# Grand Seiko Spring Drive SBGA027.



## Benjamin Chin (May 11, 2008)

I am wondering, with recommended overhaul between 3 to 4 yrs, will this SBGA027 outlast a typical upmarket Swiss mechanical watch, e.g. Rolex ?

Are there pitfalls in the Spring Drive technology in general ?

Is the resale value of Grand Seiko Spring Drive, good ?


Thanks in advance for any opinion(s) / comment(s).


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Benjamin Chin said:


> I am wondering, with recommended overhaul between 3 to 4 yrs, will this SBGA027 outlast a typical upmarket Swiss mechanical watch, e.g. Rolex ?
> 
> Are there pitfalls in the Spring Drive technology in general ?
> 
> ...


Do some searching and you will find many previous discussions of this watch... well, maybe not the SBGA027 specifically.

I would say the pitfall of the spring drive is it is overly complex. Others love the complexity. It is a matter of taste.

There are limited numbers of resales so it is difficult to say what residual value would be. In general expensive Japanese watches do not have as good a resale market as expensive Swiss... bit I detect that may be changing.

Opinions... the SD is a precision made instrument that shows great craftsmanship. I marvel that they can be made to work. It is a quartz controlled watch with none of the simplicity found in other quartz controlled watch. That attracts some people.

Between Rolex and SD... Well, I was going to say but discretion got the better of me.


----------



## rex (Feb 12, 2006)

*I wouldn't worry about an overhaul.>>*

I don't believe (even for the Spring Drive) in scheduled maintenance on a mechanical watch. 
A 75 year old watchmaker once told me, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
He said every watch will let you know when it's overhaul time, strictly by virtue of performance.

In terms of resale value of the Spring Drive, it probably sucks as compared to any Rolex, Panarei, AP, etc. and I really could not care less about resale value because I'll never intend to sell it if I owned one!
Buy a Rolex to impress others, buy a Spring Drive to impress yourself.:-!

\Take care and good luck!


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

"I am wondering, with recommended overhaul between 3 to 4 yrs, will this SBGA027 outlast a typical upmarket Swiss mechanical watch, e.g. Rolex ?"

Will it outlast a well-maintained mechanical watch? That's impossible to answer. At best a well maintained spring drive may last as long as it's purely mechanical cousin. The IC in some spring drive movements may at some distant point begin to deteriorate internally as IC's seem to do. As with other quartz timed watches I would not let that distant possibility deter from enjoying a fascinating marriage of technologies.

"Are there pitfalls in the Spring Drive technology in general ?"

In general I have not read of any problems, however this marriage of electronic and mechanical technologies is relatively new. Still, Seiko has a long history of producing reliable movements and I would bet that this movement will also be long lived. The only long term issue I think will ultimately be the IC. But that could take decades to surface.

"Is the resale value of Grand Seiko Spring Drive, good ?"

The best gauge of prices would be resales on Timezone and Yahoo Japan. I suspect that the market for Seiko SD watches will be active in Japan, but it will remain relatively thin compared to the market for Rolex, Omega, etc. As with other watches bought new at retail you will never come close to making money - it is a question of how much it will depreciate over time. If it were me I would focus more on whether the watch gave me enjoyment.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

The glide wheel on the SD is going bloody fast and has the lateral stresses caused by a spring not to mention the torsional stresses caused by the braking action. In short, I suspect that the SD will be extremely sensitive to poor maintenance but very good at keeping good time until way, way too late. 

I know that many people say leave well alone. The fact is that no current watch oil is doing its job after five or so years. If it were a car engine would anyone seriously leave the same oil in for five years. (well apart from the fact that the car wouldn't make it to five years.

Quartz watches can gat away with missing services. Anything with a spring, and the resultant forces, cannot.


----------



## rex (Feb 12, 2006)

I beg to differ M4tt...I've heard of countless stories of folks wearing their Rolex for well over 10 and up to 25 years w/out having it overhauled. 

Scheduled maintenance is overkill for a mechical watch movement, IMO and should never be compared to an internal combustion engine. Two different animals!


