Submariner Magnetized!!! But I finally solved the magnetism puzzle...

[grizzlymambo]

Working from home has forced me to use a laptop instead of a keyboard attached to a laptop like how I would work in the office.

Recently I did a magnetism check on all my watches (using a compass) and was shocked to find that virtually all my watches had some magnetism in them, including a Smiths PRS29A with a full antimagnetic cage, a Rolex Sub (2010) and a Tudor Black Bay GMT (with silicon).

I have asked on other forums about what these antimagnetic hairsprings mean to a watch that supposedly 'isn't' antimagnetic (like the Rolexes) compared with the Omegas that are antimagnetic 15000gauss, and didn't really get an answer. But now I have an answer.

The reason why Rolexes aren't "antimagnetic" like Omega, is because brass (among other materials) are influenced by magnetic fields, but do not retain the magnetic field once the magnetic field is removed. However, since they are influenced by magnetic fields, the fields would influence the timing such that it would not meet the definition of "antimagnetic", even if the hairspring itself is not affected.

Now onto the magnetized Rolex: the compass needle moved ever so slightly when the Rolex was near, and the timing was +2s with a beat error of 0.2ms. After I degaussed the watch, the timing was +0s with a beat error of 0.0ms. There you go! Something tiny was magnetized and it was enough to slightly change the timing. I don't know what the part might have been, maybe someone can hazard a guess?

[Old Expat Beast]

Springbars can get magnetized, so maybe it was that moving the needle. If you're using a $200 timegrapher, that kind of variance is normal anyway.

[uhren917]

Thanks for sharing, very interesting post. I am curious to validation test your ideas as well.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by grizzlymambo

Working from home has forced me to use a laptop instead of a keyboard attached to a laptop like how I would work in the office.

Recently I did a magnetism check on all my watches (using a compass) and was shocked to find that virtually all my watches had some magnetism in them, including a Smiths PRS29A with a full antimagnetic cage, a Rolex Sub (2010) and a Tudor Black Bay GMT (with silicon).

I have asked on other forums about what these antimagnetic hairsprings mean to a watch that supposedly 'isn't' antimagnetic (like the Rolexes) compared with the Omegas that are antimagnetic 15000gauss, and didn't really get an answer. But now I have an answer.

The reason why Rolexes aren't "antimagnetic" like Omega, is because brass (among other materials) are influenced by magnetic fields, but do not retain the magnetic field once the magnetic field is removed. However, since they are influenced by magnetic fields, the fields would influence the timing such that it would not meet the definition of "antimagnetic", even if the hairspring itself is not affected.

Now onto the magnetized Rolex: the compass needle moved ever so slightly when the Rolex was near, and the timing was +2s with a beat error of 0.2ms. After I degaussed the watch, the timing was +0s with a beat error of 0.0ms. There you go! Something tiny was magnetized and it was enough to slightly change the timing. I don't know what the part might have been, maybe someone can hazard a guess?

Can assure with a result +2 seconds your watch was not magnetised in any way.

[Gab27]

I was under the impression that magnetized watches generally had very significant levels of error?

It is worth noting that I've observed the difference between 0 SPD and +2 SPD and 0 MS and .2 MS beat error on the timegraphers most of us have (e.g., Weishi) to be within the margin of measurement error depending on the circumstances of the measurement (even the temperature of the watch seems to impact both of these metrics, as well as amplitude, to a limited extent.)

[grizzlymambo]

The Sub was definitely magnetized, as after I degaussed it, it no longer moved the compass. And it wasn't the spring bars. I tested this too. Also, FOR SURE it was the magnetism that influenced the timegrapher. The last time I tested the Sub (without magnetism test), it was also +0.2ms beat error. This has been consistent. Only after degaussing is it now a perfect +0.0ms.

The Smiths were the hardest to degauss, leading to hours of frustration. Finally I decided to remove the caseback, and once I did this, it took only a few minutes to demagnetize them. Still: being able to punch through a full antimagnetic cage, these laptops have a strong magnetic field!

[TimeAZ]

It would be very difficult for you to magnetize your sub from every-day activities and/or working on a laptop. Maybe if you took a rare earth-metal magnet and placed it directly on the watch, then yeah.

[Mystro]

You would see like 30 second + errors if magnetized.

