Jump to content
Myron62

Poljot 2415 barrel bridge not sitting flat

Recommended Posts

Working on a Poljot 2415 and have had various problems but help from WRT has enabled progress to be made. My latest problem is that the barrel bridge will not seat flat onto the main plate. When i remove the barrel and coupling clutch it seats fine, it also seats fine with only the barrel fitted. Its when both barrel and clutch are fitted that the bridge rocks and will not sit flat. I have had to source replacement barrel and clutch because the barrel 'pinged' away when i tried removing the mainspring and the clutch was in bits inside the watch.  Anyone have any ideas?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be any help to you but there is a full rebuild of a 2415 on my blog (link below in my signature).

The only thing that occurs to me is that the click may be resting on top of the ratchet wheel rather than against its rim, which would prevent the bridge from seating properly. The click needs to be held away from the ratchet wheel (against its spring) when fitting the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Marc. Your blog is impressive. The click is definitely engaged with the ratchet wheel teeth. Very frustrating, i bet its staring me in the face. I will have another look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Myron62 I have just had a play around with a 2415 that I currently have in pieces to see if I can replicate the problem. Two possible causes come to mind.

1. If the reverser clutch isn't properly seated on the square of the M/S arbor then it will sit high and block the bridge from seating down properly. I don't think this is the case with yours though. Looking at mine, with the reverser clutch properly seated the space between the two reverser wheels is about the same as between the bottom reverser wheel and the barrel, and that looks to be the same as yours. This may be worth a check though.

2. If the barrel lid isn't properly seated on the barrel it may lift the whole assembly slightly out of the main plate. Fitting the bridge without the reverser clutch may still work as the length of the arbor doesn't change. However, if you try it with the clutch in place the increased height of the cluitch wheel above the main plate due to the less than fully seated barrel lid could cause the problem you have. So it might be worth checking that the barrel lid is fully seated.

I don't think that the fact that the barrel and clutch have been replaced should be problematic if they came from another 2415. The barrel arbor is clearly not the issue as everything works without the clutch installed. I does occur to me though looking at your pics that the cluth reverser wheels look slightly thicker than mine. On mine the clutch assembly is 0.90mm thick with no thickening at the hub. If yours is thicker than this or has a raised hub then this would cause a problem.

Glad you like the blog :biggrin:

ps. It's always the ones that are staring you in the face that are the most difficult to spot!!!

Edited by Marc
addition of ps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Next up is the motor speed control. I did think long and hard about my original aim of maintaining as much originality as possible. And, there is no doubt that the original speed control rheostat was a) original and b) functional. But - as I was an electronics technician in an earlier life, and also health and safety professional in a more recent life, the safety aspects weighed heavily upon my concience. Logic played it's part as well - with the original rheostat put back into service, albeit with some hand-made guarding to keep put the fingers of the unwary, it would be safe-is, for me to use. BUT NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE. Only the knowledge of what lurked underneath would be keeping me safe, but anyone else might not have a chance. As can be seen from the first photo below, all of the wire on the resistors is not only unguarded, but within millimetres of the level of the base. Also, the incoming mains terminals to the rheostat are also dangerously unguarded.  
    • Back to the job in hand. I managed to find the cork I thought I may have had, lurking in a box under the stairs. It was the most part of an A4 sized sheet, so more than enough for my purposes - to sit the jars on whilst they are in the machine. Looking at the metal bases, I really can't be convinced if there ever was any cork or any other material for that matter there. But for me anyway, the idea of the glass jars sitting directly on the metal base just seems wrong and I would prefer some cork there as a cushion. It's about as tidy as it needs to be, given the shape of the metal webbing. I suppose I could have cut-out squares of cork, but then it would leave potential weak, unsupported areas of cork, which would likely need some form of strengthening. Anyway - this application suits me and helps the jars sit a bit more stable in their locations. Whilst I am in the vicinity, so to speak, I have also added an earth lead which will bond the chassis to the incoming mains lead, once fitted. This is visible in these photos.  
    • A little further research and then on with the show... A quick browse through patent databases, shows that one Saul Lanzetter applied for and was awarded a patent for this design of watch cleaning machine in October 1937. A brief narrative is reproduced here: Interestingly, the patent application is entitled "Improvements in apparatus for cleaning watch parts and other small parts of machinery." It may be reading too much onto this title to assume that there may have been a previous patent, pre-dating this one, as this one refers to "improvements". Also of interest, there were 2 patent applications from US companies in 1944 and 1945 which cite the Lanzetter patent, and three from Germany in 1956, 1960 and 1961 (only one of which was actually published), which also cite the Lanzetter patent as a reference. Incidentally - the two US patents refer to machines which look strikingly similar to the National Model VI-C above, and the National No 4. machine in the earlier advert, showing the four jars side by side ( this seems to be referred to as a lab machine, rather than a repair shop machine). Naturally, all patents or applications referred to above are now expired. For me anyway, I think this may clear up which watch cleaning machine may have come first (at least in this machine format anyway): The S. Lanzetter National Electric Watch Cleaning Machine, circa 1937.  
    • Impressive work. The barrel and mainspring look almost new, and the remaining pitting is no worse than some lesser movements left the factory with. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
    • Has anyone ever used Longines free service to get an extract from their archives on their watch? https://www.longines.com/certificate-of-authenticity See the above link, if you just want the extract they will post it to you for free, obviously if you want a certificate of Authenticity you need to send them your watch and pay for that, but the extract is free.   I'm going to ask for the extract on my 30LS Longines.
×
×
  • Create New...