1. synchronome1@groups.io
Topics

Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

Bepi
 

The old dear synchronome seems to be much better at measuring time than I was expecting.

When I say measuring time here I mean intrinsically, with reference to its own internally produced noise. Then there are all those nasty explicitly time dependent potentials like temperature, pressure, celestial body attraction, etc, we'll take care of them later, here I am only concerned with the internally manufactured noise. The noise which would look statistically the same whenever you conduct the experiment. Correct me if I am wrong.

The ones who have looked at my previous post might have noticed that I added to the clock a magnetic impulsing system (MagImp) which seems to be working really well, if there is interest I can describe it in detail in another post.

It works well in the sense that I can reduce the impulse irregular period to the level of any other free fall period by carefully centering it in the sense of Airy's tangent rule. With MagImp the average power is somewhat reduced too, I got rid of the clock losses linked to the timing wheel operation, and I am always referring to stationary states at constant amplitude of when the clock ticks normally, I should say ticked. And with those losses we do without the associated noise too.

In the following I will show circular error free data where the amplitude stays the same for hours, within a few thousands of a degree, corresponding to a fraction of a microsecond of circular error.

With the following graphs I'll compare two runs, one with magnetic impulsing and the other with the old gravity escapement of a classic synchronome. The clock is always the same other than the missing drawing arm, I can switch from one impulsing scheme to the other in a matter of minutes on the same clock, the one I purchased a few months ago on Ebay for 280 pounds.

First set of plots refer to the classic escapement:



the second set of plots refer to the magnetic impulsing case:



Compare the second graph of both set first: the average period over the impulsing cycle vs time in hours. The average is different because the data were taken months apart and the calibration had been changed in the meantime, but we are not interested in the average, we are interested in the regularity of the clock. The y scale to contain all the measurements is roughly twice as big for the MagImp data, in fact over the experimental run the SD (standard deviation) of the MagImp data is 4.14 μs while for the gravity arm case the SD is 1.82 μs. The impulsing cycles are different, the MagImp cycle consists of 5 clock periods, the synchronome of 15, but the MagImp data have been averaged over the same number of periods, 15, before taking the SD, so the SD comparison is fair.

The circular error variation calculated from the amplitude (green points third graph) is shown in the red trace. In both cases the circular error contribution to the SD is negligible, a small fraction of 1 μs.

The real surprise is in the period within the cycle, first trace. The data show typical individual period amplitudes during the run. Those specific ones occurred at the end of the blue trace just below the second graph, in hours from the beginning of the run but they all look statistically the same.

Pay attention to the y scale in those graphs, always in s, the mechanical escapement induces ms size fluctuations around the power impulse, plus a mess after it, while the magnetic impulse induces a variation in the order of tens of μs, if any. The MagImp impulse was not optimized as well as it could but its amplitude deviations are nevertheless not bigger than the following free pendulum ones. You couldn't tell when the impulse occurred and it was only 60 to 70 ms long.

The regularity of a clock, even this fast scale regularity, is not just a matter of size of the fluctuations but also of their correlation properties, I'll test the autocorrelation function when I have time, but the fluctuations themselves are a prerequisite for errors and in the mechanical case they are almost 2 orders of magnitude larger. Did you ever look at the output of a clock timer like a Microset with a quartz clock as an input? It's frozen on the same period reading to the 0.1 μs figure. I don't have a Microset, I use what Luke Mester gives away for free and an Arduino based one, but the result is the same.

Since the SD we are talking about is the one of the averages over the whole cycle, 15 periods, what just said means that those large deviations of impulse duration occurring at and around impulsing are just as regular and reproducible as all the others.

I find this surprising and I would like to share it with all those people that fell speechless in front of these data too.

 

Disclaimer: In this document words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include the feminine gender and the singular to include the plural and the plural the singular unless the contrary as to gender or number is expressly provided or unless the same is inconsistent with the context and where covenants are to be entered into by more than one person the same shall be entered into jointly.....

--
Bepi
Ian Richardson
 

Bepi,

I don't know why, but every time you post it comes at least 3 times!   This last one came 6 times!!

