The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21 September 2008, 03:40 PM   #1
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Difference between air and water pressure

Rolexes are rated to be waterproof to a certain depth. What is the difference between air pressure and water pressure?

Let's say you have your Rolex serviced at a high elevation. At that point I would assume that the air pressure outside the watch and inside the watch is the same. Now you take the watch to sea level.

If you have come down in elevation 7000 feet, why doesn't the watch implode? It must be different than taking the watch from sea level to 7000 feet under the water.

Are the air molecules smaller than the water molecules, and thus the pressure inside the watch and outside the watch equalizes in air but not in water because the air molecules can enter or leave the watch to equalize pressure? Or something else?
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 04:06 PM   #2
Lisa
"TRF" Member
 
Lisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: oklahoma city
Posts: 15,741
Erm... can't we just talk about how do it know when to turn the lume on?
Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 04:13 PM   #3
wanasub
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Jonathan
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 386
I would guess that it doesn't cause any problems because you're dealing with a VERY small volume of air in a relatively strong enclosure.
wanasub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 04:29 PM   #4
swatty
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
swatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Peter
Location: Sydney
Watch: The Game
Posts: 17,415
I will think you will find only a small air pressure difference between sealevel and 7000ft , however the pressure 7000ft underwater would crush you
swatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 05:03 PM   #5
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by swatty View Post
I will think you will find only a small air pressure difference between sealevel and 7000ft , however the pressure 7000ft underwater would crush you
So is it primarily a difference in density between water and air?

I think that normal air pressure at sea level is approximately 14.7 psi, and that it decreases by about 1 psi for each 1000 feet of increased elevation. So you have about a 50% change in ambient air pressure.
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 04:54 PM   #6
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa View Post
Erm... can't we just talk about how do it know when to turn the lume on?
The problem is that often it doesn't know.
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 04:28 PM   #7
jdc
"TRF" Member
 
jdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Martin
Location: UK
Posts: 7,023
An often asked question and a relative one in todays society. I like Dr Lowe Hungs brilliant answer, although some think it is a bit simplistic in content
Attached Images
 
jdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 04:30 PM   #8
swatty
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
swatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Peter
Location: Sydney
Watch: The Game
Posts: 17,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc View Post
An often asked question and a relative one in todays society. I like Dr Lowe Hungs brilliant answer, although some think it is a bit simplistic in content
Got to love Wikipedia

Dr Lowe Hung
swatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 06:01 PM   #9
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc View Post
An often asked question and a relative one in todays society. I like Dr Lowe Hungs brilliant answer, although some think it is a bit simplistic in content
Is that the same as:

Pie=good
Pie=high calories
Good=high calories
High calories=good

Not sure this computes.

I think I hijacked my own thread.
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 07:06 PM   #10
jdc
"TRF" Member
 
jdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Martin
Location: UK
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art161 View Post
Is that the same as:

Pie=good
Pie=high calories
Good=high calories
High calories=good

Not sure this computes.

I think I hijacked my own thread.
As that great cook Archimedes noted pies are a very important part of everyday life. I refer you to his experiment of comparing the relative values of a steak and kidney pie with a blue berry pie. Both were tasty and high in calories but the nutritional value of the Brit pie wins out. Hope this answers your question
jdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 08:24 AM   #11
chicagowatchman
"TRF" Member
 
chicagowatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago IL
Watch: Platinum DDMasterp
Posts: 1,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc View Post
An often asked question and a relative one in todays society. I like Dr Lowe Hungs brilliant answer, although some think it is a bit simplistic in content
:r ofl:
__________________
Men's Platinum Day Date Masterpiece
Men's 18k Day Date Crown Collection
Men's Franck Muller 18k Conquistador Cortez
Men's SS Cartier Pasha

MEMBER # 5534 USA
CHICAGO IL
chicagowatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2008, 11:42 PM   #12
GBJIV
"TRF" Member
 
GBJIV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Jackson
Location: So. California
Posts: 2,893
I was thinking about a related question.... When you here that a legal case is air tight. Is it better to be air tight or water tight? I guess it depends on the application. However, I recently bought a piece that I am thinking about keeping as BNIB for a long time - let's say 20 years. I am thinking maybe if I vaccum seal it in a bag i.e. remove air - maybe the watch, paperwork, Box etc... would not diminish as much. Should I ever want to sell it in 30 years.... It would be almost as if it was NOS.

Then I think it's too much work and not to worry about it either way...
__________________
Jackson
GBJIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 01:49 AM   #13
Tools
TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron
 
Tools's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBJIV View Post
I was thinking about a related question.... When you here that a legal case is air tight. Is it better to be air tight or water tight? I guess it depends on the application. However, I recently bought a piece that I am thinking about keeping as BNIB for a long time - let's say 20 years. I am thinking maybe if I vaccum seal it in a bag i.e. remove air - maybe the watch, paperwork, Box etc... would not diminish as much. Should I ever want to sell it in 30 years.... It would be almost as if it was NOS.

