# 2434 Vostok Movement vs. ETA 2824-2



## Foucault71 (May 4, 2010)

Hello

I currently have Steinhart watch with ETA 2824-2 which costed me just about the same as Vostok Europe Ekranoplan would.

Now Im thinking about buying Ekranoplan and I was wondering, since Ekranoplan is about same price range, how is the movement quality compared to my current ETA one? Am I upgrading or downgrading movementwise?

ps. I tried to compare specs but my techinal vocabulary regarding watches is very poor :roll:


----------



## sci (Aug 6, 2009)

First - I suppose you talk about Vostok 2432 (I think that's inside Ekranoplan)?
From technical aspect ETA has a quick-set date and hacking function more than Vostok. Vostok has day/nigh indicator (24H) more. The speed of ETA is 28800 oscillation per hour of the balance, Vostok is much slower - 19800. The speed is usually connected to the accuracy, but I have to admit that my 2416 Vostoks are comparable to my ETA 2824-2 based Tissot as far as accuracy is concerned. Both could be manual wound. Finish of ETA is usually better (which is mostly related with the good view) and overall ETA looks more cultivated. At the other hand Vostok is very rugged and spartan. If you change frequently watches, you'll hate date setting of Vostok and lack of hacking for fine-tune the time. There is no better for me, they are just very different.


----------



## Foucault71 (May 4, 2010)

Hi

That was very nice info, cleared a lot for me. The lack of hacking seconds is bit of a downside I have to admit, but if the accuracy isn't much worse Im sure I wont keep myself from switching to Ekranoplan.


----------



## pyjujiop (Dec 7, 2009)

Vostok 2432 is actually a better finished and somewhat upgraded version of the Vostok 2416, their mainstay automatic movement. It's used in Vostok-Europe watches, as well as some high-end Vostoks.

In my experience, the ordinary Vostok 2416 is very accurate, not too far off from a typical ETA 2824-2, and sometimes even better. I have two 2416s, both around +15/day.

The ETA does have quick-set date and hacking, and the Vostok doesn't. There's a way to fairly easily advance the date on a Vostok, though. To me, the beat-rate issue is overrated. The most accurate mechanical watch I've ever owned is a 19800bph Vostok with a 2409 movement.


----------



## cavallino33 (Jan 7, 2008)

A lot of it depends on the which grade of 2824-2 is being used and how well the company regulates them. 

I have a diver with the base grade 2824-2 and it was almost exactly (in terms of accuracy) the same as the 2432 in the vostok-europe I had. 

At worst I think you will have comparable accuracy and the eta will have the added features of hacking and quickset date.


----------



## Foucault71 (May 4, 2010)

pyjujiop said:


> ...
> The ETA does have quick-set date and hacking, and the Vostok doesn't. There's a way to fairly easily advance the date on a Vostok, though.
> ...


Hi

I didn't realize there was also difference in date adjustment, never seen any other system than the one I have on the ETA (Not been into watches long).

Could someone quickly brief me how the date works in Vostok then? Or maybe give the name of the system/link I can google myself.

Thanks


----------



## Niccolo (Dec 31, 2008)

Foucault71 said:


> Hi
> 
> I didn't realize there was also difference in date adjustment, never seen any other system than the one I have on the ETA (Not been into watches long).
> 
> ...


 You have to change the time till it goes to midnight and the date changes. Then turn the hands back to 9:00, and forward again to midnight. Repeat till you get to the current date.


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

Back in the old days (when the Vostok base movement was designed) most people owned only one watch, so a quick-changing date wasn't a high design priority as it would only be necessary to shuttle the time back and forth over midnight once every couple of months. Then came battery-powered watches, in which down-time while looking for a replacement battery increased the frequencey of date advances. Also the now-common day/date function is very hard to manage without quick-change. And now with the renaissance of mechanical watches (which is why we're all here in this forum) multiple watch ownership is common so a quick-change becomes a high priority.

I personally never let the lack of quick-change stand in the way of a watch purchase. And I don't use a winding machine either. It's all part of the fun.


----------



## sci (Aug 6, 2009)

Chascomm said:


> Back in the old days (when the Vostok base movement was designed) most people owned only one watch, so a quick-changing date wasn't a high design priority as it would only be necessary to shuttle the time back and forth over midnight once every couple of months.


Completely agree with that, that's why I love my Vostoks regardless of pain-in-the-a** date set mechanism. 
But if we stay in ETA vs Vostok, there is one more thing to consider - servicing. ETA is a hi-beat movement, which most probably will require more frequent service due to higher friction (I own some low-beat Poljot and Vostoks, being not serviced before they reach me, i.e. for decades, and still working). But at the other hand ETA is so common, virtually everywhere around the globe you will find a watchmaker who will service it. With Vostok you can face issues depending of where you live (mostly irrational reasons will push the watchmakers to deny to open a Russian watch) and it's possible to spend some time finding the right watchmaker.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

sci said:


> ETA is a hi-beat movement, which most probably will require more frequent service due to higher friction


