Jump to content

Electric Switch - Clock Timer - What is this?


JerseyMo

Recommended Posts

My watch maker friend gave me this clock to sell but, I'm not quite sure just what it is.  No makers name that I can find but, after opening it up I think it is a timing switch.  

What do you think?  It is very heavy and has great color.  It still is ticking if I flick the balance which is amazing to me because the workings have years of sprayed on oil.

121392709_352992845759629_8301301505642192178_n.jpg

121491039_361374251941818_6477908046261954467_n.jpg

121326174_3446513475431342_4677888285765349745_n.jpg

121308171_349540606357942_7272982185576461488_n.jpg

121575861_1391992314481534_2582584956736683923_n.jpg

121320815_376382246833005_4554175625904450307_n.jpg

Edited by JerseyMo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say its a timer of some sort. Looks like a 30 hour movement with extras, pin pallets and the normal type of balance you would expect to find in a 30 hour wind up. What I  find funny is what it says on the dial jeweled movement. There aren't any. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

I would say its a timer of some sort. Looks like a 30 hour movement with extras, pin pallets and the normal type of balance you would expect to find in a 30 hour wind up. What I  find funny is what it says on the dial jeweled movement. There aren't any. 

yes, I noticed that as well about the jewels.  Some more research done and I'm finding similarity to early electric oven timers.  I think I may hold to this one for awhile and see how far I can bring it back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, watchweasol said:

Hi Mo  I am with you on that one, the fact that there are two dial at the bottom and two switches on the rear marked on and off

the front has automatic and non-automatic too. I guess that center hole was for a toggle switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the device was made by the Lux  and this is the history of the company. founder worked for Waterbury Clock Co.  Do I have to tell you who they became in later years?  Ok, it was Timex.  I must have been a Waterbury employee in a former life because it just seem to follow me.  Very creepy!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lux Clock Manufacturing Company, founded in 1914 by Paul Lux. After being employed by the Waterbury Clock Company of Connecticut, Mr. Lux, along with his German-born wife Caroline, and sons Fred and Herman, decided to start their own clock business. The Lux Clock Manufacturing Company was based in Waterbury, Connecticut and produced only clock movements at that time. In the years that followed, the company grew and began making the entire clock unit. Lux Clock produced clocks until 1941, at which time they made war related products.

Clock production resumed after the war, and in 1954 a plant was established in Lebanon, Tennessee. By 1959 a Lux Time Ltd. facility was built in Ontario, Canada. In June 1961, the Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company, a leading manufacturer of thermostats and controls, bought out the Lux Clock Manufacturing Company.[1]

Robertshaw also produced clocks and timers under the Robertshaw Controls Company, Lux Time Division name. Robertshaw sold its consumer division of the company in 1991 to Michael DeLuca and it was run by Paul Balon, CEO. The new company, Lux Products Corporation retained the original Lux name and continued to produce thermostats, timers, and additional household items.[2] Lux Products was headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with its U.S. plant based in Laredo, Texas.

Johnson Controls Inc acquired the assets of Lux Products Corporation in October 2018.[3]

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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

    • As long as you don't grind the stuff up and blow it around, you should be fine. Use a dust mask if in doubt.   The things I'm very careful of are: Radium lume - even the stuff that is visually completely dead and inert is still highly radioactive; it's the fluorescent part that decays, not the radium. A single speck inhaled or ingested can cause cancer, so store parts in zip bags and wear a dust mask & wipe your work area down after handling anything that uses it. A proper geiger counter is a good investment if you plan on working with vintage watches, so you can check for it & take appropriate precautions.   "One dip" & equivalents - the original type & the generic PERC dry cleaning fluid (Tetrachloroethylene / perchloroethylene) which is what the original one dip was mostly made of. That's toxic, a known carcinogen. Use in very good ventilation only & keep it sealed whenever possible.   The newer B-Dip is presumably a safer replacement.  
    • Only 137% !  sounds like you're not putting enough effort in 😆.  I would think of it like cogs on pushbike.  Fastest speed to the spindle would be largest pulley wheel on the drive and smallest pulley wheel on the driven. If the motor was into a sliding bed you would have 3x4 ? Speeds.
    • So please we have that comment.    Eccentric59.  Great work.
    • Thanks @nevenbekriev. I did some further reading and I think I kinda understand it now. Basically, if you were to fully fill the entire barrel with a super-long mainspring, you can't actually wind it anymore. Hence zero power reserve. Likewise the other extreme (mainspring too short to be wound around the arbor). This explains in very basic turns why there is a sweet spot in the middle of the curve you drew. Importantly, this is relative to the barrel diameter (and arbor diameter). In other words, if you have a larger barrel you should have a longer mainspring and hence also longer power reserve. So Longines' statement isn't entirely wrong (longer mainspring = more power reserve). BUT you can only make the mainspring longer if you also increase the barrel diameter. Thanks again for making me think about this a bit more and learning something. That's why I love this forum!   However 😉, there is still some truth to what I said (I think! Please correct me if I'm wrong!): according to my reading, the key parameter is the share of the space between barrel arbor and barrel wall. Half of which should be occupied by the mainspring (based on Theory of Horology by WOSTEP, quote in depth here: https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/mainsprings.php).  The space occupied by the mainspring in the barrel is a simple function of mainspring length AND thickness.  This implies that increasing length, but keeping the same thickness, will lead to occupying too much of the barrel space and hence reducing power reserve. This is what @nevenbekriev 's drawing correctly shows. However, if you increase length AND decrease thickness in the correct ratio, you can maintain the correct mainspring proportion vis-a-vis the barrel (i.e. occupying half of the space between arbor and barrel wall).  This would indeed lead to an increase of the number of barrel revolutions (when unwinding) and hence a potential increase in power reserve. However, you loose torque. And a loss of torque will also lead to the watch stopping earlier (when torque can't overcome the friction in the gear train). Thus, these two opposing effects may cancel each other out. Which again makes this statement probably true:    FINALLY, we still want to help @Zendoc with his very concrete decision:  GR4485 (same thickness but shorter than original) or GR4477 (slightly thinner and a bit longer than original).  I would still advocate (considering modern lubricants and potentially stronger metal alloys -- and consequently the risk of knocking at full wind) to choose the latter.        
    • 🤔 I'd say it's more like.
×
×
  • Create New...