Jump to content

Are these tools enough to do a balance staff replacement?


enthdegree

Recommended Posts

Hello, I would like to learn how to replace balance staffs on riveted watches. Specifically I've got a Hamilton 992 that needs a new one.

I've got small screwdrivers, small pry levers, sheaths that go under the pry levers, ultrasonic cleaner, precision tweezers, and a vice. I'm going to get a staking set (see attached image, the base isn't shown in the pic but it's included), but is this all I need?

My eye is untrained to all these tools, so I am not sure it is enough. I think I might also need a Bergeon-pliers-style roller table remover and a K&D 50. K&D 50's are really difficult to find and unfortunately seems to be sold at collectible prices. Although it looks like there are similar-looking tools in the staking set. 

Thanks

01515_caxrV8Yqphi_600x450.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi  The difficult bit is removing the staff without bending the balance rim  hence the use of the Platax tool and the K&D tools to hold the balance flat. Some watch makers put the broken balance in a lathe and cut the rivit off, which is a skilled job so as not to mess up the balance hub.  I have in the past done it using a stake and a set of punches and was succesfull.  The K&D tools come up on the bay from time to time as do Platax tools who command a price greater than £250 the K&K s  go for arround the £50 mark.  I would reccomend that before embarking on this journey that you watch Mark our Hosts videos on UTube  and then decide on the course of action to take.     Hope all this is useful for you.   cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, enthdegree said:

Hello, I would like to learn how to replace balance staffs on riveted watches. Specifically I've got a Hamilton 992 that needs a new one.

I've got small screwdrivers, small pry levers, sheaths that go under the pry levers, ultrasonic cleaner, precision tweezers, and a vice. I'm going to get a staking set (see attached image, the base isn't shown in the pic but it's included), but is this all I need?

My eye is untrained to all these tools, so I am not sure it is enough. I think I might also need a Bergeon-pliers-style roller table remover and a K&D 50. K&D 50's are really difficult to find and unfortunately seems to be sold at collectible prices. Although it looks like there are similar-looking tools in the staking set. 

Thanks

01515_caxrV8Yqphi_600x450.jpg

Changing a balance staff is not for the faint hearted. If you are going to do this I recommend you watch a few vids first. The key is to remove the old without distorting the balance in any way. When riveting in the new it must be flush and straight. Finally once fitted checking the poise of the balance with the new staff is also important for a pro job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the staff is friction fit then the staking set shown in the picture possibly has most of the tools you need. There's a bit of information online about friction fit staffs - identifying and cross sections to show how they go together.

It's easy to think that switching the parts is simply a sequence of procedures which can be completed by having the tools. While that's an important part of it, there's gaining the feel for it, and knowing how to approach it - including stuff as simple as efficient manipulation of tweezers.

In any case, I'd recommend watching plenty of videos on youtube - like the one shared earlier in this thread, and having a look at the Joseph Bulova School of Watchmaking book (which you may find in a digital form :)).

It has to be understood that if you follow instructions here or elsewhere, you may still have a broken or poor functioning watch. These things take practice and finesse which is difficult to convey in a forum - not to mention the watch you are asking about really deserves a pro.. although not something I'm seeking, I haven't been able to justify the cost of a 992.

By now it may have been worked on a couple of times, which doesn't help things to go as smoothly as they might.

Regardless whether it is a friction fit staff you'll need to remove the hairspring and roller before getting to the staff..

You can follow my text (below) at your own risk, it doesn't constitute official training, and is not comparable to having a pro by your side. I'm not sure how often I'll be online here either, so you may not get a quick response to any questions, and I'm also not a pro.

 

I'll try and describe it as simply as possible, and not necessarily using all the official terms.. perhaps someone can double check it for me in case I've mis-typed or forgotten anything..

 

Remove the hairspring first, methods vary but essentially revolve around either using sharp and fairly fine couple of levers to lift it off (2 at 180 degrees apart). Or by inserting something lightly into the hairspring collet and twisting while pulling up. Some people use a screwdriver, or an oiler (I prefer to use an oiler). It is general practice to make a small mark on the balance wheel to indicate where the hairspring stud points in relation to the staff pivot - some people scribe a tiny scratch, nowadays you can get a fine marker pen which can later be removed. It wont take much force and realistically I'd suggest getting some practice with a couple of cheap parts broken watches.

You'll also need to remove the roller.. the staking set possibly has an anvil and punch of the correct size.

