American PW Hamilton 18S 17J 940 full plate running fast after repair

[klokwiz]

Hi, sorry dont have any photos to post now.

i acquired this watch with a broken staff. The watch had been dropped. The watch is in relatively good condition otherwise and case wear and lack of tool marks on movement show it has had an easy life. So i figured replace staff and set mainspring and i would have a nice watch. After repair it runs about 90 seconds fast in 24 hours, with the regulator centered on the rate scale as it should be. If I move it all the way to "slow" watch will come close to being regulated, but i know this is not the way to do it.

I carefully replaced staff no manhandling of balance wheel, balance is serial match to movement. Roller plate installed in original position to wheel etc.. The balance weights do not appear to be molested under 10X. The jeweling is good and staff endplay is good. amplitude is good sorry i do not recall the readings I got at this moment, but was over 270. The balance spring looks great, no signs of rust. it is perfectly centered and on plane no indication of reason for increased speed. the regulator pins are strait and spaced well. The only question i have about balance spring is it has a round stud that mounts under a curved plate on cock with two screws, this arrangement would allow some "wiggle' room for position of spring stud. I have tried resetting the stud after assembled while running and static and before balance cock is installed. It seems to make no difference to the performance of the watch.

one of the pallet fork banking pins appeared to have been moved and i have returned it to what i think is correct but i am having a hard time telling on this type movement with the fork sandwiched between plates. the pallets lock well and the banking pin appears to be set to the least clearance to roller.

The only other item i can think of is the new spring effecting the rate. but my experience with other watches is even of i put an old set spring back in the watch rate doesn't really change. the new spring is an alloy type.

So I think I have some understanding of how these work but I don't see why this watch didn't return to proper operation. It appears to be getting down to a weight issue on balance. There are no "timing screws" to attempt adjustment as a last resort.

Am i overlooking something? what could have caused this increased rate?

perplexed.
Joe

 

[Chris Radek]

How does it look on the timing machine? Maybe your new spring is too strong and it's galloping (amplitude too high, causing the balance to bounce off the outside of the pallet fork). If it's minor, it can be hard to notice, but it is very apparent in a timer's graph.

 

[klokwiz]

Chris, It didn't seem to me to be too hi. I will toss it on the machine and add the info. How hi do you think the amplitude needs to be cause this? I am new to using the timegrapher and am still learning to trouble shoot with it. what should i be looking for on the graph? Joe

 

[Chris Radek]

If a watch gallops, the graph will show a nice straight line (or set of railroad tracks if it's out of beat) which will occasionally shift up or down markedly on the screen to a new position and make a new line there for a while, until it shifts again.

The amplitude numbers on the timer are nearly useless, do not try to use them to determine whether it's in danger of galloping. Look at the balance instead, and watch the graph.

If it's grossly out of beat, that can make it worse, allowing it to more easily strike on one side.

 

[klokwiz]

Chris, I do not recall seeing this "galloping"., have you seen any good reference material for diagnosis using the timegrapher on older pocket watches? As far as the B/E it was >1.0 ms if i recall. how close to "zero" do you think beat error should be on these old american PWs? Is zero the goal? I have read less than 1.0 is acceptable. I also see a definite relationship to regulator position and B/E which I assume should be set at the neutral or middle setting at all times? Joe.

 

[pocketsrforwatches]

A Hamilton 940 without timing screws? Not likely. From the Hamilton Watch Materials Catalog: Grades 940, 941, 942, 943 show meantime screw part number 482A. Someone might have turned them in thinking they were loose. They typically have a longer thread length.

Roger

 

[klokwiz]

roger, that's a good observation. except I screwed up it is a 924. looks like the screws are all the same length. did this movmt have timing screws? joe

 

[John Runciman]

as you have a timing machine it would help if you got pictures. As you are new to using a timing machine a procedure is nice. Like winding the watch up letting it run about 15 minutes 30 minutes before you start timing. Then the minimum of 30 seconds in each of the positions and I want a photograph of the timing machine results. Allow 30 seconds between shifting the watch to a different position. Watches need a little bit of settling time when you move them from position to position. then it be nice if you did dial-up, dial down and crown down. It really be nice if you did all four pendant positions like crown up crown right crown down and crown left but I'll settle for crown down if that's all you want to do photographs of each position of the timing machine so we can see what it looks like. Often times people new to using timing machines don't notice things that others will notice.

Then look really carefully at the balance wheel is it possible that you bent the arms in just a little bit because that would cause the watch the speed up.

