Capstone Cleaning Chemical or Physical?

[mikepilk]

  On 7/21/2023 at 2:55 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

 

I would like to find out and i think it would be dependant on what the crap is composed of. If it from a very old worn movement, could that be jewel and pivot remnant ? Difficult question.

Expand  

You think that smearing the crap over the jewel once is going to cause scratching whilst rubbing on wet and dry doesn't ! 

(Wet and dry is aluminium oxide - as are the jewels, so I did expect some scratching)

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/21/2023 at 2:37 PM, mikepilk said:

bought a cheap selection of mixed jewels. Most seem to be second hand, recovered from old movements. Some of the holes are distinctly worn out of round. Are these just manufacturing faults, or do they actually wear out of shape? We have all seen dimples worn in cap jewels.

Expand  

I have the same Mike some rejected seconds maybe and a load of used jewels that i will take a close look at and new ones to experiment with. They must wear out over time and constant pressure, this thing about hardness it must be relative to time as well. I'm also willing to bet that material composition might change as well under load. Take infinity for instance, like the example if you take a 100 monkeys and give them a typewriter to play with, if they lived infinite lives and the typewriter could be used an infinite number of times eventually all of them would type out a Shakespeare play. If you rubbed a diamond ( mohs scale 10 ) on talc ( mohs scale 1) eventually the diamond would yield and start to wear. It might take a million years and a million tonnes of talc but the fact still remains. Its just time and the two materials of pivot and jewel are not so far apart in hardness.

[RichardHarris123]

Consider water eroding rocks or the soles of shoes wearing stone steps.  The softer material wears much faster but eventually the harder material wears too. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/21/2023 at 3:03 PM, mikepilk said:

You think that smearing the crap over the jewel once is going to cause scratching whilst rubbing on wet and dry doesn't ! 

(Wet and dry is aluminium oxide - as are the jewels, so I did expect some scratching)

Expand  

Haha no of course not, i read and replied seperatley to each statement in order that you made them and didn't read your post in its entirety and in one read.  I didnt put it all together. Haha my bad. 

[VWatchie]

  On 7/21/2023 at 2:37 PM, mikepilk said:

I just rubbed a jewel against some 1500 grit wet and dry - no noticeable scratching. So no need to worry about paper. 

Expand  

This is beginning to remind me of the IPA discussion. I have my reality and others have theirs. I was taught we all live in the same reality but I'm beginning to doubt it  Hell, some people even claim that men can become pregnant, and they are dead serious about it! 

Anyway, I'm just 99.9 % sure that common printing paper scratches the flat surface of cap jewels so I will just have to make another experiment to make that 100 %. Hopefully I was wrong and we can all begin to use sticky note pads, which seems a lot more efficient than using flimsy watchmaker tissue paper.

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/21/2023 at 9:52 PM, VWatchie said:

This is beginning to remind me of the IPA discussion. I have my reality and others have theirs. I was taught we all live in the same reality but I'm beginning to doubt it  Hell, some people even claim that men can become pregnant, and they are dead serious about it! 

Anyway, I'm just 99.9 % sure that common printing paper scratches the flat surface of cap jewels so I will just have to make another experiment to make that 100 %. Hopefully I was wrong and we can all begin to use sticky note pads, which seems a lot more efficient than using flimsy watchmaker tissue paper.

Expand  

We all do things differently watchie and the same test will encounter variables between each of us. The biggest variable will be our perception of the result and our ability to explain that result. Thats not to say anyone of us is completely wrong or anyone of us is completely right. Many experiments even simple ones are subjective unless strictly controlled. We are mostly amateurs here non of us are lab technicians. I've not done any tests as yet, very busy sorting out a million watch parts ( you think I'm kidding ? I'll send you a picture ). My surgical scope achieves X40, different eyepieces if i can get them can boost it up much higher. But i do have good Japanese biological scope that can mag. Up to around X600 with the x10 eyepieces I have. I could see quite clearly see the grain structure of a balance staff. Sometime this weekend when ive had a good tidy up of the watchroom I'll pull it out and crack off some experiments.  

[VWatchie]

  On 7/21/2023 at 10:24 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

The biggest variable will be our perception of the result and our ability to explain that result.

Expand  

One would like to think that would be the least significant parameter, but you're likely spot on (is that even English?). I mean you are perfectly right about that.

  On 7/21/2023 at 10:24 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

But i do have good Japanese biological scope that can mag. Up to around X600 with the x10 eyepieces I have.

Expand  

I'm lucky I don't. It would drive me crazy. Never-ending finding imperfections 

  On 7/21/2023 at 10:24 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

Sometime this weekend when ive had a good tidy up of the watchroom I'll pull it out and crack off some experiments.  