Ian R


-----Original Message-----
From: Bepi <pepicima@...>
To: synchronome1 <synchronome1@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:07
Subject: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

The old dear synchronome seems to be much better at measuring time than I was expecting.
When I say measuring time here I mean intrinsically, with reference to its own internally produced noise. Then there are all those nasty explicitly time dependent potentials like temperature, pressure, celestial body attraction, etc, we'll take care of them later, here I am only concerned with the internally manufactured noise. The noise which would look statistically the same whenever you conduct the experiment. Correct me if I am wrong.
The ones who have looked at my previous post might have noticed that I added to the clock a magnetic impulsing system (MagImp) which seems to be working really well, if there is interest I can describe it in detail in another post.
It works well in the sense that I can reduce the impulse irregular period to the level of any other free fall period by carefully centering it in the sense of Airy's tangent rule. With MagImp the average power is somewhat reduced too, I got rid of the clock losses linked to the timing wheel operation, and I am always referring to stationary states at constant amplitude of when the clock ticks normally, I should say ticked. And with those losses we do without the associated noise too.
In the following I will show circular error free data where the amplitude stays the same for hours, within a few thousands of a degree, corresponding to a fraction of a microsecond of circular error.
With the following graphs I'll compare two runs, one with magnetic impulsing and the other with the old gravity escapement of a classic synchronome. The clock is always the same other than the missing drawing arm, I can switch from one impulsing scheme to the other in a matter of minutes on the same clock, the one I purchased a few months ago on Ebay for 280 pounds.
First set of plots refer to the classic escapement:



the second set of plots refer to the magnetic impulsing case:



Compare the second graph of both set first: the average period over the impulsing cycle vs time in hours. The average is different because the data were taken months apart and the calibration had been changed in the meantime, but we are not interested in the average, we are interested in the regularity of the clock. The y scale to contain all the measurements is roughly twice as big for the MagImp data, in fact over the experimental run the SD (standard deviation) of the MagImp data is 4.14 μs while for the gravity arm case the SD is 1.82 μs. The impulsing cycles are different, the MagImp cycle consists of 5 clock periods, the synchronome of 15, but the MagImp data have been averaged over the same number of periods, 15, before taking the SD, so the SD comparison is fair.
The circular error variation calculated from the amplitude (green points third graph) is shown in the red trace. In both cases the circular error contribution to the SD is negligible, a small fraction of 1 μs.
The real surprise is in the period within the cycle, first trace. The data show typical individual period amplitudes during the run. Those specific ones occurred at the end of the blue trace just below the second graph, in hours from the beginning of the run but they all look statistically the same.
Pay attention to the y scale in those graphs, always in s, the mechanical escapement induces ms size fluctuations around the power impulse, plus a mess after it, while the magnetic impulse induces a variation in the order of tens of μs, if any. The MagImp impulse was not optimized as well as it could but its amplitude deviations are nevertheless not bigger than the following free pendulum ones. You couldn't tell when the impulse occurred and it was only 60 to 70 ms long.
The regularity of a clock, even this fast scale regularity, is not just a matter of size of the fluctuations but also of their correlation properties, I'll test the autocorrelation function when I have time, but the fluctuations themselves are a prerequisite for errors and in the mechanical case they are almost 2 orders of magnitude larger. Did you ever look at the output of a clock timer like a Microset with a quartz clock as an input? It's frozen on the same period reading to the 0.1 μs figure. I don't have a Microset, I use what Luke Mester gives away for free and an Arduino based one, but the result is the same.
Since the SD we are talking about is the one of the averages over the whole cycle, 15 periods, what just said means that those large deviations of impulse duration occurring at and around impulsing are just as regular and reproducible as all the others.
I find this surprising and I would like to share it with all those people that fell speechless in front of these data too.
 
Disclaimer: In this document words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include the feminine gender and the singular to include the plural and the plural the singular unless the contrary as to gender or number is expressly provided or unless the same is inconsistent with the context and where covenants are to be entered into by more than one person the same shall be entered into jointly.....
--
Bepi

Mike Isaacs
 

Bepi,

I have the same problem as Ian Richardson, i.e. receiving multiple copies of your messages. Six copies of the last, as well.

Mike I


In message <783450777.7022781.1578921157817@mail.yahoo.com>, Ian Richardson via Groups.Io <irichar361=aol.com@groups.io> writes

Bepi,

I don't know why, but every time you post it comes at least 3 times!   This last
one came 6 times!!

