# Thermocompensated Spring Drive?



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Since the Seiko Spring Drive movements use a quartz crystal, along with IC, to regulate the time, is thermocompensation a reasonable possibility to make these movements even more accurate?

I've been reading up on these watches and have found that ± 2 sec./month accuracy is not unusual. Could this be improved with the usual TC methods?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Of course TC would help. I doubt if they will ever do it. Why should they? They are selling a quartz watch to people who want a mechanical watch. It is a canard. 

At least the Swiss did not engage in such tricks when they invented the spring drive. They shelved it after making 150 prototypes. 

Seiko sees it as entry into the jewelry watch business. That business does not care about TC.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> Of course TC would help. I doubt if they will ever do it. Why should they? They are selling a quartz watch to people who want a mechanical watch. It is a canard.
> 
> At least the Swiss did not engage in such tricks when they invented the spring drive. They shelved it after making 150 prototypes.
> 
> Seiko sees it as entry into the jewelry watch business. That business does not care about TC.


Ever the cynic....;-) Couldn't we, instead, see the SD as Seiko's attempt to provide a mechanical watch to those who want a mechanical watch, but one with quartz accuracy? I can see the attraction of a watch being powered by winding or arm motion and not dependent on a battery, but in the past we had to settle for terrible accuracy. You say the Swiss invented the spring drive. My impression had been that they invented something else that was in certain ways similar to the spring drive. Why do you think the Swiss abandoned their development?

Oh, BTW, I agree that we won't see a TC Spring Drive any time soon, but was more interested in the technical feasibility.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

South Pender said:


> ... You say the Swiss invented the spring drive. My impression had been that they invented something else that was in certain ways similar to the spring drive. Why do you think the Swiss abandoned their development?...


The attached doc outlines what sure looks like a spring drive to me... Indeed, it is a better explaination of how the Spring Drive works than anything I have seen from Seiko.

The original Swiss patents were in 1972. Seiko admits their first patent on this technology was in 1978. They had to wait for the Swiss patents to expire before they could make Spring Drives.

I strongly suspect the Swiss abandoned this technology as it was a kludge - overcomplicated contraptions that give produce nothing of merit for the complication. They do not need something like this to sell jewelry watches... they have ETA 2892-A2s -- arguably the best mechanical movement ever made in mass production. (I'll even put it up against American Hamiltons!) (The Spring Drive is, of course, a quartz watch with out stepping motors :-d)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> The Spring Drive is, of course, a quartz watch with out stepping motors :-d)


...or a mechanical watch with vastly-improved time regulation? I'm curious about the reasons that TimeZone voted the Seiko Spring Drive movement as their Watch of the Year (or whatever they call it) several years ago.


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

Hello all!

What a great topic!

I would like to weigh in.

1. When the watch is first wound from a dead stop the Glidewheel will spin much faster (I have read 16Hz) then the regulated 8Hz. It does this until the IC has enough electricity to function allowing the IC to regulate the Glidewheel to 8Hz. There is always a magnetic force created by the glidewheel due to the fact that it is a generator, this force is applied directly to the stator (a magnet attached to the staff of the glidewheel), which effects the speed in which the glidewheel can spin. It is of note for the sake of force, that the glidewheel only spins in one direction, which results in a reduction in friction on the Glidewheel, and lacks the starting and stopping friction on the drivetrain of a mechanical watch with a traditional escapement.

2. The Glidewheel is regulated, through electromagnetic force. Here is where some misunderstanding occurs. There is no physical sensor or TDC and there is no mechanical brake on the Glidewheel. That is to say, nothing touches the glidewheel, and there is no TDC mark for a sensor to read. The glidewheel has a magnet attached to it (Stator), while spinning the magnet next to the coils generates electricity. Making electricity also creates a frequency (similar to the USA AC 60Hz). The IC chip monitors the electricity produced (frequency) by the glide wheel and compares it to the QC eight times a second. Any deviation of the frequency produced by the glidewheel is controlled by the IC through electromagnetic braking, or induction. The IC chip has several paths to choose from for it's electricity requirements. Each path is a different path of resistance, or a different load on the generator. More resistance and the the Glidewheel is slowed down (I might have my understanding of induction backwards here, but the idea should be easy enough to understand without technical correctness) less resistance and the Glidewheel is allowed to accelerate. The generation of electricity creates a magnetic field. Manipulating the electricity requirements that is made changes the magnetic force making it easier or harder for the wheel to turn, hence magnetic force braking, and an explanation of how the rate of the Glidewheel is monitored by the IC chip and compared to the Quartz Circuit. The need for regulation comes from the Mainspring, which provides different levels of torque to the drivetrain, which if the glidewheel was left to it's own, would produce various levels of electricity over the span of the mainspring unwinding.

Please forgive me if my technical terms are incorrect, I only mean it to be known that generating power also creates a frequency, that can be compared to the QC's known frequency, and by changing the resistance that the path of electricity is delivered and monitored by the IC the speed of the glidewheel can be controlled through the magnetic force exerted on it by it's own creation of electricity.

So with that aside, and I hope that I have not lead anyone astray in my understanding of this circuit, I believe that yes, the SD would definitely benefit from a higher frequency QC, or comparator circuit. More divisions of a stable source means more decimal places means more accuracy. Since the mechanical aspect of the watch is controlled in a manner that eliminates mechanical error (within reason) then the watch is as accurate as it's timing base.

(I had understood the above for some time, but it is only today that I realized that the mechanical errors of this watch are eliminated and not realistic contribution to the accuracy of the SD.)

This has some good info if you can digest it:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090086584

Now some personal opinions:

1. My opinion is that this is not a case of Seiko copying anyone, it is a case of the Swiss and the Japanese working on the same project separately. I don't like the way that it is being tossed out that Seiko copied anyone without proof. It is just taunting otherwise and the way that Eeeb presents his case shows his biased viewpoint. I would be willing to accept that somebody copied someone if there was evidence, but there is not. The HPM and the SD may work on the same principles, but they were both tackled differently at different times. There are no documented problems or infringements between Seiko and ASULAB. I look forward to be proven wrong. 

(this is a good timeline reference, but I see similar dates elsewhere...)

http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003672139

2. Kludge. The SD and the HPM are not Kludges. They are a Hybrid of everything that is great about a mechanical watch and quartz accuracy. This is an elegant solution to energy storage and accuracy. Hybrids are not always the best, but in this case, a kludge is not the proper term.

This is an interesting note at the end of the HPM Project.

The self-winding mechanism and the mechanical energy
storage in the main spring give the user a reliability and
comfort which is significantly better than both, the traditional
mechanical movement (because the most critical elements -
resonator and escapement - have been replaced by more
reliable and more precise ones) and the traditional electronic
quartz movement (because its most unreliable element - the
electrochemical power source - has been replaced by a
system of constant availability and unlimited lifetime).

http://wiki.epfl.ch/polymac/documents/hpm-en.pdf

3. +/-1 Second per day, and +/-15 Seconds per month is the same thing, as I understand. It is an average given over 30 days, the average potential of a +/-1 second per day.


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

South Pender said:


> ...or a mechanical watch with vastly-improved time regulation? I'm curious about the reasons that TimeZone voted the Seiko Spring Drive movement as their Watch of the Year (or whatever they call it) several years ago.


I see it as a mechanical watch with the escapement replaced by a QC. It is accurate and needs no battery, all of these are obvious points.

It is also obvious that it will require more maintenance then a full Quartz watch would, which only needs a battery replaced every so often.

I don't like batteries, and avoid them in my watches. The SD for me is like a symphony in C in Horology.

It is not a Kludge, but a different perspective then that which has been practiced for a long time. Of note, the work carried out on the SD has pushed the boundaries on IC power requirements and Mainsprings, both improving quartz watches and IC chips and mechanical watches in the process for Seiko and Epson. A Kludge would not result in improvements.

My perspective is that Seiko believes this is the future for their mechanical watches, replacing the escapement with something far more accurate. ASULAB saw their HPM the same way, as a mechanical watch with the escapement replaced by quartz accuracy:

The development outlined in this paper presents a product
which preserves all the advantages of the classical selfwinding
mechanical watch but avoids its only disadvantage
(the limited accuracy) by replacing the spring/balance wheel
resonator and its associated escapement by a (mechanical)
quartz tuning fork resonator and a corresponding escapement.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

On SpringDriven's points... Who invented the telephone? The guy who got the first patent or the guy who didn't.

If you don't think a patent search had been done by Seiko in 1977 which found the 1972 Swiss patent, you are a victim of Seiko propaganda. Everybody who is doing inventing/engineering does patent searches. It is normal procedure, especially in large corporations.

Many ideas are ideas which are ripe for discovery. It is just a matter of who gets to them first. In the case of the spring drive, the Swiss did. Seiko didn't. The spring drive is almost identical to the HPM. The Burian is almost identical to the Space Shuttle. It happens. (I note Seiko has never admitted even the existence of the HPM...) I do not think I ever said Seiko copied it. But I will say it is a copy in that it is almost identical.

The Spring Drive and it's predecessor, the HPM, are kludges. They are unnecessarily complicated embellishments of mechanical technology.

If you want a power source for a quartz oscillator that isn't a replacable battery go to either solar or kinetic. Either is superior to mainspring generation of power because they keep working even if you are not wearing the watch. (My Exceed says 2 years... My Autoquartz says 6 months. Spring Drive -- 2 days.)

But what about _the constant availability and unlimited lifetime_ of wrist powered watches? Tell that to all my automatics. They have to go home to the watchmaker on a regular basis. If they don't, their unlimited lifetime becomes a short '_unlimited_' ;-)

And, as is often the case with new technologies, the 'unreliable' element (battery) has become increasingly reliable with new innovations. I have quartz watches which need new batteries as often as my mechanicals need a COA. (BTW, I can replace batteries myself... but I've yet to successfully do a COA... and I suspect in the future very few people will be able to do COAs... but every mall will have a kiosk where a teenager will be able to replace batteries...)

I do not mean to be antagonistic. But I suspect anyone with the screen name SpringDriven is not going to agree with an assessment that is not positive about Seiko's product. And if I am misinterpreting the facts, I do not see where.


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

It seems this is all about prior art, as you base your speculation on a date from 1972. Can we see this paperwork or source? The HPM paperwork earliest date mentioned is 1978. There is no mention of Seiko working on the SD, just as you say Seiko makes no mention of the HPM.

The idea to use the energy available at the escapement to
drive a quartz resonator is quite old as well and has first been
described by J.Cl. Berney in 1978 [4]. The use of a modified
stepping motor as escapement generator has been presented
in 1987 [5]. The power consumption of the associated
electronic circuit and the basic choice of the generator principle
did lead to sophisticated micromechanical solutions, difficult to
industrialise.

Seiko timeline is:

1977: Watch is conceived as ideas.
1982: first working prototype.
1993: 2nd working prototype.
1997, 1998, 1999: Public Introduction, Basel and public sale.
2005: Seiko advertises the Automatic SD, but I believed the released an automatic SD for GS or Credor in 2002 or 2003 I forget.

The HPM timeline seems to be carried out over one condensed time span, which I was unable to build from the paperwork. I don't get the feeling that ASULAB or ETA intended a production ready watch at the time Seiko did, or better to say that Seiko wanted to go to market, ETA did not, or was not ready. I do see that Seiko did not want to wait to finalize their Automatic version and went to production with a hand wind instead even though their 1977 dream was for it to be an automatic, (but adding the automatic winding mechanism would be cake compared to the rest of the watch, so I am not sure if this is even logical anyway). I could imagine that Seiko caught wind of the HPM and wanted to beat them to the punch with a finished product, as it is obvious to me that the 1999 SD was a stepping stone to the realized 2005 official release. The 7R and 5R movements are different enough to indicate Seiko still had some things to finish to get to their original realization, that of power reserve and power consumption were both improved again. The new Credor hand wind SD shows that Seiko is still investing in this technology with improvements in design, and their other watches (mechanical and quartz) benefit from it.

Most of what is written above is not so relevant (but helps to build a case) to the importance of who is 1st apparently. From the facts available to me, I see two people working on similar ideas, and I see Seiko being 1st to ASULAB. If someone else thought of the same thing in 1972, maybe ASULAB had to wait for HIS patent to expire to work on their HPM, and the person from 1972 was the 1st to the idea beating both Seiko and ASULAB/ETA... (This whole waiting for a patent to expire, is speculation, I don't see any dates that support this.)

As for my name, yes I like the SD very much, but it is a bit unprofessional to call me out because of it. I can be very rational and non-biased. I can accept that the Swiss was first to come up with this idea if it is true, but I perceive you based on your comments to be negatively aligned against Seiko and their SD with the way you comment on it. I am sure I come off as positively aligned to Seiko. I am not. If the HPM was available I would have it as well. I hold the idea above the manufacturer.

The SD/HPM is not a Kludge. It is a mechanical watch, with quartz regulation. THAT is what a SD/HPM is. If you look at it from the standpoint that it is a Quartz watch with a strange power generator, then I can understand your Kludge viewpoint. This watch was made with the intent to improve the mechanical watch. It was not conceived as a novel power source for a quartz circuit, this is proven by Solar power and Kinetic energy storage designs you have mentioned, and why this watch is a kludge to you, because you have the wrong perspective of it. Looking from the mechanical perspective, it is pure genius! (Increased accuracy, reduced friction, extended power reserve which is not so important if the watch is worn all the time, less susceptible to temperature and shocks.)

A mechanical watch would be a Kludge too from your standpoint. If you feel that way then your opinion is that, and I understand your stance even more.

A side note is that it is very difficult to prove one perspective is correct vs the other, but one perspective makes sense, the other does not, so I use that as reference for right and wrong.

I agree with your comments on batteries, they are very much improving, and easy to replace. But that is not what I want in a watch, so this automatically makes a quartz watch unattractive to me. It may be a more practical solution, but it is not the best solution for me. I want a more accurate mechanical watch or a quartz watch without a battery. Prior to this I had settled on the Seiko Kinetic for my accuracy/battery issues, but the SD/HPM is fills my needs much better. You call it a Kludge, I call it the realization of past embracing the present. It is a great achievement in the mechanical timeline of Horology.

P.S. I am ready for a Thermocompensated SD Seiko, are you listening?


----------



## MikeNovember (Jun 11, 2008)

South Pender said:


> Since the Seiko Spring Drive movements use a quartz crystal, along with IC, to regulate the time, is thermocompensation a reasonable possibility to make these movements even more accurate?
> 
> I've been reading up on these watches and have found that ± 2 sec./month accuracy is not unusual. Could this be improved with the usual TC methods?


Hello,

I am not sure it would be possible, since temperature compensation requires temperature sensors, a measurement IC and a more complex digital IC ro perform the compensation, *so more electrical power needed*.

And, inherent to SpringDrive design (no electricity storage), electrical power design is very limited.

Best regards,

MikeNovember


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Eeeb. I have to say that I am surprised to see the opinion above presented without any caveats after we argued ourselves to a standstill last time about it. I'm still to see a '72 patent for a watch that would be effective prior art to stop the spring drive. Frankly, I don't see Doenson as an authority on this technology when compared to the accumulated knowledge of the HEQ forum. As such I am still waiting for a source more authoritative than a note in a non specialist book that the author concedes he is not in a possition to substantiate.

If you care to revisit any of our earlier arguments concerning the SD and HPM you will be reminded that Seiko were granted relevant patents within the period that a putative Swiss patent would be in force. As such, I remain deeply sceptical that the '72 patent you refer to was quite as relevant, or even existent. as you state. I'd love to read it. The description of an SD like movement that you do present is, from the references, *post 1997* and as such I am entirely unsure of it's relevance. If anything it is a little surprising that Asulab don't mention the putative 1972 patent if it is so relevent. Yes it proves that Asulab, who didn't even exist until post 1980, were working on an SD *after *Seiko had relevant patents in place which would have stopped Asulab from patenting it. But you know all this, having conceded it a year or two back... It is interesting that you go to such effort to explain why the Swiss didn't produce an HPM commercailly, when the obvious answer is that it would simply have violated the Seiko patent.

Here is my statement of this from a couple of years ago:



> 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.
> 
> ...


Moving on:

I am always surprised when the Springdrive is described as a kludge.

*Kludge*:

*1. * A system, especially a computer system, that is constituted of poorly matched elements or of elements originally intended for other applications.
*2. * A clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem.

