Which watch do you prefer for sight timekeeping

[Neville220]

Hi,

I am just thinking of investing in a replacement watch for timing of sights and wondered what you knowledgable old salts used or would like to use?

Do we need to go down the expensive route?
Is digital better than analogue?
Is there a prefered make / model?

I shouldn't think there is a right or wrong answer to this as it is subject to personal preference, I am just curious!

Pagan

 

[Twister_Ken]

Going back a long while, a guy I once sailed with did astro on a tradewind crossing using a Timex Ironman. Hit the island he was aiming for. Wasn't planned that way, but the chronometer packed up.

 

[ithet]

Tom Cunliff has suggested that nowadays (or near future) the best way to get time for astro nav anywhere in the world is to read it of a handheld GPS unit...

He was complaining that you cannot set time accuratly from the "pips" broadcast by digital radio.

If you are staying within Europe I would have thought a radio controlled watch most accurate, Casio have a range or Jungmans for higher end. My dad had a Russian ship chronometer and deck watch (but it never went on a boat!). No more accurate than the radio watch but more fun.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ANTIQUE-1...567?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a18af6627

 

[Neil_Y]

Large display digital, water proof and with a good strap, and get two.

Basic Casio with a nice gentle back light proved to be good for me.

The accuracy of any quartz watch is good enough, your errors will be from your sites not the second or two from the watch, which you can keep an eye on if you get other time checks.

photo courtesy of www.watchshop.com

 

[Neil]

I have a Precision radio-controlled watch, so it's always spot on - about a second faster than my iPhone clock. I takes the signal from the UK, Germany, the USA and Tokyo, so good for anywhere, but mid-Atlantic, the signal is probably not there and it's only as good as any quartz watch. I'd like a digital clock that you could stop the hands like a stopwatch. Not that I need it, since I do my astro in the back garden........

 

[Vara]

Don't do astro anymore, as I'm too idle.

The most accurate watch I have is this one;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Citizen-Eco-Drive-Canvas-Watch-BM6400-00E/sim/B000ZPMYCC/2

Consistent 4 seconds a month inaccuracy, and not as battery dependent as straight quartz watches.

 

[Vara]

Tom Cunliff has suggested that nowadays (or near future) the best way to get time for astro nav anywhere in the world is to read it of a handheld GPS unit...

Am I missing the irony emoticon here? If you have a working GPS, what is the point of buggering about with astro?

 

[prv]

If you have a working GPS, what is the point of buggering about with astro?

If you have an engine (or indeed an airliner), what's the point of buggering about with sails?

I suspect the answers are similar.

Pete

 

[onesea]

Tom Cunliff has suggested that nowadays (or near future) the best way to get time for astro nav anywhere in the world is to read it of a handheld GPS unit...

Now I hate to disagree with a living legend but...

I work with 2 or 3 super accurate GPS plus a couple of ordinary ones and the time frequently differs, not by seconds but minutes... Yet still give positions within centemeters.

As for my vote clear display digital.

 

[ithet]

Am I missing the irony emoticon here? If you have a working GPS, what is the point of buggering about with astro?

Quite so, and that was somewhat his point.

As technology evolves we often end up with half way house solutions. I see this happening at present with the daft DSC comms situation - using digital to send a half message and switch the reciever to an analoge channel.

 

[Vara]

If you have an engine (or indeed an airliner), what's the point of buggering about with sails?

I suspect the answers are similar.

Pete

OK, but I've never used astro-nav as a recreational activity, and found very early on (about 1996) that verifying GPS with a sextant was a fairly pointless exercise.

 

[JayBee]

Timex Reef Gear T51371

Excellent, rugged timekeeper and inexpensive enough to buy two.

 

[Mudisox]

Help with timing of sights.

For a watch it really doesn't matter too much as most modern digital will give a good time. The secret is to speak into a digital tape recorder and record the time on it before the sight, and then refer to it later when working out the sight.

It reads like this, moving the micrometer up [or down ] a few mins of arc.

"Sun's lower limb, Time 1106 standby, standby, "now"

49degrees 30 mins, ..........now.........32mins now...........34......now.....36......now"

Then table the time in secs from first "now and then you can average it out and get a good reading.

49 30 1106 28'
49 32 1106 35'
49 34 1106 41'
49 36 1106 49'

It also enables sights to be taken on your own without a recording person.

 

[Simondjuk]

Quite so, and that was somewhat his point.

As technology evolves we often end up with half way house solutions. I see this happening at present with the daft DSC comms situation - using digital to send a half message and switch the reciever to an analoge channel.

There is a lot that is not daft about DSC if you use it properly.

 

[Skylark]

I'd recommend two, low cost digital watches with large displays.

I use a Casio digital and a Gull analogue. The Gull is an ebay purchase and I use it for sailing because my "day watch" is a rolie and I don't want to damage it. For astro I'd prefer both digital but I like the face of the Gull.

Electronic watches are remarkably accurate. A few weeks before I'm planning to take sights I set the watches against bbc (FM, not Digital) radio pips. Every few days I'll re-check such that I have a record of daily or weekly error.

 

[Habebty]

FFS wind up clocks used to be good enough, I reckon a £5 casio ought to do the trick?

 

[JayBee]

For a watch it really doesn't matter too much as most modern digital will give a good time. The secret is to speak into a digital tape recorder....
....It also enables sights to be taken on your own without a recording person.

How many hands have you got to secure yourself, your precious sextant and your digital tape recorder ?

It takes about one second to look at a digital watch, note the time and write it down, together with the sextant altitude, in another few seconds.

In the taking of many hundreds of sights I have never felt the need to employ a "recording person" although it must be convenient to have one available, I must admit. You also have someone else to blame if the results are not as expected.

 

[stephenh]

I use two (I suppose three would be perfection....) digital Casios - not the £5 type , about £20 ea. IIRC.
They are both rated , this is the most important part (!) - the most accurate gains exactly 1 sec. / day consistantly. But I check it for a week before setting off for the deep water - just in case.
From this I would not use a radio dependant time piece as it cannot be rated onshore - it will always be very accurate and then when you are really at sea you will not know it's rate of loss / gain and it will be out of range of the correcting signal.
( Was it Conrad who said you are not really at sea until you are a thousand miles from land ?)
I strap the watch to the frame of the sextant and add one second to my reading for the time it takes to do this. Then write it down on a very flexible preruled note book that sits on my forearm c/o a rubber band that holds it there.
A short piece of string with a pencil attached completes the outfit !

 

[laika]

How many hands have you got to secure yourself, your precious sextant and your digital tape recorder ?

With a lapel mic and the recorder shoved in your pocket I'd guess you need fewer hands than those needed to alternate between sextant, watch, source of illumination (with night vision hit) and paper and pen when doing star sights . For some reason I've never thought about Mudisox's suggestion but for stars at least it definitely sounds worth a go.

EDIT: OTOH you don't want to be overheard as the nutter talking to himself on night watch...

 

[emandvee44]

Time for sights

I bought a modern ship's quartz chronometer on ebay and it has been running since July 19th. 2011, and to date has an error of +12 secs. Therefore I can use it with confidence for taking sights, and only an occasional time check is required.
Having said that, quartz watches are accurate enough, providing you can get time signal checks frequently to ascertain the current and thus the predicted error.
The time accuracy is probably the least of your worries when taking a sight from a yacht, unless it is a very stable platform.

Cheers,

Michael.