[HN Gopher] The curious case of hybrids in watchmaking
___________________________________________________________________
The curious case of hybrids in watchmaking
Author : archagon
Score : 110 points
Date : 2023-09-03 09:18 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (monochrome-watches.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (monochrome-watches.com)
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| Hybrid watches are pretty appealing, i can imagine they unlock a
| market of people that just can't get past mechanical watches are
| a bit crap at their primary function.
|
| High end watches are somewhat appealing - the craftsmanship &
| precision engineering appeal (although today even most high end
| stuff is machine assembled i think?). Still there's that huge
| sting in the tail... they're just not great timepieces[1].
|
| Your (network connected) phone is going to be more accurate. I
| can't help feel like an absolute plum if i were to part with 5k+
| for a watch with less accuracy than an PS8 Casio.
|
| The article talks about spring drive and that i can get behind,
| the constant smooth movement is mesmerising, the accuracy is
| entirely respectable and it charges itself just by wearing so you
| still get the benefits of an automatic. Then, depending on the
| model you choose, you get a hand-finished casing that uses a
| polishing technique that takes a craftsman years to qualify in.
| To top it all off, these GS spring drives are some of the
| cheapest "high horology" options out there. I'm sold...
|
| [1] one exception, i'll never be able to own one, but the H.
| Moser & Cie "Swiss Alp Watch" which i think i like mostly for the
| complete absurdity of everything about it
| bayindirh wrote:
| As Teddy Baldassare puts it "Mechanical Watches are expensive
| toys". And as an owner of a couple of mechanical watches which
| I use daily, I'm pretty aware of it.
|
| However, wearing a mechanical watch makes me happy. It's a
| fascinating thing to keep time completely mechanically, and
| creates a nice counterbalance in my life filled with
| electronics.
|
| Another similar item is fountain pens.
| bradrn wrote:
| > Another similar item is fountain pens.
|
| Can't say anything about mechanical watches, but I'll
| disagree with this: in my experience, fountain pens aren't
| just toys. I was given a fountain pen a few years ago, and I
| immediately found it made my hand hurt less when writing,
| because I didn't need to press nearly as hard. Since then
| I've found a few models of gel pens which are similar in this
| regard, but when it comes to handwriting, I still find
| fountain pens to be by far the most comfortable for me.
| OJFord wrote:
| How do you use it and not have it need refilling every time
| you use it? And not make a massive mess over work surface
| and hands when you do so?
|
| It was never a problem with the cheap disposable cartridge
| ones we used at school, but I was given a nicer refillable
| (twist to draw up ink) one and nice as it is to write with
| it's a bit of a nightmare as a whole experience, which
| stops me using it as much as I'd otherwise like to.
| bayindirh wrote:
| This is how I do it:
|
| What you need: A big paper tissue, ink bottle, pen, a
| sheet of paper.
|
| Step 1: Make sure that your bottle's bore/lip is clean.
| Dip your pen just enough to cover feed, plus a little of
| the section (grip). Twist to empty, twist to fill. If
| there's too much air, repeat a couple times.
|
| Step 2: Raise your pen, but do not remove from the
| bottle. Twist your piston to drip 4-5 drops of ink back
| to bottle. This is the amount which saturates your feed.
| Twist to fill in air, to suck some air, and the excess
| ink in the feed.
|
| Step 3: Wait a couple of seconds to wait for any other
| drip, remove your pen from the bottle, wipe the feed,
| sides of the nib and section. Re-wipe with a damp cloth
| if you wish. Scribble a little on your paper, you're
| done.
|
| Be careful while wiping the feed in step 3. There'll be
| some ink and it may transfer from your tissue to your
| finger.
|
| If your pen dries very quickly, it might not be good
| sealer and may need frequent use to ensure to use all the
| ink inside before drying out. If you can share the
| make/model, I might be able to point to you to right way.
|
| For me, A Lamy cartridge (or a converter fitted Lamy)
| lasts around two weeks if I use it every day, even more
| if I don't. I generally refill my pens when the ink drops
| below a certain level since more air means faster dry out
| inside the pen, and make it more prone to "burping".
|
| Enjoy your ink and pen.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > in my experience, fountain pens aren't just toys.
|
| As an avid fountain pen user, I agree on that regard. Also
| mechanical watches are not toys in the same perspective.
|
| I'm solely using fountain pens for plethora of reasons, but
| practicality is not one of them. They need maintenance,
| needs ink selection if your daily paper is not the best,
| they get upset when they fly, etc. However even the
| cheapest Lamy safari can outlast many pens without much
| effort.
|
| Same for mechanical watches. They're built better, with
| better materials. They live way longer, and any modern
| piece can hold time good enough for daily life, but they
| need maintenance. They need care sometimes.
|
| They are not toys as in "simple and badly made", but are
| toys as in "There are more practical options, but we prefer
| to use them because of reasons".