Well, it certainly isn't clumsy or inelegant and it isn't constituted of poorly matched elements and so I can only assume that it is being called a kludge because it is made of parts that were originally intended for other applications. 
By this definition almost everything is a kludge, including all watches.

The way the Spring Drive uses a spring to power the glidewheel which both powers the escapement (quartz) and the display (hands) is an elegant solution that is the only production watch on the planet to give quartz accuracy without either a battery or capacitor. Personally I find the way that the same process that regulates the glidewheel (slaving it to the timebase) also produces the power to power the timebase. How can such an elegent solution be described as a kludge?

More to the point, I am rather unsure as to why MN feels that this doesn't produce enough power to power thermocompensation. I think this is a serious underestimation of how much power is generated in this way. One route forward for the SD is high frequency quartz as it has power to burn and avoids the short battery life that undermined the HF quartz.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

For those interested in some past discussions on HPM vs. Seiko, here are a couple of interesting threads:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=136829&highlight=auslab

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=78511&highlight=asulab

These are both large threads and you'll have to spend some time going through them to get to the relevant topic.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

I thought the standstill of the argument last was both may have been independently developed. I'm willing to grant that. There is no concrete evidence otherwise.

As to Doensen not being an authority on technology. Well, he may not be employed in technology (I am not sure what he does) but Watch is a reference without parallel. His statement to Bruce that his notes on the patent were created 10 years ago and he did not have them available can be taken at face value or can be used to claim they are not substantiated. Personally I find Watch an amazing book and know of no other errors in it which makes me think it was carefully researched.

As to the exemption for mechanical watches being a kludge -- they were good solutions for their time. If, in this day of solid state electronics, someone were to invent the first watch, it would indeed be a kludge. In the same sense HPM-type watches are a kludge.

Take Kugelfischer mechanical fuel injections systems -- I know people who like them because they are wondrously complex devices that delight every mechanic that works on them when, after several days work, they can get the car to operate again. Personally, I'll take a Bosch electronic fuel injection system...

And Matt, reminding folks that Seiko's story on the Spring Drive is questionable is something no one else is doing (literally no one else) ... so I am serving Truth by doing so :-d

(I confess I am tiring of the reminders... why don't you take up the torch? ;-):-d)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb, you do raise some good points about SD. Although I tend not to think of these movements as kludgy, they do share some of the disadvantages of purely mechanical movements--many parts (one of the ones I was looking at advertised the fact that it contained 416 parts!) and more-frequent servicing requirements. On the other hand, not needing a battery does appeal a lot to many people. I agree that new developments in solar-cell and kinetic technology have reduced the problem somewhat, but these movements (at least the solar-cell ones) still have a battery, just a rechargeable one, and this will eventually need to be replaced. I guess in my own case, I'm slowly drifting towards regarding light-cell quartz movements as, all things considered, the best at this time. It's too bad that there are none (unless the Citizen E510 is still available) that are TC.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> Eeeb, you do raise some good points about SD. Although I tend not to think of these movements as kludgy, they do share some of the disadvantages of purely mechanical movements--many parts (one of the ones I was looking at advertised the fact that it contained 416 parts!) and more-frequent servicing requirements. On the other hand, not needing a battery does appeal a lot to many people. I agree that new developments in solar-cell and kinetic technology have reduced the problem somewhat, but these movements (at least the solar-cell ones) still have a battery, just a rechargeable one, and this will eventually need to be replaced. I guess in my own case, I'm slowly drifting towards regarding light-cell quartz movements as, all things considered, the best at this time. It's too bad that there are none (unless the Citizen E510 is still available) that are TC.


Just to be clear on the subject - the barrel in an automatic watch (and a SD) will need service every about 5 years of daily wear to avoid non-repairable damage; if you don't care about that it can probably last 10 (or maybe even 20 years) and then die - in a high-end automatic you will certainly want to avoid going over 10 years since the precision will suffer a lot (and even some metal dust might contaminate the rest of the watch) but probably with the SD you could neglect it for slightly more ... but I doubt it will last more than 20 years ... which I guess might be the same as with a MT920 ... but that one will provide about 6 months to 4 years of power reserve (at a vastly lower price point) so ...


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Catalin said:


> ... which I guess might be the same as with a MT920 ... but that one will provide about 6 months to 4 years of power reserve (at a vastly lower price point) so ...


Is that what you use in your Citizen E510? Do you see further improvements in watch-size rechargeable batteries on the horizon?


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> I thought the standstill of the argument last was both may have been independently developed. I'm willing to grant that. There is no concrete evidence otherwise.


I quite agree, that's why I was surprised that you wrote:



> The original Swiss patents were in 1972. Seiko admits their first patent on this technology was in 1978. *They had to wait for the Swiss patents to expire before they could make Spring Drives.*


As if it were an uncontroversial fact, Not only is it controversial but as demonstrated last time around, not the case as Seiko were granted patents well before the release of the SD and within the period that a putative Swiss patent would have meant that a patent would not be granted.



> As to Doensen not being an authority on technology. Well, he may not be employed in technology (I am not sure what he does) but Watch is a reference without parallel. His statement to Bruce that his notes on the patent were created 10 years ago and he did not have them available can be taken at face value or can be used to claim they are not substantiated. Personally I find Watch an amazing book and know of no other errors in it which makes me think it was carefully researched.


The fact remains that no one has been able to find this patent, or any patent applications that refer to this critical patent. Believe me I tried. As it is, the only reference to it is in this book. I'm sure the book is very fine but errors can be made and, I think you will agree, it is odd that no one, *not even Asulab* refers to a patent which would falsify the Seiko story. It seems very clear to me that the Swiss would enforce a patent which would have stopped Seiko from making the patents that they did. The fact is that they didn't. This putative patent is the dog that didn't bark.



> As to the exemption for mechanical watches being a kludge -- they were good solutions for their time. If, in this day of solid state electronics, someone were to invent the first watch, it would indeed be a kludge. In the same sense HPM-type watches are a kludge.


I think we just disagree. In this case the disagreement is as much aesthetic as factual so I'm happy to accepth that one man's meat...



> Take Kugelfischer mechanical fuel injections systems -- I know people who like them because they are wondrously complex devices that delight every mechanic that works on them when, after several days work, they can get the car to operate again. Personally, I'll take a Bosch electronic fuel injection system...


And to carry on, A few... years ago I could strip, rebuild and tune a set of Amal concentric carbs on my old BSA Lightning in a couple of hours. Compared to them the Bosch system is massively overcomplicated. COmplication isn't the definition of a kludge, and, more relevently, I see the SD as an elegant solution.



> And Matt, reminding folks that Seiko's story on the Spring Drive is questionable is something no one else is doing (literally no one else) ... so I am serving Truth by doing so :-d


Hmmm, maybe this is because there is little evidence that the Seiko story is false. Naturally they ignore the near parallel development of the Swiss, but the Swiss paper you quote commits the far greater sin of failing to reference their (Japanese) sources correctly.



> (I confess I am tiring of the reminders... why don't you take up the torch? ;-):-d)


I did, I'm just carrying it in the other direction!

BTW - how did those movements work out?


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Which reminds me, does anyone know a cheap source for the 920 - I need several for autoquartz and can't see them anywhere for less than £10. Also does anyone know if the Junghans Mega Solar takes it? I know the Mega 1 does, but I'm unsure about the solar and I have one incoming.

cheers


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> Is that what you use in your Citizen E510? Do you see further improvements in watch-size rechargeable batteries on the horizon?


Yes, Panasonic MT920 is now one of the most used rechargeables in watches and is used by most EcoDrives, latest kinetics and swiss autoquartz ... looks reliable so far ... and while not very cheap it seems to be here to last so we'll probably find it in 20 years time ...

But I do see possible improvements, maybe even by a large margin - research into notebook batteries is mostly driving that - the problem is that when you go over 10-20 years it becomes tricky to 'preview' all the aging involved and actually very few watch companies are really interested in that, so even if the progress might be feasable that does not mean we'll get it :-(


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> As to the exemption for mechanical watches being a kludge -- they were good solutions for their time. If, in this day of solid state electronics, someone were to invent the first watch, it would indeed be a kludge. In the same sense HPM-type watches are a kludge.
> 
> Take Kugelfischer mechanical fuel injections systems -- I know people who like them because they are wondrously complex devices that delight every mechanic that works on them when, after several days work, they can get the car to operate again. Personally, I'll take a Bosch electronic fuel injection system...
> 
> And Matt, reminding folks that Seiko's story on the Spring Drive is questionable is something no one else is doing (literally no one else) ... so I am serving Truth by doing so :-d


Two things please.

1. Can you explain what exactly what it is about the Seiko SD's story that you find questionable, or point me to a particular post you have made in the past that you made that can bring me up to speed? Is it only this 1972 patent that you mention?

2. Again, your view on the SD being a Kludge is just an opinion you keep throwing around when in reality it has advanced mechanical and quartz watch designs. Mechanicals got a stronger mainspring, and quartz watches got ICs that required less power. It also being a hybrid, advances the mechanical watch providing better accuracy, longer power reserve, less friction in the drivetrain, shocks, temperature and positions have little to no effect on the accuracy of the watch, these are all positive attributes! If you would just adjust your perspective on the watch, it would help you accept it better.

Your comments on watches being a product of their time, is not a correct statement. See, one should realistically be able to produce or reproduce parts needed to repair a mechanical timepiece, making it a sustainable resource. A quartz watch is less likely to be sustained once the technology to make the IC has moved on. It is not as a sustainable resource as a mechanical watch can be. So to call a mechanical watch if it were invented today a kludge is just proving that your perspective is focused on only the modern battery operated quartz watch. That is fine, but it does not make everything else wrong or kludgey. In telling time, there is not only one way to do so. I am sure we can argue all day long about perspective, and my use of sustainability as weak, but it is one example of how our perspectives on watches are different.

I guess that I am to infer by your logic that I am a kludge, because I don't want a battery in my watch. I will if I have to, but I prefer not.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Well, I admit it is harder to prove someone did not get a patent than it is that someone did. (It is harder to prove a negative.) But I can not imagine Doensen would make up such a thing... what would be his motive?

The granting of a patent shows an examiner did not see previous patents as being infringed... I've never had to do patent law so am not as familiar as other areas... but I believe a number of law firms have made a lot of money saying this or that infringes on previous patents even when a patent was granted.

The Bosch system conserves gasoline and produces less pollution. In this case the complication is justified by substantial improvements in performance. The Spring Drive does not perform any better than any other quartz watch.

On the movements, I got three of them... unfortunately I can't find them right now... I use tool boxes to store components. They are there in one somewhere! Now if I can only get them into watches ... The 9F has returned from it's vacation in NZ!


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> Well, I admit it is harder to prove someone did not get a patent than it is that someone did. (It is harder to prove a negative.


I quite agree. However, in the case of patents, the process is to search for the patent. I have done this twice and not only found no patent but no evidence of the patent in any, more recent, patents.


> But I can not imagine Doensen would make up such a thing... what would be his motive?


I very much doubt he did, my assertion was that it was a *mistake *for the simple reason that no such patent has been granted according to all my research.



> The granting of a patent shows an examiner did not see previous patents as being infringed... I've never had to do patent law so am not as familiar as other areas... but I believe a number of law firms have made a lot of money saying this or that infringes on previous patents even when a patent was granted.


I'm not sure how to phrase this delicately: *There is no evidence whatsoever that there was ever such a patent*. Given that all the other patents are, as is common in this area, repeatedly referred to it seems *profoundly unlikely that such a patent was granted*.



> The Bosch system conserves gasoline and produces less pollution. In this case the complication is justified by substantial improvements in performance. The Spring Drive does not perform any better than any other quartz watch.


Well, apart from the minor detail that Seiko, Citizen and Swatch are lying when they say 'it will never need a battery' of ecodrives, autoquartz and so on while the SD really is the only quartz on the planet that doesn't. The aesthetics are pretty good too.



> On the movements, I got three of them... unfortunately I can't find them right now... I use tool boxes to store components. They are there in one somewhere! Now if I can only get them into watches ... The 9F has returned from it's vacation in NZ!


Brilliant, I was glad to help there. Anyway, if you ever decide to get rid of it give me a shout.


----------



## martback (Feb 11, 2006)

Just a quick jump-in with regard to the patents discussion. There was a mention that Seiko waited until 1978 to allow for the [presumably 1972] patent to expire. I would be very surprised if there is any country that grants only six year terms for patents, normally patents have 20 year terms subject to a fairly small (meaning that it would not have made sense for anyone not to pay the fee to uphold the patent) periodical fee.

From my experience of patent disputes, a granted patent is not a guarantee that the patent infringes on any other patent. On the contrary, a lot of the "management" of the patent system relies on patentholders challenging later patents. Also, the 1972 patent could very well have had limited applicability and therefore allowed later similar inventions that did not infringe (or obviously infringe to such extent that it was deemed cost efficient to challenge) the earlier patent.

A very interesting discussion, BTW.

/ martin


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> a lot of the "management" of the patent system relies on patentholders challenging later patents.


And that is the point - the Swiss not only fail to defend this alleged patent but never ever mention it in any of their other relevant patents. It seems unlikely they would have forgotten or couldn't be bothered. Even if they were not interested in developing it, stopping the Japanese would have been an end in itself.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

martback said:


> Just a quick jump-in with regard to the patents discussion. There was a mention that Seiko waited until 1978 to allow for the [presumably 1972] patent to expire...


In general you have to wait for a patent to expire before you can come to market with a product that would be infringing. But I am not a patient lawyer... But, if that is generally true, the introduction of the Spring Drive by Seiko waited long enough for the 1972 patent to expire. The Spring Drive was not announced until 1997. But, maybe Seiko was slow in developing their model and the long wait was a fortuitous coincidence for them.

And maybe the supposition Doensen made a mistake is correct and the patent does not exist. Maybe he intended to type a note to his wife saying "I will pick up bread and eggs on my way home" but instead mistyped and said "1972 ETA files a Swiss Patent application for an automatic watch with mechanical spring, in which balance and escapement have been removed and replaced by a small generator. The generator is driven from the mainspring, while its speed is controlled by a quartz oscillator. The generator is electrically switched between two conditions: charging a capacitor (which represents a relatively light mechanical load) or short-circuited stator coil (which means a brake action). The IC and quartz are supplied from the capacitor. The watch did not reach the production stage."

At least we can be fairly certain he was not subconsciously describing the Spring Drive (or deliberately sabotaging Seiko's claim of first art) as Watch was printed three years before the Spring Drive was announced.

Of course, maybe there are time travelers involved?!!? After all, the first person to post this photo was Matt himself!!


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> And maybe the supposition Doensen made a mistake is correct and the patent does not exist. Maybe he intended to type a note to his wife saying "I will pick up bread and eggs on my way home" but instead mistyped and said "1972 ETA files a Swiss Patent application for an automatic watch with mechanical spring, in which balance and escapement have been removed and replaced by a small generator. The generator is driven from the mainspring, while its speed is controlled by a quartz oscillator. The generator is electrically switched between two conditions: charging a capacitor (which represents a relatively light mechanical load) or short-circuited stator coil (which means a brake action). The IC and quartz are supplied from the capacitor. The watch did not reach the production stage."


I was thinking something more simple, like Doensen's Editor, or Doensen himself typed 1972 or he was mis-quoted from his source when they meant 1978, as the ASULAB HPM papers reference. A simple mistake of one number. The wrong year.

[4] J.-C. Berney, Mouvement d'horlogerie mû par un ressort
et régulé par un circuit électronique, brevet suisse n°
595 636, Ebauches S.A., avril 1978.

(From the HPM Paperwork, the earliest referenced date on the project.)

The idea to use the energy available at the escapement to
drive a quartz resonator is quite old as well and has first been
described by J.Cl. Berney in 1978 [4].

Not quite so tongue in cheek and not as exciting as a grocery list, but hey, what do I know...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

SpringDriven said:


> ...
> Not quite so tongue in cheek and not as exciting as a grocery list, but hey, what do I know...


I prefer the time travelers explanation! We should be honored HEQ was the first place they manifested themselves :-d


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

If Pieter Doensen is still alive, why doesn't one of you who is well-versed in watch history contact him and get to the bottom of this?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

South Pender said:


> If Pieter Doensen is still alive, why doesn't one of you who is well-versed in watch history contact him and get to the bottom of this?


We tried. Bruce emailed him. He responded the notes were ten years old and he would look for them sometime... we have not heard back.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

One of the problems when trying to determine the 'truth' is biases caused by predisposition towards a desired outcome. 