Then I think it's too much work and not to worry about it either way...
If you go to Costco or any other good department store you can get the "Foodsaver" brand vacuum seal freezer baggers..

This is so easy, you can vacuum seal your watch every night if you want, or at least for the weekend if it's off your wrist....

You can seal up all that paperwork and those unsightly boxes, put them in cold storage and they will look like brand new in a half century when your heirs decide to sell all your stuff after they put you in a "Home"..

I'll bet that if you just change the name on one of these to "Watchsaver", there's money to be made..........

........
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....)
NAWCC Member
Tools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 12:21 AM   #14
Mrdi
Banned
 
Mrdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 3,478
Quite simply:
Water is more dense than air
5 cubic feet of water weighs approx 40 lbs
5 cubic feet of air weighs a few ounces
Therefore the pressure asserted at depth is much greater than the pressure
exerted at the same relative altitude.
Mrdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 01:35 AM   #15
BigHat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Real Name: Matt
Location: Arlington, VA
Watch: Lange One MP
Posts: 4,043
Is it fair to say a watch isn't "air" tight? I mean would the DS need a relief valve if that were the case? A molecule of H2O is much bigger than an atom of Helium isn't it?
BigHat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 02:01 AM   #16
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrdi View Post
Quite simply:
Water is more dense than air
5 cubic feet of water weighs approx 40 lbs
5 cubic feet of air weighs a few ounces
Therefore the pressure asserted at depth is much greater than the pressure
exerted at the same relative altitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHat View Post
Is it fair to say a watch isn't "air" tight? I mean would the DS need a relief valve if that were the case? A molecule of H2O is much bigger than an atom of Helium isn't it?
It makes sense that it's the density difference between water and air that accounts for depth ratings in water, but it doesn't matter if you take your watch from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest. So if you had an ocean of Classic Coca-Cola rather than water, you could not take your watch to as great a depth in Classic Coca-Cola as you could in water because the Classic Coca-Cola is more dense than water.

Also, my guess is that the watch probably is not air tight and that the pressure inside the watch equalizes to the ambient air pressure. I would think that an atom of water is bigger than an atom of helium.

Thanks!
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 05:19 AM   #17
wuzzzer
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 384
Rolexes are tested to both positive and negative pressure. That's one of the reasons why they legally can call their watches waterproof, not simply water resistant. They many times use the term pressureproof as well.
wuzzzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 05:23 AM   #18
BigHat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Real Name: Matt
Location: Arlington, VA
Watch: Lange One MP
Posts: 4,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuzzzer View Post
Rolexes are tested to both positive and negative pressure. That's one of the reasons why they legally can call their watches waterproof, not simply water resistant. They many times use the term pressureproof as well.
Actually, there is no "legally" about it. Many posts about it. Do a search.

Also I have never heard your assertion regarding positive and negative pressure. The testing process as well documented as pulling a vacuum and assessing crystal deflection. Please tell us more about what you mean.

Edit: I pulled up one of the threads for you:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ght=Waterproof
BigHat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 08:23 AM   #19
vjb.knife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
You are kidding again right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art161 View Post
It makes sense that it's the density difference between water and air that accounts for depth ratings in water, but it doesn't matter if you take your watch from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest. So if you had an ocean of Classic Coca-Cola rather than water, you could not take your watch to as great a depth in Classic Coca-Cola as you could in water because the Classic Coca-Cola is more dense than water.

Also, my guess is that the watch probably is not air tight and that the pressure inside the watch equalizes to the ambient air pressure. I would think that an atom of water is bigger than an atom of helium.

Thanks!
Please tell me that this question is also just being made as a humorous statement.
vjb.knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 September 2008, 03:12 PM   #20
Andad
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjb.knife View Post
Please tell me that this question is also just being made as a humorous statement.
Which weighs most.

An atom of feathers or an atom of chicken.
__________________
E

Andad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 September 2008, 05:10 PM   #21
WaltherPPK
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art161 View Post
...

Also, my guess is that the watch probably is not air tight and that the pressure inside the watch equalizes to the ambient air pressure. I would think that an atom of water is bigger than an atom of helium.

