# QJ Timer, More Accurate/Precise than SS Timer???



## andyt1992 (Mar 11, 2010)

Was playing with my timer and managed this:

http://speedcubeuk.webs.com/DSCF0257.JPG

http://speedcubeuk.webs.com/DSCF0258.JPG

Does this mean it is more accurate/precise??


----------



## dillonbladez (Mar 11, 2010)

i have abosolutely no idea, because i dont own a stackmat. /

but that IS pretty accurate. i can't manage that on my keyboard. my record is 0.07


----------



## andyt1992 (Mar 11, 2010)

with stackmat i believe only 0.02 is possible


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 11, 2010)

0.01 or 0.02 isn't a matter of accuracy. Speedstacks made it 0.02 to prevent some mis-stops.


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Mar 11, 2010)

That might not mean anything. It may prefer to stop at 0.01 on a bad start, similar to how the Speedstack Competition Timer prefers to stop at 0.02 on a bad start.

I think a good test is to stop each timer at close to 1.00 second (or some other time of your choosing), and see if it is unable to reach certain values after a hundred attempts. For example, you may find it easy to reach 1.00 or 1.02 but never 1.01. I never did this experiment. I am curious about the results.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 11, 2010)

andyt1992 said:


> Does this mean it is more accurate/precise??



Not at all.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 11, 2010)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> I think a good test is to stop each timer at close to 1.00 second (or some other time of your choosing), and see if it is unable to reach certain values after a hundred attempts. For example, you may find it easy to reach 1.00 or 1.02 but never 1.01. I never did this experiment. I am curious about the results.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=190830#post190830
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=191128#post191128


----------



## Stefan (Mar 11, 2010)

What am I supposed to see? Those pictures don't fit on my screen.
=> [thread=19636]Photos: RESIZE, please[/thread]


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 11, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> What am I supposed to see? Those pictures don't fit on my screen.
> => [thread=19636]Photos: RESIZE, please[/thread]



What browser are you using? It doesn't auto resize pictures when viewing them?


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 11, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> What am I supposed to see? Those pictures don't fit on my screen.
> => [thread=19636]Photos: RESIZE, please[/thread]



maybe stop using opera? Good browsers scale the image for you. He didn't post it in the thread, so there shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 11, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > What am I supposed to see? Those pictures don't fit on my screen.
> ...



Regardless, it still took a long time to load. Saying "I got 0.01 on my qj timer) would have sufficed. I doubt anybody wouldn't believe him.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 11, 2010)

Opera, and at least in Firefox I've turned that off. Also, the resizing doesn't make the loading of 6MB any faster (which of course was my real point, as I am capable of resizing, we just shouldn't have to). This is the most extreme I've ever seen, as I can provide the same information in 22 characters:

*QJ timer can stop 0.01*

There.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 11, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Opera, and at least in Firefox I've turned that off. Also, the resizing doesn't make the loading of 6MB any faster. This is the most extreme I've ever seen, as I can provide the same information in 22 characters:
> 
> *QJ timer can stop 0.01*
> 
> There.


[email protected]
13 characters.


----------



## Owen (Mar 11, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Opera, and at least in Firefox I've turned that off. Also, the resizing doesn't make the loading of 6MB any faster. This is the most extreme I've ever seen, as I can provide the same information in 22 characters:
> ...



lol, Firefox thinks that's an email address.


----------



## MichaelP. (Mar 11, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Opera, and at least in Firefox I've turned that off. Also, the resizing doesn't make the loading of 6MB any faster. This is the most extreme I've ever seen, as I can provide the same information in 22 characters:
> ...



[email protected]

12 characters.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 11, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> [email protected]
> 
> 12 characters.


QJtmr




@.01

10 characters.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 11, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> MichaelP. said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected]
> ...



Uh, if you count pictures as characters, then the OP wins.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 11, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Uh, if you count pictures as characters, then the OP wins.


But but but but this is clip art.