----------



## RogerE (Dec 7, 2007)

rex said:


> I beg to differ M4tt...I've heard of countless stories of folks wearing their Rolex for well over 10 and up to 25 years w/out having it overhauled.
> 
> Scheduled maintenance is overkill for a mechical watch movement, IMO and should never be compared to an internal combustion engine. Two different animals!


I'm sorry - I also greatly respect Rex' opinion! If Matt and George tell me how high to jump, I'll first ask Rex if it's "o.k.":-!.


----------



## rex (Feb 12, 2006)

LoL! Jump as high as you would like to Roger...Just don't hurt your watch!


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

Eeeb said:


> Do some searching and you will find many previous discussions of this watch... well, maybe not the SBGA027 specifically.
> 
> I would say the pitfall of the spring drive is it is overly complex. Others love the complexity. It is a matter of taste.
> 
> ...


While I agree that the SD is certainly more complicated than a conventional quartz movement, do you think it's any more complicated than a conventional mechanical one?

I'd have said less, since it doesn't have the escapement mechanism. Otherwise, very similar and presumably, therefore, comparable for service intervals, other things being equal (if they ever are).


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

M4tt said:


> The glide wheel on the SD is going bloody fast and has the lateral stresses caused by a spring not to mention the torsional stresses caused by the braking action. In short, I suspect that the SD will be extremely sensitive to poor maintenance but very good at keeping good time until way, way too late.
> 
> I know that many people say leave well alone. The fact is that no current watch oil is doing its job after five or so years. If it were a car engine would anyone seriously leave the same oil in for five years. (well apart from the fact that the car wouldn't make it to five years.
> 
> Quartz watches can gat away with missing services. Anything with a spring, and the resultant forces, cannot.


I believe it is spinning at about the same rate a fast beat mechanical balance wheel oscillates. Reversing direction multiple times per second on a mechanical movement would involve higher stress than the steady spring pressure slowed by periodic braking impulses on a spring drive.

Greater stress on the bearings supporting the spinning rotor could result from it's greater mass not wanting to change positions - like a tiny gyroscope.

I think the spring drive is in the same league as a tourbillon movement, mechnical perpetual calendar or watch with rotating time cubes and a built-in service indicator. All are interesting just because someone conceived of and successfully produced something different, complex and unusual. All provide enjoyment to their owners. But none result in an improved timekeeper.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

artec said:


> While I agree that the SD is certainly more complicated than a conventional quartz movement, do you think it's any more complicated than a conventional mechanical one?
> 
> I'd have said less, since it doesn't have the escapement mechanism. Otherwise, very similar and presumably, therefore, comparable for service intervals, other things being equal (if they ever are).


I agree, it is less complex than a mechanical watch... especially a mechanical perpetual calendar! :-d


----------



## nethskie (Apr 20, 2008)

rex said:


> I beg to differ M4tt...I've heard of countless stories of folks wearing their Rolex for well over 10 and up to 25 years w/out having it overhauled.


i agree because their Rolex watches were on banks or in boxes and vaults :-d


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

nethskie said:


> i agree because their Rolex watches were on banks or in boxes and vaults :-d


Folks I have met who wear Rolexes are often suprised to discover regular service is recommended. In my experience they just keep wearing them and wearing them and wearing them. Of course, these folks are not WISes so probably don't notice (or care) that it no longer keeps chronometer level time...


----------



## larsy (May 16, 2008)

I thought I read somewhere that the only reason why Rolexes can run rather
accurately for so long a time without maintenance is because the have a heavy rotor.
The weight and momentum of the rotor will just grind through even partially
hardened oil and maintain a modicum of accuracy.

But when you take apart the Rolex movement you see the damage done to the parts.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

I'll deny it. 

Modern oils will take decades to harden... well, they are actually not oil but synthetic chemicals.

Anyway, the rotor only winds the mainspring...