Then because the watch came with a broken staff you don't actually know what the watch was doing before you got it? specifically I like to do pre-timing of a watch before I service it. Just because I like to see what it looks like before. But with a broken staff you have no idea what the running condition of this watch was before and with 100+ years of potential interesting things happening when the watches been serviced that may be why it's running fast.

 

[klokwiz]

John, thanks for your reply. I assume by bent arms you mean pinched the arms closed in circumference? I looked and they look to meet edges of wheel arms properly. I agree there is no proof watch was right before staff, and agree with checking before and after.

sorry do not have photo but the timegraph screen track is side by side with no deviations or stray dots. angled upward as the rate is fast. here are written results:

DU +105 292 .3
DD +106 281 .3
CU +67 261 .4
CL +121 255 .3
CD +112 255 .1
CR +76 266 .2

I also did a dymamic test in 8 positions which would seem to indicate a slight imbalance on one side of balance.

starting at CU and going clockwise: +71, +67, +73, +106, +132, +129, +117, +74

I let the timegrapher settle between readings but not sure exactly 30sec. but it seems to me if you wait long enough the machine will always change numbers somewhat.

thanks joe

 

[Chris Radek]

Those timings look quite good, with the horizontals matching, and the verticals clustered around the horizontals, with a clear pattern of somewhere between up-right being the slowest and left-down being the fastest. It's too bad it doesn't have quarter screws, because that makes it easy. But you can improve everything with a single timing washer placed on the right screw. Since you have a fairly high amplitude [assuming your amplitude numbers are correct - again, don't assume this without checking by eye], the heavy spot will be at the top when the watch is in rotated to its fastest vertical position. So put a 1-minute or even a 2-minute washer on the bottom screw and check again.

Probably someone has removed weight from one or more screws and they shouldn't have.

 

[John Runciman]

but it seems to me if you wait long enough the machine will always change numbers somewhat

unfortunately gearing in 100-year-old pocket watches is not perfect as the power flows through the gear train there will be imperfections and you will see the numbers go up and down. This is where having a timing machine with the time plot feature is nice unfortunately they get to be pricey. You could also try changing the averaging time of the timing machine to 20 seconds that would help to smooth the readings out a little bit. By default the Chinese machines power up at two seconds so longer time and 20 seconds is a good number does help.

Then I'm assuming that you did not statically poise the watch?

I assume by bent arms you mean pinched the arms closed in circumference? I looked and they look to meet edges of wheel arms properly

ideally you're supposed to put it on truing caliper and spin it but I find visually you can look. So yes the arms should look perfect in circumference and the gap between the arms and the other part of the balance both of them should be identical. this is where if the gap is bigger or smaller than the opposite side can be an issue and of course of the reader been in her out that's definitely an issue.

Since you have a fairly high amplitude [assuming your amplitude numbers are correct - again, don't assume this without checking by eye],

the reason why this strange remark looks strange is that on timing machines Chinese are usually more susceptible but not necessarily. If the amplitude is insanely low the timing machine will pick up the wrong part of the waveform and give you a very high nice number. So any time you using a timing machine you need to verify that the graphical display agrees with the numeric results. Then you also need to verify visually if the balance wheel amplitude is really high that the timing machine says it's hot. Often people assume that the timing machine is always right and it's not if it picks up the wrong part of the waveform. This is were at work we have a $10,000 witschi machine and oftentimes a look at the oscilloscope where it tells me what it's triggering off of and I can see it's confused so the amplitude number will jump by about 100° up and down as it's being confused over what it should be triggering off above. But visually should bill Otello look pathetic in the timing machine will disagree with you.

starting at CU and going clockwise: +71, +67, +73, +106, +132, +129, +117, +74

I'm assuming those numbers were.at about 180°? Numbers of interest are +67 as that's the slowest and +132 that should correspond to the heavy spot. If you want to determine exactly where they are you can rotate the microphone slowly or rotate the watch in the microphone at about these positions go either side and find the fastest or slowest position. Then try putting a single timing washer under the screw corresponding to the slowest position as this should be light spot. Then time again I give us the numbers.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Joe,

Since you have a fairly high amplitude [assuming your amplitude numbers are correct - again, don't assume this without checking by eye],

Watch timers use the parameter 'lift angle' to calculate amplitude, (it's the part of the balance oscillation when it's being impulsed by the lever fork); most default to 52˚, which is common in wrist watches but pocket watches usually have a lower value of around 40˚ or so. This is all they use it for, but if you don't know the lift angle for your watch, you need to use another method of finding the amplitude. A slow-motion video is one way, but there are others, such as slowly winding the movement until you actually see an amplitude of 180˚ and then checking what the timer makes of that. Not all timers will allow you to set continuously variable lift angles, or display the actual waveform like an oscilloscope, as John's Witschi does. (You don't have to pay $10k to acquire that sort of functionality by the way).