Thanks!
No WAY! Water is an ATOM? Air is HELIUM? Things just got interesting!
WaltherPPK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 08:25 AM   #22
toph
"TRF" Member
 
toph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: ChrisTOPHer
Location: Sydney
Watch: Rolex, Brellum,
Posts: 12,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrdi View Post
Quite simply:
Water is more dense than air
5 cubic feet of water weighs approx 40 lbs
5 cubic feet of air weighs a few ounces
Therefore the pressure asserted at depth is much greater than the pressure
exerted at the same relative altitude.
exactly- it took 12 posts for this. what is TRF coming too
__________________


"Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Member No.# 11795
toph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 11:48 AM   #23
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by toph View Post
exactly- it took 12 posts for this. what is TRF coming too
Chris, it's people such as you that make TRF what it is today, whatever that is.
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 09:19 AM   #24
JohnEaton
"TRF" Member
 
JohnEaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John Eaton
Location: Nome Alaska USA
Watch: Red1680 metres 1st
Posts: 1,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrdi View Post
Quite simply:
Water is more dense than air
5 cubic feet of water weighs approx 40 lbs
5 cubic feet of air weighs a few ounces
Therefore the pressure asserted at depth is much greater than the pressure
exerted at the same relative altitude.
cubic foot = 12 x 12 x12 = 1728 cubic inches

1728 / 231 = 7.48 gals / cubic foot

7.48 x 5 = 37.4 gallons

37.4 gallons x 8.4 lb/gal (salt water) = 314 pounds

I don't believe your sailboat would float if water had the density you quote

You can joke about anything but math
__________________
Perfection lies not in the organic whole but in the isolated fragment
JohnEaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 08:18 AM   #25
vjb.knife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
You are kidding right?

Please tell me that this question is just being made as a humorous statement.
vjb.knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 September 2008, 12:38 PM   #26
JohnEaton
"TRF" Member
 
JohnEaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John Eaton
Location: Nome Alaska USA
Watch: Red1680 metres 1st
Posts: 1,869
PSI = Depth of salt water in feet X .445

12,800 ft X .445 = 5696 PSI

However Rolex actually tests the DSSD to 15,000 ft or 6675 PSI

An aluminum scuba tank is around 3000 PSI standard fill pressure and usually hydro-tested to 5000 PSI once every 5 years.
__________________
Perfection lies not in the organic whole but in the isolated fragment
JohnEaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 September 2008, 01:42 AM   #27
vjb.knife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
Sorry for the wise-ass comment earlier.

Sorry for the wise-ass comment earlier. I suppose there are many people that do not have technical training that would make all of this very simple and obvious. Pressure is pressure whether it is in water or in air. A water column or depth in water produces pressure at a constant rate depending on the density of the water which varies from fresh water to salt (and can be a bit different due to the level of salinity). Since water is basically non-compressible the rate of change in pressure as you descend in water is constant, as stated earlier, about .445 psi (pounds per square inch) per foot of seawater. In the Atmosphere at sea level the absolute pressure standard at 67 degrees F is approximately 14.7 psia (pounds per square inch absolute) or zero pisg (pounds per square inch gauge). One atmosphere of pressure is equal to this pressure absolute at standard temperature at sea level is 101.325 kPa or in other units that are equivalent: 760 mmHg (torr), 29.92 inHg, 14.696 PSI, 1013.25 millibars.

The difference to a watch between air pressure and water pressure is none. The seals will operate the same and the watch will perform and or fail the same whether it is under 1000 psi of water pressure (about 2247 feet under seawater) or if it is in a pressure vessel pumped up to 1000 psi of air pressure.

The whole question about opening the watch case at high elevation is nearly nil since the amount of pressure change would be less than 1 atmosphere or 15 psi, which is miniscule to the pressure that a diving watch is rated. Change in elevation vs. change in absolute pressure is not a constant because air as a fluid medium is highly compressible, so the change in elevation can not be stated as a specific psia change per a certain change in feet in elevation and also because the relative density of air in the atmosphere is affected greatly by temperature, humidity, wind, etc.

The one problem you might have if a watch was opened at a very high elevation is that there would be a greater pressure exerted on it once it is brought back to sea level that could make it hard to open there. But with a screw on case back , the relatively large hand wench used to remove it and the relative low differential pressure between the interior of the case acting on the approximately 1 square inch surface area of the case back, it would pose no problem.

I apologize again for the initial comments. My response should have been - I feel that the issue that you have raised would have extremely little or zero effect on the watch.
vjb.knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 September 2008, 01:48 AM   #28
Lisa
"TRF" Member
 
Lisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: oklahoma city
Posts: 15,741
Thank you, Vince. There are people like me whose minds work in very simple ways. I appreciate those of you who want to take the time to explain some of this. As for me, I'm still wondering about the lume thing.
Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 September 2008, 04:58 AM   #29
vjb.knife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa View Post
Thank you, Vince. There are people like me whose minds work in very simple ways. I appreciate those of you who want to take the time to explain some of this. As for me, I'm still wondering about the lume thing. Erm... can't we just talk about how do it know when to turn the lume on?

Sorry, that one is over my head.
vjb.knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 September 2008, 11:08 AM   #30
Art161
"TRF" Member
 
Art161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
Thanks for the further explanation, Vince.
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust
Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves.
Rolexers do it with perpetual movements.
Art161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

OCWatches

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.