Capstone Cleaning Chemical or Physical?

[thor447]

This method seems to work really well for me.  It's just an adaptation of processes described above.

20:03 to 20:25 of the video.

 

[Malocchio]

I use a jewel picker https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/jewel-picker-upper-with-silicone-tips

A drop of IPA on watchmaker tissue. Rub wet and dry. Spotless.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Malocchio

[Neverenoughwatches]

32 minutes ago, Malocchio said:

I use a jewel picker https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/jewel-picker-upper-with-silicone-tips

A drop of IPA on watchmaker tissue. Rub wet and dry. Spotless.

That's an upmarket toothpick condom.

[Malocchio]

20 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

That's an upmarket toothpick condom.

Oh I see! What kind of glue would be recommended? I wonder if hot glue would work, it has a rubbery surface and not as sticky as silicone. Might be perfect for cap jewel cleaning. The downside of a jewel picker is that it gets dirty pretty easily. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, Malocchio said:

Oh I see! What kind of glue would be recommended? I wonder if hot glue would work, it has a rubbery surface and not as sticky as silicone. Might be perfect for cap jewel cleaning. The downside of a jewel picker is that it gets dirty pretty easily. 

I tried to make silcone ones but it wasn't successful. Haven't tried a glue gun yet but it is on my list, two types to try the white stick and the clear stick. I use evo stik contact adhesive, it sets quick about half an hour or so and has a nice tough rubbery skin and is light to medium sticky, ok for picking up jewels and really good for grabbing dirt and fibres. You can double dip the sticks if you want to adjust the amount.

[VWatchie]

11 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Just to add, it does look like someone is about to play tiddlywinks with cap jewels, i bet i could make a fun game with this.

I was really horrified when I saw this and even more so when I tried it myself and that's how I came up with the idea of my "cap jewel tool".

10 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

Christian took over at V. Halter when I left and that kid knows his stuff. Ended up at Patek doing restoration and now his own watches. Clever, clever watchmaker 

When I asked to join Christian's Facebook group it was requested (as I remember it) that you would introduce yourself. Being a bit lazy I just wrote a short sentence about being excited to join the group, that I usually and mostly would hang out on WRT for learning and exchanging ideas, and then included a link to my bio here on WRT. This made Christian go, sort of, ballistic on me and deleted my intro. He then got in touch with me through Messenger and more or less accused me of being a mole for @Mark. This took me completely by surprise and really shocked me, and I told him nothing could be more wrong - I'm basically kind-hearted but also a little naive and think that everyone else is too - but I still apologised for being a bit thoughtless. The apology was accepted and Christian even admitted he might have overreacted and explained to me that he had previously been subjected to people who tried to take a free ride on his hard work. So, very understandable!

Yes, Christan is truly impressive. Here's an interesting interview with him in English.

And if you happen to speak Danish (or Swedish as I do - a similar language) here's another pod with Christian:

 

[Mark]

Genuinely never heard of him, much less do I require a mole to spy on him (Austin Powers comes to mind ). Life is way too short for rubbish like that - some people need to stop being childish and chill

[DrHWO]

5 hours ago, Mark said:

........much less do I require a mole to spy on him..................

Hopefully, Christian is well and not spending too much time working in isolation. That never bodes well for anyones mental health.

[nickelsilver]

Well that's weird about Christian, he did (does?) have a paid training set of vids, so I guess I could see how he could see a confilct with Mark, but at the same time Mark shows so much in his excellent free YT vids that's a big whatever. I haven't seen him much in the last decade but he was always very open and kind when we did meet; and do consider him an upright dude, so I'm chalking it up to growing pains while he moved back to Denmark with a couple small kids and started his own watch biz etc. I bet (VWatchie) if you asked again it'd be alright. But maybe not, who knows. Everyone's going through their life and stress at different levels and that affects repsonse, and most of the time we're unaware of it, even if close friends.

