On Mar 5, 2:55*pm, G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> George W Frost wrote:
> > "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:2f5e45d0-b1fe-430d-be08-(E-Mail Removed)....
> > On Mar 5, 10:53 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:31:54 -0800 (PST), theo
>
> >>>> Timex never made watches, they made clocks.
>
> >> That's drawing a fine line on pedantism Theo :-)
>
> >> Mind you, it did make me go and look up the difference. I think 99.99%
> >> of the population would still class it as a watch if it is attached to
> >> your body. And from what I could find on the net, that's how it is
> >> generally defined.
>
> > Almost all pocket watches are clocks.
>
> > Theo
>
> Digital watches aren't clocks (they don't have a 'clock' mechanism)

They don't have a watch mechanism either.

Look this whole watch side-thread was aimed at George's comment on his
Timex I chucked out the bait, based on knowlegde I didn't expect
George (or most people) to have, and expected George to bite at it. No
need for everyone else to get on the line. It's getting too hard to
pull in.

Theo

On Mar 5, 2:51*pm, G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:

> Timex have been making watches as long as I can remember (ok I know
> you're older than me) but do you remember when they started? [1]
>
> G-S
>
> [1] My father had a Timex brand watch when I was a little kid...

No Idea. I bought my Timex in 1967.

Theo

On Mar 5, 3:24*pm, theo <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:51*pm, G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Timex have been making watches as long as I can remember (ok I know
> > you're older than me) but do you remember when they started? [1]
>
> > G-S
>
> > [1] My father had a Timex brand watch when I was a little kid...
>
> No Idea. I bought my Timex in 1967.

Wiki says
Waterbury Clock’s Sister company Waterbury Watch Company manufactured
the first inexpensive mechanical pocket watch in 1880. During World
War I, Waterbury Clock began making wristwatches, which had only just
become popular, and in 1933 it made history by creating the first
Mickey Mouse clock under license from Walt Disney, with Mickey's hands
pointing the time. This was made under the Ingersoll brand.[1]
Watches with the Timex brand name were first used in 1946 with a small
shipment of nurses' watches.[8][1] The "X" suffix "was used to envoke
a sense of technological advancement.[8][1] Watches were not sold
under the name Timex in the U.S until 1950.[1]

So they made their first "wristwatch" in WWI, but not under the Timex
name till 1946.
Also see http://www.timexgroup.com/heritage/timeline.html

Theo

rOn Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:33:36 GMT, "George W Frost"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"theo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:c8c82099-c1f8-4de8-b3b6-(E-Mail Removed)...
>On Mar 5, 10:53 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>> That's drawing a fine line on pedantism Theo :-)
>>
>> Mind you, it did make me go and look up the difference. I think 99.99%
>> of the population would still class it as a watch if it is attached to
>> your body. And from what I could find on the net, that's how it is
>> generally defined.
>>
>> You have any references for different definitions? I'm intrigued
>> (being an anal person about correct time after years in live TV where
>> we ran rubidium time base correctors before framestores and the
>> interwebs could provide generic atomic servers).
>
>I bought a Timex in the US in 1969 because it was cheap. Too cheap, it
>lasted a whole year. I already knew when I bought it that it was a
>clock, but it was so cheap. Too cheap.
>
>OK, so you're anal about time. What was the time when you celebrated
>last New Year? :-)

I was in bed asleep :-P
(Seriously)

But all my computers check atomic servers every half hour. Just
working in live TV where you had to synchronise crosses to external
sources to times under a second, editing for 30 years where 1/25th of
a second makes a heap of difference to how an edit feels, and going
back further where, to cross to a microwave feed from the mainland,
the whole station had to have its power source genlocked to within
milliseconds to the incoming feed has just left me wanting to know
accurately what the bloody time is :-)

Kev

On Mar 6, 6:39*am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
wrote:

> But all my computers check atomic servers every half hour. Just
> working in live TV where you had to synchronise crosses to external
> sources to times under a second, editing for 30 years where 1/25th of
> a second makes a heap of difference to how an edit feels, and going
> back further where, to cross to a microwave feed from the mainland,
> the whole station had to have its power source genlocked to within
> milliseconds to the incoming feed has just left me wanting to know
> accurately what the bloody time is :-)

Yes that is a bit anal. When I was working with very sensitive main-
frames in the sixties and seventies I would be aware of a 1/2 cycle
power outage in the computer room that no-one else would notice. "The
computer stopped". "Yes, there was a power outage just now". "Huh?".
Switch-mode power supplies only made that worse.

