Greetings folks,
I just finished this latest article on THE ROLEX REFERENCE PAGE. Just click HERE to enjoy the article, and as always, reply here with any thoughts or feedback.
-John
Druckbare Version
Greetings folks,
I just finished this latest article on THE ROLEX REFERENCE PAGE. Just click HERE to enjoy the article, and as always, reply here with any thoughts or feedback.
-John
John, it says file not found? =(
Try this link: http://www.rolexreferencepage.com/movement/index.html
Nicely done, but for me here on the other side of the atlantic ocean reality is behaving quite different to the theories you use to make the reader believe that the co-axial escapement was a step back: My Rolexes are far less accurate than my Panerai or my Omega. Both run lower speeds. And with longer power reserve.
When taking Walt Arnsteins article as a base for argumentation you only quoted the last sentence, that a higher beating movement has a leg over his slower cousins. But please quote the sentences before that, too: "Finally, we should keep in mind that response to mechanical disturbances is not the only source of error in a watch. There can be poor adjustment for isochronism, sensitivity to temperature, friction in the gear train, etc. How else to explain the fact that Rolexes, Omegas, and other fine watches of the 1930s and 1940s routinely passed COSC tests with flying colors despite their low (5 bps) beat rate? Or the fact that a sizable number of modern watches (notably models by PP, IWC, Minerva, etc.) still continue to exhibit outstanding performance with a beat rate of 5 bps? The answer lies in precision and individual attention to detail.
No, beat rate is not the only factor affecting potential for outstanding performance"
The reason for Omega to run the co-axial escapement at lower speeds was that George Daniels designed it for. Higher speeds cause teeth impact problems with the co-axial escapement and actually Omega did not go back from 28,800 bph to 25,200 bph - they went up from 18,000 bph, the speed the co-axial escapement was designed for.
You also forgot to mention that the Omega cal. 2500 uses the same free sprung balance system as the Rolex which you pointed out to be the better solution.
The fact that Omegas come with a COSC certificate is nice - but what is Rolex intent when delivering nearly every watch with a COSC certificate? IMO the same: Giving the buyer the feeling of super accuracy where it is just average. And in side by side comparisson the Rolex 3135 is far more average at all points than the co-axial Omegas.
I don't doubt you - but your small sample size does nothing to prove or disprove my article.Zitat:
Originally posted by Chefcook
Nicely done, but for me here on the other side of the atlantic ocean reality is behaving quite different to the theories you use to make the reader believe that the co-axial escapement was a step back: My Rolexes are far less accurate than my Panerai or my Omega. Both run lower speeds. And with longer power reserve.
I linked to the entire article so that the reader could read it. But the conclusion I quote is the author's conclusion.Zitat:
When taking Walt Arnsteins article as a base for argumentation you only quoted the last sentence,
A)I've researched the Co-Axial extensively, and never have come accross anything which supports this notion.Zitat:
The reason for Omega to run the co-axial escapement at lower speeds was that George Daniels designed it for. Higher speeds cause teeth impact problems with the co-axial escapement and actually Omega did not go back from 28,800 bph to 25,200 bph - they went up from 18,000 bph, the speed the co-axial escapement was designed for.
B)You're only further proving my point - if the Co-Axial escapement cannot perform the task that a traditional escapement on a 28,800 beat speed movement can, then there's no point using it.
[quote]
You also forgot to mention that the Omega cal. 2500 uses the same free sprung balance system as the Rolex which you pointed out to be the better solution.
Uhhhmm....no I didn't. Go back and read my article. :tongue:
A)Are you trying to counter or support what I have to say about COSC certification? :grb:Zitat:
The fact that Omegas come with a COSC certificate is nice - but what is Rolex intent when delivering nearly every watch with a COSC certificate? IMO the same: Giving the buyer the feeling of super accuracy where it is just average. And in side by side comparisson the Rolex 3135 is far more average at all points than the co-axial Omegas.
B)The part above I bolded is a pretty sweeping gneralization for which you offer no proof or support. :grb:
Sorry, but your article does not prove anything at all, it is just a theory.Zitat:
Original von jholbrook
I don't doubt you - but your small sample size does nothing to prove or disprove my article.
You quoted the sentence you like most, not the whole conclusion of W. Arnstein.Zitat:
I linked to the entire article so that the reader could read it. But the conclusion I quote is the author's conclusion.
A) Read that some time ago in a text from Dr Daniels hisself. I'll search for it again and send it to you.Zitat:
A)I've researched the Co-Axial extensively, and never have come accross anything which supports this notion.
B)You're only further proving my point - if the Co-Axial escapement cannot perform the task that a traditional escapement on a 28,800 beat speed movement can, then there's no point using it.
B) I strongly disagree with your opinion that there is no point for using an escapement slower than 28.8k bph. As I pointed out before other things must be taken in consideration when judging a movements accuracy based on its layout.
The whole point of the co-axial escapement is the elimination (nearly) of sliding friction which results in a much more stable speed of the balance wheel. The co-axial escapement has a lot less loss of speed during every beat.
Prof. J.C. Nicolet states in THIS ARTICLE that the efficiency for a co-axial escapement is 3% up to the lever escapement and the gaingain in energy transmitted is therefore on the order of 10% to 12%. This results in the same better stability of a faster beating movement.
Walt Odets shows in THIS ARTICLE ON TIMEZONE that the difference in amplitude between dial up and crown down in a co-axial movement is nearly zero where one expects 20 to 40 degree in a movement with lever escapement. "This consistency virtually eliminates anisochronistic effects in positions.".