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

John MS said:


> I believe it is spinning at about the same rate a fast beat mechanical balance wheel oscillates. Reversing direction multiple times per second on a mechanical movement would involve higher stress than the steady spring pressure slowed by periodic braking impulses on a spring drive.
> 
> Greater stress on the bearings supporting the spinning rotor could result from it's greater mass not wanting to change positions - like a tiny gyroscope.
> 
> I think the spring drive is in the same league as a tourbillon movement, mechnical perpetual calendar or watch with rotating time cubes and a built-in service indicator. All are interesting just because someone conceived of and successfully produced something different, complex and unusual. All provide enjoyment to their owners. But none result in an improved timekeeper.


As far as time-keeping is concerned, I agree that spring-drive, tourbillon etc won't do anything magic. I understand that Spring-drive usually does better than most mechanical watches but that's because the glide-wheel speed control mechanism does a better job than an escapement at controlling the rate at which the spring driving the watch unwinds (which is all either has to do).

I don't think you can compare an automatic-winding rotor to a gyroscope..... the latter runs many, many times faster than the former and the loads caused by precessional torques from the gyroscope depend on very different variables.

An automatic winding mechanism winds a spring just like a hand-wind, and therefore suffers from similar spring-imposed loads, though automatic winding mechanisms allow the use of less heavily loaded springs because the "state of wind" can be kept more nearly constant.

I don't know enough about watch oils (which I'm sure are synthetic) to have any idea how long they can be expected to last. But I don't see why they should behave any differently in a Seiko Spring-drive from they way they'd behave in a conventional mechanical watch........ and therefore they should last equally in both types. Again based on nothing in the way of inside information, I would have thought that if a routine service of a mechanical (or Spring-drive) watch is going to be most effective, all the lubricated parts would have to be separated, cleaned and re-assembled with the same kind of oil as when it was new. And I believe there are many different types of oil used in different parts of a mechanical movement, and by different manufacturers.

I don't think I've added much to this discussion but the whole thing confirms my view that quartz is preferable, at least to me!


----------



## fstshrk (Mar 29, 2007)

I have several Rolex watches. None of them ever required service for lack of accurate timekeeping. My Explorer II was going strong at a net of almost 0 secs/day over many years (8 to be exact) when I damaged the crown tube (used to work and race cars) at which point I sent it in for service.



Eeeb said:


> Folks I have met who wear Rolexes are often suprised to discover regular service is recommended. In my experience they just keep wearing them and wearing them and wearing them. Of course, these folks are not WISes so probably don't notice (or care) that it no longer keeps chronometer level time...


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

artec said:


> As far as time-keeping is concerned, I agree that spring-drive, tourbillon etc won't do anything magic. I understand that Spring-drive usually does better than most mechanical watches but that's because the glide-wheel speed control mechanism does a better job than an escapement at controlling the rate at which the spring driving the watch unwinds (which is all either has to do).
> 
> I don't think you can compare an automatic-winding rotor to a gyroscope..... the latter runs many, many times faster than the former and the loads caused by precessional torques from the gyroscope depend on very different variables.
> 
> ...


I agree with your conclusion. I'm wearing Pulsar PSR 10 that when new might have had an MSRP of $100.00 The watch is rated to 10 seconds accuracy per year. I've had mine on for several weeks now in an informal test and it is indeed performing well within that range of accuracy. I'm still waiting for it to show any difference with the "Atomic Clock".

I'm not knocking the Spring Drive at all. We all buy watches for a lot of reasons other than sheer timekeeping ability. It's a fascinating technical accomplishment, but only an average timekeeper.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

M4tt said:


> The glide wheel on the SD is going bloody fast and has the lateral stresses caused by a spring not to mention the torsional stresses caused by the braking action. In short, I suspect that the SD will be extremely sensitive to poor maintenance but very good at keeping good time until way, way too late.
> 
> ...............


I agree that the glide wheel is spinning bloody fast ...

Many commentators are erroneously comparing the glide wheel to the balance wheel (and even go as far as to compare their speed rates). In the fact, the glide wheel is the escape wheel, being 'the wheel' that is being acted upon (by the electronic brake in one, and the fork in the other) ... which means that the 'escape wheel' is spinning very fast.

