Original von jholbrook
I don't doubt you - but your small sample size does nothing to prove or disprove my article.
Sorry, but your article does not prove anything at all, it is just a theory.

I linked to the entire article so that the reader could read it. But the conclusion I quote is the author's conclusion.
You quoted the sentence you like most, not the whole conclusion of W. Arnstein.

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.
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.

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)Are you trying to counter or support what I have to say about COSC certification?

B)The part above I bolded is a pretty sweeping gneralization for which you offer no proof or support.
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.

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.