Indirect regulation of a movement: Increased wear&tear?

[mcc]

Hi,

When it comes to regulate a watch I often read the advice on the net, to position the watch face up at night, when it is
too slow or to face it crown down, when it is to fast.
In case of the latter I think (read: don't know for sure), that the  movement slows down, when resting crown down.
Does the increased friction, which may be the source for the slower oscillating balance wheel, imply an additional wear&tear
of the movement, which therefore should be avoided?

Cheers!

mcc

 

 

[yankeedog]

Bingo ! The F word ! friction ! Yes a watch will run at different rates in different positions  . My Friend wear the watch and enjoy it !service it every two or three years and it will serve you for decades. you will probably get tired of looking at it long before it lets you wear it out .

[mcc]

Good news! Thanks a lot!

Cheers!
mcc

[yankeedog]

I have a seiko that is fifty years old...I did not buy it new . I could not have afforded it as a ten year old.  It still works well.From What I have seen the thing that degrades them the most  is water/sweat intrusion from compromised gaskets or cracked or poorly fitted replacement crystals.

[jguitron]

That’s one of the reasons IMHO that mechanical watches are fascinating. You’re wearing a machine that carries quite a mystique with it and has us wondering the effects of sleeping dial up or down, increasing or decreasing wear, etc. That’s how we develop our tight relationships with our watches!

In this particular case, yes. The side on which the watch runs slower does so because of increased friction. There will be a difference in performance in just about every position the watch is placed. That’s why there are standards that set which positions are considered when regulating a watch.

The most basic one is 3-positions which is dial up, down and crown left (typical position when working at a desk). This means the watchmaker will make sure that the amplitude, best error and rate will remain within certain range on all those 3 positions. Then there are higher grade certifications like COSC that require the regulation to be done on 5-positions and even further, like Omega, does so in 6 positions and different temperatures.

Bottom line is that our watches are never in the exact position twice while we wear them, so the ultimate way of testing a watch is on the “wrist simulator”. This is like a winder at certain speed of rotation. This truly puts the watch in all possible positions and over 24-48 hrs the watchmaker can ensure that your watch will be as exact as possible.

My suggestion in general, once you notice that your watch is misbehaving such a losing time on one position, it’s best to service it to avoid unnecessary wear and tear.

Welcome to the horological rabbit hole!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcc]

I am always interested in the "Red Pill"... (this is only meant in the context of "The Matrix" and has nothing to do with MGTOW or any other political direction, wing, tast or.....smell

The """problem""" I have (currently...as a newbie here) is to get a feeling of what is a "expected fluctuation in accuracy" and is therefore expected and what is kinda critical...and needs attention/service. What fascinates me (beside other things of this topic) is the "energy harvesting and accumalting" of an automatic watch...
I know of no other technology, which does this so well: Take a watch, which rotor drives a dynamo of some sort, which feeds a capacitor or an accumulator...which cannot preserve the energy over a longer time...and needs replaced because it is worn.
A simple main spring (coiled metal...a quite "bare" and "rude" type of mechanic) is more robust in this case and does its job better when it comes to the rate of preserved energy in relation to the amount of energy harvested from arm movements.
That's why appreciated inventions like SEIKOs "spring drive" so much...no capacitor, no accumulator...a pure energy harvesting machine, which is as much as possible mechanical and as much as needed electronical. Unfortunately this technical beauty is FAR out of my reach, when it comes to financial aspects of such a marvelous movement....
But...quartz watches were also not cheap in the beginning...let's hope...fingers crossed!
Cheers!
mcc

Edited February 10, 2019 by mcc
Correction of some expression (no native speaker)