Which means that whole train of the spring drive is turning at a much faster rate (all the way to the spring) than a mechanical's with all the added stresses and implications which that entails.

_As a side note: Isn't interesting that Seiko chose the path of inventing a new stronger mainspring than go down, the known and tested, multi-barrel path???_

The spring drive is 10 years old with the current 5R66 automatic module being on the market for only 4 years, so not even Seiko themselves don't know the answers to many of the questions. What I find totally fascinating with the spring drive (now that it works) is it's ability to evolve. As we have seen it increase the power reserve, from the few hours of the prototypes, to the one day of the first commercial, to the current 3 day ... Seiko will be identifying each weak point of the system in their attempt to create,

*The Everlasting Timepiece.* Which is what is their aim. Perhaps oil-less might be the way to go, perhaps different materials for the arbors and holes. In the meantime I am very happy to be part of this experiment.

_One question: Isn't it possible that the cadence braking is being applied at the rim of the glide wheel? It makes more sense._

john


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

abraxas said:


> I agree that the glide wheel is spinning bloody fast ...
> 
> Many commentators are erroneously comparing the glide wheel to the balance wheel (and even go as far as to compare their speed rates). In the fact, the glide wheel is the escape wheel, being 'the wheel' that is being acted upon (by the electronic brake in one, and the fork in the other) ... which means that the 'escape wheel' is spinning very fast.
> 
> ...


I understand that the glide-wheel spins at 8 revs per second. I don't consider 480 rpm "bloody fast". Mechanical watch balance wheels alternate at varying speeds but it seems to me that I've seen specs up to 10 alternations per second (not very sure about that, though).

Even if the glide-wheel does spin faster than a conventional escapement, I don't think that means the rest of the gear train runs any faster. In fact, it can't do so or the hands would move faster, too. The gear ratio between the glide wheel and the rest of the gear train can be selected to suit what the designer needs the speed relationship to be.

As for the Spring Drive evolving, it seems to be the automatic winding module (if that's the right word) that has evolved in improving the reserve from one to three days. I don't buy mechanicals but it seems to me that I've seen ads that claim much longer reserves, so maybe Seiko will develop the SD automatic wind in that direction, too.

If you're talking about cadence braking in the sense that the expression was used before ABS was available to do the on-off-on for us, I don't think the situation is quite the same. We used cadence braking to avoid locking the wheels and to use the load transfer frequency the maximize the available deceleration effect on the whole car.

The quartz braking on the glide-wheel is working to maintain a constant rotational speed, but since the essence of the crystal is a fixed and reliable frequency, that frequency must be used to apply and release the braking effect on the glide-wheel, so, in that sense, although the purpose would not be the same, I suppose you could call it cadence braking. An interesting analogy!

I wish there were more detail about the quartz control and the glide-wheel mechanisms on Spring drive available......very intriguing and it's one of the very few viable alternatives to the escapement in controlling mechanically powered watches.


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

artec said:


> I understand that the glide-wheel spins at 8 revs per second. I don't consider 480 rpm "bloody fast". Mechanical watch balance wheels alternate at varying speeds but it seems to me that I've seen specs up to 10 alternations per second (not very sure about that, though).


Hi Fran,

If I'm right, you're referring to the beat rate of the balance[?]. If this is the case, Seiko/Credor recently released a 12 Beat movement (43,200VPH), in a very expensive piece...










http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&th=1071357&mid=3745445&rid=13302&rev=&reveal=

Maybe this one can lay a claim to inclusion within these here walls:think:

Alex;-)


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

Very Interesting !
I looked up an 'ordinary' Lange & Sohnne watch. It was 21600 'semi oscillations' per hour, which is 6 per second.
I assume that each 'semi oscillation' is 'turn 180 degrees while accelerating to speed and then stopping again'
So the peak speed is 12 half-revs/sec, ie 6 rev-per-second.
So this Rolls-Royce limo is peaking at 25% slower than the Spring-drive (the Credor sports-car is peaking 30% faster), but more important it is subject accelerations peaking at about 72 rpm/second 6 times per second.
Acceleration means stress, so I would have thought that wear and service-requirement on the constant speed spring-drive would be much less than for the Lange.
I think that 'sedate' describes the spring-drive better than 'bloody fast'


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

artec said:


> I understand that the glide-wheel spins at 8 revs per second. I don't consider 480 rpm "bloody fast". Mechanical watch balance wheels alternate at varying speeds but it seems to me that I've seen specs up to 10 alternations per second (not very sure about that, though). ...........