| KaiserPro wrote:
| The Spring drive is majestic, and generally wonderful. Get one if
| you can, they make smashing dress watches. The tool watch side is
| a bit lacking for my taste (either too thick, or have massive
| pushers for the chronograph.)
|
| However If you like "funky" movements, then I urge you all to
| check out this website here: https://electric-
| watches.co.uk/movement-types/ (look at the drop down under
| movement types)
|
| There are watches you can buy for less than $300 that are
| controlled by a tuning fork. A no fooling humming tuning fork.
| Not only that, they are pretty accurate and easy to look after
| even by modern standards. They have wheels that have teeth that
| are 0.037mm apart. Your hair is 0.060mm wide.
|
| Then there are battery powered watches with moving balances. Then
| there are both styles with quartz regulators as well.
|
| Now if you want something a bit more modern, and less electric,
| there are silicon balances
| https://frederiqueconstant.com/monolithic/ which are pretty wild.
|
| and finally plugging my own stuff:
| https://www.secretbatcave.co.uk/projects/electromechanical-c...
| Which is a tuning fork controlled table clock using only discreet
| 7400 logic(more or less )
| amelius wrote:
| I wonder at what point in our societal evolution it will become
| accepted that men wear jewelry other than watches, just like
| women.
| thih9 wrote:
| I recall seeing men with rings, piercings, bracelets, etc.
| Also, while somewhat bland in comparison, the men's section at
| tiffany's does exist [1].
|
| [1]: https://www.tiffany.com/jewelry/shop/mens-jewelry/
| amelius wrote:
| Yeah, but it's not as widely accepted. Wearing such things
| can easily cost you points in a job interview, for example.
| thih9 wrote:
| True, this happens. On the other hand, this is often the
| case for positions where you aren't allowed to wear
| jewellery or wouldn't want to wear jewellery anyway.
|
| I.e. wearing a nose ring for a dev interview in a
| corporation with a strict dress code - likely a bad idea.
| But in a casual agency - you might get bonus points, if
| anything.
| isametry wrote:
| And this is relevant to the article how?
| gorbypark wrote:
| I've recently become enamoured with the Seiko Spring Drive. I'm
| currently dreaming up (probably unrealistic) plans to try and DIY
| a Spring Drive type mechanism. I doubt I'd be able to actually
| make it fit in a real watch, but the goal is to have it at least
| working on a desk.
|
| More or less the plan is to rip out the balance wheel/escape
| wheel and pallet fork from an existing movement and try and rig
| up a permanent magnet on a wheel, then a small electro magnet
| connected to something like an Arduino and see if I can even get
| something like that to regulate the speed of the watch.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Was a bit disappointed not to see my Accutron in the post. Tuning
| fork, driven by electromagnets, feeding timing to traditional
| Swiss style mechanism. Eats batteries though.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Exactly! or the quartz controlled timex oscillators:
| https://electric-watches.co.uk/movement-types/quartz-control...
|
| or the quartz tuningfork: https://electric-
| watches.co.uk/movement-types/quartz-control...
|
| or indeed the new generation of accutrons with the
| electrostatic drive
| mkoryak wrote:
| For those of you with expensive watches (5000usd+):
|
| Do you wear it every day?
|
| Does it impact your plans ie "I shouldn't wear it today because I
| might be targeted for a robbery"?
|
| What is the reason you bought an expensive watch when there are
| plenty not expensive watches that are good at "time"?
|
| Would you consider yourself "well off?"
|
| Thanks :)
| sneak wrote:
| Generally I do wear it every day. I bought it because, after
| many many years of finding all mechanical watches ugly and
| tacky, I found one specific model that I find to be absolutely
| gorgeous and I adore the way it looks; a $300 Apple Watch keeps
| better time and has more functionality. A $20 Casio has
| equivalent functionality and way, way better timekeeping. It's
| jewelry and I wear it daily just as I wear an EDT and deodorant
| and clean clothes. I actually subscribe to the jwz theory of
| "if you need you to know what time it is that often, your life
| has gone dangerously wrong", and I have a radar filed because
| there are no Apple Watch faces without a time display.
|
| It also has the added benefit whilst traveling of signaling to
| customer service staff (I fly commercial and not always in
| first) that I am a revenue opportunity (ie don't ignore me), as
| I am quite utilitarian and my 'fits are almost always sub-$200
| (not counting shoes and scarf). My daily driver tshirt is plain
| black and costs $25, for example, and I loathe brands and
| visible labels. It's not immediately obvious to retail staff
| that it's profitable to provide me with good service.
|
| Expensive watches aren't about timekeeping. They are jewelry
| and status signifiers.
|
| Also, my daily driver watch is under $10k; theft no more enters
| my mind about it than it does for carrying my laptop; a maxxed
| out Macbook Pro ($6k) is approximately the same value as my
| watch and I never think about whether or not I should bring my
| laptop somewhere.
|
| I also collect sunglasses and luggage; I'm not much of a
| clothes horse but I do adore stylish accessories.
|
| Edit: I have friends who are "expensive watch guys" and one
| such new money friend, despite growing up poor, now personally
| grosses low double digit millions of USD annually. He recently
| told a story to our group about being in a 10 person business
| meeting where his $40k Rolex was the cheapest watch anyone had
| on, as a way of communicating how impressed he was and the
| gravitas of how many corporate heavy hitters were involved in
| his deal. Perhaps this sheds some light on their purpose and
| utility. (My $7k stainless steel daily driver doesn't even rank
| among these sorts of guys.)
