Re: obsolete mercury batteries

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:36:50 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Frank Adam" <fajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jj25q3dv8cpe0nbcivjnnulplcgv7d43ma@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:35:19 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ahhhah! No.
By all means, one could provide a hatch(and as you no doubt recall,
early Seiko digitals did have those), but once we're talking wheels,
pinions and magnet, they would have to put extra safeguards to prevent
the owner form meddling with those wheels or dropping bits of dirt
inside the watch.
So now we're looking at an elaborate sealing system between the
movement and the battery compartment. Such thing would be difficult to
do on a 5 and a half line movement withotu substantially increasing
it's height and possibly it's width too.



It would also make water resistant watches a pain in the arse and a
foot thick, as the battery would need to be always in the center of
the movement to accomodate for the screw on back with the hatch being
in the middle. Unless we go back to push on backs, but those do not
quite stack up against screw on ones. Not without a fair amount of
effort anyway.
Not to mention that spotting a failing seal on the hatch would be
beyond the average user nor would they notice the subtle sound of
slicing thought it, when refitting..
Personally, i don't want owners to poke around in a watch, even though
i could and do make a nice bundle on just that.

That's the whole point - a hatch keeps owners (and mall butchers) out of the
innards. Water resistance is not that hard to maintain - the only
communication needed between the hatch and the rest of the watch is 2
contacts. THis is easier to do if the rest of the back is plastic. Even if
the seal on the hatch is breached this only soaks the battery compartment.
It's true that thickness is compromised a little but nowadays the fashion is
for watches as big as a hockey puck anyway. There's more than one way to
skin the cat - rather than a screw back, a back with 4 screws in the corners
(and a gasket) can be very water resistant. If thinness was important you
could have two half- backs - upper 2/3 with the movement and lower 1/3 with
the battery - maybe semi circle shaped battery, semi circular movement -
round battery in a round movement just wastes space. Or a big but thin
lithium on top of the whole back.

The US Mil spec quartz watches have battery hatches, so someone thinks they
are a good idea.



Current patient on the bench is a pristine looking gents Omega, which
the owner figured he could adjust. Ripped the regulator right off the
***, he did. 4 screw back, so it was "made" easy for him to open, by
our user friendly Omega designer.
It's a bloody mess, but i hope he had fun for the 2-300 bucks it'll
cost him. I'd have adjusted it for between nothing and 10 bucks,
depending on him and how i felt on the day. Alas..

Alas indeed. I'm no watchmaker but I've regulated lots of watches and never
ripped off the regulator, never fouled the spring, knock on wood - I always
work under magnification and use a delicate touch. It ain't like you're
loosening the lug nuts on your car.

Yes, but you are an enthusiast. How would your neighbours manage ? :)
This balance *** has a "feature" where the amount of movement of the
regulator is very limited. If the person pushed the regulator by a mm
on this one, he could've hit the stop(not visible from the top) and
the regulator and stud would pop off in two bits. I'm gessing that is
what happened and the rest of the damage was due to the OMG moment of
panic.

It takes control to stop after you slip. For those playing with
watches out there, do not panic if you do slip off or something cracks
under the tool. What was hit is already hit, what bent or broke is
already damaged. Assess that damage and apply the appropriate swear
words later, but for now just stop, recollect yourself and lift the
tool clean off.

--

Regards, Frank
.

Loading