I know you're trying to rationalize this and that's commendable - but you've just made an assumption that is fatally flawed. The ETA 2824-2 doesn't have more or less "friction" than a higher or lower beat movement. It's this simple - I've got ETA's that run a plus or minus a few seconds per day and some that do that per week. Rolex used the 2824 in it's Tudor line. The Ruskies are OK - but they aren't comparable on any level. e


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

enough said:


> I know you're trying to rationalize this and that's commendable - but you've just made an assumption that is fatally flawed. The ETA 2824-2 doesn't have more or less "friction" than a higher or lower beat movement. It's this simple - I've got ETA's that run a plus or minus a few seconds per day and a some that do that per week. Rolex used the 2824 in it's Tudor line. The Ruskies are OK - but they aren't comparable on any level. e


I don't understand. How can a higher beat movement not have more friction and thus more wear than a lower beat movement? How significant that wear is over the life of the watch is certainly debatable, but not that a higher beat has more friction.

Also, you can't extrapolate accuracy in any movement type--be it Swiss or Russian or Japanese--based on one or two you had that was very accurate or very inaccurate There's nothing even remotely scientific or statistically valid about that. :-s


----------



## sci (Aug 6, 2009)

My assumption is based on a simple calculation. Both watches will measure five years in period of five years (that's what I assume a normal service period), but the anchor will hit the balance wheel in ETA 1.261.440.000 times, while in Vostok for the same 5 years it would be 867.240.000 times. The number of spinnings of the balance wheel will be the same amount of course - 1.4b for ETA and 0.8b for Vostok. From pure quantity point of view - 1.2 billion movements is more than 0.8 billion, right ((just like 28800 is more than 19800) ?
No one says ETA 2824-2 is a bad movement or that Vostok is better. ETA is more expensive and more cultivated for sure, plus has quick-set and hacking. But let's say it like this:
Can I wear both of them without doubts that they will suddenly break - yes. 
Is the practical precision comparable (talking about standard grade of ETA of course) - yes. 
Can I switch from ETA to Vostok powered watch without feeling "downgraded" - it highly depends of the watch brands, materials and design plus some irrational factors like heritage/history. I personally can.
Do I have both - yes and I like them both. Like one loves his mom and his wife, but differently 
Now between Steinhard and Vostok-Europe. For me both companies are equally no-one in terms of history, tradition and image. Both seem to provide nice mechanical watches, good quality of materials, nice design and affordable price. It's a matter of taste now.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

Friction - You may want to review the actual defintion. If you're trying to imply that the ETA will have more cumulative wear over time - wrong again. The design, execution and materials; and actual measurements reveal the opposite. 

With regard to accuracy - it's hard to consider any movement that doesn't utilize Nivarox (or the equivalent) as a quality, modern timepiece. e


----------



## Foucault71 (May 4, 2010)

Thanks for answers, especially sci, great points there. I think Im swapping to Ekranoplan.

I will borrow this thread for further question:

It says on the Vostok site that Ekranoplan has "integrated silicon strap". Does this mean it isn't as easy to change or not changable at all? I really dislike rubbery straps and would like to change it to leather (or even metal) one.


----------



## sci (Aug 6, 2009)

enough said:


> Friction - You may want to review the actual defintion. If you're trying to imply that the ETA will have more cumulative wear over time


Agree, this is what I mean. In English, it is really more correct to be called "Wear" instead of "Friction".



> The design, execution and materials; and actual measurements reveal the opposite.


Disagree! I am not aware of such a complex comparison in a scientific/technical document. I don't expect either movements to fail due to wear over a lifetime exploitation, but I can bet that without proper servicing/lubrication the wear of high-beat movement will be higher.
Please, read HERE, section "Balance Wheel & Mainspring Size, and Beat Rate" the following:

_The advantages of fast-beat (28,800 v/h and 36,000 v/h) are obvious: better isochronism, and better performance in both vertical and horizontal positions even with minimal adjustment or no adjustment at all -- one of the reasons fast-beat has been almost universally adopted by mass-producers. In fully-adjusted fast-beat watches positional adjustments are naturally less laborious. *The disadvantages are the insidious problems of greater friction, stress, and wear* -- not just on the escapement where it is obvious, but throughout the wheel train and in the winding systems of automatic movements._

and also:

_Taken all together, this means that fast-beat movements have *shorter service intervals, and the greater rate of wear* necessitates more frequent parts replacements._



> wrong again


I don't like to be "wrong again". To "disagree" is one thing, to classify "wrong" without providing rational arguments is another.

To Foucault71, if you can afford it (as it seems you are choosing one XOR another), compare both watches for couple of months (precision, look and feel, comfort) and then decide which one to keep. If I was at your place according to this choice, I couldn't make it so easy


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

*Re: Wrong again....*

I assume by all this you are saying that higher speeds lead to higher wear. Well let's look at this....

Let me see here, in the 28,800 bph movement, the forth wheel rotates at 1 rpm (the second hand goes once around the dial each minute), the center wheel rotates at 1/60 rpm (one revolution every 60 minutes), and the third wheel rotates at some speed between the two, governed by the ratio of teeth on its pinion to teeth on the gear wheel.

