Rolex Seconds Hand, is it a 'Sweep Seconds' or not????

[harlansmart]

Another 'please don't start chambering your weapons people' post


Sitting here watching 2 watches 'keeping time', an Oyster Perpetual & a Seiko Spring Drive. The Oyster's second hand is not ticking like a quartz but even at 28'800BPH the balance's beat makes the second hand kind of jerky in its travel. The Spring Drive Seconds Hand is following time with no perceptible beat error – I assume it’s showing the time… the ‘actual time’. The more I watch the Seiko’s Seconds Hand the more the 3135 appears to be accelerating and decelerating during its travels round.....or is this all just the liquor

Anyway, my question is this, does the 3135 only show the actual true time twice per second and, is it fair to term the Rolex Seconds Hand a 'Sweep Seconds' hand?

[Balboa]

If your Rolex is otherwise keeping accurate time, then your second hand is also keeping accurate time.

As with many other things, some people are more sensitive to and perceive the 8 bps movement of the second hand more than others.

Also, comparing your Rolex to a Seiko spring drive will show this movement even more. The spring drive is simply a brilliant mechanical movement and the second hand truly does sweep. The quality and the movement in those watches should be a definite wake-up call to other manufacturers.

Of course, if you are really spending so much time watching second hands, sweep, liquor could be an explanation.

Mark

[Tools]

Based on your observations, it really is a leap to assume that either movement is displaying "actual time" at any given instance in time...

The spring drive is a pretty cool invention though.. However:

The spring drive uses a mainspring to power an electrical generator... that generator turns a control wheel (glide wheel) that then rotates at exactly 8 times per second... When the electrical power gets transferred to the mechanically linked movement hands, it is still the same 8 times per second as the Rolex, but it is from motion that is in a single direction (the rotating glide wheel).

This gives a visible representation of smoothness, even though it is "pulsed" the exact same 8 times per second as the Rolex.

The Rolex gets it's power from the same mainspring essentially, but it goes through an oscillating, mechanical, timing source - the hairspring, and then the pallet locks and unlocks it's control wheel (escapement) 8 times per second... and you can visibly "see" the lock and unlock timing at the second hand... (and count it's action to get your timing criteria)

Both movements are pretty amazing in what they do........ but I don't think that you can draw any "actual time" inferences from watching the second hand on either........

[AIKO]

Originally Posted by Tools

Based on your observations, it really is a leap to assume that either movement is displaying "actual time" at any given instance in time...

The spring drive is a pretty cool invention though.. However:

The spring drive uses a mainspring to power an electrical generator... that generator turns a control wheel (glide wheel) that then rotates at exactly 8 times per second... When the electrical power gets transferred to the mechanically linked movement hands, it is still the same 8 times per second as the Rolex, but it is from motion that is in a single direction (the rotating glide wheel).

This gives a visible representation of smoothness, even though it is "pulsed" the exact same 8 times per second as the Rolex.

The Rolex gets it's power from the same mainspring essentially, but it goes through an oscillating, mechanical, timing source - the hairspring, and then the pallet locks and unlocks it's control wheel (escapement) 8 times per second... and you can visibly "see" the lock and unlock timing at the second hand... (and count it's action to get your timing criteria)

Both movements are pretty amazing in what they do........ but I don't think that you can draw any "actual time" inferences from watching the second hand on either........

Based on your explaination it sounds like the Seiko sounds like a mini-electrical engine. Is that semi-accurate?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by AIKO

Based on your explaination it sounds like the Seiko sounds like a mini-electrical engine. Is that semi-accurate?

Well, yes..although techno-geeks would say "mini-electrical motor"..

It uses the mechanical power of the mainspring to run a mini-generator that supplies the electricity to run the watch as a small motor... The mainspring can run this generator for ~72 hours from a full wind... but it uses the typical auto-wind rotor to keep it wound all the time.

This is as opposed to a quartz that uses a quartz crystal and battery to "time" an electrical pulse that triggers a mechanical "jump" of the second hand every second.. The quartz crystal actually vibrates a known number of times per second, and the circuitry "counts" those vibrations, but because the watch must run completely on the battery, it only triggers it at one second intervals... otherwise you would need to change the battery every few days... the Seiko eliminates this quartz crystal, and the battery, and also sacrifices the accuracy of quartz.. (remember..the glide wheel only rotates at 8 times per second.. the quartz vibrates at 8,000 times per second..)

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Balboa

If your Rolex is otherwise keeping accurate time, then your second hand is also keeping accurate time.

