about 1 year, so replacing them more frequently is a waste
> of time, and money.  If I don't have a new battery on hand, then I place
> the smoke alarm on the kitchen counter, in the way, until I get a new
> battery, and meanwhile, the other one which is line powered (local code)
> will protect the house.

> Gandalf wrote:
> > Gary Edstrom wrote:
> >> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> >> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> >> to the correct time.
> >>
> >> Other clocks to consider:
> >>
> >> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> >> Air Conditioning Thermostat
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> >> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> >> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> >> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> >> We have it here!
> >
> > It's also time to replace the batteries in your smoke detectors.
> >
> > The time change is a good reminder.
> >
> > -G
>
> My smoke alarm is right behind my head when I am at the computer, and
> believe me, there is NO CHANCE of forgetting to change battery!  It lets
> out a 100db 'beep' every 15 minutes until it gets a new battery.  The
> batteries last about 1 year, so replacing them more frequently is a
> waste of time, and money.  If I don't have a new battery on hand, then I
> place the smoke alarm on the kitchen counter, in the way, until I get a
> new battery, and meanwhile, the other one which is line powered (local
> code) will protect the house.

> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> to the correct time.
>
> Other clocks to consider:
>
> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
> Gary
>
> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> We have it here!

"William Davis" <davisb***@mac.com> wrote in message
news:davisbill-093109.09540202042006@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
>> to the correct time.
>>
>> Other clocks to consider:
>>
>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
>> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
>> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
>> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
>> We have it here!
>
> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live
> in Arizona!
>
> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away
> from 2pm tomorrow!)

> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
> Len
>
>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
>>> camera to the correct time.
>>>
>>> Other clocks to consider:
>>>
>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
>>> what
>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
>>
>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
>> live in Arizona!
>>
>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
>> away
>> from 2pm tomorrow!)

"Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Krazy Kanuck wrote:
>> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
>> Len
>>
>>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
>>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
>>>> camera to the correct time.
>>>>
>>>> Other clocks to consider:
>>>>
>>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
>>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
>>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
>>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
>>>> what
>>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
>>>
>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
>>> live in Arizona!
>>>
>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
>>> away
>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>
>Your hours are only 30 minutes long?

> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:50:27 -0700, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: Start of Daylight Time: Have you changed your camera
> clocks?>,
> "Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
> >Krazy Kanuck wrote:
> >> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
> >> Len
> >>
> >>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
> >>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> >>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
> >>>> camera to the correct time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other clocks to consider:
> >>>>
> >>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> >>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary
> >>>>
> >>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
> >>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
> >>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
> >>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
> >>>> what
> >>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
> >>>
> >>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
> >>> live in Arizona!
> >>>
> >>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
> >>> away
> >>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
> >
> >Your hours are only 30 minutes long?
>
>
> I lack specific training and expertise in this particular area (was
> probably out that day from school or something), but it seems to me
> that in places where Daylight Saving Time isn't observed, 2 PM
> yesterday is always 48 hours away from 2 PM tomorrow.
>
> Or was this a trick question?

> In article <ekv0329p2cfab0bcjbunoah4imjelb0***@4ax.com>,
>  Frank <fr***@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:50:27 -0700, in 'rec.video.desktop',
>> in article <Re: Start of Daylight Time: Have you changed your camera
>> clocks?>,
>> "Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Krazy Kanuck wrote:
>>>> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
>>>> Len
>>>>
>>>>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>>>>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
>>>>>> camera to the correct time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other clocks to consider:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>>>>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
>>>>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
>>>>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
>>>>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
>>>>> live in Arizona!
>>>>>
>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
>>>>> away
>>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>> Your hours are only 30 minutes long?
>>
>> I lack specific training and expertise in this particular area (was
>> probably out that day from school or something), but it seems to me
>> that in places where Daylight Saving Time isn't observed, 2 PM
>> yesterday is always 48 hours away from 2 PM tomorrow.
>>
>> Or was this a trick question?
>
>
> Naw, it was just late night bad posting math.
>
> To attone, I'll post this time related nugget...
>
> Just after midnight tomorrow (April 4, to be more precise in the wee
> hours)
>
> We get the once in a THOUSAND YEARS phenomenon where the time/date
> standard is a lovely and mathematically pristine...
>
>
> 01 02 03 04 05 06
>
>
> Enjoy

> William Davis wrote:
> > In article <ekv0329p2cfab0bcjbunoah4imjelb0***@4ax.com>,
> >  Frank <fr***@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:50:27 -0700, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> >> in article <Re: Start of Daylight Time: Have you changed your camera
> >> clocks?>,
> >> "Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Krazy Kanuck wrote:
> >>>> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
> >>>> Len
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
> >>>>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> >>>>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
> >>>>>> camera to the correct time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Other clocks to consider:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> >>>>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
> >>>>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
> >>>>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
> >>>>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
> >>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
> >>>>> live in Arizona!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
> >>>>> away
> >>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
> >>> Your hours are only 30 minutes long?
> >>
> >> I lack specific training and expertise in this particular area (was
> >> probably out that day from school or something), but it seems to me
> >> that in places where Daylight Saving Time isn't observed, 2 PM
> >> yesterday is always 48 hours away from 2 PM tomorrow.
> >>
> >> Or was this a trick question?
> >
> >
> > Naw, it was just late night bad posting math.
> >
> > To attone, I'll post this time related nugget...
> >
> > Just after midnight tomorrow (April 4, to be more precise in the wee
> > hours)
> >
> > We get the once in a THOUSAND YEARS phenomenon where the time/date
> > standard is a lovely and mathematically pristine...
> >
> >
> > 01 02 03 04 05 06
> >
> >
> > Enjoy
> Hummm.  What about April 5, 2106?

