Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have something similar.

Different brand, have used it for my motorbikes while racing for years and now for watch work.

There from the communist era, since they could build great fighter planes with tools like that it would also suit us 😉

 

  • Haha 1
Posted

Why don't you get a digital one. Mitutoyo is a good brand. Even some digital ones from China are pretty good. 

I'm also thinking of upgrading to a digital version. It's getting a little tiring on the eyes, squinting and counting the divisions on the micrometer scale.

Maybe I should get my eyes checked for astigmatism. Wait a minute.... I remove my glasses when I'm working.... so they are not being corrected for astigmatism.... No wonder the lines seem to be all over the place!

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

Hi ya all. 

 Shopping for a Micrometer I came accross this,  a PWD brand, made in Poland, is anybody here familiar with this brand? are they any good?  I don't think I need top quality ones really. 

https://esam.ir/zoomItemN.aspx?img=e17qs968_171417-22143243!1.jpg&slide=1&IDi=22135287

 Appreciate your help. 

I think it would do just fine.  Similar to this one which I use all the time even though I have a JKA and a digital Mutitoyo.

2022-02-14 20_45_59-Window.png

  • Thanks 1
Posted

As long as you zero it in properly without applying too much tension to the knurled knob, it should be fine. I remember that the analog Mitutoyos I used in my apprenticeship had a really good temperature range that they were accurate in. Maybe some of the cheaper ones don’t have that? Though these days it hardly matters as I am not trying to measure something when the temperature is zero. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Pretty much all mics (all that I know of) are calibrated at 20 degrees C. In the practical world, if the mic and part are the same temperature it doesn't really matter if you are a few or more degrees off, it's only when measuring really small numbers like microns or ten thousandths of an inch that it can be a concern, especially if the part is a different metal than the mic.

 

I like to check my mics to gages, and since 99% of what I measure is small round stuff I use small plug gages. If the mic is decent quality, you can usually just go with cleaning the face of the spindle and anvil and check that it zeros correctly. There is always an adjustment, but it usually requires a little pin spanner wrench to do. I can see in Joe's pic the wrench is there, so that's good.

 

I know a fellow who bought a set of Polish mics some years back, and ran them through the calibration lab at his work, and they checked out great.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

 I have an assortment of staffs,  perhaps two thousand or more , just mixed with no way to ID most of them other than to measure dimensions, so need an accurate Micrometer to measure pivot diameter with. 

You gentleman are generous so to prove that I am not really a bad guy either, I best start sending members some staffs. 

Just to be on the safe side, I did put in a bid for a Mityotyo.

Regards

 

Posted

I really strongly recommend not using a micrometer to measure balance staff pivots. By the time you can feel that the spindle and anvil are in contact, you have marked the pivot with a couple of tiny flat spots. I know some people say the spring loaded dial type tools like the JKA Feintaster won't mark pivots, but I don't trust that. For stuff under about 0.15mm you really need a jewel gage. I know they are hard to find and expensive, but those little flats will really mess up your timing.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Hi Nickelsilver, many thanks for your advice. 

I got Jdrichard to blame for this, he said about using micrometer to measure staff, too bad he will never need any of my staffs. 

Regards

Posted
On 1/9/2019 at 6:19 AM, SockMonkey72 said:

Hello Looking for a Seitz Pivot Gauge

 

seitz gauge.jpg

Is this what you recommend.  

Have never come accross a new one for sale,   just used ones.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Is this what you recommend.  

Have never come accross a new one for sale,   just used ones.

Yes. They can also be found in 0.005mm increments, which is nice. Also, the Seitz "balance pivot straightening tool", which isn't great for straightening pivots, has jewels from 0.07mm to 0.15mm in 0.0025mm increments- that's awesome for checking small balance pivots. Not cheap, but great.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Is this what you recommend.  

Have never come accross a new one for sale,   just used ones.

I have one of these.  Dad kept it in near mint condition--jewel 41 has a chip but is still functional.