When you compare it to the rate of an everage escape wheel which is under 10 rpm, then it is bloody fast. (The subject of hand-speed does matter because hands can be geared down).



abraxas said:


> ...................
> 
> Many commentators are erroneously comparing the glide wheel to the balance wheel (and even go as far as to compare their speed rates). In the fact, the glide wheel is the escape wheel, being 'the wheel' that is being acted upon (by the electronic brake in one, and the fork in the other) ... which means that the 'escape wheel' is spinning very fast.
> Which means that whole train of the spring drive is turning at a much faster rate (all the way to the spring) than a mechanical's with all the added stresses and implications which that entails.................
> ...


The main point of my post above is that the speed of the glide wheel should not be compared with the speed of the (reversing) balance wheel. The speed of the glide wheel makes it closer to being a flywheel which is what I feel it is ... and Seiko just changed the term.

john


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

abraxas said:


> When you compare it to the rate of an everage escape wheel which is under 10 rpm, then it is bloody fast. (The subject of hand-speed does matter because hands can be geared down).
> 
> The main point of my post above is that the speed of the glide wheel should not be compared with the speed of the (reversing) balance wheel. The speed of the glide wheel makes it closer to being a flywheel which is what I feel it is ... and Seiko just changed the term.
> 
> john


I entirely agree that the balance wheel and the glidewheel are completely different animals. Something that alternates at 6 to 10 hz versus something that has a steady (we hope!) speed (whether it's fast in an absolute sense or not) are not comparable. And I also agree that the glidewheel is much closer to being a flywheel. And since there are no reversals of direction, the glidewheel should use less energy.

However they are both intended to carry out the same job, which is to regulate the rate at which the main spring is allowed to unwind and hence turn the geartrain. In that sense, they are comparable. And in the sense that 480 rpm is 8 hz, bang in the middle between 6 and 10 hz, the usual range of balance-wheels, the frequency is comparable, too.

While I find interesting and admirable the fact that Springdrive is one of the very few viable alternatives to what I must say I find a rather inelegant speed controlling device, the whole thing seems to be an exercize in futility. It's only marginally more accurate than most good conventional mechanical watches, still needs to be kept wound and is still not a patch on even moderately good quartz movements.

After all, in the last analysis, the ultimate purpose of a watch must be accuracy. Generations of brilliant horologists spent their lives trying to improve on what had gone before. Why make artificial difficulties for ourselves instead of pursuing something that is already several generations ahead of the best spring-powered movements, no matter what is used to control it?

What we need is the next generation of real quartz, something that will give us the same sort of improvement that the first quartz did over conventional mechanicals. Then we can play with different case materials, new complications, different user interfaces and so on.

One man's view...... is this sacrilege?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

artec said:


> I entirely agree that the balance wheel and the glidewheel are completely different animals. Something that alternates at 6 to 10 hz versus something that has a steady (we hope!) speed (whether it's fast in an absolute sense or not) are not comparable. And I also agree that the glidewheel is much closer to being a flywheel. And since there are no reversals of direction, the glidewheel should use less energy.
> 
> However they are both intended to carry out the same job, which is to regulate the rate at which the main spring is allowed to unwind and hence turn the geartrain. In that sense, they are comparable. And in the sense that 480 rpm is 8 hz, bang in the middle between 6 and 10 hz, the usual range of balance-wheels, the frequency is comparable, too.
> 
> ...