On Wednesday this week I noticed that my watch showed that is was Feb
31. That level of time error seems to happen every couple of months. I
haven't checked the actual time on my watch against anything since I
bought it last August. I used to work with a bloke whose watch lost
its minute hand. He didn't care. The hour hand told him all the time
he needed.

Theo

"theo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:f2c69e88-453d-45a9-ad8c-(E-Mail Removed)...
On Mar 6, 6:39 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
wrote:

> But all my computers check atomic servers every half hour. Just
> working in live TV where you had to synchronise crosses to external
> sources to times under a second, editing for 30 years where 1/25th of
> a second makes a heap of difference to how an edit feels, and going
> back further where, to cross to a microwave feed from the mainland,
> the whole station had to have its power source genlocked to within
> milliseconds to the incoming feed has just left me wanting to know
> accurately what the bloody time is :-)

Yes that is a bit anal. When I was working with very sensitive main-
frames in the sixties and seventies I would be aware of a 1/2 cycle
power outage in the computer room that no-one else would notice. "The
computer stopped". "Yes, there was a power outage just now". "Huh?".
Switch-mode power supplies only made that worse.

On Wednesday this week I noticed that my watch showed that is was Feb
31. That level of time error seems to happen every couple of months. I
haven't checked the actual time on my watch against anything since I
bought it last August. I used to work with a bloke whose watch lost
its minute hand. He didn't care. The hour hand told him all the time
he needed.

Theo

****************

Why is it called the second hand when in fact it is the third hand?

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:14:14 GMT, "George W Frost"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"theo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:f2c69e88-453d-45a9-ad8c-(E-Mail Removed)...
>On Mar 6, 6:39 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>> But all my computers check atomic servers every half hour. Just
>> working in live TV where you had to synchronise crosses to external
>> sources to times under a second, editing for 30 years where 1/25th of
>> a second makes a heap of difference to how an edit feels, and going
>> back further where, to cross to a microwave feed from the mainland,
>> the whole station had to have its power source genlocked to within
>> milliseconds to the incoming feed has just left me wanting to know
>> accurately what the bloody time is :-)
>
>Yes that is a bit anal. When I was working with very sensitive main-
>frames in the sixties and seventies I would be aware of a 1/2 cycle
>power outage in the computer room that no-one else would notice. "The
>computer stopped". "Yes, there was a power outage just now". "Huh?".
>Switch-mode power supplies only made that worse.
>
>On Wednesday this week I noticed that my watch showed that is was Feb
>31. That level of time error seems to happen every couple of months. I
>haven't checked the actual time on my watch against anything since I
>bought it last August. I used to work with a bloke whose watch lost
>its minute hand. He didn't care. The hour hand told him all the time
>he needed.
>
>Theo
>
>****************
>
>Why is it called the second hand when in fact it is the third hand?

I know that was a rhetorical tongue in cheek question, but it also
made me wonder why the duplication of the word "second". Had a bit of
a poke around but couldn't find the roots of the word.

It's got me intrigued now as if you think about it from historical
terms, the most obvious one would start with day, then would head out
in two directions from there. One towards seasons and years and the
other inwards towards hours, then minutes, then seconds. So it should
be fourths.

I tried finding some latin roots (secundus?) but nothing seems to
explain why it coincides with the 2nd bit of something.

Ideas anyone?