A wonderful study of this was done in .au many years ago. Fans queued for tickets to a football match were asked what the likelihood of them getting tickets before they ran out. (To a casual observer the number of people in line exceeded the tickets available.)

The folks at the front of the line were pretty sure. They were less sure at the middle of the line. At the end of the line they were as sure as the folks at the front of the line. If a person wants an outcome to be true, it changes their rational view of the situation.

I drive a Japanese car. I have Japanese watches (one of which I actually bought new!). I really don't care about the Spring Drive. I would buy one only if their price fell to the several hundreds of dollars. The technology is, to be honest, very interesting. But then I am known to like a number of kludges... 

My bias is, I believe, being a counterweight to the strong pro-Japanese bias of most of the WISes on WUS HEQ. Balance is good, for the most part.

So when the Seiko fans come out and tout the Spring Drive as the watch of the decade/year/whatever, I do feel compelled to give the rest of the story.

Maybe Doensen is in error. Maybe Seiko developed the Spring Drive without looking at any prior (or even current) filings. Maybe. But, as I said earlier, if I don't cast doubt on the Seiko marketing propaganda machine, there appears to be no one else who will. Watches are more about jewelry and emotion than most of us in HEQ would like to admit.

People who have a 'jewlery love' of the Spring Drive have a strong bias not to examine possible holes in the Seiko story. And none of the watch press has any incentive to report it... they just reprint PR blurbs from marketing and call it articles.

Oh well, we have fun here I hope. Maybe I have planted some seeds of doubt about what the truth really is in those minds which have no strong emotional attachment to the product. If so, I have done what I sat out to do. It makes HEQ a little less like the FAN-atic forums you usually see in WIS-dom.

Now, who among us are the time travelers?


----------



## RPF (Feb 28, 2008)

It isn't about who is first now.

Seiko has developed the SD to the point where it is now probably impossible for anyone else to try something similar without substantial investment (and more crucially, time).

Regardless the patents, who copied who, this much is fact. The Swiss never went beyond a proof of concept prototype based on the 2824 (sometime in the 90s). I'm not aware of any specs for the prototype, other than it moved. Seiko can boast 30+ years continuous development of the SD, with many, many prototypes (all working) stretching back to the 80s. 

The spec for the SD is incredible, from a power consumption and performance POV. Take for example a PP Calatrava. There is no patent protecting any part of the movement/watch (that I'm aware of). But the craftsmanship and QC alone prevent many brands from making a watch as well finished. It's the same story with the SD. Even without the protection of patents, I believe many brands will find difficulty reverse engineering the movement to the SD's spec. It is high end not just in the technology, but also craftsmanship and manufacturing difficulties.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Eeeb said:


> ...My bias is, I believe, being a counterweight to the strong pro-Japanese bias of most of the WISes on WUS HEQ...


You're not the only one, Jim.;-) Serve them the facts on a silver plate (with style that is) or ask the right question and there will be silence... deafening silence.:roll:


----------



## martback (Feb 11, 2006)

> The generator is electrically switched between two conditions: charging a capacitor (which represents a relatively light mechanical load) or short-circuited stator coil (which means a brake action).


I am not sure how the SD works in detail, but my impression was that it does not switch the generator functionality in the way that is described for the Swiss movement above. A difference like this could very well mean that Seiko did not need to take the Swiss patent into account when they developed the SD. I think it is also wrong to assume that a patent for a quartz controlled mechanical movement would stop the development of any other quartz controlled mechanical movement as very small differences in technical implementation could possibly be enough to get around a previous patent. For example, a lot of companies developed normal quartz watches in parallell and the technical solutions look very similar to me at least.

/ martin


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

ppaulusz said:


> You're not the only one, Jim.;-) Serve them the facts on a silver plate (with style that is) or ask the right question and there will be silence... deafening silence.:roll:


I don't see any facts presented in this thread that actually back up Jim's claim though, Georges. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

You know Eeeb, I have to say that that can only be described as a thinly disguised ad hominem argument. To use a soccer analogy, as you have no hope of getting the ball, you are playing the man. On a number of levels you really should know better.

My arguments are based on premises that are either true or false - falsify them. My logic is either sound or unsound. analyse it and find it wanting. Just don't tell me that I am irrational without evidence. you currently have none.

Moving on, of all the forums on the internet to say that:



> Watches are more about jewelry and emotion than most of us in HEQ would like to admit. People who have a 'jewlery love' of the Spring Drive have a strong bias not to examine possible holes in the Seiko story.


This is the wrong one. Who exactly do you think you are describing here? It certainly isn't me.

For you to present yourself as a neutral observer is, to put it mildly, slightly undermined by the fact that you have a HPM movement as your avatar. We have argued this one into the ground three times now. Each time you have been faced with the fact that your only evidence for your position is a _single _unsubstantiated quote from a book. Each time you start again as if your point was proven the time before.

As you say:



> Maybe Doensen is in error. Maybe Seiko developed the Spring Drive without looking at any prior (or even current) filings. Maybe. But, as I said earlier, if I don't cast doubt on the Seiko marketing propaganda machine, there appears to be no one else who will.


Why would you want to cast doubt on Seiko's claims if you have no evidence they are wrong. That is called prejudice and prejudice is, among other things, irrational.

It all rests (for you) on this alleged 1972 patent I will *give *you fifty dollars or a 7A series Seiko (and acknowledged bragging rights) if you can find 1972 Swiss patent for a springdrive like watch. I can't.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Alex, I replied to the quoted part from Jim. He was not talking specifically about this thread in that quoted part. Neither was I when I commented on it. We both expressed our feelings about the strong pro-Japanese bias of most of the WISes on WUS HEQ.


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

OK, that's cool, but Jim is making the claim that the Swiss beat the Japanese to the punch with SD technology; and as yet, he has not furnished us with any information that proves the point conclusively. Bias? There maybe one, but that's only because the Japanese, at present, take horology seriously. Whilst the Swiss - Co-Axial technology aside;-) - ploughing ahead with pointless tourbillion's, "racist" mechanical watch accuracy competition's and blatant protectionism, clearly aren't.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

M4tt said:


> ...
> It all rests (for you) on this alleged 1972 patent I will *give *you fifty dollars or a 7A series Seiko (and acknowledged bragging rights) if you can find 1972 Swiss patent for a springdrive like watch. I can't.


Patent searches are complex buggers and cost way more than $50US to have done. There are people that make their career doing them.

If you do not accept Doesen as conclusive, then you don't. But to say Watch is not evidence and the failure to confirm something clearly stated in the book is proof it is incorrect is difficult for me to accept.

My mention of the psychology of judgment was to raise a dispositive point. It was not an ad hominem attack. I believe it explains how the love for a watch can explain how the same data can produce disparatre conclusions.

Is it an evil that Seiko leads the world to believe only they have produced a spring drive like watch? In the vast scale of things, no.

Does pointing out Seiko did not produce the first drive spring drive drive lovers of the watch up the wall every time it is done? Yes.

Are we now beating a dead horse? Yes again.

Are further posts likely to convince those with open minds? No.

I have served my purpose of pointing out the rest of the story to those who have not heard it before. Further posting is really feeding a flame war. I've had my say. Believe it or not. Your choice.

No hard feelings on my part. I hope none on yours, whatever your opinions on the topic.


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> Does pointing out Seiko did not produce the first drive spring drive drive lovers of the watch up the wall every time it is done? Yes.


Do you (or anyone else) have any pictures of the first spring drive watch?

I'd like to see it :thanks


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> Does pointing out Seiko did not produce the first drive spring drive drive lovers of the watch up the wall every time it is done? Yes.
> 
> I am sorry, but you are putting yourself out of context with this statement, and making plain your perception of Seiko and the SD in your prior questioning if Seiko is evil statement. Instead of simply introducing to people that ASULAB was making the HPM, you push for the fact that Seiko is wrong. You use words like "Holes" "Evil" "Propaganda", but back none of your statements up except for one patent quote. Just one thing, that could have been a simple mistake. I don't see any holes in stories, I only see speculation and manipulation in your statements. This is what drives me up the wall. It would be completely different if your comments were rational and collected, but you may be beyond that point, and I am sorry to try and bring a decent discussion back to the table.
> 
> ...


Anyways, I have been digging in some patents, here is a Seiko one:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6252828/fulltext.html

It references a patent, that I would be ammused if someone could find, I am not having luck:

49-84680 JP. 08/05/1974

I believe it is a Japanese patent, and probably fairly unrelated... 

P.S. I have read most if not all the threads where Eeeb has tried to educate the masses, and I have to say, he is personally biased, or chooses to use personal opinion with each statement, going back as far as late 2007. His supporting facts show his opinions as they are based on a paper by ASULAB about the HPM and an unknown patent based on the Gnomon project, both of which do not have any facts to support his accusations, and opinions about Seiko waiting for patents to expire etc. This is the conclusion of my research here. One thing that can be considered from the gathered information, is that Seiko and ETA were working on a similar project at similar times, but Seiko went into production first, MAYBE had the 1st prototype, and claims to have had the idea first, with no objection on that claim coming from ETA, and no patent work that we can find that would disprove that.


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

gaijin said:


> Do you (or anyone else) have any pictures of the first spring drive watch?
> 
> I'd like to see it :thanks


Here you go!

http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003672139


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

There are some prototype pictures of early Seikos Spring Drives on this page:

http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003672139

If you do a google search on "7R68" you'll probably come across pictures of the first production Spring Drive from Seiko.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

petew said:


> There are some prototype pictures of early Seikos Spring Drives on this page:
> 
> http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003672139
> 
> If you do a google search on "7R68" you'll probably come across pictures of the first production Spring Drive from Seiko.


My reading of the development of the Spring Drive commercial models is that the 5R series came first, followed by the 7Rs and more recently the 9Rs. Does this progression represent improvements in accuracy and performance generally, or merely that the newer models had complications to power that called for the new movements?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> One of the problems when trying to determine the 'truth' is biases caused by predisposition towards a desired outcome.
> 
> A wonderful study of this was done in .au many years ago. Fans queued for tickets to a football match were asked what the likelihood of them getting tickets before they ran out. (To a casual observer the number of people in line exceeded the tickets available.)
> 
> The folks at the front of the line were pretty sure. They were less sure at the middle of the line. At the end of the line they were as sure as the folks at the front of the line. If a person wants an outcome to be true, it changes their rational view of the situation.


It's a huge mistake to ever consider a single study in the behavioral sciences as remotely close to dispositive. There are several rival hypotheses to the one you (and possibly the authors) chose to explain this empirical phenomenon, and any decent grad student in social psychology could rattle them off almost without thinking.



Eeeb said:


> My bias is, I believe, being a counterweight to the strong pro-Japanese bias of most of the WISes on WUS HEQ. Balance is good, for the most part.


This is interesting. You seem to be saying that the only way to deal with what you perceive as bias is to present an oppositely-biased, and, as it turns out, unsupported, view. In a primitive sense, I guess, this could be considered "balance," but it hardly seems in any way constructive or good science. Why not call out what you see as bias and discuss it objectively and constructively? But let's not resort to baseless conjecture. Factual errors in books are commonplace--unlike in serious journal articles where rigorous vetting is performed by expert reviewers--and Doensen's pathetic response to the request for clarification would be seen by scientists in my field as dodging an embarrassing error.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

No question that it was the 7R68 that was first in 1999. I think, but would need to check, that it was the 5R's that were used in the introduction of the International Market Spring Drive collections released a few years ago.


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

SpringDriven said:


> Here you go!
> 
> http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003672139





petew said:


> There are some prototype pictures of early Seikos Spring Drives on this page:
> 
> http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003672139
> 
> If you do a google search on "7R68" you'll probably come across pictures of the first production Spring Drive from Seiko.


Thanks, but ...

Eeeb has stated quite emphatically that Seiko did NOT produce the first spring drive watch - I want to see a picture of that NON-SEIKO spring drive watch that Eeeb asserts was the first.

Hint - I don't think a picture exists of a non-seiko spring drive watch that came out before the Seiko SpringDrive ;-)


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

South Pender said:


> My reading of the development of the Spring Drive commercial models is that the 5R series came first, followed by the 7Rs and more recently the 9Rs. Does this progression represent improvements in accuracy and performance generally, or merely that the newer models had complications to power that called for the new movements?


PeteW is correct. 7R was 1st. 5R was next, which introduced Automatic winding and 72 hour power reserve. The 7R was hand wind and had 48 hours. The advances for the 5R was a new steel for the mainspring and a more power efficient IC then the 7R (speculation, I just seem to remember this last fact.) Accuracy was not changed to my knowledge.

There is a new Credor SD which is a hand wind 7R, that uses a method of torque management for a longer power reserve. It is planned to be very limited to five pieces a year I read, so I won't hold my breath about this advancement until it trickles down.


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

gaijin said:


> Thanks, but ...
> 
> Eeeb has stated quite emphatically that Seiko did NOT produce the first spring drive watch - I want to see a picture of that NON-SEIKO spring drive watch that Eeeb asserts was the first.
> 
> Hint - I don't think a picture exists of a non-seiko spring drive watch that came out before the Seiko SpringDrive ;-)


Ah, I see. I have the perception he feels that someone else had the idea first, and that Seiko's marketing or propaganda somehow covers up the truth. Who made the 1st watch seems to be unimportant in this conversation from what I am gathering. If he stated someone else PRODUCED one before Seiko, I would like to see that too! 

P.S. I don't doubt that there could have been a 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll, but until forensic proof says otherwise, only one man got the shot.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Eeeb, Of course there are no hard feelings of any sort. We disagree and disagree passionately. Personally I think that this sort of argument conducted sensibly only pushes us to learn more. Without the initial discussions I wouldn't have done the dozen or so patent searches that have really refined my understanding of this idea and have led me to the technique of checking patents of technologies I don't understand as the technology is usually really well explained there.

However, to use your queue analogy, here I am surrounded by a raft of primary data, photographs and patents and with a very clear and evidenced timeline. More to the point it looks as if I have the broad agreement of most people who understand the HPM/SD technology.

On the other hand, you are, by your own admission, fighting a one man fight against the 'official Seiko story' based upon a single peice of secondary evidence with no corroboration whatsoever. (oh and it's the _incredibly_ rare 7A48 that I'm offering - how many all metal, heavily jewelled, moonphases are there out there?)

Clearly we are both quite sure of our positions. However one of us is, to use your example, at the back of the queue and one is at the front. I'm pretty sure who is who. My only worry is that you seem to be *irrationally *sure too.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

M4TT,

Is the 7A48 that you are offering the "Fishingmaster" model? If so, I may have to do some searching myself!!!


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

South Pender said:


> Since the Seiko Spring Drive movements use a quartz crystal, along with IC, to regulate the time, is thermocompensation a reasonable possibility to make these movements even more accurate?
> 
> I've been reading up on these watches and have found that ± 2 sec./month accuracy is not unusual. Could this be improved with the usual TC methods?


Temperature compensation of the crystal would indeed be possible, but it would not compensate for the relatively wide range of error inherent in the electro-mechanical part of the escapement (the spinning rotor). I remember a discussion on TZ a couple of years ago that included someoine recounting a discussion with a Seiko designer. As I remember the discussion temperature compensation was found by Seiko designers to not yield improvement in accuracy.

The advertising I have seen for the Spring Drive focuses on three themes:
1. Spring drive is Seiko's way of separating their watches from the competition in the high-end watch market.
2. Spring drive watches are exclusive because the assembly requires considerable detailed hand work performed by a small team located in Tokyo.
3. The spring drive movement presents a revolution in mechanical watch timekeeping design because the seconds hand is utterly smooth.

It's what Seiko doesn't talk about that is interesting. Seiko purposely downplays to the point of mislabeling and ignoring the electronic basis of this watch. Seiko also avoids claims about enhanced accuracy.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

M4tt said:


> ...
> Clearly we are both quite sure of our positions. However one of us is, to use your example, at the back of the queue and one is at the front. I'm pretty sure who is who. My only worry is that you seem to be *irrationally *sure too.


I perceive my questioning of the Seiko as having two parts. The first is who was first. Without the Watch quote that really has to be entirely debatable. If it stands intact, it is clearly the Swiss. (I actually really don't care much about this point (once a technology is ripe, it is ripe) but it sure seems to stir some folks :-d)

The other is the ability to conceive of and build this technology. Few seem to have heard of the HPM but it clearly shows a variety of sources beyond the genius of Seiko have the ability to build these.

