x
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Handy iPhone app
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Message-ID: <4c429a8b.7040...@sonic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Thomas A. Frank wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
>
I have an iPod Touch. It's an iPhone without the cellular radio, the
camera, the GPS, or the compass, but it runs most of the same applications.
Emerald Time works fine on it.
As far as I can tell, Apple refuses to acknowledge any timing precision
finer than minutes in their user interface. It d
Thomas A. Frank wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
Rex wrote:
I just eyeballed the minute turn-over but it was clearly within
about a second.
Well, apparently it is a phone issue and not a cell-tower issue.
Searching the support forums yields the following trick: disa
On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
Rex wrote:
I just eyeballed the minute turn-over but it was clearly within
about a second.
Well, apparently it is a phone issue and not a cell-tower issue.
Searching the support forums yields the following trick: disable
the automatic time s
FWIW, my iphone is presently 15 seconds slow wrt Emerald (which
matches my GPS based clock as closely as my eye can judge).
Tom Frank, KA2CDK
On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:
Now if only Apple would allow Emerald Time to correct the i-
phone's internal clock we'd actual
Hi
Here in Carlisle PA the same check shows the iPhone 3G "within a second".
That's running 3G, with no odd settings on the phone.
Bob
On Jul 16, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Rex wrote:
> I'm in San Jose. (Same Bay you are talking about?) I am on AT&T but I have a
> Motoroloa Razr that's at least a co
On 7/16/2010 12:00 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
> Here in the Bay Area, AT&T/iPhone time has gotten noticeably worse
> recently. The error used to be around 4 seconds; now it's 49 seconds (!).
>
> Emerald Time is fine for interactive use, but what I find very impolite
> is that AT&T's bad timestamps a
On 7/16/2010 1:57 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
> li...@ozindfw.net said:
>
>> Most newer operational standards can't tolerate this and "accurate" time
>> (better than a ms) is important. WiMAX requires TDD base stations to base
>> station alignment to be better than 1 microsecond. Most telecom oper
In Tampa bay AT&T is about 17 seconds off
--
Mike
On Jul 16, 2010, at 1:00, Peter Monta wrote:
> Oz-in-DFW writes:
>
>>> ... There is no way AT&T would be 12.4 seconds off ...
>>>
>>
>> I used to work in the cell infra business. While it's less true today,
>> there are still a number of ope
Rex wrote:
> I just eyeballed the minute turn-over but it was clearly within
> about a second.
Well, apparently it is a phone issue and not a cell-tower issue.
Searching the support forums yields the following trick: disable
the automatic time setting, set it manually to a grossly wrong
time, t
pmo...@gmail.com said:
> It would be amusing to arrange for a long-term record of the offset of one's
> phone (which can of course change across multiple providers during travel),
> say by using a background process to take a sample every few hours against
> NTP sources or against GPS if the phone
I'm in San Jose. (Same Bay you are talking about?) I am on AT&T but I
have a Motoroloa Razr that's at least a couple years old.
I just checked the phone's displayed time vs the internet and also my
GPS receiver. I just eyeballed the minute turn-over but it was clearly
within about a second. Go
li...@ozindfw.net said:
> I used to work in the cell infra business. While it's less true today,
> there are still a number of operators that do not sync system clocks. The
> time supplied to users can be **minutes** off.
> Most newer operational standards can't tolerate this and "accurate" tim
Oz-in-DFW writes:
> > ... There is no way AT&T would be 12.4 seconds off ...
> >
>
> I used to work in the cell infra business. While it's less true today,
> there are still a number of operators that do not sync system clocks.
> The time supplied to users can be **minutes** off.
>
> Most newer o
On 7/15/2010 9:40 AM, Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:
> ... There is no way AT&T would be 12.4 seconds off ...
>
I used to work in the cell infra business. While it's less true today,
there are still a number of operators that do not sync system clocks.
The time supplied to users can be **minutes**
Hate to say it.
AT&T is wrong and so are the rest of us.
Its Apple time on Apple stuff thats the standard.
You can have your own reference when you control a particular world.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Bob Bownes wrote:
> I put ntp on mine. :)
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Mark
I put ntp on mine. :)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Now if only Apple would allow Emerald Time to correct the i-phone's internal
> clock we'd actually have something. By using Emerald Time my i-phone's
> internal clock has shown itself to be off by as much as 12.
Now if only Apple would allow Emerald Time to correct the i-phone's internal
clock we'd actually have something. By using Emerald Time my i-phone's internal
clock has shown itself to be off by as much as 12.4 seconds. That no longer
qualifies as a usable clock to me. If I am out somewhere and w
On 15/07/2010, Jim Palfreyman wrote:
> Hi, just found a handy free iPhone app called Emerald Time. It uses
> ntp and visually shows the time to "within 100 msec". I've videod the
> screen and compared it with a real clock and found the claim to be
> accurate.
You know you can be excommunicated fr
Hi, just found a handy free iPhone app called Emerald Time. It uses
ntp and visually shows the time to "within 100 msec". I've videod the
screen and compared it with a real clock and found the claim to be
accurate.
Certainly not up to nut standard, but for a mobile phone it's great.
Jim Palfreyma
20 matches
Mail list logo