[grizzlymambo]

Originally Posted by Mystro

You would see like 30 second + errors if magnetized.

Wrong. At least from the perspective of a Rolex with parachrom. Why would you get 30s error from a watch with an amagnetic hairspring? Makes no sense, and not supported by anything I have ever read on the internet, and neither by my experience. It would make more sense that an amagnetic hairspring watch would have a tiny effect from magnetism, and that is exactly my experience.

All of my watches were magnetized, so obviously I was able to see first hand the effects of magnetism on each different watch in a measurable way using a timegrapher. The watches with amagnetic hairspring (Rolex and Tudor) had miniscule effects, while the others had effects ranging from low amplitude and bad beat error, to erratic immeasurable beats - exactly the effects that you would expect.

This thread is not about theory about what you THINK would happen, but about what DID happen, and an invitation to discuss why they happened (ie. which part in the Rolex might have caused the slight accuracy and beat error issues). If you want to dispute the results, then please proceed to bring your Rolex near a strong magnetic (measured by your phone to verify strength) and leave it there for several hours to simulate using a laptop for the entire day, and see for yourself.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by grizzlymambo

Wrong. At least from the perspective of a Rolex with parachrom. Why would you get 30s error from a watch with an amagnetic hairspring? Makes no sense, and not supported by anything I have ever read on the internet, and neither by my experience. It would make more sense that an amagnetic hairspring watch would have a tiny effect from magnetism, and that is exactly my experience.

All of my watches were magnetized, so obviously I was able to see first hand the effects of magnetism on each different watch in a measurable way using a timegrapher. The watches with amagnetic hairspring (Rolex and Tudor) had miniscule effects, while the others had effects ranging from low amplitude and bad beat error, to erratic immeasurable beats - exactly the effects that you would expect.

This thread is not about theory about what you THINK would happen, but about what DID happen, and an invitation to discuss why they happened (ie. which part in the Rolex might have caused the slight accuracy and beat error issues). If you want to dispute the results, then please proceed to bring your Rolex near a strong magnetic (measured by your phone to verify strength) and leave it there for several hours to simulate using a laptop for the entire day, and see for yourself.

I guess I have to to say this but.....You do know there is about 85+years worth of advanced Rolex experience that chimed in on your post. Thought you might want to know. Your enthusiasm is commendable.

[grizzlymambo]

Originally Posted by Mystro

I guess I have to to say this but.....You do know there is about 85+years worth of advanced Rolex experience that chimed in on your post. Thought you might want to know. Your enthusiasm is commendable.

.. and then immediately refuted by the 2 posts following? Look, it's argumentative, don't you think, to dispute the results of someone's measurements (not theories). Basically they're just calling me a liar. "Let's just ignore this guy's posts because he made it all up", so not really conducive to healthy discussion in the spirit of learning from each other. Also not productive to pull rank in a discussion.

[Mal H.]

Originally Posted by grizzlymambo

.. and then immediately refuted by the 2 posts following? Look, it's argumentative, don't you think, to dispute the results of someone's measurements (not theories). Basically they're just calling me a liar. "Let's just ignore this guy's posts because he made it all up", so not really conducive to healthy discussion in the spirit of learning from each other. Also not productive to pull rank in a discussion.

In all my years of engineering I've never seen quality sign off on a cause and corrective action report based on measurements that don't match the failure mode.

Of course, I've also never seen a quality call into question systems that are performing to specification.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by grizzlymambo

.. and then immediately refuted by the 2 posts following? Look, it's argumentative, don't you think, to dispute the results of someone's measurements (not theories). Basically they're just calling me a liar. "Let's just ignore this guy's posts because he made it all up", so not really conducive to healthy discussion in the spirit of learning from each other. Also not productive to pull rank in a discussion.

I don't think anyone is calling you a liar. On the contrary I'm confident that everyone believes that you believe your diagnosis and results.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by grizzlymambo

.. and then immediately refuted by the 2 posts following? Look, it's argumentative, don't you think, to dispute the results of someone's measurements (not theories). Basically they're just calling me a liar. "Let's just ignore this guy's posts because he made it all up", so not really conducive to healthy discussion in the spirit of learning from each other. Also not productive to pull rank in a discussion.

