Skip to main content
19 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 14, 2021 at 7:32 history edited ayane_m CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed some problems with the assumptions
May 13, 2021 at 10:57 answer added D.A.S. timeline score: 5
May 13, 2021 at 6:20 vote accept ayane_m
May 13, 2021 at 6:13 answer added Lorenzo Marcantonio timeline score: 5
May 13, 2021 at 6:01 comment added Neil_UK The display update only has to be fast enough that when you've pressed the 'stop' button, you see a stable figure within maybe 200 mS that looks 'instant' to you eye. The display timing has nothing to do with the timing resolution, which is the responsibility of the MCU and the stop button. It's easy to measure its timing to its system clock, which could be MHz. Whether anything finer than 1/1000th of a second is meaningful to a mechanical button and human thumb is another matter.
May 13, 2021 at 5:00 comment added Mitu Raj Unfortunately humans can't read at that refresh rate, so it may well be displaying junk at the precision part :D
May 13, 2021 at 4:11 comment added DKNguyen @jsotola And yet they're still displayed while the clock is ticking so you can't blame someone for trying to read them
May 13, 2021 at 4:10 comment added user57037 If you had something that updated very fast, you could put it in the frame of a high-speed camera to help document what is going on. Of course you can count frames, too, but maybe it would be more convenient to have time displayed in the video.
May 13, 2021 at 4:07 comment added jsotola @DKNguyen nothing to do with displaying elapsed time when the stop button is pressed ... illusion of seeing accurate elapsed time when the stopwatch is running ... for most people, anything more than 20 Hz refresh rate is just a blur on the least significant digits
May 13, 2021 at 3:32 review Close votes
May 21, 2021 at 3:03
May 13, 2021 at 3:08 comment added DKNguyen @jsotola "Time reading"
May 13, 2021 at 2:55 comment added jsotola what difference does the display refresh rate make? ... it has nothing to do with timekeeping
May 13, 2021 at 2:45 comment added Spehro 'speff' Pefhany @DKNguyen Dividing by 1024 would be only 32Hz. This is kind of an interesting question. If they have an MCU they can take the number and convert it with some math. If it's a simple ASIC it might be easier to use a 32.000kHz crystal.
May 13, 2021 at 2:23 comment added StainlessSteelRat And why 32.768kHz. It's divisible by 2 and if a clock is counting time, there is a significant chance there is a 32.768kHz crystal inside.
May 13, 2021 at 2:20 comment added user1850479 Related question: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/177844/…
May 13, 2021 at 2:17 comment added DKNguyen Internally, they are probably using a 32.768kHz oscillator. A counter counts this to keep track of the time. Whether the counter literally keeps track of every pulse, or whether it runs through a divider first before being incremented/recorded into the counter (i.e. a divide ratio of 1024 means it is counting every 1ms.) is up to the designer. I have no idea what the refresh rate is on a reflective monochrome LCD. Presumably it's faster than an LCD monitor, but whether they bother to run it that fast is another matter. If I were them I would run it slooowww.
May 13, 2021 at 2:16 comment added user1850479 Most RTCs use 32768 Hz as the internal clock frequency, so the clock resolution will typically be about 30 microseconds. Those cheap passive LCD displays have relatively slow refresh times though, so they're incapable of anything like that update rate. You'd have to look at the spec sheet or take it apart to know what any specific model uses though.
May 13, 2021 at 2:15 comment added Dwayne Reid Read the manufacturer's documentation and specs. Also note that every manufacturer's models are most likely different from other units.
May 13, 2021 at 2:12 history asked ayane_m CC BY-SA 4.0