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| I have to use 2 Apple Watch as they does not have enough
| battery to keep going for long. I just switch it for charge
| whenever I have time. I suspect all these hybrid watch is a
| compromise of energy.
| mhb wrote:
| 1. What is an EDT?
|
| 2. What does "I have a radar filed" mean?
|
| Thanks for clarifications.
| sneak wrote:
| Eau de Toilette - perfume/cologne.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eau_de_toilette
|
| Radar is Apple's internal bug tracker - "a radar" is an
| Apple(tm) bug report.
|
| https://openradar.appspot.com/page/1
| EdwardCoffin wrote:
| I've tried googling this JWZ theory but can't find anything.
| I suspect I would like to read whatever he embedded this in
| though. Could you give a citation or hint on where to find
| it?
| sneak wrote:
| 2000: https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/cell.html
|
| > _I don 't wear a wrist watch for a similar reason: if you
| wear a watch, it means that your life is structured such
| that you frequently need to know what time it is. And that
| means that your life has taken a wrong turn somewhere._
| ycombinete wrote:
| I was in a meeting recently with two guys who both had
| Rolex's on, and all it told me is that they probably take
| bribes.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I used to work on yachts. Expensive watches were a pretty
| good asshole signal.
|
| Plenty of fabulously wealthy people out there wearing
| timex, Ironman, or Apple Watches.
|
| If you're judging someone's business acumen based on their
| watch, you also seem to think that telling us how much your
| buddy grosses is supposed to tell us anything at all.
| ycombinete wrote:
| I think you might've intended to respond to my parent.
| temp0826 wrote:
| I don't know why this comment makes me wretch. Money people
| and their lines of thinking are so bizarre and foreign to my
| reality.
| sneak wrote:
| It's not so much "money people" as it is utility - someone
| who can provide you with a $1mm or $10mm business
| opportunity wears the same quality suit as someone who can
| provide you with a $100mm or $1B business opportunity. It's
| a practical method of signaling status within a group where
| everyone is wealthy.
|
| Humans as well as many other mammals become anxious in
| groups where their position in the social status hierarchy
| is unclear. It's a tool for signaling information to
| strangers, same as a wedding ring.
| hunson_abadeer wrote:
| It's really no different than people who pay more than they
| need to for a car or a home.
|
| It's some combination of it being a status symbol and an "I can
| afford it and it's fun" kind of a deal.
|
| There is a variety of attitudes, as with fancy cars,
| McMansions, or other "premium" goods. Some people wax their car
| every week, some people let it rust.
|
| Watch theft isn't particularly common. I have a nice watch, I
| wear it daily, and I don't think about it much.
| stevekemp wrote:
| I collection (mechanical) watches I have 30-40, half are cheap
| as chips, usually old Soviet pieces, the other half are Swiss.
|
| The most expensive watch I own is about EUR10k. Honestly I
| don't think of the value on the days I wear it - I just look at
| it and smile.
|
| It used to be that I had about seven watches and I had one for
| each "activity". So I had a sauna-watch, a swimming watch, a
| photography watch. Later I got too many, so I switched into
| different styles - a pilot watch, a diver watch, a jump-hand
| watch, etc, etc.
|
| I usually change watch every day, but sometimes I might wear
| the same one for 3-5 days. The only time I consciously think
| about it is when traveling for holidays - I think "Is this the
| watch I want to go through security with, and dive into a
| lake?" or "Am I gonna wear a suit, or not?"
|
| Expensive watches are not comparable to cheap watches in my
| view. Just like a bottle of 50 year old whisky cannot be
| compared to a EUR10 cider - they are different things, with
| different audiences.
|
| (Also: Get insurance. That takes away almost all worry :)
| tzhenghao wrote:
| I wear them every day, but take them off if I'm going to high
| crime cities. The thing is I've been collecting watches for
| over a decade. My parents are into it, and so is my younger
| brother. I think it's very rare to share a common interest that
| won't bore anyone at the dinner table. Now onto the horological
| aspects - they're like the iPhone / app store back in the day.
| Keeping track of leap years and all in a 36mm package (think
| Patek 3940s). Various complications to address various
| "limitations" of mechanical time telling like the remontoire,
| co-axial escapements or solid block case constructions for
| better waterproofness. It's not too different than some of us
| on HN who fall in love with old Apple IIs, NES or Sega Genesis
| :)
| r9550684 wrote:
| when I first could afford to but before I had responsibilities,
| I bought a breguet classique off secondary market, which is
| already understated, and I wear it with an even more
| understated leather band. I consciously chose to wear it as a
| daily cary, which means that on more than one occasion I wore
| it through ghettos on the way to raves, including through one
| attempted and failed robbery. By now it's well worn in, and I
| prefer it to be a subtle signal: those who don't care don't
| notice, so it's not ostentatious, those who pay attention but
| don't know will figure it out through closer observation, and
| those who know, don't need to ask any questions. I do
| occasionally consciously take them off so as not to be
| flashing, when that would be particularly crass or foolhardy.