  • Thanks 1
  • 2 years later...
Posted
On 2/15/2022 at 1:48 PM, nickelsilver said:

I know some people say the spring loaded dial type tools like the JKA Feintaster won't mark pivots, but I don't trust that.

I measured pivots down to 0.07mm in my JKA and looked long and hard at them in my stereo microscope at 40X magnification but couldn't see any deformations, dents, or damage. That doesn't mean there weren't any, but at least none that I could detect.

The Seitz jewel gauge, on the other hand, is perfectly safe and also makes it easier to select the right jewel holes as you can just try the pivot in the different jewel holes in the gauge until you find the perfect side shake. The only real disadvantage with the Seitz jewel gauge is the price. I believe I paid around $250 for mine and felt it to be insanely expensive at the time. Even so, the asking prices these days are twice that and more and they seem to become rarer by the day.

The JKA is a lot less expensive than the Seitz jewel gauge (nice!). However, I was under the impression that once you had measured the pivot in the JKA you could just add 0.02mm to the jewel hole, but that doesn't work (don't ask me how I know). I'm not sure, but I think adding about 25 % to 30 % of the pivot diameter to the jewel hole could be correct. For example, if the pivot diameter is 0.09 the jewel hole should be 0.12. If the pivot is 0.20mm the jewel hole should be 0.26. Again, I'm not sure my theory is correct so if anyone would like to comment on that it would be interesting. With the Seitz jewel gauge, there's no guessing!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the Seitz jewel gauge is out of reach, the JKA Feintaster could be an acceptable option.

Posted
4 hours ago, VWatchie said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the Seitz jewel gauge is out of reach, the JKA Feintaster could be an acceptable option.

Happily, my dad bequeathed both to me.

Posted

The thing with indicator based "mics" is they won't reliably split hundredths as well as a screw mic simply due to their design (though good quality ones can repeat quite well). Also, on many mics, both handheld, table, or the JKA style, the faces of the spindle and anvil aren't particularly parallel. So, if you take a plug gage, and check in several places around the faces, you end up with different readings. This is actually the cheat to wring a good reading from one- check with a good plug gage approximately the diameter you will be measuring, at a given spot, and then check your part the same way.

 

I don't have a JKA but a colleague has one that appears to be a very recent model in new looking condition. Checking with a carbide CARY 0.51mm plug gage, depending on where I checked on the faces it ranged from spot-on, to a few microns under, to almost a whole 0.01mm over. My screw mic of similar design was much closer, spot-on overall, with it reading a few microns under at the very edges of the upper part of the faces.

 

It's a rather involved process to lap these faces correctly; it's really easy to end up with convex faces, so not recommended if you aren't used to it.

 

9 hours ago, VWatchie said:

I measured pivots down to 0.07mm in my JKA and looked long and hard at them in my stereo microscope at 40X magnification but couldn't see any deformations, dents, or damage. That doesn't mean there weren't any, but at least none that I could detect.

 

The JKA is a lot less expensive than the Seitz jewel gauge (nice!). However, I was under the impression that once you had measured the pivot in the JKA you could just add 0.02mm to the jewel hole, but that doesn't work (don't ask me how I know). I'm not sure, but I think adding about 25 % to 30 % of the pivot diameter to the jewel hole could be correct. For example, if the pivot diameter is 0.09 the jewel hole should be 0.12. If the pivot is 0.20mm the jewel hole should be 0.26. Again, I'm not sure my theory is correct so if anyone would like to comment on that it would be interesting. With the Seitz jewel gauge, there's no guessing!