Kev

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:11:28 +0000, Kevin Gleeson wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:14:14 GMT, "George W Frost"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>>Why is it called the second hand when in fact it is the third hand?
>
> I know that was a rhetorical tongue in cheek question, but it also made
> me wonder why the duplication of the word "second". Had a bit of a poke
> around but couldn't find the roots of the word.
>
> It's got me intrigued now as if you think about it from historical
> terms, the most obvious one would start with day, then would head out in
> two directions from there. One towards seasons and years and the other
> inwards towards hours, then minutes, then seconds. So it should be
> fourths.
>
> I tried finding some latin roots (secundus?) but nothing seems to
> explain why it coincides with the 2nd bit of something.
>
> Ideas anyone?
>
> Kev

Probably helps to have studied Latin. To come *second*, to be *second*
best, to sell damaged goods as *seconds* and so on, along with a second
in a duel etc. all stem from the Latin 'secundus' meaning following,
next, second, etc., and it's the male form. The sixtieth part of a minute
in time = a sixtieth part of a minute in angular measure = second,
derived from thge Latin 'secunda' which is the feminine form, used like
'secunda minuta' (second minute).

So girls are more accurate and boys follow.

Strangely, a *second* in music derives from secundus,not secunda.

--
Regards

Andrew

"Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eCnkn.11483$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:11:28 +0000, Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:14:14 GMT, "George W Frost"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Why is it called the second hand when in fact it is the third hand?
>>
>> I know that was a rhetorical tongue in cheek question, but it also made
>> me wonder why the duplication of the word "second". Had a bit of a poke
>> around but couldn't find the roots of the word.
>>
>> It's got me intrigued now as if you think about it from historical
>> terms, the most obvious one would start with day, then would head out in
>> two directions from there. One towards seasons and years and the other
>> inwards towards hours, then minutes, then seconds. So it should be
>> fourths.
>>
>> I tried finding some latin roots (secundus?) but nothing seems to
>> explain why it coincides with the 2nd bit of something.
>>
>> Ideas anyone?
>>
>> Kev
>
> Probably helps to have studied Latin. To come *second*, to be *second*
> best, to sell damaged goods as *seconds* and so on, along with a second
> in a duel etc. all stem from the Latin 'secundus' meaning following,
> next, second, etc., and it's the male form. The sixtieth part of a minute
> in time = a sixtieth part of a minute in angular measure = second,
> derived from thge Latin 'secunda' which is the feminine form, used like
> 'secunda minuta' (second minute).
>
> So girls are more accurate and boys follow.
>
> Strangely, a *second* in music derives from secundus,not secunda.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Andrew

I wouldn't like to come second in a duel

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:36:42 GMT, Andrew
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:11:28 +0000, Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:14:14 GMT, "George W Frost"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Why is it called the second hand when in fact it is the third hand?
>>
>> I know that was a rhetorical tongue in cheek question, but it also made
>> me wonder why the duplication of the word "second". Had a bit of a poke
>> around but couldn't find the roots of the word.
>>
>> It's got me intrigued now as if you think about it from historical
>> terms, the most obvious one would start with day, then would head out in
>> two directions from there. One towards seasons and years and the other
>> inwards towards hours, then minutes, then seconds. So it should be
>> fourths.
>>
>> I tried finding some latin roots (secundus?) but nothing seems to
>> explain why it coincides with the 2nd bit of something.
>>
>> Ideas anyone?
>>
>> Kev
>
>Probably helps to have studied Latin. To come *second*, to be *second*
>best, to sell damaged goods as *seconds* and so on, along with a second
>in a duel etc. all stem from the Latin 'secundus' meaning following,
>next, second, etc., and it's the male form. The sixtieth part of a minute
>in time = a sixtieth part of a minute in angular measure = second,
>derived from thge Latin 'secunda' which is the feminine form, used like
>'secunda minuta' (second minute).
>
>So girls are more accurate and boys follow.
>
>Strangely, a *second* in music derives from secundus,not secunda.

That still doesn't ring well for me though. And yes, I've only been
playing music for 40 years now :-P

I still think as language developed the initial critical time period
would be the day. But reading into what you are saying, I guess by the
time (boom-boom) we were able to define time to that accuracy, then
the slicing of a minute into other parts could lead to that. It still
seems to me it should be called a sexond or something like that
though. A second minute to me sounds like the "following" definition.
I guess they were just being lazy. Mind you, who knows with the
English language? Which witch is which?

Kev