|
| I've lost many watches in my life, but this one has trained me
| in the discipline of care and attentiveness towards my
| possessions, which extends to all things and not just the
| watch.
|
| There was no particularly good reason for me to buy it though,
| except for the watch maker name's frequent mention in the 19th
| century literature, including a famous line from Pushkin's
| Onegin, "he strolls down boulevards, until a sleepless Breguet,
| calls out time for supper". now it's likely that Onegin
| specifically didn't wear an actual breguet, because that was a
| generic name for a chiming timepiece, but the imagery stuck. I
| grew up on 19th century literature, byronic heroes, this line
| is explicit reference to flaneur culture, a self-conscious
| decadent movement, associated with aimless strolling down
| boulevards dressed in provocative clothing, breguet fits here,
| and that's the joke of the line: at a time when a timepiece
| would be associated with a serious vocation, politics or
| military, it is being used for the most frivolous task of
| letting one man know when it's time to eat. I reflect on this
| point occasionally, when I look at my watch.
| bthrn wrote:
| I have a watch that would be considered expensive by most. It's
| not really about telling the time - I simply appreciate the
| complexity and beauty of handcrafted mechanical watches.
|
| People spend years learning how to build them. It takes a long
| time to assemble one. They're precisely made with small parts
| made of precious metals which are themselves expensive.
|
| With companies like A Lange & Sohne, each watchmaker can only
| make about 6 watches per year. At a pace like that you're not
| really paying for the watch, you're paying for their labor and
| expertise. You're paying to preserve the craft. You can't make
| 6 of something in a year and sell it for $100 if it's how you
| make a living.
| kadoban wrote:
| Expensive watches are jewelry for men, that's about it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Expensive is relative to where you live.
| criddell wrote:
| If you bought a Submariner in 2013, you could sell it today
| for more than you paid. From some perspectives, that Rolex is
| _less_ expensive than a similar Timex or Casio.
| sschueller wrote:
| In Switzerland I don't think there is any such thought. I see
| crazy expensive time pieces on people's wrists and no one give
| as hoot other than watch enthusiasts.
|
| I don't currently own a watch over 5k but if I where to
| purchase such a piece it would be for the craftsmanship and the
| beauty of the mechanics. However you would never find me
| wearing a Rolex which is a mass produced status symbol IMO.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I have an expensive omega. I don't normally need to worry about
| it, because its not a famous watch, its not one that most
| people would recognise.
|
| If I had a massive rolex/richard mile or some other painfully
| obvious watch, then yes, I would be much more reticent.
|
| I got it because its a pioneer watch:
| https://www.omegamegaquartz.com/ it was the first watch that
| was stonkingly accurate. There are some citizens and seikos
| that are probably now more accurate (some of the seikos look
| damn good too.) But none of them look like this massive lump of
| 70s engineering.
|
| Yes I am very fortunate to be temporarily rich.
| ohpls wrote:
| I currently don't own a >=5k but I have previously, my
| currently daily is 3.5k (GBP).
|
| > Do you wear it every day? > Does it impact my plans?
|
| I do wear it almost daily but it does vary, if I'm doing
| anything manual (gardening, working on my bike,
| painting/decorating) then I'll either not wear it or take it
| off during those activities where I'm likely bound to bash my
| wrist against something.
|
| I'll often swap it out for one of my other cheaper ones
| sometimes.
|
| > Why?
|
| I've liked watches for God knows how long and I was fortunate
| to work at a luxury watch shop where I got some great
| discounts.
|
| I've always said my collection is my funeral fund for once I
| go!
|
| > Do I consider myself "well off"?
|
| Personally, no. I just make very bad financial decisions.
| dadoge wrote:
| One of the more fascinating aspects of these is how smooth the
| second hand movement is.
|
| Second hands on Quartz jump once / second. This is to lengthen
| the battery life.
|
| On mechanical watches, they are smoother than Quartz since the
| escapement releases power multiple times / sec. But still ever so
| slightly jumpy since power is still released in discrete
| increments.
|
| Spring Drive is outta this world smooth...it can do this since
| battery life is not an issue since it's mechanically generated
| power that can be rewound...for practical purposes, it is
| releasing power continuously, see for yourself here:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jcHA5rBQxQc
| adrian_b wrote:
| While most quartz watches use cheaper stepping motors, there
| are also quartz watches which use synchronous motors, so the
| hands have a perfectly uniform and noiseless rotation movement.
|
| I had some big wall clocks of this kind, and my father had such
| wrist watches.
