# Spring Drive movements... What differences between cal. 5R66 & 9R66?



## Zoodles95

*HI All,*

* I don't know it a Spring Drive movement would be considered as a HEQ or not. Some consider these guys to be autos while others say they are quartz. Either way I feel that they are a really cool technology. I hope you don't mind me asking about these here. I was wondering what (if any) difference there is between the cal. 5R66 used in the SD 600 diver and the 9R66 used in the Grand Seiko Spring Drive GMT watch.*

*Any info is greatly appreciated...*

* Thanks!:thanks*

*SD 600 and GS SD GMT... Cal. 5R66 versus 9R66?* 
Just curious... From what I understand the SD movement is essentially hand built:
http://www.watchtime.com/search/inde...ll&Terms=seiko
If this movement is essentially the same in both watches:

















Then what is the big difference with a Grand Seiko Spring Drive versus a Prospex Spring Drive?

Here is a watch you can find for around $3000:

























































Versus another watch that runs $4500-$5000:

























































I am just curious if Seiko does anything different with a Spring Drive movement that is going into a Grand Seiko model. Certainly the details on the GMT are out of this world and I am sure that the fit and finish on this model is first rate. Then again from what I can tell the SD 600 is a wonderfully made watch as well. Just look at the pics in Ty and Petew's review:
http://www.orientalwatchsite.com/for....php?f=6&t=824
So, what (if anything) is different inside the GS SD GMT versus the SD 600? The SD 600 says that it is a cal. 5R66 while the GS SD GMT says it is a cal. 9R66. I wonder just how different they are?

Just curious....


----------



## roba

*I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

The same Spring Drive movements are used in the Galante, Credor, Grand Seiko and Prospex lines. Each of these has a different finish style. The Grand Seiko is finished in a more "Swiss" traditional style and the Credor looks more obviously machine finished (functionally every bit as good as the GS - just a different look).

I'll try to get some photos my my SD Credor movement and post them later today.


----------



## Zoodles95

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*



roba said:


> The same Spring Drive movements are used in the Galante, Credor, Grand Seiko and Prospex lines. Each of these has a different finish style. The Grand Seiko is finished in a more "Swiss" traditional style and the Credor looks more obviously machine finished (functionally every bit as good as the GS - just a different look).
> 
> I'll try to get some photos my my SD Credor movement and post them later today.


I find this very interesting. Typically Grand Seikos have had "higher end" movements than other watches as the "flagship" line for Seiko. Then again Spring Drive is a "highend" line in general for Seiko. I find it weird that Seiko would use a higher calibre for the same movement which is more decorated. Then again though the Marine Master uses the 8L35 movement which (from what I understand) is an undecorated Grand Seiko movement.

I would love to see pics of your SD Credor movement.|> If you could post a video sometime showing the continuous "sweep" of that second hand that would be amazing as well.

Thanks for the information!


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

I read the linked article in Watch Times and found it an interesting piece of Seiko PR work. But it is a little bit short on real history. It reminds me of the claims the old comrades of the CCCP used to make that they had invented everything first...

I don't know if any of you ever got curious about my icon. This explains it:
http://www.wiglaf.org/~aaronm/watches/hpm-en.pdf.

I chose it as it as an icon because it is an interesting bit of HEQ history. It is a picture of the High Precision Mechanics - HPM - a self winding mechanical movement with quartz precision. *It *was the first oscillator controlled mechanical movement; developed about 20 years ago by Jean-Jacques Born, Rudolf Dinger, and Pierre-André Farine at Asulab, Swatch's R&D group.

Thumbnailed below is a higher resolution version of the icon.

I suspect the HPM was never put into production because, from an engineering standpoint, it is a kludge, as is the Seiko Spring Drive.

Once you have the quartz oscillator generating timing signals, there is no necessity for a main-spring driven mechanical movement. Stepping motors can easily drive the analog display. Building a high quality movement using stepping motors is simpler and more exact.

Apparently the Swatch management didn't perceive the strange emotional appeal of having a bunch of meshing and twitching mechanicals on your wrist. (Hold off!!! I'm not immune to it either. I just plunked down what is to me a big chunk of change for a NOS 1960 Tissot 17 jeweled mechanical with a pristine 14kt case. :-! My only regret on my mechanicals is they don't have transparent backs so I can SEE those mechanicals!)

What management did bring out of the HPM was the generator mechanism. They built the ETA Autoquartz line around it.

I do like the continuous second hand sweep you get with the HPM system. My Bulova Accuquartz is the only quartz I have with that.

(The Accuquartz was Bulova's Accutron tuning fork being controlled by a quartz oscillator. They did it, I think, because it was a quick, cheap graft they could do that would compete with the quartz watches that were destroying their 'high accuracy' nitch product. Like the Spring Drive, it too is a kludge.)

I have often wondered why someone doesn't build a quartz watch that triggers the stepping motor 8 times a second (hey, they are binary triggers) rather than 1 time a second. It might consume more power (but not 8x the power) but it would give a nicer sweep (and it would make time hacking easier for us accuracy nuts! I can hack my mechanicals sooo much easier).

I suspect the timing of Seiko's Spring Drive efforts have less to do with an internal development coming to fruition and more to do with the expiration of Swatch's patents.

... and now WatchUSeek HEQ readers have 'the rest of the story'


----------



## Bruce Reding

_Very _interesting bit of history, Jim! Your speculation about the Swiss patents is not one that I'd heard before, but feels plausible. Unfortunately, your link didn't work for me.

Your read on the Bulova design is mine as well -- it was an "easy" (in the sense that they already had all the tooling) way of moving the hands in an era before steppers. Of course now it seems almost unimaginably complicated. Do you have a pic of your Accuquartz? If so, how about posting it as a new thread (so as not to hijack this one)? I'd love to see it. A very interesting transitional piece.


----------



## Eeeb

Bruce Reding said:


> _Very _interesting bit of history, Jim! Your speculation about the Swiss patents is not one that I'd heard before, but feels plausible. Unfortunately, your link didn't work for me.
> 
> Your read on the Bulova design is mine as well -- it was an "easy" (in the sense that they already had all the tooling) way of moving the hands in an era before steppers. Of course now it seems almost unimaginably complicated. Do you have a pic of your Accuquartz? If so, how about posting it as a new thread (so as not to hijack this one)? I'd love to see it. A very interesting transitional piece.


The file is a pdf... It took me a while to get my Firefox and Adobe set up to allow downloads. Here it is attached as a thumbnail... if that works?!?


----------



## roba

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

Found 'em - some quick and dirty shots...



























These show the very machine finished look of the Credor movement. Very nicely done but nothing like "traditional" Swiss finishing. (The Credor symbol on the winding rotor is cut all the way through.)


----------



## rex

Bruce, it's an Adobe pdf file...Dunno why it didn't open for you, but email me if you like, and I'll try to download on my computer and send it back to you via email...Then it might open. It's a very interesting read! Let me know...


----------



## Zoodles95

Seiko might not have been the first with this design but my understanding is that they dabbled with these ideas in the 1970s and have had prototypes since then. The race to the first quartz watches had the Swiss conglomeration, Seiko etc making their prototypes.

The linked article was very interesting and maybe Seiko isn't the first. Odds are though that Seiko was doing all this stuff internally for a long, long time.


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*



roba said:


> Found 'em - some quick and dirty shots...


Exquisite, Robert! :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

rex said:


> Bruce, it's an Adobe pdf file...Dunno why it didn't open for you, but email me if you like, and I'll try to download on my computer and send it back to you via email...Then it might open. It's a very interesting read! Let me know...


This isn't working either. Very frustrating! :-| The e-mail would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

Trying to keep things threaded... over in
https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=498194#poststop 
M4tt said:


> Eeb, going back to the assertion that Seiko copied ETA when designing the Springdrive. Are you sure that this is the case?
> 
> I remember that, when I first researched the Springdrive, I was rather surprised at how long the movement had been under development. I'm pretty sure that all of the conceptual and most of the technical work on the Springdrive predates the HPM project.
> 
> As it stands this is only anecdotal and I would have to rediscover my sources to be sure - I am open to correction but I'm pretty sure the dates don't line up.
> 
> It would be just like those inscrutable Swiss - or maybe it is another example of that 'formative causation' so beloved of Sheldrake.


One of course can never be sure about these things. Prior Art is the source of lively 'discussion' in patent lawsuits. But, AFAIK, Seiko said nothing about the Spring Drive and it's development until the product was introduced. Then they claimed to be the unique developer of the idea, at least in the WatchTime article quoted at the beginning of this thread.

But Swatch has been quite open for quite a while about it's efforts. And, assuming they were honest in their published paper, the efforts had been developed to the point of proof of concept testing for multiple years prior to the paper being published.

The designs are so similar as to be inferentially infringing. Possibly a coincidence. These things do happen.

It seems strange that, if the Swiss stole the idea from Seiko, that they would publish it years ago. So I suspect the Swiss are guiltless.

If Seiko stole if from the Swiss, they would do what they did - claim they did it all by themselves and never mention the other efforts.

That's no proof that they did steal the ideas... But, combined with the lack of respect for intellectual property that pervades Asian businesses and the detailed similarity of the designs, it makes me wonder.

If you see something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flys like a duck, you are usually right when you call it a duck :-d

As to your Sheldrake reference, I spent a few minutes on Wikipedia trying to figure him out. My immediate impression was he is a loon ;-) But on this, and most other topics, I am open to being convinced otherwise... At least I hope I am.


----------



## M4tt

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

Sheldrake is, without doubt, a loon. However he is a loon with a double starred first from Cambridge who managed to get a fellowship there - which makes him a high calibre loon! While formative causation seems nuts, it is worth observing that standard 'Humean constant conjunction' causation also has roots as shaky as Birnam Wood - and as you say: 'these things do happen'. Sheldrake just tried to give an account of how.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the HPM v Springdrive debate.

I've now read the HPM paper you provided and yes, it is quite similar to the SpringDrive. However I am a little confused about the dates. The paper itself refers to a paper from 1997 and so I assume it is from around that point. It mentions that the movements have been trialled for a couple of years and it mentions a very different movement from 1987 - I don't see any other dates, have I missed one?

The movement that it adapts to make the HPM is a 2824 which were introduced in 1982. So the earliest possible date for this project is 1982. However the date I infer from the paper is much later, around the early to mid nineties. This would seem to fit the nature of the paper which discusses a work in progress not a historical project.

I noticed no mention of the SpringDrive project. It does however make reference to two patents; A Swiss one: Wiget (1996) and a Japanese one: Xuan and Taghezout (1989). Oddly, this patent seems to have been incorrectly referenced in the paper and took a bit of finding at the US patent office.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that, once you have located the patent and cross referenced it with other patents it becomes abundantly clear that these two gentlemen work for Seiko and worked on the SpringDrive project - a fact that could potentially be rather embarrassing to Asulab.

So, unless I have missed a date mentioned in the article the HPM project looks to have been started in the early nineties, have produced test watches and a patent in the mid nineties and have written a paper about it in 1997 (or later). The one Seiko patent mentioned in the article dates from the late eighties.

I have now spent a while digging through the patents database. It is an irritating and inconsistent mess. The search is not helped by the fact that both the HPM and the Springdrive rely on a number of prior technologies. The idea of using a quartz signal to control a low frequency source (in this case a tuning fork - the same concept, just reciprocating rather than rotational) is first patented by Seiko in 1969. (the year that, coincidentally, they produced the world's first commercially available quartz watch) The idea of using a spring to power a generator just disappears into a morass of much earlier patents that are unrelated to watches.

The idea of a watch sized system using a quartz source to magnetically control a flywheel and using the electromagnetic breaking action to power the quartz and the control circuit only really comes together in two seminal papers.

One comes from Asulab (1996):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5517469

The other from Seiko(1989):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/4799003

I know that the Seiko patent doesn't mention the word watch, but if you read the patent this is clearly a proto SpringDrive.

I also observe that the Seiko patent mentions an earlier Swiss attempt as prior art but it is no impediment to the patent as it is a large high energy high speed system which would be unsuitable for a clock, let alone a watch. This system is not mentioned in the Asulab patent and was not developed by them.

The point is that while Seiko and ETA were both clearly working on a SpringDrive like watch throughout the 1990s it seems clear to me that Seiko were in the lead and repeatedly got the defining patents in first.

Thus, when it is stated that:



> I suspect the timing of Seiko's Spring Drive efforts have less to do with an internal development coming to fruition and more to do with the expiration of Swatch's patents. ... and now WatchUSeek HEQ readers have 'the rest of the story'


I'm not at all sure that this is correct. None of the directly relevant patents have expired. (they last twenty years) As far as I can ascertain, the patents which allowed Seiko to apply for a patent on the SpringDrive in 2002 were in place prior to any Asulab patents.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=RE38110&OS=RE38110&RS=RE38110

Given that it is established that Asulab cannot have started work on the HPM until 1982 and almost definitely did not start until ten years later, any patents which would have confounded the Seiko patent would have been less than twenty years old and thus in force at the time of application.

The fact is that, as often happens when a complex technology is being slowly and systematically developed, there are a paper chase of interconnected patents going back to the late sixties. These patents appear to be strong evidence that Seiko's official history is kosher.

The first evidence I can find that Asulab were working on the HPM does not appear until the mid nineties. This is a long time after many of the relevant Seiko patents. Thus the simplest explanation of why the HPM was not commercially produced is that Seiko got there first with most of the partial patents and ultimately with the full patent.


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

Excellent research :-! (Gack, but it must have taken some time!)

I stand corrected!! It shows with certitude Seiko had indeed been working with a parallel effort. And that they made it to the Patent Office first.

Having been involved in some litigation in this area I note that getting the patent first is not necessarily definitive. But it makes your lawyers more confident 

I still think the HPM and the Spring Drive are kludges. Stepping motors are a much better technology to drive an analog display. But what I think drove the Spring Drive into it's recent introduction isn't based on technology.

At this point in time, the market seems to love clickity clacks (hey, I'm tired of being derided as a quartzie without 'soul' ... this is my way of striking back at the mechanical bigots :-d). And the Spring Drive is a way of getting buy in into that market which Seiko has largely missed.

As an aside for those that missed it, Congress just passed in the House a new Patent Law. They decided patents and their subsequent litigation were being used to sniffle innovation rather than encourage it (which is the whole point of patents). According to news reports, it substantially lessens the ability of patent holders to interfere with 'infringers' in the hopes of damping the rash of current litigation.

Of course, that may not be right. Sometimes the news gets it as wrong as I did about Seiko. (Sorry Mr. Seiko. Please accept my apology... you're not a duck )


----------



## Bruce Reding

Matt,

It may be days before I have enough time to really sit down and digest it all (which I hate, but the wife has certain expectations around when we're going to complete our house remodelling), but I just wanted to acknowledge your excellent contribution, which was obviously a lot of sleuthing, careful analysis, and plain old fashioned work. Thank you sir! :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



Eeeb said:


> I still think the HPM and the Spring Drive are kludges. Stepping motors are a much better technology to drive an analog display. But what I think drove the Spring Drive into it's recent introduction isn't based on technology.


I agree with this. To my way of thinking, the SD is an hypercomplex way of driving the hands that resurrects the need for precision trains that have extreme sideloads. To me, if you wanted to get rid of the battery, solar is the obviously superior way. Having said that, they are quite the electromechanical tours-de-force, and the movements are pretty.