Ian R


-----Original Message-----
From: Bepi <pepicima@gmail.com>
To: synchronome1 <synchronome1@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:07
Subject: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

The old dear synchronome seems to be much better at measuring time than
I was expecting.
When I say measuring time here I mean intrinsically, with reference to its own
internally produced noise. Then there are all those nasty explicitly time
dependent potentials like temperature, pressure, celestial body attraction, etc,
we'll take care of them later, here I am only concerned with the internally
manufactured noise. The noise which would look statistically the same
whenever you conduct the experiment. Correct me if I am wrong.
The ones who have looked at my previous post might have noticed that I
added to the clock a magnetic impulsing system (MagImp) which seems to
be working really well, if there is interest I can describe it in detail in another
post.
It works well in the sense that I can reduce the impulse irregular period to the
level of any other free fall period by carefully centering it in the sense of Airy's
tangent rule. With MagImp the average power is somewhat reduced too, I got
rid of the clock losses linked to the timing wheel operation, and I am always
referring to stationary states at constant amplitude of when the clock ticks
normally, I should say ticked. And with those losses we do without the
associated noise too.
In the following I will show circular error free data where the amplitude stays
the same for hours, within a few thousands of a degree, corresponding to a
fraction of a microsecond of circular error.
With the following graphs I'll compare two runs, one with magnetic impulsing
and the other with the old gravity escapement of a classic synchronome. The
clock is always the same other than the missing drawing arm, I can switch
from one impulsing scheme to the other in a matter of minutes on the same
clock, the one I purchased a few months ago on Ebay for 280 pounds.
First set of plots refer to the classic escapement:

cid:attach_0_15E97422E9AB3018_2596@groups.io

the second set of plots refer to the magnetic impulsing case:

cid:attach_1_15E97422E9BC1E97_2596@groups.io

Compare the second graph of both set first: the average period over the
impulsing cycle vs time in hours. The average is different because the data
were taken months apart and the calibration had been changed in the
meantime, but we are not interested in the average, we are interested in the
regularity of the clock. The y scale to contain all the measurements is roughly
twice as big for the MagImp data, in fact over the experimental run the SD
(standard deviation) of the MagImp data is 4.14 μs while for the gravity arm
case the SD is 1.82 μs. The impulsing cycles are different, the MagImp cycle
consists of 5 clock periods, the synchronome of 15, but the MagImp data
have been averaged over the same number of periods, 15, before taking the
SD, so the SD comparison is fair.
The circular error variation calculated from the amplitude (green points third
graph) is shown in the red trace. In both cases the circular error contribution
to the SD is negligible, a small fraction of 1 μs.
The real surprise is in the period within the cycle, first trace. The data show
typical individual period amplitudes during the run. Those specific ones
occurred at the end of the blue trace just below the second graph, in hours
from the beginning of the run but they all look statistically the same.
Pay attention to the y scale in those graphs, always in s, the mechanical
escapement induces ms size fluctuations around the power impulse, plus a
mess after it, while the magnetic impulse induces a variation in the order of
tens of μs, if any. The MagImp impulse was not optimized as well as it could
but its amplitude deviations are nevertheless not bigger than the following
free pendulum ones. You couldn't tell when the impulse occurred and it was
only 60 to 70 ms long.
The regularity of a clock, even this fast scale regularity, is not just a matter of
size of the fluctuations but also of their correlation properties, I'll test the
autocorrelation function when I have time, but the fluctuations themselves are
a prerequisite for errors and in the mechanical case they are almost 2 orders
of magnitude larger. Did you ever look at the output of a clock timer like a
Microset with a quartz clock as an input? It's frozen on the same period
reading to the 0.1 μs figure. I don't have a Microset, I use what Luke Mester
gives away for free and an Arduino based one, but the result is the same.
Since the SD we are talking about is the one of the averages over the whole
cycle, 15 periods, what just said means that those large deviations of impulse
duration occurring at and around impulsing are just as regular and
reproducible as all the others.
I find this surprising and I would like to share it with all those people that fell
speechless in front of these data too.
 
