Adjustable anchor pallets vs. fixed pallets

[marylander]

Hello, I am not an expert on clocks and their parts. Here in this 400-day clock forum, experts always warn beginners not to do anything on those adjustable pallets before they really know what was the problem. All these caused me to think why many clock makers chose to use adjustable pallets instead of fix pallets. Schatz used to use fixed pallets and then changed to adjustable pallets.The fixed pallet anchors are cheaper to make and less problem latter on. Can any one educate me about the ideas behind the adjustable pallets. I know one can fine tune the pallets to make the best run of it. But fixed pallets anchor can also achieve the same result with lower cost. Any education will be appreciated.
Ming

 

[KurtinSA]

The repair guide says that JUF and later the Schatz began to use the non-adjustable pallets/anchor. It goes on to say that a majority of the other manufacturers used the adjustable version.

Don't forget that the pin pallet escapement was used even before 1900...the guide mentions Badische had the pin pallet escapement at the time. Essentially the pin pallet escapement is a form of non-adjustable pallets.

Beyond that, I'd like to know more about why the adjustable version was so popular.

Kurt

 

[marylander]

The repair guide says that JUF and later the Schatz began to use the non-adjustable pallets/anchor. It goes on to say that a majority of the other manufacturers used the adjustable version.

Don't forget that the pin pallet escapement was used even before 1900...the guide mentions Badische had the pin pallet escapement at the time. Essentially the pin pallet escapement is a form of non-adjustable pallets.

Beyond that, I'd like to know more about why the adjustable version was so popular.

Kurt

Hi Kurt, Yes, I want to know why use adjustable pallets if a fixed pallets anchor can achieve the same. There must be a good reason behind it. I can see majority of 400-day clock use adjustable pallets anchor.
Ming

 

[victor miranda]

this is my observation...
adjustable pallets allow better control of impulse angles, and easier polishing, and plate manufacturing.

... I hate trying to polish fixed verge pallets. one side is easy anyway.

I suspect the manufacturers drilled plates and THEN made the adjustable verge to fit the plates and escape wheels.
It is easier to "adjust" the verge than it is to change the grinding and polishing of a fixed type.
As part of assembly and with this method, there is no need for the experience of a clock maker to adjust the verge on each clock.

The reason for the advice "do not adjust" is because the adjustments are for the factory, not us repairers...

on one clock where I was certain someone had adjusted the pallets....
it looked funny?

:-D I scratched marks on the pallets to mark where they were set.
then I tinkered a bunch. when I was done... scratch marks were where they started.
I like to think I learned a lot.

If a 400 day clock don't go... set beat again, adjust the fork again, and polish pivots some more...

victor

 

[shutterbug]

I suspect that the adjustable pallets were used as an enticement. People unfamiliar with torsion clocks would fiddle with those first, screw things up, and be forced to buy another clock which was good for the manufacturers.
(Well, that's just a theory)

 

[sjaffe]

This isn't so much related to 400 day clocks as graham deadbeat escapements in general. After time, the pallet faces can get worn. The grooves can be deep enough that polishing them out will result in the geometry being far enough off the clock won't run. This is especially common for ST #2 regulators. With adjustable pallets you can flip them around when worn or grind out the grooves without permanently ruining the geometry since they can be realigned. Not really relevant for 400 days because the pallets rarely wear to deep grooves.
Stan

 

[sjaffe]

Horolovar once sold a tool for repairers to align pallets so the theory that this was only meant to be done by the factory doesn't quite hold true.
Stan

 

[victor miranda]

Horolovar once sold a tool for repairers to align pallets so the theory that this was only meant to be done by the factory doesn't quite hold true.
Stan

I happen to know I can adjust the pallets.... so of course the factory does not have a lock on the matter.

when one is facing questions about "whyisit"...
my thinking is sharing an explanation for why is it the advice is 'don't adjust it'
If 400 day clocks grooved pallets, we'd be adjusting them after a grind and polish.

another way to say it may be; the adjustable pallets are in there for the factory's convenience not ours.

victor

 

[etmb61]

Horolovar once sold a tool for repairers to align pallets so the theory that this was only meant to be done by the factory doesn't quite hold true.
Stan

I just picked up one of those this summer. They were made by Kundo in two sizes, one for full sized and one for smaller movements.

