# Watch Timing Machine Multifunction Timegrapher 1000 - Ace Timer



## k7lro

As a budding WIS, I'm slowly becoming interested in not only what makes a watch tick but how well they tick. Accuracy, amplitude, beat error - all useful information to obtain that may even lead you to open up the watch and screw it up beyond belief. :-d

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've started the TimeZone watch school classes on-line and I've successfully disassembled the ETA movement that came with their kit. Good stuff. Now it's time to put it back together again.

"How well they tick" is an interesting subject. How do you measure that? Many of us use atomic watches that update themselves periodically. I typically use a Casio PAW1300-3V that updates itself nightly. It's a very useful watch and the one that I use for my kayak trips.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the best way to use the Casio usefully is to make measurements over a day or so. My old eyes doesn't instil a lot of confidence when trying to make measurements in anything less than that and even if I wait an hour or two, it's difficult keep going back and checking a watch to determine if it's accurate.

I think we all know intrinsically how well our watches keep time. The Casio is obviously the best but that really doesn't count. I have a p-series Explorer that I *think* keeps time to within 2 seconds a day. My SMP, about a year old, is within 6-seconds or so and my Ball Hydrocarbon GMT is within the same.

That's all fine but when it comes to that ETA movement that I'll put together, I really don't want to rely on the Casio when it comes to determining the job I did when I put it back together. I decided it was time to purchase a timegrapher.

My wife and friends call me cheap - except when it comes to purchasing something I want for my hobbies and then they call me obsessed. I set a price, determine the features wanted and scour the internet for the most suitable product.

In this case, I wanted a basic timegrapher that displays the rate in seconds per day, the beat error in milliseconds and displays the amplitude. I also one that would detect the beat rate automatically and one that I could adjust the lift angle manually.

Remember, I'm a beginner and if I state something incorrectly, go easy on me - corrections are appreciated though. In this case, being able to adjust the lift angle seems necessary to make accurate measurements on a co-axial movement. Most watches appear to operate on a 52-degree lift angle and I believe the co-axial is 30-degrees.

My budget for this was capped at $300 and believe me, it was tough to stay under that figure. I'm not knocking the usual sources for these - just looking for something in my price range. In fact, I'll decline to mention the usual sources and let you do your own research and of course, if I missed a model that meets my criteria and price point, feel free to post it here. We can all benefit for sharing information like this.

After poking around on the net, I came across an interesting unit on ebay sold by Acetimer. The price was listed as $299 and from their ad, it claimed the following:

*Brand New Watch Timing Machine Multifunction Timegrapher 1000
This timing machine will automatically calculate in real time for the following:
-beat rate
-Amplitude
-beat error
-beat number
110v-240v AC Adapter is included
Comes with one year warranty
It's great for watchmakers and watch collectors.
This timing machine is very easy to use. After the watch is put on this unit, the beat number
automatically and immediately starts measuring.
If you are a serious watch collector, you need this machine. You spent 3-5 thousands dollars for a chronometer watch, how would you know that your watch is running on -3/+6 second on all six positions. Wouldn't you want to know if your watch is running accurately or not when your warranty is about to expire.
*

I have no affiliation with this vendor - don't know them, never purchased anything from them and certainly have no financial interest in their business.

It looks like a decent piece of equipment and the price was right. I contacted them via ebay and they replied that I could purchase it directly from their website for $275 and with shipping at $13.11, I stayed below my budget. I placed an order and the unit arrived last week.

I finally got around to opening the unit this afternoon. I had never seen a timegrapher in person and was surprised at the size - it was much larger than I expected. The unit is from China and the quality appears to be good. The instructions are in Chinese and English and while the English was obviously translated by someone who's English isn't their first language, it's not an issue even for an old guy like me - the unit is so simple to operate, a nine year-old can figure it out - literally.

Plug in the senor, plug in the power unit and turn it on. Simple/simple/simple - the operation was flawless and the unit worked fine. I pulled out my modest watch collection and took a few pictures. I won't bore you with too many.

First, here's everything in the package:










The unit and the watch clamp/sensor:









Then, I put the Explorer on the unit and was amazed at the performance of a 10-year old watch -



















The Omega did well also and I confirmed my "Casio tests". Before I tested it, I used the menu to change the lift angle. This was taken as you access the menu:










And then one shot:










Again, take this "review" for what it's worth based on my disclaimers above. The unit appears to perform perfectly and the price was right for me. If you're on the market for one of these, do your own research and add this one to the others you might consider. For a $300 unit, I'm pretty happy with the purchase.


----------



## P. Loatman

Timing machines are relatively simple, so i really don't understand the expense of a lot of timing machines on the market. I haven't heard of this brand before but there is another brand centered a few hours south of where i am that meets your criteria, and with a little extra could go far beyond your criteria. That would be the Microset timer, i know it's popular with clockmakers, but i don't think it's very popular with watchmakers for some reason. It's useful for me since they offer a windows software which does far more than any normal timer can do, but most of that extra stuff would be beyond the common knowledge of most collectors or hobbyists anyways, or even your average "watchmaker" to be honest.


----------



## k7lro

I don't get the cost either and hadn't heard of this brand - that's why I posted this! I googled this forum (and TZ) and neither mentioned this brand before. I figured I might as well make the purchase and check them out. 

There are other options and Microset was one I considered also. They have a great reputation from what I've read on the forums. 

I was trying to stay away from the comparing one to other - I'd rather each person do it themselves but...that's the nature of sharing info.

To purchase one that was similar, here's what I see:

- Balance Wheel Amplitude, $50
- Built-in beat amplifier, $25
- MicroSet 3 Clock & Watch Timer, $295

That comes to $370 (~28% increase) and the simple sensor isn't quite as nice as the one above.


----------



## tomshep

Yeah, just a very sensitive noise cancelling audio amplifier, a thermally stable oscillator running to a few ppm in 16MHz, a processor, power supply and display, case and mechanical parts of the microphone and some software. Make it in small numbers and sell it to you for the price of an Ipod.

Sometimes, I think people want too much for their nothing. The front end of any timing machine is damned difficult to design. I know. I have tried.