Disclaimer: In this document words importing the masculine gender shall be
deemed and taken to include the feminine gender and the singular to
include the plural and the plural the singular unless the contrary as to gender
or number is expressly provided or unless the same is inconsistent with the
context and where covenants are to be entered into by more than one
person the same shall be entered into jointly.....
--
Bepi


[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ]


[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ]
--
Mike Isaacs
Andy Young
 

So do I!

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: synchronome1@groups.io <synchronome1@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Isaacs
Sent: 13 January 2020 18:56
To: synchronome1@groups.io
Subject: Re: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

Bepi,

I have the same problem as Ian Richardson, i.e. receiving multiple copies of your messages. Six copies of the last, as well.

Mike I


In message <783450777.7022781.1578921157817@mail.yahoo.com>, Ian Richardson via Groups.Io <irichar361=aol.com@groups.io> writes
Bepi,

I don't know why, but every time you post it comes at least 3 times!
This last one came 6 times!!

Ian R


-----Original Message-----
From: Bepi <pepicima@gmail.com>
To: synchronome1 <synchronome1@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:07
Subject: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

The old dear synchronome seems to be much better at measuring time than
I was expecting.
When I say measuring time here I mean intrinsically, with reference to
its own internally produced noise. Then there are all those nasty
explicitly time dependent potentials like temperature, pressure,
celestial body attraction, etc, we'll take care of them later, here I
am only concerned with the internally manufactured noise. The noise
which would look statistically the same whenever you conduct the experiment. Correct me if I am wrong.
The ones who have looked at my previous post might have noticed that I
added to the clock a magnetic impulsing system (MagImp) which seems to
be working really well, if there is interest I can describe it in
detail in another post.
It works well in the sense that I can reduce the impulse irregular
period to the level of any other free fall period by carefully
centering it in the sense of Airy's tangent rule. With MagImp the
average power is somewhat reduced too, I got rid of the clock losses
linked to the timing wheel operation, and I am always referring to
stationary states at constant amplitude of when the clock ticks
normally, I should say ticked. And with those losses we do without the associated noise too.
In the following I will show circular error free data where the
amplitude stays the same for hours, within a few thousands of a degree,
corresponding to a fraction of a microsecond of circular error.
With the following graphs I'll compare two runs, one with magnetic
impulsing and the other with the old gravity escapement of a classic
synchronome. The clock is always the same other than the missing
drawing arm, I can switch from one impulsing scheme to the other in a
matter of minutes on the same clock, the one I purchased a few months ago on Ebay for 280 pounds.
First set of plots refer to the classic escapement:

cid:attach_0_15E97422E9AB3018_2596@groups.io

the second set of plots refer to the magnetic impulsing case:

cid:attach_1_15E97422E9BC1E97_2596@groups.io

Compare the second graph of both set first: the average period over the
impulsing cycle vs time in hours. The average is different because the
data were taken months apart and the calibration had been changed in
the meantime, but we are not interested in the average, we are
interested in the regularity of the clock. The y scale to contain all
the measurements is roughly twice as big for the MagImp data, in fact
over the experimental run the SD (standard deviation) of the MagImp
data is 4.14 μs while for the gravity arm case the SD is 1.82 μs. The
impulsing cycles are different, the MagImp cycle consists of 5 clock
periods, the synchronome of 15, but the MagImp data have been averaged
over the same number of periods, 15, before taking the SD, so the SD comparison is fair.
The circular error variation calculated from the amplitude (green
points third
graph) is shown in the red trace. In both cases the circular error
contribution to the SD is negligible, a small fraction of 1 μs.
The real surprise is in the period within the cycle, first trace. The
data show typical individual period amplitudes during the run. Those
specific ones occurred at the end of the blue trace just below the
second graph, in hours from the beginning of the run but they all look statistically the same.
Pay attention to the y scale in those graphs, always in s, the
mechanical escapement induces ms size fluctuations around the power
impulse, plus a mess after it, while the magnetic impulse induces a
variation in the order of tens of μs, if any. The MagImp impulse was
not optimized as well as it could but its amplitude deviations are
nevertheless not bigger than the following free pendulum ones. You
couldn't tell when the impulse occurred and it was only 60 to 70 ms long.
The regularity of a clock, even this fast scale regularity, is not just
a matter of size of the fluctuations but also of their correlation
properties, I'll test the autocorrelation function when I have time,
but the fluctuations themselves are a prerequisite for errors and in
the mechanical case they are almost 2 orders of magnitude larger. Did
you ever look at the output of a clock timer like a Microset with a
quartz clock as an input? It's frozen on the same period reading to the
0.1 μs figure. I don't have a Microset, I use what Luke Mester gives away for free and an Arduino based one, but the result is the same.
Since the SD we are talking about is the one of the averages over the
whole cycle, 15 periods, what just said means that those large
deviations of impulse duration occurring at and around impulsing are
just as regular and reproducible as all the others.
I find this surprising and I would like to share it with all those
people that fell speechless in front of these data too.