While you can use the seemingly friendly and approachable roller remover tool which is squeezed between your fingers, I wouldn't recommend it. A staking set or Platax tool (if you have the luxury of one) can do it so much more nicely. I have a staking set, and made the necessary anvils for this (and will make new sizes when needed). Basically use the anvil with a slit of the right width so the balance can go on it in a way which leaves it only supported on the roller (as the complete balance wheel minus the hairspring is upside down). The balance arms and rim, and staff need to be free of the anvil. Find an anvil which best supports the roller while not touching the rest of the balance wheel, sometimes the middle of the balance staff between the roller and balance arms may allow some more space between the balance and anvil so you can get more support under the roller - be careful the end of the roller jewel does not sit on a flat part of the anvil or it may get damaged or pushed out, usually there's a little groove/recess at 90 degrees to the slit.

In the top of the staking tool you need a regular punch with a hole in the end, be sure to center the top punch on the anvil before going any further..   having a tiny cone in the end of the stake (as well as the tiny hole) would be ideal, if not then a flat end or riveting end will do. The hole in the end needs to be the right size to fit on the wider tapered part of the pivot on the end of the staff (you want to preserve the very end of the pivot for later comparison etc if needed and having it bent may stop the roller coming off easily). The punch should need minimal pressure from a watchmakers miniature hammer and the balance wheel and staff should drop free (maybe only half a mm into the anvil).. lift the roller off with tweezers.

 

Removing the staff is another chapter, with the best method depending on the attachment of the staff in the wheel or wheel hub. A few people can probably describe that process, and it's also on youtube.

Jonathan

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the further information. My guy with the staking set on craigslist seems to have lost it, while he's looking I've been using all this time it's taking to gather the other tools I still need and learning as much as I can about how to do these repairs. All your posts help.

  • The Hamilton 992's staff is riveted in so to safely remove the staff one needs a K&D 50 staff remover which I... think I've got coming. I can't tell completely by the photos but looks like the pusher's tip size might be smaller than the clamp hole. Hopefully if everything is well centered this shouldn't matter.
  • I've also gotten a poising tool with ruby jaws that appear to be in good shape... I've watched videos of people poising the stuff, looks like you just want to balance to not have any heavy points right?
  • After observing the parts more closely I'm noticing many of the jewels have hairline cracks in them which I don't think I'm going to bother replacing yet. The jewels are there because they have a low coefficient of friction against the moving parts right? How much does a crack, a macroscopic feature of the object, really affect how well the watch keeps time? Whatever the answer is I'll replace them some other time.
  • Is it a bad idea to put these parts in an ultrasonic bath? I don't want to risk further cracking the jewels or ruining the hairspring.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, enthdegree said:

I've also gotten a poising tool with ruby jaws that appear to be in good shape... I've watched videos of people poising the stuff, looks like you just want to balance to not have any heavy points right?

After observing the parts more closely I'm noticing many of the jewels have hairline cracks in them which I don't think I'm going to bother replacing yet. The jewels are there because they have a low coefficient of friction against the moving parts right? How much does a crack, a macroscopic feature of the object, really affect how well the watch keeps time? Whatever the answer is I'll replace them some other time.

Is it a bad idea to put these parts in an ultrasonic bath? I don't want to risk further cracking the jewels or ruining the hairspring.

 

It's good to check the poise after replacing a staff, but avoid thinking that every balance needs re-poising. I often find that they remain absolutely fine. What I do tend to see often is evidence of poising work where it quite possibly wasn't necessary - often you'll see a combination of screws cut, washers added..... and poor poise :-(

Hairline cracks are not good if they score the pivots. It may not be a problem in practice. This tends to happen much more with garnet jewels. Rubies tend to crack much less often.

I've never had an issue with a hairspring in an ultrasonic. I'm also doubtful it would affect the jewels. You'll possibly be more likely to crack them if you peg them, so be gentle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2020 at 8:55 PM, enthdegree said:

Thanks for all the further information. My guy with the staking set on craigslist seems to have lost it, while he's looking I've been using all this time it's taking to gather the other tools I still need and learning as much as I can about how to do these repairs. All your posts help.