Then there is the questioning of if this technology is really a kludge. That too seems to stir up some. I am a bit more passionate about this but, as I have said, I do like some kludges... the Gastown steam driven clock in Vancouver BC Canada is a good example :-!)

Maybe I am being irrational... but the last persons to judge their rationality are the persons themselves. Who knows?

It is interesting seeing how close the discussion came to getting out of hand. But, for the most part, it didn't. I am not sure it would have been contained if it had occurred in, for example, TAG Heuer (another forum I moderate)... I suspect because TAG has a lot more non-regulars and the regulars don't have a history of 'beating each other over the head then going out for a beer' :-d


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> I perceive my questioning of the Seiko as having two parts. The first is who was first. Without the Watch quote that really has to be entirely debatable. If it stands intact, it is clearly the Swiss.


I think you may have this wrong. Without the _Watch_ quote, it is clearly Seiko. With the _Watch_ quote, it could, perhaps, be said to be debatable, although the failure of anyone (including the quoter) to substantiate the quote reduces it to near irrelevancy.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

South Pender said:


> I think you may have this wrong. Without the _Watch_ quote, it is clearly Seiko. With the _Watch_ quote, it could, perhaps, be said to be debatable, although the failure of anyone (including the quoter) to substantiate the quote reduces it to near irrelevancy.


To be quite honest, I consider Watch to be a substantive reference, more so than forum postings. Even Matt had to convince himself he couldn't find the patent before disbelieving it. I just think Matt hasn't found it.

I assume you have a copy and have found many faults with it that require anything it says to be substantiated. Otherwise your statement that it can not be believed without further corroboration may be what is unfounded.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

John MS said:


> Temperature compensation of the crystal would indeed be possible, but it would not compensate for the relatively wide range of error inherent in the electro-mechanical part of the escapement (the spinning rotor). I remember a discussion on TZ a couple of years ago that included someone recounting a discussion with a Seiko designer. As I remember the discussion temperature compensation was found by Seiko designers to not yield improvement in accuracy.
> 
> The advertising I have seen for the Spring Drive focuses on three themes:
> 1. Spring drive is Seiko's way of separating their watches from the competition in the high-end watch market.
> ...


I think your last point is the critical one... When the Seiko designer is saying the accuracy is "not improved" by temperature compensation they are comparing this to mechanical watch accuracy. 99% of the improvement comes from making it a quartz oscillator controlled watch. A further 1% would come from temperature compensation. There would actually be an improvement, but not much of one.

Since the positioning of this watch is in the mechanical jewelry market, temperature compensation presents no improvement to Seiko...


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

Eeeb I just went to the Doensen website where he's got some short excerpts on his book. First link I click on is Seiko Twin Quartz. What do I see; errors regarding movement accuracy. It was the first link I clicked on. Gee, what are the odds of that? If the first link I click on contains errors, it sure doesn't leave me with a high level of confidence in the rest of the book.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

To kill two birds with one stone. Eeeb, now you are calling into question my research abilities. Are you sure you want to do this?


> Even Matt had to convince himself he couldn't find the patent before disbelieving it. I just think Matt hasn't found it.


I don't see what the 'even' is doing there. You made a claim, I researched it carefully in a series of primary sources which I referenced. On the basis of this, I found it to be false. That is how research is meant to be done, it doesn't imply any credibility to your claim whatsoever.

The bottom line is that you are relying on increasingly dubious secondary research and, rather than doing the primary research you are simply making what is nothing more than a leap of faith. No patents at all refer to this alleged patent. if it was the Ur patent then they would. they don't.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

As far as Eeeb's study goes, I don't even believe in rationality. Hell, I don't even believe in belief. (don't assume I'm joking. I'm not. :-!)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> I assume you have a copy and have found many faults with it that require anything it says to be substantiated.


Why would you assume this? My comment was not specifically aimed at Doensen's book, but rather at secondary sources generally. Anyone who has worked in fields that draw on empirical research knows that books are published routinely that contain errors that would not be found in primary research--the latter generally vetted by subject-matter experts. Only the most cursory of reviewing is usually applied to books, and, in the present case, it's possible that none at all occurred.



Eeeb said:


> Otherwise your statement that it can not be believed without further corroboration may be what is unfounded.


The factors suggesting that the book may not be credible on this one point are: (a) the extensive, and unsuccessful, searches noted by M4tt for the phantom patent document, (b) the fact (as I understand it, but correct me if I'm wrong) that reference to this document appears nowhere else, (c) the extreme low likelihood of its existence given Seiko's behavior throughout the development of their Spring Drive technology, and (d) the author's unwillingness to provide evidence of the validity of his claim when he was asked to do so.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

petew said:


> Eeeb I just went to the Doensen website where he's got some short excerpts on his book. First link I click on is Seiko Twin Quartz. What do I see; errors regarding movement accuracy. It was the first link I clicked on. Gee, what are the odds of that? If the first link I click on contains errors, it sure doesn't leave me with a high level of confidence in the rest of the book.


GACK! Am I going to have to eat crow? :-s

Well, I'm sure Pender will irritate me sufficiently to keep that from happening! :-d


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

^^LOL. :-d


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Hey, I have to do it often enough that I have a couple of recipes you can try.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

John MS said:


> 3. The spring drive movement presents a revolution in mechanical watch timekeeping design because the seconds hand is utterly smooth.
> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.


I believe the matter of the gliding seconds &#8230; is something from which it is the quartz fraternity that is mostly benefiting rather than the mechanical watch folk. There have never been any complaints about the ticking of the mechanicals but people have always been complaining about the one-second steps of the analogue Quartz.

Is the spring drive is best thing that has happened to quartz? :-d



John MS said:


> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> It's what Seiko doesn't talk about that is interesting. Seiko purposely downplays to the point of mislabeling and ignoring the electronic basis of this watch. Seiko also avoids claims about enhanced accuracy.


Also, I feel the enhanced accuracy of the spring drive (over other basic quartz) is the result of the meticulous set up and timing of these particular models. I am sure none of the SD modules leave the factory without passing the stringent of tests. Seiko is underplaying everything about the spring drive. I just wish they had a better and more traditional case designer. 

One detail that has never been mentioned ...* Is the spring drive movement still too big/thick?*

john


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

> I believe the matter of the gliding seconds &#8230; is something from which it is the quartz fraternity that is mostly benefiting rather than the mechanical watch folk. There have never been any complaints about the ticking of the mechanicals but people have always been complaining about the one-second steps of the analogue Quartz.
> 
> Is the spring drive is best thing that has happened to quartz? :-d/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

John MS said:


> Actually the SD offers no real improvement in quartz accuracy since a Seiko Perpetual will run circles around it in an accuracy contest. And the SD takes a giant step backward in usability with a drastically shortened power reserve. Can you imagine trying to sell a Timex Ironman quartz watch with a 60 hour power reserve!!!:-d


I'm not sure about the claim that a "Seiko Perpetual" (by which I assume you mean a standard quartz watch) "will run circles around it [a SD] in an accuracy contest." There have been quite a few reports of 2-4 sec./month accuracy with various SDs, and I'd be surprised if many non-HEQ quartz watches could do better than that. Further, the SD's appeal to many watch fans is the absence of a battery, and it seems unlikely that former automatic watch owners will complain about a 72-hour (not 60-hour) power reserve.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

abraxas said:


> I believe the matter of the gliding seconds &#8230; is something from which it is the quartz fraternity that is mostly benefiting rather than the mechanical watch folk. There have never been any complaints about the ticking of the mechanicals but people have always been complaining about the one-second steps of the analogue Quartz.
> 
> Is the spring drive is best thing that has happened to quartz? :-d


1. The only reason why people never complained about 1-second ticking mechanicals is that the corresponding complication is really rare, I believe it was NEVER available in a watch under the equivalent of 1000$ today and actually right now I believe the least expensive you can find new will go for at least 5000-10000$ ... but if everybody had one that costs under 50$ and lasts years at some point people WILL become bored :-d

2. No, SD is not 'the best that happened to quartz', at most might be 'the best that happened to accurate mechanicals' ... I really find it interesting but I consider the battery life pattern of normal kinetics to be pathetic compared to EcoDrives so a 2500-5000$ watch with 3 days power reserve is not 'the best technology can give us' ;-)


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> I'm not sure about the claim that a "Seiko Perpetual" (by which I assume you mean a standard quartz watch) "will run circles around it [a SD] in an accuracy contest." There have been quite a few reports of 2-4 sec./month accuracy with various SDs, and I'd be surprised if many non-HEQ quartz watches could do better than that. Further, the SD's appeal to many watch fans is the absence of a battery, and it seems unlikely that former automatic watch owners will complain about a 72-hour (not 60-hour) power reserve.


The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear "Seiko Perpetual" is 8F calibers (which with the latest versions WILL run circles) but you are right, there are some other models, especially the kinetics, which are only at the same level as SD ... (the ONLY thing that makes a SD apparently VERY accurate compared to ordinary quartz is the fact that you MUST wear it at least 8 hours/day to keep it alive - which however as we all know will improve things a lot even for older 8F calibers ...)


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

The best thing that happened to quartz is, without doubt, the $3.00 easy to change battery. This lasts three to five years and takes two minutes to change either at a shop or at home.

The ecodrives, autoquartzes and AGS/kinetic systems are, fundamentally, dishonest. All of the advertising states some variation: '*never needs a battery*'. My experience is that '*never*' is in fact far closer to five to eight years. Worse, it is a right royal pain in the bum to change at home, costs $20 or more for the battery (or capacitor) and if you opt for a shop change the bills go up sharply.

The Spring drive removes that battery or capacitor and, as such, on the wrist will keep going non stop between services. Alternatively just bite the bullet and get plain old battery quartz with an honest reserve of a few years. While I'm happily defending the Spring drive I've already got half a dozen HEQ and yet no springdrive. Frankly, if I could only have one it would be a 9F GS. No contest.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

M4tt said:


> The best thing that happened to quartz is, without doubt, the $3.00 easy to change battery. This lasts three to five years and takes two minutes to change either at a shop or at home.
> 
> The ecodrives, autoquartzes and AGS/kinetic systems are, fundamentally, dishonest. All of the advertising states some variation: '*never needs a battery*'. My experience is that '*never*' is in fact far closer to five to eight years. Worse, it is a right royal pain in the bum to change at home, costs $20 or more for the battery (or capacitor) and if you opt for a shop change the bills go up sharply.
> 
> The Spring drive removes that battery or capacitor and, as such, on the wrist will keep going non stop between services. Alternatively just bite the bullet and get plain old battery quartz with an honest reserve of a few years. While I'm happily defending the Spring drive I've already got half a dozen HEQ and yet no springdrive. Frankly, if I could only have one it would be a 9F GS. No contest.


I think for the Ecodrive part you can rest assured it will never need a change in under 5 years (and that is anyway covered by warranty in most places) - my personal feeling is that 20 years is a decent bet to take with better than 50% chance  (maybe with the exception of caliber 9000 if you use the repeater very often).

That being said I totally agree on the dishonest '*never needs a battery*' part - but I believe that one was certainly started by Citizen US - since in US the average 'attention span' today on electronics quality is anyway in the 1-3 years range so anything that is over 5 is "never" ;-)


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

South Pender said:


> I'm not sure about the claim that a "Seiko Perpetual" (by which I assume you mean a standard quartz watch) "will run circles around it [a SD] in an accuracy contest." There have been quite a few reports of 2-4 sec./month accuracy with various SDs, and I'd be surprised if many non-HEQ quartz watches could do better than that. Further, the SD's appeal to many watch fans is the absence of a battery, and it seems unlikely that former automatic watch owners will complain about a 72-hour (not 60-hour) power reserve.


The Seiko Pepetual Calendar has a stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year, which is far better than the stated accuracy of the SD quartz. Additionally, the Pulsar PSR10 has a stated accuracy of 10 seconds per year which eclipses the SD.

The Seiko Perpetual calendar has a power reserve of 10 or 7 years depending on the model. The Pulsar PSR10 has the usual 3 year power reserve.

Compared to other quartz timed watches the SD would appear to be a big step backwards compared to most quartz timed watches.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

John MS said:


> The Seiko Pepetual Calendar has a stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year, which is far better than the stated accuracy of the SD quartz. Additionally, the Pulsar PSR10 has a stated accuracy of 10 seconds per year which eclipses the SD.
> 
> The Seiko Perpetual calendar has a power reserve of 10 or 7 years depending on the model. The Pulsar PSR10 has the usual 3 year power reserve.
> 
> Compared to other quartz timed watches the SD would appear to be a big step backwards compared to most quartz timed watches.


OK. We're talking about two different things. Since perpetual calendar watches can be found in both non-HEQ and HEQ form, and since there are far more of the former than the latter, I assumed that it was the former than you meant. Referring to a watch as "Seiko Perpetual Calendar," therefore, is ambiguous. Certainly, any Seiko watch having the 8F, 8J, or 9F (the latter two thermocompensated) movements will beat SD, but will also beat all non-HEQ quartzes, which probably represent 99.5% of quartz watches. Interestingly, my impression is that neither the 8J or 9F movements have a perpetual calendar! And possibly 8F shares that shortcoming; I'm not sure. However, I gather that there is a new HEQ Seiko movement with perpetual calendar, in their newer higher-end Coutura kinetics for which ± 20 sec./year accuracy is claimed, but I know little about it. The Pulsar PSR10 has, as far as I know, long been out of production.

So, sure, SD will not beat HEQ accuracy, but that's not that big a deal in my view. If it will equal or beat 99.5% of quartz watches without a battery, it will have met its objectives: a basically mechanical watch with quartz accuracy. This means that, in one sense, a SD is a stand-alone watch; it will never need an outside source of power. If it has run down, wind it, and as long as you're wearing it, it will keep going (as well as the 72-hr., power-reserve, period). The claim to fame of the SD is that it will do that _and _give (usual) quartz accuracy (or possibly a little better).


----------



## SpringDriven (Sep 7, 2007)

This is really going in circles. The fact is the SD is a Hybrid, so it really is neither a Quartz or a Mechanical watch, so this is what makes this watch very difficult to classify or label as either. Labeling it as a Hybrid overrides either perspective of mechanical or quartz and is the truth. If the need to compare it to a quartz or a mechanical, the SD makes better sense from the mechanical perspective. The quartz perspective the SD fails at many levels, except the battery. If you want to remove the battery from the equation of a quartz, this might be the only and best solution, as a power source is still needed.

1. No Battery. Each SD has a power reserve indicator, so you have the opportunity to wind it up before it stops. Not too difficult. The ability to make your own electricity is very nice if you stop and think about it, the trade off is you have to wind it up, or wear it or keep it on a winder. If not, wind it up and set the time and go, not really that inconvenient.

2. Requires Service. The SD does reduce a lot of a the friction in the drive train associated with a normal lever escapement of stop and go, back and forth so the wear and tear of a SD is less, however oil being what it is, the watch would still want a service, and in the Seiko 5R66 manual they ask to look at it every three to four years. This is seen as a huge disadvantage compared to a quartz, but since the SD is looked at (marketing wise I perceive) as a mechanical watch, this is normal operating procedure. I fancy that the Hand Wind 7R, having less moving parts, could get away with longer service interval of say every five years. If you follow service recommendations.

3. Very few of the parts are electronic in nature, I have read 4 and it maybe less then this as the IC and QC are on one circuit board. Compared to the rest of the watch which is almost identical to a mechanical, this is 1~2% of the watch. This watch is sustainable, assuming the electronic parts do not fail over time. It can happen, but the mechanical parts should always be able to be machined.

Here is one of my favorite pics:










4. Stated accuracy is what is expected of a 32Khz quartz watch, +/- 15 seconds per month. Very nice compared to most lever escapement watches, not such a big deal to quartz owners.

5. The aesthetics of this movement appeal to those that love the Mechanical watch and yet you gain the accuracy of a quartz watch.

I probably forgot one of my points. In the end, this watch is very appealing to a small audience, I being one of that audience. I don't like batteries, I do like the accuracy of a quartz watch and I love mechanical watches. This is a Hybrid dream come to life.

The fact that Seiko made a watch that embraces both modern quartz technology and married it to traditional mechanical technology was and still is a dizzying experience for me in a horological perspective and makes perfect sense, to me. This perspective will not be shared by all, and this watch is not for everyone. It makes for a beautiful and accurate watch.

P.S. As far as the original Q as to TC the SD or not, I am doing some research on that. I am far from an expert, but I hope to be able to understand enough, and portrait my thoughts in a clear enough matter to better weigh in on this question, in due time. 