Disclaimer: In this document words importing the masculine gender shall
be deemed and taken to include the feminine gender and the singular to
include the plural and the plural the singular unless the contrary as
to gender or number is expressly provided or unless the same is
inconsistent with the context and where covenants are to be entered
into by more than one person the same shall be entered into jointly.....
--
Bepi


[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ]


[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ]
--
Mike Isaacs
Harvey Moseley
 

Hi Bepi,

Very impressive and interesting results!  These results raise a question; why is the mechanical impulse noisy?  I was trying to make a list of possible error sources:  1) dissipation in the mechanical impulse system 2) chaotic behavior due to nonlinearity in the impulse (bouncing, etc)  3)  timing errors in the fall of the gravity arm. 
The third (perhaps combined with the first) could be tested using your sensor to release the gravity arm rather than the gathering wheel.  Anyway, this is all very interesting. I look forward to seeing the results of your autocorrelation measurements.

Best Regards,
Harvey

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 7:04 AM Bepi <pepicima@...> wrote:

The old dear synchronome seems to be much better at measuring time than I was expecting.

When I say measuring time I mean intrinsically, with reference to its own internally produced noise. Then there are all those nasty potentials which depend explicitly from time like temperature, pressure, lunar attractions, etc, we'll take care of them later, here I am only concerned with the internally manufactured noise. Correct me if I am wrong.

The ones who have looked at my previous post might have noticed that I added to the clock a magnetic impulsing system which seems to be working really well, if somebody is interested I could describe it in detail in a following post.

It works really well especially in the sense that I could practically reduce the impulse irregular period to the level of any other period by carefully centering it in the sense of Airy's tangent rule. The average power is somewhat reduced too, I got rid of the clock losses linked to the timing wheel operation, and I am always referring to stationary states at constant amplitude of when the clock tiks normally, I should say ticked.

In the following I will show data where the amplitude stays the same within a few thousands of a degree for hours, corresponding to a fraction of a microsecond of circular error.

With the following graphs I'll compare two runs, one with the magnetic impulsing and the other with the old gravity escapement of a classic synchronome. The clock is always the same, I can switch from one impulsing scheme to the other in a matter of minutes on the same clock, the one I purchased a few months ago on Ebay for 280 pounds.

First set of plots refer to the classic escapement:



the second set of plots to the MI (magnetic impulsing) case:



Compare the second graph of both set first: the average period over the impulsing cycle vs time in hours. The average is different because the data were taken months apart and the calibration had been changed in the meantime, but we are not interested in the average, we are interested in the regularity of the clock. The y scale to contain all the measurements is roughly twice as big for the MI data, in fact over the experimental run the SD (standard deviation) of the MI data is 4.14 μs while for the gravity arm case the SD is 1.82 μs. The impulsing cycles are different, the MI cycle consists of 5 clock periods, the synchronome of 15, but the MI data have been averaged over the same number of periods, 15, before taking the SD, so the comparison is fair.

The circular error variation calculated from the amplitude (green points third graph) is shown in the red trace. In both cases is negligible, less than 1 μs.

The real surprise is in the detail of a cycle, first trace. The data show typical individual period amplitudes during the run. Those specific ones occurred at the end of the blue trace just below the second graph, in hours from the beginning of the run.

Pay attention to the y scale in those graphs, always in s, the mechanical escapement induces ms size fluctuations around the power impulse while the magnetic impulse induces a variation in the order of tens of μs, if any. The MI impulse was not optimized carefully but its amplitude deviations are nevertheless not bigger than the following free pendulum ones.