|
| The energy consumption of synchronous motors is lower, because
| they only have to overcome the friction forces, without having
| to also accelerate the mass of the hands.
| dadoge wrote:
| I have a clock that is smooth. Bigger batteries help with
| that, compared to a small wristwatch battery.
|
| A quartz wristwatch with a smooth seconds hand? How long does
| the battery last?
| adrian_b wrote:
| I am not sure, because that was some years ago, when my
| father, who used the watch, was still alive, but in any
| case the battery lasted at least a year.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Yeah, not that I perceive it to be an assumption that is
| entirely illogical, but why is smooth movement supposed to
| consume more power? I can understand that jumping less often
| conserves power but the power hierarchy should be more ticks
| > less ticks > no ticks, if we ignore potential increased
| frictions at lower angular velocity as well as challenges of
| resisting disturbances.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Ticking is achieved with stepper motors. Whatever motor is
| required to smoothly rotate uses more power.
| adrian_b wrote:
| At large sizes, synchronous motors are much more
| efficient than stepper motors, so they use much less
| power.
|
| At small sizes, the synchronous motors must use permanent
| magnets, which increase their cost and they have windings
| that are more difficult to make and the difficulty
| increases with the smallness of the motor.
|
| The electronic drive of a synchronous motor is more
| expensive, because it must generate sinusoidal currents,
| not rectangular currents.
|
| At small sizes, a synchronous motor may have a lower
| torque than a stepper motor , so it might need extra
| gears, which would increase the cost.
|
| As long as it is still cost-effective to manufacture a
| synchronous motor, it will always have a better
| efficiency and a lower power consumption than a stepper
| motor. The reason why stepper motors are preferred is
| that at very small sizes they can be much cheaper,
| especially when including the cost of all associated
| electronic and mechanical components.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Synchronous motors are bit like stepless stepper motors.
| tzhenghao wrote:
| > On mechanical watches, they are smoother than Quartz since
| the escapement releases power multiple times / sec. But still
| ever so slightly jumpy since power is still released in
| discrete increments.
|
| Yup, and the higher the beat rate, the "smoother" it looks.
| Grand Seiko Hi-Beats and Zenith El Primeros come to mind.
| There's a good Hodinkee article describing the tradeoffs of
| different beat rates [1].
|
| [1] - https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/watchs-frequency-hz-
| vph-me...
| maratc wrote:
| Bulova Precisionist, a quartz watch with 16 ticks a second,
| looks very much like spring drive.
| thih9 wrote:
| I used to be fascinated with that, until I saw a wall clock
| that had a smooth second hand movement. It was a cheap $10
| clock, because it's not an issue to put a larger battery into a
| wall clock.
|
| Maybe I already got my kick out of seeing a smooth second hand
| movement and no longer feel the need to look at it on my wrist.
| Or perhaps my fascination was based on some gatekeeping, and
| seeing a cheap item with a similar feature made it disappear.
| Likely both.
|
| I guess people who genuinely admire the engineering effort
| would be left unaffected.
| dharmab wrote:
| I wear a mechanical because the loud tick of a full size 1Hz
| second handdrives me bonkers. Although I can handle the small
| seconds in a quartz chronograph.
| malablaster wrote:
| > Second hands on Quartz jump once / second.
|
| Some quartz movements tick more. Grand Seiko 9F has a multi-
| step tick that is so fast it's mostly imperceptible. Bulova
| Accutron too.
| matthewtse wrote:
| It's so funny how the smoothness of the second hand has changed
| in desirability over time.
|
| It started with mechanical watches that moved relatively
| smoothly at 3-6 beats per second. Then Quartz came along, and
| it became fashionable for seconds to move on the second (the
| "quartz crisis"). Then mechanical watches became fashionable
| again as quartz watches became commodities during the
| "Mechanical Renaissance", and it's now a sign of luxury for a
| "smooth sweeping" second hand again.
|
| And then you have these modern outliers, like the F.P. Journe
| Tourbillon Souverain, which feature a "remontoire" that stores
| up energy before releasing it on the second for increased
| accuracy. So you can pay $250K for a watch that moves like a
| $10 quartz :)
| quickthrowman wrote:
| If you're on a budget and want a deadbeat seconds hand,
| Jaeger LeCoultre has a deadbeat seconds watch, the Geophysic
| True Second, which is 'only' around $15k :) I believe it has
| been discontinued and is only available on the secondary
| market.
|
| https://www.ablogtowatch.com/one-watch-quarantine-
| pandemic-j...
| dadoge wrote:
| I hear ya, it does all makes sense tho
|
| Quartz jumping seconds was a novelty back in the day. No one
| now views it that way, being interested in it was a fad.
|
| Spring Drive now is not a fad, but IMO a sustained niche for
| enthusiasts. It's been around a while and has stood the test
| of time (pun intended!)
|
| The F. P. Journe is high end mechanical art/creativity.