  • The Hamilton 992's staff is riveted in so to safely remove the staff one needs a K&D 50 staff remover which I... think I've got coming. I can't tell completely by the photos but looks like the pusher's tip size might be smaller than the clamp hole. Hopefully if everything is well centered this shouldn't matter.
  • I've also gotten a poising tool with ruby jaws that appear to be in good shape... I've watched videos of people poising the stuff, looks like you just want to balance to not have any heavy points right?
  • After observing the parts more closely I'm noticing many of the jewels have hairline cracks in them which I don't think I'm going to bother replacing yet. The jewels are there because they have a low coefficient of friction against the moving parts right? How much does a crack, a macroscopic feature of the object, really affect how well the watch keeps time? Whatever the answer is I'll replace them some other time.
  • Is it a bad idea to put these parts in an ultrasonic bath? I don't want to risk further cracking the jewels or ruining the hairspring.

Thanks

In terms of the poising tool, the most important thing is that the balance is running true. When watches are "adjusted" (as marked on the movement), part of this can involve dynamic poising. In reality, this can leave a balance a little out of static balance (which would make it appear to have a heavy spot on the poising tool). In practice, it is an additional reason to double-check the direction of the roller jewel in relation to the balance rim (maybe take a phone picture after using permanent marker on the rim) - because the roller on 180 degrees from original position will affect this.

When the balance is fitted in the watch, the total component parts fitted and (in the case of other escapement parts) working together, the sum of it all are small effects on the timing in different positions.. for example, the balance is attached to the hairspring, which may have a weight bias towards one side when the watch is running, and the collet pining position also affects the rate in different positions (often set in the best position at the factory for usual watch positions in relation to how a type of watch is expected to be worn). There's also the relationship between the regulator pins and hairspring, and balance of the other escapement parts.. I'd not call myself an expert on this b.t.w.. 

 

The jewels being cracked.. long term this is something which should be sorted, however, for the purpose of getting the watch running by replacing the balance staff, it is something you can put off for the immediate future. The reason to replace them is to avoid damage to the pivots which run in them. The friction is only half the reason for fitting.. the other advantage they have over brass is their wear resistance, which keeps the geartrain in optimal position for longer. Jewels (usually) do get worn eventually, this tends to be evident on vintage watches, when viewing the balance cap jewels under an optical aid - there's often the start of a tiny dimple from where the end of the balance staff has been turning. Sometimes it's possible to see wear in hole jewels but it is not so easy to spot something slightly out of round (compared to the missing part of a reflection on a flat shiny surface).

It is possible to find new friction-fit jewels but the jewels on 992 may be rubbed in - possibly rubbed into gold chatons. These were easy to find and replace at one time but are usually easiest to find new from retired watchmakers clearances. Modern jewels have parallel sides and precise outer dimensions which are designed to correspond to a specific size of reamer, so that they are a light press-fit.

Rubbed in jewels are not as tall, and get thinner towards the edges. The idea is that a setting is turned, the jewel put in place, then a bit of the metal above the jewel is spun into a burr which traps it in place - gold is used because it's soft but settings could probably be made from other malleable metals. There's information (and pictures) on the internet in case you are interesting in finding out more.

Practically the easiest way to replace jewels is to get them from a parts movement. I have seen people adapt friction fits jewels by lapping them down to the same shape with diamond lapping paste.

 

Ultrasonic baths.. I'm actually not sure if this will further damage cracked jewels - I don't try to save them. Ultrsonic machines are a modern standard of cleaning method - but not the only one. I like to use chemicals in little jars, in a water bath in my own ultrsonic machine, a few at once. Originally I started using the method of brush cleaning parts, a few people servicing occasional watches still did before Aldi and Lidl introduced ultrsonic machines for pocket money.. if in doubt, that is a mechanically safer option (excluding breathing in chemicals from an open jar).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I've successfully removed the balance staff! Now to put the new one on.
I notice some of the screws on the balance are defaced, like someone sanded them down. For instance the top screw in the attached picture. What was going on there? Is this common?
IMG_20200404_204304.jpg.657e9bfc25f5f357c52d88eea4875379.jpg

Someone could have been trying to remove weight from the balance by shaving material off the screw. Not the right way to do this. If the opposite screw has the same amount of material removed, may not be an issue. After you stake the balance back on the shaft, poise it to make sure you do not have a heavy point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi   You will probably find that at some time the watch has had a staff fitted and the poising was out and as JD explained removed material wrongly. the weight is either added or remove from direct opposite screws to maintain poise. explained in De Carles book . and another springing and timing .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said, this was probably done for reasons of poise. Poising this way is not considered best practice - there are neater ways to change the weight.

Realistically, don't worry about it for now. It might be tempting to try to neaten it up, or to make opposite screws match, but don't - at least not without further testing of the watch when running in different positions..

