Jump to content

Trying to close the mainspring barrel pivot, but the hole simply will not close up


Recommended Posts

I have an old pocket watch, and the sideshake on the arbor is unacceptably large.  The amount of shake is just visible to the naked eye, so I am trying to close it up.  I am using the method prescribed by Kalle Slaap at Chronoglide Watchmaking

So I tried it, with gentle tapping at he does, and it did not make any noticeable change.  I kept having to hit harder and harder, and I'm eventually wailing on the staking punch to try to get it to do anything.  I had to hit so hard that the equipment on my table was rattling, and it was barely making a dent in the movement plate.  In the YouTube video, he closes the hole to the point where it's too small, then broaches it open.  Mine never got close to the point of being too small.

The dial plate took to the staking set better than the movement plate.  If you look in this video that I took, the sideshake on the movement plate is still large enough to be visible.  What methods do you all use to close up holes?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger the diameter of your punch the higher the force needed to perform noticable work.  Not knowing what the base material is it's hard to say how much force will be required to displace it.  If things on your bench are jumping up and down, your bench may not be ridgid enough for this type of work.  If your bench is solid enough nothing else should move.  Try putting the staking set directly over the bench leg (it should have better support there) and you may have better results (just don't hit it as hard as you have been until you know that you still need to).

Best of luck.

Shane

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for the replies. I remembered that I had one of the hole-closing attachments for my Seitz tool. So this gave me an excuse to finally restore my Seitz press.

I pressed down on the hole with the correct attachment and in a few minutes the hole was closed up a little further than needed, do I broached it open a tad and we're all set!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the funniest joke in our business was "Never use force. Get a bigger hammer", until @nickelsilvermentioned that there are situations where a bigger hammer really is needed. I can't remember the context right now but thought it might be a good idea in this case!? Anyway, I have never closed an arbor bearing so don't take my word for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GregG said:

Thank you both for the replies. I remembered that I had one of the hole-closing attachments for my Seitz tool. So this gave me an excuse to finally restore my Seitz press.

I pressed down on the hole with the correct attachment and in a few minutes the hole was closed up a little further than needed, do I broached it open a tad and we're all set!

That’s great you managed to solve it!
 

Could you take a photo of the hole-closing attachment? I’m curious how a lever jeweling tool could close a hole where a staking tool didn’t.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

I hadn't realised until I just looked, my jewelling tool has hole closing bits.

I don't know whether you are supposed to just press the lever, or hammer on the top ?

20221024_134343.thumb.jpg.2c62d49a81721f7d6f9491eb7af18a40.jpg

That’s an interesting “pusher” for hole closing. Do you use a flat faced anvil at the bottom? I’m also curious if just using the lever will generate enough force to deform the brass plate, or do you use the spindle (with hole closing punch inserted) with a hammer like in a staking set.

Edited by ifibrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GregG said:

Mike's already beat me to it, but these are the ones I bought.

https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/seitz-jewelling-reducing-jewel-hole-tools?code=J30577

I use it with the regular jewel press, no hammer involved.  The lever will give you a huge mechanical advantage.

What did you use to support the movement from the bottom? A flat faced anvil? Or a normal anvil with hole. Do you think you could take a picture of the set of anvil and hole reducing pusher you used to successfully close the hole?

Edited by ifibrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ifibrin said:

What did you use to support the movement from the bottom? A flat faced anvil? Or a normal anvil with hole. Do you think you could take a picture of the set of anvil and hole reducing pusher you used to successfully close the hole?

I didn't have an anvil large enough to support the large plate, so I used the "face plate with 3 clamps" body from the Seitz catalog, page 19 (https://ihc185.infopop.cc/helphand/pdf/seitz.pdf).

I can take a picture when I'm back home later if you'd like, but there's not a whole lot to see. 😛  Just imagine the hole reducer punch with the face plate on the bottom.

Edited by GregG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ifibrin said:

That’s an interesting “pusher” for hole closing. Do you use a flat faced anvil at the bottom? I’m also curious if just using the lever will generate enough force to deform the brass plate, or do you use the spindle (with hole closing punch inserted) with a hammer like in a staking set.

