-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:19 PM
#1
The World's First True Atomic Wristwatch
I don't think I've seen this one discussed here, so what are your thoughts on the Bathys Cesium 133? Obviously not a daily wearer, though the newest sketches are far more sleek than the prototypes. I like the COM port functionality, and in general, this is a major nerd magnet. 10 backers have already pledged the $6K, which depending on your perspective, could be a small price to pay for a piece of history.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...tch-the-cesium
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:28 PM
#2
You know there are some watches where the technology is so cool that you can forgive an ugly exterior? Well, this isn't one of those.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 15 Likes
bu11itt,
Der Amf,
Upstate,
pepperami,
Perseus,
ken_sturrock,
Domo,
Bwana,
igo69,
Chase,
I-B,
Samanator,
nelamvr6,
Chronopolitano,
N/A liked this post
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:36 PM
#3
Originally Posted by
geoffbot
You know there are some watches where the technology is so cool that you can forgive an ugly exterior? Well, this isn't one of those.
Yeah, the latest version is better, but still very large:
Not much you can do about the size, since it's dependent on the CSAC:
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:41 PM
#4
The thing is...I don't really care about accuracy! I don't suppose most of us do, or we'd all buy quartz. Though I understand that watchmakers need to push the boundaries and all.
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:43 PM
#5
+1
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:45 PM
#6
The World's First True Atomic Wristwatch
If technological limits impose such significant aesthetic restrictions that the watch looks more like a carbon fiber wallet than a watch, the technology isn't actually there yet and the product has been rushed to market. However, the dial's quite attractive. Good for the Bathys team for taking a shot at something interesting if not quite ready to be worn on the wrist.
Last edited by Ryan; Dec 15, 2014 at 07:31 PM.
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:47 PM
#7
I mean you can 'similar' accuracy with a quartz, or some would argue better accuracy (than a quartz) with a RC watch.
Seems like a product for people with too much money?
Last edited by Seriously; Dec 15, 2014 at 04:00 PM.
Reason: edited for clarity
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:53 PM
#8
Originally Posted by
Seriously
some would argue better accuracy with a RC watch.
They might, but that would be a losing argument. RC watches sync to a cesium time source to correct their inaccuracies, while this one has its own internal time source. In theory, it's accurate to something like 2 seconds every 70 million years. It is expensive, and clearly not meant for mass appeal, though I do find that whole project interesting from a scientific perspective.
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:55 PM
#9
Just looks like a travel clock with a strap, to me.
Besides; I don't need it:
My Aerospace came back from Breitling, summer 2012 - I was going to set it against the GMT time signal (the beeps) but didn't need to as it was already spot on. Other than change time zones afew times since, I've not 'touched' it - It's currently running at GMT + 1 second - That's all the accuracy I need.
Some people have opinions - The rest of us have taste.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
-
Dec 15, 2014, 03:55 PM
#10
I should clarify "better than a quartz"