A) You are trying to give the reader the feeling that Omega takes a 'weak' certification as argument for the accuracy of their movements. At least I read a negative undertone in it. It seems to me that you are searching for a negative point for Omega where it is not a negative point for Rolex, who does exactly the same.Zitat:
A)Are you trying to counter or support what I have to say about COSC certification? :grb:
B)The part above I bolded is a pretty sweeping gneralization for which you offer no proof or support. :grb:
B) The Rolex 3135 is a movement without mechanic innovation and shows a technical state of the 1960s. Omega does something new with their ca. 2500 and with certain success. What's more average, new or conservative?
Others tackle the task of inaccuracy be increasing the beat rate like most car manufacturers put bigger engines in their cars to make them go faster. That worked for the past 100 years pretty well, but now we are at a point in the evolution of watch movements that don't allow siginificant improvements of the accuracy and stability of a movement by increasing the beat rate (lubrication and wear is the point).
Omega went a different way and found a way of making a movement accurate and stable while reducing friction and the need of lubrication.
Actually the co-axial escapement is a chronometer escapement small enough for ones wrist plus it has some advantages over both the classic chronometer escapement and the lever escapement.
Thanks for the interesting discussion guys :gut:
I was an opponent of the co-axial escapement when it first came out but I now appreciate Omegas effort to set problems straight.
The cal. 31xx on the other hand is iconic. Sure, there´s nothing new or pretty about it but it has been a proven workhorse for decades now. If you want a pretty movement, look somewhere else ;)
Actually, as the article clearly states, it's an opinion piece, which presents many facts to support my opinions. You're of course welcome to disagree with the opinions, but once again, the experience with your own watches makes no difference one way or the other. It's a statistically insignificant sample size.Zitat:
Originally posted by Chefcook
Sorry, but your article does not prove anything at all, it is just a theory.Zitat:
Original von jholbrook
I don't doubt you - but your small sample size does nothing to prove or disprove my article.
Zitat:
I linked to the entire article so that the reader could read it. But the conclusion I quote is the author's conclusion.
Look I read the article (did you??), and what I quoted essentially was the conclusion of his article. I don't see anyone else suggesting I took the quote out of context or misrepresented the article in any way. I made mention of the article and quoted the article because they support my premise.Zitat:
You quoted the sentence you like most, not the whole conclusion of W. Arnstein.
Zitat:
A)I've researched the Co-Axial extensively, and never have come accross anything which supports this notion.
B)You're only further proving my point - if the Co-Axial escapement cannot perform the task that a traditional escapement on a 28,800 beat speed movement can, then there's no point using it.
My issue is that Omega abandoned a traditional lever escapement in favor of the Co-Axial, but had to step back the beat speed of their movements to do it. In my mind, the benefits of the Co-Axial escapement do not outweigh the sacrifices made - it's a case of one step forward, two steps backward. Depending on you value the benefits of the Co-Axial escaptement vs. costs, you may disagree.Zitat:
A) Read that some time ago in a text from Dr Daniels hisself. I'll search for it again and send it to you.
B) I strongly disagree with your opinion that there is no point for using an escapement slower than 28.8k bph. As I pointed out before other things must be taken in consideration when judging a movements accuracy based on its layout.
Obviously many factors impact accuracy in a mechanical movement - I never stated otherwise.
Yes, I am aware of how the Co-Axial escapement works, and it's theoretical pro's and con's. My opinion remains unchanged.Zitat:
The whole point of the co-axial escapement is the elimination (nearly) of sliding friction which results in a much more stable speed of the balance wheel. The co-axial escapement has a lot less loss of speed during every beat.
Prof. J.C. Nicolet states in THIS ARTICLE that the efficiency for a co-axial escapement is 3% up to the lever escapement and the gaingain in energy transmitted is therefore on the order of 10% to 12%. This results in the same better stability of a faster beating movement.
Walt Odets shows in THIS ARTICLE ON TIMEZONE that the difference in amplitude between dial up and crown down in a co-axial movement is nearly zero where one expects 20 to 40 degree in a movement with lever escapement. "This consistency virtually eliminates anisochronistic effects in positions.".
Zitat:
A)Are you trying to counter or support what I have to say about COSC certification? :grb:
B)The part above I bolded is a pretty sweeping gneralization for which you offer no proof or support. :grb:
Did you actually read my article? Go back and read it again, because your point A is entirely innacurate. Let me quote myself to prove the point:Zitat:
A) You are trying to give the reader the feeling that Omega takes a 'weak' certification as argument for the accuracy of their movements. At least I read a negative undertone in it. It seems to me that you are searching for a negative point for Omega where it is not a negative point for Rolex, who does exactly the same.
Clearly there is no basis to your point "A"Zitat:
Without going too far off on a tangent, suffice to say that Rolex, Omega, and the entire luxury mechanical watch making industry have for too long allowed the COSC accuracy standard of -4 to +6 seconds per day be their defining benchmark for success.
Firstly, if your point about the 3135 is valid (which I do not subscribe to) then you might as well condem the entire mechanical watch making industry for not having any real innovation for at least 100 years.Zitat:
B) The Rolex 3135 is a movement without mechanic innovation and shows a technical state of the 1960s. Omega does something new with their ca. 2500 and with certain success. What's more average, new or conservative?
Secondly, I don't don't subscribe to the notion that "change for the sake of change" is good. Change must improve what was before or there is no need to change.