In the Seitz catalogue it shows them used with a flat anvil at the bottom, and the lever to create the force.

These are designed for slightly loose jewels, so only a very slight movement of metal is required. For an arbor slopping around in a bridge, I will still be using two round punches (top and bottom) in my staking set. And a hammer 🔨 -  it's "hammer-time" (ref Kalle Slaap)!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 5:38 PM, mikepilk said:

For an arbor slopping around in a bridge, I will still be using two round punches (top and bottom) in my staking set.

This way you will enlarge the vertical play of the arbor, too. Not something that you really want.

Disregarding that the non-butcher method is to replace the worn hole with a bushing.

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, praezis said:

This way you will enlarge the vertical play of the arbor, too. Not something that you really want.

Disregarding that the non-butcher method is to replace the worn hole with a bushing.

Frank

If you are careful I don't think this is so. If you only deform a little at the edge of the hole, the 'shoulder' on the top of the arbor is wide enough to press on the flat surface of the bridge.

I closed a hole in a barrel bridge this afternoon, and just put it under the microscope to check that the vertical play is not affected. 

And for the movement I'm working on, the bridge is far too thin to bush - at least for my tools/experience.

Edited by mikepilk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, praezis said:

This way you will enlarge the vertical play of the arbor, too. Not something that you really want.

Disregarding that the non-butcher method is to replace the worn hole with a bushing.

Frank

How would be just closing up the arbor hole from just the top face Frank leaving the underside flat so the endshake remains the same. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 9:24 PM, GregG said:

I can take a picture when I'm back home later if you'd like, but there's not a whole lot to see. 😛  Just imagine the hole reducer punch with the face plate on the bottom.

Actually, I would be interested in some photos of the faceplate, especially on how to hold pieces (such as a mainplate) where it’s not entirely flat along the entire circumference. How do you keep the hole you are inserting perpendicular to the axis on a faceplate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

How would be just closing up the arbor hole from just the top face Frank leaving the underside flat so the endshake remains the same. 

That's how I did it until I saw Kalle Slaap's video. As @ifibrinpoints out, if the plate isn't flat, it can be difficult to sit it on a flat stump, and get the punch exactly centred.  I had this problem and ended up with the created chamfer not being symmetrical.

Using the two punches makes it much easier to get the plate and punches perpendicular, and the punches centred in the hole.  As @praezis points out, there is a danger of increasing vertical play, but this shouldn't usually be a problem. The pic shows one I just did, with the chamfer arrowed, being much less than the width of the arbor shoulder.

pic1.thumb.jpg.284136b628a24840ec3b9cb598c99b5d.jpg

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

Also a question of the dome radius. 
A high domed punch will leave a small chamfer but rather push the metal aside. A lower domed one will push the metal more down and close the hole, but produce a wider chamfer. 
A bit dangerous just with those narrow shoulders of barrel arbors, where all support is needed to avoid digging into the brass.

I admitted that I do this, too, to avoid higher cost and prolong the period until a "real" repair will be done. But this punching is just a short term, not lasting repair.

Frank

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikepilk said:

That's how I did it until I saw Kalle Slaap's video. As @ifibrinpoints out, if the plate isn't flat, it can be difficult to sit it on a flat stump, and get the punch exactly centred.  I had this problem and ended up with the created chamfer not being symmetrical.

Using the two punches makes it much easier to get the plate and punches perpendicular, and the punches centred in the hole.  As @praezis points out, there is a danger of increasing vertical play, but this shouldn't usually be a problem. The pic shows one I just did, with the chamfer arrowed, being much less than the width of the arbor shoulder.

pic1.thumb.jpg.284136b628a24840ec3b9cb598c99b5d.jpg

Thanks Mike. Good hear someone elses experiences and get overs .

3 hours ago, mikepilk said:

That's how I did it until I saw Kalle Slaap's video. As @ifibrinpoints out, if the plate isn't flat, it can be difficult to sit it on a flat stump, and get the punch exactly centred.  I had this problem and ended up with the created chamfer not being symmetrical.