I've owned one of these for over a year now and I'm well satisfied with it. I consider the price to be an absolute steal. It is a very good machine in its own right and an excellent diagnostic tool.


----------



## k7lro

.


----------



## lysanderxiii

P. Loatman said:


> ... but i don't think it's very popular with watchmakers for some reason....


The microphone.

If Microset had a better six position microphone, it would be better for watches.


----------



## k7lro

Tomshep reminded me that Witschi has some nice presentations on their site. Thanks Tom!


----------



## lysanderxiii

tomshep said:


> Yeah, just a very sensitive noise cancelling audio amplifier, a thermally stable oscillator running to a few ppm in 16MHz, a processor, power supply and display, case and mechanical parts of the microphone and some software. Make it in small numbers and sell it to you for the price of an Ipod.
> 
> Sometimes, I think people want too much for their nothing. The front end of any timing machine is damned difficult to design. I know. I have tried.
> 
> I've owned one of these for over a year now and I'm well satisfied with it. I consider the price to be an absolute steal. It is a very good machine in its own right and an excellent diagnostic tool.


Yes, the Ace cost $275. The same hardware and software in a slightly different plastic shell sold through Otto Frei cost $596.

Or, you can buy a Witschi that does pretty much the same thing for $3000.

Yes, people are expecting too much for their nothing...

The company that sells that innards of your little Ace timer is the same one that supplies TYMC. The next step up is the -3000 model and sells for about a grand. This does everything the Witschi does, except the time base is +/-0.3 s whereas the Witschi is +/-0.1 s. The -4000 (costing $150 more) has a time base of +/-0.1 s...


----------



## billermo

I have the same machine purchased from Noah www.10watches.com. I'm very pleased and it's well worth the cost.

It's amazing your explorer runs so accurately in various position.

Why is your SMP showing beat of 25200? Is this correct for a co-axial?


----------



## P. Loatman

billermo said:


> I have the same machine purchased from Noah www.10watches.com. I'm very pleased and it's well worth the cost.
> 
> It's amazing your explorer runs so accurately in various position.
> 
> Why is your SMP showing beat of 25200? Is this correct for a co-axial?


The beat rate would be picked up by the sound of the pallet on a normal lever movement, so with the strange pallet of the coaxial you'd need a special timer.


----------



## lysanderxiii

P. Loatman said:


> The beat rate would be picked up by the sound of the pallet on a normal lever movement, so with the strange pallet of the coaxial you'd need a special timer.


The Microset will work on that beat rate, I believe.


----------



## MikeTheWatchGuy

For the Microset, you can get, sometimes, a crude reading of the balance amplitude. To get the more accurate (and only useable one I think), you have to buy a unit upgrade, the high priced microphone and I think a new version of the software too. I'm not sure you'll have to check with them.

I have the Microset (FULL setup with all bells & whistles) as well as a TYMC model 4000 (made by the same folks as your 1000 and also discussed earlier in the thread).

I had the 4000 first, then ordered the 5000 as an upgrade to move to the top of the line. The 5000 had some problems (unusual wear for a new unit) so I sent it back. Personally I hated the 5000 anyway. You hit a button on the bottom that you think would get to back to a previous screen and instead it sends you to "calendar setting". It then takes forever to skip through that and get back to measuring. HORRIBLE USER INTERFACE EXPERIENCE.

So, I kept the 4000. I love the microphone. And, I like that it's a standalone setup. I turn it on, throw a watch on there and I can instantly get all the stuff I need. It is a lot more difficult on the Microset. Don't get me wrong, I love my Microset, but it was time to move on, even if it meant trading off functionality for conviencance. Microset has great software. BUT the microset microphone was difficult to use with me movement and even worse at moving between positions.

If I was starting out today, I honestly don't know what way I would go if I was on a budget. But, if I could afford the 4000, I would get it.


----------



## horrovac

I find this highly interesting. At the moment, I'd rather buy watches than something like this, but it would be something nice to have.

I must say I don't think that this stuff should be as expensive as it is. I have tried timing a watch with a microphone from an old headset, computer and a software oscilloscope. While I haven't succeeded in timing it (probably due to a wrong assumption about a beat rate), it appears to be doable - the peaks describe the ticks rather accurately. The price of watch timers is most probably due to the low volumes rather than high-tech or expensive hardware.

I have considered writing a watch timing software. I have not yet delved into the intricacies of the ALSA Linux sound infrastructure, but once I can read the input I'm pretty confident that determining beat rate should be rather easy, requiring a pretty simple algorithm.

What I don't know however is how the timers determine the amplitude. Any insight on this? A sensitive microphone and a specialised algorithm could probably determine the endpoints of the cycle as well as the mid-cycle, but that doesn't describe the angle the balance will reach, this will depend on the characteristics of the balance and the mainspring and is probably different for each calibre. Any ideas, or better still, solid knowledge on this?


----------



## lysanderxiii

horrovac said:


> I have considered writing a watch timing software. I have not yet delved into the intricacies of the ALSA Linux sound infrastructure, but once I can read the input I'm pretty confident that determining beat rate should be rather easy, requiring a pretty simple algorithm.


After your all done with that, you will have probably spent more that US$275 in effort and material. Which is why these sell it the first place.



horrovac said:


> What I don't know however is how the timers determine the amplitude. Any insight on this? A sensitive microphone and a specialised algorithm could probably determine the endpoints of the cycle as well as the mid-cycle, but that doesn't describe the angle the balance will reach, this will depend on the characteristics of the balance and the mainspring and is probably different for each calibre. Any ideas, or better still, solid knowledge on this?


First, you listen for the impulse jewel striking the pallet fork, and timing until the sound of the pallet stone stiking the escape wheel. This is the time it takes the balance to swing through the lift angle. Then timing again until the balance continues its swing, stops, and returns and impulse jewel strikes the pallet fork again.

If you know the lift angle and the length of time for the balance to swing through that angle, you can calculate the distance the balance swung through to get back for the third sound.


----------



## horrovac

lysanderxiii said:


> After your all done with that, you will have probably spent more that US$275 in effort and material. Which is why these sell it the first place.