Not at all, in my opinion. I fully agree. This desire for super-accuracy has driven me to radio-controlled watches, but I agree that seeing another accuracy leap in non-radio-controlled quartz technology would just be great. We know that ± 5 sec./year is now not only achievable (and has been for a long time) but also enjoyed by many owners of thermocompensated quartz watches. If a person reset such a watch twice a year (when adjusting for standard and daylight savings times) to ± 1 second (depending on whether the watch gained or lost time), s/he'd always be within 1 second of the correct time (assuming ± 4 sec./year--often found with the Citizen A660 movement), enough accuracy for even the most hardened HEQ wretch. What I'd like to see is (a) wider availability of such super-precise thermocompensated movements and (b) advances in combining these movements and technology with some neat complications. I guess what I'd really like is a Citizen Campanola--with all that model's neat complications and beautiful dial work--that keeps as good time as their Chronomaster.

_Edit:_ There's something else I'd like to see in such an ideal watch that I forgot about: solar-cell maintenance of the battery. There are lots of "eco-drive" and other solar technology watches out there now, and I'd like to see this technology applied with the HEQ thermocompensated movements. It's true that 5 years between battery changes with the Chronomaster, for example, is pretty good, but I'd really like to see 15 years instead, which seems feasible with solar-cell boosting of the battery. It was once opined on this forum that this might reduce the accuracy potential of such a movement because of the fluctuations to the battery strength, although no one seemed to be sure of whether this would actually happen. If that could be controlled (and it might not even need controlling), then an eco-drive Chronomaster would, in my opinion, be a worthwhile advance.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

"I entirely agree that the balance wheel and the glidewheel are completely different animals. Something that alternates at 6 to 10 hz versus something that has a steady (we hope!) speed (whether it's fast in an absolute sense or not) are not comparable. And I also agree that the glidewheel is much closer to being a flywheel. And since there are no reversals of direction, the glidewheel should use less energy."

JMS>The so-called glidewheel serves at least three functions: 1. It is a rotor in a tiny generator. 2. It is a flywheel whose purpose is to deliver a very smooth seconds hand. 3. It is the disc in an electronic braking system.


"However they are both intended to carry out the same job, which is to regulate the rate at which the main spring is allowed to unwind and hence turn the geartrain."

JMS>Actually I think the regulation is performed by the crystal and IC in the spring drive with the rotor being little more than a slave. The balance wheel and spring on the other hand performs regulation.

"In that sense, they are comparable. And in the sense that 480 rpm is 8 hz, bang in the middle between 6 and 10 hz, the usual range of balance-wheels, the frequency is comparable, too. "

"While I find interesting and admirable the fact that Springdrive is one of the very few viable alternatives to what I must say I find a rather inelegant speed controlling device, the whole thing seems to be an exercize in futility. It's only marginally more accurate than most good conventional mechanical watches, still needs to be kept wound and is still not a patch on even moderately good quartz movements. "

JMS> Agree. It really provides no improvement. If anything it is a step backwards because it is an underperforming quartz timed watch with a shortened power reserve. It is an interesting technical accomplishment in the same way a tourbillon or mechanical perpetual calendar entertains. Rube Goldberg would have been fascinated.

"After all, in the last analysis, the ultimate purpose of a watch must be accuracy. Generations of brilliant horologists spent their lives trying to improve on what had gone before."

JMS>I think that there can be more than one ultimate purpose for a timekeeper. It really depends on ones involvement with the watch. Most watch wearers have no more than a passing interest in whether a watch tracks time to 15 secconds per month or 1 second per year. For them an approximation of time is sufficient. For many others the principal purpose is as a piece of jewelery.


" Why make artificial difficulties for ourselves instead of pursuing something that is already several generations ahead of the best spring-powered movements, no matter what is used to control it?

What we need is the next generation of real quartz, something that will give us the same sort of improvement that the first quartz did over conventional mechanicals. Then we can play with different case materials, new complications, different user interfaces and so on. "

JMS>Agreed.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

I think you guys have summed up my feelings fairly well. I like the description of the spring drive as a Rube Goldberg device. That's nicer than kludge which I have normally used. ;-)


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

Eeeb said:


> I think you guys have summed up my feelings fairly well. I like the description of the spring drive as a Rube Goldberg device. That's nicer than kludge which I have normally used. ;-)


It's funny, there's an English equivalent of Rube Goldberg, called Heath Robinson. I've often wondered whether there was any relationship between them, whether either "inspired" the other!