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
| randomcarbloke wrote:
| Actually, at the very high end of luxury watchmaking they
| prefer lower beat movements as it increases the service
| interval, exotic escapements like the remontoir are primarily
| for exhibition purposes/bragging rights.
| coredog64 wrote:
| Seiko has a 4Hz series of inexpensive quartz movements (VH31)
| that are at least as smooth as the entry level Seiko NH35.
| Bulova has a significantly smoother 15Hz quartz movement but
| you're going to spend $600 getting it in a watch.
| mads wrote:
| I have one of those Ulysses Nardin phones in a drawer somewhere
| as I was working on the software part of it back in the days.
|
| The mechanical charging mechanism on the phone was basically a
| gimmick. You would probably have to shake it around for a few
| days to get the phone to even start again, if your oligarch plane
| crashed in the desert and your phone ran out of power.
| speakspokespok wrote:
| the battery is there to minimize drift not act as a power
| supplement?
| bitcurious wrote:
| Great article! I think missing a bit of framing. When I got
| really into watches, this is how I came to think of it.
| Fundamentally, a watch has three parts, and you can play with all
| three, which results in fun combinations and unique/dead end
| lineages.
|
| 1. a power supply - the most common are either a mainspring
| (mechanical) or a battery (electronic). You can play around with
| how you power both - mainsprings can be manually wound, self-
| winding through wear (a weight moves around and winds it).
| Outside of the wristwatch world there are other cool winding
| mechanisms, such as air pressure variation. With electronic ones
| the basic options are replaceable, self-charging through motion,
| self charging through sunlight, or directly rechargeable.
|
| 2. an oscillator - the most common are a quartz crystal
| (electronic) or a hairspring (mechanical), but there are some
| other oddball ones out there. Most of the innovation here is
| around making the performance temperature/humidity/position
| agnostic, but at the high end there is a lot of play with new
| materials and architectures.
|
| 3. an interface - the most common is the 12 hour clock face
| (mechanical) or the LED digital interface (electronic). Although
| both can immediate the other, for example a jump-hour mechanical
| interface can resemble a digital clock. Here I think the fun
| stuff is mostly on the mechanical side - there are many, many
| cool "complications" which through some series of gears can allow
| a watch to also keep track of the day, month, moon cycle, day of
| week, year, leap year, tide (set locally), an alarm, or a a chime
| every hour. Of course you can do all of that digitally but I
| guess it feels less special
|
| What's really fun, which this article is focused on, are the
| combo watches. My three favorite lineages:
|
| Seiko Spring Drive watches are in the article - mechanical power
| supply, electronic oscillator.
|
| Bulova Acutron - electronic power supply, mechanical oscillator.
| This one is pretty special as the oscillator was a magnet-driven
| tuning fork. It was far ahead of its time in terms of accuracy,
| but of course a dead end as far as practicality goes. It has a
| cool but annoying property of audibly humming.
|
| Citizen Cosmotron - an electric power supply, mechanical
| oscillator. This is a more tradition hybrid, where the oscillator
| is a balance spring. This lineage has some neat engineering for
| setting the date+day of week - the orientation of the watch
| actually controls which complication you are working with, using
| the same button. Also this has a time-sync feature where you can
| snap the second hand to 12:00 with a press of the button and the
| watch pauses until you let go of said button.
|
| New mechanical oscillators:
| https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-silicon-powered-speed-...
| https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/zenith-defy-lab-oscillator...
| criddell wrote:
| > The 700P was accurate to +/- 1 second per day, way beyond the
| reach of any mechanical calibre without electronic assistance.
|
| That's true, except for Zenith Defy Lab. It is purely mechanical
| and has a +/- 0.3s per day.
| ooterness wrote:
| I'm still waiting for a watch with a chip-scale atomic clock.
| Typical accuracy on current-generation systems is ~0.1
| msec/day.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip-scale_atomic_clock
| maratc wrote:
| If being exact to the extreme is your thing, you may look
| into either high-frequency quartz (these are exact to within
| seconds a year), or any bluetooth-adjusted Casio (these will
| quietly sync with your phone several times a day, and your
| phone is synced to an atomic clock).
| submeta wrote:
| > Autonomy isn't the only thing that matters when comparing
| mechanical to quartz.
|
| says the caption beneath a photograph of a ,,A. Lange & Sohne
| with a 31-day power reserve"
|
| So there's the notion that ---in case your air plaine crashes and
| you land on a desert island--- a quartz watch's battery will
| drain in 5 years and you're left without a watch, but the thing
| is: A mechanical watch needs to be serviced every five years
| (taken apart, lubricated).
|
| But I agree: A mechanical watch is infinitely more appealing than
| a quartz. Considering how minuscule the parts are, what a
| Meisterleistung it is to produce something that works for
| decades. I also find the idea very appealing to have objects that
| can outlive their owners: Furniture, writing instruments,
| mechanical watches.
| hollander wrote:
| I have a Seiko watch with capacitor charged by movement that
| worked for 18 years and it was't finished completely but it
| depleted in one or two days. It's a pity they stopped with this
| technique.