P.P.S. The Hand Wind 7R movements are thin, if the Auto versions are too thick for one to want.


----------



## RPF (Feb 28, 2008)

Why don't we just appreciate that the SD is incredibly innovative, difficult to make (and impossible for any company other than Seiko today, due to the patents etc) and most like won't be pursued by any other company in the forseeable future due to the investment required.

I think it is enough for Seiko if Spring Drive=Seiko. It will be their brand builder, and they have no competitors in the particular summit they've crafted for themselves.

Whether it be a klutz, a glorified quartz watch with ordinary accuracy, a labor of love or a copycat Swiss design. Be it love or hate, I'd say it's a very interesting WATCH that'll always give an owner bragging rights for having something unique and low circulation.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

South Pender said:


> OK. We're talking about two different things. Since perpetual calendar watches can be found in both non-HEQ and HEQ form, and since there are far more of the former than the latter, I assumed that it was the former than you meant. Referring to a watch as "Seiko Perpetual Calendar," therefore, is ambiguous. Certainly, any Seiko watch having the 8F, 8J, or 9F (the latter two thermocompensated) movements will beat SD, but will also beat all non-HEQ quartzes, which probably represent 99.5% of quartz watches. Interestingly, my impression is that neither the 8J or 9F movements have a perpetual calendar! And possibly 8F shares that shortcoming; I'm not sure. However, I gather that there is a new HEQ Seiko movement with perpetual calendar, in their newer higher-end Coutura kinetics for which ± 20 sec./year accuracy is claimed, but I know little about it. The Pulsar PSR10 has, as far as I know, long been out of production.
> 
> So, sure, SD will not beat HEQ accuracy, but that's not that big a deal in my view. If it will equal or beat 99.5% of quartz watches without a battery, it will have met its objectives: a basically mechanical watch with quartz accuracy. This means that, in one sense, a SD is a stand-alone watch; it will never need an outside source of power. If it has run down, wind it, and as long as you're wearing it, it will keep going (as well as the 72-hr., power-reserve, period). The claim to fame of the SD is that it will do that _and _give (usual) quartz accuracy (or possibly a little better).


No confusion on my part. The 8F56 and 8F32 have power reserves of 10 and 7 years respectively and both deliver on the stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year. And yes both have a perpetual calendar good until 2100. One can find those watches in the range of $200 to $300. The Pulsar PSR10 is discontinued, but cost $100 when new and delivered 10 seconds per year as stated. Several Japanese market Citizen eco=drive and battery powered watches found on Ebay deliver 10 seconds per year. It should be clear that a high level of accuracy and a useful power reserve are easily obtained at a reasonable price. There is nothing wrong with someone enjoying a spring drive for what it is. But it should be described as the electro-mechanical hybrid that it is. It's specifications should not be glossed over or excused away as they frequently are.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

John MS said:


> No confusion on my part. The 8F56 and 8F32 have power reserves of 10 and 7 years respectively and both deliver on the stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year. And yes both have a perpetual calendar good until 2100. One can find those watches in the range of $200 to $300. The Pulsar PSR10 is discontinued, but cost $100 when new and delivered 10 seconds per year as stated. Several Japanese market Citizen eco=drive and battery powered watches found on Ebay deliver 10 seconds per year. It should be clear that a high level of accuracy and a useful power reserve are easily obtained at a reasonable price. There is nothing wrong with someone enjoying a spring drive for what it is. But it should be described as the electro-mechanical hybrid that it is. It's specifications should not be glossed over or excused away as they frequently are.


Not to put too find a point on it, John, saying that "The Seiko Perpetual Calendar has a stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year" is like saying that the Chevrolet can do 0 to 60 mph in 4.0 seconds. Some Chevs can (Corvettes), but most can't. Same is true for Seiko Perpetual Calendars. Some SPCs have a stated accuracy of 20 sec./year (those with 8F movements), but most don't. I think that this is all I was responding to in your post.

You'll notice that I readily concede that SD won't beat HEQ quartz for accuracy. And sure, your comment that "a high level of accuracy and a useful power reserve are easily obtained at a reasonable price" is, of course, correct, but that was never the goal of the SD development, so saying that SD fails to meet that standard is a little beside the point. SD does, however, provide a high level of accuracy (just not HEQ-level) without a battery, and that, in my opinion, was Seiko's objective with SD from the beginning. You may feel that the limited (72-hour) power reserve is a deal-breaker for you, and, if so, don't buy one! For others, the batteryless quality of the SD is more than enough to motivate them to buy one.

There is one other small point here in comparing a Seiko SD to a Seiko quartz with an 8F movement: the quality of the fit and finish, dial work, construction of hands and hour batons, second-hand alignment, etc., and overall aesthetic impression of the SD far exceed those of the Seiko 8F-based quartz watch. That's no mystery; the price difference pretty much guarantees that. However, these qualities are important to some watch enthusiasts and further enhance the appeal of the SD to them.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> Not to put too find a point on it, John, saying that "The Seiko Perpetual Calendar has a stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year" is like saying that the Chevrolet can do 0 to 60 mph in 4.0 seconds. Some Chevs can (Corvettes), but most can't. Same is true for Seiko Perpetual Calendars. Some SPCs have a stated accuracy of 20 sec./year (those with 8F movements), but most don't. I think that this is all I was responding to in your post.
> ...
> For others, the batteryless quality of the SD is more than enough to motivate them to buy one.
> ...


Three quick points:

a) I agree that the original generic reference to "Seiko Perpetual Calendars" was a mistake and instead it should have been to "Seiko 8F Perpetual Calendars" - this is a forum for VERY precise things ;-)

b) while I personally like the idea of SD I (strongly) believe that the lack of battery is waaay overrated (and mostly by people that don't actually get the level of service needed to keep in PERFECT condition a high-end automatic);

c) my prediction is that there is about 50% chance that in about 5-8 years Seiko could 'split' the SD line in 'low-end' and 'high-end' - and a very simple option for the 'high-end' part would be to use the same 196 kHz quartz as in the 8F line - IMHO the problem is not so much power consumption as it is SIZE (the SD quartz part is probably the smallest in production); as a side-note we might also see the first perpetual-calendar SD but that will be a mechanical PC, will go to the Credor line and will be in the same price range as the Credor Sonerie :-d


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

John MS said:


> .....................
> 
> A few mechanical movements were developed with jumping seconds hands and those were quite expensive. When quartz watches were first introduced one of the selling points was the jumping seconds hand because it allowed the user to tell precisely when the next second occurred.
> 
> I think that most watch wearers really don't care what the seconds hand increments are - they just want to be able to tell time. The only people concerned over the relative smoothness of seconds hands are that vocal but tiny minority of watch wearers - watch collectors.


I've seen gliding secs described as: Mesmerising, Eerie, and Spooky &#8230; and I feel the fascination goes beyond them being just something new. I am preparing a review of my SD600 and I pulled some extracts which respond to your post.



> There isn't much that can truly amuse me these days but I absolutely love it when a chap (in his middle twenties) says that he just got himself his first hand wound and he would very much like to know how much to wind it. To us who have spend most of our early years cranking over, alarm clocks at night and wristies in the morning, the fact that somebody doesn't know what to do with a hand wound is just simply &#8230; adorable.
> 
> Over the last few months I have been experiencing that very same feeling when reading about the wonder some WISes (on various forums) experience upon encountering gliding seconds (in a Seiko Spring Drive) for the first time. Of course us old fish have seen it all before in the Bulova Accutron, the Omega f300, and others in the tuning fork range of chronometers.
> 
> ...


Seiko Spring Drive Sham?? &#8230; (Have you seen this thread?)
https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=262567



John MS said:


> .....................
> 
> Actually the SD offers no real improvement in quartz accuracy since a Seiko Perpetual will run circles around it in an accuracy contest. And the SD takes a giant step backward in usability with a drastically shortened power reserve. Can you imagine trying to sell a Timex Ironman quartz watch with a 60 hour power reserve!!!


I was only comparing the claimed, versus the actual performance, of the (standard) quartz in the spring drive, to (any) other standard quartz. I know that overall the spring drive does not break any records when compared to other offerings like superquartz and TC &#8230; what I was trying to say is, that the excellent performance of the SD when compared with other 'basic' quartz is due to the strict timing at the point of manufacture*.*

john


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

South Pender said:


> Not to put too find a point on it, John, saying that "The Seiko Perpetual Calendar has a stated accuracy of 20 seconds per year" is like saying that the Chevrolet can do 0 to 60 mph in 4.0 seconds. Some Chevs can (Corvettes), but most can't. Same is true for Seiko Perpetual Calendars. Some SPCs have a stated accuracy of 20 sec./year (those with 8F movements), but most don't. I think that this is all I was responding to in your post.
> 
> You'll notice that I readily concede that SD won't beat HEQ quartz for accuracy. And sure, your comment that "a high level of accuracy and a useful power reserve are easily obtained at a reasonable price" is, of course, correct, but that was never the goal of the SD development, so saying that SD fails to meet that standard is a little beside the point. SD does, however, provide a high level of accuracy (just not HEQ-level) without a battery, and that, in my opinion, was Seiko's objective with SD from the beginning. You may feel that the limited (72-hour) power reserve is a deal-breaker for you, and, if so, don't buy one! For others, the batteryless quality of the SD is more than enough to motivate them to buy one.
> 
> There is one other small point here in comparing a Seiko SD to a Seiko quartz with an 8F movement: the quality of the fit and finish, dial work, construction of hands and hour batons, second-hand alignment, etc., and overall aesthetic impression of the SD far exceed those of the Seiko 8F-based quartz watch. That's no mystery; the price difference pretty much guarantees that. However, these qualities are important to some watch enthusiasts and further enhance the appeal of the SD to them.


Don't put too fine a point on your pencil or the lead may break...;-)

Again, I have no argument with anyone who would enjoy a Spring Drive watch for what it is. I'm sure case, dial and bracelet are even lovelier in person than in the many pictures I have seen. They have a stylish edge that separates them from traditional GS watches. The movement is a hybrid that can be appreciated for the technical effort needed to marry mechanical and electronic watch movement technologies in a new way. Although Seiko has previously created another electro-mechanical hybrid, this effort is different in that it uses a spring powered generator to energize a quartz timed feedback loop. That feedback loop uses the rotor within the generator as a flywheel that is braked electronically to keep the revolutions with a narrow range.

Although the spring drive movement does not result in a more accurate or longer running timekeeper, it is something that can be enjoyed for it's complexity. The effort required to design, test and manufacture a hybrid can certainly be appreciated. Much as a tourbillon, mechanical perpetual calendar or mechanical digital, can be enjoyed for the numerous components that must work precisely to deliver complex results. When such a movement is delivered in an attractive case the result can bring years of enjoyment.

It's worth remembering that the quartz timed movement was once cutting edge technology appreciated for both it's complexity as well as it's exceptional accuracy. That movement has of course become ubiquitous and watch owners simply assume the quartz watch on their wrist will be accurate.

We just have to remember that because the spring drive is a hybrid it cannot be seen as an improvement of the mechanically timed watch movement.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

John MS said:


> Don't put too fine a point on your pencil or the lead may break...;-)
> 
> Again, I have no argument with anyone who would enjoy a Spring Drive watch for what it is. I'm sure case, dial and bracelet are even lovelier in person than in the many pictures I have seen. They have a stylish edge that separates them from traditional GS watches. The movement is a hybrid that can be appreciated for the technical effort needed to marry mechanical and electronic watch movement technologies in a new way. Although Seiko has previously created another electro-mechanical hybrid, this effort is different in that it uses a spring powered generator to energize a quartz timed feedback loop. That feedback loop uses the rotor within the generator as a flywheel that is braked electronically to keep the revolutions with a narrow range.
> 
> ...


All good points and well-put. As to what a spring drive watch is (essentially a mechanical watch or essentially a quartz watch) was, I believe, debated on this forum a few months ago, and I'm going to try to find that thread and reread it. Your (and others') characterization of SD as a hybrid makes the most sense to me.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 13, 2006)

.
*"The spring drive is the only movement with a time-only feedback (or phase-locked) loop in existence today."*

Quoted from: Spring Drive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Drive

I've been seeing this (in my mind's eye) for months, without being able to put it into words. :-d

john


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

That's an interesting reference, John. I had thought that it was the energy produced by the mainspring that powered the control circuit and quartz crystal, but this article suggests that it is not this _directly_, but rather the energy produced subsequently by the glide wheel (which in turn, of course, is powered by mainspring energy) that powers the quartz oscillator.

In addition, the material under "History" was interesting in that it clearly suggested Seiko's precedence with this general idea. ASULAB's HPM version is portrayed as following the Seiko development:

"Swatch's research company ASULAB has developed a conceptually similar movement called the High Precision Mechanics calibre. [1] Several proof of concept prototypes based on the ETA 2824 calibre were produced in the late 1990's. Seiko's efforts with the Spring Drive predate ASULAB's HPM, since Spring Drive watches were already on sale in 1999."

The reference [1] given for the ASULAB HPM development is an ASULAB webpage in which the HPM version is described, along with a number of other ASULAB designs.

This Wikipedia article, like all Wikipedia articles, is not, as we all know, dispositive. I've emailed ASULAB for further information about their HPM movement, including some development dates, and, in the unlikely event that I get definitive information back, I'll report back to the forum.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Just found the Swiss patent, CH597636 ... Here is a copy of the US filing. As you can see, it was originally filed in *1972*. Clearly the Seiko Spring Drive is a derivative of this patent issued to Ebauches S.A. (now ETA).

So, in spite of all Seiko's PR efforts, the truth comes out! *The 'spring drive' is a Swiss invention. Doensen was accurate.* I assume the delay in producing the Seiko Spring Drive really was a wait for the expiration of the Swiss patent.

I contrast Seiko's obfuscation with the TAGHeuer CEO's clear admission (here on WUS) their Calibre 1887 was based on a license from Seiko. In my experience in business some company cultures value honesty. And some don't.

I know this raised a number of hackles (got folks irritated) when I first posited it. But, personally, I'll take the heat. The Truth Will Out.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Is there an official Seiko response to this?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Interesting post, Eeeb, but I'm not sure that this is quite the breakthrough you have portrayed it as. Maybe it is, but there would appear to be a number of questions remaining. One would be whether or not Seiko's design in fact would violate this patent. Do we know the life of patents like this? It was, if memory serves, only 6 years later, in 1978, that Seiko obtained their patent. Right? We seem to be guessing about the reason Seiko obtained their patent when they did, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this was because the 1972 patent had run out. Surely patents run for more than 6 years, although I confess I don't really know this to be true, and am prepared to be corrected. Perhaps the 1972 patent was still in force, but there were sufficient differences between the two to warrant a separate patent to Seiko. Although similar in concept, it could be argued that the ETA patent was something different (in some subtle, but important, ways), so that it would not be considered similar enough to "Spring Drive" by most watch-movement experts to claim that label. Perhaps Seiko's initial Spring Drive work preceded that of ASULAB, but they didn't patent it until 1978--perhaps waiting to see whether ASULAB were likely to follow their development through to production. If that were true, it would not really be dishonest of Seiko to represent themselves as the inventors of Spring Drive.

This is very interesting, but I think it is a real leap to claim, on the basis of this discovery alone, that the Swiss invented Spring Drive (as I suspect you know, Eeeb). There are too many interpretive subtleties, required inferences, and plain unknowns in this whole story, in my opinion, to warrant such a conclusion. Let's see what other information we can gather. It seems entirely possible that some thinking and work on a spring-powered watch with quartz timing was done by others before even the 1972 patent.

_Edit:_ I might add that characterizing Seiko as having a dishonest culture (unlike the Swiss watchmakers) on the basis of this very circumstantial bit of new information seems to me to be unwarranted.​


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

ronalddheld said:


> Is there an official Seiko response to this?