>
> In article <srOdnQIM6KEytK_ZnZ2dneKdnZydn***@giganews.com>,
>  Ron Hunter <rphun***@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > William Davis wrote:
> > > In article <ekv0329p2cfab0bcjbunoah4imjelb0***@4ax.com>,
> > >  Frank <fr***@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:50:27 -0700, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> > >> in article <Re: Start of Daylight Time: Have you changed your camera
> > >> clocks?>,
> > >> "Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Krazy Kanuck wrote:
> > >>>> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
> > >>>> Len
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
> > >>>>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> > >>>>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
> > >>>>>> camera to the correct time.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Other clocks to consider:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> > >>>>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Gary
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
> > >>>>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
> > >>>>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
> > >>>>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
> > >>>>>> what
> > >>>>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
> > >>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
> > >>>>> live in Arizona!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
> > >>>>> away
> > >>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
> > >>> Your hours are only 30 minutes long?
> > >>
> > >> I lack specific training and expertise in this particular area (was
> > >> probably out that day from school or something), but it seems to me
> > >> that in places where Daylight Saving Time isn't observed, 2 PM
> > >> yesterday is always 48 hours away from 2 PM tomorrow.
> > >>
> > >> Or was this a trick question?
> > >
> > >
> > > Naw, it was just late night bad posting math.
> > >
> > > To attone, I'll post this time related nugget...
> > >
> > > Just after midnight tomorrow (April 4, to be more precise in the wee
> > > hours)
> > >
> > > We get the once in a THOUSAND YEARS phenomenon where the time/date
> > > standard is a lovely and mathematically pristine...
> > >
> > >
> > > 01 02 03 04 05 06
> > >
> > >
> > > Enjoy
> > Hummm.  What about April 5, 2106?
>
> Jeez, I guess I'd better stick to making videos for a living and dump
> the ³late in life² career as an amateur math geek, huh?²
>
> FWIW, the original group where this was being discussed had the same
> ³presence of mind² to note that it's a once a century phenomenon in
> ³double ought² years like this, but TYPICALLY a once in a Thousand year
> deal.
>
> I'll shut up now and go back to making videos. : )
> and let clearer and less sleep deprived minds prevail!

> In article <srOdnQIM6KEytK_ZnZ2dneKdnZydn***@giganews.com>,
>  Ron Hunter <rphun***@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> William Davis wrote:
>>> In article <ekv0329p2cfab0bcjbunoah4imjelb0***@4ax.com>,
>>>  Frank <fr***@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:50:27 -0700, in 'rec.video.desktop',
>>>> in article <Re: Start of Daylight Time: Have you changed your camera
>>>> clocks?>,
>>>> "Frank ess" <fr***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Krazy Kanuck wrote:
>>>>>> ....as it also is in Saskatchewan....
>>>>>> Len
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>>>>>>>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video
>>>>>>>> camera to the correct time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other clocks to consider:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>>>>>>>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I
>>>>>>>> would never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to
>>>>>>>> mentally convert GMT to local time every time I look at the
>>>>>>>> picture.  2. Yes, I now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> are you going to do? We have it here!
>>>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
>>>>>>> live in Arizona!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>>> Your hours are only 30 minutes long?
>>>> I lack specific training and expertise in this particular area (was
>>>> probably out that day from school or something), but it seems to me
>>>> that in places where Daylight Saving Time isn't observed, 2 PM
>>>> yesterday is always 48 hours away from 2 PM tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Or was this a trick question?
>>>
>>> Naw, it was just late night bad posting math.
>>>
>>> To attone, I'll post this time related nugget...
>>>
>>> Just after midnight tomorrow (April 4, to be more precise in the wee
>>> hours)
>>>
>>> We get the once in a THOUSAND YEARS phenomenon where the time/date
>>> standard is a lovely and mathematically pristine...
>>>
>>>
>>> 01 02 03 04 05 06
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy
>> Hummm.  What about April 5, 2106?
>
> Jeez, I guess I'd better stick to making videos for a living and dump
> the ³late in life² career as an amateur math geek, huh?²
>
> FWIW, the original group where this was being discussed had the same
> ³presence of mind² to note that it's a once a century phenomenon in
> ³double ought² years like this, but TYPICALLY a once in a Thousand year
> deal.
>
> I'll shut up now and go back to making videos. : )
> and let clearer and less sleep deprived minds prevail!

> Dave Martindale wrote:
>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>
>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live in
>>> Arizona!
>>
>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away from
>>> 2pm tomorrow!)
>>
>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change for
>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>
>>     Dave
> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the national time
> standard.  Something like a second in several thousand years.

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but
>> loses time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap it
>> with the other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that was
>> here now keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts losing
>> time.
>>
>> This has me completely baffled.
>
> My kitchen clock has to be moved a few feet away from the wall to
> receive the signal that keeps it on time. I do it about once a week, for
> a day at a time. The family room clock is right on, according to About
> Time on my computers, which I reset by means of that program, every two
> weeks or so. They are usually one to four seconds off when I do that.
>

> Frank ess wrote:
>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but
>>> loses time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap
>>> it with the other (same brand) clock the another room, the one
>>> that
>>> was here now keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts
>>> losing time.
>>>
>>> This has me completely baffled.
>>
>> My kitchen clock has to be moved a few feet away from the wall to
>> receive the signal that keeps it on time. I do it about once a
>> week,
>> for a day at a time. The family room clock is right on, according
>> to
>> About Time on my computers, which I reset by means of that program,
>> every two weeks or so. They are usually one to four seconds off
>> when
>> I do that.
> WinXP will synchronize your time to a standard (you can select which
> source) when you are online.  Mine does this about every 8 hours,
> since I am always online.

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Frank ess wrote:
>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>>>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but
>>>> loses time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap
>>>> it with the other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that
>>>> was here now keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts
>>>> losing time.
>>>>
>>>> This has me completely baffled.
>>>
>>> My kitchen clock has to be moved a few feet away from the wall to
>>> receive the signal that keeps it on time. I do it about once a week,
>>> for a day at a time. The family room clock is right on, according to
>>> About Time on my computers, which I reset by means of that program,
>>> every two weeks or so. They are usually one to four seconds off when
>>> I do that.
>> WinXP will synchronize your time to a standard (you can select which
>> source) when you are online.  Mine does this about every 8 hours,
>> since I am always online.
>
> I'm seldom offline, but XP says it last updated on 3/29 and will do it
> next on 4/5. Plenty good for me, but not an 8-hour interval...
>

> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
>>>> live in Arizona!
>>>
>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away
>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>
>>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change for
>>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>>
>>>     Dave
>> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the
>> national time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand
>> years.
>
> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>
> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an accuracy of
> a second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate for the
> transmission time from the WWVB transmitter).
>
> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours
> later, so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in the
> clock, just liek any other battery clock or watch.
>
> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but loses
> time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap it with the
> other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that was here now
> keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts losing time.
>
> This has me completely baffled.
>
> Gino
>

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live
>>>>> in Arizona!
>>>>
>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away
>>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>>
>>>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change for
>>>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>>>
>>>>     Dave
>>> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the national
>>> time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand years.
>>
>> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>>
>> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an accuracy of a
>> second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate for the transmission
>> time from the WWVB transmitter).
>>
>> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours later,
>> so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in the clock, just
>> liek any other battery clock or watch.
>>
>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10 el-cheapo,
>> shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but loses time until in
>> a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap it with the other (same
>> brand) clock the another room, the one that was here now keeps good time
>> and the one that I moved here starts losing time.
>>
>> This has me completely baffled.
>>
>> Gino
>>
> Probably a matter of something interfering with the crystal frequency. As for
> whether the accuracy comes from being set daily, or from the reference time,
> the displayed time, is correct to the limits of its display ability (1
> second).  That's enough for me, since I don't plan to time any scientific
> experiments.

> On 4/04/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>>>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to
>>>>>> live in Arizona!
>>>>>
>>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
>>>>>> away from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change
>>>>> for
>>>>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Dave
>>>> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the
>>>> national time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>>>
>>> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an accuracy
>>> of a second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate for the
>>> transmission time from the WWVB transmitter).
>>>
>>> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours
>>> later, so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in the
>>> clock, just liek any other battery clock or watch.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but
>>> loses time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap it
>>> with the other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that was
>>> here now keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts losing
>>> time.
>>>
>>> This has me completely baffled.
>>>
>>> Gino
>>>
>> Probably a matter of something interfering with the crystal frequency.
>> As for whether the accuracy comes from being set daily, or from the
>> reference time, the displayed time, is correct to the limits of its
>> display ability (1 second).  That's enough for me, since I don't plan
>> to time any scientific experiments.
>
> The thing is that these clocks (1) always indicate that they have
> received and set themselves by the time signal each night (at midnight
> or thereabouts), and (2) they lose time secularly.
>
> By the latter I mean that they don't lose time during only one day until
> they get reset after midnight, but they lose time progressively so that
> they are a second or so slow today, 2 or 3 seconds slow tomorrow, ...,
> thirty seconds slow on the 14th, and so on.
>
> If they just lost a second or two on each day and then reset themselves
> to the correct time at midnight, I would not be baffled. The fact that
> they lose time progressively even though they claim (by displaying the
> icon) to have adjusted themselves daily is the puzzle.
>
> As far as the accuracy of the clocks is concerned, I'm also satisfied
> with their accuracy of a second or so. My original post addressed your
> comment:
>
> "Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the
> national time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand
> years."
>
> I interpreted you to mean that *your* clocks are accurate to that level,
> although rereading it now, I think I probably goofed :-)
>
> Gino
>

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 4/04/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>>>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>>>>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live
>>>>>>> in Arizona!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away
>>>>>>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change for
>>>>>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the national
>>>>> time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand years.
>>>>
>>>> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>>>>
>>>> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an accuracy of a
>>>> second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate for the transmission
>>>> time from the WWVB transmitter).
>>>>
>>>> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours later,
>>>> so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in the clock,
>>>> just liek any other battery clock or watch.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>>>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but loses
>>>> time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap it with the
>>>> other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that was here now
>>>> keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts losing time.
>>>>
>>>> This has me completely baffled.
>>>>
>>>> Gino
>>>>
>>> Probably a matter of something interfering with the crystal frequency. As
>>> for whether the accuracy comes from being set daily, or from the reference
>>> time, the displayed time, is correct to the limits of its display ability
>>> (1 second).  That's enough for me, since I don't plan to time any
>>> scientific experiments.
>>
>> The thing is that these clocks (1) always indicate that they have received
>> and set themselves by the time signal each night (at midnight or
>> thereabouts), and (2) they lose time secularly.
>>
>> By the latter I mean that they don't lose time during only one day until
>> they get reset after midnight, but they lose time progressively so that
>> they are a second or so slow today, 2 or 3 seconds slow tomorrow, ...,
>> thirty seconds slow on the 14th, and so on.
>>
>> If they just lost a second or two on each day and then reset themselves to
>> the correct time at midnight, I would not be baffled. The fact that they
>> lose time progressively even though they claim (by displaying the icon) to
>> have adjusted themselves daily is the puzzle.
>>
>> As far as the accuracy of the clocks is concerned, I'm also satisfied with
>> their accuracy of a second or so. My original post addressed your comment:
>>
>> "Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the
>> national time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand
>> years."
>>
>> I interpreted you to mean that *your* clocks are accurate to that level,
>> although rereading it now, I think I probably goofed :-)
>>
>> Gino
>>
> I am not sure what you saying, Gino, about cumulative time errors on 'atomic'
> clocks.  If yours accumulates errors, then it is not working properly.  Check
> that it IS set to synchronize nightly, and reset it. Mine seems to always
> have the correct time with the computer, which is synchronized every 8 hours
> with the US National Time standard.

> On 4/05/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On 4/04/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>>>>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>>>>>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is
>>>>>>>> to live in Arizona!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours
>>>>>>>> away from 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a
>>>>>>> change for
>>>>>>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the
>>>>>> national time standard.  Something like a second in several
>>>>>> thousand years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an
>>>>> accuracy of a second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate
>>>>> for the transmission time from the WWVB transmitter).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours
>>>>> later, so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in
>>>>> the clock, just liek any other battery clock or watch.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>>>>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but
>>>>> loses time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap
>>>>> it with the other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that
>>>>> was here now keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts
>>>>> losing time.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has me completely baffled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gino
>>>>>
>>>> Probably a matter of something interfering with the crystal
>>>> frequency. As for whether the accuracy comes from being set daily,
>>>> or from the reference time, the displayed time, is correct to the
>>>> limits of its display ability (1 second).  That's enough for me,
>>>> since I don't plan to time any scientific experiments.
>>>
>>> The thing is that these clocks (1) always indicate that they have
>>> received and set themselves by the time signal each night (at
>>> midnight or thereabouts), and (2) they lose time secularly.
>>>
>>> By the latter I mean that they don't lose time during only one day
>>> until they get reset after midnight, but they lose time progressively
>>> so that they are a second or so slow today, 2 or 3 seconds slow
>>> tomorrow, ..., thirty seconds slow on the 14th, and so on.
>>>
>>> If they just lost a second or two on each day and then reset
>>> themselves to the correct time at midnight, I would not be baffled.
>>> The fact that they lose time progressively even though they claim (by
>>> displaying the icon) to have adjusted themselves daily is the puzzle.
>>>
>>> As far as the accuracy of the clocks is concerned, I'm also satisfied
>>> with their accuracy of a second or so. My original post addressed
>>> your comment:
>>>
>>> "Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the
>>> national time standard.  Something like a second in several thousand
>>> years."
>>>
>>> I interpreted you to mean that *your* clocks are accurate to that
>>> level, although rereading it now, I think I probably goofed :-)
>>>
>>> Gino
>>>
>> I am not sure what you saying, Gino, about cumulative time errors on
>> 'atomic' clocks.  If yours accumulates errors, then it is not working
>> properly.  Check that it IS set to synchronize nightly, and reset it.
>> Mine seems to always have the correct time with the computer, which is
>> synchronized every 8 hours with the US National Time standard.
>
> I had thought if I said it carefully enough it would be understood.
> Please read each statement below carefully.
>
> 1. The flag comes on every night saying that the clock has synchronized
> with the WWVB time signal.
>
> 2. The clock none-the-less loses time progressively over a span of many
> weeks. It reached over 30 seconds behind WWV before I did what I
> described in 3 below.
>
> Emphasis: Every day in the morning it is farther behind than it was the
> previous morning even though every day in the morning the reception flag
> is on, indicating that it synchronized several hours before.
>
> 3. If I move this clock to another room and bring the other clock in
> here, then the clock that *was* here is reading the correct time the
> next morning *AND* the clock that is now in here starts losing time
> progressively.
>
> This is anomalous behavior.
>
> What can I say to make it any clearer????
>
> Gino
>

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote:
>
> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
> > Dave Martindale wrote:
> >> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live in
> >>> Arizona!
> >>
> >>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away from
> >>> 2pm tomorrow!)
> >>
> >> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change for
> >> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
> >>
> >>      Dave
> > Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the national time
> > standard.  Something like a second in several thousand years.
>
> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>
> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an accuracy of
> a second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate for the
> transmission time from the WWVB transmitter).
>
> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours
> later, so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in the
> clock, just liek any other battery clock or watch.
>

>
> "Gene E. Bloch" wrote:
>> On 4/03/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>>> William Davis <davisb***@mac.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live in
>>>>> Arizona!
>>>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away from
>>>>> 2pm tomorrow!)
>>>> Except when there is a leap second.  I know, not enough of a change for
>>>> you to reset your clocks, since they're not that accurate anyway.
>>>>
>>>>      Dave
>>> Well, some of mine are.  Controlled by the atomic clocks at the national time
>>> standard.  Something like a second in several thousand years.
>> The atomic clocks have that accuracy. Your clocks don't.
>>
>> The so-called atomic clocks set themselves once a day to an accuracy of
>> a second or so (for one thing, they don't compensate for the
>> transmission time from the WWVB transmitter).
>>
>> Then they run free until the next time they get a signal, 24 hours
>> later, so their timekeeping is only as accurate as the crystal in the
>> clock, just liek any other battery clock or watch.
>>
> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a few
> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good quartz
> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>
>> On the other hand, my clock on a shelfabove the computer, a $10
>> el-cheapo, shows the icon that means it has received a signal, but
>> loses time until in a few weeks it's half a minute slow. If I swap it
>> with the other (same brand) clock the another room, the one that was
>> here now keeps good time and the one that I moved here starts losing
>> time.
>>
> We have a combo clock/temperature/humidity device in our dining room,
> but this country, New Zealand, doesn't have time-keeping transmissions,
> so the clock runs uncorrected - but we have given up resetting it, as it
> will keep time for hours to days, but then suddenly go several hours out
> without warning, probably dur to it receiving some unknown signal which
> upsets the timekeeping.
>
> It appears that the transmissions are sent from WWV on a very low
> frequency of 60kHz, and the signal strength is too low in this country.
> But, with regard to your clock losing when near your computer, computers
> and particularly monitors emit considerable radiation around the 60kHz
> band, and I would guess that is why your clocks run slow.
>
> Colin D.

> Richard Lane wrote:
>
>> I had an even stranger experience, two "atomic" clocks, one changed to
>> PDST ok the other didn't so I reset the latter to PDST and each time
>> it reverted to PST so I just set it to MT and "to Hell with it".
>> Dick
>
>
> Strangely enough, the "atomic" clock in my bedroom missed the reset on
> the first day of CST to CDT. But the clock in my DVD/VCR player/recorder
> got the time signal from the a TV station (it never properly sets the
> correct time from the TV signal!) to reset the hour to CDT. The next day
> (one day late) the "atomic" clock properly reset itself to CDT over
> night even though I had not reset by hand.
> FK

> fkasner wrote:
> > Richard Lane wrote:
> >
> >> I had an even stranger experience, two "atomic" clocks, one changed to
> >> PDST ok the other didn't so I reset the latter to PDST and each time
> >> it reverted to PST so I just set it to MT and "to Hell with it".
> >> Dick
> >
> >
> > Strangely enough, the "atomic" clock in my bedroom missed the reset on
> > the first day of CST to CDT. But the clock in my DVD/VCR player/recorder
> > got the time signal from the a TV station (it never properly sets the
> > correct time from the TV signal!) to reset the hour to CDT. The next day
> > (one day late) the "atomic" clock properly reset itself to CDT over
> > night even though I had not reset by hand.
> > FK
> I have to report that two days later the errant clock set itself
> properly to Mountain Standard Time so I had to reset my time zone to
> Pacific and all is well again.

> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>
>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a few
>> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
>> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good quartz
>> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>
> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own without
> correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer capacitor that
> is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within a second a day.
> (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it more accurate, so I
> know the trimmer is there).
>
> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
> reset the next night.
>
>     Dave

> On 4/04/2006, Dave Martindale posted this:
>> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>>
>>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a few
>>> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
>>> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good quartz
>>> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>>
>> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own without
>> correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer capacitor that
>> is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within a second a day.
>> (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it more accurate, so I
>> know the trimmer is there).
>>
>> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
>> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
>> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
>> reset the next night.
>>
>>     Dave
>
> Well, I decided to be repetitive again (deja vu all over again).
>
> The clocks, when in my computer room, do two things which are
> inconsistent with each other:
>
> 1. Each day they show the icon that indicates they have set themselves
> by WWVB (60 kHz time signal from Colorado, probably only ~1000 mi from
> here).
>
> 2. Lose time progressively day after day as long as I keep them near the
> computer. They do not lose several seconds a day and get back on track
> at midnight. They lose time by the formula T = T0 - k*D, where T is the
> indicated time on the clocks, T0 is the correct time, k is an unknown
> (maybe even variable :-) constant around 1 or 2 seconds/day, and D is
> the time in days (days and decimal days) since I brought the clock into
> the computer room.
>
> They are slow one morning, slower the next morning, even slower the
> morning after, and on and on - yet each day they show the icon (an ugly
> picture of a radio antenna) that says they set themselves in the middle
> of the night.
>
> I don't know if running *slow* is part of the weirdness, or if another
> sample of these clocks might gain time progressively (and whether yet
> another sample might just happen to be right on for weeks or months!)
>
> There are places in the house where these clocks don't receive the
> signals, and hence don't show the icon, but this is *different*.
>
> And I'll be quiet now :-)
>
> Gino
>