Having adjustable pallets would certainly allow wider production tolerances don't you think?

Eric

 

[victor miranda]

OOOOooooh!
I forgot ask Stan...

tool? can yall post a picture? .... like II need another tool to hunt.

 

[Berry Greene]

I am reading through this section (thread) on adjustable pallets and I don't think I have seen the most obvious answer. Let me float my take and you can shoot me down if you want to.
Perhaps this is just to take out earlier mass production manufacturing tolerances. It points to the pallet and EW tolerances needing to be tight - which is correct by my own (limited) experience of the very slow Graham dead-beat escape used on the Hondo and Schatz torsion clocks. The impulses shouldn't be any more excessive than absolutely necessary or the mainspring reserve won't make the 400 day claim. Yet they cannot be too small or the stability will become far to frail. I suppose large drilling errors in the plates would either get bushed or scrapped.
There has to be a sensible reason for the adjustable version because it would surely add quite substantially to the costs of manufacture & maybe factory set-up? We know that as time went on lathes and other manufacturing machinery got to be more & more automated and more accurate too, leaving the need for such adjustment unnecessary. Berry G

 

[etmb61]

OOOOooooh!
I forgot ask Stan...

tool? can yall post a picture? .... like II need another tool to hunt.

As requested:



Perhaps they made them adjustable to satisfy the people who had to set them up in the factory.

Eric

 

[etmb61]

Ming,

I think you may be looking for this:



On the construction and theory of the dead escapement for clocks : Benjamin Lewis Vulliamy : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Eric

 

[marylander]

Ming,

I think you may be looking for this:

View attachment 363146

On the construction and theory of the dead escapement for clocks : Benjamin Lewis Vulliamy : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Eric

Eric, thank you very much. I will check it out. I am quite satisfied with some reasonings posted above.
Ming

 

[John Hubby]

The repair guide says that JUF and later the Schatz began to use the non-adjustable pallets/anchor. It goes on to say that a majority of the other manufacturers used the adjustable version.

Don't forget that the pin pallet escapement was used even before 1900...the guide mentions Badische had the pin pallet escapement at the time. Essentially the pin pallet escapement is a form of non-adjustable pallets.

Beyond that, I'd like to know more about why the adjustable version was so popular.

Kurt

Kurt and all, the Repair Guide information that Badische used pin pallets before 1900 is 100% totally wrong. The movement plates referenced in that writeup and throughout the Repair Guide Movement Identification section are the Andreas Huber patent designs for which the patents were granted in November 1911 (pin pallets) and March 1912 (lantern pinions). There is NO credible evidence that pin pallet escapements or lantern pinions were used for any torsion clock prior to the advent of the Huber design. Further to that, there is also NO evidence that Badische ever made a spring-driven 400-Day clock movement (a British subsidiary "did" make the Rombach patent weight driven 400-Day clocks in 1904-05). They purchased movements and complete clocks from Huber from 1900 to early 1904, then JUF from 1901 to 1908, then Hauck from 1903 to 1906. Kienzle entered the picture in 1908 and then Huber again in 1912 with the advent of their pin pallet/lantern pinion movements.

The lunar clock designs with pin pallets and lantern pinions were independent to an extent. Vosseler had their own movement design from about 1912 but the DRGM stamp on those movements is believed to be licensed from Huber. JUF had their own designs patented in 1913 and 1914 including specific pendulums for those clocks. Badische only started their lunar sales after WWI using Huber movements; Huber sold the same clocks for their own sales.

All this is not to say that pin pallets or lantern pinions weren't used in any clocks before the Huber design, in fact there were millions of alarm clocks and the like made from the late 1800s with both features. However, neither of these features have been found on any torsion pendulum clock made before 1912.

 

[KurtinSA]

John -

Thanks for the info. It's so hard to keep up with all that is wrong with the repair. But with all that you have going on and being up at 3am posting, I suspect there is precious little time for you to complete the rewrite of the guide. I hope there's some opportunity in the future for that to get done.

Kurt