Regards,

Graham

 

[pocketsrforwatches]

Grades 924 through 935 show a meantime screw part number 482B. From my Hamilton Watch Genuine Materials book. Please check closely.

Roger

 

[John Runciman]

waveform like an oscilloscope, as John's Witschi does. (You don't have to pay $10k to acquire that sort of functionality by the way).

unfortunately the oscilloscope is only found on the more expensive witschi machines. So my witschi at home does not have the oscilloscope but the one I use it work does. Then yes there's other ways to get around this some of the software-based timing machines have oscilloscope or equivalent or maybe even better.

pocket watches usually have a lower value of around 40˚ or so.

based on the ones that I've measured that's a little on the low side not saying it doesn't exist but that's low for the lift angle for an American pocket watch. Then I've even seen some higher than 52 occasionally seen some pocket watches as high as 60.

Grades 924 through 935 show a meantime screw part number 482B. From my Hamilton Watch Genuine Materials book. Please check closely.

I wonder if there were any variations in the balance wheel for this watch? looking at the pocket watch database reveals amusement. Going through the picture is there's a nice drawing probably from Hamilton definitely shows a mean time screw.. Then another watch that definitely does not amusingly has a number on the plate which is not 924 and yet is listed as a 924.. One of the problems with the pocket watch database it's not 100% accurate. it appears to be the pictures that I see that do have the screw the balance wheels a little different than those that do not? So I snipped out an image marked where the screw is and noticed with the balance arm is? So any that I can see a screw it's just on the side of one of the arms as opposed to where you normally find it on the arm itself. All the rest it are missing the screw don't have this little extra piece sticking out on the side hopefully that makes sense some wondering if were seeing two separate balance wheels for the same grade of watch?

 

[klokwiz]

Thanks for all your replies. I am posting some pictures of timegrapher tests and my notes. I did a L/A test to determine the correct degree, it appears this watch is 48 degrees as with balance at 180 amp as viewed with slo-mo video the amp reading is closest at 48. you can see my notes with dynamic poise readings both at 180 amp and full wind as well as other items.

Unfortunately during the repositioning of watch in microphone it popped out of spring clip bounded once on counter, landed on floor back down driving the exposed balance cock into the staff. this crushed the upper jewel breaking the pivot and flattening the lower pivot spreading it in the lower jewel, thus pinning it into the movement. I was able to pry the balance out without damage to it or lower jewel. this microphone does not like large cased watches. my bad. Once i get the watch repaired again, and hopefully i have not added any more variables into the equation we can start over.

I would still like any comments on the photos and notes. I am going to check the static poise of the balance before staking the roller plate in place just to see if that makes any difference to the slightly heavier side of the balance. perhaps during a prior staffing the roller was put on 180 out? I am also going to try a NOS blue MS in place of the alloy to see if that has any effect.

Joe

 

[John Runciman]

I think I can see why the timing machine rejected your watch and threw it to the floor. The yes it's happened all of us. If you try to hold a pocket watch in the case in the holder it sometimes is problematic as there's nothing really to hold onto. it would've been better if you flip the watch over or even better yet just hold onto the movement you don't need the case on the watch to run it sometimes. Francis lever set watches will work just fine out of the case. Lotta pocket watches have mechanisms to put them back into winding under out of the case. Or just take the canon pinion off you don't have to worry about the watch trying to drive the setting mechanism.

Then yes you can definitely try static poising without the roller just to see if you can figure out where the rulers supposed to go. Then I would precede the statically poise the balance wheel. There's nothing wrong with statically poising a balance wheel and if you have an initial problem it's a lot easier to find this way. In other words is a lot easier to statically poise a get a balance wheel back to where it's supposed to be and then you can fine tune with dynamic poising if you want.

 

[klokwiz]

Hi, I have gotten the watch back up and running the balance re-staffing when well except the upper jewel was a bit of a trouble. the replacement is ever so slightly loose like it is a P12.5 instead of a P12. I have yet to find one that fits like original as lower jewel does, pity i damaged original. so with slight play in upper pivot (not very) the watch is back to the 90 secs fast with alloy spring. Swapped out alloy for NOS blue and same reading 90 sec fast. so I am back to drawing board with figuring out rate error.