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 4/04/2006, Dave Martindale posted this:
>>> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>
>>>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a few
>>>> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
>>>> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good quartz
>>>> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>>>
>>> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own without
>>> correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer capacitor that
>>> is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within a second a day.
>>> (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it more accurate, so I
>>> know the trimmer is there).
>>>
>>> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
>>> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
>>> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
>>> reset the next night.
>>>
>>>     Dave
>>
>> Well, I decided to be repetitive again (deja vu all over again).
>>
>> The clocks, when in my computer room, do two things which are inconsistent
>> with each other:
>>
>> 1. Each day they show the icon that indicates they have set themselves by
>> WWVB (60 kHz time signal from Colorado, probably only ~1000 mi from here).
>>
>> 2. Lose time progressively day after day as long as I keep them near the
>> computer. They do not lose several seconds a day and get back on track at
>> midnight. They lose time by the formula T = T0 - k*D, where T is the
>> indicated time on the clocks, T0 is the correct time, k is an unknown
>> (maybe even variable :-) constant around 1 or 2 seconds/day, and D is the
>> time in days (days and decimal days) since I brought the clock into the
>> computer room.
>>
>> They are slow one morning, slower the next morning, even slower the morning
>> after, and on and on - yet each day they show the icon (an ugly picture of
>> a radio antenna) that says they set themselves in the middle of the night.
>>
>> I don't know if running *slow* is part of the weirdness, or if another
>> sample of these clocks might gain time progressively (and whether yet
>> another sample might just happen to be right on for weeks or months!)
>>
>> There are places in the house where these clocks don't receive the signals,
>> and hence don't show the icon, but this is *different*.
>>
>> And I'll be quiet now :-)
>>
>> Gino
>>
> Ok, the symptom you describe is of a clock that is getting interference from
> a radio frequency source.  Move it farther from the computer, or use rf
> suppression on your computer cables.  I have such a clock within 6 feet of
> two computer systems, and it works fine.  Suggest, at least, reorienting the
> clock so that the antennae points a different way.  This may help the
> problem.  BTW, on my clocks, if the antennae symbol is flashing, it means it
> couldn't synchronize with the time signal.

> On 4/05/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On 4/04/2006, Dave Martindale posted this:
>>>> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a
>>>>> few
>>>>> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
>>>>> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good
>>>>> quartz
>>>>> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>>>>
>>>> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own without
>>>> correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer capacitor
>>>> that
>>>> is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within a second a day.
>>>> (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it more accurate, so I
>>>> know the trimmer is there).
>>>>
>>>> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
>>>> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
>>>> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
>>>> reset the next night.
>>>>
>>>>     Dave
>>>
>>> Well, I decided to be repetitive again (deja vu all over again).
>>>
>>> The clocks, when in my computer room, do two things which are
>>> inconsistent with each other:
>>>
>>> 1. Each day they show the icon that indicates they have set
>>> themselves by WWVB (60 kHz time signal from Colorado, probably only
>>> ~1000 mi from here).
>>>
>>> 2. Lose time progressively day after day as long as I keep them near
>>> the computer. They do not lose several seconds a day and get back on
>>> track at midnight. They lose time by the formula T = T0 - k*D, where
>>> T is the indicated time on the clocks, T0 is the correct time, k is
>>> an unknown (maybe even variable :-) constant around 1 or 2
>>> seconds/day, and D is the time in days (days and decimal days) since
>>> I brought the clock into the computer room.
>>>
>>> They are slow one morning, slower the next morning, even slower the
>>> morning after, and on and on - yet each day they show the icon (an
>>> ugly picture of a radio antenna) that says they set themselves in the
>>> middle of the night.
>>>
>>> I don't know if running *slow* is part of the weirdness, or if
>>> another sample of these clocks might gain time progressively (and
>>> whether yet another sample might just happen to be right on for weeks
>>> or months!)
>>>
>>> There are places in the house where these clocks don't receive the
>>> signals, and hence don't show the icon, but this is *different*.
>>>
>>> And I'll be quiet now :-)
>>>
>>> Gino
>>>
>> Ok, the symptom you describe is of a clock that is getting
>> interference from a radio frequency source.  Move it farther from the
>> computer, or use rf suppression on your computer cables.  I have such
>> a clock within 6 feet of two computer systems, and it works fine. 
>> Suggest, at least, reorienting the clock so that the antennae points a
>> different way.  This may help the problem.  BTW, on my clocks, if the
>> antennae symbol is flashing, it means it couldn't synchronize with the
>> time signal.
>
> Please see my reply to your post above
> <wvqdnXRrZoHBHq7ZnZ2dneKdnZydn***@giganews.com>.
>
> My solution for now is to use a third clock, an older one of a different
> brand. What I like about the other clocks is that they have a
> thermometer (probably accurate to 5 degrees :) and can be set to 24 hr
> readout.
>
> Anyway, the old clock keeps excellent time, and I am relearning how to
> add 12 to the time after noon :-)
>
> I could understand RFI making the clock keep bad time for the 24 hours
> after being adjusted, but I find it hard to fathom how it could keep the
> clock from changing the time on receiving and decoding the WWVB signal,
> as well as indicating by its flag that it did so.
>
> As I said, I am baffled. Hornswoggled. Mystified. Drinking too much (not
> really - but maybe I should!).
>
> Gino
>

