Another lubrication doubt

[jdm]

Some Seiko -and I guess many others- don't have a jewel for the MS arbor on the main plate.
Seiko recommends thick oil, for which I use HP1300. But one formulated for metal-to-metal could be better? E.g. synthetic 9504 with boron nitride, which costs an arm and leg.
At hand I have 8301 which is base natural with graphite. What do you think?

Datasheet attached.

1906_O21741.pdf

Edited September 30, 2019 by jdm

[RyMoeller]

Looking at my Moebius Sales Brochure (which appears to date to the mid 70's) 8300 and 8301 have good adherence but poor response to pressure which I imagine means it would be pushed out of the bearing by torque on the arbor.  My (certainly outdated) Moebius document suggests 8030 or 8040 as thick oils for arbors.  Might work...

D5 is typically what I use unless the technical sheet specifically states otherwise, my understanding is that HP1300 is essentially the synthetic replacement of D5.

I don't work on Seikos too often but have viewed almost all of Spencer Klein's videos on them and have noticed worn arbor bearings seem to be a very common problem.  Considering that, I'd say the thicker the oil the better.

[WatchMaker]

Interesting question @jdm! I also use Synt HP-1300 (9104) oil for the arbor and for general metal-on-metal applications. This is as per recommendations and since it is often mentioned that synthetic 9104 supercedes mineral oil based D-5 and thus, by implication, is superior. 

I've gone onto the Moebius site and compiled the radar charts for key attributes as below. Comparing an oil product with a grease product isn't quite apples-for-apples as the criteria on the charts changes but, if for the sake of this question, we take pressure resistance, wear resistance and friction reduction as the key comparators then the charts are useful.

What stands out for me here is that I wouldn't be recommending 8301! However D-5 matches 9104 for pressure resistance and friction reduction and trumps it for wear resistance! We need to take into account though that, as a synthetic product, 9104 has better ageing qualities than D-5 and remains in situ slightly better. 

The wild card is that fancy 9504 you've found. Why does Moebius recommend 9104 for barrel arbors but doesn't even mention it in the context of 9504? I reckon it could be the viscosity. I always associate a grease having a greater viscosity than an oil but that doesn't seem to be the case - perhaps adding to lubrication confusions! Moebius measure the viscosity in centistokes (cSt) with, at 20 degrees centigrade, D-5 = 1200 and 9104 = 1250 [just for comparison 9010 = 150). 9504 comes in at a pretty fluid 305 although it's in the grease category.

So for me it's still a D-5 vs 9104 situation in a metal-on-metal situation like the arbor hole. Watch serviced regularly? D-5 in theory trumps 9104 for its greater wear resistance (and could thus avoid the situations that @RyMoeller has observed on Seikos) but a more normal situation for most watch owners is to only think about servicing when a watch stops running! Whilst 9104 might not have quite the wear resistance capabilities it doesn't degrade or move so is actually likely to be superior in a lot of cases.

 

 

 

[JohnR725]

One of the minor problems with lubrication requirements are that the tech sheets don't always tell the whole story. So for instance Omega has a separate document just for mainspring barrels so I went to look at what they recommended. Their recommendation is 1300 on the arbor of the barrel. But they also recommend after cleaning that the barrel, arbor and lid all be treated with epilam.

Then at work we use 9501 on the barrel and arbor as I like the idea of using a grease on a high-pressure load. Although I think the 9504 would be better for a lot of applications it is thicker at least from my memory unfortunately at work I can't compare the two because I suspect my boss would have sticker shock on the price the 9504.

 

[jdrichard]

Interesting question [mention=1542]jdm[/mention]! I also use Synt HP-1300 (9104) oil for the arbor and for general metal-on-metal applications. This is as per recommendations and since it is often mentioned that synthetic 9104 supercedes mineral oil based D-5 and thus, by implication, is superior. 
I've gone onto the Moebius site and compiled the radar charts for key attributes as below. Comparing an oil product with a grease product isn't quite apples-for-apples as the criteria on the charts changes but, if for the sake of this question, we take pressure resistance, wear resistance and friction reduction as the key comparators then the charts are useful.
What stands out for me here is that I wouldn't be recommending 8301! However D-5 matches 9104 for pressure resistance and friction reduction and trumps it for wear resistance! We need to take into account though that, as a synthetic product, 9104 has better ageing qualities than D-5 and remains in situ slightly better. 
The wild card is that fancy 9504 you've found. Why does Moebius recommend 9104 for barrel arbors but doesn't even mention it in the context of 9504? I reckon it could be the viscosity. I always associate a grease having a greater viscosity than an oil but that doesn't seem to be the case - perhaps adding to lubrication confusions! Moebius measure the viscosity in centistokes (cSt) with, at 20 degrees centigrade, D-5 = 1200 and 9104 = 1250 [just for comparison 9010 = 150). 9504 comes in at a pretty fluid 305 although it's in the grease category.
So for me it's still a D-5 vs 9104 situation in a metal-on-metal situation like the arbor hole. Watch serviced regularly? D-5 in theory trumps 9104 for its greater wear resistance (and could thus avoid the situations that [mention=2015]RyMoeller[/mention] has observed on Seikos) but a more normal situation for most watch owners is to only think about servicing when a watch stops running! Whilst 9104 might not have quite the wear resistance capabilities it doesn't degrade or move so is actually likely to be superior in a lot of cases.
 
 
 

Cool chart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro