Accurist clock, FWIW...

[Dan Newberry]

I caught the Accurist clock at http://accurist123.com/ running 5 seconds fast based on two atomic time sources I have in my home, as well as my 1680 Sub which has been pretty steady these days.

I checked my 1680 Sub with the Accurist site about 8 AM, EST today and thought my watch had lost 6 seconds overnight (it usually loses only a second or two in that time period, and stays pretty close the rest of the day)... but when I checked my watch with an atomic clock and another very accurate source, I found that Accurist was at fault.

The error seems to have been corrected now, though, as I just visited the Accurist site prior to this post.

If there's a moral here, it's that you shouldn't rely on only one presumed atomic source when checking or regulating your watch. ;)

Dan

[Welshwatchman]

Funny you should mention that, Dan.

I have been checking my 116400 against it and was highly delighted to see it smack on, day in, day out.

Then last night my watch was 5 seconds slow. Now it is back on time, just 1 second out after 5 days.

Now I know why.

[Incurable]

I find that site consistently off by a few seconds. My guess would be network latency. I'm comparing it to shortwave and 3 other 'atomic' clocks. These clocks sync several times daily and all match the shortwave signal. Traveling at the speed of light, I tend to believe the shortwave over all other sources.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

I checked accurist123.com this morning at work at 8 AM CET. My SS Daytona seemed to be 6 secs. slow!

I then went to www.time.gov to at least compare the seconds with accurist, and time.gov "agreed" completely with my SS Daytona!

[Jedi]

It's not clear to me where Accurist synch's their time.

[Incurable]

I'm sure they get their source time from one of the NIST sites. The problem is most likely latency in the internet or the slow, high level FLASH language used to display things.