Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi!

This is my first post just after the quick introduction one :).

I did purchase an Omega 565 movement but I have noticed the rotor is touching the watch in its round moves. I did conclude (!) the rotor axale is a bit bent so I decided to purchase a spare part 550.1400 (Rotor Axale) and replaced it. Surprisingly the rotor now fits very very tight and it's very hard to rotate (it would never turn by gravity alone).

I did read that the rotor axale 550.1400 and the pinion in the rotor need to be broached/mated, but I did not expect a new axale and an used (and possibly worn out) pinion would match so tight to not to move.

Question: do I really have to broach the pinion of the rotor so it can move freely? And can I do it with a manual broaches without a staking tool (which I did not purchase yet...)? I am a bit scared as still I did not fully understand what prevents the rotor to fall off the axale, I suspect it's the gib 550.1451 but it is not clear from the exploded view at page 10 of manual of calibre 551 which I use for reference...

Thank you!!

Ascanio

Posted

Hi Ascanio   part 550.1451 is indeed the locking for the rotor, remove the screw and lift off the rotor removing the lock as you do so .   I should put back the old axle and re fit the rotor and check for freedom again. number 550.1400 is the axle. I have attached the tech sheet for the 565 just in case there are different Numbers although all 500 series are usually common.  The  only thing  that could have bent the axle is its had a knock.  You could try straightening the old axle using a pin vise over it and gently reforming it checking the clearance as you go but be gentle.

377_Omega 565 NewLR.pdf

  • Like 1
Posted

Hi Watchweasol and thank you for your suggestion.

I will try what you propose when I will get back to my bench in a week or so. I am afraid current axale + rotor pinion is anyhow a bit loose and there is quite some play, so ideally I did not dislike the idea of a tighter fit, so if trying to straight the old axale will not  provide good result I will be back to the idea to broach the hole (pinion?) of the rotor. Is this advisable to do it by hand without a staking tool? Now that I better understand the role of the 550.1451 locking, i woudl assume it is safe enough...

Thanks again, nice to be in this forum :)

Ascanio

 

Posted

Hi Ascanio    Broaching by hand is permisable  remember a broach is tapered therefore cut from both sides to achieve a parallel cut the secret to work slowly with frequent checking of the fit. polish the finished hole with a sooth broach or use pegwood. 

  • Like 1
Posted

if you read the technical document found above you'll notice on page 3 there is reference to another document? This is the document you need which explains how to fix the problem of the new weight becoming stuck if it's not properly adjusted. The only problem is you're not going to have the tools. But in the absence of lacking of the proper tools I'm extracting out the text that you will find interesting

"The new oscillating weight becomes stuck if it is not adjusted to the stud (pin). The new studs designed for the oscillating weight in the calibre 550 family are 0.698 to 0.701 mm in diameter."

The reamer is described as "Hard metal precision reamer Diameter 0,702 mm Reference 516 0072" then even if you can find the reamer you need the spindle that holds it in the staking set. So what we get out of this is the axle is over size and you need to open the hole to 0,702 mm. I would suggest not using the old parts just replace both of them. then if you're careful you can use watchweasol instructions with a brooch which will work just be careful it's easy to go too far.

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Thank you for all precious information!

I feel now fully equipped to bring this lovely movement back into a case! :) I can't wait to be back at my bench in one week from now :) I'll post the progress.

Happy Easter everyone!

Ascanio

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

All worked out very smooth! Broaching was indeed very very light operation! I imagined to have done nothing instead it made an impressive difference just at the first fitting test!

Actually I found out the rotor was very stable but still touching on the bottom tip, so I thought it was also bent, so I put it on an anvil and gently hammered it flat. Most likely the movement was damaged by a fall or something, and was bent both the stud and the rotor. 

Now problem fixed! The rotor is now very solid and not touching, no metal noise while revolving.

I'm very happy and satisfied with the result.

I could not find the pointed side document indicated by John searching online, it would be an interesting reading for me as I am try to focus on these lovely movements. Maybe is kind of a reserved document available only to Omega trained watchmakers?

Again thanks for the very insightful suggestions, I learned a lot and I will make good use of this knowledge.

Ascanio

  • Like 1


  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • As others have pointed out we discussed this subject in great lengths multiple times on multiple discussion groups. Then we have a subject that has too many variables and generalizations that make all the different things seem like one common removing staffs when it's not. There are variety of balance wheels specifically designed to be hard enough to withstand knocking or pushing a staff out. Rolex has one that the only way the staff is coming out is by pushing it out enough pressure is applied the river breaks with a very satisfying pop. This is because they hairspring cannot be removed until the staff is pushed out through. Then of course Rolex has a nice set of tools just for this purpose. A variety watch companies like Elgin made a balance wheels specifically designed to be hard enough to withstand knocking the staff have. For instance that principle is applied with jeweling tool you mention and here's the complete article down below that explains the procedure. Then of course there are variety watch companies Elgin And Hamilton that specifically designed balance staffs designed to be knocked out because the riveting shoulder is supposed to break. That of course would be the original staffs and probably the aftermarket do not have such features.   One of the problems with all of these tools would be the balance staff itself and of course whatever the balance wheel is made of. Personally I like the rule of if you're knocking the staff out and you gently tap with the hammer and it doesn't just pop out then you do not drive it out you do have to use a lathe. Because for variety of reasons staffs that are perhaps over riveted not quite the right size soft balance arms etc. driving a staff out that doesn't really want to come out it's not your best interest to do that.   A variety of American companies used friction fit staffs. For instance here's an example of Waltham Here's something interesting from Hamilton a specific type of 992 with a specific type of hairspring. Normally the Hamilton friction staff's do not have a groove to indicate such. Such as the Hamilton 992B or the Hamilton deck watch but they only have one staff which is friction. This particular staff has been marked because if you read carefully I suspect originally it might not have had a friction staff this was basically an upgrade. I know I've seen in the staffing assortments the blued hubs as a replacement components.    Then I'm attaching a PDF of Hamilton's thoughts on replacing balance staffs. Notice either the hub where the river can be cut away they don't have a preference it's whatever you like. Plus they mention the staff that is designed to break away. Although I have a suspicion you'll probably never see one of those as it would have to be an original staff and I suspect none of the after markets would have that feature. Hamilton technical data number 129 replacement of broken balance staffs.pdf
    • Thanks for shedding light on the exact problem — you're right, it's the centre tube, not the cannon pinion. That was the issue, and after tightening the centre tube, everything now sits correctly. The train bridge can be fully tightened and all the wheels run freely. I haven’t tested the pallet fork yet as I haven’t refitted it, but I’ll be doing that shortly to confirm if the issue is entirely resolved. @Neverenoughwatches Sorry for misusing the term earlier.
    • If the existing spring is 0.06 then it's been replaced at some time in the past and would potentially be too weak for this movement.
    • A quick addition: Given when I measured the springs I got 1.5 x 0.06 I thought I'd figure out how long they are. I was able to do this from a photograph taken immediately above. The program Inkscape has a nice extension that allows measuring the length of a beizer curve, so I drew one along the length of the spring. It's 220mm. And 1.5 x 0.06x 220 x 7.0 does appear in the catalogue. It would also explain the lower amplitude I'm seeing.  Doesn't immediately solve anything, but the information is nice. 
    • That's because it's not a cannon pinion and just a centre tube. If this was the fault I still wouldn't have expected it to run without the balance. Edit @TimepieceTinkerer To clarify. Did you test the train ran smoothly with everything tightened down before fitted the fork and balance?  
×
×
  • Create New...