In a 18,000 bph movement, the forth wheel rotates at, let's see... oh, yes 1 rpm, the same speed as before, and the the second wheel is rotating at the same speed as well. And provided that the ratio of pinion teeth to gear teeth on the third wheel is the same for both the high beat and low beat movements, its speed will also be the same.

So, in the high load areas of the movement, (barrel, center, thirds and forth wheels) the rotational speed is the same. Ergo, the wear is the same.*

The escape wheel on any movement rotates at a speed governed by two factors: 1) the beat rate, and 2) the ratio of teeth on the escapement to teeth on the pinion. So, you cannot generalize and say that there will be more wear in a high beat movement than in a low beat movement, because you cannot generalize that a high beat escape wheel rotates faster or slower than a low beat escape wheel.

The balance axle is almost completely unloaded, so it will see very little wear, no matter how fast it oscillates.

Now, to further debunk your ascertation, wear is also dependent on lubrication, and choice of lubrication is governed by how much load is place on the two moving surfaces and how fast they move relative to one another. A diesel engine will not work long or well with 10W5 oil nor will your 4 cyclinder Japanese ricecar work well or long with 10W15 oil.

Same with watches.

Watch oils are designed to work well in movements operating in the 18,000 to 28,800 range, some 36,000 bph watches may require different oil, but the wear will not necessarily be greater.

Then of course you have not factored in the fact the Russian movements tend to have softer pinions** which everyone know do not handle wear as well as harder pinions. Or, how concenteric are the axis of bores of the upper and lower jewels, and the numerous other tiny "quallity" issued that can affect wear in mechanical devises....



sci said:


> Agree, this is what I mean. In English, it is really more correct to be called "Wear" instead of "Friction".
> 
> Disagree! I am not aware of such a complex comparison in a scientific/technical document. I don't expect either movements to fail due to wear over a lifetime exploitation, but I can bet that without proper servicing/lubrication the wear of high-beat movement will be higher.
> Please, read HERE, section "Balance Wheel & Mainspring Size, and Beat Rate" the following:
> ...


____________________
* True there are going to be some differences in load, and therefore wear, but this variations are negligible. And the barrel's rotational speed is governed by the nuber of teeth on the barrel, not the balance speed.

** In my experience.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*You and Carlos Perez*



sci said:


> _*insidious problems of greater friction, stress, and wear" . . . "*_I don't like to be "wrong again".


At least you've got company. Both of you are neither watchmakers or engineers.

Wrong again.

e


----------



## Lucidor (Jul 29, 2009)

DNFTT


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

> The escape wheel on any movement rotates at a speed governed by two factors: 1) the beat rate, and 2) the ratio of teeth on the escapement to teeth on the pinion. So, you cannot generalize and say that there will be more wear in a high beat movement than in a low beat movement, because you cannot generalize that a high beat escape wheel rotates faster or slower than a low beat escape wheel.


Here is an interesting example: The ETA 2878 is a 4 Hz (28,800 bph) movement, its sister is the 2879, a 3 Hz (21,600 bph) movement. The only parts that are different between these two movements are the 1) mainspring, 2) balance assembly, 3) escape wheel, and 4) forth wheel.

To get the movement to operate at a lower frequency, ETA reduced the number of escapement teeth on the escape wheel, this actually speeds up the rotational speed of that wheel, then reduced the gear ratio between the escape pinion and the forth wheel gear to maintain its rpm.

Interesting, no?


----------



## sci (Aug 6, 2009)

Lucidor said:


> DNFTT


true, true.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*Veritas*



sci said:


> true, true.


After confessing your ignorance, repeatedly, and having the facts explained to you in laymen's terms - in much detail - you want to resort to name calling. Pure class.

Here is a news flash for you: The last generation of Chinese movements surpass anything that has come out of Russia since Hy Moser. Many of the current "Swiss made" qualifying movements have substantial Asian content. Do you know of any that have Russian content?

e


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: Veritas*



enough said:


> After confessing your ignorance, repeatedly, and having the facts explained to you in laymen's terms - in much detail - you want to resort to name calling. Pure class.


Got to agree with "enough." It's pretty ugly calling someone a troll. It's become an ok but a nasty epithet at the same time to call someone. If you don't like something someone says, man-up and put it words that mean something specific to what you take offense at. Don't take the easy way out by calling "troll" with schoolboy snickering.

Doesn't mean there aren't trolls or trollish behavior, just be careful who you accuse.


----------



## tribe125 (Mar 7, 2006)

There's a distinctly unpleasant tone to some of the posts here. From one poster in particular...

This thread is closed, pending review by the forum moderators.

_Moderator_


----------



## Strela (Apr 30, 2005)

*Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*

Be passionate, and express yourselves freely, but lay off the needling.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*

btw sci, I agree with you that "wear" is a more accurate word than "friction." Friction is one of the causes of wear. Can you have friction without wear? To me, friction means heat, and if that's the only by product of friction, than that's not necessarily wear :-s.


----------



## sci (Aug 6, 2009)

*Re: Veritas*



enough said:


> you want to resort to name calling. Pure class.
> 
> e


Enough, I apologize if you feel offended! After this post:



> At least you've got company. Both of you are neither watchmakers or engineers.
> 
> Wrong again.


the discussion for me has ended. That is what I refer with


> true, true.