| rdl wrote:
| For this "desert island" use case, a solar powered quartz watch
| seems like it would work the longest, of COTS options today
| (although a mechanical watch might be fine without servicing).
|
| Of course, my favorite watch in this case would be something
| like the Breitling Emergency (https://www.breitling.com/us-
| en/emergency/) which could call for rescue. Looking forward to
| a satellite connectivity version in the future -- iPhones are
| able to do this now, so something like the Apple Watch Ultra 2
| may be able to.
| Dr_Birdbrain wrote:
| My father has a mechanical watch that he bought in the 70s and
| he has never serviced it.
|
| A Jaeger LeCoultre Memovox, a thing of beauty.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _So there's the notion that ---in case your air plaine
| crashes and you land on a desert island--- a quartz watch's
| battery will drain in 5 years and you're left without a watch,
| but the thing is: A mechanical watch needs to be serviced every
| five years (taken apart, lubricated)._
|
| Except if you get a watch with Citizen's Eco-Drive, which is
| where the power comes from ambient light and not a battery:
|
| * https://www.citizenwatch.com/ca/en/technology-eco-drive.html
| akavel wrote:
| I own a Casio solar (brand name "Tough Solar") watch, which
| is generally the same technology IIUC. I believe they indeed
| have long life, but there _is_ actually still something of a
| "battery" inside (specifically, I think a kind of a
| capacitor, though not 100% sure), which still has some life
| expectancy and a number of cycles it can survive. Not to
| mention that even this kind of a watch has a number of
| potential _other_ failure modes as well... just recently I
| stumbled and dropped it, and the back-plate sprung away.
| Surprisingly, even a watchmaker took a while to put it back
| in, and was similarly mildly amused that what looked like a
| trivial job proved to not be exactly so. That said, it was
| more of a suit watch, totally not a G-Shock.
| Animats wrote:
| G-Shock basically solved the what-time-is-it problem when
| they got ruggedness, solar power, and remote time signal
| update into a cheap package. Expensive watches that don't
| have those features are jewelry.
| stateofinquiry wrote:
| Some data: I had a "Tough Solar" G shock for field work- it
| was very long lasting. I got it in 2002 (if memory serves)
| and it lasted about a dozen years. By that point the
| capacitor could not hold a charge very long at all, and it
| became unusable. I set it aside and a few year later the
| rubber bits fell apart including stuff around the case. I'd
| say by 15y it was totally toast. Not bad considering I
| never did a single bit of service on it, but definitely a
| reminder that time always wins in the end. Even when it
| comes to your timepiece!
| aquova wrote:
| Can confirm. I received an Eco-Drive as a gift from my father
| about 12 years ago, and the watch has never died (although
| I've had to replace a snapped band several times)
| ginko wrote:
| I have an Eco-Drive I've been wearing daily for over 17
| years now. Earlier this year I had to have the capacitor
| replaced for the first time since it started to stop
| overnight, but now it's working without a hitch again.
| cainxinth wrote:
| > but the thing is: A mechanical watch needs to be serviced
| every five years (taken apart, lubricated).
|
| A mechanical watch _should_ be serviced about every five years.
| That doesn't mean they magically stop working if you don't. I
| have an inherited Omega from the 60s that hasn't been serviced
| in decades and it still runs and keeps good time.
| tadzik_ wrote:
| Yep. I recently serviced a Tissot from the late 1930s - it
| was running fine, it was just a reasonable thing to do after
| all these years to prolong its lifespan. You wouldn't be able
| to tell that it needs a service without looking at
| timegrapher readings.
| WillAdams wrote:
| Yes, but as a counterpoint, I have a vintage Seiko of my
| father which missed one too many servicings and now has a
| broken date wheel (but otherwise works perfectly).
|
| If I could find someone to fix it, I'd wear it special
| occasions (my day-to-day is a Solar Seiko) often enough to
| keep it wound and _would_ get it serviced every 5 years.
| mhb wrote:
| _objects that can outlive their owners_
|
| parrots, tortoises
| vesinisa wrote:
| There exist specialized quartz watches with battery lifes in
| the 15 years range - I am sure if there was any real demand it
| would be possible to build a digital watch that can survive a
| century without any service. While I appreciate the craft, let
| us not pretend the demand for mechanical watches in the modern
| day is nothing but a luxury vanity driven buy wealthy people
| with way too much money to spare.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I honestly find mechanical watches quite ugly, irrespective of
| cost, brand, or notoriety.
|
| To my eyes there's something inescapably crude about mechanical
| design with moving metal parts. It's still present when there
| are tiny components with even tinier tolerances.
| mchanson wrote:
| If you were stranded on the desert island, what would you need
| to watch for?