Eeeb said:


> As an aside for those that missed it, Congress just passed in the House a new Patent Law. They decided patents and their subsequent litigation were being used to sniffle innovation rather than encourage it (which is the whole point of patents). According to news reports, it substantially lessens the ability of patent holders to interfere with 'infringers' in the hopes of damping the rash of current litigation.


I've been interested in getting the summary here as well. The ability to legally exclude others from your property provides a lot of incentive to innovate. Having said that, the laws can be worked. Lemelson was one of the most severe abusers. But it must be said that the system is worked by many.


----------



## allanvalle

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



M4tt said:


> The point is that while Seiko and ETA were both clearly working on a SpringDrive like watch throughout the 1990s it seems clear to me that Seiko were in the lead and repeatedly got the defining patents in first.


BRAVO M4TT!!!! THank you for setting the record straight and giving due credit where credit is deserved. :thanks


----------



## M4tt

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

WOW!

Thanks for all the positive comments and pm. I'm glad you all liked it. As is so often the case the SD is on my 'love but cannot quite justify' list as such I keep fairly well up on it while I wait for the prices to drop to sanity levels and questions of longer term reliability to answer themselves.

Eeb is right, the SD is a kludge, but hey, not as much of a Kludge as the human brain (and at least the SD is an elegant Kludge)

There's a quote about 'the superficial design faults obscuring the fundamental design faults' but I cannot remember it, attribute it or find it.

Thanks to all for the compliments, it really means something coming from HEQWIS!


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



M4tt said:


> ...
> 
> Thanks to all for the compliments, it really means something coming from HEQWIS!


And let me add, it's a nice environment to be wrong in! Most groups in the Internet would have been mean and nasty. The HEQWIS weren't :-!

I promise when I can get a new Spring Drive for the most I've ever paid for a watch, I'll get one, just to remind myself I can be wrong... of course, I don't think they'll make $625 any time soon!! :-d


----------



## M4tt

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

In my experience, it is when you make a mistake that you learn the most.
I cannot ever see any reason to be nasty to someone who is committed to learning.

Let's face it, that's how libraries breed - and we always need more of them!

(or alternatively, I just remember all the times I have confidently spouted absolute nonsense!;-))


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

|>


Eeeb said:


> And let me add, it's a nice environment to be wrong in! Most groups in the Internet would have been mean and nasty. The HEQWIS weren't :-!


High praise, Jim. My conjectures have been disproven any number of times. I've never viewed this forum as a venue for people to flaunt their superior knowledge. Rather, it's a bunch of sharp guys (and a few gals have participated as well) that have struggled mightily to build up knowledge in a very obscure and difficult to track area. When the forum first started (which was well before the first threads in the current forum), we didn't even know how the Thermolines worked. There was much discussion and evidence brought forth by a lot of folks before we were finally able to definitively conclude that ETA was using what we're now calling a digital count subtraction method. It was a great example of the community working together to build a much greater degree of knowledge than any one of us started with. May it remain that way! |>


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

I did just find a reference in Doensen's Watch (p 174) that says ETA filed a Swiss patent in 1972 for something that is described as an automatic watch with a mechanical spring in which the balance and escapement have been replaced with a small generator. The generator is speed controlled by a quartz oscillator. The generator either charges a capacitor or is shorted to provide braking. Doensen says it was code named 'Gnomon'.

Sounds like the HPM was based on this 1972 patent.

ETA may very well have beaten Seiko to the patent office... but it is clear both were working on this for a long time.

Interesting...


----------



## Bruce Reding

Just read that. What a resource that book is!


----------



## M4tt

Unfortunately, I do not have access to that particular book, and have had precious little luck finding the patent you mention in the Swiss section of the European patent office. Frankly this is such a mess that I have to admit that my failure says more about the European patent office than anything else.

That said, I would observe that the 'Gnomon' (sundial?) would have been a rather significant piece of prior art. As we know Asulab was the baby of ETA and, the 1972 patent was also from ETA. The obvious question then is; why doesn't Asulab mention the Gnomon in any of their patent applications.

The Gnomon patent would have remained current until 1992. The Seiko patent was awarded in 1989. If the Gnomon patent had been viable it would have precluded the Seiko patent.

If the Gnomon project is as described then it would have killed the Seiko project stone dead and given precedence to the Asulab project. The only explanation I can think of is that the Gnomon project simply was not viable and offered nothing of value to the Asulab project.

As I mentioned in my first post:



> I also observe that the Seiko patent mentions an earlier Swiss attempt as prior art but it is no impediment to the patent as it is a large high energy high speed system which would be unsuitable for a clock, let alone a watch. This system is not mentioned in the Asulab patent and was not developed by them.


I cannot be sure but I think it is a fair assumption that this would be the Gnomon project - unless, of course, there is another project lurking in the wings! Obviously, Asulab would not want to mention a prior failure while Seiko would want to mention it precisely to throw the difference between the two approaches into relief.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Doensen's book is excellent, and can be had on eBay among other places. However, the book exists pretty much in toto on line as well. Check out the third post in the References sticky. The discussion is in section "M". Unfortunately, he does not give actual patent numbers.

You raise good points. Doensen is an excellent reference. I've found, however, that one has to triangulate from many directions before one can feel confident about a conclusion. Heck, even Omega makes some incorrect statements about the MC 2400 on their own website.


----------



## Eeeb

Bruce Reding said:


> Doensen's book is excellent, and can be had on eBay among other places. However, the book exists pretty much in toto on line as well. Check out the third post in the References sticky. The discussion is in section "M". Unfortunately, he does not give actual patent numbers.
> 
> You raise good points. Doensen is an excellent reference. I've found, however, that one has to triangulate from many directions before one can feel confident about a conclusion. Heck, even Omega makes some incorrect statements about the MC 2400 on their own website.


It was on the 'stickies' recommendation that I went online and found Watch... I had to get it from the Netherlands as no US source was affordable.

I am amazed at the amount of information in that book. And the pictures (missing from the online version) have attracted even family members who think I have gone off my rocker with this watch obsession :-d

It is a great 'coffee table' book. I even got a signed copy!! |>

As to how accurate Watch is, I haven't seen anything but praise for the book from WISes. That said, few things are 100% accurate.

Back to the issue at hand Doensen is rather clear in stating the 1972 patent was for a watch...

Regarding Seiko getting a patent in 1989 that would have been precluded by the 1972 Swiss patent... I have found many patents are issued which later examination shows were issued in error. The applicant has a lot of advantage in that they get to form the application while the examiner may not have the resources to find prior conflicts.

I am not sure Asulab and ETA were under the same ownership in 1972. That may throw a complication. Still if the 1972 patent is as Doensen describes it, the HPM is a successful implementation of Gnomon. So it is hard to argue Gnomon was a failure...

Sitting back and reviewing all the data to date makes me think my original assertion was correct. Seiko waited to introduce the Spring Drive until the Swiss patents had expired.

But again, researching facts and discussing them and coming at the problem from as many angles as possible is the best way to come to supportable conclusions.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Eeeb said:


> It is a great 'coffee table' book. I even got a signed copy!! |>


Envy envy envy. :-d I noticed signed copies were on Ebay after I got mine. Oh well. At least I got Rene Rondeau to sign my copy of his excellent book on Hamilton electrics.



Eeeb said:


> I have found many patents are issued which later examination shows were issued in error. The applicant has a lot of advantage in that they get to form the application while the examiner may not have the resources to find prior conflicts.


This field is so small that it would be a bit surprising to me that the examiner would miss it, but it is indeed a fact that this sometimes happens. Also, one can get patents on improvements.



Eeeb said:


> Sitting back and reviewing all the data to date makes me think my original assertion was correct. Seiko waited to introduce the Spring Drive until the Swiss patents had expired.


I have e-mailed Doensen to see if he could share his sources with us. On the fifty percent chance that it gets through his spam filter (I've never emailed him before), there's a fifty percent chance that he'll answer. I'll keep the forum informed.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Bruce Reding said:


> I have e-mailed Doensen to see if he could share his sources with us. On the fifty percent chance that it gets through his spam filter (I've never emailed him before), there's a fifty percent chance that he'll answer. I'll keep the forum informed.