The regularity of a clock, even this fast scale regularity, is not just a matter of size of the fluctuations but also of their correlation properties, I'll test the autocorrelation function when I have time, but the fluctuations themselves are a prerequisite for errors and in the mechanical case they are almost 2 orders of magnitude larger. Since the SD we are talking about is the one of the averages over the whole cycle what just said means that those large deviations of impulse duration occurring at and around impulsing are just as regular and reproducible as all the others.

I find this surprising and I would like to share it with those people that fell speechless in front of these data too.

 

Disclaimer: In this document words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include the feminine gender and the singular to include the plural and the plural the singular unless the contrary as to gender or number is expressly provided or unless the same is inconsistent with the context and where covenants are to be entered into by more than one person the same shall be entered into jointly.....

--
Bepi

John Howell
 

Me too,

John H.


On 13/01/2020 18:55, Mike Isaacs wrote:
Bepi,

I have the same problem as Ian Richardson, i.e. receiving multiple copies of your messages.  Six copies of the last, as well.

Mike I


In message <783450777.7022781.1578921157817@...>, Ian Richardson via Groups.Io <irichar361@...> writes
Bepi,

I don't know why, but every time you post it comes at least 3 times!   This last
one came 6 times!!

Ian R


-----Original Message-----
From: Bepi <pepicima@...>
To: synchronome1 <synchronome1@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:07
Subject: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

The old dear synchronome seems to be much better at measuring time than
I was expecting.
When I say measuring time here I mean intrinsically, with reference to its own
internally produced noise. Then there are all those nasty explicitly time
dependent potentials like temperature, pressure, celestial body attraction, etc,
we'll take care of them later, here I am only concerned with the internally
manufactured noise. The noise which would look statistically the same
whenever you conduct the experiment. Correct me if I am wrong.
The ones who have looked at my previous post might have noticed that I
added to the clock a magnetic impulsing system (MagImp) which seems to
be working really well, if there is interest I can describe it in detail in another
post.
It works well in the sense that I can reduce the impulse irregular period to the
level of any other free fall period by carefully centering it in the sense of Airy's
tangent rule. With MagImp the average power is somewhat reduced too, I got
rid of the clock losses linked to the timing wheel operation, and I am always
referring to stationary states at constant amplitude of when the clock ticks
normally, I should say ticked. And with those losses we do without the
associated noise too.
In the following I will show circular error free data where the amplitude stays
the same for hours, within a few thousands of a degree, corresponding to a
fraction of a microsecond of circular error.
With the following graphs I'll compare two runs, one with magnetic impulsing
and the other with the old gravity escapement of a classic synchronome. The
clock is always the same other than the missing drawing arm, I can switch
from one impulsing scheme to the other in a matter of minutes on the same
clock, the one I purchased a few months ago on Ebay for 280 pounds.
First set of plots refer to the classic escapement:



the second set of plots refer to the magnetic impulsing case:



Compare the second graph of both set first: the average period over the
impulsing cycle vs time in hours. The average is different because the data
were taken months apart and the calibration had been changed in the
meantime, but we are not interested in the average, we are interested in the
regularity of the clock. The y scale to contain all the measurements is roughly
twice as big for the MagImp data, in fact over the experimental run the SD
(standard deviation) of the MagImp data is 4.14 μs while for the gravity arm
case the SD is 1.82 μs. The impulsing cycles are different, the MagImp cycle
consists of 5 clock periods, the synchronome of 15, but the MagImp data
have been averaged over the same number of periods, 15, before taking the
SD, so the SD comparison is fair.
The circular error variation calculated from the amplitude (green points third
graph) is shown in the red trace. In both cases the circular error contribution
to the SD is negligible, a small fraction of 1 μs.
The real surprise is in the period within the cycle, first trace. The data show
typical individual period amplitudes during the run. Those specific ones
occurred at the end of the blue trace just below the second graph, in hours
from the beginning of the run but they all look statistically the same.
Pay attention to the y scale in those graphs, always in s, the mechanical
escapement induces ms size fluctuations around the power impulse, plus a
mess after it, while the magnetic impulse induces a variation in the order of
tens of μs, if any. The MagImp impulse was not optimized as well as it could
but its amplitude deviations are nevertheless not bigger than the following
free pendulum ones. You couldn't tell when the impulse occurred and it was
only 60 to 70 ms long.
The regularity of a clock, even this fast scale regularity, is not just a matter of
size of the fluctuations but also of their correlation properties, I'll test the
autocorrelation function when I have time, but the fluctuations themselves are
a prerequisite for errors and in the mechanical case they are almost 2 orders
of magnitude larger. Did you ever look at the output of a clock timer like a
Microset with a quartz clock as an input? It's frozen on the same period
reading to the 0.1 μs figure. I don't have a Microset, I use what Luke Mester
gives away for free and an Arduino based one, but the result is the same.
Since the SD we are talking about is the one of the averages over the whole
cycle, 15 periods, what just said means that those large deviations of impulse
duration occurring at and around impulsing are just as regular and
reproducible as all the others.
I find this surprising and I would like to share it with all those people that fell
speechless in front of these data too.
 
