Jump to content

Removing Balance


Recommended Posts

N00b question but I've seen two recommended methods to remove the balance assembly from the movement, and now I'm confused which is the best / more correct ?

1. is to lift the balance cock and very gently remove it by just holding the cock and making sure as to not snag the balance wheel. so that the wheel hangs on the hair spring, as per Mark's videos. Also when using this method how does one go about flipping it over to lay it in the parts tray, other than very carefully ..

2. is to pick it up by holding the balance cock and wheel together in your tweezers, as per the picture attached (sorry for the blurry mobile phone pic).

So which is the most correct way and more importantly why? Which way should a n00b like myself be using. 

IMG_20170422_213003.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the second method. As i am elderly i tend to shake a little making the first method difficult.  But that can be risky and i think u can bend the pivot if you hold to tight? On balances that has a jewel that you can remove . I do that and put it back after i have put the balance back on the movement? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use both methods. I've once tangled a hairspring using method one (balance suddenly sprung upwards due to sticky lower jewel). I've once bent a lower balance pivot using method 2 since the lower pivot was stuck again, and the balance always lifts at an angle when you use this method.

 

I usually go for method 1, and use method 2 if the balance is sticky. If it is too sticky, then I pick up an oiler in my other hand and use it to persuade the balance wheel to lift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, madchops67 said:

I use the first method to avoid damage to the hairspring, just in case it's gets nicked by being compressed against the balance wheel and balance cock.

That can't happen, because the shape of the upper pivot into the balance cock hole the makes so that there is always a certain space between the wheel and balance body.

On the other hand, when you keep the wheel dangling by the hairspring, the latter can get distorted by catching int something, or by the wheel weight itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can't happen, because the shape of the upper pivot into the balance cock hole the makes so that there is always a certain space between the wheel and balance body.
On the other hand, when you keep the wheel dangling by the hairspring, the latter can get distorted by catching int something, or by the wheel weight itself.

It happened to me once before, maybe because I gripped to hard with the tweezers and the outer part of the spring end up distorted. It may have been pinched or rubbed against the balance cock. That is jus my experience, so that's why I use the first method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer option 1 but use option 2 if the whim takes me.
I like to lift the cocktail and rotate so it sits on the movement leaving the upper staff pivot loose. Then lift the lower pivot out its jewel. Then lift the assembly. That way you'll not end up with a jumbled mess if sticking pivots in the jewel hole.
On old pocket watches there is a third option.
3. Loosen the stud retaining screw. Push the stud down away from the balance cock. Remove the balance cock. Then remove balance wheel and staff. It can then be reassembled on the worktop.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say it depends a bit on the movement.  In some movements the center wheel is very large and will cover a good portion of the balance making option 2 difficult.  Other times, if the movement hasn't been serviced in quite a while or you know the balance pivots may stick, option 1 goes out the door. 

I generally use the first option but with a caveat; Once the balance cock is loosed I'll lift it and shift it slightly to release the top pivot from the jewel, then lift the balance wheel up out of the bottom pivot before removing the entire assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can't happen, because the shape of the upper pivot into the balance cock hole the makes so that there is always a certain space between the wheel and balance body.
On the other hand, when you keep the wheel dangling by the hairspring, the latter can get distorted by catching int something, or by the wheel weight itself.

If you use method one you don't need to leave the hairspring dangling. I use a balance stand and a bit of rodico and it could sit on its standard for years if necessary. Have attached some pictures for demo. Just remember when taking the balance assembly of the stand to hold the wheel gently incase lower pivot sticks in the rodico. Then release from the rodico.
I think people prefer method 2 to avoid having to flip the wheel over when working on the balance.e1e993a4a39694fe7cc590f463b3bcd3.jpg3082f14a7ea479edbf4eec8d2c605dac.jpgc13f1cabc442e023536908a694af60d7.jpg

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great question ... and answers!

I've always gone for option 2 as it has served me well but I might start using option 1 for some of the reasons given.

And digginstony I am so getting (or making) myself a balance stand! :)

Edited by WatchMaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2017 at 5:31 PM, digginstony said:

I prefer option 1 but use option 2 if the whim takes me.
I like to lift the cocktail and rotate so it sits on the movement leaving the upper staff pivot loose. Then lift the lower pivot out its jewel. Then lift the assembly. That way you'll not end up with a jumbled mess if sticking pivots in the jewel hole.
On old pocket watches there is a third option.
3. Loosen the stud retaining screw. Push the stud down away from the balance cock. Remove the balance cock. Then remove balance wheel and staff. It can then be reassembled on the worktop.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 

I use this method so I can sneak up on it, save for the third method there that I haven't thought of, pretty slick!

BTW I just got one of those balance stands/tacks and it's extremely useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has that to do with this? [emoji4] Better to let it swing? 

Yep it's more of a swing than a vertical lift, to move the balance bridge from its fixing stud or studs Then ease the lower pivot from its jewel but it still necessitates a slight lifting motion ??

