Talk:Pulsar clock

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What makes a Pulsar Clock more accurate?[edit]

I'm curious to know what would make a Pulsar Clock more accurate than the previously most accurate time measuring instrument. Here's what I gather about the Pulsar Clock. It's able to detect the accurately steady heartbeat of pulsars, with very very minor deviation. But there are a few matters that need to be addressed.

How do we determine the number of Pulsar-X's beats per second? Do we use an instrument of lesser accuracy? Wouldn't that make the Pulsar Clock only as accurate as the second-most accurate instrument?
How was the first Pulsar Clock initially synchronized? Was another 'defacto clock' of lesser accuracy brought into direct contact with the Pulsar Clock? It would certainly keep time accurately from that point forward, but it's only as accurate as that lesser clock was at the moment of sync.
Do subsequent Pulsar Clocks use the multitude of pulsars being monitored to determine the current time at initial start-up, using the Epoc Sync Time Offset derived from the synchronization of the first Puslar Clock? Or are they individually brought into contact with each other? Or is there another time transport synchronization method of lesser accuracy (weak link)?

~ Agvulpine (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation need for accuracy of clock[edit]

There is no citation for the clock being 5 times more accurate than atomic clocks. The strontium lattice clock at bouolder loses one second in 5 billion years. Where are the precision/stability/accuracy figures for this clock? DouglasCalvert (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is unlikely to be true, and I am removing it. see:

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pulsar clock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just replaced the link with the new ones (corrected) Qj0n (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]