Jump to content

Valjoux 7750: Rate Behaviour Question


Hoe

Recommended Posts

Dear Watchmakers

I recently serviced a Valjoux 7750 and I noticed that the movement runs too fast in the first let’s say two days until it stabilises to a useful rate. With amplitudes between 300° and 264° and beat errors between 0 ms and 0.2 ms depending on the position on the timegrapher I consider the 30 years old movement as “healthy”. I installed a brand new mainspring and wore the watch during this test. I place it dial up during the night.

Furthermore, I think due to my home office status and the lack of movement, it doesn’t wind enough so it is slowing down since 31st March.

See my Excel diagram in the attachment.

Why does it run so fast at the beginning? Is something wrong or is this a normal behaviour? Somewhere I read that watchmakers regulate watches after they ran for 24 h.

Best wishes

Valjoux_7750.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In professional work it's quite normal to let a watch run number of days before final regulation. 7750 is usually quite stable from the start, what would be interesting is to know the true state of wind of yours over this period; it seems you were observing the time not the displayed rate on a timing machine. If the regulator pins are not close enough you can have a quite large difference in rate between relatively normal amplitudes. Overall I would expect a 7750 to be more stable than this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hoe said:

Why does it run so fast at the beginning? Is something wrong or is this a normal behaviour? 

Its quite normal, because lubricants even distribution may take a week or so, only following which it will stablize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Klassiker said:

Genuine interest; are you aware of any evidence or references for this?

Make your own observation,  add oil to pallete-escape of a stable watch and you see a curve before it re-stablises.

Regs

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so far for your inputs.

I will stop wearing the watch to measure how long it runs until the movement runs out of power. According to the ranfft website, the VJ7750 has a power reserve of 46 h. This comparison would make it possible to determine the residual power reserve at this moment.

Afterwards, I will restart a test and record the timegrapher values 1-2 times a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing we may be seeing a methodology problem? Then what kind of regulating system does this watch have?

I see several problems with what you're doing when you placed the watch on the timing machine I assume you time dial down only? This would be perfectly acceptable If you can cleverly where your watch always in a dial down position.

Now we get an interesting problem when you're wearing the watch I do wrist it's in multiple of positions. When it's on the timing machine most people only time in one position. They never look at the other positions or don't even think about timing and a lot of positions and doing some math in seeing what the average is supposed to be. Because you may find that that's different than what you see in one position only.

Then your numbers are wasted time unless you give us a complete picture? In other words every time you give us a number of fast or slow we also need the amplitude. This is because if for instance your regulator pins are a little bit  a part or you have the etachrion system not quite adjusted right In other words the regulator pins are too far apart amplitude can have a insane amount of influence on what the watches doing for timekeeping.

You should also try winding the watch up timing it in if you are obsessed of like I would be six positions just because minimum of two positions your minimum of two positions on the dial down and the crown down. Otherwise your obsessive your six positions we dial down and up 4 different crown positions like up downright left. Allow at least 30 seconds between rotating the microphone for the watch to stabilize measure about 30 seconds.  Then let the watch run on your bench for maybe 12 hours do it again 24 hours again I think your watch run a couple of days may be one more time see what the effect of amplitude is on your timekeeping.

Also look at the PDF take the numbers that you got run the math see what it says the average is and at the same time be doing this timing trial cost of physically look at the hands and see how they compare with what you think the timing machine is telling you especially if you do the math to get an average. Oh and I assume your time reference keeps better time than your mechanical watch otherwise that's an added complication to the whole thing.

witschi X-D-DVH-Di-Im-N_EN.pdf

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

Coincidentally, after a tip of JohnR725, I just went through the 7750 regulator-pins exercise. Nickelsilver pointed this out also.

The movement is a freshly serviced NOS 25-jewels normal grade 7750. Runs in every position with straight lines, lift-angle 49 degrees.

I started off with the regulator pins nearly "full-open" and started slowly turning to reduce the gap between them, reducing the freedom of movement of the hairspring between the regulator-pins.

Here are the results;

1) DD +4 333 0.0, DU +3 320 0.0, CD -13 296 0.1, CU -16 298 0.1, CL -17 292 0.2, CR -18 292 0.1

Started to turn the pins to close the gap and had to adjust the daily-rate downwards;

2) DD +5 327 0.0, DU +5 315 0.0, CD -5 291 0.0, CU -8 289 0.1, CL -3 295 0.1, CR -10 282 0.1

Closed even further till there was nearly any gap left and had to adjusted daily rate further;

3) DD +8 325 0.0, DU +7 318 0.0, CD -2 291 0.1, CU -5 296 0.0, CL -2 290 0.1, CR -7 287 0.2

4) Closed a tiny bit further, but that turned out to be too much and I had weird readings. I had to open the pins up and to start "squeezing" again. These are the readings with the pins as close together as I could get;

5) DD +1 323 0.0, DU 0 311 0.0, CD -7 287 0.2, CU -10 289 0.1, CL -7 287 0.0, CR -13 281 0.1

As can be seen, closing the gap to the point whereby the hair-spring just "breaths" makes a substantial difference in the positional error.