You can accept the excuse or not. Aside of that, I'll not answer anymore to this topic.


----------



## pyjujiop (Dec 7, 2009)

Foucault71 said:


> Thanks for answers, especially sci, great points there. I think Im swapping to Ekranoplan.
> 
> I will borrow this thread for further question:
> 
> It says on the Vostok site that Ekranoplan has "integrated silicon strap". Does this mean it isn't as easy to change or not changable at all? I really dislike rubbery straps and would like to change it to leather (or even metal) one.


You won't be disappointed with the watch. You'll be forgoing the Almighty Nivarox and giving away your chance to worship at the Holy Temple of the Swiss Watch, but you will instead have a very attractive, rugged watch that keeps excellent time, and which no one else you know will likely own.

The strap on that watch won't be any harder to change than any other. It's attached with ordinary spring bars. Unfortunately, they're just Russian-made spring bars, and not those _über_-1337 Swiss Made ones.

Be sure to come back and post pics when you get your Ekranoplan. |>


----------



## storyteller (Jan 20, 2010)

Foucault71, as layman to layman - put some slower beating watch to your ear and compare it with some faster beating one, then decide which one do you like more. Some people like the sound of diesel engines, some prefer Kawasaki. But as an ignorant customer I think that the sound of ticking is one of the most attractive aspects of the mechanical watches, especially in sleepless nights, so it will be your sovereign choice.


----------



## pwalsh21 (Jan 13, 2009)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*

The notion that friction causes wear is correct. Friction comes in 2 types: static and kinetic. Kinetic friction is resistance to movement as the object is moving, and is also called drag. In the case of a watch, as a gear is in motion, it has kinetic friction working against it. Kinetic friction will be equal in both watches over the course of a single beat, but since high beat watches have certain parts that move more often, there is more kinetic friction in those parts.

I think the real bugaboo in high beat watches is the static friction, which is much greater in magnitude than kinetic friction. By definition, static friction is what keeps an object at rest from moving. This will occur any time a gear oscillates, because there is an instant where that gear is not moving one way or the other. More oscillation over a unit of time (e.g., higher beat) means more static friction over that time, which means more wear over time. Yes, lubrication will slow this down, but that is true whether the watch is high beat or low beat, so it isn't an argument.

Further, faster movement = more force, so any impacts are going to harder, which will further increase the wear.

As much as I respect Lysander's watchmaking acumen (which is considerable) his arguments make little sense from a physics standpoint.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



pwalsh21 said:


> The notion that friction causes wear is correct. Friction comes in 2 types: static and kinetic. Kinetic friction is resistance to movement as the object is moving, and is also called drag. In the case of a watch, as a gear is in motion, it has kinetic friction working against it. Kinetic friction will be equal in both watches over the course of a single beat, but since high beat watches have certain parts that move more often, there is more kinetic friction in those parts.
> 
> I think the real bugaboo in high beat watches is the static friction, which is much greater in magnitude than kinetic friction. By definition, static friction is what keeps an object at rest from moving. This will occur any time a gear oscillates, because there is an instant where that gear is not moving one way or the other. More oscillation over a unit of time (e.g., higher beat) means more static friction over that time, which means more wear over time. Yes, lubrication will slow this down, but that is true whether the watch is high beat or low beat, so it isn't an argument.
> 
> ...


First, I though I explained, in fairly simple terms that there is really nothing moving faster in a high beat watch than a low beat watch, and in some cases quite the opposite, except the balance. And, with the balance, under almost no load, there can be almost no wear.

I absolutely hate to give out incorrect information so if I have, please enlighten me on where my "physics" went astray...

Second, with the the gear teeth, there will be no appreciable amount of wear on gear teeth. Gear teeth in watches are designed/made with a _cycloid tooth _profile. In addition to transmitting the motion with a constant angular velocity, any two engaged teeth will not see sliding friction between them (see image below). The two surfaces will roll on top of each other at the line of contact. Since there is no sliding, there is no wear due to sliding. All wear seen in a watch gear train is due to contact pressure.

The wonderful thing about cycloid teeth is if you start with a simple trapezoidal tooth profile, there will be sliding and wear, however, the wear will reduce the tooth profile to a cycloid shape, once that has been achieved, wear due to sliding will cease.










Third, as to impacts, the only impact in a watch is the impulse jewel on the fork. This impact force is solely governed by the stiffness of the balance spring. Again, no generalization can be made with respect high or low beat movements in this regard. There are two ways to increase the beat rate of a movement, 1) keep the moment of inertia of the balance constant and make the spring stiffer, or 2) keep the spring stiffness constant and reduce the balance moment of inertia. With high beat movements, usually you will see the balance diameter has been reduced (smaller moment of inertia), so the spring stiffness must be roughly the same.


----------



## domi (Jan 21, 2008)

*Re: You and Carlos Perez*



enough said:


> At least you've got company. Both of you are neither watchmakers or engineers.
> Wrong again.
> e


While I understand you are trying to make a point... You're not exactly providing evidence, nor winning any friends by way of attitude.