Yes. And then I release it in the public domain and you can download, install and use it for no money at all. Free software, you know (and that's free as in freedom).



lysanderxiii said:


> First, you listen for the impulse jewel striking the pallet fork, and timing until the sound of the pallet stone stiking the escape wheel. This is the time it takes the balance to swing through the lift angle. Then timing again until the balance continues its swing, stops, and returns and impulse jewel strikes the pallet fork again.
> 
> If you know the lift angle and the length of time for the balance to swing through that angle, you can calculate the distance the balance swung through to get back for the third sound.


Ok... What's the lift angle?

So you have to have data on every movement you want to time, and the variations of that movement? And then the device has to recognise the type, or be told what it is? Or does it just not matter, and the assumption is made that the characteristics of each movement are roughly similar and allow an error (which, given all this, could be quite high)? Is this expected to be an accurate measurement or just a value for numerical quantification?


----------



## k7lro

horrovac said:


> I find this highly interesting. At the moment, I'd rather buy watches than something like this, but it would be something nice to have.


I hear you.

I really am a tinkerer I suppose. When I did ham radio, I built 4 radios - none from scratch. I guess a more accurate description would be that I assembled four radios. (Elecraft is state-of-the-art ham radio kits for example.)

I've followed the same pattern with every hobby - from ham radio to old Land Rovers to kayaking to park flyers to watches. I like to tinker - to build - to learn...hopefully. I'll never become a competent watch repair person - that's not my objective - I just want to become a better hobbiest and learn a little more that the average watch consumer.

You said, "at the moment". I'll bet that given enough time and interest, you'll decide to start poking around watches too...your moment is already here based on your post above..you're just approaching it in a different, deeper manner than me!

Bottom line? This purchase fit my budget, my perceived needs and it allows me to play around with some some old watches that I own. It's all good eh?


----------



## horrovac

k7lro said:


> I hear you.
> 
> I really am a tinkerer I suppose. When I did ham radio, I built 4 radios - none from scratch. I guess a more accurate description would be that I assembled four radios. (Elecraft is state-of-the-art ham radio kits for example.)


Yes, I'm a tinkerer as well. I never took off in the electronics, never really got the chance, but I tinkered in operating systems and programming languages long enough to become good enough to earn a living with it. It's a state of mind I suppose, the childhood curiosity that the life hasn't killed off yet. Whenever I see something and don't know what it does, I'm in there, racking my brains to find out what, how, and why it does what it does, and why it does not, and what needs to be done to make it do that again. Some people look upon that like on an illness or a defect. "Can't you just have someone repair that for you?" "Can't you just buy another one?" "Have it professionally serviced."

Hell, where'd be the fun in that?



k7lro said:


> You said, "at the moment". I'll bet that given enough time and interest, you'll decide to start poking around watches too...your moment is already here based on your post above..you're just approaching it in a different, deeper manner than me!


Oh, I'm poking already, I have already disassembled, cleaned and oiled my Enigma pocket watch (around 120 years old, with about 80 years' worth of crud inside), and I have "repaired" an old Dietrich Gruen & Son pocket watch with nearly all the jewels cracked (except for the pallet fork and the balance) and one crumbled away (3rd wheel). Since they are burnished jewels which I don't know where to source and I don't want to install press-fitted jewels instead, I turned a "jewel" out of brass and fitted it in - the watch is now working, pretty accurately as well. And all that with no tools at all


----------



## k7lro

great stuff - I hope to make some small claims along those same lines some day. :thanks


----------



## MikeTheWatchGuy

I recall hearing about several programs that are free that help with watch timing. Just do some searching here and I think you'll again find thread after thread of folks wanting to build their own machine.

Bryon Mumford, the guy that design, builds, services the Microset machines, does a good job of telling you how the balance amplitude is computed. In fact, the display of his amplitude measurement is an oscilloscope kind of thing that shows the 4 sounds to look for. You manually tune the input volume to get the levels on the screen just right optimize pickup and correct measurement.

I LOVED AND LOVED my Microset and told 100's of people about it.

But, I have to say, having this TYMC there so that I simply turn it on, put the watch/movement/movement holder into the microphone clamp and then immediately seeing the rate AND the amplitude immediately and constantly shown in readltime is fabulous. With the Microset, I had to go into a different mode/screen to measure amplitude.

And, twisting the microphone, quickly, into different positions (pendant down/up, left/right, dial up,...) is great on the TYMC. It is so my faster to do.

BUT, I think the TYMC has some downsides. Bryon provides, in the PC software, SO many tools to rescale the output, measure things like time between some hickup you see in the timing lines, etc, etc, etc. The TYMC had no way to scale if the rate was super-fast on my watches. If they are off by more than 4 or 5 minutes, it completely unable to sync.

If I had to do it all over again, I would change nothing. The Microset taught me SO much about timing and thus watches in general. I would not have been able to do that with the TYMC. As a very-new beginner, I gained a lot of knowledge from the MS.

Even though I could likely sell my MS, it is still here, in a box, ready to plug in and go when I need it. It's awful hard to part with since it's so advanced yet affordable.


----------



## lysanderxiii

horrovac said:


> Ok... What's the lift angle?
> 
> So you have to have data on every movement you want to time, and the variations of that movement? And then the device has to recognise the type, or be told what it is? Or does it just not matter, and the assumption is made that the characteristics of each movement are roughly similar and allow an error (which, given all this, could be quite high)? Is this expected to be an accurate measurement or just a value for numerical quantification?


Lift angle is the angle through which the impulse jewel is in contact with the pallet fork. It is not variable and fixed by the geometry of the movement.

50 to 53 degrees is common, so much so, most machines use something in that range as a default value. If you are off a few degrees, the calculated amplitude will be off, but not so far off you can't tell a weak amplitude (150 degrees or so) from a good amplitude (300 degrees, or so).

Lift angle is usually given in the specification sheet for movements.

The calculations are quite simple, and fairly accurate, even if the lift angle is off two or three degrees. Better yet, the only information the timer needs is the time between sounds (there are three important sounds that make up the "tick") and the lift angle. Variables like the spring constant and balance moment of inertia don't come in to the equation.