Pieter Doensen has kindly replied and he said he will attempt to look up his sources and the patent number. He warned me that he did this work ten years ago, so he wasn't totally sure he'd be able to dig them up.


----------



## M4tt

That's really good news Bruce, although I have to admit that another bout of wading through patents is not hugely appealing! 

I think Eeb and I have agreed to disagree - there certainly doesn't seem to be a 'smoking gun' for either point of view as things stand - What we do agree about is that this technology and it's spin offs, while a kludge, are definitely fascinating.


----------



## Torrid

While I haven't put much thought into it because I was mostly amazed by the design of this movement, I didn't really look as far as thinking it was almost redundant. I know the idea of a quartz with a replaceable battery, while reliable creates waste by the disposable battery, but quartz is the accuracy solution. This battery issue has been solved in a couple ways, the development of Kinetic/autoquartz and solar and the 1 second tick of a quartz is not sophisticated enough for some watch enthusiasts. I really don't feel one way or another about quartz when compared to mechanicals, but so far I've been more attached to Seiko's Kinetic/quartz. Personally from my great experiences with Seiko's Kinetic movements, I'll keep buying, which I've had one that hasn't been serviced and has been running almost constantly the last 8-9 years, not to mention a watch being worn even this long in the sub-$300 category, if I didn't care to keep it the price to me would be disposable after that much use. I like the idea of the Spring Drive movements and I'd really like to own a SD Marine Master, but what are the real positives other than a high quality watch? Does this movement make for longer service intervals? Would this be something they developed that I could wear for 30, 50, or even 70 years with minor upkeep, pressure tests, and seal replacement when necessary? The one purchase I'd like to make in the next year is a fine timepiece that I can knock around in my everyday life and share my experiences with that I can still look at in my retired years and just admire, knowing it has been along for every step of the way. I know accuracy is a strong reason for the design of the SD, quartz accuracy with a romanticized mechanical movement and the one report I've seen of the accuracy was -1 second a week, exactly what I'm getting out of my Kinetic diver, which I might even wear until it dies, but if I do go the way of the SD, if I'm going to need to service it every 5 years like the typical mechanical, I might save a few bucks and purchase another Omega, the 2254 Seamaster, which I think the black dial is a little more my style than the Bond SMP that I already sold. For the sake of rambling, I apologize, this is something I have been thinking about as I'm not the type of guy that wants a lot of watches, I'd prefer to have a couple random watches, but that one that has bared the brunt of duty for the majority of my life.


----------



## obijohn

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



Bruce Reding said:


> I agree with this. To my way of thinking, the SD is an hypercomplex way of driving the hands that resurrects the need for precision trains that have extreme sideloads. To me, if you wanted to get rid of the battery, solar is the obviously superior way. Having said that, they are quite the electromechanical tours-de-force, and the movements are pretty.


Just wanted to comment on this very interesting thread. The reason Swatch and Seiko have come up with a quartz-regulated mechanical movement is clear (it's even mentioned in the referenced paper): mechanical watches that do not require storage handle extreme environmental conditions better than electrically-driven watches.

The Seiko Kinetic and Citizen Eco-Drive are the two best examples of electronic watches that use rotors as generators, but even these two watches have batteries (or capacitors) that must eventually be replaced. The capacitor on the Spring Drive is really used to stabilize the current more than as a battery, and should last for decades, if not at least a century.

I don't understand how the Spring Drive movements are significantly more expensive than the standard Seiko automatic mechanical movements; they should actually be easier to make. Actually, I do understand; Seiko would be idiotic to sell the Spring Drives for a low price when they can sell all they can make for a higher price.

I think that in a decade or so Spring Drives or HPMs or variants of these designs will be the predominant movement type found in high end watches... most likely by having the current high end movements modified, replacing the escapement with the balance wheel/generator/feedback mechanism. In fact, one has to wonder if someone (Rolex? Breitling?) has prototypes in-house, waiting for any applicable patents to expire.

Oh, BTW, I think that using a stepper motor is a kludge in that the approach is 'digitizing' an inherently analog process (the displaying of time progressing). A major appeal of the Spring Drive is its smooth second hand, perhaps a subconscious appeal to our innnate understanding of the passage of time as continuous rather than discrete.


----------



## Catalin

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



obijohn said:


> ...
> I don't understand how the Spring Drive movements are significantly more expensive than the standard Seiko automatic mechanical movements; they should actually be easier to make. Actually, I do understand; Seiko would be idiotic to sell the Spring Drives for a low price when they can sell all they can make for a higher price.
> 
> I think that in a decade or so Spring Drives or HPMs or variants of these designs will be the predominant movement type found in high end watches... most likely by having the current high end movements modified, replacing the escapement with the balance wheel/generator/feedback mechanism. In fact, one has to wonder if someone (Rolex? Breitling?) has prototypes in-house, waiting for any applicable patents to expire.
> ...


Well, you nailed the first one - marketing is 99% of pricing and not technology ;-)

However I can bet that the first to get low-cost 'springdrive-like' models on the market will not be the swiss but instead the chinese :-d


----------



## webvan

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



obijohn said:


> I think that in a decade or so Spring Drives or HPMs or variants of these designs will be the predominant movement type found in high end watches... most likely by having the current high end movements modified, replacing the escapement with the balance wheel/generator/feedback mechanism.


While I'm a big fan of SD and especially the gliding seconds hand, I'm not sure I'm following, why would Rolex, Patek or Vacheron want to use a quartz regulator?


----------



## BetaMark

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



Bruce Reding said:


> I agree with this. To my way of thinking, the SD is an hypercomplex way of driving the hands that resurrects the need for precision trains that have extreme sideloads. To me, if you wanted to get rid of the battery, solar is the obviously superior way. Having said that, they are quite the electromechanical tours-de-force, and the movements are pretty.
> 
> I've been interested in getting the summary here as well. The ability to legally exclude others from your property provides a lot of incentive to innovate. Having said that, the laws can be worked. Lemelson was one of the most severe abusers. But it must be said that the system is worked by many.


Bruce,

Seiko has stated that their objective in developing the Spring Drive was to improve on the technology used by the classic mechanical watch movement. Inasmuch as they've eliminated the lever escapement from this design, 
I'd have to argue that - at a strictly mechanical level at least - they have succeeded in simplifying the movement, as opposed to having made it "hypercomplex."

I'm neither a quartz nor mechanical bigot, and I choose to see the Spring Drive as an elegant marriage of the two technologies. Having said that, I've little doubt that all the time and effort that went into R & D of the Spring Drive could've been put towards developing a more conventional quartz watch, but one with a high-resolution stepper motor that would do a fine job of at least mimicking a stepless motion of the hands.


----------



## John MS

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



> Just wanted to comment on this very interesting thread. The reason Swatch and Seiko have come up with a quartz-regulated mechanical movement is clear (it's even mentioned in the referenced paper): mechanical watches that do not require storage handle extreme environmental conditions better than electrically-driven watches.


I suspect the real reason Seiko developed the SD and marketed it the way they did was more fundamental and market based. The SD is a way for Seiko to break out of it's home-based market for high-end watches. If the Spring Drive catches on Seiko will be able to move beyond the middle-market image that Seiko has so carefully groomed in markets like the USA and Europe.



> The Seiko Kinetic and Citizen Eco-Drive are the two best examples of electronic watches that use rotors as generators, but even these two watches have batteries (or capacitors) that must eventually be replaced. The capacitor on the Spring Drive is really used to stabilize the current more than as a battery, and should last for decades, if not at least a century.





> I don't understand how the Spring Drive movements are significantly more expensive than the standard Seiko automatic mechanical movements; they should actually be easier to make. Actually, I do understand; Seiko would be idiotic to sell the Spring Drives for a low price when they can sell all they can make for a higher price.