 

I'd say it's tricky to have a hard rule on pivot to jewel clearance. In small sizes, 10% would work. That would mean a 0.10 pivot in a 0.11 jewel. But for a center wheel with a 0.80 pivot 0.08mm would be way too much. 0.02 would be fine. So the clearances become larger as the size gets smaller- this is one reason why movements tend to perform less well as the size goes down.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

I'd say it's tricky to have a hard rule on pivot to jewel clearance. In small sizes, 10% would work. That would mean a 0.10 pivot in a 0.11 jewel. But for a center wheel with a 0.80 pivot 0.08mm would be way too much. 0.02 would be fine. So the clearances become larger as the size gets smaller- this is one reason why movements tend to perform less well as the size goes down.

Thanks for the info it makes a lot of sense! I figured out why I thought the clearance had to be a lot more. The train wheel bridge on the movement I'm currently working on doesn't fit very well on the main plate. It needs to be pushed down on one side with force (I've tried to lower the bridge down evenly but no matter how I try it refuses). To make sure I don't snap the pivots while forcing the bridge down I need to tilt the bridge slightly towards the pivots so that the pivots slightly reach into the jewel holes. Of course, to get the pivots into the jewel holes while the bridge is tilted the diameter of the holes needs to be larger than when the bridge is in its fixed position.

That bridge or the main plate likely has to be adjusted but I will have to have a closer look and get back to it perhaps in a new thread with pictures as I have no idea how that adjustment could or should be accomplished. BTW, it is the same movement as in the "Serviced ETA 2763 having erratic rate and amplitude" thread. As I took it apart I discovered that the escape wheel jewel hole in the bridge was way too large. When pushing the intermediate wheel (driven by the barrel) back and forth the escape wheel pivot jumped like crazy in the hole. When pushing the intermediate wheel in a single direction with constant speed the pivot would keep jumping vibrating like crazy. Don't know why I missed this the first time around. Perhaps I was trusting "Swiss quality" too much (I doubt it would have passed me by if it was a Russian movement). Perhaps someone fitted a jewel with a too-large hole because of the faulty bridge, and that is perhaps the main reason for the erratic rate and amplitude, or what do you think? 

Edited by VWatchie
Posted
21 hours ago, VWatchie said:

That bridge or the main plate likely has to be adjusted but I will have to have a closer look and get back to it

Having a close look at the two posts underneath the train wheel bridge the post on the side that needed to be pushed down with force was slightly taller than the other. It also lacked a chamfer. Not completely, but a lot less defined than in the other post.

To fix this I taped (Kapton tape) around the post and then carefully shaped it with the file part of my Vallorbe burnisher making it slightly shorter and enlarging the chamfer but not touching its diameter. Now when I press it down it feels the way I'm used to. That is, when applying pressure on top of the posts the bridge slides into the main plate with a slight resistance.

I realize it's a funny place to write about this in a thread about micrometres, but as is so often the case one thing leads to another. Anyway, apologies about that.