Perhaps it might be better (considering you are posting on the Russian board) to try being more diplomatic?


----------



## michele (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: You and Carlos Perez*



domi said:


> While I understand you are trying to make a point... You're not exactly providing evidence, nor winning any friends by way of attitude.
> 
> Perhaps it might be better (considering you are posting on the Russian board) to try being more diplomatic?


100% agree. :think:

Dear Enough, not all the people is engineer or watchmaker, but here the guys you are talking with are not newbies.

I warmly suggest to be more moderate in your approach. Kindness is always welcome.


----------



## pwalsh21 (Jan 13, 2009)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



lysanderxiii said:


> First, I though I explained, in fairly simple terms that there is really nothing moving faster in a high beat watch than a low beat watch, and in some cases quite the opposite, except the balance. And, with the balance, under almost no load, there can be almost no wear.


Well, I will definitely concede that you've probably forgotten more about the inner workings of watches than I'll ever know (I read the "Ask the Watchmaker" forum frequently). But I do know physics, and I do know logic, which is the tack I'm taking.

In the case of high beat versus low beat, we are talking about oscillations of the balance. Because the balance *is* moving, whether under a direct load or not, it has to be rubbing against something, which is true no matter the beat frequency. Because the high beat oscillates more per unit time, the wear of the parts that oscillate faster is greater. If all the other parts of the watch are moving in the same frequency, their wear is the same, and therefore drop out of the wear equation.



lysanderxiii said:


> I absolutely hate to give out incorrect information so if I have, please enlighten me on where my "physics" went astray...


We are of like mind here, Lysander.



lysanderxiii said:


> Second, with the the gear teeth, there will be no appreciable amount of wear on gear teeth...


This was absolutely fascinating and I had no idea that this occurred. However, it's not germane to the argument unless those parts are moving faster. If they are, than the wear you described happens faster, planned or not.



lysanderxiii said:


> Third, as to impacts, the only impact in a watch is the impulse jewel on the fork. This impact force is solely governed by the stiffness of the balance spring. Again, no generalization can be made with respect high or low beat movements in this regard. There are two ways to increase the beat rate of a movement, 1) keep the moment of inertia of the balance constant and make the spring stiffer, or 2) keep the spring stiffness constant and reduce the balance moment of inertia. With high beat movements, usually you will see the balance diameter has been reduced (smaller moment of inertia), so the spring stiffness must be roughly the same.


If the balance is moving faster, as you've stated, it is rubbing against its attachment points more per unit time. Smaller balance = smaller moment = less wear, I agree; but the fact that the balance is oscillating more means it is rubbing against its attachment points more often which means wear to those points is increased.

And again, the balance moving back and forth more often means that there are more instants of zero motion, which means that greater static friction comes into play, increasing wear yet further. A smaller balance will impact the magnitude of static friction, sure, but will not eradicate it.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*friction*

In modern wristwatches there are at least three lubricants used on the "back" side of the movement and sometime five or more. The viscosity, film strength and shear value of each lubricant is specifically designed so that in combination with the capillary effect of the pinion and the hole/cap jewel system that the entire load bearing surface of the pinion "floats" on this "cushion" of fluid. This cushion of lubricant can best be visualized as an elastic collar that may be partially displaced in the annulus under loading. The pinions of a properly designed and serviced modern movement never actually contact the jewels.

Accordingly, solid state classical physics - particularly dynamic and static friction coefficients aren't applicable without incorporation of hydraulics to address the presence of the lubricant as an effective buffer to actual contact. If you want to put forward a case that you have enough induced fluid velocity and pressure to mechanically erode either of the solids - pinion alloy or carborundum, proceed.


----------



## Melnyk (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: friction*

im no expert but if the end result is the same (i.e. time is being displayed the same way) for every action is a equal opposite reaction. in turn the same amount of force is required to move the hands the same amount, just because the balance turns faster means its under less of a load. i think......


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



pwalsh21 said:


> In the case of high beat versus low beat, we are talking about oscillations of the balance. Because the balance *is* moving, whether under a direct load or not, it has to be rubbing against something, which is true no matter the beat frequency. Because the high beat oscillates more per unit time, the wear of the parts that oscillate faster is greater. If all the other parts of the watch are moving in the same frequency, their wear is the same, and therefore drop out of the wear equation.


Actually, the balance staff end are not in direct contact with anything solid. As Enough noted above, the oil film prevents actual physical contact between the balance staff and jewels, both the hole bearing and the cap bearing. The only load on the balance staff is the result of the balance spring, which is far to weak to displace an oil film.

Even when the oil dries up, evaporates or just isn't there, you rarely see extensive rubbing wear on the balance staff. Almost all staff damage I have seen was impact damage, which is obviously not due to beat rate.



pwalsh21 said:


> ....the balance moving back and forth more often means that there are more instants of zero motion, which means that greater static friction comes into play, increasing wear yet further. A smaller balance will impact the magnitude of static friction, sure, but will not eradicate it.


It has been a while since I cracked open my engineering textbooks, and to be honest I doubt I can find then now. So, if you would be so kind as the explain to me how there can be "increased wear" when two surfaces have zero relative velocity?