 

As the balance wheel is, there is the possibility that you will be lucky and the existing poise will leave the watch with great dynamic poise (which is more important than static poise). Once the watch is running you can check the timing in different positions, and if performing less than ideal, also for a heavy spot.. but the difference this makes is also linked to the amplitude of the balance wheel - this really needs to be studied a bit before making any changes, luckily it is in some books.. I'll try to have a quick nosey online for a suitable link later.

Edited by JGrainger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JGrainger said:

As the balance wheel is, there is the possibility that you will be lucky and the existing poise will leave the watch with great dynamic poise (which is more important than static poise)

Why is dynamic poising more important than static poising?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair simply saying "dynamic poising" possibly doesn't completely convey what's going through my mind, and it is not that I think static poising is just unimportant - it creates a good foundation for reducing errors, later adjustments, and good timekeeping. I would also say that checking static poise is not a bad thing, and may be used as one sign to question concentricity.

What is going through my mind is the way the balance interacts with the other parts such as the hairspring and pallet fork. The static balance may not be the same as the dynamic balance when assembled and which makes the watch best adjusted to different positions. Although small, the pallet fork is unlikely to be perfectly balanced, and the hairspring collet and any uneveness in the balance of the hairspring as it expands and contracts will have small effects on the timekeeping. Also, the static poise is not checked when every part is fitted as it is not practically possible. The dynamic poise is checked when the balance wheel is completely assembled and factoring in any other effects of neighboring parts.

There's a realistic chance that doing nothing to neaten up the balance screws and not paying too much attention to the static balance will produce a result in timekeeping which is less great than the watch is capable of, but there is a small chance it might. Making adjustments, replacing, or carrying out a restoration of balance screws is beyond a beginner level of watch servicing, and it is likely that the watch was working satisfactorily until the balance staff broke (the questionable method of a previous watchmaker was probably done with an aim to improve timing and this sort of issue is unlikely to cause further damage to the watch).. with that in mind I feel the balance screws should be left alone until the watch has been tested on a timing machine. The results and possible steps to correcting can then be seen, and a plan of action can then be devised.

Were I making a new watch or balance wheel then I would place greater importance on static balance, to minimize production errors.

Edited by JGrainger
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a slightly different way to think about dynamic versus static poising?

Actually my sentence is misleading and not entirely correct? On a pocket watch like this with bimetallic arms you do have to make sure there where there supposed to be as they will have a dramatic effect on timekeeping. Specifically if they been bent in your watch runs fast if they're out it's slow and it screws up the poise. So providing they are where there supposed to be static poising is a nice thing to do. Especially when there is the likelihood that it is grossly out of poise or at least it can be. Attempting to dynamic poise a watch that is hopelessly out a static poise is not going to be a nice experience.

Then I don't remember up above in tools if Europe poising the balance wheel the size the poising tool a variety of tools can be used to adjust the screw's. If it's a nice quality watch with visible screws under cutters which can be hard to find ones that work. Some pocket watches of their old enough they used a tiny slitting saw the screw head slot has been changed this was done at the factory. Others screws they will drill into the center of it there is a tool for that. Then others they get creative like a file and it doesn't look very pretty.

So the simple problem is on a American pocket watch it's been around for a while and things have happened to it both good and bad. So static poising will least give you a clue as to how bad things are going to be. Then if you statically poise a reasonably careful you're still going to get phenomenal timekeeping and dynamic poising really isn't necessary.

But suppose you're working on a modern wristwatch a balance wheel without screws? Then static poising his just about a waste of time unless you're in a classroom situation with an obsessed teacher. That's because they are so close it's not going to matter. This is where dynamic poising would be good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnR725 said:

Perhaps a slightly different way to think about dynamic versus static poising?

Actually my sentence is misleading and not entirely correct? On a pocket watch like this with bimetallic arms you do have to make sure there where there supposed to be as they will have a dramatic effect on timekeeping. Specifically if they been bent in your watch runs fast if they're out it's slow and it screws up the poise. So providing they are where there supposed to be static poising is a nice thing to do. Especially when there is the likelihood that it is grossly out of poise or at least it can be. Attempting to dynamic poise a watch that is hopelessly out a static poise is not going to be a nice experience.