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

    • The watch is from 1990 and was serviced just once around 20 years ago. No idea if the mainspring barrel was ever opened or changed before now.
    • Interesting but I think we have a problem here? We probably need to split hairs on a definition problem. For instance take a real Rolex movement put it in a real Rolex case but not the one it came in take a real dial real hands and make up a watch that is 100% real and what exactly is this? If you send your Rolex in for servicing and anything's been changed at all from what it was when it left the factory Rolex will be unhappy and remove all offending components. This does become a problem of people changing things because they think it's their watch and they want to have a different dial Lord diamonds the bezel or whatever words Rolex sees all of this as evil and bad as far as a Intel Rolex only things the watch is legit if everything is exactly what it was when it left the factory and nothing's been changed including the stem everything asked me Rolex original or their very unhappy about its existence. Then you think about a fake watch what is its real purpose? Well its real purpose is to make money for somebody and fool the customer. So all the watch has to do is look pleasant on the outside and inside can be anything. Typically nobody's going to see inside. So typically anything that's not legit counterfeit movement etc. why would someone spend so much time and effort making it look just like a real Rolex when there's no need to? Unless of course you have one or two movements to impress somebody with this is what's inside your watch but even that is problematic Now we don't end up with I've interesting problem that troubles me where I work. The owner will offend a cage your watch by looking at it carefully with a microscope the timing machine etc. and he will point out all the things that he feels are not appropriate correct or whatever for your watch. But in my example above of mixing and matching legitimate Rolex parts he wouldn't necessarily be able to tell. The problem I have with this is it often times things like his claim to telling a counterfeit is look at the second hand the quality of the secondhand is not as nice as a legitimate one. But maybe somebody replaced a second hand on a real Rolex. Or the other day at work I don't know what it was in before but there was a really pretty movement transparent back and they decided it was fake because of? Now I didn't think it was fake I took one look was beautifully manufactured but they had a reason What bothers me with counterfeit Rolex is or anything counterfeit watch related it is reminding me of a witchhunt. The early days of witch hunting how can we tell a which Manon which? That makes me wonder how many super fakes are really fake at all it's basically somebody deciding it's a fake based upon inappropriate assumptions. Like the secondhand is been changed or the watch was worked on the screws are perfect or other things. Other minor problems with super fakes for instance I have a long story the not going to tell the short version is I found the website once where they claim to be counterfeiting Rolex watches. They even had a picture to prove their counterfeit watch the problem with pictures online how do we know it's really a counterfeit watch and not a real Rolex watch that you're telling us is counterfeit. Oh and they had testimonials from all kinds of people who bought their watches and were very happy with the service of course the problem with the watch is you don't know what's inside it unless you take the back off and just because somebody shows a picture online and says this is their super fake maybe it really isn't a super fake they be there just trying to say that. We end up with a interesting problem of manufacturing a watch. Does Rolex actually make every single part found in their watch? Then the year 2004's basically irrelevant. This is because initially Rolex buys stock in the company and they manufacture Rolex watches. I'm assuming over time Rolex will acquire more stock and only in 2004 do they get the whole company. But the company itself hasn't really changed other than the name on the front of the building. The real question is did they really make every single component found in the Rolex watch from the beginning of time until end of the time? A lot of the components found in a watch would be extremely specialized did they make their own jewels or their own mainsprings for instance? But that is looking at the article they employ a heck of a lot of people now I would guess now that Rolex probably does make everything in-house. Especially when they have nifty CNC equipment like for making screws were he could make a huge batch of one type it instantly switch to another type where before he needed specialized machines for one machine for one screw now manufacturing all kinds of stuff in-house becomes very simple. But still is possible that in the early days they might have outsourced something may be perhaps. But conceivably we do have minor changes in thing is due to how things have been made over time which can lead to confusions over whether this is legit or not when it may be as a change of manufacturing methods oh and regarding the screws found in your Rolex watch? In about mid-80s I went to a school reunion in Switzerland. One of things we could do was visit a factory and I picked Rolex because I wanted to see the mass production making of Rolex watches. Which is very disappointed I did not get the sea at all because didn't see them making Rolex watches in their Geneva headquarters even though the building is really fake? So what did we get to see well after sales service because after all were watchmakers we should see that. Did learn something interesting about Rolex screws if your watch was sent to Rolex the screws that come back are not the ones that went there. As they are using powered screwdrivers they don't want to risk breaking heads off and they will replace the screws of every single watch. The other one of interest was suppose there's a scratch and you can see the brass? No problem they have a solution that basically electoral plates without electricity so the scratch goes away. The research Department was quite boring and didn't look like anyone was ever there. Then it was too long ago to remember all the details other than I was disappointed I want to see manufacturing.   Yes the joys of artificial intelligence that is more like a trained monkey that's there to please you.
    • Hey everybody! I just registered to WRT. I found this forum searching for informations about ELMA watch cleaning machines (will get one ELMA tomorrow ✌️). I'm new in watch repair, collecting watch repair tools to fill up my work space 😎.   Greetings from Vienna Michael
    • Is it not covered in the manual under Profix Cap Jewels?
×
×
  • Create New...