Hi Everybody,
As much as I love my EM clocks (Eureka, Bulle, and ATO), the rate variability is a bit of thorn in my side. Besides the inherent rate issues with each clock, external influences such as decaying battery voltage, temperature, and so forth make keeping the herd of clocks in sync a bit of a challenge. I have a couple of Bulle's that are glass domed and on shelves that don't permit the dome being removed without taking the clock off of the shelf, which I always find nerve racking.
So I've been developing a digitally controlled rate compensation system over the last several months. Of course, the devil is in the details and the project has taken far longer than I originally imagined. Nonetheless, I have an ATO keeping time within a 1 sec of true time (I'm using a GPS chip to source 'real time'). Its been running for a week now and I'm satisfied that all the bugs have been worked out. I'm going to apply it to one of the Bulle's next and finally to a Eureka. In principle, the controls methodology should work on each of the various types of clocks (but we shall see ...).
Anyways, I've always wondered why Brian Mumford stopped selling his controller many years ago. I've read theories that the profit margin just wasn't that great. But I suspect it was the customer support that really triggered his decision to stop selling them. Adjusting the controller to the clock is somewhat a time consuming process and in today's world of immediate expectations, I can see customers complaining that the controller wasn't just 'plug and play'.
I'm going to spin a PCB for my system since I have numerous clocks that I want to apply it to, which got me wondering if others would be interested in the controller. But I'm bit nervous about the ramifications that may come with doing so (something made Mr. Mumford decide to stop selling his).
Any insight into experiences with his product would be appreciated (such as 'it worked great', or 'I could never get it run just right and he got sick of me calling him all the time for help').
Thank you,
Peter
As much as I love my EM clocks (Eureka, Bulle, and ATO), the rate variability is a bit of thorn in my side. Besides the inherent rate issues with each clock, external influences such as decaying battery voltage, temperature, and so forth make keeping the herd of clocks in sync a bit of a challenge. I have a couple of Bulle's that are glass domed and on shelves that don't permit the dome being removed without taking the clock off of the shelf, which I always find nerve racking.
So I've been developing a digitally controlled rate compensation system over the last several months. Of course, the devil is in the details and the project has taken far longer than I originally imagined. Nonetheless, I have an ATO keeping time within a 1 sec of true time (I'm using a GPS chip to source 'real time'). Its been running for a week now and I'm satisfied that all the bugs have been worked out. I'm going to apply it to one of the Bulle's next and finally to a Eureka. In principle, the controls methodology should work on each of the various types of clocks (but we shall see ...).
Anyways, I've always wondered why Brian Mumford stopped selling his controller many years ago. I've read theories that the profit margin just wasn't that great. But I suspect it was the customer support that really triggered his decision to stop selling them. Adjusting the controller to the clock is somewhat a time consuming process and in today's world of immediate expectations, I can see customers complaining that the controller wasn't just 'plug and play'.
I'm going to spin a PCB for my system since I have numerous clocks that I want to apply it to, which got me wondering if others would be interested in the controller. But I'm bit nervous about the ramifications that may come with doing so (something made Mr. Mumford decide to stop selling his).
Any insight into experiences with his product would be appreciated (such as 'it worked great', or 'I could never get it run just right and he got sick of me calling him all the time for help').
Thank you,
Peter