| bazzargh wrote:
| timing cooking hardboiled seagull eggs
|
| as an approximate compass, if it has an hour hand (bisect the
| angle between the hour hand and noon, that's north or south,
| depending on your latitude, unless you're in the tropics
| where this doesn't work)
|
| as a heliograph to flash signals to passing ships
|
| if there's a date magnifier, you can use it to light fires
|
| the engraving on the back may help identify your sun-bleached
| bones ("So, this poor devil was named WATER RESISTANT")
| OJFord wrote:
| > as an approximate compass, if it has an hour hand (bisect
| the angle between the hour hand and noon, that's north or
| south, depending on your latitude, unless you're in the
| tropics where this doesn't work)
|
| I've read and sort of understood and forgotten the
| technique before - but that's certainly not it: you could
| determine your north that way and spin around and it
| wouldn't change.
| bazzargh wrote:
| the hour hand is pointing at the sun, is the bit I missed
| from the sentence.
| OJFord wrote:
| Ah right, and it works because the sun's going E to W in
| a full revolution, roughly in the relative N at noon.
| Dr_Birdbrain wrote:
| Watches can be used to find fresh water sources. (Joking, of
| course you are completely correct)
| submeta wrote:
| Well, you can navigate with the help of the sun. And keep
| sane having some sort of structure (when to wake up, when to
| go to bed, when to eat), monitor tidal changes. There is lots
| of value in knowing the time, even on a desert island.
| jlg23 wrote:
| > And keep sane having some sort of structure (when to wake
| up, when to go to bed, when to eat), monitor tidal changes.
|
| Though you could just stick a piece of wood into the sand,
| mark shadows thrown at sunrise sunset and divide the
| circle's span however you want for your time system..
| akdor1154 wrote:
| My desert island will be a metric time paradise.
| hirundo wrote:
| > And keep sane having some sort of structure (when to wake
| up, when to go to bed, when to eat)
|
| Without other people to coordinate with, the signals from
| the environment and your body are a more sound structure
| for these. The time of day is at best a good proxy.
| jacquesm wrote:
| If I land on a desert island the very last thing I need is a
| watch. A watch is there to be able to synchronize with outside
| events, and those are in short supply on a desert island. If
| there are no other people that you need to meet, trains whose
| time tables matter or ships that need conning you don't need a
| watch. I'd trade you my watch for a book of matches or some
| canned food.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > If I land on a desert island the very last thing I need is
| a watch. A watch is there to be able to synchronize with
| outside events, and those are in short supply on a desert
| island. If there are no other people that you need to meet,
| trains whose time tables matter or ships that need conning
| you don't need a watch.
|
| A watch lets you calculate longitude, which could be very
| valuable indeed.
|
| There's a reason why accurate time keeping was one of the
| holy grails during the age of sail.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Why would it be useful to you to be able to calculate
| longitude on a desert island?
| WillAdams wrote:
| To put that information into a bottle so as to be rescued
| --- this is the crux of Jules Verne's _In Search of the
| Castaways_.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I suppose you could use it to work out where you need to
| go as you attempt to sail across the Pacific in your
| improvised raft?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Good luck :) I just hope I brought enough books or a
| musical instrument with me. I'll be fine. And if not, oh
| well, there are much worse places to be than a desert
| island, with or without a watch. The thing you don't want
| to find out is that what you thought was a desert island
| is in fact inhabited by some tribe that thinks you might
| be tasty.
| numpad0 wrote:
| To look up closest Starlink passes and send SOS by
| messing with it using a mirror, of course.
| ip26 wrote:
| Ok, but why do you need to calculate longitude of the
| island five years later? Seems like a one-and-done thing.
| ooterness wrote:
| If you want accuracy, a mechanical watch is not the right
| answer. Update: Best I've seen is +/-0.3 sec/day (3 ppm).
| Quartz can exceed this by 10x-100x. An atomic clock can
| beat that by many orders of magnitude.
|
| But I'm definitely not lugging around a sextant and a
| cesium clock just in case.
| infoseek12 wrote:
| If we're being really realistic, I don't think there are any
| desert islands in existence today that are both habitable and
| wouldn't be visiting is a five years time span.
| matt-attack wrote:
| Did you find Cast Away implausible?
| bsza wrote:
| > A watch is there to be able to synchronize with outside
| events
|
| And to better predict rising tides (the ideal time for
| fishing), to plan your day and your trips better, and to boil
| eggs exactly the way you like them.
|
| It's a luxury item compared to a knife, but it has its uses.
| [deleted]
| gerikson wrote:
| Seiko used to have a series of watches called Kinetic, where an
| oscillating weight charged a capacitor or battery. Weird that
| it's not mentioned in the article, as it seems to be just what's
| under discussion.
|
| The issue is essentially solved for quartz, even Casio's electro-
| mechanic models can be powered by ambient light.
|
| _Edited_ , Seiko, not Citizen.
| inhumantsar wrote:
| The article is about hybrid electronic and mechanical
| timekeeping though, not energy source.
|
| While it has an analog display and a mechanical power source,
| the Kinetic's timekeeping is purely quartz. The Spring Drive
| has mechanical timekeeping which is automatically regulated by
| quartz.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-03 23:01 UTC)