Actually, I think the balance-wheel and escapement is pretty Rube Goldberg, too. Nowadays it's a triumph of development over design, in rather the same way that the original VW bug was. Until quartz came along, it was a sort of portable, miniaturized, pendulum and the best available way of regulating a spring-powered watch.

Then we get the electrically powered watch and we have a whole new mechanism but with the same problem of making the bloody thing keep time, so here's the tuning fork and, so far best of all, the quartz tuning fork.

All the timing devices I know of ultimately rely on a vibration, ranging from a pendulum the size of the town clock with a frequency of a few vibrations per minute to to atomic clocks with God knows how many million Hz ...... Are there any timing devices that don't rely on vibrations? Something that is inherently different?


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

artec said:


> ...... Are there any timing devices that don't rely on vibrations? Something that is inherently different?


Yeah, water clocks. :-d

john


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

artec said:


> It's funny, there's an English equivalent of Rube Goldberg, called Heath Robinson. I've often wondered whether there was any relationship between them, whether either "inspired" the other!
> 
> Actually, I think the balance-wheel and escapement is pretty Rube Goldberg, too. Nowadays it's a triumph of development over design, in rather the same way that the original VW bug was. Until quartz came along, it was a sort of portable, miniaturized, pendulum and the best available way of regulating a spring-powered watch.
> 
> ...


Our timepieces track the passage of time by displaying to the change in some point of reference. That point of reference could be an oscillating crystal, vibrating tuning fork, rotating balance wheel, dropping sand, dripping water, moving sun shadow, alternating current, etc. Some of these devices don't rely on what we would call vibrations but they all use the change in some reference to track time.


----------



## Bruce Reding (May 5, 2005)

artec said:


> All the timing devices I know of ultimately rely on a vibration, ranging from a pendulum the size of the town clock with a frequency of a few vibrations per minute to to atomic clocks with God knows how many million Hz ...... Are there any timing devices that don't rely on vibrations? Something that is inherently different?


Good question. Except for oddball/low precision methods, such as the sand timer in your Boggle game, etc., I am not aware of any method for timing intervals that does not involve vibration. Older, non-vibratory methods such as clepsydra (water clocks, marked candles) have gone the way of the dodo. The fundamental reason is that it's "easy" to set up a known and constant vibration (nature is full of harmonic oscillators), but it's _extremely _difficult to set up a open loop non-vibratory motion or change that's constant.


----------



## Bruce Reding (May 5, 2005)

Eeeb said:


> I think you guys have summed up my feelings fairly well. I like the description of the spring drive as a Rube Goldberg device. That's nicer than kludge which I have normally used. ;-)


I agree with this assessment.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

.
There is no such 'thing' as time. All there is (and we measure) is speed over distance.

The subject of 'oscillation' versus 'constant motion' is similar to the subject of 'legs' versus 'wheels'. Though wheels make sense, observation shows that nature does not favour them as a method of locomotion. (If memory serves me correct, there are only two instances where nature uses circular propulsion and one of them is in the tail of the human sperm, which does not beat but actually spins in a socket.) As Bruce Reding said, there are vibrations everywhere, or perhaps we only see the vibrations because we are programmed to.

john


----------



## rationaltime (May 1, 2008)

NOV 24, 08

artec> Are there any timing devices that don't rely
on vibrations?

That is an interesting question. It may be just
a matter of semantics (or philosophy). However,
I think there are timing devices that do not
depend on vibrations.

The first, and most obvious of these timing devices
involve the regular re-appearance of identifiable
astronomical objects on the celestial sphere. In
my view these timers do not depend on vibrations
in the normal meaning of the word. While the
application to very short time intervals is 
problematic, I think the use of these objects for
timing is considered neither low precision nor
obsolete by the astronomers who use them today.
Observation of these timers can be used to predict
the occurrence of astronomical events hundreds of
years past or future. On the other hand, over
the course of history I think these astronomical
objects have been the most popular timers for low
precision applications.

abraxas> There is no such "thing" as time. All
there is (and we measure) is speed over distance.