Expand  

Please do, and I'll see if I can find an hour or two during this busy family day (I've already forewarned my wife and she didn't look too upset ).

[RichardHarris123]

It's called "scale if scrutiny ", nothing is perfect if looked at too closely. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/22/2023 at 7:47 AM, VWatchie said:

but you're likely spot on (is that even English?). 

Expand  

Haha yes mate thats perfect Engish, i bet even our queen said it once, bless her, you are spot on .

  On 7/22/2023 at 9:07 AM, RichardHarris123 said:

It's called "scale if scrutiny ", nothing is perfect if looked at too closely. 

Expand  

Never heard that term Rich but i like it and you are absolutely spot on. Which is a bugger for absolute perfection seekers, the obsession is never satisfied. The trick is not to spend too much lolly on a big all powerful scope or to develop a cut off point where you can think ' yeah its ok i suppose it will have to do '

[DrHWO]

I'm so pleased I joined this forum. You lot make my obsessionality look quite normal! Haloperidol anyone!

[markr]

Have you seen the videos of rebuilding bi-metal watch bracelets?  They replace the ss bars and not the gold links. How does the soft gold wear out the hard ss pins?

[VWatchie]

I've had a busy morning as we're leaving for holidays packing our suitcases so glad I forewarned my wife yesterday that I needed an hour for my second passion in life  She even brought me a cup of coffee as I was experimenting 

So, the results of cleaning the flat surface of a cap jewel by dragging it on different surfaces is in.

Watchmaker tissue paper: No scratches detected up to 40X magnification.

Common printing paper: No scratches detected up to 40X magnification.

3M 30 Micron (Grit 600) Micro Finishing Film: No scratches detected up to 10X magnification using an eye loupe. Scratches detected at 20X magnification. Scratch carnage at 40X magnification 

I can't tell for sure the printing paper I used this time around was the same as the printing paper I used the first time when I clearly could see scratches at 40X magnification (I simply just pick up the cheapest printing paper I can find when I need it). So, it could be that my previous printing paper surface was unusually aggressive. It doesn't sound super plausible but that's the only explanation I can come up with, or as you mentioned @Neverenoughwatches...

  On 7/21/2023 at 10:24 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

The biggest variable will be our perception of the result and our ability to explain that result.

Expand  

Anyway, after this experiment I would assess that using sticky notepad paper is perfectly safe. So, I will get myself some and try it out. Until then I'll stick with my flimsy watchmaker tissue paper as I trust it to be 100 per cent safe.

 

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/22/2023 at 12:54 PM, markr said:

Have you seen the videos of rebuilding bi-metal watch bracelets?  They replace the ss bars and not the gold links. How does the soft gold wear out the hard ss pins?

Expand  

The most easily replaced components within a moving coupling you would think are always made of the softer material. Basic logic in mechanical and civil engineering. So yes this makes little sense .

  On 7/22/2023 at 1:21 PM, VWatchie said:

I've had a busy morning as we're leaving for holidays packing our suitcases so glad I forewarned my wife yesterday that I needed an hour for my second passion in life  She even brought me a cup of coffee as I was experimenting 

So, the results of cleaning the flat surface of a cap jewel by dragging it on different surfaces is in.

Watchmaker tissue paper: No scratches detected up to 40X magnification.

Common printing paper: No scratches detected up to 40X magnification.

3M 30 Micron (Grit 600) Micro Finishing Film: No scratches detected up to 10X magnification using an eye loupe. Scratches detected at 20X magnification. Scratch carnage at 40X magnification 

I can't tell for sure the printing paper I used this time around was the same as the printing paper I used the first time when I clearly could see scratches at 40X magnification (I simply just pick up the cheapest printing paper I can find when I need it). So, it could be that my previous printing paper surface was unusually aggressive. It doesn't sound super plausible but that's the only explanation I can come up with, or as you mentioned @Neverenoughwatches...

Anyway, after this experiment I would assess that using sticky notepad paper is perfectly safe. So, I will get myself some and try it out. Until then I'll stick with my flimsy watchmaker tissue paper as I trust it to be 100 per cent safe.

 

 

Expand  

Do we know what or how watch paper differs to printing paper. Is it the same basic material with the same surface just thinner ?. Can i ask what the lapping film was composed of diamond ? aluminium oxide? 

[VWatchie]

  On 7/22/2023 at 1:23 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

Do we know what or how watch paper differs to printing paper. Is it the same basic material with the same surface just thinner ?. Can i ask what the lapping film was composed of diamond ? aluminium oxide? 