And, I am fairly certain that the size of an object will not have anything to do with the magnitude of the static friction, especially at the contact pressures we have inside a watch movement, because 1) at low contact pressure the coefficient of friction is independent of surface area, and 2) we are discussing lubricated surfaces. Of course, the size of the balance wheel (on wrist watch sized movements) does not dictate the size of the balance staff ends, which would be the area of contact.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 20, 2010)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*

Thanks a lot Lisanderxiii and pwalsh21 for your careful and considerate explanations. The topic now began to sound like a revelation to me. One more question - Vostok 2809 is considered the most accurate Soviet / Russian movement. As far as I understand, it is based on Zenith 135 and I read that its extraordinary (for the 1950s at least) accuracy is due to a large degree to the size of its balance. How important is the size of the balance for the accuracy of the movement - compared to the beat rate - and why large balances like Zenith 135 / Vostok 2809 did not become more common?


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



storyteller said:


> How important is the size of the balance for the accuracy of the movement - compared to the beat rate - and why large balances like Zenith 135 / Vostok 2809 did not become more common?


They aren't that common these days as most of your watch movements are in the 11 to 13 ligne range, so there just isn't that much room for a balance bigger than 12mm.

Then there is the minor problem of larger masses needing more support when placed under loads, as in shock or acceleration. But that is almost insignificant with modern anti-shock systems.

As to why larger balances "seem" more accurate, they really aren't.

Before Glucydur and laser etching balancing, manufacturing the actual wheel and poising it was the difficult part. With pocket watches, when in service, for whatever reason, balances sometimes drift out of poise and must be repoised and sometimes even made round again. For this reason larger balances are preferred as they are simple easier to manipulate.

If the Vostok 2809 is more stable than a 2416, then it is because they placed more care in its manufacture, not because it has a larger diameter balance wheel.

The 2892A2 has a 10mm diameter balance, the 2824-2, 12mm and the Zeinth 135 14mm. If the accuracy relationship were in the balance size, you would conclude the 2824 is as much better than the 2892 as the zeinth is above the 2824. And we all know that's not the way it is.


----------



## Lucidor (Jul 29, 2009)

*Re: Veritas*



Sean779 said:


> Got to agree with "enough." It's pretty ugly calling someone a troll.


You should blame me. I was the one who brought up the subject of trolls, no one else. I admit I was provoked by the postings as I experienced a bar fight rather than a technical discussion. The OP had a legitimate question, and I felt he was not helped one bit by the discussion that was going on, regardless of who was right in the technical terms. I am usually a very polite person, but I got mad, that's all. I'm sorry if I overreacted.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 20, 2010)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



lysanderxiii said:


> As to why larger balances "seem" more accurate, they really aren't.
> 
> Before Glucydur and laser etching balancing, manufacturing the actual wheel and poising it was the difficult part. With pocket watches, when in service, for whatever reason, balances sometimes drift out of poise and must be repoised and sometimes even made round again. For this reason larger balances are preferred as they are simple easier to manipulate.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for your professional explanation. My curiosity was provoked by Walt Odets' claim that " For consistent (i.e. "accurate") operation, a balance with as much "rotational inertia" as possible is desirable. In practice, this will be the largest possible diameter balance" (source here The Balance Wheel of a Watch - TimeZone) or hints like this interview with Daniel Bolognesi, Chopard's expert watchmaker that "We are aware that there is this discussion as to whether it is better to have a big heavy balance with a lower frequency, or a smaller lighter one with a higher frequency." (source here Revolution - The World's Ultimate Watch LifeStyle Magazine), or Jaeger LeCoultre boasting with a larger balance wheel here (Jaeger-LeCoultre Discussion Forum: In search of the perfect movement, Autotractor first used in Home Time and Dualmatic!!), etc. . 
I thought that maybe there was kind of debate - large and slow balance wheel versus small and fast one - which could have explained the Russian's approach, but obviously I was wrong.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 20, 2010)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*

Double post, sorry. Another mistake.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

Like everything in engineering, there is a trade-off.

A larger heavier balance will require more energy to keep in going and more energy to stop it so it can reverse direction. There are also loading, gyroscopic and aerodynamic affects to be considered, these will alter the stability of a balance, especially in a motion prone devise such as a wrist watch.

For a give size balance, you what the highest moment of inertia possible, but even with no restrictions on balance size, larger will not always equal more stable.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

lysanderxiii said:


> There are also loading, gyroscopic and aerodynamic affects to be considered, these will alter the stability of a balance, especially in a motion prone devise such as a wrist watch.


Well said. In a ship's chronometer, with gimble mounting and acceleration being dampened by a few hundred tons of mass, a large diameter balance would be appropriate.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 20, 2010)

lysanderxiii said:


> Like everything in engineering, there is a trade-off.


Interesting comments on another Swiss watchmaker who opted for 18000 BPH with large balance wheel (http://indepth.watchprosite.com/?show=nblog.post&ti=623776&fi=112&s=0). It seems it really is a trade-off.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

rotational inertia


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

Foucault71 said:


> Hello
> 
> I currently have Steinhart watch with ETA 2824-2 which costed me just about the same as Vostok Europe Ekranoplan would.
> 
> ...