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 4/05/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>> On 4/04/2006, Dave Martindale posted this:
>>>>> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a few
>>>>>> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
>>>>>> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good quartz
>>>>>> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own without
>>>>> correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer capacitor that
>>>>> is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within a second a day.
>>>>> (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it more accurate, so I
>>>>> know the trimmer is there).
>>>>>
>>>>> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
>>>>> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
>>>>> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
>>>>> reset the next night.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Dave
>>>>
>>>> Well, I decided to be repetitive again (deja vu all over again).
>>>>
>>>> The clocks, when in my computer room, do two things which are
>>>> inconsistent with each other:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Each day they show the icon that indicates they have set themselves by
>>>> WWVB (60 kHz time signal from Colorado, probably only ~1000 mi from
>>>> here).
>>>>
>>>> 2. Lose time progressively day after day as long as I keep them near the
>>>> computer. They do not lose several seconds a day and get back on track at
>>>> midnight. They lose time by the formula T = T0 - k*D, where T is the
>>>> indicated time on the clocks, T0 is the correct time, k is an unknown
>>>> (maybe even variable :-) constant around 1 or 2 seconds/day, and D is the
>>>> time in days (days and decimal days) since I brought the clock into the
>>>> computer room.
>>>>
>>>> They are slow one morning, slower the next morning, even slower the
>>>> morning after, and on and on - yet each day they show the icon (an ugly
>>>> picture of a radio antenna) that says they set themselves in the middle
>>>> of the night.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if running *slow* is part of the weirdness, or if another
>>>> sample of these clocks might gain time progressively (and whether yet
>>>> another sample might just happen to be right on for weeks or months!)
>>>>
>>>> There are places in the house where these clocks don't receive the
>>>> signals, and hence don't show the icon, but this is *different*.
>>>>
>>>> And I'll be quiet now :-)
>>>>
>>>> Gino
>>>>
>>> Ok, the symptom you describe is of a clock that is getting interference
>>> from a radio frequency source.  Move it farther from the computer, or use
>>> rf suppression on your computer cables.  I have such a clock within 6 feet
>>> of two computer systems, and it works fine.  Suggest, at least,
>>> reorienting the clock so that the antennae points a different way.  This
>>> may help the problem.  BTW, on my clocks, if the antennae symbol is
>>> flashing, it means it couldn't synchronize with the time signal.
>>
>> Please see my reply to your post above
>> <wvqdnXRrZoHBHq7ZnZ2dneKdnZydn***@giganews.com>.
>>
>> My solution for now is to use a third clock, an older one of a different
>> brand. What I like about the other clocks is that they have a thermometer
>> (probably accurate to 5 degrees :) and can be set to 24 hr readout.
>>
>> Anyway, the old clock keeps excellent time, and I am relearning how to add
>> 12 to the time after noon :-)
>>
>> I could understand RFI making the clock keep bad time for the 24 hours
>> after being adjusted, but I find it hard to fathom how it could keep the
>> clock from changing the time on receiving and decoding the WWVB signal, as
>> well as indicating by its flag that it did so.
>>
>> As I said, I am baffled. Hornswoggled. Mystified. Drinking too much (not
>> really - but maybe I should!).
>>
>> Gino
>>
>
> Don't know how your clock works, but on mine, if the 'tower' symbol is
> flashing, it indicates that the clock was unable to receive WWVB, and was NOT
> synchronized for that day.