Expand  

Will have to get back to you on that. Out of time. Anyway, here's the 3M 30 Micron (Grit 600) Micro Finishing Film.

[mikepilk]

  On 7/22/2023 at 1:21 PM, VWatchie said:

It doesn't sound super plausible but that's the only explanation I can come up with, or as you mentioned @Neverenoughwatches...

Expand  

.... or you were seeing scratches that were already there because the lighting was different?  ( A mistake I made)

Edited July 22, 2023 by mikepilk

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/22/2023 at 1:36 PM, VWatchie said:

 

Expand  

 

  On 7/22/2023 at 1:50 PM, mikepilk said:

.... or you were seeing scratches that were already there because the lighting was different?  ( A mistake I made)

Expand  

Back to controlled experiments using a jewel sample known to have no scratches

[HectorLooi]

I don't think paper is the problem, it's the contaminants in the paper that are causing the scratches. In the paper pulping process, maybe bits and pieces of metal from the machinery get mixed up in the pulp and ultimately end up un the paper.

If paper was the problem, you wouldn't be using lens paper for cleaning camera lenses, which use optical glass that is much softer than ruby. Maybe lens paper can be used for cleaning jewels. 

[VWatchie]

  On 7/23/2023 at 12:15 AM, HectorLooi said:

In the paper pulping process, maybe bits and pieces of metal from the machinery get mixed up in the pulp and ultimately end up un the paper.

Expand  

That doesn't sound too far-fetched and could very well be the explanation to why my first experiment (a long time ago) was showing the flat cap jewel surface getting scratched. Another reason not to take any chances. I never considered camera lens tissue paper but it ought to be 100 per cent safe 

Edited July 24, 2023 by VWatchie

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/23/2023 at 12:15 AM, HectorLooi said:

I don't think paper is the problem, it's the contaminants in the paper that are causing the scratches. In the paper pulping process, maybe bits and pieces of metal from the machinery get mixed up in the pulp and ultimately end up un the paper.

If paper was the problem, you wouldn't be using lens paper for cleaning camera lenses, which use optical glass that is much softer than ruby. Maybe lens paper can be used for cleaning jewels. 

Expand  

My bio scope is coming out this evening to check all these possibilities. But that sounds feasible Hector, it may be just bad luck if you buy a bad batch with particles that can scratch. 

[nickelsilver]

If there are manufacturing residues in paper I doubt there are any hard enough to abrade sapphire. If there were a few particles equal to sapphire in hardness, even in some relatively high concentration, it would take some effort to get it to scratch. Calcium carbonate is a common additive, which is abrasive enough to dull steel (why your mom would yell at you for cutting paper with her fabric scissors), but nowhere near hard enough to hurt sapphire. Calcium carbonate= 3 Mohs scale, sapphire 9, diamond 10. I have made hole and other jewels from scratch, using diamond, and it's a tedious process. I know that diamonds are cut and faceted using diamond, and it's a very tedious process. That aluminum oxide causes scratches on sapphire is no surprise... but man, I would hate to have to make a jewel using it!

 

Lens paper is especially free of anything abrasive, and even then there's a less-is-more approach to cleaning lenses. Glass averages around 6 Mohs scale, so harder than calcium carbonate, but that scale is practically logarithmic, so it's a lot harder. I have used a lot of really old cameras and scratches on the lenses wasn't really an issue (degradation of cement or propagation of fungus, yes), but scratches on lens coatings is a very real issue. If you want to get into really hairy territory check out the process to clean a precision front surface mirror, yikes!

[Neverenoughwatches]

Eyup watch peeps , so i had a little experiment, not completely controlled and a bit more to do yet. I cant vouch for the quality of the jewel, all i can say it was from a 60's oris movement, so i would think reasonable, and it was in fair condition so i thought it a good test sample, i didn't take a photo but that doesn't really matter as you will see. The scratch material just some cheap 400 wet and dry also not controlled, as i have no idea what it made from, probably aluminium oxide but that doesnt matter either as the test is just to see if a jewel will scratch first. I thought lets see how tough they are and then work backwards to a medium that wont scratch. First just a couple of light strokes backwards and forwards on the 400 produced a few light marks. I was very slightly unsure as to whether I'd inspected correct so lets give the jewel a good rub. 15 seconds of still fairly light pressure , which equates to around 30 backwards and forwards. Here is the result at x60 and x100. I didn't need to get any closer. I think that answers the question # does a jewel scratch # ? spot on Watchie,  complete carnage.  I will try a few more from different sources , and still yet to test on different papers. Oh the watchpaper has just a weave like pattern with no particles  but has holes in it, plane paper more or less the same weave but no particles or holes. I tried a few samples, obviously it can vary.

