Jump to content

Another lubrication doubt


jdm

Recommended Posts

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 by jdm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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  My (certainly outdated) Moebius document suggests 8030 or 8040 as thick oils for arbors.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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Moebius_Comparison.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 
 
 
Moebius_Comparison.thumb.jpg.9542664728c0a771d09aaae0e516f22a.jpg

Cool chart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I will advice to share the idea first here before doeing something to the movement
    • When you move the index which changes the timing from an extreme fast to an extreme slow, is there a big change in beat error? Obviously there will be a big change in timing. If there is a big difference in BE then this is strongly inferring the the end-curve of the hairspring isn't set correctly or/and the collet is central to the jewel on the balance cock, because the hairspring that is breathing between the curb pin and boot is being pushed and/or pulled when you move the index from left to right. Also not having the hairspring set correctly can dramatically reduce the amplitude. A quick check is to take power off the movement and move the index from extreme fast to slow and with high magnification see if the hairspring sits nicely between the curb pin and boot at all times (give the balance a spin and watch the hairspring - has it got total freedom?) or if it moves by being pushed or pulled by the curb pin or boot. I'm guessing it is the latter. I think that may be a possibility to your problem.
    • I can't get windingstens.com to open but you need a  few measurements. 
    • All Done, Here are the finished pictures: This one shows the generic "one-size-fits-all" base which accepts the bespoke rings - notice that the parametric movement OD (27.40 mm) automatically prints on the ring 🙂 From another angle: Here is the ring about to go into the base: And finally the base and ring together: Here it is next to a pen for scale: On my system with 20% fill each ring will take about 18 mins to print, but I am sure this could be optimised: Here is the screenshot of the spreadsheet in FreeCAD, you just need to change one value to create the ring in cell C3, (the base doesn't need any changes). I just uploaded the files to printables link here, but also include  here as a fake pdf, please change the .pdf to .zip to make the file work once downloaded: Modular Movement Holder.pdf Any feedback welcome!     I'm also going to make a parametric ring insert for rectangular/oval movements - but I just finished a parent teacher evening so too tired now 🙂  
×
×
  • Create New...