The three important sounds are:

- the unlocking: when the impulse jewel hits the pallet fork,

- the impulse: when the pallet fork hits the opposite limit pin, and,

- the drop: when the next escapment tooth hits the pallet stone.

The length of time between the unlocking and impulse sound are how long it takes the balance to swing through the lift angle, since this is the neutral point, this is also the point of maximum velocity. We know that velocity equals time x distance, so we can calculate the maximum velocity.

Now, that we know the Vmax, we wait for the next unlocking sound, that sound will come after the balance has traveled through twice the half amplitude (half of the swing both going and coming). We also know that the balance velocity dropped to zero (so it could reverse direction), so the average velocity is:

Vavg = 1/2 x (Vmax + Vmin)

where Vmin is zero (0), so the average velocity is half the maximum velocity.

So, using V = time x distance again and dropping in Vavg for V and knowing the time for two half swings or one whole swing, you can calculate the distance, or amplitude.

Of course, you make allowances for the fact that the unlocking sound and the impulse sound occur at opposite ends of the lift angle, but I will leave it to the reader to work out how to calculate that correction factor...


----------



## horrovac

lysanderxiii said:


> Lift angle is the angle through which the impulse jewel is in contact with the pallet fork. It is not variable and fixed by the geometry of the movement.
> 
> 50 to 53 degrees is common, so much so, most machines use something in that range as a default value. If you are off a few degrees, the calculated amplitude will be off, but not so far off you can't tell a weak amplitude (150 degrees or so) from a good amplitude (300 degrees, or so).
> 
> Lift angle is usually given in the specification sheet for movements.
> 
> The calculations are quite simple, and fairly accurate, even if the lift angle is off two or three degrees. Better yet, the only information the timer needs is the time between sounds (there are three important sounds that make up the "tick") and the lift angle. Variables like the spring constant and balance moment of inertia don't come in to the equation.


Ok, that all makes good sense - except for the part about spring constant and the moment of inertia. Those two are I believe the most important factors in how fast the balance will decelerate and how far it will turn before the rotation reverses. Based only on my understanding of physics involved, I'd say they can be largely varied with the rate of oscillation remaining the same. But that's just mere theory - it could be that in practice they turn out to be always roughly the same. Do you happen to know if in general all the movements from all makers are designed specifically to attain a certain amplitude? If this were the case - if all movement makers designed movements to have amplitudes ranging from x to y degrees, the balance/spring assembly would have to have the proper ratio for this, and could be disregarded. Using this design amplitude and the lift angle, it would be in fact possible to accurately calculate the amplitude for virtually any movement using the sounds you described. If this differs among makers or movement types, I must have got something wrong 

Thanks for the great info by the way, it really brought me forward and is greatly appreciated.


----------



## P. Loatman

horrovac said:


> Ok, that all makes good sense - except for the part about spring constant and the moment of inertia. Those two are I believe the most important factors in how fast the balance will decelerate and how far it will turn before the rotation reverses. Based only on my understanding of physics involved, I'd say they can be largely varied with the rate of oscillation remaining the same. But that's just mere theory - it could be that in practice they turn out to be always roughly the same. Do you happen to know if in general all the movements from all makers are designed specifically to attain a certain amplitude? If this were the case - if all movement makers designed movements to have amplitudes ranging from x to y degrees, the balance/spring assembly would have to have the proper ratio for this, and could be disregarded. Using this design amplitude and the lift angle, it would be in fact possible to accurately calculate the amplitude for virtually any movement using the sounds you described. If this differs among makers or movement types, I must have got something wrong
> 
> Thanks for the great info by the way, it really brought me forward and is greatly appreciated.


Obviously modern movements have amplitudes within a certain range, if they go too far they'll rebank, if they don't go far enough then it's not going to have enough force to move the pallet through the entire running cycle.

Hairsprings are carefully selected depending on the gear train ratios and size. It's so complicated in fact that most manufacturers don't even make their own gear trains completely themselves, they borrow gear train ratios from past watch movements. The Swiss industry releases a standards book about the norms in watch gear trains for this very purpose.

The ideal amplitude is 540 degrees both ways.


----------



## lysanderxiii

horrovac said:


> Ok, that all makes good sense - except for the part about spring constant and the moment of inertia. Those two are I believe the most important factors in how fast the balance will decelerate and how far it will turn before the rotation reverses. Based only on my understanding of physics involved, I'd say they can be largely varied with the rate of oscillation remaining the same. But that's just mere theory - it could be that in practice they turn out to be always roughly the same.


I showed you the equations on how to calculate the amplitude, where would you put in the balance spring constant and moment of inertia of the balance?











horrovac said:


> Do you happen to know if in general all the movements from all makers are designed specifically to attain a certain amplitude? If this were the case - if all movement makers designed movements to have amplitudes ranging from x to y degrees, the balance/spring assembly would have to have the proper ratio for this, and could be disregarded. Using this design amplitude and the lift angle, it would be in fact possible to accurately calculate the amplitude for virtually any movement using the sounds you described. If this differs among makers or movement types, I must have got something wrong
> 
> Thanks for the great info by the way, it really brought me forward and is greatly appreciated.


The designed range of amplitude is sometimes specified in the data sheets.


----------



## tomshep

May I nominate Lysander's excellent explanation for a sticky, please.


----------



## Stone Hill

This topic has been very fascinating! :think:

It did sort of make me feel a little like a kid in the deep end of the pool. Something tells me this hobby has enough angles to it to keep me hooked and learning a long time. 

To k7lro I say FB OM 73 sk


----------



## Piotr-UK

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

How did watchmakers do this before all our wonderful electric and digital gadgetry?

Late 60's Early 70's the automatic watch was King and I'm sure electric timing gear was way, way out of the price range for local watch repairers.
Prior to this how did they do this in the 20's, 30's etc?

Are there enough surviving old watchmakers out ther who remember? I'd love to know.

I'm an amateur watch maker myself and have done about 30 watches now including mech chrono's, auto, and handwinds.