> On 4/05/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On 4/05/2006, Ron Hunter posted this:
>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>> On 4/04/2006, Dave Martindale posted this:
>>>>>> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a
>>>>>>> few parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is
>>>>>>> less than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a
>>>>>>> good quartz clock to within a second indefinitely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own
>>>>>> without correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer
>>>>>> capacitor that is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within
>>>>>> a second a day. (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it
>>>>>> more accurate, so I know the trimmer is there).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
>>>>>> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
>>>>>> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
>>>>>> reset the next night.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I decided to be repetitive again (deja vu all over again).
>>>>>
>>>>> The clocks, when in my computer room, do two things which are
>>>>> inconsistent with each other:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Each day they show the icon that indicates they have set themselves
>>>>> by WWVB (60 kHz time signal from Colorado, probably only ~1000 mi from
>>>>> here).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Lose time progressively day after day as long as I keep them near
>>>>> the computer. They do not lose several seconds a day and get back on
>>>>> track at midnight. They lose time by the formula T = T0 - k*D, where T
>>>>> is the indicated time on the clocks, T0 is the correct time, k is an
>>>>> unknown (maybe even variable :-) constant around 1 or 2 seconds/day,
>>>>> and D is the time in days (days and decimal days) since I brought the
>>>>> clock into the computer room.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are slow one morning, slower the next morning, even slower the
>>>>> morning after, and on and on - yet each day they show the icon (an
>>>>> ugly picture of a radio antenna) that says they set themselves in the
>>>>> middle of the night.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if running *slow* is part of the weirdness, or if another
>>>>> sample of these clocks might gain time progressively (and whether yet
>>>>> another sample might just happen to be right on for weeks or months!)
>>>>>
>>>>> There are places in the house where these clocks don't receive the
>>>>> signals, and hence don't show the icon, but this is *different*.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'll be quiet now :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Gino
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, the symptom you describe is of a clock that is getting interference
>>>> from a radio frequency source.  Move it farther from the computer, or
>>>> use
>>>> rf suppression on your computer cables.  I have such a clock within 6
>>>> feet
>>>> of two computer systems, and it works fine.  Suggest, at least,
>>>> reorienting the clock so that the antennae points a different way.
>>>> This
>>>> may help the problem.  BTW, on my clocks, if the antennae symbol is
>>>> flashing, it means it couldn't synchronize with the time signal.
>>>
>>> Please see my reply to your post above
>>> <wvqdnXRrZoHBHq7ZnZ2dneKdnZydn***@giganews.com>.
>>>
>>> My solution for now is to use a third clock, an older one of a different
>>> brand. What I like about the other clocks is that they have a
>>> thermometer (probably accurate to 5 degrees :) and can be set to 24 hr
>>> readout.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the old clock keeps excellent time, and I am relearning how to
>>> add 12 to the time after noon :-)
>>>
>>> I could understand RFI making the clock keep bad time for the 24 hours
>>> after being adjusted, but I find it hard to fathom how it could keep the
>>> clock from changing the time on receiving and decoding the WWVB signal,
>>> as well as indicating by its flag that it did so.
>>>
>>> As I said, I am baffled. Hornswoggled. Mystified. Drinking too much (not
>>> really - but maybe I should!).
>>>
>>> Gino
>>>
>>
>> Don't know how your clock works, but on mine, if the 'tower' symbol is
>> flashing, it indicates that the clock was unable to receive WWVB, and was
>> NOT synchronized for that day.
>
> On mine, it flashes while receiving WWVB. If it fails to synchronize,
> the flag goes away. No symbol, just a blank space. If it succeeds, it
> remains visible but doesn't flash.
>
> Very unambiguous.

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>>
>> The clocks, when in my computer room, do two things which are inconsistent
>> with each other:
>>
>
>    The instruction sheet that came with my atomic clock says that it should
> not be located near a computer.
>    It may be that radio-frequency interference from your computer or monitor
> is interfering with your clock's receiving capability.
>    I have one computer here that wipes out weak-signal receiving on my ham
> radio transceiver on several of the lower HF bands.
>
> -- Ron

> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>
>> Time-keeping crystals in clocks and watches run at an accuracy of a few
>> parts per million, and in one day -86,400 seconds - the drift is less
>> than a second, so a once-a-day correction can easily keep a good quartz
>> clock to within a second indefinitely.
>
> That's true of watches and clocks intended to run on their own without
> correction, but these devices generally contain a trimmer capacitor that
> is adjusted by the maker to bring the accuracy within a second a day.
> (And sometimes I adjust my watch myself to make it more accurate, so I
> know the trimmer is there).
>
> But do the manufacturers bother with a device that's intended to be
> reset every day?  Cheap crystals can have 50 or 100 PPM error, and
> that's enough to be several seconds per day out - before the clock is
> reset the next night.
>
>     Dave

> On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:54:02 -0700, William Davis wrote:
>
>
>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away
>> from 2pm tomorrow!)
>
> 48, I'd say
>

>petelagrange wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:54:02 -0700, William Davis wrote:
>>
>>> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24
>>> hours away from 2pm tomorrow!)
>> 48, I'd say
>>

> In article <7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca7***@4ax.com>,
>  Gary Edstrom <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
>> to the correct time.
>>
>> Other clocks to consider:
>>
>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
>> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
>> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
>> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
>> We have it here!
>
> One of two days each year that I remind myself how GREAT it is to live
> in Arizona!
>
> (greetings from the land where 2pm yesterday is ALWAYS 24 hours away
> from 2pm tomorrow!)

> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> to the correct time.
>
> Other clocks to consider:
>
> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
> Gary
>
> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> We have it here!

> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
>> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
>> to the correct time.
>>
>> Other clocks to consider:
>>
>> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
>> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
>> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
>> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
>> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
>> We have it here!
>
> All done, except for the car.  Will do that one next trip to the store.  
> Nice to not have to set the computer, 'atomic' clocks, the cell phone, cable
> box, etc.  Even remembered to set the camera, and desk set clock (one did it
> automatically).

? "Gary Edstrom" <gedst***@pacbell.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca74cp@4ax.com...
> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> to the correct time.
>
> Other clocks to consider:
>
> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
> Gary
>
> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> We have it here!

"Gary Edstrom" <gedst***@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7omv221b9lmg7qf8pgffh92n4gcfca74cp@4ax.com...
> For those of you who like to have correct time stamps on your
> pictures, remember to set the clock in your still and/or video camera
> to the correct time.
>
> Other clocks to consider:
>
> VCR - Car - Cell Phone - PDA - Microwave - Watch - FAX
> Air Conditioning Thermostat
>
> Gary
>
> P.S: 1. Yes, I know that I could keep my camera on GMT so that I would
> never have to adjust it, but it's too much of a hassle to mentally
> convert GMT to local time every time I look at the picture.  2. Yes, I
> now that daylight time is a dumb idea, but what are you going to do?
> We have it here!