FYI during re-staff i attempted to determine if roller jewel was causing slight heaviness that was showing in readings from timegrapher. the balance definitely has a heavy spot but changing roller jewel position 180 degrees did not eliminate this. So i then tried to determine in which position the balance had the least heaviness. It appeared that the balance performed best with roller jewel in opposite position from where I found it. this means that as i rotated the balance on the jeweled edges of my poising tool it took longest to settle with roller in opposite position, but it still has discernable heavy spot. I mounted it in this position to see results. Note the single roller plate does not have a large cut out hence not sure how much effect it really has.

I will run timegrapher reading and post results asap.

Joe

 

[John Runciman]

i acquired this watch with a broken staff. The watch had been dropped.

as you acquired the watch broken do you know how it ran before was dropped? One of the unfortunate problems of American pocket watches is it's gone through a lot of hands from the time it left the factory it be nice to assume that everything was perfect and restaffing would solve all your problems but who knows what's been done to the watch before you got it.

Swapped out alloy for NOS blue and same reading 90 sec fast.

I believe somewhere in the discussion group recently we talked about up to appoint the mainspring strength shouldn't have that much effect on timekeeping. you only really have issues at extremes. But if you do have a set blued steel mainspring it's not going to run the full running time. so you exactly proved that concept by swapping mainsprings having the exact same results so it's not the mainspring.

but it still has discernable heavy spot.

I'm a little confused here? You statically poise and you should have been able to determine where the heavy spot was on the poising tool? Then you have the option if that's what repeatedly keep showing up as the heavy spot you can either reduce the weight of the screw which is perfectly acceptable unless a course you had an infinite supply the correct screws to replace it. Or because you're running so darn fast throw a timing washer on the opposite side and see what happens. One way or another you have to balance the balance wheel it's either going to be by adding weight or removing weight. But seeing as how you're running fast adding weight would definitely be an option.

 

[klokwiz]

John,

You are correct since watch was broken I do not know how it worked before. I am going on the premise that it worked correctly prior to staff damage. yes i have also seen a lot of wear and tear on these old watches and agree it can have all manner of bad repair.

Since I did not know the reason for 90+ rate after repair, I felt i needed to back track on all known variables. Which is why i wanted to make sure the alloy spring was not a cause. given that can't eliminate new NOS blue as cause, but i feel as you stated it appears the spring has to be way strong or weak to cause issues.

yes i did determine the heavy spot in static poise and it could have been changed then. I did not wish to make any changes to the balance wheel until I had verification of the reason for fast rate. I avoid making any changes to balance wheels until all other possible faults are eliminated. In this case the balance weights do not appear to be disturbed (no obvious driver or tool marks) and the heavy spot is not extreme. In addition the watch has few tool marks overall. so i was hoping the balance had not been molested.

I will post the test results soon and we will see what that tells us. and check the re-banking issue raised in my spring post.

Joe

 

[John Runciman]

[

In addition the watch has few tool marks overall. so i was hoping the balance had not been molested

the fact that you have a static poising error tells you that between when the watch left the factory and now something has changed.

I don't suppose you can give us a picture looking straight down on the balance wheel all by itself out of the watch or you can leave it on the bridge but flip it over so we can see the entire balance wheel?

 

[praezis]

Hi,
you got a very good advice by Chris Radek already, confirmed by John, too:
add a light to medium weight washer opposite of the "heavy spot".
That will solve both issues with one measure - put the balance to equilibrium and slow the rate just enough.

Frank

 

[LarFure]

One way to slow a watches rate is to open up the regulator pins a little. Most pocket watches have stiff enough hairsprings that won't favor one pin or the other in any of the pendant positions. If it does it won't be by very much. The important thing is to have the hairspring centered between the regulator pins. You also will need to make sure the body of the spring will need to be adjusted so the collet is centered with the upper balance jewel. This will make it concentric with the balance staff.