I don't have access to timing machines. I use and RDS clock as a guide and it does take me days to adj and reg a watch. The hardest is beat which I do by eye and ear.

I recently did an old Sicura with an EB8800 17 jewel pin lever movement that was in terrible condition. I had to use photo's off the net of the balance to get a rough idea of beat. The watch runs great now, and gains face up, loses crown down and wearing gains about 7 secs a day. I'm sure my approach will have watchmakers running for cover but I only work on my watches with the end result that they run and keep good time.

Cheers Piotr-UK.


----------



## lysanderxiii

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*



Piotr-UK said:


> How did watchmakers do this before all our wonderful electric and digital gadgetry?
> 
> Late 60's Early 70's the automatic watch was King and I'm sure electric timing gear was way, way out of the price range for local watch repairers.
> Prior to this how did they do this in the 20's, 30's etc?
> 
> Are there enough surviving old watchmakers out ther who remember? I'd love to know.
> 
> I'm an amateur watch maker myself and have done about 30 watches now including mech chrono's, auto, and handwinds.
> 
> I don't have access to timing machines. I use and RDS clock as a guide and it does take me days to adj and reg a watch. The hardest is beat which I do by eye and ear.
> 
> I recently did an old Sicura with an EB8800 17 jewel pin lever movement that was in terrible condition. I had to use photo's off the net of the balance to get a rough idea of beat. The watch runs great now, and gains face up, loses crown down and wearing gains about 7 secs a day. I'm sure my approach will have watchmakers running for cover but I only work on my watches with the end result that they run and keep good time.
> 
> Cheers Piotr-UK.


In the thirties, or just after the invention of the elctronic amplifier, watch timning machines started showing up. basically the exact same machines we use today, but much larger due to the vacuum tube technology. Local repair shops probably invested in a timing machine, the cost of a timer isn't really any worse than the rest of the equipment necessary to start a watch repair business.

The only major difference was the time base. Modern watch timing machines have a quartz oscillator for a time base, formerly, watch timers used a AC synchronous motor as a time base. In the US electricity is provided at 60 hz and this is held fairly constant.

Ever wonder why the standard display on timing machines is a row of dots at an angle to show gaining or losing time?

It goes back the AC synchronous motor used in the early machines. One design actually uses two synchronous motors, one motor feeds the paper up (y-axis) at a constant rate proportional to the 60 hz input, a second motor runs the pen back and forth across width of the paper (x-axis) also at a rate proportional to the input frequency and the watch beat rate.

Now, the microphone listens for the sound of the tick. When the sound of the tick* is heard, it pulses a solenoid that pops the pen down, placing a dot on the paper.

Now, the cross feed (x-axis) make one complete pass across the width of the paper in: 1/(2 x frequency of watch) seconds. That would be 1/5 of a second for an 18,000 bph watch, 1/6 of a second for a 21,600, and 1/8 of a second for a 28,800. You can see if the watch is running exactly at the target rate, the pen will be at the same place on the x-axis each time it pokes a dot, which is calibrated to be the center of the papoer tape, so the line made will be a straight vertical line. If the watch is slow, the dot over-shoot the center before making a dot, if it is fast it won't make it to the center and the line will angle the opposite direction.

Which way the angle goes for fast is determined by whether the machine paperfeed is up or down. I think most machine fed up, because current convention has it as a line from lower left to upper right is fast, lower right to upper left is slow.

You can also see the beat error would be shown as every other line being displaced horizontally from each other, as when the beat is out the total time between two beats is the correct 2 x beat, but the two parts will not be equal. (eg a 18,000 bph watch should have a total time between two ticks of 1/2.5 or 0.4 seconds, the two ticks should each be 0.2 seconds apart. A movement 2.0 milliseconds out of beat will have one tick equal to 0.198 seconds, the other 0.202 seconds, one theoretically slow, one equally fast.)

You can see the limitations of these early machines, one, you cannot measure amplitude, two, you are stuck with a few pre-determined watch beats. But, the worst is that your time base is based on how well the governors on the electric company's generators are calibrated.

By the way, these early timing machines are equalled by the cheapest version of the Microset in stand-alone mode....

_______________________
* In this case the tick was the aggregate of all the sounds in the "tick", even though early electronics could probably decern them, they could not display the information with enough clarity to be useful.


----------



## P. Loatman

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*



lysanderxiii said:


> In the thirties, or just after the invention of the elctronic amplifier, watch timning machines started showing up. basically the exact same machines we use today, but much larger due to the vacuum tube technology. Local repair shops probably invested in a timing machine, the cost of a timer isn't really any worse than the rest of the equipment necessary to start a watch repair business.
> 
> The only major difference was the time base. Modern watch timing machines have a quartz oscillator for a time base, formerly, watch timers used a AC synchronous motor as a time base. In the US electricity is provided at 60 hz and this is held fairly constant.
> 
> Ever wonder why the standard display on timing machines is a row of dots at an angle to show gaining or losing time?
> 
> It goes back the AC synchronous motor used in the early machines. One design actually uses two synchronous motors, one motor feeds the paper up (y-axis) at a constant rate proportional to the 60 hz input, a second motor runs the pen back and forth across width of the paper (x-axis) also at a rate proportional to the input frequency and the watch beat rate.
> 
> Now, the microphone listens for the sound of the tick. When the sound of the tick* is heard, it pulses a solenoid that pops the pen down, placing a dot on the paper.
> 
> Now, the cross feed (x-axis) make one complete pass across the width of the paper in: 1/(2 x frequency of watch) seconds. That would be 1/5 of a second for an 18,000 bph watch, 1/6 of a second for a 21,600, and 1/8 of a second for a 28,800. You can see if the watch is running exactly at the target rate, the pen will be at the same place on the x-axis each time it pokes a dot, which is calibrated to be the center of the papoer tape, so the line made will be a straight vertical line. If the watch is slow, the dot over-shoot the center before making a dot, if it is fast it won't make it to the center and the line will angle the opposite direction.
> 
> Which way the angle goes for fast is determined by whether the machine paperfeed is up or down. I think most machine fed up, because current convention has it as a line from lower left to upper right is fast, lower right to upper left is slow.
> 
> You can also see the beat error would be shown as every other line being displaced horizontally from each other, as when the beat is out the total time between two beats is the correct 2 x beat, but the two parts will not be equal. (eg a 18,000 bph watch should have a total time between two ticks of 1/2.5 or 0.4 seconds, the two ticks should each be 0.2 seconds apart. A movement 2.0 milliseconds out of beat will have one tick equal to 0.198 seconds, the other 0.202 seconds, one theoretically slow, one equally fast.)
> 
> You can see the limitations of these early machines, one, you cannot measure amplitude, two, you are stuck with a few pre-determined watch beats. But, the worst is that your time base is based on how well the governors on the electric company's generators are calibrated.
> 
> By the way, these early timing machines are equalled by the cheapest version of the Microset in stand-alone mode....
> 
> _______________________
> * In this case the tick was the aggregate of all the sounds in the "tick", even though early electronics could probably decern them, they could not display the information with enough clarity to be useful.