Using the two punches makes it much easier to get the plate and punches perpendicular, and the punches centred in the hole.  As @praezis points out, there is a danger of increasing vertical play, but this shouldn't usually be a problem. The pic shows one I just did, with the chamfer arrowed, being much less than the width of the arbor shoulder.

pic1.thumb.jpg.284136b628a24840ec3b9cb598c99b5d.jpg

Choosing the right sized punch with a balance of leaving enough of the mainplate untouched but not so small that the new created arbor hole is too thin. Learning to bush a hole woukd be the next step forward. Appreciate that information Mike.

2 hours ago, praezis said:

Also a question of the dome radius. 
A high domed punch will leave a small chamfer but rather push the metal aside. A lower domed one will push the metal more down and close the hole, but produce a wider chamfer. 
A bit dangerous just with those narrow shoulders of barrel arbors, where all support is needed to avoid digging into the brass.

I admitted that I do this, too, to avoid higher cost and prolong the period until a "real" repair will be done. But this punching is just a short term, not lasting repair.

Frank

A fine balance then Frank and a temporary fix. Second stage of wear occuring much faster than the first stage. 

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

    • I've remained silent on this thread, and at the risk of upsetting everyone, the thing that worries me the most the the apparent absence of Mark. The moderators do a great job and the members also pitch in, and the site seems to run itself, but it is a concern for the future of this forum when the owner is absent for all intents and purposes. Like many of the comments above I would hate to log in one day and things be closed down as I rely on this site for ideas and knowledge and also cheer me up. maybe the Moderators could reach out to him, assuming he does not read this thread, and express our concerns and let us know the plans going forward? some kind of WRT ark
    • That was the exact reason for me starting this thread watchie. Still we haven't worked out how the regulars are going to hook up if it goes tits up. I honestly think something should be arranged to stay in contact, we all help each other so much. 
    • Yeah ive watched that a few times before,  i couldnt find my old school dividers to scribe it up 😅 Yep thats the guy i bought a roll from . Thanks Nicklesilver that answers that perfectly and more or less what i thought an experiment over time would prove . The jumper arm is quite thick along its length, i left it that way intentionally, i thought the original was probably very thin, i didnt see that it was already missing. Setting isn't particularly stiff as such just positive, i still need to take it out and polish where it mates with the stem release. 
    • Yes, "Sold out" is difficult to understand. There doesn't seem to be a lot going on. It's been nine months since any new video was published on the Watch Repair Channel. The Level 4 course on watchfix.com has been in progress for what feels like forever (several years!?). Maybe Mark's enterprises aren't doing well or perhaps already so profitable there's nothing much to motivate him for more material. Or, perhaps these days he's more into crochet. The real reason is probably something entirely different but it would be nice/interesting to know. I don't mean to sound gloomy or pessimistic, but I wouldn't be surprised to be met by an HTTP 404. Every day feels like a gift. Speaking of watchfix.com I've been postponing the "Level 5: Servicing Chronograph Watches" course for a very, very long time. Anyway, I just enrolled on it so it's going to be very interesting to see the videos. I must say, IMO there's nothing really that can compete with Mark's courses when it comes to presentation and video quality. It's simply world-class and makes me associate with some really expensive BBC productions.
    • Steel has some funny properties, or at least counterintuitive. The modulus of elasticity is effectively (not exactly, but close enough) the same for steel that is annealed and hardened. What changes is the point of plastic deformation* . If the movement of your spring doesn't pass that, it should work fine. It looks a little thick, I would thin it a bit maybe from the main body out about halfway, maybe 10-20% thinner (not in thickness, along its form). But if it works it works!   *So- if you have two bars of the same steel, one annealed, one at 600 Vickers (general hardness watch arbors might be), clamp them to a table so the same length is hanging out, and put a weight on the ends, they will bend the same amount. But if you continue to add weight, then remove it, at a point the annealed bar won't return to its original straightness. That's the point of plastic deformation. But up to that point, as springs, they are the same. However- their wear characteristics will be very very different. And getting the hardened bar past its point of plastic deformation takes a lot more effort.
×
×
  • Create New...