They sell them at a higher price because it is part of a move to broaden their presence in the high-end watch market. They get away with it in the same way that Rolex and other high-end brands do. And advertising in pricey mqagazines costs money...



> I think that in a decade or so Spring Drives or HPMs or variants of these designs will be the predominant movement type found in high end watches... most likely by having the current high end movements modified, replacing the escapement with the balance wheel/generator/feedback mechanism. In fact, one has to wonder if someone (Rolex? Breitling?) has prototypes in-house, waiting for any applicable patents to expire.


I suspect the quartz timed SD will remain as a movement with niche appeal. The true mechanical movement with a mechanical escapement has far broader appeal among watch collectors and owners of high-end watches. The appeal of high-end and exotic mechanical watch movements has been a part of watch selling for a long long time. Watch makers have tailored their marketing to that reality and it isn't going to change much in our lifetime.



> Oh, BTW, I think that using a stepper motor is a kludge in that the approach is 'digitizing' an inherently analog process (the displaying of time progressing). A major appeal of the Spring Drive is its smooth second hand, perhaps a subconscious appeal to our innnate understanding of the passage of time as continuous rather than discrete.


$5k seems to be a steep price for a quartz timed watch with a smooth seconds hand given that it has a drastically shortened power reserve and only average accuracy by quartz watch standards. Although a smooth running seconds hand is certainly enjoyable to view, it's worth remembering the seconds hand serves principally to alert the watch owner that the movement is running. Secondarily it allows the watch owner to check movement accuracy.

A spring powered watch with an electro-mechanical feedback loop might have appealed to Rube Goldberg had he taken up watch making.


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



John MS said:


> $5k seems to be a steep price for a quartz timed watch with a smooth seconds hand given that it has a drastically shortened power reserve and only average accuracy by quartz watch standards. Although a smooth running seconds hand is certainly enjoyable to view, it's worth remembering the seconds hand serves principally to alert the watch owner that the movement is running. Secondarily it allows the watch owner to check movement accuracy.
> 
> A spring powered watch with an electro-mechanical feedback loop might have appealed to Rube Goldberg had he taken up watch making.


The smooth sweeping second hand in the Seiko pictured at the end of this video I posted earlier is on a watch that cost about two orders of magnitude less money than the SD ;-) ... and it too is a Seiko.


----------



## Catalin

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



Eeeb said:


> The smooth sweeping second hand in the Seiko pictured at the end of this video I posted earlier is on a watch that cost about two orders of magnitude less money than the SD ;-) ... and it too is a Seiko.
> ...


I have not recently seen a 5S21 on sale that would not go over 200$ with all the fees ... the models still seem to be very rare ... :-(


----------



## John MS

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*



Eeeb said:


> The smooth sweeping second hand in the Seiko pictured at the end of this video I posted earlier is on a watch that cost about two orders of magnitude less money than the SD ;-) ... and it too is a Seiko.
> 
> Yes, there are many reasonably priced ways to get a smooth seconds hand fix. A 1975 Zenith caliber 405 or three Omega caliber 9162's do the job just fine for me. I keep hoping to find one of those Seiko watches, but they don't show up much at all. I remember 1 coming up on the SCWF over 5 years ago.
> 
> Heck, I'm looking at a new model Accutron with a 2892-a2 and that seconds hand is pretty darned smooth at 28,800 bph. I have to look very very close for only the most minor vibration.


----------



## artec

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

Thanks for the photos of your SD innards....

When you look at it in the flesh is there anything anywhere near the glide-wheel that looks as if it might be an adjustment? It seems to me that if the movements are as consistent as they appear to be (I have only had mine for a month but so far it's like a train) it ought to be possible to persuade it to be within a few seconds a year, like The Citizen.

Mine doesn't have an exhibition back so I can't examine it without opening it.



roba said:


> Found 'em - some quick and dirty shots...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These show the very machine finished look of the Credor movement. Very nicely done but nothing like "traditional" Swiss finishing. (The Credor symbol on the winding rotor is cut all the way through.)


----------



## ppaulusz

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*



artec said:


> ...it ought to be possible to persuade it to be within a few seconds a year, like The Citizen...


From accuracy point of view the Seiko SD is just an ordinary quartz. On the other hand the The Citizen is a thermocompensated quartz watch. They are not in the same league. End of story.


----------



## South Pender

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*



artec said:


> Thanks for the photos of your SD innards....
> 
> When you look at it in the flesh is there anything anywhere near the glide-wheel that looks as if it might be an adjustment? It seems to me that if the movements are as consistent as they appear to be (I have only had mine for a month but so far it's like a train) it ought to be possible to persuade it to be within a few seconds a year, like The Citizen.
> 
> Mine doesn't have an exhibition back so I can't examine it without opening it.


I can understand your motivation here, Artec, and in a way it does seem reasonable to assume that an accurate movement could be made even more so. And we have seen reports of "ordinary" quartz movements producing extraordinary accuracy. I'm not sure why this is, but it perhaps is a result of a fortuitous match of quartz crystal and the owner's temperature (that is, the owner's own temperature and the ambient temperature in which he lives) and wearing pattern. Still, we have to realize that the ways of altering rate will be very different with the SD technology than in the pure quartz domain, wherein the power comes from a different source. Still, this is a topic that may deserve some more research.

Oh, and BTW, I certainly can't agree with ppaulusz's assessment of SD as "just an ordinary quartz." All the reports I've seen indicate that SD models produce considerably better accurary (in the 2-4 sec./month range) than can be expected from "ordinary quartz." Although there is nothing completely obvious to indicate why this is the case, there are many possibilities, only one of which might be far better cherry-picked quartz crystals. I'm finding my SD utterly fascinating, and it's a far better time-keeper than I had hoped for (averaging about 3.4 sec./month or so for 5 months of constant wearing) and, as you note, absolutely reliable wrt rate, by which I mean no random factors to consider (and thus phenomenally _accurate_ by Mechanikus's operationalization of the concept), just a constant, absolutely invariant 3.4 seconds each and every month.


----------



## ppaulusz

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*



South Pender said:


> ...Oh, and BTW, I certainly can't agree with ppaulusz's assessment of SD as "just an ordinary quartz." All the reports I've seen indicate that SD models produce considerably better accurary (in the 2-4 sec./month range) than can be expected from "ordinary quartz."...


Anyone who cared to read our discussion about the The Citizen should know that your selective "memory" (or research method?) is no help when facts are discussed. On the other hand any sales department would welcome your approach.;-)


----------



## South Pender

Now, now, ppaulusz, no need for _ad hominem_ member-bashing! :-d Nowhere did I suggest that any SD model would equal the Citizen Chronomaster (a much more natural locution than "the The Citizen"!) in accuracy. The latter gives ± 5 sec./year, whereas the SD appears--from all the evidence we've seen on this forum (probably 10-12 watches-worth)--to give something on the order of ± 24-48 sec./year (mine is producing about +40 sec./year). These are certainly "facts," and not selective examples. Finally, in the many posts on non-HEQ, accuracy appearing here and on many other forums, "ordinary quartz accuracy" is far poorer than the figures we now have for SD--more like ± 120 - 180 sec./year (for "ordinary quartz")--and I've seen several reports on high-end, but regular quartz-movement, watches like the Citizen Campanolas producing the latter accuracy levels. So, ppaulusz, the "facts" do not support your original statement that "From accuracy point of view the Seiko SD is just an ordinary quartz." ;-)


----------



## Eeeb

You guys like this back and forth so much you must be brothers or something!! LOL


----------



## RPF

You know what SP? Why don't we send an SD to DWJquest for a timing test wrt temperature? That should settle the issue unambiguously and FACTUALLY. I suspect the parabola will be the same as any quartz watch, perhaps with a better centering and zeroing than most.