I can say IMO and I have no inherent love for the Swiss, it's defintely not an upgrade.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: Veritas*



Lucidor said:


> You should blame me. I was the one who brought up the subject of trolls, no one else. I admit I was provoked by the postings as I experienced a bar fight rather than a technical discussion. The OP had a legitimate question, and I felt he was not helped one bit by the discussion that was going on, regardless of who was right in the technical terms. I am usually a very polite person, but I got mad, that's all. I'm sorry if I overreacted.


It's not about blame and sci piled on so how is he different from you? And it was the piling on part that got me. Where I said "enough." Maybe enough has technical knowledge but he's a bit irritable. I can put up with that long as he willing to give me the knowledge. I know if I had been called a troll I'd feel it as a wound, and I thought you guys went way overboard calling him a troll.

But thanks and I mean it for coming back and explaining because I really didn't have a good opinion of you until now.

And I agree with you that, as so often happens, we take the OP's question and run with it to our own destination. So in the post right before this I gave the OP my most modest answer.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

enough said:


> rotational inertia


take an ex-lax


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

get a watch! (At your service.) e


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*astethics*

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the Ekranoplan movement. If you like the look of the watch - own it.

There are a lot of "voices" out there. Choose carefully who you listen to and weigh each one's words. On this, I won't say more.

Much of mechanics and physics is "counterintuitive". This is never more true than in horology. As watchmaking is - as of this writing - a dying "art", myth abounds. Many oft repeated, popularly held beliefs have no basis, whatsoever in fact.

Good luck with all watches - present and future!

e


----------



## pwalsh21 (Jan 13, 2009)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



lysanderxiii said:


> Actually, the balance staff end are not in direct contact with anything solid. As Enough noted above, the oil film prevents actual physical contact between the balance staff and jewels, both the hole bearing and the cap bearing. The only load on the balance staff is the result of the balance spring, which is far to weak to displace an oil film.


Okay, I know that theoretically, this is true; however, no lubricant is perfect or completely prevents contact. This is somewhat nullified by your next statement:



lysanderxiii said:


> Even when the oil dries up, evaporates or just isn't there, you rarely see extensive rubbing wear on the balance staff. Almost all staff damage I have seen was impact damage, which is obviously not due to beat rate.


Ah, now see, this is where you've got me beat. You've undoubtedly seen a lot more balance staves up close than I have. However, there's still enough wiggle room in your statement to raise questions in my mind.



lysanderxiii said:


> It has been a while since I cracked open my engineering textbooks, and to be honest I doubt I can find then now. So, if you would be so kind as the explain to me how there can be "increased wear" when two surfaces have zero relative velocity?


The zero relative velocity is instantaneous as the balance changes direction during its oscillation from clockwise to counterclockwise and back. This is where the static friction would come into play.



lysanderxiii said:


> And, I am fairly certain that the size of an object will not have anything to do with the magnitude of the static friction, especially at the contact pressures we have inside a watch movement, because 1) at low contact pressure the coefficient of friction is independent of surface area, and 2) we are discussing lubricated surfaces. Of course, the size of the balance wheel (on wrist watch sized movements) does not dictate the size of the balance staff ends, which would be the area of contact.


The size of the object has everything to do with friction, at least, the mass of the object does. Mass also includes apparent mass, i.e., "centrifugal" force increasing the mass of a rotating object, particularly near the edges. In general, total friction is proportional to the object's mass, i.e., the greater the mass, the greater the friction. This is why I gave a little during my previous post, and why there's probably not going to be an answer either of us can give that will conclusively answer this question. I admit that I don't know if the smaller balance completely offsets the greater frequency of oscillation. If you can, please do, because I really think this stuff is fascinating and I love learning new things. But I doubt it's possible to make the balance that small--I'd bet that the balance would have to be 25% or smaller than that used in a low beat movement.

I agree that the forces we have been discussing are very small. However, they do add up. When the balance oscillates trillions of times over the life of the watch, a barely detectable amount of wear can result in a noticeable issue. It just takes time.


----------



## pwalsh21 (Jan 13, 2009)

*Re: Veritas*



Sean779 said:


> It's not about blame and sci piled on so how is he different from you? And it was the piling on part that got me. Where I said "enough." Maybe enough has technical knowledge but he's a bit irritable. I can put up with that long as he willing to give me the knowledge. I know if I had been called a troll I'd feel it as a wound, and I thought you guys went way overboard calling him a troll.


Well, let's be fair--the guy DID drop into a forum teeming with Russian watch aficionados and say, basically, the watches suck. Yes, there has been a welcome change in attitude, but his behavior prior to that was definitely trollish, as described. And it's unrealistic to think that those same aficionados won't fight back when challenged. I think the only person that needed to apologize was Enough, which he effectively has (in my opinion) with the attitude change.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*Ly*

Ly - THIS is THE THREAD that won't dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee



Sean779 said:


> . . . . . . . Horology is a gentle art, why wouldn't we follow its call when it's what we want to hear?