Why would there be?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

South Pender said:


> Interesting post, Eeeb, but I'm not sure that this is quite the breakthrough you have portrayed it as. Maybe it is, but there would appear to be a number of questions remaining. One would be whether or not Seiko's design in fact would violate this patent. Do we know the life of patents like this? It was, if memory serves, only 6 years later, in 1978, that Seiko obtained their patent. Right? We seem to be guessing about the reason Seiko obtained their patent when they did, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this was because the 1972 patent had run out. Surely patents run for more than 6 years, although I confess I don't really know this to be true, and am prepared to be corrected. Perhaps the 1972 patent was still in force, but there were sufficient differences between the two to warrant a separate patent to Seiko. Although similar in concept, it could be argued that the ETA patent was something different (in some subtle, but important, ways), so that it would not be considered similar enough to "Spring Drive" by most watch-movement experts to claim that label. Perhaps Seiko's initial Spring Drive work preceded that of ASULAB, but they didn't patent it until 1978--perhaps waiting to see whether ASULAB were likely to follow their development through to production. If that were true, it would not really be dishonest of Seiko to represent themselves as the inventors of Spring Drive.
> 
> This is very interesting, but I think it is a real leap to claim, on the basis of this discovery alone, that the Swiss invented Spring Drive (as I suspect you know, Eeeb). There are too many interpretive subtleties, required inferences, and plain unknowns in this whole story, in my opinion, to warrant such a conclusion. Let's see what other information we can gather. It seems entirely possible that some thinking and work on a spring-powered watch with quartz timing was done by others before even the 1972 patent.
> 
> _Edit:_ I might add that characterizing Seiko as having a dishonest culture (unlike the Swiss watchmakers) on the basis of this very circumstantial bit of new information seems to me to be unwarranted.​


I have no idea what was in the heads at Seiko. I have no idea how any litigation would have turned out. I do know Seiko claimed they developed this all on their own. Such claims are made all the time, but not usually so forcefully as the Seiko PR machine made them both at the announcement and once the possible infringement was exposed.

So patient law has to deal with this all the time. They do so by the test of prior art. 1972 is prior to 1978, I believe. So by the test which would have been applied, Seiko fails. You can apply other tests if you wish but the prior art test is fairly convincing to most, including courts.

On the question of how could someone get a patent on something which conflicts with a prior patent during the patent's lifetime (21 years generally), well, it happens all the time. Most patents are granted if properly filed. Patent examiners don't find many conflicts that actually exist. In patents, the real work starts with the litigation and one of the first things you have to do is get all the improperly granted patents invalidated. So it is common.

I have hired patent attorneys but I am not one. So I can not claim to know the legal technicalities of how one proves infringement. But, like many of us here, I do understand technology. The technology of the Seiko Spring Drive and the technology of the ASULAB Spring Drive are essentially the same. So I would HOPE a legal case of infringement would prevail but I realize the law has a logic that sometimes defies normal reality. So one can't be sure.

But this is all irrelevant because infringement claims can usually only be made after an infringing product comes on the market. And Seiko's Spring Drive came on the market after the Ebauches SA patent expired. So legally the argument on actual infringement is moot. By design, I suspect.

And I have been making the argument the Swiss created the first spring driven quartz watch all along, even before this discovery of the Swiss patent number. And Seiko has been denying it all along.

My irritation with Seiko is not based on the discovery of the actual Swiss patent. It is based on their claim they never did any patent searches in their industry so they never got any ideas from those searches and they did all the spring drive development all on their own in isolation of the world around them. That is not how the world works. In my opinion it is dishonest for Seiko's PR folks to make those claims.

And as to corporate culture I point out there is a world of difference between a company that strives to be 100% honest and one that strives to be 99% honest. If a culture wishes to value honesty it needs to practice it every day at every level in every interaction. And for Seiko's corporate management to allow dishonest statements from their PR group to stand means there is rot at the top. Which means there is rot everywhere.

When the TAGHeuer PR folks 'forgot' to say the new Calibre 1887 was based on a license from Seiko, the President and CEO of TAGHeuer himself, Jean-Christophe Babin, got on WUS's TAGHeuer forum to admit it. Sometimes honest people have to eat crow.

I would have thought finding the actual Swiss patent, whose existence was here to fore denied by some, would put an end to this controversy. Maybe, after the facts are digested, it will sink in. One can always hope.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> I have no idea what was in the heads at Seiko. I have no idea how any litigation would have turned out. I do know Seiko claimed they developed this all on their own. Such claims are made all the time, but not usually so forcefully as the Seiko PR machine made them both at the announcement and once the possible infringement was exposed.
> 
> So patient law has to deal with this all the time. They do so by the test of prior art. 1972 is prior to 1978, I believe. So by the test which would have been applied, Seiko fails. You can apply other tests if you wish but the prior art test is fairly convincing to most, including courts.
> 
> ...


Interesting additional details Eeeb. Thanks. You may well be right in thinking that the discovery of this patent will put the issue to rest. I haven't delved into it sufficiently to have a view that counts for much. But I do agree that getting to the bottom of things--when this is possible--is important, even if some feel that the whole issue is irrelevant. So this is good scholarship.

As for honesty in business, I've just been the victim of a beat-down over on the Seiko & Citizen forum for stressing the complete dishonesty in watch marketing, this time by Citizen. Citizen make claims like "never needs a battery," "will last forever," for their eco-drive (light-powered rechargeable cells), which, given the actual experiences of many owners, are ludicrous. This kind of false advertising--although it is certainly not on just Citizen's part, and seems to pervade most of the industry--bothers me. However, my pointing this out got me labeled a Citizen-Hater and a troll! :-d


----------



## sl7vk (Mar 12, 2010)

Thanks for this line of reasoning.... 
I'm now going to jump onto helicopteruseek and educate the forumers there on how the Swiss also invented the helicopter.
I have the drawings to prove it.










I also have an internet link showing that DaVinci family is actually from the Swiss canton of Ticino originally.

Those idiots seem to think it was Breguet or Cornu because they actually built and flew one.... 
Furthermore, I can't wait to expose Bell and Sikorsky for not properly giving credit to DaVicini on their website....

Yawn.

I'll start believing once a credible source publishes something to this effect.... watchtime, international watch etc...
Until then, I guess I'll just have to believe that shady Japanese multi-national company


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

Great detective work!
|>

Thanks for putting the time and effort in to get to the bottom of this.

It is far easier and a lot more comfortable to swallow all the PR guff.
It doesn't contribute to any knowledge though.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

"Prior Art" is a term of art in patent law. It does not mean an earlier drawing of something exists.

Beyond your humor, I take umbrage that the watch magazines are the only credible sources. Indeed, it is rare for them to publish anything negative about their advertisers. They are full of puff pieces. ("Puff Piece" is a term of art in journalism... it has nothing to do with cream puffs. LOL)

You are much more likely to get a serious discussion of issues on WUS... mixed in with the silly posts.


----------



## rileynp (Mar 16, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> Just found the Swiss patent, CH597636 ... Here is a copy of the US filing. As you can see, it was originally filed in *1972*. Clearly the Seiko Spring Drive is a derivative of this patent issued to Ebauches S.A. (now ETA).


I'm unable to view that link to the Swiss patent for some reason, all I get is this:

*An error has occurred*

*not found*

 Back to previous page 

The page you tried to display caused an error. 
Error message: *Entity not found:* the requested entity was not found

If you believe that this error is caused by a fault of the application, please forward this page to [email protected]. Thank you.

Could you post a different link or send it to me some other way? Thanks, Eeeb!


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> Just found the Swiss patent, CH597636 ... Here is a copy of the US filing. As you can see, it was originally filed in *1972*. Clearly the Seiko Spring Drive is a derivative of this patent issued to Ebauches S.A. (now ETA).


Eeb, this thread began in 2009. You really spent the last two years leafing through Swiss patent files from the 70s just to try to prove a (questionable) point? Dude!


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Is honesty in business(tese days) an oxymoron?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

ronalddheld said:


> Is honesty in business(tese days) an oxymoron?


It seems to be in many cases. Intellectual dishonesty (involving priority of ideas, etc.) is one example, and the concept of truth in advertising is another, one that seems largely ignored these days (and maybe always has been). The marketing bumf associated with watches is just one example of the latter. Those who understand watches and electronics to a certain degree know, for instance, that the light-powered rechargeable-battery systems (eco-drive, etc.) do not last forever, and the little evidence we've accumulated on the expected lifespan indicates that many die out in only several years. The typical lifespan may turn out to be 10-15 years, still longer than regular batteries, but definitely not infinite--which would have to be the case for the claims we see about "never needs replacement" and "lasts as long as your watch." Some would argue that such claims are no big deal because we all know that advertising consists of a lot of exaggeration, but my sense is that most people don't understand watches and electronics well enough to apply this adjustment factor and avoid disappointment years later. Still, since we've become somewhat inured to it, maybe misrepresentation in advertising is less serious than issues involving intellectual property. This is a problem these days not only in business, but also academia, where false claims (particularly in medical research), plagiarism, and data-fabrication are disturbingly frequent. It all reflects, I think, larger societal trends.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> ... The typical lifespan may turn out to be 10-15 years, still longer than regular batteries, but definitely not infinite--which would have to be the case for the claims we see about "never needs replacement" and "lasts as long as your watch."
> ...


While I agree that the lack of honesty is clearly increasing I must point out that "lasts as long as your watch" might be technically correct in possibly up to 90% of the cases where that is used as a 'daily beater' - meaning that in our consumerist society there is a huge chance that in 10-15 years most people will just get another watch anyway :-d


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

How many of the watches we..... watch addicts..... own now will we still own in five years, let alone ten or twenty? The people who keep a watch for a really long time are not the enthusiasts, I don't think.
While there can be no doubt that truth is a flexible commodity in advertising and publicity material, I don't think many people take such offerings literally. That's not to say that exaggeration and hyperbole are acceptable, but I think most of us have learned to take advertising and the like with a sizable grain of salt. I've reached the point of hitting the mute button immediately the commercials come on when I'm watching TV and not turning the noise back on until they're over. That's only partly because of the content, of course.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Mindless hate is an odd thing, wherever it crops up. When it crops up in a hobbyists forum, it's, to say the least, very odd; we're supposed to be lovers here, not haters. When it's perpetrated by a moderator, it's, well, sad (to put the best face on the matter).

If you don't like Spring Drive, don't buy it. But your amateur patent sleuthing (at least, I hope it's amateur; if you're a patent professional, you should be even more ashamed of yourself) reflects only on your obsession to mock a fine movement, and fine company. If there were relevant prior art, to make Seiko's patents invalid, (i) it's quite likely it would have been found in a decent search (gee, if you can do it, those charged with doing such things for a living certainly can, also), (ii) and Seiko's competitors likely would have done something about it.

Since neither has happened, I'm quite satisfied that your blatherings are just that of a hater, and should be treated as such.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Geez, I think that's way too severe, 124spider. This forum has many members who enjoy tracing the origins of quartz-related developments, and tracking patents and piecing together the origins of something as significant in the field of horology as the Spring Drive is good scholarship, and something that I know many on the forum appreciate.

To find fault with a company through honest research activities is no cause for shame, and attributing hate-related motives is really inappropriate, in my opinion. We can still love Spring Drive (I do) and realize that its development included some unattributed contributions. This doesn't impact our enjoyment of the technology (at least not mine), but does provide some texture to our understanding of its origins and the behind-the-scenes events along the way. To many of us, this deeper understanding of the developmental history adds to our enjoyment of the product.

There may well be more to the story than revealed by this patent discovery alone. That is what I was alluding to in my earlier post in suggesting that "there are too many interpretive subtleties, required inferences, and plain unknowns in this whole story, in my opinion, to warrant such a conclusion [that the Swiss invented Spring Drive]." But this discovery by Eeeb is interesting in its own right and not, in my opinion, the result of animus towards Seiko.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

South Pender said:


> Geez, I think that's way too severe, 124spider. This forum has many members who enjoy tracing the origins of quartz-related developments, and tracking patents and piecing together the origins of something as significant in the field of horology as the Spring Drive is good scholarship, and something that I know many on the forum appreciate.


I have no problem with this activity.



> To find fault with a company through honest research activities is no cause for shame, and attributing hate-related motives is really inappropriate, in my opinion.


If I believed that what he "found" proved that Seiko "stole" the idea from the Swiss, I would agree. I don't, so I don't. His posts smack of hate, for some inexplicable reason. He even went to the extreme of reviving a thread that's been dead for two years to make his "point."



> We can still love Spring Drive (I do) and realize that its development included some unattributed contributions.


Sure, if I believed that. I don't. I simply do not believe that some watch nut can "unearth" prior art, invented by a competitor, and that competitor hasn't done anything about it.



> This doesn't impact our enjoyment of the technology (at least not mine), but does provide some texture to our understanding of its origins and the behind-the-scenes events along the way. To many of us, this deeper understanding of the developmental history adds to our enjoyment of the product.


Again, if I believed the cited patent were prior art, I might agree with you. But I don't. And his tone only adds to my inference that he has some sort of odd vendetta.



> There may well be more to the story than revealed by this patent discovery alone.


Calling this a "patent discovery" is giving it far more credit than it deserves, IMO. Do you really think that ETA would ignore this "situation" if its patent were, in fact, prior art?



> That is what I was alluding to in my earlier post in suggesting that "there are too many interpretive subtleties, required inferences, and plain unknowns in this whole story, in my opinion, to warrant such a conclusion [that the Swiss invented Spring Drive]." But this discovery by Eeeb is interesting in its own right and not, in my opinion, the result of animus towards Seiko.


If Eeeb had presented it that way, I might be inclined to agree. But, of course, he didn't.



> As a personal aside, I've just recently been accused on another forum of mindless hatred of Citizen because I pointed out some misrepresentations in their advertising. The fact that I have owned a number of Citizen watches (and still do) and have praised them on this forum seems not to have made any difference. I think accusations of product- or corporate-hatred are simply inappropriate on this or any other forum.


I think actual "hatred" by so-called WIS is inappropriate (well, except for knock-offs and fakes, of course  ). But when when someone's posts repeatedly bludgeon me over the head with the poster's hatred, I'll call him out. And not feel even a little bad about it.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

124Spider said:


> I have no problem with this activity.
> 
> If I believed that what he "found" proved that Seiko "stole" the idea from the Swiss, I would agree. I don't, so I don't. His posts smack of hate, for some inexplicable reason. He even went to the extreme of reviving a thread that's been dead for two years to make his "point."
> 
> ...


My my, you must think me an awful person. And you don't even know me. That says something, but not about me.

I have co-moderated this forum for years. The origin of spring driven quartz watches has been an ongoing issue for even more years. I found something relevant and posted it into an old thread so the relevance could be made in context. That is not as uncommon in this forum as it may be in Public or some other forums.

I have many Seiko watches... possibly more than you. I don't hate the brand. I do find falsehoods designed to deceive unsavory at best.

If you find something wrong with my analysis please point it out. If you re-read all the relevant posts, you will find the points you made above were covered. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

This forum is not a fanzine like so many others. It is about facts and analysis. This is not common and I can see how a brief visit may not make that apparent. For that reason your post does not really upset me. It is the kind of brand bluster I see all over the place. We prefer a more scientific and technical approach in HEQ.


----------



## hiro1963 (Feb 4, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> We prefer a more scientific and technical approach in HEQ.


Eeeb,

I'm not sure if you are really practicing what you are saying. South Pender explained that well in his previous reply.



South Pender said:


> Perhaps Seiko's initial Spring Drive work preceded that of ASULAB, but they didn't patent it until 1978--perhaps waiting to see whether ASULAB were likely to follow their development through to production. If that were true, it would not really be dishonest of Seiko to represent themselves as the inventors of Spring Drive.
> 
> Edit: I might add that characterizing Seiko as having a dishonest culture (unlike the Swiss watchmakers) on the basis of this very circumstantial bit of new information seems to me to be unwarranted.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

What he said about the technical aspects of this forum.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> My my, you must think me an awful person. And you don't even know me. That says something, but not about me.


Wow. I know what you have written, which clearly shows a very large bias either for Swiss watches, or against Seiko. Either way, your posts are not balanced, by any stretch. Do I think you're an awful person? No way for me to know. Do I think that you've made some posts that show a huge bias? Yes, because you have.



> I have co-moderated this forum for years. The origin of spring driven quartz watches has been an ongoing issue for even more years. I found something relevant and posted it into an old thread so the relevance could be made in context. That is not as uncommon in this forum as it may be in Public or some other forums.


I have no problem with posting information that may be interesting. Or posting information that actually "proves" something. But to post what you did, the way you did it, proves nothing vaguely like Spring Drive being a Swiss invention.



> I have many Seiko watches... possibly more than you. I don't hate the brand. I do find falsehoods designed to deceive unsavory at best.


As do I, which is why I so dislike your posts.



> If you find something wrong with my analysis please point it out. If you re-read all the relevant posts, you will find the points you made above were covered. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.


Nor are you. You didn't "prove" that Spring Drive is a Swiss invention. You "found" a patent that may or may not have had any bearing on the history of Spring Drive, and added a spin that's pure malignancy. You are, of course, entitled to do so. But that doesn't make it right. Or admirable.