----------



## Catalin

RPF said:


> You know what SP? Why don't we send an SD to DWJquest for a timing test wrt temperature? That should settle the issue unambiguously and FACTUALLY. I suspect the parabola will be the same as any quartz watch, perhaps with a better centering and zeroing than most.


Oh, I was thinking about that long-ago (and I believe that we have a member around which has enough of those so he will not miss one too much while doing so ;-) ).

HOWEVER I believe a SpringDrive might NOT be picked by any normal timing machines (a test on that idea should be much easier to be done before actually shipping anything) - and even if the setup that _DWJquest_ has might pick something I wonder what that will be and how well time-delimited the electromagnetic fields picked will be ...

That being said _Ptran_'s numbers suggest to me something very-very similar to the normal quartz curve ... and that could be easily settled with a few tests over 1-2 months with a setup like the one I use in my tests - https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=347912 ...


----------



## artec

Having reviewed all the posts on all sides of this discussion, I haven't seen anything that suggests what I'd like to be able to do is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting that the SD is a competitor of The Citizen (I promised, ppaulusz!), whose accuracy should be less dependent of external factors, ie temperature, by far. But if a particular watch, owned by a person with particular wearing habits, produces a consistent 4 to 5 seconds a month, if there is an internal adjustment, whether it's used selectively during final assembly or not, isn't it reasonable to think (or at least, hope) that use of that adjustment could improve on the 4 to 5 seconds a month. 
I know that adjustment wouldn't improve the temperature insensitivity of that watch or its performance under a different wearing regime...... and I don't care, because all I'm looking for is a way to improve the 4 seconds a month of my own watch, wearing it as I do, where I live.
Have I covered all the "ifs, ands and buts" I needed to? 
After all that, has anyone seen anything that could possibly be an adjustment when looking at an SD movement, diagrams or photos of one?


----------



## Catalin

artec said:


> ...
> After all that, has anyone seen anything that could possibly be an adjustment when looking at an SD movement, diagrams or photos of one?


Unfortunately not - the closest that I have seen are a few contact pads where I believe the factory calibrating device might get to 'make electrical contact' and digitally write some data inside the microchip ...


----------



## South Pender

I see Artec's point. The empirical deviations appear to be almost entirely linear with respect to time, suggesting that random factors (and even temperature variations, to some extent, perhaps) are negligible in explaining these deviations. This would suggest a strict rate adjustment. I'm wondering whether these would necessarily have to come via the electronic and quartz part of the movement. With mechanical watches, rate adjustment must come about by some other process. Since the power source of SD is, in fact, mechanical, perhaps another approach to rate adjustment of SDs is available.


----------



## South Pender

RPF said:


> You know what SP? Why don't we send an SD to DWJquest for a timing test wrt temperature? That should settle the issue unambiguously and FACTUALLY. I suspect the parabola will be the same as any quartz watch, perhaps with a better centering and zeroing than most.


That would be a good idea. My data are all based on a wearing pattern of 24/7. I have now retired my SD for the time being to its box and am testing another watch while being worn. Interestingly, though, the rate deviation in my SD seems much less now that it's not being worn and is living at about 70°. It's been too little time off the wrist (but being wound every 3 days) to form any firm conclusions, but there does seem to be a substantial drop in its positive deviations. I'll report back after several weeks on this.


----------



## ppaulusz

RPF said:


> ...I suspect the parabola will be the same as any quartz watch, perhaps with a better centering and zeroing than most.


In short: it's an ordinary quartz (from an accuracy point of view).


----------



## South Pender

ppaulusz said:


> In short: it's an ordinary quartz (from an accuracy point of view).


Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.


----------



## RPF

South Pender said:


> Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.


In all fairness, we don't have enough data to say that, at least where temperatures are concerned.


----------



## dwjquest

Catalin said:


> Oh, I was thinking about that long-ago (and I believe that we have a member around which has enough of those so he will not miss one too much while doing so ;-) ).
> 
> HOWEVER I believe a SpringDrive might NOT be picked by any normal timing machines (a test on that idea should be much easier to be done before actually shipping anything) - and even if the setup that _DWJquest_ has might pick something I wonder what that will be and how well time-delimited the electromagnetic fields picked will be ...
> 
> That being said _Ptran_'s numbers suggest to me something very-very similar to the normal quartz curve ... and that could be easily settled with a few tests over 1-2 months with a setup like the one I use in my tests - https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=347912 ...


My timing setup depends on receiving a pulse from the movement once per second. I doubt if it would work with the SD.


----------



## South Pender

RPF said:


> In all fairness, we don't have enough data to say that, at least where temperatures are concerned.


I disagree. Although we do not have a large sample of SD performance data, we have enough to make a few inferences. I fully agree that more data will allow us to get far more stable results, but you have to go with what you have--as long as it is minimally adequate for the purpose. I also agree that the effects of temperature need to be factored into the picture, and some new studies on the effects of temperature variations on SD performance will be immensely valuable. My preliminary conclusions, however, are based on reasonably good data--in particular, PTran's. That data set, along with at least as many other reports of SD performance, does suggest that monthly accuracy of ± 2-4 sec. has been pretty regularly found for SD watches. I could go to the trouble of setting a .95 confidence interval around this average, but won't bother for now. 

Now, does anyone here believe that a quasi-randomly assembled sample of, say, 15 truly "ordinary" quartz watches--having received no cherry-picking or adjustment (if such is possible with any "ordinary" quartz watches)--would yield an average monthly accuracy figure of ± 2-4 sec.? Perhaps I should indicate my understanding of "ordinary" quartz watch: one purchased in a mall, drug store, or department store and being a low-end line from any of the many quartz watch makers, having a non-thermocompensated (of course) relatively inexpensive quartz movement. My own experience with such watches--and, more importantly, what I hear routinely from other owners, on this forum and others--suggests monthly accuracy of more like ± 10-15 sec., or closer to the officially-specified monthly accuracy (sometimes given as ± 15-20 sec.). Thus, although the comparison I've presented here is not the result of a carefully-controlled experiment (almost impossible in this domain, I think), it does have face validity--it points to a superiority for SD over ordinary quartz. This conclusion may well be overturned on the receipt of further data, but, as far as I'm concerned, the accuracy evidence (such as it is and based on small samples), at the moment and until contradicted, is favorable for SD.


----------



## artec

South Pender said:


> I disagree. Although we do not have a large sample of SD performance data, we have enough to make a few inferences. I fully agree that more data will allow us to get far more stable results, but you have to go with what you have--as long as it is minimally adequate for the purpose. I also agree that the effects of temperature need to be factored into the picture, and some new studies on the effects of temperature variations on SD performance will be immensely valuable. My preliminary conclusions, however, are based on reasonably good data--in particular, PTran's. That data set, along with at least as many other reports of SD performance, does suggest that monthly accuracy of ± 2-4 sec. has been pretty regularly found for SD watches. I could go to the trouble of setting a .95 confidence interval around this average, but won't bother for now.
> 
> Now, does anyone here believe that a quasi-randomly assembled sample of, say, 15 truly "ordinary" quartz watches--having received no cherry-picking or adjustment (if such is possible with any "ordinary" quartz watches)--would yield an average monthly accuracy figure of ± 2-4 sec.? Perhaps I should indicate my understanding of "ordinary" quartz watch: one purchased in a mall, drug store, or department store and being a low-end line from any of the many quartz watch makers, having a non-thermocompensated (of course) relatively inexpensive quartz movement. My own experience with such watches--and, more importantly, what I hear routinely from other owners, on this forum and others--suggests monthly accuracy of more like ± 10-15 sec., or closer to the officially-specified monthly accuracy (sometimes given as ± 15-20 sec.). Thus, although the comparison I've presented here is not the result of a carefully-controlled experiment (almost impossible in this domain, I think), it does have face validity--it points to a superiority for SD over ordinary quartz. This conclusion may well be overturned on the receipt of further data, but, as far as I'm concerned, the accuracy evidence (such as it is and based on small samples), at the moment and until contradicted, is favorable for SD.