In 1) the biggest difference between the fastest and the slowest daily rate is 4+18 = 24. After adjustment the difference is down to 1+13 = 14

Edited by Endeavor
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2021 at 9:13 PM, Nucejoe said:

Make your own observation

Hi Joe,

I did this. It depends what you mean by stable, but over three not-very-high-quality movements I see a maximum  delta between the rates recorded a few hours after oiling ( escapement only) and those three days later of 3 seconds (dial up). So, on current evidence I think "a week or so" is unnecessarily long. "The length of the power reserve of the watch in question" would be my guess for a maximum necessary running-in time before final regulation following a complete service. I'm sure there must be a lot of data available from other sources, but I don't know where to look.

I don't want to hijack this thread any futher. Is it worth starting a new one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Klassiker said:

Hi Joe,

I did this. It depends what you mean by stable, but over three not-very-high-quality movements I see a maximum  delta between the rates recorded a few hours after oiling ( escapement only) and those three days later of 3 seconds (dial up). So, on current evidence I think "a week or so" is unnecessarily long. "The length of the power reserve of the watch in question" would be my guess for a maximum necessary running-in time before final regulation following a complete service. I'm sure there must be a lot of data available from other sources, but I don't know where to look.

I don't want to hijack this thread any futher. Is it worth starting a new one?

I agree,  you just be staying on the safe side by running the watch for a week. On a high precision piece , however,  a week or longer seems a must.

I learned this from whats commonly practiced in my neck of the woods and personal observation and know of no data on the subject. 

Regs

Joe

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update

In the meantime I let the watch run down without wearing it to calculate the residual power reserve on 1st April.

The maximum power reserve measured was approx. 53 h. Remember, I replaced the mainspring (CousinsUK #7750771, 1.50x0.113x600x12).

I am going to fully wind and wear the watch again and observe its behaviour closer with the timegrapher.

VJ7750_210405.JPG

Edited by Hoe
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, Elgin, inventors of alloy mainsprings with their innovative DuraPower alloy in the late 1940s, argued that these springs had a break-in period. Several mainspring packages came with an insert noting that the amplitude will be higher later on after the settling period.

There's much to be said for letting a watch run for at least a few days before adjusting it.

image.thumb.png.de8d62a1b71f61014b6449e2a5b7dc0c.png

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • See, what has happen is a normal consequece of the reducing the hammer size and changing it's shape by the removing metal from it. But here the hammer is adjustable and just adjustment is needed to correct, and this is what You have done. There is a rule for the adjustment and it is that the hammer must lay firmly on the seconds counter heart and there should be a litle free play in the same time of the minutes counter heart/hammer which alows counter movement of about 0.5 min on the small dial hand (+/- 0.25). Of course, there is no way to make one hammer to delay from the other, as they are one single part. What has changed too is the slope of the hammer head and thus the orientation of the heart has changed, and thus the switching finger position. This led to need of the finger position correction. The rule here is that switching of the minute counter has to start when the seconds counter hand is on '59'. Of course, the seconds hand must be positioned as so the resetting is at '0' exactly. If switching is earlier than 59, there will be no problem, but it will be wrong as reading can be not correct. If the switching starts later, the problems that You described can happen.
    • Thanks, This watch was in a box of old scrape units that a friend gave me. They used to be his late father's who was a watchmaker before the war and then continued later in life. I picked this one out as it looked like it had potential, and I liked the dial, it's been a bit of a learning curve for a beginner but I was determined to get it going. Now I'm on the final lap it feels good. I'm just wondering whether to invest in a decent set of hand placement tools or stick with the cheap Chinese red thing I have, decisions decision 😆
    • An update, for everyone who contributed advice, and for those who come after with a similar problem. Based on the answers received, I decided to work on the face of the hammer first. I used a square degussit stone to guarantee a vertical surface to work against, and ground the face back until it was square across 90% of the depth. I was conscious of the risk of removing too much material.* After I'd got the shape how I wanted it, I polished the surface with lapping film. To cut a long story short, it did the trick and the hammer hasn't slipped off the cam since. Of course, that wasn't the end of my problems. Have a look at this video and tell me what you think is wrong. https://youtu.be/sgAUMIPaw98 The first four attempts show (0 to 34 sec.) the chrono seconds hand jumping forwards, the next two attempts (35 to 47 sec.) seem "normal", then on the seventh attempt (48 to 54 sec.) the seconds hand jumps to 5 sec. and the minute counter jumps to 1. The rest of the video just shows repeats of these three variants. I solved it by rotating the minute counter finger on the chronograph (seconds) runner relative to the cam.  I'd be interested to hear your opinions on that. It seemed to be the right thing to do, but maybe I've introduced another problem I'm not aware of. * What is the correct relationship between the two hammers and cams, by the way? Should both hammers strike the cams exactly at the same time, or is it correct for the minute counter hammer to be a bit behind the seconds hammer? In this picture, I removed the adjusting screw at 1, and the hammers are contacting the cams simultaneously at 3 and 4. I had to turn the screw down tight to achieve this condition after stoning the seconds hammer and replacing the bridge.
    • It was easy enough to pop off. Once I had the cannon pinion hanging on the blades of the stump, I got my #2 tweezers on the gear attached to the staff and levered it down. That way none of the force was on the brass wheel itself.   I reinstalled it and the bridge, and it looks like a small but reasonable amount of end shake. It also spins easily with a blower. It stops quickly, but I think that's due to the large shoulder and about what I'd expect from this wheel.  
    • Oh, right. For some reason I was picturing a monocoque case in my head. Good looking watch!
×
×
  • Create New...