Jump to content

What do those screws regulate on Rolex 3130 movements?


BennyE

Recommended Posts

I watched Marks videos many times, but I can‘t recall that those screws (picture below) were ever discussed. Looking at them, they would control how high the overall balance bridge sits and therefore would allow to fine-tune the end-shake, or am I missing something else?

556468F6-29FC-4EC5-8E31-757ECFDDE5C1.thumb.jpeg.82fcf1ad4c1df202bbeacae4f7967021.jpeg

Thanks,

Regards,

Benny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That,s what they are for and I guess its loyalty belongs to Rolex since havn,t seen em  like this on any other brand, only a similar idea , a scerw right on top of the cock jewel to directly  regulates its end shakes, mainly on old watches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, anilv said:

Better than foil shims or (heaven forbid) gouges on the mainplate!

Anilv

We see a lot of foil shims on Vostok movements (cal. 24xx). It's an extra step when handling the balance cock, but besides that, what is it that makes you oppose them? I often wondered why they are needed. Of course, to regulate end-shake, but besides that. Perhaps lack of precision in manufacturing, no? Note that I'm not looking to dispute you, I'm simply curious and want to learn more. Thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VWatchie said:

I often wondered why they are needed.

I often wonder about that too. Surely if the manufacturing process was well controlled, then there would be no need for them.

Perhaps their original intention was to allow for thinner and thinner shims at each service, as the pivot ends wear, but that is just speculation on my part.

What I do know is that they represent one more thing for me to ping into a parallel dimension, or simply forget to refit, risking damaging the jewels and pivots in the process, so perhaps they are simply intended as a trap for the uninitiated. :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good shout. I suspect they may have had multiple sources for the balance, and thus the shim was fitted in some cases, to allow them to compensate for the 0.1mm or so difference between shaft lengths.

The shim can be source of problems though as it can act as a pivot point if it is not fitted in entirely the right spot, and this could introduce errors in the balance alignment, and it does introduce the possibility of either forgetting to re-fit it, and screwing the balance down hard on to the jewels, thus damaging the pivot(s) and/or the jewel(s), or fitting it when not needed if a different "compatible" replacement balance is fitted which has a shorter shaft, and then getting in to head scratching mode when the thing rattles around like a pea in a biscuit barrel.

Edited by AndyHull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AndyHull said:

That's good shout. I suspect they may have had multiple sources for the balance, and thus the shim was fitted in some cases, to allow them to compensate for the 0.1mm or so difference between shaft lengths.

No need for having multiple sources to suffer parts size variations. Parts are made in batches afterwhich the same machine is reconfigured for another part or another step on the same batch. True in the old times of mechanical stops as well as in CNC of today. An error during reconfig, a larger tool wear there, temperature variations and you may be making parts significantly different. Very old watches were made practically by hand so to fit each part to another. Russians probably had decent machines but onerous production targets, impossible to impose strict tolerances so if the problem was correctable at assembly, so be it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT shims.

VWatchie..I've always thought that shims were a band-aid solution and a manufacturer should have the capability to reduce the length to spec in-house. Probably as JDM mentioned it could be due to production variance. Better to have it slightly too long than too short?

One thought is that they could have done that (shims) to build some life into the movement.. ie you could re-finish the ends of the pivot sometime in the watches lifetime and at that point doing away with the shim (or use a thinner shim) leaving you with good endshake?

Ah well... unless someone who has worked in a Soviet watch factory shows up we'll probably never know.

Anilv

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Similar Content

  • 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...