With some trepidation, and waiting fearfully for the coming onslaught, I agree.... and essentially, that is the basis for my earlier point.


----------



## RPF

I think I've commented on ptran's data before. It's sketchy at best, and doesn't suggest anything beyond good calibration (for entire batches of watches) at wrist temperature. The SD is designed to be worn (it has a 3 day PR). I'm sure it does well on the wrist, as some of my friends feedback suggest. But to say it's better than ordinary quartz otherwise (that is, a temperature curve, which is the primary measure of accuracy most of us go by here) is preliminary to say the least. Seiko does not profess otherwise, specs wise, and a TC circuit would have probably consumed too much power. 

I own quite many quartz watches (non-TC, probably more than 20) that can do better than 5s per month either side of zero when worn on wrist. Are they better than ordinary quartz when they have the same spec (+-15-20 s/m)? No, I believe not. 

I also own quite a few quartz watches from the 70s with adjustable rates that I've tuned to essentially +-1s/m when worn. Are they better than my TC watches? No.

So I agree the SD is tightly calibrated across the range, and rightly so, since they're hand-assembled and costs a pretty dime. But to me, they are ordinary quartz, according to the definition common to this forum, in terms of published specs and what we know of the SD circuitry.

I'll borrow an SD when I'm in the mood to do a fridge test in the future. I expect to be disappointed.


----------



## ppaulusz

RPF said:


> ...I expect to be disappointed.


You will be for sure but at least you will get the confirmation that you were right that the SD accuracy-wise is just an ordinary quartz.


----------



## Catalin

RPF said:


> I think I've commented on ptran's data before. It's sketchy at best, and doesn't suggest anything beyond good calibration (for entire batches of watches) at wrist temperature.
> ...


I agree on that - I would even go one step forward and say that the data from _ptran_ in one place actually STRONGLY suggests a normal quartz - and that is where a difference of only about 1-2 Celsius has immediately resulted in a difference of 2-3 seconds/month - I believe that even old 8F movements have a flatter curve than that ...

What is indeed a LOT better than in normal quartz watches is the initial calibration !


----------



## nghy

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

Hi All, I just posted this info on another site but it seems to fit here also.My Aerospace is away being overhauled again. Breitling informs me they will replace the old movement with an ETA Thermoline Superquartz movement at no extra charge. The
service manager explained they no longer have parts to service the original movement. Having read about the wonders of the Thermoline movements, my scientific curiosity kicked in.

I have two examples of bottom of the heap watches. In Mythbusters fashion, I decided to compare these two against the new HEQ movement. I popped the cases of the two junk specimen, replaced the batteries with new Renata Silver oxide cells
and set off to measure the expected erratic time keeping. I used two different time standards. The first is internet time via my computer. Windows 7 has a routine to set the computer clock to internet time directly. The second standard is GPS time reported on my Droid X smartphone.

Several times a day, I have compared the times reported by the watches against the two standards. Six days have passed and neither of these junk watches has lost or gained a second. The Skagen movement is described on the case as a "Slim
Japan Quartz movement. It is a quartz analog with three hands and a date window at 6 o'clock. I could not find any ID on the ripoff. It is a very slim analog quartz movement with three hands and day/date window at 3 o'clock. The days can be set to show in English or Italian although I don't know how to choose one over the other.

I know the results are shocking news in the face of prevailing wisdom. Perhaps the two junk watches are statistical abnormalities and perhaps 6 days are not sufficient. However, the information is what it is. AaronM


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

Normal behavior for a well adjusted quartz watch kept at constant temperature is to run quite accurately. Indeed, by regulating the position of my Ebel Classic Wave (The World's Most Beautiful Watch!) with a mechanical ETA 2892, I was able to get error on the order of several tenths of a second per day over multiple days - quartz accuracy. But over time you will see a similarly adjusted temperature compensated quartz movement will run better in the real world.

You want to see the non-TC quartz watches loose quickly? Change their temperature.


----------



## Catalin

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*



nghy said:


> ...
> I know the results are shocking news in the face of prevailing wisdom. Perhaps the two junk watches are statistical abnormalities and perhaps 6 days are not sufficient. However, the information is what it is. AaronM


6 days is a pretty short interval - many standard quartz models will have an error of less than 0.5 seconds in just 6 days, and 0.5 seconds is not very easy to see with 'the naked eye'.

You might also take a look at the specific thread that we have about that subject:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/methods-determining-accuracy-watch-382752.html


----------



## ronalddheld

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

A several week interval would be more useful.


----------



## rileynp

artec said:


> After all that, has anyone seen anything that could possibly be an adjustment when looking at an SD movement, diagrams or photos of one?


This is in no way confirmed by any source anywhere, but is it possible that pattern cutting system of adjustment (ala 8Fxx series) is made possible by the peripheral section of the circuit that is revealed through the white insulator, just counterclockwise from 6, to the right of the quartz crystal? Photo from Ron Decorte's article.


----------



## nghy

*Re: I believe that the differences are cosmetic...*

Thanks for the pointers to methods of determining accuracy. I had never observed the performance of these movements closely. From what I gleaned from reading the forums and referring to the specs for high end movements, I imagined the accuracy of the cheap common quartz movements would result in gross easily detected deviations. Others have pointed out that even cheap quartz movements keep very good time. From my point of view, the oft repeated myth that they do not perform well is busted.. AaronM


----------



## Eeeb

rileynp said:


> This is in no way confirmed by any source anywhere, but is it possible that pattern cutting system of adjustment (ala 8Fxx series) is made possible by the peripheral section of the circuit that is revealed through the white insulator, just counterclockwise from 6, to the right of the quartz crystal? Photo from Ron Decorte's article.
> View attachment 386307


The square nature of the circuit parts you are referring to look more like test points. I would expect circuits that were meant to be cut to be thinner. Interesting thought though.


----------



## rileynp

Eeeb said:


> The square nature of the circuit parts you are referring to look more like test points. I would expect circuits that were meant to be cut to be thinner. Interesting thought though.


You're going to make me work for this, aren't you? 

Here's the underside of the circuit, closeup of photo taken from same article:








Notice that of the 5 strips, the middle one is cut. Looks like a pattern cutting system to me (he says, full of wild conjecture). Test points are typically round, and would not be skeletonized in the circuit as these 5 strips are.


----------



## Eeeb

Ah, I see your point. You may be correct!! Interesting. Now all we need is someone to experiment on their watch.... Yeh, right.


----------



## rileynp

Eeeb said:


> Now all we need is someone to experiment on their watch.... Yeh, right.


Don't tempt me. It looks as though there is a thin cover of sorts that skirts the outside of the movement, covering the area where the possible patterns are:








In fact, one can just make out the section of the insulator that is surrounding the 5 strips, to the right of the glide wheel here:







If (and that is an unknown "if") the skirting cover can be taken off without disrupting the train/auto bridges, and if (another unknown "if") I am able to get a reading from the crystal using a traditional quartz test machine, then I suppose I could temporarily bridge a cut strip (if one is cut on mine) to see if that causes a rate change. I wouldn't want to permanently change the rate, as it is very good right now. 
I'm not sure that there exists a firm enough purpose or goal of doing this to compel me to go through the effort/risk- we still wouldn't know the exact details of the pattern cutting system (which ones produce which changes in rate and to what extent). It seems like a pleasantly worded query to Seiko might be a better way of finding out how or if the Spring Drive can be adjusted in an after sales service environment. The worst they can do is say, "it's a secret".

P.S. Forgot to mention- none of these photos are mine, credit solely to Ron Decorte's 2005 article, "Seiko Spring Drive: A Revolution in Time".