Then I don't remember up above in tools if Europe poising the balance wheel the size the poising tool a variety of tools can be used to adjust the screw's. If it's a nice quality watch with visible screws under cutters which can be hard to find ones that work. Some pocket watches of their old enough they used a tiny slitting saw the screw head slot has been changed this was done at the factory. Others screws they will drill into the center of it there is a tool for that. Then others they get creative like a file and it doesn't look very pretty.

So the simple problem is on a American pocket watch it's been around for a while and things have happened to it both good and bad. So static poising will least give you a clue as to how bad things are going to be. Then if you statically poise a reasonably careful you're still going to get phenomenal timekeeping and dynamic poising really isn't necessary.

I think it makes sense to observe that the balance arms and rim appear to be where they should be (allowing a little for temperature making them move slightly on a bimetallic balance). This can easily be checked in a truing tool.

The overall timing is effected when both ends of the rim are evenly moved in or out, the temperature compensation when the screws are symetrically moved along the rim, and the poise is altered when one screw is not in the same relative position it should be in (when a screw is mismatched in weight or position). If one screw was missing it's opposite screw then that would indicate a problem needs to be addressed, but finding one or more screw has been altered in a unpleasing way does not necessarily mean that everything is screwed up as a result (despite the obvious amount of suspicion it may arouse), careful and thorough testing can confirm whether that is the case..

Testing a watch in different positions on a timing machine is easy in terms of the skill involved, so it is a sensible place to start..

Chances are that there may be an issue which should be addressed, and it would also be sensible to check the static poise prior to installing the balance in the watch - with some note of the findings and basic diagram to serve as a reference to consider against the dynamic poise test. If it's a way out then that suggests it all needs to be carefully checked again - the concentricity, rim damage, pivots straight, missing or badly unsymmetrical screws.. to be fair I am assuming that it will be slightly but not drastically out.

If the watch is found to run well in different positions without further adjustment (as we have to assume it wasn't running too badly prior to becoming broken) then so be it - little extra skill will be needed and time will be saved. If the watch doesn't run with acceptable consistency between positions then further investigation can be undertaken - we are discussing a task which isn't exactly to be a usual beginners watch servicing level type of task. From our places away from the topic poster it is difficult to know where the poster is at with regard to working on balance wheels and their screws. I'm thinking we should focus on finding a path which complies with good practice and which avoids a difficult task until it is confirmed to be required.

In Europe we have all the same tools which are available in America, though there are different trends or styles such as is seen in the Geneva vs WW lathes. Although not the home of the great American watch manufacturing companies, we still have a lot of watches with bimetallic cut balance wheels. In any case,  working on balance screws is a somewhat more advanced skill than replacing a staff, and while the poster may decide to do that, I would recommend checking the timekeeping to be certain that changing the weight of one or more screws (as will be the case if replacing or tidying any screws) is justified.

 

All vintage watches have been around a while by now, poor work in the past is usually my main fear with any watch.. often there can be a mauled balance cap jewel screw or something won't match - like different diameter balance hole jewels.. deformed balances on the rim or damage around the hole for the staff from being unevenly punched at the last repair. I still think of the first watch I repaired by sourcing a balance wheel (16sz Elgin 3 finger bridge).. I went on to replace staffs and do all the other stuff but it's still pleasing to look back upon.. seemed pretty accurate too.. This was before the cheap timing machines from China were widely available so timing (as a hobby) took place over a couple of weeks. I never had much doubt of it's timekeeping until I got my timing machine and spent a bit of time checking my favourite and first serviced watches to measure their actual errors. 

I think that static poise is a good foundation to build upon and would agree that it can produce decent timekeeping, but not that it is the be-all and end-all of timing. I feel the greatest issue with dynamic poising is the matter of potentially introducing one error to offset another error which shouldn't really be there and which may be possible to minimize more through static poising - to potentially reduce the dynamic poising changes needed.

 

On the modern balance wheels there is simply less to go wrong with the poise. It is still worth checking when produced, and when repaired - as much for an opportunity to visually check the concentricity and correct seating as anything.

Edited by JGrainger
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it again for anyone new to replacing balance staffs: you don't necessarily have to re-poise the balance. In my experience, more damage is done than good when it comes to balance poising by the watchmaking community. Often balances will remain in excellent poise after re-staffing, so don't assume that it is necessary.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rodabod said:

new to replacing balance staffs

Anyone new to watch repair really should practice on non-important watches first. So find some scrap balance wheels and practice poising with those.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.   Restore formatting

  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.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.  
    • Haha. You're just in a wicked mood today John 😅
×
×
  • Create New...