I used a very early timing machine at my school and it did indeed have 2 feeds, one for the paper, which did also indeed feed up, and one for the pen . We used it because it would show a much wider range of error than the digitals ones would which was extremely useful when vibrating hairsprings and we did that quite often.

I think in the early days of watch timing machines there must have been plenty of people who did it the old fashioned way of using an accurate clock and spending days checking each position.


----------



## lysanderxiii

There is another variation that has a piece paper afixed to a cylinder mounted horizontally and spun at 5 RPM (for an 18,000 bph watch) and the pen travels horizontally at a constant pre-set speed.

The results are just rotated 90 degrees.


----------



## P. Loatman

lysanderxiii said:


> There is another variation that has a piece paper afixed to a cylinder mounted horizontally and spun at 5 RPM (for an 18,000 bph watch) and the pen travels horizontally at a constant pre-set speed.
> 
> The results are just rotated 90 degrees.


Actually, my school had that type also, but it wasn't functioning anymore.

To run it (if it worked) you had to turn it on and wait for it to warm up, then start the cylinder with the paper, then press a lever down and slide it to the left for the pen to start recording. Interesting old machines.


----------



## tomshep

Yet another, By Grenier was a fascinating thing. They did away with the pen and used the tick, much amplified, to trigger a spark, which fired through the paper.
A spinning helically cut rotor was used, earthing out the spark at the closest point over the paper and generating a line of dots, over which lay a rotating scale with a line to match the angle of the tape, after which the variation could be read off from a scale around the edge. This was controlled by a low frequency quartz crystal, runnning at around 1500Hz IIRC.


----------



## rmelle

dear Tomshep,
And I am still using that one!
The most I like: warming the enourmous machine up for about 2 minutes, give the rotor that spinn and it starts up spinning!
only: the turn by your fingertips must be quite accurate, otherwise it just would,t start HAHAHA
it is just like a hand cranked started car...
Mine is about I think 40/50 years old, still running strong... :-!

regards,
RJ van Melle.


----------



## MikeTheWatchGuy

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*



Piotr-UK said:


> How did watchmakers do this before all our wonderful electric and digital gadgetry?
> 
> Late 60's Early 70's the automatic watch was King and I'm sure electric timing gear was way, way out of the price range for local watch repairers.
> Prior to this how did they do this in the 20's, 30's etc?
> 
> Are there enough surviving old watchmakers out ther who remember? I'd love to know.
> 
> I'm an amateur watch maker myself and have done about 30 watches now including mech chrono's, auto, and handwinds.
> 
> I don't have access to timing machines. I use and RDS clock as a guide and it does take me days to adj and reg a watch. The hardest is beat which I do by eye and ear.
> 
> I recently did an old Sicura with an EB8800 17 jewel pin lever movement that was in terrible condition. I had to use photo's off the net of the balance to get a rough idea of beat. The watch runs great now, and gains face up, loses crown down and wearing gains about 7 secs a day. I'm sure my approach will have watchmakers running for cover but I only work on my watches with the end result that they run and keep good time.
> 
> Cheers Piotr-UK.


 If you look at some of the old watchmaking books, before machinery, you would let the watch run for a day in the basic positions and see how it performed. About as straightforward as it gets.
For amplitude, some guys can watch the balance arms. I can't and put a spot of sharpie on the wheel sometimes that can easily be removed with alcohol. Watch how far the spot moves to see the amplitude.


----------



## Piotr-UK

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*



MikeTheWatchGuy said:


> If you look at some of the old watchmaking books, before machinery, you would let the watch run for a day in the basic positions and see how it performed. About as straightforward as it gets.
> For amplitude, some guys can watch the balance arms. I can't and put a spot of sharpie on the wheel sometimes that can easily be removed with alcohol. Watch how far the spot moves to see the amplitude.


.

Sounds I wasn't too far out doing by sight and sound. I'll try a mark on the balance next time.

Cheers


----------



## Piotr-UK

Thanks for all the answers guys. These machines sound fascinating, maybe I should be collecting them.

Cheers Piotr-UK


----------



## MikeTheWatchGuy

One other topic about timing machines is reading the chart output, not just the numbers you're told for amplitude or rate of gain/loss.

If you're really fascinated by the machines and their output, then you will enjoy the book _*"Better Watch Repairing Faster" by L. M. Lewis and Max E. Lee.*_

The name is misleading. It's 300 pages of timing chart analysis. You can learn a *lot *from reading the timing charts and they show you how. They take the use of the tool to a whole new level.


----------



## dmmartindale

horrovac said:


> I find this highly interesting. At the moment, I'd rather buy watches than something like this, but it would be something nice to have.
> 
> I must say I don't think that this stuff should be as expensive as it is. I have tried timing a watch with a microphone from an old headset, computer and a software oscilloscope. While I haven't succeeded in timing it (probably due to a wrong assumption about a beat rate), it appears to be doable - the peaks describe the ticks rather accurately. The price of watch timers is most probably due to the low volumes rather than high-tech or expensive hardware.


If you're an experimenter, you can often substitute equipment that you already have to avoid buying something new. That may mean using a general-purpose device that's actually more expensive than the thing you're trying to avoid buying, but if you already own it the additional cost is zero. Also, if you only have an occasional need, you can make use of something that's jury-rigged with clip leads and junk parts.