----------



## a-Tom-ic

To the necrobumper of this thread, aaronm, your experience is anecdotal... at best.

To rileynp, your close examination of those photos and the cut pattern regulation is fascinating. I'm grinning ear to ear. The 8F reference Google led me to on pmwf describes the [2] cut points on page 21, for anyone else interested.


----------



## rileynp

Eeeb said:


> Ah, I see your point. You may be correct!! Interesting. Now all we need is someone to experiment on their watch.... Yeh, right.


I have found that the plate I mentioned is indeed removable without disturbing the rest of the movement, it protects but allows easy access to a few contact points, as well as the 5 strips which I currently believe to be part of a pattern cutting system. Parts necessary to remove (plate is upside down):








Movement with skirting plate and oscillating weight removed:








Here is a cropped photo, showing the pertinent area. The three left strips are cut in my watch:








I have not yet figured out if a Witschi Q Test 6000 is capable of reading the oscillations of the quartz crystal, or even the electrical consumption of the circuit. I will attempt to do so as time allows.


----------



## Eeeb

Assuming it is a 32K Hz crystal, the Witschi should work. But George is our expert. I haven't set mine up. (And I don't have a Spring Drive to play with...)


----------



## ronalddheld

I have an older model, but none of you live close enough to me for a quick test, AFAIK.


----------



## webvan

Nice detective work, it's really too bad that they would use "pattern cutting" to adjust the accuracy, as it's pretty much a one-way trip...although I think I read that they could be "redone" (possibly in the 8F56 technical manual).

On an 8F56 you can just swap the circuit from one watch to another (done it myself) so maybe Seiko would just drop in a new circuit in a Springdrive if it started to run poorly.

How is yours currently running?


----------



## rileynp

webvan said:


> it's really too bad that they would use "pattern cutting" to adjust the accuracy, as it's pretty much a one-way trip...although I think I read that they could be "redone" (possibly in the 8F56 technical manual).


I suppose there are more satisfying methods of adjustment to the mind, but the "logical regulation (pattern cutting system)" as Seiko terms it in the 4F32, 8F32, 8F33, and 8F35 technical guide is better than nothing when it comes to a long-term solution to crystal aging. That tech guide mentions, however, that it cannot be "redone" by soldering a broken connection, see note at the bottom of this screen capture:











> On an 8F56 you can just swap the circuit from one watch to another (done it myself) so maybe Seiko would just drop in a new circuit in a Springdrive if it started to run poorly.
> 
> How is yours currently running?


Yes, as long as circuits are available, this is the fastest/cheapest method usually. The timekeeping is phenomenal on mine, though I haven't charted it exhaustively. Worn for months on end it will lose no more than a second a month, off the wrist that increases to a 3-4 seconds per month loss. I see no need to alter mine, I'm just curious to know what method (if any) is built in to allow adjustments if necessary.


----------



## webvan

I've always been intrigued by the "...reconnecting them by soldering MAY NOT adjust the loss/gain...", wonder why they left the "door open".


----------



## ronalddheld

A legal reason?


----------



## Hans Moleman

ronalddheld said:


> A legal reason?


I don't see a technical reason why a reconnection wouldn't work.
Is Seiko trying to persuade people not to fiddle with these connections too much?

The connections are so tiny it'll be very hard to get this right.
If you have nothing to lose, why not try?


----------



## rileynp

Hans Moleman said:


> I don't see a technical reason why a reconnection wouldn't work.


I am not fully clear as to what one is actually doing by cutting the patterns as far as the circuitry is concerned (yes, changing the rate, but how?). So the following is mainly wild conjecture with a little bit of experience/common sense thrown in.

I would be cautious in applying such high temperatures to the circuit, this could be the reason why Seiko mentions not reconnecting- the process of soldering could negatively alter the properties/characteristics of the circuit itself if too much heat in the wrong place is used. If one were to experiment, I would recommend first the use of conductive silver epoxy (no heat needed to apply) before soldering was employed. It is still possible that conductive epoxy would not have the proper resistance to alter the rate the same way that the piece of pattern did, assuming the pattern's usefulness is based on resistance vs. simple connectivity. Feel free to correct if I seem to have a misguided grasp of the situation.


----------



## Hans Moleman

rileynp said:


> I am not fully clear as to what one is actually doing by cutting the patterns as far as the circuitry is concerned (yes, changing the rate, but how?). So the following is mainly wild conjecture with a little bit of experience/common sense thrown in.
> 
> I would be cautious in applying such high temperatures to the circuit, this could be the reason why Seiko mentions not reconnecting- the process of soldering could negatively alter the properties/characteristics of the circuit itself if too much heat in the wrong place is used. If one were to experiment, I would recommend first the use of conductive silver epoxy (no heat needed to apply) before soldering was employed. It is still possible that conductive epoxy would not have the proper resistance to alter the rate the same way that the piece of pattern did, assuming the pattern's usefulness is based on resistance vs. simple connectivity. Feel free to correct if I seem to have a misguided grasp of the situation.


Misguided grasp?
I wouldn't dare!
:-d

The epoxy is a good pointer. Looks like you've had a few thoughts already.
Obviously I don't know for sure if there is simple connectivity or resistance at work at these points. My guess; simple connectivity. The digital circuit checks if these 'switches' are on or off. It then makes its timing correction decision based on these switch settings.

I was thinking about conductive paint. The gold paint you use to repair your car's rear demister with. I've got no idea how fine a blob one can put down with that stuff though.


----------



## rileynp

Hans Moleman said:


> Misguided grasp?
> I was thinking about conductive paint. The gold paint you use to repair your car's rear demister with. I've got no idea how fine a blob one can put down with that stuff though.


 The conductive epoxy I mentioned might be similar to what you mention (I don't know)- I've used the former with good results in repairing damaged coils. The consistency can be altered quite a bit from a very liquid to a paste, possibly enough to build a bridge between the two sides of a cut pattern, and with a microscope it should be within the realm of workable possibility. But as Webvan mentioned, might as well drop in a new circuit if pattern cutting alone won't get one where they want to be.


----------



## area51

*Re: Spring Drive movements... The Rest of The Story*

What is the take when there is no passing of time, a Time Vaccum, space, foreverness, no point of reference, time in effect stands still, there is no time, only nothing, i used to think thats not possible now i know it is.
Time is not necessarily linear in nature, it all depends how we mesure its so called passing isnt it? step functions could easily be a measuee of time, the step motors are very legit and superior devices vs winders.



obijohn said:


> Just wanted to comment on this very interesting thread. The reason Swatch and Seiko have come up with a quartz-regulated mechanical movement is clear (it's even mentioned in the referenced paper): mechanical watches that do not require storage handle extreme environmental conditions better than electrically-driven watches.
> 
> The Seiko Kinetic and Citizen Eco-Drive are the two best examples of electronic watches that use rotors as generators, but even these two watches have batteries (or capacitors) that must eventually be replaced. The capacitor on the Spring Drive is really used to stabilize the current more than as a battery, and should last for decades, if not at least a century.
> 
> I don't understand how the Spring Drive movements are significantly more expensive than the standard Seiko automatic mechanical movements; they should actually be easier to make. Actually, I do understand; Seiko would be idiotic to sell the Spring Drives for a low price when they can sell all they can make for a higher price.
> 
> I think that in a decade or so Spring Drives or HPMs or variants of these designs will be the predominant movement type found in high end watches... most likely by having the current high end movements modified, replacing the escapement with the balance wheel/generator/feedback mechanism. In fact, one has to wonder if someone (Rolex? Breitling?) has prototypes in-house, waiting for any applicable patents to expire.
> 
> Oh, BTW, I think that using a stepper motor is a kludge in that the approach is 'digitizing' an inherently analog process (the displaying of time progressing). A major appeal of the Spring Drive is its smooth second hand, perhaps a subconscious appeal to our innnate understanding of the passage of time as continuous rather than discrete.


----------