As with many other things, some people are more sensitive to and perceive the 8 bps movement of the second hand more than others.

Also, comparing your Rolex to a Seiko spring drive will show this movement even more. The spring drive is simply a brilliant mechanical movement and the second hand truly does sweep. The quality and the movement in those watches should be a definite wake-up call to other manufacturers.
Of course, if you are really spending so much time watching second hands, sweep, liquor could be an explanation.

Mark

I happen to think Rolex doesn't need a wake-up call in this regard. Both my Rollies are accurate to within one second a day. If that doesn't speak to quality, reliability and precision, I don't know what does.

Really, all quality mechanical movements can be characterized as "brilliant mechanical movements," if only for the engineering alone. The Seiko is innovative and interesting, but it remains to be seen if it will catch on or not. Just my opinion.

[Speed]

Is it just me who is in awe of Larry??? Well done!

Thanks for that explanation to an interesting OP

[Rebel1]

I'm in awe too!

Thanks Larry!

[JBat]

Originally Posted by masugu

Is it just me who is in awe of Larry??? Well done!

Thanks for that explanation to an interesting OP

No, I'm in awe too.

[harlansmart]

So - the 3135 does in fact only display time briefly 120 times per minute then and the Seiko all the time.

As an aside, this 3135 runs +3s per day while the Seiko has returned +3s over 11 Mths so around 300 times better accuracy has been achieved by the humble Seiko.



From my point of view - absolutely

Originally Posted by JBat

Really, all quality mechanical movements can be characterized as "brilliant mechanical movements," if only for the engineering alone.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by harlansmart

So - the 3135 does in fact only display time briefly 120 times per minute then and the Seiko all the time.

As an aside, this 3135 runs +3s per day while the Seiko has returned +3s over 11 Mths so around 300 times better accuracy has been achieved by the humble Seiko.



From my point of view - absolutely

Look the Rolex is a purely mechanical movement,while the Seiko is a hybrid with a power control circuit and quartz crystal oscillator, which in turn regulates the electro-mechanical timing.And any quartz watch will be far more accurate than any purely mechanical watch.And I would not call any Seiko spring drive humble,or any of the high end quartz or mechanical like Seiko Grand they are tested to a far higher standard than the Swiss COSC.

[harlansmart]

To time my 100% purely mechanical pieces I have to use my timer.... so the purely mechanical movement which rarely displays the real time needs the electronic timer.

Why don't we all biff our timers into the bin and make tiny ones like Seiko did and place them into our watches?

My Rolex may appear mechanical but oh boy does it need my timer periodically

Look - there are 2 side here, and I love my Rolex and wind-ups etc..... but the Sweep from the 'hybrid' is unreal, superbe.... its pure and honest - it even tells the actual time.

Oh no.... a l c o m o h o l again

Originally Posted by padi56

Look the Rolex is a purely mechanical movement,while the Seiko is a hybrid with a power control circuit and quartz crystal oscillator, which in turn regulates the electro-mechanical timing.And any quartz watch will be far more accurate than any purely mechanical watch.And I would not call any Seiko spring drive humble,or any of the high end quartz or mechanical like Seiko Grand they are tested to a far higher standard than the Swiss COSC.

[AIKO]

Originally Posted by harlansmart

So - the 3135 does in fact only display time briefly 120 times per minute then and the Seiko all the time.

As an aside, this 3135 runs +3s per day while the Seiko has returned +3s over 11 Mths so around 300 times better accuracy has been achieved by the humble Seiko.



From my point of view - absolutely

I happen to think that what Seiko is doing with Grand Seiko and Sping Drive is innovative from a technology perspective. But for some reason it strikes me as very sterile. Not sure why. The Seiko divers I have had for years have some character and I love 'em. But I do appreciate advancement.

[Colnago]

When someone aks you the time, do you (and before you jump on me I do not mean the OP specifically, I mean anyone in general) glance at your watch and say it's "10:46, 32 seconds and a midge's chuff" because by the time you've got the words out the "real" time will have changed significantly.....or do you say "it's just after quarter to 11"?

Why are folk so obsessed with fractions of seconds on a watch that is meant to tell the time?.......

They are absolute marvels of engineering, no two ways about it.....but just use it for what it was designed for....telling the time....then you will never expect too much...

Sorry JMHO but these accuracy threads (and bracelet "stretch" threads for that matter) really do my head in....sorry, but I am sure I am not the only one...I am having a bad day.....maybe

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by Colnago

Sorry JMHO but these accuracy threads (and bracelet "stretch" threads for that matter) really do my head in....sorry, but I am sure I am not the only one...I am having a bad day.....maybe

No you are not.