@.01

6 Characters.


----------



## MichaelP. (Mar 12, 2010)

Clip art =/= to characters, and anyway a pictures worth 1000 words, and just for the sake of it, lets say a word averages 5 letters. You have 10000 characters.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Mar 12, 2010)

Accuracy is a totally different concept than precision...


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Mar 12, 2010)

Please post a photo of .04


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Mar 12, 2010)

Wouldn't the only real way to test if they are accurate to each other is by starting and stopping them at the same time? One might ask how to do that...

Stefan posted an "Inside the Stackmat" thread a couple weeks ago or something. Just start the timer by using switches hooked to both at the same time.

If you plan on using the "I'll just put my hands on both of them" that would be invalid because there would be no proof you actually hit both of them at the exact same moment.


----------



## Edward (Mar 12, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Wouldn't the only real way to test if they are accurate to each other is by starting and stopping them at the same time? One might ask how to do that...
> 
> Stefan posted an "Inside the Stackmat" thread a couple weeks ago or something. Just start the timer by using switches hooked to both at the same time.
> 
> If you plan on using the "I'll just put my hands on both of them" that would be invalid because there would be no proof you actually hit both of them at the exact same moment.



Robot rig :3
Ill call up the Mythbusters...


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Mar 12, 2010)

It'd be much easier to just take two toggle switches, wire one to the left side of both timers, wire the other one to the right side of both timers, then flip the switches. All you have to do is flip one switch, flip the other, then flip it again, wait however long you want, and flip it again.

If the timers don't agree on the time, one of them is wrong! It would actually be really interesting to do this to say 10 stackmat timers at a time.

New idea for the next comp maybe? Lol


----------



## daniel0731ex (Mar 12, 2010)

You are saying that the QJ timer is *precise*, yes, but just to let you know that it's a different story from being accurate.

A timer may be able to record up to thousandth of a second, but each second may be 3 seconds for the clock. If you are to prove that the timer is accurate, you'll need to verify it with an atomic ****.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Mar 12, 2010)

Daniel your word after atomic was censored from the forum settings. I'm guessing it was to be something that goes boom and creates a big cloud of fire and smoke and is pretty lethal? If so, that wouldn't prove it's accuracy, only the accuracy of the builder of that such device that was mentioned (when you build those it's wire lengths and other things that count, not the actual detonation timer).

Does anybody here have both a stackmat and QJ timer?


----------



## daniel0731ex (Mar 12, 2010)

WTF? why is the word "c-l-o-c-k" censored???????

this forums' weird :fp


----------



## Muesli (Mar 12, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> WTF? why is the word "c-l-o-c-k" censored???????
> 
> this forums' weird :fp


Clock.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Mar 12, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> daniel0731ex said:
> 
> 
> > WTF? why is the word "c-l-o-c-k" censored???????
> ...



What??? lemme trry again:

Atomic clock


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Mar 12, 2010)

That's odd. When I first read your paragraph I thought you meant clock, but then I realized the asterisks probably weren't put there from you, and thought of the next best thing that would be censored and also need some sort of accurate timing.

Anyway, I completely agree with you, we'll need to measure it with an atomic clock. The problem is...how will we be able to do that? I don't know enough about atomic clocks (other than they use microwaves or something from energy) to know if we can actually start and stop an atomic clock?


----------



## andyt1992 (Mar 12, 2010)

I know it wasnt clear but when i posted accurate/precise i meant individually.
I know that measurements that start at 0.01 and increase by 0.01 is more precise than a timer that starts on 0.02 and increases by 0.02, but as i dont own a stackmat, do they count in 0.02's or just thats the earliest it can stop?


----------



## Carson (Mar 12, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > daniel0731ex said:
> ...



I think that he may have perhaps forgotten about the "l" in clock.


----------



## andyt1992 (Mar 12, 2010)

test:
****


----------



## Stefan (Mar 12, 2010)

andyt1992 said:


> i dont own a stackmat, *do they count in 0.02's* or just thats the earliest it can stop?



http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php


----------