For example, I've built a "watch timer" that cost me virtually nothing, and used it to look at the behaviour of several movements in different positions, and to regulate and adjust beat on a couple of those. The components of the system are:

1. Surplus piezo buzzer, probably originally intended for use in a computer or appliance of some sort, used as a microphone. Watch simply sits on case of buzzer for face up and face down measuring; buzzer held to watch with elastic band or clamp (or fingers!) for other positions.

2. Mono microphone mixer used as a mic preamp.

3. Analog oscilloscope (mine is a Tektronix 2215, but any cheap triggered sweep analog scope would work).

4. Crystal-controlled DDS signal generator (Instek SFG-1003)

The buzzer/mic goes to one input of the mixer/preamp, while the mixer output goes to one of the scope signal inputs. A square wave from the signal generator goes to the scope external trigger input, and the scope is set for external trigger operation at some suitable sweep rate (typically 2 ms/div).

The signal generator is the only slightly unusual bit of equipment in the list. DDS means Direct Digital Synthesis; it divides down a master crystal clock source to generate any of a wide range of output frequencies. It can produce any frequency from 0.1 Hz to 3 MHz in 0.1 Hz steps. No matter what frequency is chosen, the frequency is as accurate as the crystal oscillator inside the signal generator.

In particular, it can generate the 5-10 Hz signal needed if you want to look at every single beat of a watch running at 18000 to 36000 bph, as well as the 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, or 5 Hz you need to look at only the even or odd beats (either "tick" or "tock"). The generator's crystal is actually about 18 PPM slow, which is 1.6 s/day error, good enough for most of the mechanical watches I'm playing with. And I know the error, so I can compensate for it if higher precision is needed.

(I know it is 18 PPM low by comparing it to even more accurate references).

For example, to check a 18000 bph pocket watch, I hook everything up and set the generator to 5 Hz. The scope will trigger, but generally shows me dead time between ticks initially. I change the generator frequency to either 4.9 Hz or 5.1 Hz to take it out of sync with the watch, and the tick sound will appear on the scope screen within a few seconds. When it does, I switch the generator back to 5 Hz, and the tick remains on screen.

The rest of the information is acquired by eyeball from the screen. If the whole waveform slowly drifts left, the watch is running faster than the generator, while drifting right indicates a slow watch. You can observe the rate of drift and calculate the rate error if you want. (e.g. if the scope sweep is 2 ms/div, and it takes 30 seconds for the waveform to drift one division left or right, then the error is 0.002/30 * 86400 = 5.8 seconds/day).

If the position of the first sound (unlock) jumps alternately left and right on screen, the movement is slightly out of beat, and you can read the amount of beat error directly from the scope screen. And you can read the amount of time between the first and second sounds, which can be converted into amplitude with a suitable calculation.

If the waveform drifts sometimes left and sometimes right without changing the orientation of the watch, it is simply not providing consistent timing (and there's likely something wrong with it).

This set of equipment doesn't provide the nice sloping-line display of a real timing machine, and there's no hardcopy to save, and I have to do some of the calculations myself, but the price was right.



> I have considered writing a watch timing software. I have not yet delved into the intricacies of the ALSA Linux sound infrastructure, but once I can read the input I'm pretty confident that determining beat rate should be rather easy, requiring a pretty simple algorithm.
> 
> What I don't know however is how the timers determine the amplitude. Any insight on this? A sensitive microphone and a specialised algorithm could probably determine the endpoints of the cycle as well as the mid-cycle, but that doesn't describe the angle the balance will reach, this will depend on the characteristics of the balance and the mainspring and is probably different for each calibre. Any ideas, or better still, solid knowledge on this?


For a mechanical watch, there are only a few plausible values for the beat rate and picking out the right one for a watch that's running anywhere close to keeping time should be easy.

As others have pointed out further down, amplitude can be calculated by measuring the time between the first two components of the sound, the time between two beats, and the lift angle. The formula for the calculation should be pretty straightforward, but the signal processing to accurately extract the beginning of the first and second components of the sound in the presence of noise and hum might be a challenge. The human eye can do a reasonably good job looking at a waveform on a scope, but computers are still a lot less capable than the eye and brain at extracting information from noise.


----------



## tomshep

This fellow knows what he is talking about. It wouldn't be difficult to place a cursor on the 'scope so that you could measure amplitude from what you see on the trace.


----------



## mickmo92

Really useful review. I was looking for a simple timing machine like this one, but wasn't quite sure about the possibilities and quality. Thanks to this review I'm sure I'm going to buy one in the near future. Thanks very much :thanks

kindly regards,

Mick


----------



## dmmartindale

horrovac said:


> Ok, that all makes good sense - except for the part about spring constant and the moment of inertia. Those two are I believe the most important factors in how fast the balance will decelerate and how far it will turn before the rotation reverses. Based only on my understanding of physics involved, I'd say they can be largely varied with the rate of oscillation remaining the same.


They can be varied, as long as the relationship between acceleration and balance deflection angle remains the same. If you increase the spring constant by some factor (stiffer spring wire or shorter spring) and increase the angular moment of inertia by the same factor (by adding mass or increasing balance diameter), you end up with the same acceleration function. And with the same acceleration, the oscillation frequency remains the same. The angular velocity and position also remain the same, so you get essentially the same motion, including the same relationship between time during "lift" and peak amplitude.

And if the oscillation rate *does* change, it will change the length of the "lift" period and the period of the whole oscillation by the same factor. So if the amplitude calculation uses the ratio of the two measured time periods, it will work for even a badly-off-frequency movement.

Basically, the hairspring/balance wheel system in a watch is as close to being a perfect simple harmonic oscillator as the maker can economically manufacture, so graphs of position, velocity, and acceleration of the balance are very close to sine waves (with 90 and 180 degree phase shifts for the latter two). The frequency and amplitude can vary, but when that happens all three functions change in sync with each other. So the math that relates velocity through a particular part of the motion to peak amplitude of the position applies to any amplitude and any frequency, as long as the motion is close to simple harmonic motion.