Disclaimer: In this document words importing the masculine gender shall be
deemed and taken to include the feminine gender and the singular to
include the plural and the plural the singular unless the contrary as to gender
or number is expressly provided or unless the same is inconsistent with the
context and where covenants are to be entered into by more than one
person the same shall be entered into jointly.....
--
Bepi


[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ]


[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ]


Johannes <johannes@...>
 

Hi Harvey

Are we talking about the same ? you are using word that I don’t understand.

But for me is this «noise” _music.._,_._,_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCt04SXdfQ

 

Johannes
Bepi
 

Thanks Harvey. I need to specify what I mean by noise. My point is actually that the mechanical impulse is not as "noisy" as I would have intuitively thought, where for noisy I mean not reproducible to the point that increases the average period standard deviation. The mechanical impulse period has a substantially different duration from the free pendulum ones, you might call that noise too but it is not noise in the common sense of affecting the clock regularity. The period difference is 1 ms in my and John Haine's cases, and that is to me pretty clear now why. The mechanical impulse occurs considerably off from the pendulum swing center, I know from theory and experiment that a positive difference menans late impulsing as in my case. Mind you it could come from the dragging of the gravity arm too , Airy's tangent rule applies to the center of gravity of all forces, the positive and the negative ones. For other examples see Tom Van Baak's and John Haine's synchronome data reported in John's Reinventing the synchronome topic. In John's case it looks early rather than late, in Tom's it looks late. I did try as you suggest to center the mechanical impulse by controlling the arm release with a small solenoid and a variable delay control, as I have shown in a previous topic, but it didn't work. The pulse timing depends also on the shape of the gravity arm and its relative position to the pendulum vertical, a scan of these parameters is possible but difficult and I haven't done it, I have found it easier to switch to magnetic pulsing which i can control by typing numbers.-
Bepi
Harvey Moseley
 

Johannes,
What was the mystery word I was using? I will try to clarify.
Best,
Harvey

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:20 AM Johannes <johannes@...> wrote:

Hi Harvey

Are we talking about the same ? you are using word that I don’t understand.

But for me is this «noise” _music.._,_._,_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCt04SXdfQ

 

Johannes
Harvey Moseley
 

Sorry Johannes,
I see it was "noise" you were talking about.  I am a physicist, and in the field, noise is the word used to describe any random fluctuations that affect a measurement.  We spend a lot of time trying to understand the sources of these fluctuations, whether they arise from thermodynamics for example, and are thus fundamental, or if they are dependent on the way we have done things.  Sorry for throwing in the physics language. When I see problems like this, the physicist in me takes over my thought processes.
Best,
Harvey

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:50 PM HM51 <harvey.moseley1@...> wrote:
Johannes,
What was the mystery word I was using? I will try to clarify.
Best,
Harvey

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:20 AM Johannes <johannes@...> wrote:

Hi Harvey

Are we talking about the same ? you are using word that I don’t understand.