[VWatchie]

12 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

Well that's weird about Christian, he did (does?) have a paid training set of vids, so I guess I could see how he could see a confilct with Mark

Yes, and he still has a paid training set of videos and that's how I got in touch with him. And yes, the problem was that he felt I was promoting watchfix.com even though I had not mentioned the site in my introductory post, but I guess the fact that I mentioned WRT as my "main source for watch repairing" and had provided a link to my bio on WRT was enough to make him suspicious, and rightly or wrongly, he took it as me advertising watchfix.com, but that was certainly not my intention.

12 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

I haven't seen him much in the last decade but he was always very open and kind when we did meet; and do consider him an upright dude

That's certainly my overall impression as well from having taken his excellent "Watchmaking 101, Beginner Course" (https://learnwatchmaking.com/) and having listened to Pods and Youtube videos with him. As we all know, there are as many approaches to repairing as there are repairers so I've taken several courses from various sources including watchfix.com, timezonewatchschool.com, and learnwatchmaking.com. If on a budget I'd personally recommend watchfix.com, but there's a lot to learn from all of these online schools. Sure, there's an overlapping, but still worth it in my opinion.

12 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

I bet (VWatchie) if you asked again it'd be alright.

Oh, I should have mentioned it! He didn't kick me out of his Facebook group. We settled the misunderstanding by texting each other in the Messenger app and he didn't seem one bit resentful after that. I can certainly recommend his online training. He has three different courses (and one free) but the only one I've taken, as already mentioned, is the  "Watchmaking 101, Beginner Course".

12 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

Everyone's going through their life and stress at different levels and that affects repsonse, and most of the time we're unaware of it, even if close friends.

That's very true!

[Mark]

1 hour ago, VWatchie said:

Yes, and he still has a paid training set of videos and that's how I got in touch with him. And yes, the problem was that he felt I was promoting watchfix.com even though I had not mentioned the site in my introductory post, but I guess the fact that I mentioned WRT as my "main source for watch repairing" and had provided a link to my bio on WRT was enough to make him suspicious, and rightly or wrongly, he took it as me advertising watchfix.com, but that was certainly not my intention

That is very understandable. I take back my words regarding childishness. It’s a natural assumption to make on the face of it without context. I wish him all the very best. 

[VWatchie]

On 7/17/2023 at 11:09 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

I  would be amazed to find that paper would be higher on the mohs scale than synthetic ruby which if i remember is around 8 or 9

That makes sense. Still, the same principles apply when sharpening a knife edge using an Arkansas stone or a Carborundum stone which I assume are a lot softer than knife steel. I can't claim that I understand the physical laws that make this possible, but apparently, it works.

Anyway, you just have to take my word for it. If you use plain printing paper it will scratch the flat surface of the cap jewel. I would assume, especially if you go too hard or for too long. Better yet, if you have a stereo microscope, test it and let us know what you find!

EDIT: I was completely wrong! Both Arkansas stone or Carborundum stone are a lot harder than knife steel. So, I agree, printing paper shouldn't be able to scratch synthetic ruby. Nevertheless, that's very clearly what I saw. I'll have to do the experiment again!

Edited July 20, 2023 by VWatchie

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, VWatchie said:

That makes sense. Still, the same principles apply when sharpening a knife edge using an Arkansas stone or a Carborundum stone which I assume are a lot softer than knife steel. I can't claim that I understand the physical laws that make this possible, but apparently, it works.

Anyway, you just have to take my word for it. If you use plain printing paper it will scratch the flat surface of the cap jewel. I would assume, especially if you go too hard or for too long. Better yet, if you have a stereo microscope, test it and let us know what you find!

EDIT: I was completely wrong! Both Arkansas stone or Carborundum stone are a lot harder than knife steel. So, I agree, printing paper shouldn't be able to scratch synthetic ruby. Nevertheless, that's very clearly what I saw. I'll have to do the experiment again!

Hiya watchie, so i came up with a theory and then i researched it. I think i was sort of on the right track.  My theory was that time is a factor in this  and both materials would eventually yield under pressure regardless of their hardness. The material lower on the mohs scale is going to yield first how soon that would be i guess is determined by how far apart or how close the two materials are within their hardness to each other. I suppose otherwise a jewel would never wear at all as its the hardest material in a watch. In fact what i understand is happening is that hardness is plastic deformation, the material lower on the mohs scale will  deform first but under continuous pressure and continuous could be considered as anything between a few seconds or last for weeks. And is really a proportionate amount of time between the materials to deform based on their hardness relative to each other, so say fractions of a second for the softer one and a few seconds for the harder one. The harder one doesn't deform due to its plasticity but rather brittle fractures under pressure. So the scratches are not from plastic deformation but micro surface brittle fractures. Of course i might have got that completely wrong as well but it sounds bloody clever. 