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is a very sad day for the industry.. For most of us being amateurs the cost of replacing parts for ETA,s etc will be beyond affordability for the customers.   see full statement below   We have now received the decision from Judge Michael Green on whether or not the High Court has jurisdiction to hear our claim against Swatch, and sadly it is not the decision we had hoped for.   As we have pointed out in previous news items (see below),the rules that Judge Green had to apply strictly prevented him from examining in any way how the Swiss Court arrived at its verdict, even if it is blatantly obvious that the verdict is wrong.   As Swatch’s lawyer was summing up in the last few minutes oft he hearing, the Judge twice pinned him asking if it was alright if, as a result of the Swiss verdict, consumers had to pay 50% more for their watch repairs. After some stumbling, their lawyer’s reply was “Yes”, so  I am quite sure that Judge Green left his court fully aware that the Swiss verdict does not reflect the norms of British Competition Law. However, the rules simply do not allow him to take that simple fact into account.   Judge Green noted that our two arguments relating firstly to British Competition Law now being different from that of the EU, and secondly to the contention that the legality of the Authorised Service Networks has not been tested, had both been mentioned in the Swiss verdict. Because they had been mentioned, he felt that to allow us to argue them again would constitute re examining the Swiss case, and could not be allowed.   As to our claim that we were denied our right to be heard because our evidence was not considered, our lawyers had argued that the evidence we provided could not have been looked at because had the Swiss Court done so, it could not have reached the conclusion that it did. In his verdict, Judge Green highlighted general statements in the Swiss verdict that evidence had been looked at, and acknowledged the arguments we made to him, but again he considered that this was re-examining the Swiss verdict, and could not be permitted.   Our case has attracted considerable interest within the Legal community, and within minutes of the decision being made public we were approached for comment by one of the largest subscription news services, Global Competition Review. They asked us two very pertinent questions, and I reproduce them for you below along with our responses, as they neatly summarise the consequences arising from our case.   What are the key takeaways?   Enormous damage has been done to the fundamentals of UK and European Competition Law by the Swiss courts. It has always been the case that the effect on consumers and competition has to be considered in any decision making, but we now have a ruling that states even monopolists can remove wholesale markets from the supply chain without any consumer benefit based justification. Those entities looking to subvert Competition Law and exploit consumers for their own benefit will be looking at this very carefully.   Has the court made the wrong decision? If so, will you appeal?   The issue lies not with the High Court, but rather with cross border jurisdiction treaties that have no requirement in them for foreign jurisdictions applying UK law to take account of the Ratio Legis [a legal term for the fundamental reasoning why the law was written] of that law, and have no remedy within them for UK Courts to overcome decisions that clearly do not.    After eight years of work, and a very considerable sum in legal costs, I can not begin to tell you how disappointed I am at this outcome. For the time being, there is no further route through the British Courts that Cousins can follow. However, I promised that we would fight to the end, and that promise stands.   The UK is no longer part of the Lugano Convention, whose rules Judge Green has applied, and as yet nothing permanent has replaced it. The political tide turned against repair prevention by restricting supply of spare parts some time ago, and our efforts on behalf of the Watch Repair industry have resulted in high level contacts within several Government Departments. You can be sure that we will keep working to overcome this unjust situation that we now all find ourselves in.    I will keep you advised.   Kind regards   Anthony
    • Dell fancy a challenge🤣   https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/285785684626?itmmeta=01HT29WVJY21Q94C73GYHGBTFX&hash=item428a277a92:g:15YAAOSwNRVmBAUz&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA0DIe4QLQBW66rSyIMiyBuk8GY%2B86pQ%2BQnxGbcNq7egAGe5DIs9YMmiWJIbZtMSxwNJIiJxuojbq523IeUSBQ6pJEIQ0tfz2ChrBR03BksmKINyklg1IK4GAfAcYY9Hta9wVeSZSZN7ZCNAfZTgKs9c4%2BUIUZ3Qjc3QjUXDn2uPRo1FiYOEewMG5A26EXb%2BclBgrqtbOmM6P3bea%2F8ZImOAXNI1HtbmtMk84pIGoM6ISwaM1PKFuADtTFMccS5e3ZjndCbXYXHrW3CecsV0edw3M%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR8q588nQYw Darwin’s theory of evolution has not been proven to be absolutely.  😀 
    • A already know the size movement I have the problem is the dial a had purchased has a dimension 20.6mm wide a want to find a watch case that going to fit the dial perfectly 
    • Hi.  I would like to take issue here regarding battery driven , watches, clocks,etc. I will and do repair these clocks in fact I have sever al in my collection as well as the regular mechanical ones. I have one on my mantle piece over 60 years old tha belonged to my wife’s Aunt,  long gone Iam afraid and it has been cleaned etc and never missed a beat and is accurate. Every one has their preduices as regards Electrical /electronic Horology but I regard it as part of the progress time line of the art of Horology and to be treated as such. Like Darwin’s theory of evolution it evolved.  Two cavemen knocking rocks together and a shard broke off , looking at it he worked out if it was stuck on the end of a stick he would have a spear. Likewise his pal seeing what he was up to picked up a piece  and did the same, now that’s evolution. Some clockmaker decided to build a clock that ran with a battery and no spring to wind up and break, progress and both the mechanical and battery driven clocks evolved, the battery ones got better to the point that if it broke you changed the complete unit. Likewise watches did the same but both can be repaired by people who approach Horology with an open mind without preduice.  We all have our likes and dislikes bu I for one would never dismiss any technology because I don’t like it.   The mobile phone is a good example of modern technology at work as is the automotive industry. There buttons and switches in my car I don’t use because to me they are not nesessary but I still drive the car.
    • I haven't gone through all the reading of what it might be or not. The first thing I would do if nothing obvious stands out is replace the mainspring, you have to start at the source of the power. Nine times out of ten that is the problem.  
×
×
  • Create New...