 

[John Runciman]

One way to slow a watches rate is to open up the regulator pins a little

yes that will work but? Over coil hairsprings are supposed have the regulator pins as tight as possible together that would defeat their purpose. You would introduce a isochronal error because now the regulator pins are too far apart. Seemed like it be better just to fix the balance wheel. Or even adjust the mean time screws if you were not worried about the positional error

 

[DeweyC]

yes that will work but? Over coil hairsprings are supposed have the regulator pins as tight as possible together that would defeat their purpose. You would introduce a isochronal error because now the regulator pins are too far apart. Seemed like it be better just to fix the balance wheel. Or even adjust the mean time screws if you were not worried about the positional error

John,

Indeed spacing the pins in an already adjusted watch will change the isochronal error rates. But I think readers will benefit from a more detailed explanation. I know you know the difference between isochronism and isochronal rate; but for those who are unclear:

Isochronism is an ideal state in physics where the balance spring is matched to the balance to produce equal rates at varying amplitudes.

Isochronism is often stated as an absolute; but it cannot be as that would require equal rates for any amplitude over zero; from 1 degree to 720 degrees for example. This does not happen.

Put aside "isochronism" as something that manufacturers did and do try to achieve in making up their oscillators (in this case balance assemblies). I think of it more as "Q" in oscillator theory. FInding the right combination of mass and spring to achieve a very sharp resonance curve at say 18000BPH (5hz).

Once you put a spring (overcoil or flat ) and a roller on it everything just changed, Plus, there are the natural escapement errors of the lever escapement that have to be overcome.

So, after demagnetizing, the very first adjustment is closing isochronal error. This is done in the horizontal by checking the rates at 180 and 270 degrees of amplitude, Or some specify 15 minutes after full wind and 24 hours later.

The isochronal error rate is closed by adjusting the pins on the regulator.

It is also of interest to point out that isochronal error is reduced by keeping consistent power on the train. This explains the well worn admonition to wind the watch at the same time every day (and why it was a courts-martial offense to not wind chronometers at a certain time). It is also one main reason why modern automatic wind watches have such remarkable rates.

 

[LarFure]

You guy's are really splitting hairs with your theory's. You don't have to open the pins very far to get a change in rate. You two make it sound like I suggested opening the pins to where the hairspring doesn't touch the regulator pins during the oscillation of the balance wheel.

 

[DeweyC]

You guy's are really splitting hairs with your theory's. You don't have to open the pins very far to get a change in rate. You two make it sound like I suggested opening the pins to where the hairspring doesn't touch the regulator pins during the oscillation of the balance wheel.

I think your post was pejorative and uncollegial and deserves to be called out as such.

Hate to be the one to educate you, but theory provides the explanation behind the systematic adjustment practices of professionals. Anything else is random behavior.

You are free to believe whatever explanations you may, but science is science.

 

[John Runciman]

You guy's are really splitting hairs with your theory's. You don't have to open the pins very far to get a change in rate. You two make it sound like I suggested opening the pins to where the hairspring doesn't touch the regulator pins during the oscillation of the balance wheel

the reason why we do this is we went to a school where they split hairs with an electron microscope. So of course were going to nitpick over things.

You two make it sound like I suggested opening the pins to where the hairspring doesn't touch the regulator pins during the oscillation of the balance wheel.

just to be nitpicky about this that is not what I was suggesting.

usually when I quote from a book of give you a title today a YouTube video book review so you can understand what the book is about.

to make a point I snipped an image out of the book. In several places in the book are references to regulator pins spacing. In the case of over coil hairspring the spacing is just enough that the hairspring can slide without getting caught. I'm only suggesting that your suggestion goes against the book.

 

[klokwiz]

I ran the timegrapher tests and will post now for your review. i maybe wrong but it appears that the 180 rotation of the roller plate changed position of heavy spot in balance. It is still looking like i will need to add a timing washer to offset the balance heavy spot.

I am also posting a photo of the stud mount bracket which i have concerns about how to best set this as the stud will rotate until tight. Any help in how best to set this stud mount would be appreciated.

thanks joe

 

[DeweyC]

I ran the timegrapher tests and will post now for your review. i maybe wrong but it appears that the 180 rotation of the roller plate changed position of heavy spot in balance. It is still looking like i will need to add a timing washer to offset the balance heavy spot. View attachment 667835 View attachment 667836 View attachment 667834

I am also posting a photo of the stud mount bracket which i have concerns about how to best set this as the stud will rotate until tight. Any help in how best to set this stud mount would be appreciated.

thanks joe

Joe,

Those amplitudes look great. OK. Set the roller jewel so it is at 6 oclock when the balance is rotated so you can read the S/N. It may well have been changed since factory, but at least you have a clean starting point and a known future reference.

Make sure you set the pins for isochronal rates (180 and 270) in dial down. One of the reasons for doing this is that as your charts show, the amplitude drops naturally in the vertical positions. The isochronal error rate is minimized in order to ensure the vertical rates are due to mass distribution and not just amplitude.