But for me is this «noise” _music.._,_._,_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCt04SXdfQ

 

Johannes
John Haine
 

Bepi mentioned that from data I presented over in the "reinventing" thread that the impulse was occurring too early.  That was a considerable surprise to me because I though that the impulse timing was fixed in the pallet and suspension geometry.  I think I have fixed this by shifting the pendulum to the right relative to the pallet (which I can do by adjusting thumb nuts that clamp the upper block of the suspension on the threaded rod that fits on the brackets). The downside of this is that when the pendulum is stationary the roller isn't half way down the slope of the pallet as I would expect but on the top of the slope just before it starts to roll down.  This means that the theory of the slope profile (based on F H_J's writing) is wrong, or my implementation of it is - this needs more investigating.  It also means that my "auto-start" routine not longer works so I have to get the pendulum swinging by hand, not so much of a problem really!  To adjust the position I added some timing measurements to the Arduino code, it takes quite a long time to do the setup since the clock takes several hours to settle after each adjustment, so I haven't repeated it after reassembly in its case.

Bepi's clock seemed to have a late impulse.  As he says, if the impulse can be put at the centre, variations in impulse strength ("noise") have minimum effect, since they will only affect the timekeeping through amplitude changes and circular deviation.
Ian Richardson
 

Hi All,

This may sound a bit "of the wall", but I have found that a good way to ensure that the impulse occurs in the centre of swing is to take the bob off!  With just the rod, release the gravity arm while holding the rod to the left, then gradually move the rod to the right and you will feel the impulse (and it may take the rod out of your hand).  I'm sure that with a bit of ingenuity, it should be possible to measure that point, which is much easier to locate without the bob.

The setting-up instructions are a good guide, but variations in manufacturing tolerance mean that they won't always put the impulse exactly in the right place.

Just a thought.
Ian R
Macclesield, UK


-----Original Message-----
From: John Haine <john.haine@...>
To: synchronome1 <synchronome1@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:24
Subject: Re: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

Bepi mentioned that from data I presented over in the "reinventing" thread that the impulse was occurring too early.  That was a considerable surprise to me because I though that the impulse timing was fixed in the pallet and suspension geometry.  I think I have fixed this by shifting the pendulum to the right relative to the pallet (which I can do by adjusting thumb nuts that clamp the upper block of the suspension on the threaded rod that fits on the brackets). The downside of this is that when the pendulum is stationary the roller isn't half way down the slope of the pallet as I would expect but on the top of the slope just before it starts to roll down.  This means that the theory of the slope profile (based on F H_J's writing) is wrong, or my implementation of it is - this needs more investigating.  It also means that my "auto-start" routine not longer works so I have to get the pendulum swinging by hand, not so much of a problem really!  To adjust the position I added some timing measurements to the Arduino code, it takes quite a long time to do the setup since the clock takes several hours to settle after each adjustment, so I haven't repeated it after reassembly in its case.

Bepi's clock seemed to have a late impulse.  As he says, if the impulse can be put at the centre, variations in impulse strength ("noise") have minimum effect, since they will only affect the timekeeping through amplitude changes and circular deviation.

John Haine
 

A good suggestion Ian, which in essence is what I have tried to do.  However I think there may be a difference between the best "static" position and what happens when the system is in motion.  I found that carefully setting up using this method gave an impulse that was too early once the pendulum reached equilibrium amplitude.  You can only see this by making dynamic measurements of pendulum period either side of the impulse.
Ian Richardson
 

John,

I guess you're right, dynamics will come into it.  I also believe that consistency is the key - if the impulse is always the same then, other things being equal, the arc should remain the same.

Ian R



-----Original Message-----
From: John Haine <john.haine@...>
To: synchronome1 <synchronome1@groups.io>
Sent: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:51
Subject: Re: [synchronomeelectricclock] Magnetic vs gravity impulsing

A good suggestion Ian, which in essence is what I have tried to do.  However I think there may be a difference between the best "static" position and what happens when the system is in motion.  I found that carefully setting up using this method gave an impulse that was too early once the pendulum reached equilibrium amplitude.  You can only see this by making dynamic measurements of pendulum period either side of the impulse.

Bepi
 

I totally agree too with what John Haine just said, dynamics is a consideration, a much enhanced sensitivity of the electronic measurement is another and what matters for the tangent rule is the center of gravity of all forces, active and passive. The asymmetric dragging of the wheel at impulse for example should be included too. The electronic measurement takes everything into account with unmatched precision, now the problem is if all of this matters for practical regularity or not, from my preliminary measurements it doesn't look like it does. I wish others would step in with their clock measurements.
--
Bepi
1 - 15 of 15