[HectorLooi]

3 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Hiya watchie, so i came up with a theory and then i researched it. I think i was sort of on the right track.  My theory was that time is a factor in this  and both materials would eventually yield under pressure regardless of their hardness. The material lower on the mohs scale is going to yield first how soon that would be i guess is determined by how far apart or how close the two materials are within their hardness to each other. I suppose otherwise a jewel would never wear at all as its the hardest material in a watch. In fact what i understand is happening is that hardness is plastic deformation, the material lower on the mohs scale will  deform first but under continuous pressure and continuous could be considered as anything between a few seconds or last for weeks. And is really a proportionate amount of time between the materials to deform based on their hardness relative to each other, so say fractions of a second for the softer one and a few seconds for the harder one. The harder one doesn't deform due to its plasticity but rather brittle fractures under pressure. So the scratches are not from plastic deformation but micro surface brittle fractures. Of course i might have got that completely wrong as well but it sounds bloody clever. 

Just to throw a spanner into your theory, I'm sure you have seen clocks with worn pallets and lantern pivots. They are made of very hard carbon steel, which is much harder than the opposing brass parts. Yet the brass parts show hardly any wear. Weird right?

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 hours ago, HectorLooi said:

Just to throw a spanner into your theory, I'm sure you have seen clocks with worn pallets and lantern pivots. They are made of very hard carbon steel, which is much harder than the opposing brass parts. Yet the brass parts show hardly any wear. Weird right?

Well somebody had to do it, yes a bit wierd. Could have something to do with the surface area travelled of the two components. The brass has more surface area to contact than the steel so takes longer to wear out.

[Nucejoe]

Do all synthetic rubies have same hardness? 

[Neverenoughwatches]

8 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Hiya watchie, so i came up with a theory and then i researched it. I think i was sort of on the right track.  My theory was that time is a factor in this  and both materials would eventually yield under pressure regardless of their hardness. The material lower on the mohs scale is going to yield first how soon that would be i guess is determined by how far apart or how close the two materials are within their hardness to each other. I suppose otherwise a jewel would never wear at all as its the hardest material in a watch. In fact what i understand is happening is that hardness is plastic deformation, the material lower on the mohs scale will  deform first but under continuous pressure and continuous could be considered as anything between a few seconds or last for weeks. And is really a proportionate amount of time between the materials to deform based on their hardness relative to each other, so say fractions of a second for the softer one and a few seconds for the harder one. The harder one doesn't deform due to its plasticity but rather brittle fractures under pressure. So the scratches are not from plastic deformation but micro surface brittle fractures. Of course i might have got that completely wrong as well but it sounds bloody clever. 

A quick addition after re reading. I meant to write that hardness is a material's RESISTANCE to plastic deformation .

11 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Do all synthetic rubies have same hardness? 

Something i was going to mention Joe. I doubt it very much. Depends on the manufacturer and the consistency of the manufacturing process wouldn't it. Just found this matey, makes quite an interesting read .

https://www.gemsociety.org/article/understanding-gem-synthetics-treatments-imitations-part-4-synthetic-gemstone-guide/

[mikepilk]

14 hours ago, VWatchie said:

Anyway, you just have to take my word for it. If you use plain printing paper it will scratch the flat surface of the cap jewel. I would assume, especially if you go too hard or for too long. Better yet, if you have a stereo microscope, test it and let us know what you find!

EDIT: I was completely wrong! Both Arkansas stone or Carborundum stone are a lot harder than knife steel. So, I agree, printing paper shouldn't be able to scratch synthetic ruby. Nevertheless, that's very clearly what I saw. I'll have to do the experiment again!

Always keen to experiment, I gave it a go. I rubbed an old cap jewel very firmly against some printer paper for 1 minute. I could not see any further scratches.