[Waggy]

  On 7/24/2023 at 10:35 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

Eyup watch peeps , so i had a little experiment, not completely controlled and a bit more to do yet. I cant vouch for the quality of the jewel, all i can say it was from a 60's oris movement, so i would think reasonable, and it was in fair condition so i thought it a good test sample, i didn't take a photo but that doesn't really matter as you will see. The scratch material just some cheap 400 wet and dry also not controlled, as i have no idea what it made from, probably aluminium oxide but that doesnt matter either as the test is just to see if a jewel will scratch first. I thought lets see how tough they are and then work backwards to a medium that wont scratch. First just a couple of light strokes backwards and forwards on the 400 produced a few light marks. I was very slightly unsure as to whether I'd inspected correct so lets give the jewel a good rub. 15 seconds of still fairly light pressure , which equates to around 30 backwards and forwards. Here is the result at x60 and x100. I didn't need to get any closer. I think that answers the question # does a jewel scratch # ? spot on Watchie,  complete carnage.  I will try a few more from different sources , and still yet to test on different papers. Oh the watchpaper has just a weave like pattern with no particles  but has holes in it, plane paper more or less the same weave but no particles or holes. I tried a few samples, obviously it can vary.

Expand  

Great experimenting, I am really shocked that just 30 seconds could do this to sapphire!

[Neverenoughwatches]

  On 7/25/2023 at 4:58 AM, Waggy said:

Great experimenting, I am really shocked that just 30 seconds could do this to sapphire!

Expand  

Wasn't even that just 15 seconds.  Around 60 strrokes of a distance of about an inch. So in total it being dragged fairly lightly a distance of 5 feet. The wet and dry is mounted on sponge. The scratches were almost instant,  you can see the few first test scratches going cross ways, that was just a couple of 1 inch strokes. The deep stuff running top to bottom was the longer test. Yep I'm  shocked as well. Maybe a poor quality jewel i dont know. I dont have anything specifically labelled Seitz and i dont know if there would have been any other supplier at in the 60s , good or bad. But the fact that watchie said he tried a similar test and had the same result suggests that this would be a standard find also in line with Nicklesilver's statement. So i dont understand why other posts here didnt have this same result. But i will try some more just to check that this wasn't a very poor quality jewel. The scratch medium is fairly irrelevant up to now as it scratches and its not diamond, probably aluminium oxide which apparently is what jewels are made from ( corundum ) so i imagined that was going to happen. I will also test on a diamond stone to see the difference.  The grit used is also irrelevant, lower grit deeper  scratches than higher grit shallower scratches. None of this should be found in paper. So maybe back to a dirty jewel that has not had its surface washed and rubbed dry on paper can scratch from aluminium oxide impregnated dry oil from jewel wear with just a few strokes on paper.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Neverenoughwatches

[nickelsilver]

Yes, wet or dry (States terminology) is silicon carbide, sitting above aluminum oxide/sapphire at 9.5 Mohs, so it should definitely scratch a jewel.

Edited July 25, 2023 by nickelsilver

[SimonJ]

  On 7/25/2023 at 5:49 AM, Neverenoughwatches said:

Wasn't even that just 15 seconds.  Around 60 strrokes of a distance of about an inch. So in total it being dragged fairly lightly a distance of 5 feet. The wet and dry is mounted on sponge. The scratches were almost instant,  you can see the few first test scratches going cross ways, that was just a couple of 1 inch strokes. The deep stuff running top to bottom was the longer test. Yep I'm  shocked as well. Maybe a poor quality jewel i dont know. I dont have anything specifically labelled Seitz and i dont know if there would have been any other supplier at in the 60s , good or bad. But the fact that watchie said he tried a similar test and had the same result suggests that this would be a standard find also in line with Nicklesilver's statement. So i dont understand why other posts here didnt have this same result. But i will try some more just to check that this wasn't a very poor quality jewel. The scratch medium is fairly irrelevant up to now as it scratches and its not diamond, probably aluminium oxide which apparently is what jewels are made from ( corundum ) so i imagined that was going to happen. I will also test on a diamond stone to see the difference.  The grit used is also irrelevant, lower grit deeper  scratches than higher grit shallower scratches. None of this should be found in paper. So maybe back to a dirty jewel that has not had its surface washed and rubbed dry on paper can scratch from aluminium oxide impregnated dry oil from jewel wear with just a few strokes on paper.

Expand  

I've just thread this entire thread with interest.

Maybe it would be worth repeating your test but with the wet'n'dry paper "Wet"