> This forum is not a fanzine like so many others. It is about facts and analysis.


I wish that were true. Your "analysis" and nonsense "conclusion" that Seiko stole Spring Drive from the Swiss, and is covering that up, isn't either fact or decent analysis. Again, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest to find that Spring Drive isn't a Seiko original, since I have no particular attachment to Seiko. But you didn't do that; you just smeared them. Bully for you.



> This is not common and I can see how a brief visit may not make that apparent. For that reason your post does not really upset me. It is the kind of brand bluster I see all over the place. We prefer a more scientific and technical approach in HEQ.


Would that that were true.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

You are miss characterizing what I said. I am not proving spring driven quartz watches that Seiko calls Spring Drive were 'stolen' from the Swiss. Maybe Seiko does live in isolation, unaware of what is happening in the rest of the world. If so, they didn't 'steal it', they developed it independently. That is what they say they did. I just don't think things work that way, even at Seiko. That is an OPINION.

What I believe I am showing is the Swiss first developed this technology. I believe I have shown that to be a FACT. And in this world, the people with prior art are traditionally credited with the discovery.

And evidently you haven't read all the relevant posts as I believe it has been shown Seiko's implementation of their spring driven quartz movement is essentially the same as AUSLAB's. 

Maybe you have not read those threads. This has been an ongoing discussion. Some date back years (the search function is your friend!). Attack that analysis if you wish. But you will actually have to do some reading and thinking to do so. Just being a naysayer quickly dashing off "no you didn't" posts is not likely to garner you much respect around here even though you may be used to that elsewhere. Work at it if you want us to share your opinions...


----------



## hiro1963 (Feb 4, 2008)

ronalddheld said:


> What he said about the technical aspects of this forum.


Technical aspects? What's that got to do with this discussion right now?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> You are miss characterizing what I said. I am not proving spring driven quartz watches that Seiko calls Spring Drive were 'stolen' from the Swiss. Maybe Seiko does live in isolation, unaware of what is happening in the rest of the world. If so, they didn't 'steal it', they developed it independently. That is what they say they did. I just don't think things work that way, even at Seiko. That is an OPINION.
> 
> What I believe I am showing is the Swiss first developed this technology. I believe I have shown that to be a FACT. And in this world, the people with prior art are traditionally credited with the discovery.
> 
> ...


If the patent you cite is prior art, Seiko's patents are invalid. But impartial folks (that is, folks without some axe to grind) would doubt that everyone in the highly-competitive watch industry would have ignored that all this time, if it were prior art.

It is possible that the patent you cited is somehow relevant, in some small way, to Spring Drive. It is possible that Seiko knew about it (indeed, if it is somehow relevant, I can be pretty sure Seiko did all appropriate searches and found it). But it is not even slightly credible to say what you've said about Seiko.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> You are miss characterizing what I said. I am not proving spring driven quartz watches that Seiko calls Spring Drive were 'stolen' from the Swiss. Maybe Seiko does live in isolation, unaware of what is happening in the rest of the world. If so, they didn't 'steal it', they developed it independently. That is what they say they did. I just don't think things work that way, even at Seiko. That is an OPINION.
> 
> What I believe I am showing is the Swiss first developed this technology. I believe I have shown that to be a FACT. And in this world, the people with prior art are traditionally credited with the discovery.
> 
> ...


As I said earlier, I think discovering and presenting this patent is a valuable contribution, and I also believe that trying to get to the bottom of important developments is important, and does illustrate the orientation of this forum to science and technology. This contributes to good scholarship and is not, in my mind, an illustration of Seiko-hatred. I guess for me, though, what I'm not entirely certain about are the following: (a) is ASULAB's development (presumably that patented in the 1972 document) truly Spring Drive as it now exists or sufficiently different from Spring Drive to allow Seiko to apply for and get their own patent in 1978 for a discernibly different mechanism--that which is now labeled Spring Drive (in other words does the 1972 patent _definitively_ represent "prior art" vis-a-vis Spring Drive, or are we merely seeing it that way because of some similarities?)? and (b) do we have a full enough account of activities at that time (early 1970s) by both ASULAB and Seiko to_ know_ (rather than speculate, even if our speculation is logical) that Seiko were not involved in developmental work on this concept prior to or at the same time as ASULAB? I'm not sure the presentation of the 1972 patent definitively establishes that Seiko were not similarly occupied at that time. Assuming this from the fact that ASULAB got the 1972 patent is just that--an assumption--even if it seems logical to assume that Seiko would necessarily have applied for their own patent had they been thus involved. So, I guess I see this discovery as _possibly,_ but not necessarily, indicating that the Swiss had the idea first (and in sufficient breadth to include what is now Spring Drive). As I noted earlier, I think we need additional historical information to arrive at a more airtight position here on priority.


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> What I believe I am showing is the Swiss first developed this technology. I believe I have shown that to be a FACT. And in this world, the people with prior art are traditionally credited with the discovery.
> 
> And evidently you haven't read all the relevant posts as I believe it has been shown Seiko's implementation of their spring driven quartz movement is essentially the same as AUSLAB's.


I am interested in AUSLAB's (sic) "... implementation of their spring driven quartz movement ..."

Was there ever a completed watch available to the public?

Did the concept patented by Berney in 1972/1973 which you cite, ever achieve commercialization?

If it did, then clearly Seiko's commercialization of the concept is derivative.

If, however, Seiko were the first to commercialize the concept, thus developing and refining all those niggling stumbling blocks oft encountered between concept and product, then perhaps Seiko deserve proper credit for being first.

In either case, I find it hard to accept the strong implication that Seiko have purposely, as a tenet of their corporate culture, acted unethically or immorally.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

One thing to remember, there is no direct tie from the patent to Asulab. In an older thread where an Asulab paper was presented, Asulab claimed they didn't become aware of the idea until the late 70's and Asulab as a company didn't even exist until 1980, so there is a big deadspot in what was going on with the Swiss between this patent and when Asulab picked up on the idea.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

petew said:


> One thing to remember, there is no direct tie from the patent to Asulab. In an older thread where an Asulab paper was presented, Asulab claimed they didn't become aware of the idea until the late 70's and Asulab as a company didn't even exist until 1980, so there is a big deadspot in what was going on with the Swiss between this patent and when Asulab picked up on the idea.


Ebauches SA was a movement company that, through mergers, became ETA. Asulab is owned by the same company that owns ETA. They are not independent entities. Asulab does prototyping. That is what the HPM was, prototyping.

Beyond that one can only speculate. I would speculate someone in the parent company saw the Seiko patent. (They do actually look at each others patents. Our former moderator, Bruce Reding, holds a number of corporate R&D created patents. He once said everyone looks so closely at each other, that sometimes patents are filed on approaches they do not believe will be productive just to divert the competition.) Until then they probably did not consider exploiting the Ebauches SA patent. But they decided to fund up Asulab to build a hundred prototypes and see how it came out.

It worked. But clearly the powers that be decided not to build it... in my opinion it was a kludge: overly complex technology that is a poor solution to a technical problem... and they sat on it.

And Seiko had to sit on it too until the Ebauches SA patents expired. One never knows for sure how litigation will turn out, but the question is moot if you wait until the patent expires.

But then again, maybe Seiko was moving as fast as it could and it just took almost 20 years for them to bring this product to market. And they were not really waiting for the patent to expire. They were just very slow. That is possible. Unlikely in my opinion. But possible ;-)

But you are right, if you don't know the relationships between the Swiss parties, it might not be clear how the HPM related to the Ebauches patent.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

gaijin said:


> I am interested in AUSLAB's (sic) ...
> 
> In either case, I find it hard to accept the strong implication that Seiko have purposely, as a tenet of their corporate culture, acted unethically or immorally.


You are correct. It is ASULAB. I have made that transposition before. Sorry. Your other questions are covered in previous posts.

I am sure Seiko professes to be ethical and moral in all matters. Almost every public corporation does, even the corporations currently working under indictment or consent decrees! But I have noticed even corporations which make such professions sometimes fail to achieve their goals. Marketing people lie all the time. But it is up to management to keep them in check.

I may be overly sensitive to this because my previous job was rooting out and getting out of a very large corporation people who did this. But my mandate was more criminal than commercial falsehoods. Other groups investigated complaints about our advertising. When those people were caught they weren't fired. They just had to fill out compliance reports to make sure they did not do it again. I suspect such a group does not exist at Seiko... but it might and it is, in this case, just ineffective.

As I sit here composing this response, an observation on the culture of forums comes to mind. Moderators exist, in part, to assure negative postings about individuals and businesses are done fairly. Many of my early postings on this topic were done years ago before I became a moderator. I think and certainly hope my postings over the years have improved in that I am more precise in criticisms. I think this recent subthread reflects that. If it does not, please keep pointing out errors and omissions.

A forum is not a series of definitive posts. Rather it is a mechanism that creates a process by which more definitive statements can be made. I am proud of HEQ members in that none of this has been personal. And the questions do hone the knowledge and understanding we are acquiring. But the downside is there is not one definitive post anyone can read and understand the topic. A number of threads have existed on this and the knowledge is spread in them. Oh well. We have to swim in the water we find ourselves...


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb, just for clarification: Is it your view that Seiko's obtaining of the 1978 patent did not constitute patent infringement because infringement can only be charged when a product is actually in production (or, in other words, a second patent cannot be considered an infringement of an earlier nearly-identical one)? Or perhaps that later patents aren't normally compared with earlier similar ones, but are just routinely issued? That, perhaps, Seiko were able to obtain their patent even though it was for something that the patent of Ebauches SA had already covered, and Ebauches SA wouldn't challenge it then because nothing commercial had, at that time, been produced? And that Seiko waited to go into production with the practical results of their 1978 patent until the Ebauches SA patent had expired? Maybe I'm just dense, but I didn't put all this together earlier. Please correct me if I have this wrong. If all of this is your view, don't you think that it contains a few too many assumptions regarding corporate behavior to definitively state at this time that "The 'spring drive' is a Swiss invention"? Drawing attention to the 1972 Ebauches SA patent is a contribution to this puzzle, but it seems to me that there are still a few too many unanswered questions. Sometimes logic like that expressed in this thread along the lines, for example, of "if the 1978 Seiko patent was really preceded by "prior art" in the form of the 1972 patent, ETA would have taken legal action," while seemingly compelling, is just simply inapplicable because of a myriad of circumstances, events, and other corporate actions of which we are completely unaware.


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> You are correct. It is ASULAB. I have made that transposition before. Sorry. Your other questions are covered in previous posts.
> 
> I am sure Seiko professes to be ethical and moral in all matters. Almost every public corporation does, even the corporations currently working under indictment or consent decrees! But I have noticed even corporations which make such professions sometimes fail to achieve their goals. Marketing people lie all the time. But it is up to management to keep them in check.
> 
> ...


Well, mission accomplished, Mr. Moderator. I won't darken the halls of your HEQ Forum any more.

Your default position that Seiko is some kind of bad actor is more than tiresome.

My questions were only answered elsewhere in that there is no evidence of ANY commercialization of the Spring Drive technology before Seiko did it.

But I get it. I am dismissed.

Well done.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

Well Eeeb, since we are speculating, here's my attempt.

In 1978, when Asulab (not a company at this point, but a group of folks working for Ebauches SA) discovered this patent, Seiko had already been working on their prototypes. Asulab thought it was a great idea and starting working on making prototypes themselves. As they did this work, one of the following scenarios occured:

1.) They realized that in order to make a working prototype, they needed more info/technology than what was in the Berney patent. But then they discovered that the technology or ideas that were needed, were covered by patents that Seiko had now filed so although they got some prototypes going, they realized they couldn't bring them to production.

2.) Unlike Seiko, they gave up because they never could get a watch to really work well enough where they felt it would be a commercial success and they gave up. It's been widely reported that Seiko filed close to 200 patents related to Spring Drive while developing the technology. Obviously, if they were aware of the Berney patent, that patent must have been far from complete enough to create a viable Spring Drive watch.

3.) The Berney patent really was filed under a fake name by Seiko to throw off the competition. After all, we know according to the HPM paper that Asulab had nothing to do with filing this patent. This wouldn't be the first time a patent was filed this way.

I think it's a real stretch to think that Asulab abandoned the idea because it was a kludge. At the time, SD was was much less of a kludge than it is now. Back then, batteries didn't last long in watches, and the big issue with owning quartz was constant battery changes and scratched casebacks. I vividly remember people complaining about that with their quartz watches at the time. SD would have solved that. Now with 10 year batteries, it's not so much an issue making SD more of the kludge that you consider it to be. Last point, why spend all the time and money making all those prototypes over all those years, perfect it to the point where you can take it to market and then say....okay, never mind, this is dumb technology. That's not how responsible businesses act.

Because none of us know more than a small part of this story, my speculations are as good as yours. I however will not widely report any of the above scenarious because I know they are guesses and I have no way to prove them. Will you do the same with your speculations?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

As I understand it Asulab is a small group that does advanced prototyping manufacturing for what is essentially Swatch. They don't manufacture watches and would have not been the decision makers as to what technology actually goes into production. They are an R&D group. Their work is funded by Swatch Corporate.

They built about 100 HPMs and tested them for a year. And their report seems to indicate they considered the project a success. THEY did not have the power to decide if the spring driven quartz watch ever went into production for commercial sale. That would have been decided elsewhere at Swatch. To the best of my knowledge, there is no window into this decision. For whatever reason it was not produced. 

I did not say THEY thought it a kludge. But it certainly fits MY definition! (It reminds me of TAGHeuer's recent belt-driven Monaco watch in which gears were replaced by belts... Interesting. I actually saw one. Nice looking if you like tiny thread like belts winding around transmitting power instead of gears. But not a simple elegant solution... nor much of an improvement.)

As to why I would ever post something I could not prove... Well, that seems counter to how knowledge is developed. A forum is not a refereed journal of completed research. It is a discussion forum... and that is bound to include speculation. And folks disagreeing with the various speculations. Just like we are having here. There would be far less posts if we confined ourselves to things the poster could prove when the post was made.

I see the real question here being why would anyone stand up to the Seiko PR machine and say "wow, your narrative leaves out some major developments made by others. Others did it too and before you". And I guess my answer is I think the full story needs to be known... in spite of the abuse and overly vigorous denials and acquisitions these threads cause me. As Moleman says, we can't just accept what corporate PR hacks tell us.

Thanks for your input. And I appreciate you not accusing me of doing this because I hate Seiko. LOL


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> I see the real question here being why would anyone stand up to the Seiko PR machine and say "wow, your narrative leaves out some major developments made by others. Others did it too and before you". And I guess my answer is I think the full story needs to be known... in spite of the abuse and overly vigorous denials and acquisitions these threads cause me. As Moleman says, we can't just accept what corporate PR hacks tell us.


Gee, I see the real question here being why would anyone be so very pointed in saying rather horrible things about Seiko, when, at best, it is utterly groundless speculation, and, more likely, total nonsense. Again, if the patent you "unearthed" were prior art, Seiko's patents would be invalid, both because of the prior art, and for fraud on the patent office (assuming, as I think is fair to do, Seiko could do a patent search as well as you can).

Since there has been no sign of any such developments, and no word from the owner of "your" patent regarding Spring Drive, the only reasonable course would have been to point out "your" patent (do your really think that nobody in the watch industry is aware of that patent?), and speculate (preferably in a responsible manner, rather than making scurrilous claims as you did) as to how that patent may or many not have had any bearing on the development by Seiko of Spring Drive.

Since you chose a route more suited to grocery store scandal sheets, I know that "finding the truth" has no higher place on your agenda on this "matter" than it has on the agenda of said scandal sheets. The combination of your absurd accusations against Seiko, the manner in which you make them, and your obvious contempt for the Spring Drive concept (gee, if you think so little of Spring Drive, why go to all the trouble you have gone to to try to show up Seiko, however incompetently you've done it?), leave us with only one inference--you obviously have a thing either against Seiko or in favor of the Swiss watch industry. Neither does you credit.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

I am not sure how to respond to this. Anyway, none seems necessary.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> I how to respond to this. Anyway, none seems necessary. It stands as its own indictment.


Let's review the bidding, shall we?

You make a series of groundless, serious accusations against Seiko, their culture and their ethics.

I point out that you have no basis for such.

In addition, I point out that, if there were any basis for your "conclusions," Seiko's patents would be invalid. And that nobody has taken any action to attack Seiko's patents (well, other than people on a watch-lovers' website). So the best inference to draw is that your "conclusions" are the stuff of grocery store scandal rags.