For the most part, I have to agree.
Though people may not necessarily be calling one a liar. Just sceptical to the point of being perceived as accusory with all the limitations of these forms of communication

Pulling rank is another matter as well.
On reflection, i know I've done it from time to time in life.
Sometimes it's warranted, other times not so much. It's part of the human condition.

Be thankfull for small mercies in that the really heavy hitters haven't tried to dismantle you

I for one appreciate you sharing your observations anyway

[Tools]

Originally Posted by grizzlymambo

. . .
All of my watches were magnetized, so obviously I was able to see first hand the effects of magnetism on each different watch in a measurable way using a timegrapher. The watches with amagnetic hairspring (Rolex and Tudor) had miniscule effects, while the others had effects ranging from low amplitude and bad beat error, to erratic immeasurable beats - exactly the effects that you would expect.

. . f.

Too many people dwell on the hairspring, which have been anti-magnetic for decades.

There are plenty of other ferrous metals in the watch works that can, and do, become magnetized under the right conditions.

[DJ2020]

At +2 it probably was some metal magnetized and not the movement . Believe me I know as I have have two Rolex's that were magnetized. One 3130 movement and the 3235 movement. When magnetized they do not react in a way you would expect. The escapement IS non magnetic and there for you do not get the rapid increase in time keeping. Instead other parts do get magnetized like staffs and similar components in the movement. This caused these parts to "pull" towards each other essentially creating a drag in the train. The result is NOT a increase in time keeping that we are used to but rather a DECREASE in time keeping. My 3235 went from a perfect 0 spd to -20 per day. This happened twice. A small magnetic field the a Ipad would generate would take many repeated exposures to even think about affecting your watch.

In my work, 8k to 10k gauss is routine. And the closer to the source the stronger the field. It took about a week of exposure to create that problem for the 3235 movement. And that is something you would be highly unlikely to run in to in real life. That is why I wear only Omega's to work now.

[JodyHighroller]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

At +2 it probably was some metal magnetized and not the movement . Believe me I know as I have have two Rolex's that were magnetized. One 3130 movement and the 3235 movement. When magnetized they do not react in a way you would expect. The escapement IS non magnetic and there for you do not get the rapid increase in time keeping. Instead other parts do get magnetized like staffs and similar components in the movement. This caused these parts to "pull" towards each other essentially creating a drag in the train. The result is NOT a increase in time keeping that we are used to but rather a DECREASE in time keeping. My 3235 went from a perfect 0 spd to -20 per day. This happened twice. A small magnetic field the a Ipad would generate would take many repeated exposures to even think about affecting your watch.

In my work, 8k to 10k gauss is routine. And the closer to the source the stronger the field. It took about a week of exposure to create that problem for the 3235 movement. And that is something you would be highly unlikely to run in to in real life. That is why I wear only Omega's to work now.

Good to know. I’ve heard numerous reports that watches when magnetized can also slow down in addition to being sped up. Pretty much just look for any signification deviation whether +/- is what I’ve been told.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

At +2 it probably was some metal magnetized and not the movement . Believe me I know as I have have two Rolex's that were magnetized. One 3130 movement and the 3235 movement. When magnetized they do not react in a way you would expect. The escapement IS non magnetic and there for you do not get the rapid increase in time keeping. Instead other parts do get magnetized like staffs and similar components in the movement. This caused these parts to "pull" towards each other essentially creating a drag in the train. The result is NOT a increase in time keeping that we are used to but rather a DECREASE in time keeping. My 3235 went from a perfect 0 spd to -20 per day. This happened twice. A small magnetic field the a Ipad would generate would take many repeated exposures to even think about affecting your watch.

In my work, 8k to 10k gauss is routine. And the closer to the source the stronger the field. It took about a week of exposure to create that problem for the 3235 movement. And that is something you would be highly unlikely to run in to in real life. That is why I wear only Omega's to work now.

Very interesting experience with your 3130 and 3235 movements.

Can you please give some more details, especially for the 3235 which lost 20 s/d.

You can also report here:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=786299

[DJ2020]

Absolutely,

The 126200? I had was running 0 to -1 spd. With in a weeks time it would average out to 0 spd. Pretty consistent. After about a week it was fine one day (morning) and that evening it was -20. Whoa! I had been measuring torque on a engine with a electric dynometer which uses natural earth magnets to help create a resistance as current is applied to measure torque when mounted to the crankshaft of a engine. The more current I apply, the more resistance. On this day I was making adjustments to the engine within 12" of the Dynometer.