Dave


----------



## webvan

Just got a Timegapher N.1000 myself (price now down to $229+shipping) and I'm rather pleased with it. I do find that the timing varies between +/- 1.5 spd even when it's set on a 30s sample period. I wonder whether more expensive machines would be more stable ?

I'd tried the Kello iPhone app but it didn't work as the microphone in the headset really wasn't sensitive enough. Now it picks up the sound from the Timegrapher and gives readings but they're +/- 10 spd so pretty useless. Wonder if it's just a poor app or whether the speaked of the Timegrapher introduces some extra errors.


----------



## mleok

I just placed on order for one of these, as the price just dropped even further to just under $200 shipped.


----------



## mikephuvie

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

I am new to this and just bought the Timegrapher and have questions. I am not a watchmaker, just a collector.

1. Where can one find information on lift angle and beat rate for each movement?
2. What is the acceptable beat error?
3. What test period should one use 2s, 4,s, 8s, 30s? Is there a difference?
4. What is the acceptable amplitude?
5. How long should the test last for each position as it keeps changing the deviation rate?

Thanks a million.

mP


----------



## dacattoo

I believe the Witschi II will time co-axial escapements. I might suggest you increase the 'test period' to something longer than 8ms. I use 20ms as it gives a more realistic average in my opinion. I have the Witschi I. I think the only difference between the I and II is the ability to time co-axials.


----------



## dacattoo

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

Acceptable beat error in Wostep curriculum is .5 or less. Acceptable amplitude is almost a personal choice. You will see many numbers thrown about. I use 240 degrees, dial up or down, full wind. That generally means I will accept about 25 degrees less for crown positions. Better quality and newer watches, I will expect better but an old worn out pocket watch may only be capable, without extrordinary measures, to meet my minimums. 30ms beat error probably approximates real life timing results. Wait until the rate settles and no longer changes. If it won't settle down it is symptomatic of a problem. Check Witschi website for an explanation of different scans and what they indicate. My school mate John Davis and others compiled a list of beat rates for different watches. I will try to find it and post the link later.

1. Where can one find information on lift angle and beat rate for each movement?
2. What is the acceptable beat error?
3. What test period should one use 2s, 4,s, 8s, 30s? Is there a difference?
4. What is the acceptable amplitude?
5. How long should the test last for each position as it keeps changing the deviation rate?

Thanks a million.

mP[/QUOTE]


----------



## mikephuvie

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

Dacattoo, thanks so much for your response.


----------



## dacattoo

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

Here is a link to a table of lift angles Under the Loupe/Calibres by Lift Angle - Alliance Horlogère


----------



## pithy

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*



dacattoo said:


> Here is a link to a table of lift angles Under the Loupe/Calibres by Lift Angle - Alliance Horlogère


The data on your link was extracted from this Excel spreadsheet. It may be for some a more convenient method of accessing this information and can of course be used offline. A google search may still yield a download server for the file.

p


----------



## JackW

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

I bought an Ace Timer recently too and am very pleased. The issue for me is that I'm primarily focused on vintage Gruens and the list linked above contains no data for the older movements that are common and desirable by collectors. These are any of the Curvex series (cal 311, 330, 440, 370) or the 405 series and the derived calibers (includes the 406, 410, 411, 420, 421, 425 etc.) such as the 420ss which is the heart of Gruen's Pan American watch line. For the 405 series it seems that the lift angle is going to be close to 52-degrees but how close? I was discussing this topic with another forum member and it would seem that based on a movement that is getting 300-degrees amplitude that the 52 value is good. Anyone with specific data?


----------



## lysanderxiii

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

50 to 52 degrees is close enough


----------



## Recoil Rob

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

I'm thinking about buying a Timegrapher 100 instead of paying $50-60 a pop to have 3 watches regulated. Are these the same units now selling on eBay for $145, shipped? Sure look the same.


----------



## oak1971

*Re: How was it done before all this electrickery?*

I bought a Weishi 1000, looks pretty much the same as the op's. forget what I paid, but its fun to play with.


----------



## richnyc

Saw a great price, $129.99, on the Timegrapher AT-1000 right here: https://www.acetimer.com/Watch-and-Pocket-Watch-Timing-Machine-Multifunction-Timegrapher-1000.html

Thinking of getting one, too


----------



## Recoil Rob

richnyc said:


> Saw a great price, $129.99, on the Timegrapher AT-1000 right here: https://www.acetimer.com/Watch-and-Pocket-Watch-Timing-Machine-Multifunction-Timegrapher-1000.html
> 
> Thinking of getting one, too


Check their shipping first, dude. I'm in New York and they wanted $20.50 to ship it to me, which is ridiculous. You can get it from them on eBay for 149.99 with free shipping, actually about $.50 cheaper for me.


----------



## MaxTG

I bought one from Ace Timer (through eBay) before I saw the direct-sales online store at acetimer.com.

The unit works just fine. It's more resistant to outside noise than the microphone-based smartphone apps, and going through six positions is much easier.

I don't plan on opening any case-backs, but for $150, this is a quick "check-up" to see if a watch has changed performance lately, or needs to go in for service.


----------



## chrisca70

OPs words probably hit the nail for many here... "My wife and friends call me cheap - except when it comes to purchasing something I want for my hobbies and then they call me obsessed. I set a price, determine the features wanted and scour the internet for the most suitable product."

I bought one from Acetimer as well, very pleased!!


----------



## chrisca70

OPs words probably hit the nail for many here... "My wife and friends call me cheap - except when it comes to purchasing something I want for my hobbies and then they call me obsessed. I set a price, determine the features wanted and scour the internet for the most suitable product."

I bought one from Acetimer as well, very pleased!!


----------



## richnyc

Recoil Rob said:


> Check their shipping first, dude. I'm in New York and they wanted $20.50 to ship it to me, which is ridiculous. You can get it from them on eBay for 149.99 with free shipping, actually about $.50 cheaper for me.


Thanks, got it from their eBay store a couple days ago... I offered them $139.99 with free shipping and they jumped on it Should have it by the end of the week...


----------