----------



## Strela (Apr 30, 2005)

*I personally find this to be a fascinating thread...*

Granted, there have been some ill moments, but overall a very interesting thread.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*Re: I personally find this to be a fascinating thread...*

Hey S, What's on your wrist?

e


----------



## Strela (Apr 30, 2005)

*Right now?*

A Rolex 1675. And yours?


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: astethics*



enough said:


> I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the Ekranoplan movement. If you like the look of the watch - own it.
> 
> There are a lot of "voices" out there. Choose carefully who you listen to and weigh each one's words. On this, I won't say more.
> 
> ...


you don't know nothin about that movement...the point is we know a lot about the 2824 and it's all good. C'est la difference, and better advice.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*Czarrist Russian*

A Bucherer tanque.

But, I'm working on this right now. I'm going to have to cut a couple of screws to hold the chaton for the center wheel jewel - but it's running with a single screw holding it. I'm going case as a wrist watch. e


----------



## pyjujiop (Dec 7, 2009)

*Re: astethics*



enough said:


> I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the Ekranoplan movement. If you like the look of the watch - own it.
> 
> There are a lot of "voices" out there. Choose carefully who you listen to and weigh each one's words. On this, I won't say more.
> 
> ...


Well, that I can agree with. There are many good things to say about mechanical watches, no matter where in the world they come from.

The art of watchmaking will never die, as long as there are people like us who buy, collect and wear them, and share that interest with others.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*I must have misssed that . .*



pwalsh21 said:


> I think the only person that needed to apologize was Enough, which he effectively has (in my opinion) with the attitude change.


Where was I, Einstein?

e


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*All I can say is . . . .*



Sean779 said:


> . . . . . Horology is a gentle art, why wouldn't we follow its call when it's what we want to hear?


:-deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:-d


----------



## pwalsh21 (Jan 13, 2009)

*Re: I must have misssed that . .*



enough said:


> Where was I, Einstein?
> 
> e


I'm perplexed by this statement--what exactly were you trying to say?


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



pwalsh21 said:


> Okay, I know that theoretically, this is true; however, no lubricant is perfect or completely prevents contact. This is somewhat nullified by your next statement:


Apparently, you never saw an old railroad boxcar with oil filled journal bearing axles, or understand how journal bearings work. A 100 tons of iron, wood and cargo running on eight oil films about 2 to 3 thousandths of an inch thick, no metal-to-metal contact.

The discussion was assumed to be about movements in normal condition, i.e., oiled. However, I fail to see how the observation that even dry movements show little wear nulifies the ascertation that there is not much wear in on a balance staff so beat rate is not a major factor in wear.



pwalsh21 said:


> Ah, now see, this is where you've got me beat. You've undoubtedly seen a lot more balance staves up close than I have. However, there's still enough wiggle room in your statement to raise questions in my mind.


:-s



pwalsh21 said:


> The zero relative velocity is instantaneous as the balance changes direction during its oscillation from clockwise to counterclockwise and back. This is where the static friction would come into play.


Please explain how static friction = wear?



pwalsh21 said:


> The size of the object has everything to do with friction, at least, the mass of the object does. Mass also includes apparent mass, i.e., "centrifugal" force increasing the mass of a rotating object, particularly near the edges. In general, total friction is proportional to the object's mass, i.e., the greater the mass, the greater the friction. This is why I gave a little during my previous post, and why there's probably not going to be an answer either of us can give that will conclusively answer this question. I admit that I don't know if the smaller balance completely offsets the greater frequency of oscillation. If you can, please do, because I really think this stuff is fascinating and I love learning new things. But I doubt it's possible to make the balance that small--I'd bet that the balance would have to be 25% or smaller than that used in a low beat movement.


Total friction = mass? :-s



pwalsh21 said:


> I agree that the forces we have been discussing are very small. However, they do add up. When the balance oscillates trillions of times over the life of the watch, a barely detectable amount of wear can result in a noticeable issue. It just takes time.


I am sorry, but your understanding of physics and mechanics, is sufficiently lacking to make any further attempt at explaining pointless.


----------



## enough (May 8, 2010)

*360*



lysanderxiii said:


> I am sorry, but your understanding of physics and mechanics, is sufficiently lacking to make any further attempt at explaining pointless.


I concur. In his scenario where no lubricant was present and the model is solid to solid - his hypothetical - as T2 is achieved - there is F of s but since both objects are at rest relative to each other in the instantaneous case - no heat, no work and no removal of material.

e


----------



## pwalsh21 (Jan 13, 2009)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



lysanderxiii said:


> I am sorry, but your understanding of physics and mechanics, is sufficiently lacking to make any further attempt at explaining pointless.


Wow, I was thinking the *same thing* about you! Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: Let's chill people. Keep it cordial.*



pwalsh21 said:


> Wow, I was thinking the *same thing* about you! Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


I find that strange...how you both can't connect at a basic scientific level. I don't have much science background, but I find that a little bizarre. How do you fake something so factual?


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

I reckon it's time to close this thread. The original question has been answered as well as it's going to be, we've strayed way off topic and the discussion has got unnecessarily acrimonious in places.

Time to move on.


----------