I took it to my AD and the Rolex repairman came out excited because my watch was magnetized. The first 3235 he had seen with this affection. I used my Latney MF-30K gauss meter to check the reading on the Dynometer under load. It was 9500 gauss on this engine. Which in turn magnetized the 3130 I was wearing that day!, Back to the AD again!, Dropped that one off and picked up my DJ. A week later it happened again. I showed my SA the readings from my meter and he showed me some Omega's. Deal was done and no more problems.

I am going to retire in a couple of years, At that time (if prices come down to earth)(and I can find one) I will get another Rolex. Probably a Sub. Not because every one has one, But because the 5513 was the first "real" watch I owned in 1982 and would like to exit with one.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by Mystro

You would see like 30 second + errors if magnetized.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[grizzlymambo]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sigh. We still on this? We just ignoring all the other posts and focusing on just one opinion?

There is 30s + deviation if the HAIRSPRING is magnetized, yes. But if other parts are magnetized, you can measurably see a difference of less than 30s deviation, and this is measurably PROVEN after degaussing a magnetized watch. It is proven consistently time and time again.

Without even doing any tests, we can just simply use plain ol logic. The Milgauss and Airking have a nickel phosphorous pallet fork, which is amagnetic, correct? Other models do not, correct? Ergo, other models' pallet fork can be influenced by magnetism and be magnetized, even if the hairspring cannot. Based on one's understanding of how magnetism affects watches, one would infer that if the balance spring was magnetized, it would be a large (30+ seconds) influence, whereas another magnetized part like the pallet fork would have considerably less but non-zero effect. Right? And surprise, surprise, actual real-world testing supports this understanding.

So let's just move on.

[TTbluesy]

Wow. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grizzlymambo]

All of your theories are ones I also had, until I actually tested my watches and the laptops. Go buy a good compass to test your watches, and then a gauss measuring app on your phone to test your laptops and then come back to me and see if you're still singing the same tune.

I gave you facts, measured by instruments, not theories.

[grizzlymambo]

wow.. even the 3235 with chronergy can be magnetized? Good to know. A Tudor with METAS movement looks like my next purchase.

[Krash]

I work from home and use a laptop. I also wear my Sub. I’m not saying my watch isn’t magnetized, but it certainly is keeping good time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Happens to mine a few times a year. Usually from running my arm on the refrigerator magnet strip while grabbing the milk. My watch runs like a clock, +2/3 per day. It starts going above +8 per day I run it on the antimagnetic machine and bam right back to +2/3 per day. People get defensive on this score around here but omega has Rolex beat with the antimagnitism front.

[EEpro]

When my watches get magnetized they gain 2 minutes per day

[grizzlymambo]

Good to know! More data points.

The Rolex and Tudor were really easy to degauss. The Smiths PRS29A watches were impossible to degauss until I took off the caseback. I have a Yema Superman GMT which I still have not degaussed fully, even after putting it through my 300W loop type degausser, plus the cheap amazon one.

I am not quite sure why the Yema is so hard to degauss, but I suspect it is because it has a soft iron dial; I am not degaussing with the caseback down because the bracelet gets in the way so I am deguassing with dial down leading to my theory. Next step would be to remove the bracelet so I can degauss with caseback down to see if I can finally degauss it.

Word of advice: the advice on the internet on how to use these degaussers are wrong. They say to leave it on the device for 10s before slowly removing the watch. This is wrong. You only have to leave the watch on the degausser for 1 to 3s before removing the watch, as it is the removing of the watch that actually degausses it. If you leave the watch on the degausser without removing it, and then switch off the degausser, you actually magnetize the watch; so leaving it on the degausser for more than 3s doesn't benefit the process.

[SN13]

I had a breitling running +13s/day. Watchmaker Demagnitized it and it was back to +3s/day.

Point is, that I can confirm that "Magnetism" can lead to GAINING time.

[saxo3]

@grizzlymambo:

Interesting topic, thanks for sharing your experimental results!

Which instruments you are using?
- Demagnetizer
- Compass
- Timegrapher
- Magnetic field measuring App