Make sure it is demagnetized before iscochronal rates.

From there, it is like siting in a firearm. Set the amplitude to 180 in vertical. This will magnify the error rates.

DD/DD is excessive. Pivot ends, jewels, oil? Check to ensure no pits worn into the cap jewels. Even a very small dimple can create that kind of difference. Need good scope though. Loupe will not do it. If possible, check to see if the pivots and jewels are the same sizes.

Your vertical pattern is good. It is progressive and all the low rates are opposite high rates.

Ignoring the needed correction of DU/DD; I would add a 2 minute washer to the screw that is on the bottom when the EW is at between 6 and 7 o'clock in the vertical position. Then run again.

You may be surprised who quickly it can zero in.

Your positional amps and rates would lead me to expect there are no problems with pivots or locks. Do make sure it is in beat. Under 1ms is good enough; over 6ms can impact the rates.

 

[klokwiz]

Dewey, I want to make sure i understand your second sentence. I am using the etched serial number on the balance arm turned to be read left to right and resetting the roller table so the jewel is at 6 oclock if it is not? I assume that this was the normal position when set at factory? So this is a rule of thumb for correct roller jewel position. Joe

PS: "DD/DD is excessive" do you mean the difference DU/DD? and the diff in rate or amplitude or both at 180amp both readings differ, F/W the amp is same.

PPS: does it matter if dial and motion works and hands are not installed during testing, or is this required?

 

[DeweyC]

Dewey, I want to make sure i understand your second sentence. I am using the etched serial number on the balance arm turned to be read left to right and resetting the roller table so the jewel is at 6 oclock if it is not? I assume that this was the normal position when set at factory? So this is a rule of thumb for correct roller jewel position. Joe

PS: "DD/DD is excessive" do you mean the difference DU/DD? and the diff in rate or amplitude or both at 180amp both readings differ, F/W the amp is same.

PPS: does it matter if dial and motion works and hands are not installed during testing, or is this required?

Joe,

This is the correct orientation for Hamilton Roller jewels. For Hampden 18s during the Rood years (not sure about after), the jewel actually goes under one of the balance arms. That allows easy adjustment of beat using the banking pins as reference.

Yes, the difference between DD and DU is excessive, Should be the same and no more than a second or two difference. I am betting on a pit in one of the endstones. It should be less than the final; vertical rate differences.

Motion work does not need to be on although you should run the tests after casing.

One final thing. Before you go further, look to ensure the current heavy spot does not have a washer on it. If so remove it.

I have corrected many adjustments by removing washers installed to correct bent pivots or whatever.

IF you find screws that have been modified, wait until you can find a suitable donor from which to take screw pairs to replace the altered pair. This may become necessary if after getting the rates equailized, the regulator cannot bring the watch back to mean time.

And in no circumstance remove material other than washers. There reaches a point where so much mass has been removed that the oscillator simply cannot be adjusted positions.

Now that you have spent the effort to do this, think about how Hamiton did this on an industrial scale before they used mean time screws (around 1910). The only thought I have is that they knew their assemblies so well that they had charts for which screws to use in given situations. They did this with M22 and M21 in the 1940s. But it requires precise control of the manufacture of the balance wheel and spring.

 

[DeweyC]

Ignoring the needed correction of DU/DD; I would add a 2 minute washer to the screw that is on the bottom when the EW is at between 6 and 7 o'clock in the vertical position. Then run again.

MAJOR CORRECTION!! Add the washer to the screw 180 degrees from the screw that is on the bottom when the EW is between 6 and 7 in the vertical position. If it is there, REMOVE the washer on the current heavy spot first and then test again.

Sorry.

 

[DeweyC]

Dewey, I want to make sure i understand your second sentence. I am using the etched serial number on the balance arm turned to be read left to right and resetting the roller table so the jewel is at 6 oclock if it is not? I assume that this was the normal position when set at factory? So this is a rule of thumb for correct roller jewel position. Joe

PS: "DD/DD is excessive" do you mean the difference DU/DD? and the diff in rate or amplitude or both at 180amp both readings differ, F/W the amp is same.

PPS: does it matter if dial and motion works and hands are not installed during testing, or is this required?

Also, try switching the screws at 7 and 1 oclock. It could well be that the one at 1 has been undercut.

I have not been on top of my game lately and have avoided working because of this. Hopefully I can do something today!