I do not mean to argue, but there is no "speed",
except one. There is only time and distance.
Speed is not measured. It is a number calculated
from other parameters that are measured. I think
there are physical quantities that depend on
rotation rate, but rotation rate is not speed.

That one exception is the speed of light, which
leads us to the next timing device that does not
use vibrations. The interval of interruption
of light by passing astronomical objects can be
and is used to time events or the simultaneity
of events. For timing purposes the light used
in this method and that above consists of photons,
and the color of the photons is not critical to
the timing.

In my view a vibration relates to mechanical
motion. "Vibration" does not equal "harmonic".
Further, because a particular phenomenon can be
described by a harmonic expansion, that does not
make it an oscillator. In this sense, I agree
with the suggestion that the use of harmonic
descriptions may program us to look for oscillatory
behavior. For example, while it may be convenient
to use harmonic descriptions of light, that does
not make light an oscillator or a vibration. I
think using light to read a clock does not imply
the clock uses vibrations. I also think using
dividers in the construction of a clock does not
imply the clock uses vibrations.

What about atomic clocks? While in current
implementations the reference may be driven by
and read from an oscillator, the time base is
essentially the difference between two energy
levels measured over multiple atoms. That does
not make the atoms oscillators. From the point
of view of the clock these energy levels are
"open loop". I would allow that the time base
could be considered to be a non vibrating source.
I suppose the energy levels might be described
by a harmonic expansion, and the claim made
that the levels themselves reflect oscillatory
behavior. I would allow that point of view
also. This is getting pretty far from high end
quartz. It may be best to allow both points of
view.

The point here not to argue, but to consider
time bases that use non-vibrating physical
phenomena. While these may not turn into
watches, I hope you find this interesting.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

rationaltime said:


> NOV 24, 08
> 
> artec> Are there any timing devices that don't rely
> on vibrations?
> ...


Can't argue that the one absolute is the speed of light, so if we have a distance that we can rely on, the speed and the distance give us time. Unfortunately any device that measures the speed of light tends to be a little cumbersome, and distances that are great enough to be used with the speed of light are likely to be both enormous and very difficult to measure with sufficient accuracy.

So distance and speed of light could be used as an ultimate reference, but not, unfortunately capable of use even in an ordinary lab, let alone a house or a wrist.

I should have defined the terms in my question better.

I can't help thinking there's something out there between the speed of light and harmonic motion!


----------



## fstshrk (Mar 29, 2007)

Ahem, ,....

Speed of light depends on the material that it is traveling in at the very least


----------



## Sideshow_Bob (Nov 5, 2008)

Sorry artec, time is not defined by speed of light and distance, but distance is defined by speed of light and time. And the time is defined by a vibration!

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

If we talk about "speed of light" we mean "speed of light in vacuum".

Greetings, Marcel


----------



## breitlingso08 (Jun 14, 2008)

I believe most of you are on the right path here. On one side i will tell you that i've had a 1968 hamilton thinomatic since my father gave it to me. it has NEVER had a service. but i have a newer hamilton khaki x-wind that needed a service after 3 years. i think it is a toss up. seiko produces some pretty robust watches that last for a long time. my seiko diver auto and my citizen auto diver have taken a beating worse than most of us believe they should have, and still no service yet. its the luck of the draw, but its a pretty big gamble with the price of a spring drive.


----------



## drster (Sep 18, 2007)

*Well, at least Seiko gives it a 3 yr warranty ...*

so that bodes well. I had a Rolex watch in the 70's and 80's and it never went more than 5 yrs between service which was necessitated by it's losing over 20 sec./day. In those days service was between $150-$225 and took a few weeks. I also had a mechanical Breitling in the 80's-90's and it too went about 5 yrs between services. And I just was traded an Omega Aqua Terra 2500 cal. 6 mo. old and it needs to be regulated now, losing 15 sec/day. It's the luck of the draw. Anyway, my year old Spring Drive is spot on. You measure the accuracy in sec/month, not day.


----------