And the best you can come up with is this?








Your straw-man "arguments" may carry some weight with those not inclined to look closely at them, or who share your obvious bias, but they don't go far with the rest of us.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

I suggest that we end the thread now.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

ronalddheld said:


> I suggest that we end the thread now.


I agree. It has degenerated into insults. Thanks. I didn't want to do this myself because it would have caused more rancor and bile.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Ronalddheld, may I just suggest that we not close the thread quite yet. Instead, can we see whether we can ask for and put an end to the combat and insults. If we can learn more about the early years of Spring Drive-like developments--via some new information or insights--we'd all benefit. Let's all agree in this discussion to end any references to other forumers, except to acknowledge points raised by them, and stick to the issue of the history and development of Spring Drive. If this fails, and more insults are forthcoming, perhaps you could just eliminate those posts. If none of this works, I guess we have no choice but to close the thread. For me, this would be unfortunate because I think this kind of historical sleuthing is very very interesting. Whatever you decide, however, is fine with me.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

If pointing out that the dredged-up patent cannot possibly be prior art, as that term is properly used in the patent world, so that the nasty things said about Seiko, without any decent supporting evidence, are utter nonsense, is an insult, guilty.

If pointing out that the self-proclaimed "facts and analysis" are, in fact, neither is an insult, guilty.

As long as some insist on making troll-like posts, and passing them off as "facts and analysis," I'll point out the shortcomings. If that's deemed to be "insulting," then someone needs to look in a dictionary.

Go ahead and discuss things that might have a bearing on the subject at hand. But if some insist on making utterly groundless insults (real insults, not insults to the ego of those who don't like having the shortcomings in their posts pointed out) to a company that, by all evidence, is an honorable and innovative company, then I (and others) will feel quite justified in pointing out the nonsense.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Well, it seemed worth a try!


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Pender, I have no issue with you or your posts.

But when someone writes


> Clearly the Seiko Spring Drive is a derivative of this patent issued to Ebauches S.A. (now ETA).
> 
> So, in spite of all Seiko's PR efforts, the truth comes out! *The 'spring drive' is a Swiss invention. Doensen was accurate.* I assume the delay in producing the Seiko Spring Drive really was a wait for the expiration of the Swiss patent.
> 
> ...


 there's absolutely no reason to "protect" such a poster.

He clearly knows nothing about patent law, although he tries to pass himself off as a patent expert. Without any basis (as you pointed out), he says (repeatedly) things that, if said by a stranger, would be labeled the rantings of a troll.

Again, if pointing out that he is factually and legally wrong is "insulting," I have no apology, and no intention of stopping. But that's not to say that I have any issue with people analyzing, in good faith, the patent, and trying to determine where it may fit. But, unless one is a patent expert, and knows the goings-on of the Seiko patents (and applications), it is pure nonsense to say the things he said.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

As long as there are no more personal insults and attacks, this thread can stay open.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

Quick question Eeeb. You state above that this patent was issued to Ebauches S.A. Where on the patent literature do you see this?


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

petew said:


> Quick question Eeeb. You state above that this patent was issued to Ebauches S.A. Where on the patent literature do you see this?


espacenet - results view <== that is actually a link even though the new forum software doesn't explicitly show it as such.

This is the original Swiss patent. The previous link was to the US copy of the patent: 
espacenet - Original document <== that is actually a link even though the new forum software doesn't explicitly show it as such.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

South Pender said:


> Well, it seemed worth a try!


I appreciate the effort! I do point out the HEQ regulars, even if they disagree with my analysis, have been civil. I appreciate that too!


----------



## dicioccio (Jul 14, 2011)

I've spent a lot for reading all the posts so I would like to express my very personal opinion.

Probably Seiko knew that the Swiss were working an the same idea and also they probably knew about all the registered patents. Anyway I also think that Seiko probably developed its own SD without knowing the details of the Swiss project.

Since it is not clear the first one who started the develop of the SD, both could say "I'm the first" without being liar.

Moreover Seiko was the only one who worked on the technlogy reaching the industrial production. So I don't understand why Seiko wouldn't have the rights to say "I'm the creator of this technology".

And I don't understand why Eeeb wrote that SD is a Swiss invention: even if the Swiss patented SD before Seiko, that doesn't states at all the one who first invented it. For example it is known that Antonio Meucci invented the telephone but Graham Bell was first registering the patent. So who was the first ? The first was Innocenzo Manzetti, but nobody knows him. What I want to say is that the inventions are not made by single men or single companies. They are the sum of many elements... However in the modern industrial world, the winner is the one that brings up to production an idea, and Seiko did it.

So I wonder why Eeeb has been so "negative" about Seiko...


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

I don't think it's always true that ".... inventions are not made by single men or single companies." That would certainly be true of developed inventions, but if you define "invention" as the original idea, I think it quite often comes from a single person. Other times, what is often referred to as an "invention" is really a "discovery" or a "realization", and then it's nearly always down to a single individual. Something as complicated as the Springdrive can't really be called a single invention even if the production version depends on a single patent (and I'm sure it doesn't). 

In one sense, the crux of the SD is the idea of using a quartz crystal to control the rate at which the mainspring is allowed to unwind while driving the gear-train. But that doesn't "invent" the crucial electronics of the "how". And the "how" is not a single device, but a combination of several separate ideas, without any one of which the thing won't work. Which is the invention of the SD?

So in the sense that the practical, commercial SD is indeed a combination of several or many ideas, it is certainly not a single invention. If there is any single feature which made the whole thing work, is that "the invention of the Springdrive"? Or is it the idea of using a quartz crystal to control the rate at which the mainspring is allowed to unwind while driving the gear-train?

So I would suggest that many people may have arrived at the crux of the idea separately and independently, and in that sense, there may be no one inventor, but many. On the other hand if there was really one single feature which made the whole thing work, maybe one could say that whoever dreamed that up was the inventor. 

Whatever the truth is, we shall never know all the answers and I think we're wasting our time and our breath arguing about it. 

And that includes me, so I shall now shut up.


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

_


SpringDriven said:



The IC chip monitors the electricity produced (frequency) by the glide wheel and compares it to the QC eight times a second. I believe that yes, the SD would definitely benefit from a higher frequency QC, or comparator circuit. More divisions of a stable source means more decimal places means more accuracy.

Click to expand...

_


SpringDriven said:


> My belief is that not only are the frequency of QC and glide-wheel compared, but that the frequencies are counted and the 2 counts compared.
> If the QC ran at only 1KHz there would be an uncertainty of 1/000s in every time measurement. This might cause an error of 1/1000s in 1s or 1month or 1 year.
> In practice a higher frequency QC only improves accuracy if it is more stable (smaller ppm drift against temperature and time). More divisions of a stable source ( above some minumum required for velocity-loop stability) does not provide more accuracy because accuracy comes from the count-comparison loop (not the velocity loop).
> 
> ...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

DaveM said:


> _
> The IC chip monitors the electricity produced (frequency) by the glide wheel and compares it to the QC eight times a second. I believe that yes, the SD would definitely benefit from a higher frequency QC, or comparator circuit. More divisions of a stable source means more decimal places means more accuracy.
> _
> My belief is that not only are the frequency of QC and glide-wheel compared, but that the frequencies are counted and the 2 counts compared.
> ...


The accuracy questions are shared by all quartz watches. You are correct, the stability of the quartz is critical.

The Swiss paper on their spring driven quartz watch did indicate one of the main challenges they faced was the requirement for low power consumption. The electronics they used were custom to the watch in order to accomplish this.


----------



## dicioccio (Jul 14, 2011)

There is also a point you didn't mention. The temperature doesn't only affects the quartz but also the mechanical components of the watch. Therefore even a "perfectly" built TC electronic control circuit would hardly be able to calculate the variations of the mechanical components. For example, the temperature will affect the dimensions of the wheels, varying then their inertia (but not the mass). Also the friction is affected by temperature. I have no idea of how much temperature is able to affect the dimensions and the friction, but if the errors generated by these effects are comparable to the effects caused on the quartz oscillator by the temperature, then the compensation due to the temperature will be much more hard to be calculated...

It is a very personal opinion that a TC on a Spring Drive mechanism is almost useless and that the claimed +/- 1 second per day accuracy is quite good for a mechanical (even if SD is an hybrid). Do you have any idea of a pure mechanical wristwatch with a better accuracy ?


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

dicioccio said:


> There is also a point you didn't mention. The temperature doesn't only affects the quartz but also the mechanical components of the watch. Therefore even a "perfectly" built TC electronic control circuit would hardly be able to calculate the variations of the mechanical components. For example, the temperature will affect the dimensions of the wheels, varying then their inertia (but not the mass). Also the friction is affected by temperature. I have no idea of how much temperature is able to affect the dimensions and the friction, but if the errors generated by these effects are comparable to the effects caused on the quartz oscillator by the temperature, then the compensation due to the temperature will be much more hard to be calculated...
> 
> It is a very personal opinion that a TC on a Spring Drive mechanism is almost useless and that the claimed +/- 1 second per day accuracy is quite good for a mechanical (even if SD is an hybrid). Do you have any idea of a pure mechanical wristwatch with a better accuracy ?


I am sorry, but you are totally wrong.
So long as the mechanical stuff does not jam up it has no effect on long-term accuracy. The electronics makes sure that in a year the glide-wheel does x-million revs for every y-billion QC oscillations.
So long as the spring can turn it fast enough it does not matter how big it is.

Pretty neat! Why would anybody want to buy a mechanical-escapement watch


----------



## dicioccio (Jul 14, 2011)

Good point, really. Yes, I am totally wrong.

Anyway, only to have a rigourous approach, I have a question. The electronic control counts the number of turns of the glide wheel during a given time. How long is this time ? 1 second, 1 minute, or something else ?

And, thinking now in a more deep way, if the glide wheel is totally controlled by the IC, this means that the "core" control is inside the IC. So no matter how the mechanical parts are done, the accuracy of the watch lies wholly on the quartz control. So it makes big sense to have a TC electronics. And - sigh - if what I just wrote above is true, then a spring drive is a pure exercise because in the end it is just another kind of mechanical quartz...

Please reply as many as possible: I'd like to know your comments !

And, by the way, I want you to know that I am admired by the Spring Drive movement even if, as time goes by, it is growing inside me the feeling that this marvel is completely useless...


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

Here's my understanding...

The Tri Syncro regulator maintains a set speed via magnetic control of the glide wheel. This set speed correlates with probably fairly accurate timekeeping. However, 8 times per second, the speed of that wheel is "sampled" and compared to a quartz reference and if it is off, the speed is further adjusted to make the watch even more accurate.


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

petew said:


> Here's my understanding...
> 
> The Tri Syncro regulator maintains a set speed via magnetic control of the glide wheel. This set speed correlates with probably fairly accurate timekeeping. However, 8 times per second, the speed of that wheel is "sampled" and compared to a quartz reference and if it is off, the speed is further adjusted to make the watch even more accurate.


I agree



petew said:


> However, 8 times per second, the speed of that wheel is "sampled" and compared to a quartz reference and if it is off, the speed is further adjusted to make the watch even more accurate


I disagree. Every 8 seconds (or whatever) the electronics will fine-tune speed, but it must do this on a count-error (QC against glide-wheel revs) not speed-error. The glide-wheel must be electronically phase-locked to the QC (in my opinion).
Just do the maths.
For a 32768Hz QC 1/8 of a second is 4096 pulses.
So with a 1/8 second measurement they can only measure (and hence control) speed to one part in 4096, which is about 21seconds a DAY.
OK, it is quite a fine point, but I think that the distinction is important.
To take up what Dicioccio said, even though it makes no difference to the time-keeping accuracy the mechanics is probably the cleverest part of the SD.
The control-loop for a SD with grotty mechanics would be complicated and power-hungry.
The seconds hand might 'shake' rather than 'glide'


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

Most likely it is not sampling the SPEED but instead the position (number of rotations) - and keeping those as a 16 or 32-bit counter and checking that total every few seconds against an almost identical counter fed from the 32 kHz quartz - if there is any difference the amount of magnetic feedback is simply adjusted ... until there is like 1/8 of a second ... over the total time, meaning that the total error is kept under 1/8s!


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

Catalin is right, the revolutions are being counted. The wheel turns 8 times per second and every time it turns once (1/8 of a second) a pulse is sent to the control circuit giving it speed information. In theory, the speed of the glide wheel could be affected 691,200 times. Is my math correct?


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

Catalin said:


> Most likely it is not sampling the SPEED but instead the position (number of rotations) - and keeping those as a 16 or 32-bit counter and checking that total every few seconds against an almost identical counter fed from the 32 kHz quartz - if there is any difference the amount of magnetic feedback is simply adjusted ... until there is like 1/8 of a second ... over the total time, meaning that the total error is kept under 1/8s!


Exactly, you explained it much better than I did.


----------



## everose (Jan 15, 2010)

South Pender said:


> Since the Seiko Spring Drive movements use a quartz crystal, along with IC, to regulate the time, is thermocompensation a reasonable possibility to make these movements even more accurate?
> 
> I've been reading up on these watches and have found that ± 2 sec./month accuracy is not unusual. Could this be improved with the usual TC methods?


It would appear that Seiko's preferred solution to improving the accuracy of the Spring Drive movement is by the careful selection of crystals.

Grand Seiko's commemorative edition 50th Anniversary SD model based on caliber 9R65, called caliber 9R15.

"This new caliber is accurate as ten seconds per month,an achievement made possible by the inclusion of specially selected crystals in the regulator,each one of which is meticulously tuned by SEIKO'S master craftsmen."

Source : Press Release | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

I hadn't seen that 10 seconds a month claim before. As far as I was aware, Seiko normally only claims accuracy of 15 seconds a moth for their SD movements, about the same as is expected of un-compensated quartz watches, but many owners have reported much better performance than that. I had a GS GMT SD for a bit under a year and my recollection is that it was within about 5 seconds when I stopped wearing it 24/7. 

In addition to the accuracy conferred on the SD by the use of the quartz crystal and its attendant electronic magic, I think the spring-powered mechanical part of the watch may be inherently more accurate than normal mechanical movements. The fact that the glide-wheel rotates at a constant speed, rather than being subject to constant reversals, that there is nothing whose regularity is susceptible to the effects of gravity, and that the torque requirement in the SD is less than in a watch using a conventional escapement, could all help to reduce variations. 

That's not to say that thermo-compensation wouldn't improve things, but Seiko may feel that the improvement wouldn't be worth the additional complication. It might also be that the power requirements of the compensation circuitry would exceed what is available from the internal generation. And finally (I think!), they may feel that there aren't enough accuracy freaks who'd spend the extra to make it worth-while.


----------



## everose (Jan 15, 2010)

Given the technological developments over the past 35 years,i wonder if a time will come when AT-cut crystals will become a more viable option for HEQ and SD.

One of its major drawbacks was the high power consumption.We know that there have been significant improvements in the power supply over the past 35 years.
The other issue was the extreme precision required to cut the crystals.If this technology has also improved dramatically,then it may become a more commercially viable HEQ path than it was in the past.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Assuming the thermocompernsation scheme is valid, the stability of the underlying crystal is less important. The scheme has to be matched to the individual crystal's curve but the 'flatness' of the crystal's curve is less important. But, for the spring driven quartz watches, power consumption will always be important. So I don't see spring drives ever using the lens shaped crystals.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

With power at a premium, I cannot see a TC spring drive anytime soon, and that goes for the normal one with an AT cut crystal.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

everose said:


> It would appear that Seiko's preferred solution to improving the accuracy of the Spring Drive movement is by the careful selection of crystals.
> 
> Grand Seiko's commemorative edition 50th Anniversary SD model based on caliber 9R65, called caliber 9R15.
> 
> ...


Yes, I got momentarily excited about that one, SBGA055, when it came out, but bought the corresponding quartz model instead, SBGX075. I have a GS SD, SBGA011, that looks very much like SBGA055--but with the more-usual +/- 15 sec./month specs. Since I've been getting +3.5 sec./month from it when worn (and better off-the-wrist), anyway, tighter stated specs seemed irrelevant, since SBGA011 more than beats SBGA055's stated specs. My research on SD accuracy points to 2-4 sec./month performance on average. In one sense, I'd still like to get SBGA055, if for no other reason than to have a match for my quartz member of the 50th Anniversary team, but, with only 300 made, they are long gone.


----------