 

[John Runciman]

has been undercut

why is it watchmakers of the past did this?

 

[DeweyC]

why is it watchmakers of the past did this?

Because Fried told them to when he said poise every balance without first checking positional rates. Insane.

 

[klokwiz]

Dewey,

thanks for this information. I am working on the items as you have mentioned and will post my findings.

Yes i am amazed at the production capabilities of these watch producers to create these precision instruments. And the effort it takes to correct mishandling of these timepieces.

I take it from your last post here that the practice of altering balance wheel weights without first verifying positional errors or variation before static poising a balance is a no no and has lead to a lot of errors and damaged watches.

I will be looking carefully at the balance weights before making any changes.

Joe

 

[John Runciman]

Because Fried told them to when he said poise every balance without first checking positional rates. Insane.

it's amazing how much influence one American watchmaker can have on the world.

The real problem seems to be people that don't pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing. For instance people who do not true their bimetallic balance wheel then wonder why it's grossly out of poise when the arms are in the wrong position. Leading to interesting solutions undercutting beyond what you're supposed to do. Filing creative shapes on the outside of the screw visually leaving them hideously bad. Or an obsession with timing washers beyond what you're supposed to do.

 

[DeweyC]

it's amazing how much influence one American watchmaker can have on the world.

The real problem seems to be people that don't pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing. For instance people who do not true their bimetallic balance wheel then wonder why it's grossly out of poise when the arms are in the wrong position. Leading to interesting solutions undercutting beyond what you're supposed to do. Filing creative shapes on the outside of the screw visually leaving them hideously bad. Or an obsession with timing washers beyond what you're supposed to do.

John,

I agree. The sad part is that people slavishly followed what "experts" (Fried was only one) wrote.

There is an article in a 1980's Horologcial Times that promotes grinding down the bottom of a balance wheel in order to fit a rivet shoulder that is too low. Fried was the tech editor who approved that article.

You and I both know that excellent watchmakers (like Perkins, Witney, WO Smith) always thought things through from first principles.

This is why an understanding of theory is so important. It will innoculate against poor advice.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Dewey,

The sad part is that people slavishly followed what "experts" (Fried was only one) wrote.

Yes, de Carle was another one who devoted several pages to this practice.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Runciman]

the other problem we're facing is human beings? It doesn't really matter how good or bad the authors of books teachers etc. are it's all subject to an interpretation. Those of us in the field that are receiving the casualties of those interpretations it's sometimes defies logic as to what was being taught and what was being interpreted.

 

[klokwiz]

hi, I have made some corrections to the watch and am posting the results. I think john wanted to see the balance wheel it is pictured before correcting roller table.

So i have re-oriented the roller jewel to 6 o'clock with the movmt serial number correctly positioned, at that time i added a 3 minute timing washer to the 12 o'clock position on the balance. I then reattached the balance spring and got it set for beat error, it was 0.0 -0.1 for all of the testing. Thanks to Dewey Clark for affirming correct position for Hamilton roller jewel. With the 3' washer installed the balance would stop at various positions on my static poising tool and not seek the same "heavy" spot as before.

after checking the dynamic poise and charting i added a 2' washer at 7 o'clock. This turned out to be and error after adding a 1' washer to 1 o'clock, I removed the 2' washer at 7 o'clock and added another 1' washer at 2 o'clock. After doing this the error appeared to me to be 10 sec from one side of balance to the other and it seemed to me that this was less than a 1' washer. and i did not want to shave any weights. I did notice that the 7 o'clock balance weight had been undercut with a cutter tool. No weights show any out side shavings, and i did not remove them all to look for undercutting.

My notes show charts for each stage of the weight adjustments and a diagram of balance showing position of weight changed. I am posting one photo of a timegrapher screen which shows a drop in the amplitude the curve downward is where the rate dropped it is normally up 260 i saw this twice and wonder why it occurred, some sort of train error or loss of power transmission. I think this can be better, but for my first adjustment of this type I am pleased. After 36 hours of running watch has gained about 6 sec with regulator centered, mainly in CU but also DU handling. Joe.

 

[DeweyC]

JOe

hi, I have made some corrections to the watch and am posting the results. I think john wanted to see the balance wheel it is pictured before correcting roller table.

