The escapement is "synchronous" in that the motion is controlled by the number of pulses applied to the motor over time rather than the duration/width of each pulse. The pulsetime constant is only to accommodate mechanical/analog differences with the driving circuitry, from what I understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavet-type_stepping_motor
replyThat's fascinating; the Lavet-type stepping motor acts as an escapement all on it's own by being a very simple stepper motor, so you don't end up needing a miniature version of a classic mechanical escapement, which is what I'd always imagined in my head when thinking about how cheap quartz wall clocks worked.
replyThe pulsetime is just to advance the clockwork one step, and is kept fixed, the advancement driven by the mechanism is discrete. As long as you keep track of the count, you wont accumulate drift. The adjustment is to get that stepping working, if it doesnt miss a step, youre good.
replyIn a perfect world, yes. But mechanisms aren’t perfect and it’s entirely possible if not likely that steps will be missed as friction increases over time and things wear.
replyI’m not saying these things matter much in this context.
The clock will still be far more accurate than purely mechanical version. And, re-synchronizing it is as trivial as turning the knob, just as you would for the all mechanical mechanism.
its a fairly reliably stepper motor system. You're right it will degrade over time, you'd be surprised how many steps it can do before it degrades.
reply