What I did notice was, that whenever I tried to take a close up pic through the microscope before polishing, I would see new marks when I turned the jewel and they caught the light. Maybe you were not seeing new scratches, but old ones that didn't show up because the light wasn't reflecting off them?

Also, under magnification, the smooth surface isn't quite as smooth as it looks to the naked eye.

[Neverenoughwatches]

28 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

Always keen to experiment, I gave it a go. I rubbed an old cap jewel very firmly against some printer paper for 1 minute. I could not see any further scratches.

What I did notice was, that whenever I tried to take a close up pic through the microscope before polishing, I would see new marks when I turned the jewel and they caught the light. Maybe you were not seeing new scratches, but old ones that didn't show up because the light wasn't reflecting off them?

Also, under magnification, the smooth surface isn't quite as smooth as it looks to the naked eye.

You beat me to it mike, did you clean the old jewel first in solvent. A dry dirty jewel  may become scratched from abrasive dirt. To rule out all possible causes testing a new clean unscratched cap jewel would set up the perfect  experiment. Time to dig some out.

[mikepilk]

12 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

You beat me to it mike, did you clean the old jewel first in solvent. A dry dirty jewel  may become scratched from abrasive dirt. To rule out all possible causes testing a new clean unscratched cap jewel would set up the perfect  experiment. Time to dig some out.

Yep, cleaned gently in some IPA, then examined under microscope. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

5 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

Yep, cleaned gently in some IPA, then examined under microscope. 

So no futher scratches beyond what was already there before you started rubbing it on paper ?

[mikepilk]

No that I could see. I wasn't expecting any.

[Neverenoughwatches]

22 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

No that I could see. I wasn't expecting any.

I wouldn't have expected any either, after a very long time probably but not in a relatively short space of time like it takes to rub a jewel clean. After cleaning in alcohol there shouldn't be any dirt all you are really doing is removing evaporation marks left from the IPA.  I want to know how the jewel would withstand a dry rubbing off of old lubrication.  Old lube and debris ground out of a cap jewel is going  be one hell of a cutting paste. Crystallised aluminium oxide synth ruby ( corundom of which emery is a type of ) 

20 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I wouldn't have expected any either, after a very long time probably but not in a relatively short space of time like it takes to rub a jewel clean. After cleaning in alcohol there shouldn't be any dirt all you are really doing is removing evaporation marks left from the IPA.  I want to know how the jewel would withstand a dry rubbing off of old lubrication.  Old lube and debris ground out of a cap jewel is going  be one hell of a cutting paste. Crystallised aluminium oxide synth ruby ( corundom of which emery is a type of ) 

So if we have a pivot running for years on end on the surface of a cap jewel, in time some material from both the pivot of hardness 7 and the jewel of hardness 9 would be removed, combined with the oil to create a grinding paste. Initially the removal of material is going to very small, molecular even as the cushioning of the oil deteriorates as it dries out enough to begin the removal but still has enough fluidity to paste up.  But as the grinding paste develops the removal of material will quicken. As you now have not just the initial friction caused by steel and corundum rubbing together on dried oil but an aluminium oxide charged balance staff and hardened steel scrapings in the mix. The pressure of the pivot on the cap jewel may seem insignificant at such a small scale, but if anyone wants to weigh a balance wheel and its attached parts of a 12"' movement and measure the surface area of a pivot end dome's exact point of contact we could then calculate the psi, i bet its a lot higher than we think it is. Coupled with continuous rotation over years, its quite easy to believe that the different relative hardness between two different materials has a limitation governed by contact time, hardness and the material's properties.  

[mikepilk]

I cannot imagine the old oil+crap wiping off once is going to cause much scratching.

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

I 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.

[Neverenoughwatches]

14 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

I cannot imagine the old oil+crap wiping off once is going to cause much scratching.

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

I 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.

 

15 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

cannot imagine the old oil+crap wiping off once is going to cause much scratching.

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.

18 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

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

If the wet and dry is emery cloth, supposedly made from emery but maybe thats just a generic name used now. The two materials  have a source connection.  Both made from different types of corundom, again i think deteriortion time  plays a big factor in all this.