I wish the OP good luck, with his watch that rarely tells the actual time.

[harlansmart]

Ok - I have been looking for some pics of my Mexico (Colnago) but what the heck is the point of a watch that can't tell the time?

Originally Posted by kkwn98

No you are not.

I wish the OP good luck, with his watch that rarely tells the actual time.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by harlansmart

Anyway, my question is this, does the 3135 only show the actual true time twice per second and, is it fair to term the Rolex Seconds Hand a 'Sweep Seconds' hand?

Originally Posted by harlansmart

So - the 3135 does in fact only display time briefly 120 times per minute then and the Seiko all the time.

As an aside, this 3135 runs +3s per day while the Seiko has returned +3s over 11 Mths so around 300 times better accuracy has been achieved by the humble Seiko.

Originally Posted by harlansmart

To time my 100% purely mechanical pieces I have to use my timer.... so the purely mechanical movement which rarely displays the real time needs the electronic timer.

Why don't we all biff our timers into the bin and make tiny ones like Seiko did and place them into our watches?

My Rolex may appear mechanical but oh boy does it need my timer periodically

Look - there are 2 side here, and I love my Rolex and wind-ups etc..... but the Sweep from the 'hybrid' is unreal, superbe.... its pure and honest - it even tells the actual time.

Oh no.... a l c o m o h o l again

Originally Posted by harlansmart

but what the heck is the point of a watch that can't tell the time?

If you honestly believe your Rolex only occasionally tells the actual time, or that it can't tell the time, then I suggest you bin it.

[Colnago]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

If you honestly believe your Rolex only occasionally tells the actual time, or that it can't tell the time, then I suggest you bin it.

Thanks for backing me up......today isn't turning out as bad as I thought.....at least one person shares my simplistic point of view....I assume there are many more of us.....it brings to mind the statement "the only watch which is truly accurate is one which has in fact stopped, it tells true atomic time twice a day"....'nuff said...and thanks again

[rcher]

Originally Posted by Colnago

When someone aks you the time, do you (and before you jump on me I do not mean the OP specifically, I mean anyone in general) glance at your watch and say it's "10:46, 32 seconds and a midge's chuff" because by the time you've got the words out the "real" time will have changed significantly.....or do you say "it's just after quarter to 11"?

Why are folk so obsessed with fractions of seconds on a watch that is meant to tell the time?.......

They are absolute marvels of engineering, no two ways about it.....but just use it for what it was designed for....telling the time....then you will never expect too much...

Sorry JMHO but these accuracy threads (and bracelet "stretch" threads for that matter) really do my head in....sorry, but I am sure I am not the only one...I am having a bad day.....maybe

I'm with ya, pal. I guess I'm having a bad day too.

Seems like that same mentality freaks out over a little water on a 300m dive watch or the slightest little blemish on the clasp.

I'll bet they'd have a stroke if they saw where my Air King goes with me on a daily basis (I am a field instrumentation tech for a huge copper mine).....no abuse, but no pampering either. Even in my high tech, accuracy driven world, fractions of a second are academic...not practical.

JMHO

[Colnago]

Nice one Leo!......class....ha ha ha...now, can you tell me when does that beautiful watch of your tell "actual time".....brilliant....

[Idle Swede]

Originally Posted by Colnago

Nice one Leo!......class....ha ha ha...now, can you tell me when does that beautiful watch of your tell "actual time".....brilliant....

A second here, a minute there, not that important to me.

[ingoodtime]

Comparing the spring drive and quartz to a purely mechanical movement??? Tools, thanks for the great explanation (although the poster could have gone to the Seiko web site , read about the drive and ....spared us this thread! (LOL) Actually, it was good reading anyway.
Now, please excuse me, I have to go synch my Rolex with the atomic clock.

[PHPuser]

I always heard "sweep" second hand referred to that fact that the second hand swept over the entire dial as opposed to having a separate dial. Not whether it jumps a second . And if your watch loses a sec a day does that mean in 12 hrs it loses half a sec? Do you take that into account if accuracy is that important to you?

[harlansmart]

Wow - is this correct everyone??

I am learning heaps here very much!

Originally Posted by PHPuser

I always heard "sweep" second hand referred to that fact that the second hand swept over the entire dial as opposed to having a separate dial. Not whether it jumps a second . And if your watch loses a sec a day does that mean in 12 hrs it loses half a sec? Do you take that into account if accuracy is that important to you?