Chronometers and watches

[ewsponberg]

On Corroboree we have a sextant as back-up to our electronic navigation (iNavX software on two iPads). To use it, of course, you need an accurate timepiece. In the past we have used wrist watches, but these days they don't keep very good time. I would like to know from the Forum what would you recommend for a good watch or timepiece to track time, independent of what we have on our electronic devices? Is there a brand or type of watch (either wrist watch or pocket watch) that you like? How much did you pay for it? I would like a small analog watch with a second hand, and preferably one without the little day/date window (as they always need resetting and often break). We have a bulkhead-mounted clock, but that is not easy to use when we are in the cockpit taking sights, plus it is not all that accurate.

As a matter of interest, we left Florida in January 2017 and we are now in Bundaberg, Australia, so we have managed to get nearly halfway around the world. We'll be here for the next 6-9 months or so before continuing our voyage. We practice sun sights with our sextant when at sea, and we would like to use a timepiece rather than the iPad clocks just to make sure we are totally independent of electronics in our sight reductions.

I welcome any and all advice.

Eric

[Benz]

I keep two pretty cheap Timex watches that I rate before a voyage--that is, check them daily and know how much time each gains/loses per day. Then I apply that correction to my sight reductions. For cheap timepieces, they seem to lose time at a pretty constant, measurable rate, so it works out good.
I used to get the time tick on a handheld shortwave radio (a Grundig that ran on AA batteries), but I don't know if it's broadcast any longer.

[Zzmeyer]

Ditto what Benz said, but I use a $13 Casio. I track it weekly as the error rate has been very consistent. A few seconds per month.

[StuM]

Cheap Seiko and Casio digital watches are more accurate than the vast majority of very expensive mechanical watches. They also tend to be very consistent in their drift.
If you're concerned about reduncancy and electronic outages (lightning strike / CME / NEMP or whatever), just stow a couple of spares in an old ammo box.

[Paul L]

A decent digital watch as suggested by StuM that is kept on your wrist will have consistent time, as the temperature of the crystal will vary little. This watch will out perform almost all the mechanical watches of the yesteryear sailors.
There's a decent chance it will survive a lightning strike. Although a friend was struck with a metal band on his watch and he had some significant burns there. Not sure how the watch did, as he had more pressing problems.
Enjoy Bundy.

[Kivalo]

I'm studying to advance my license right now and time ticks are a part of that exam, 500ton, so I assume they are still broadcast although we don't use them where I work.

Originally Posted by Benz

I keep two pretty cheap Timex watches that I rate before a voyage--that is, check them daily and know how much time each gains/loses per day. Then I apply that correction to my sight reductions. For cheap timepieces, they seem to lose time at a pretty constant, measurable rate, so it works out good.
I used to get the time tick on a handheld shortwave radio (a Grundig that ran on AA batteries), but I don't know if it's broadcast any longer.

[Lepke]

Most electronic watches keep much better time than chronometers. Chronometers in the mechanical clock days are checked daily against radio time and have a somewhat consistent loss or gain that allows a time when radio isn't available. I use WWV on 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 Mhz. A US govt time service for about 100 years. I've never been anywhere I couldn't get it.

[Smokeys Kitchen]

I did not ask for it - but my wife got me a Seiko Astron. Solar power and times itself to the GPS satellite system. Not cheap though (it was an anniversary present but I think @ $1500). Accuracy is spot on

[banjoship]

I use a Casio G-Shock Mudman. As the name suggests, a ruggedized watch. I have the solar charged version $160aud, battery version about $80aud, those prices from some years back. My watch is 7 years old, going well.

I check the drift regularily. Drift is around 0.5-1.5 seconds/ month. Drift is constant, and does not show wild fluctuations. I do not take the watch off, so temperature and humidity is probably relatively constant.

On board, I keep track of time with satellite time, just to check the watch. Reducing a sight, I use watch time. My use of celestial is recreational/out of interest.

Lee

[SeanPatrick]

I agree with most here that a cheap quartz* watch that you have rated is all you need. There are plenty of analog quartz watches on the market. And they are so cheap that you can buy two or three, rate them all and use the best one - or use all three as checks on each other.


Having said that - I LOVE my Bulova Precisionist. It is an analog quartz watch - but it is not exactly cheap. They [currently] start at just over $200 and go up to just under $1,000. They use a unique quartz crystal that vibrates at a higher frequency than most (262 kHz). The second hand on mine (see pic below) seems to sweep, but is actually ticking at something like 16 beats per second.


When these watches were first introduced, Bulova claimed an accuracy of +/- 10 seconds per year. They have since backed off of that claim and I think they now say something like "seconds per year". I have rated mine as gaining about 0.2 seconds per day (0.21434 seconds, to be exact). That's +1 minute 18 seconds per year. And it is very consistent.







*I believe what most people mean when they say "digital" watch is a quartz watch - as opposed to a mechanical one.


PS
I got my Precisionist from Jacobtime.com - at a substantial discount. They have a lot of good deals there.

[Jim Cate]

Back when we were using celestial in anger, long before satellite nav was available to common folk I used Casio digital quartz watches. They vary somewhat in drift rate, but all seem to be pretty consistent if you keep them at a stable temperature... as in on your wrist.

But really, if taking sights from a low height of eye and from a pitching deck and with big enough seas to cause an obscure horizon, not having really accurate time is not a major error contributor. So, especially if only using celestial for a backup in the unlikely event of GPS failure, don't sweat a few seconds.

Although I'll admit to some sweaty palms when our Sat Nav died in the Tuamotus and we were reduced to (slightly rusty) celestial to continue our cruise. BTW, we made it!

Jim

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

But really, if taking sights from a low height of eye and from a pitching deck and with big enough seas to cause an obscure horizon, not having really accurate time is not a major error contributor. So, especially if only using celestial for a backup in the unlikely event of GPS failure, don't sweat a few seconds.

Yes, I was going to say - by how much would your position be out if your watch was wrong by 2 seconds? Especially if you’re doing sight reductions for fun

[Benz]

^^ perhaps not much, but because of the errors of pitching decks and sweaty hands, it's good to have as much accuracy in the other parts as possible. And sometimes you get that calm evening with a perfect 3-star fix, and what a shame it would be to have dry hands, flat decks, and no idea by how many seconds your watch was off.

[SeanPatrick]

A 1 second error in the timepiece will cause a 15 arc second error in longitude. A 4 second error will cause a 1 arc minute error in longitude, etc.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Yes, I was going to say - by how much would your position be out if your watch was wrong by 2 seconds? Especially if you’re doing sight reductions for fun

0.5nm.