Jump to content

Diy Water Pressure Tester


Legarm

Recommended Posts

Just tested, dry, up to 5 Bar, no leaks over 10 mins, cylinder rated at 125psi, which is just over 8 bar. Not sure if to go any higher than 5 Bar.  :unsure:

 

Rob, what's the max pressure you have taken yours to?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't gone higher than 5 Bar with mine.

 

5 Bar is 40 metres depth. So I think that will be adequate for most services. 50 metres plus I feel you would want it tested professionally, if your diving to those depths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel confident that this tester will ensure the watch is OK for swimming but if you need checking for more advanced stuff like snorkelling or proper diving you should do it with a real tester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 Bar is 40 metres depth. So I think that will be adequate for most services. 50 metres plus I feel you would want it tested professionally, if your diving to those depths.

 

Just remember that 40 or 50M depth does not necessarily correspond to the actual diving a watch can handle in the real world.

Having said that, you are absolutely correct - if a professional diver needs a suitable watch tested, he/she should send the watch to someone with the correct equipment, and insurance as their lives will depend on it.

 

The calyso, bergeon and indeed this solution are to be used to detect leaks, but in my opinion, they should not be used to determine if a watch can be guaranteed for use under water.

 

For the classifications and recommended use for each classification see my post here: http://www.watchrepairtalk.com/topic/1803-waterproof-testers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, I recommend you only put just enough water to cover the watch and not much more, I feel the chamber has too much.

 

The picture is deceiving, the blue top part is filled with a porous material that the watch can rest on but also allows water to enter. So when turned over the water just covers the watch.

 

post-158-0-91770800-1427634930_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

All tested and now given it it's maiden voyage with a Seiko 200m Divers Watch.......... Failed at first test...... Serviced watch and full refurb...... greased seals and then left off the Bezel to see around glass seal....... Took it to 6 Bar, safety glasses on....... and..............

 

post-227-0-96308700-1428592432_thumb.jpg

 

post-227-0-05136800-1428592463_thumb.jpg

 

post-227-0-61998900-1428592493_thumb.jpg

 

post-227-0-37603400-1428592531_thumb.jpg

 

All fine, no streaming bubbles.......

 

All for under £40....... better than the cheapest Chinese one at £150 plus custom charges.................

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good! Thanks for sharing.

 

Have you tested it on a watch with a known problem? May be useful to experiment by putting a kink in a gasket to simulate a failure, just for science :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good! Thanks for sharing.

 

Have you tested it on a watch with a known problem? May be useful to experiment by putting a kink in a gasket to simulate a failure, just for science :)

 

Yes Mark. This watch failed on first test when I received it. After I serviced, refurbed, greased and sealed, no problems. 

 

Very pleased with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you source these parts locally or did you get them from the US, i saw that post a while ago and just gave up after it was in the US!

 

All sourced in the UK. 10" pressure vessel is on Ebay......  301329458121       ....... go for the 3/4" ports

 

Schrader valve...... courtesy of Kwik Fit

 

3/4" to 1/2" reducing bush     (Plumb Center)

1/2" to 1/4"    "             "          (Plumb Center)

PTFE tape 1 roll                     (Plumb Center)

3/4" lever valve Male (for releasing pressure) ........ (Plumb Center) 

6mm Stainless Tube Ebay ..... 111625454690    ..... 

Foot pump, any one that is capable of 10 Bar

 

Hope that helps.

Keith

Edited by Legarm
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is great, I've been trying to justify the cost to purchase a good tester for a while (I wouldn't trust the cheap ones on eBay with my face close under pressure). Ill definitely be making myself one of these.

Nice one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

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

    • I think you are right. I can see now that the case would have been blued from new with a finish similar to the inner surfaces of the opening case back. As you say, there's no easy way to match that finish at home (obviously a home chemical blue such as the gun blue isn't quite acceptable). I will stick with cleaning with soap and water in the ultrasonic and consider the tarnish to be part of its charm. 
    • I can try a big tweezer the biggest I had in my set didn’t do the trick but I’ll check if my wife has some none watchmaking ones. 
    • Yes, gum netal, which actually means iron. It is thick enough to be grinded in order to remove the rust pits and then polished, but it will need blackening oxidation in the end for protection from getting rusty. The watch has nothing to do with the railways, it is the same like the 'squirrel' candys - You do not really expect to find a squirrel inside...
    • I think the app is misinterpreted the noise because of the extra case construction    Tom
    • I have just picked up a vintage soviet Zarja watch and I have been inspecting it prior to putting it on the 'to be serviced' pile. When I measured it with the timegrapher app, I found it was gaining loads of time. Taking the case back off, I find it's a tiny movement within a relatively large watch and it has a separate steel cover over the movement which presumably holds it in place against the caseback.   Checking the app again without the cover, I find it is actually running reasonably well for an untouched old watch. Putting the cover and the caseback back in place and it reads as massively gaining time again. This behaviour is consistent every time I take the cover on and off. I have checked the balance cock is fixed and the screw is tight, so I assume that the cover and case back are pinching the movement in some way and making it run fast. Not sure I can see how that works because if the cover is touching the balance, surely it would make it stop not run faster? It can't be touching just the hairspring to make it effectively shorter.  Placing only the cover in place or placing just the caseback in place (not even snapping it shut) both cause the fast running. Pretty sure there are a couple of millimetres clearance between the case back and the movement when the cover isn't there. I have also checked the watch, cover and case back for magnetism with another phone app but none of them seem to have an appreciable magnetic field. Perhaps I need to preemptively demagnetise and get a real compass to check them with.  I appreciate that this is just an app using the built in microphone on my phone - could it be misreading a ringing / reverberation of this cover to give the wrong result? Observing the watch just running on the bench closed up, it does seem to be appreciably gaining time. I will wind it, set the time and leave it running overnight and see how it does with no cover / back in place. Perhaps I will also see how it performs on the wrist to rule out misreading by the app    What am I missing here?
×
×
  • Create New...