So i have re-oriented the roller jewel to 6 o'clock with the movmt serial number correctly positioned, at that time i added a 3 minute timing washer to the 12 o'clock position on the balance. I then reattached the balance spring and got it set for beat error, it was 0.0 -0.1 for all of the testing. Thanks to Dewey Clark for affirming correct position for Hamilton roller jewel. With the 3' washer installed the balance would stop at various positions on my static poising tool and not seek the same "heavy" spot as before.

after checking the dynamic poise and charting i added a 2' washer at 7 o'clock. This turned out to be and error after adding a 1' washer to 1 o'clock, I removed the 2' washer at 7 o'clock and added another 1' washer at 2 o'clock. After doing this the error appeared to me to be 10 sec from one side of balance to the other and it seemed to me that this was less than a 1' washer. and i did not want to shave any weights. I did notice that the 7 o'clock balance weight had been undercut with a cutter tool. No weights show any out side shavings, and i did not remove them all to look for undercutting.

My notes show charts for each stage of the weight adjustments and a diagram of balance showing position of weight changed. I am posting one photo of a timegrapher screen which shows a drop in the amplitude the curve downward is where the rate dropped it is normally up 260 i saw this twice and wonder why it occurred, some sort of train error or loss of power transmission. I think this can be better, but for my first adjustment of this type I am pleased. After 36 hours of running watch has gained about 6 sec with regulator centered, mainly in CU but also DU handling. Joe.

View attachment 668827 View attachment 668828 View attachment 668829 View attachment 668830 View attachment 668832

Joe,

You are the first person I know who reported following the procedures I outlined. I am glad you found success. Any thoughts on how to improve my instructions?

I think you have a mindset that this is a physical/game puzzle to be mastered rather than a mindset of "I gotta make this thing work".

It looks to me like you reduced the DU/DD variance? What was the answer?

I agree that given what you have, you have taken this "almost" as far as you can go.

I say almost because you CAN work with the timing screws you have at your disposal. You can thin them!

These are actually graded by thickness. And 1/2 the thickness equals 1/2 the correction (for all intents and purposes).

You do not need to be precise (repeatable). I do recommend 3M Imperial lapping film on a glass plate. Hold with a cork.

Then, clean the balance assembly, demag the entire watch (keeping the balance from moving), adjust the pins to reduce isochronal error and check the rates. I will not be surprised if you can halve the current positional error rates.

You returned a RR watch to its intended purpose! Precision timekeeping.

The only problem is, now you know and will be on a forever quest to improve. But I believe you are over the hump.

 

[klokwiz]

Dewey,

After purchasing the timegrapher I was looking for information on watch adjustment and found your work. Much of the research material i had was old and did not discuss using the timer. I found a lot of very uninformed discussions on the subject, but yours was much more strait forward. As you outlined in your discussion it is a bit confusing at first finding the heavy spot and making sure you are going to correct spot. I would like to respond to that question more concisely later.

I did not make much change to the Isochronism as i really was not sure about the pin bending procedure. the error difference is currently about 17 seconds from partial wind to full wind. DU / DD has always been about 10 sec or less. I did not disassemble jewels again as i do not have a microscope at this time. The original inspection under 10X loop of the end jewels did not show any chipping even at angle they looked perfectly smooth.

Yes I am more concerned at improving my skill with watch fault correction and rating than just getting it done, but like many there comes a time to make it work too. I like to be as concise as possible and want to do it right. I may go further with this one or maybe wait til next project. I will take your washer adjusting under advisement for next time.

After several days of running DU and CU and wearing watch it has varied less that 3 sec from start 4 days ago as compared with my smart phone clock. It is interesting that the timegrapher shows it should be loosing a little about 8-15 sec depending on wind level and position. I have not moved the centered regulator and don't intend to, chasing a reading. It almost seems these chinese timegraphers have a mind of their own. I you leave the watch on it and in one position long enough it will show variations, small but like the weather if you wait long enough it will change.

Thank you for your assistance and reference material, I recommend it whole heartedly.

Joe

 

[praezis]

It is not very well visible, but in #41 the wheel looks like both rim cuts are of different width.
A slightly bent wheel half can cause both the rate and poise issue.

Frank

 

[klokwiz]

Frank,

that is certainly a good point and would lead to those issues. I stopped the balance and checked it, the arms are even with each edge of forward arm and appear to be evenly spaced. The balance rim was also perfectly round and true when rotated in poising tools. I sure that it is the photo angle, it is sitting a bit to one side. I will mount in rodoco next time so i can get an exact strait on shot. but good observation, thanks for your thoughts.

Joe

PS: as a note; I have of late made certain when handling to hold balances correctly as to avoid squeezing the arms together which is easy to do.