Water Resistance Testing

[HogwldFLTR]

I'm a bit tired of running to the AD to have watches WR tested. I decided to pull the trigger on a home unit which should be able to test to 100m which seems useful for most of my needs. Pretty interesting reading up on testing. It's hard to find reasonable methods for testing at home to higher pressures. The only unit I could find supplies higher pressure but the check is to see if condensation occurs inside the watch. That would seem to late. Also hard to find any articles on how the pros test for WR at high pressures. Any inputs on this topic would be helpful. Anyone else doing home testing?

From a pure engineering perspective, pressurizing a watch in atmosphere and submerging it is really no test for WR but air pressure resistance as air and water diffuse differently. That said, watching for bubble escaping is at least benign to the watch.

[GradeV]

Testing a fully assembled watch runs the risk of damaging the movement if it turns out the water resistance has failed.

I personally would not test any of my nice watches at home as it really should be done with the innards (movement, dial, hands) taken out of the watch en bloc. I would play around with my home-assembled NH70-based toy; I would not dare open the caseback of any of my other pieces.

[Andad]

That will only read to 60 metres Lee which, in any event, is way more than you need.

I converted my one to a dry test.

Note for SpeedMaster sapphire sandwich WR doubters.

It easily held 6 Bar for my 20 minute test.

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Andad

That will only read to 60 metres Lee which, in any event, is way more than you need.

I converted my one to a dry test.

Note for SpeedMaster sapphire sandwich WR doubters.

It easily held 6 Bar for my 20 minute test.

Dry test much safer; zero risk of water ingress and you are unlikely to deform the case with these pressures.

I never doubted the speedy.

[1William]

Interesting. My AD is only five minutes away and they have the equipment from Rolex to test watches. I don't do it very often and almost never wear my Rolex or more expensive watches in the water. A job for my Seiko's and G-Shocks.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by GradeV

Testing a fully assembled watch runs the risk of damaging the movement if it turns out the water resistance has failed.

I personally would not test any of my nice watches at home as it really should be done with the innards (movement, dial, hands) taken out of the watch en bloc. I would play around with my home-assembled NH70-based toy; I would not dare open the caseback of any of my other pieces.

If the watch fails testing it will need a service regardless. I'm not certain what the real risk is. Note that if the case is opened then the seals should be replaced which is essentially a partial service anyway.

Originally Posted by Andad

That will only read to 60 metres Lee which, in any event, is way more than you need.

I converted my one to a dry test.

Note for SpeedMaster sapphire sandwich WR doubters.

It easily held 6 Bar for my 20 minute test.

What was the conversion out of curiosity; how do you check? It looks like you're looking for deformation.

[Andad]

I made this module from bits of PVC and fixed a micrometer to it.

The deflection is shown on the dial and if it holds the deflection for 20 minutes at 6 Bar it passes my test.

[geoach]

all I do once a year start of summer is the ice cube test............if the condensation disappears in a few seconds the watch is still sealed

[padi56]

Originally Posted by geoach

all I do once a year start of summer is the ice cube test............if the condensation disappears in a few seconds the watch is still sealed

Well doubt if you use your watches in water like say scuba,but a simple dry test in any high street watch shop to 100 m watch will be fine for most water activity but for scuba best test to 200m plus

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Andad

I made this module from bits of PVC and fixed a micrometer to it.

The deflection is shown on the dial and if it holds the deflection for 20 minutes at 6 Bar it passes my test.

Thanks!

[SOG DIVER]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well doubt if you use your watches in water like say scuba,but a simple dry test in any high street watch shop to 100 m watch will be fine for most water activity but for scuba best test to 200m plus

Submariner and Sea Dweller references were made for either SCUBA or hard hat MK-5 salvage divers. As tool watches, the Submariners have been used since 1953 under water at depth.
Considering current values, a regular gasket and pressure tests are recommended from an AD or trusted CW21 watchmaker. This is particularly true of vintage models.

I have used a red 1680, a 5512, and a 14060M with SCUBA Gulf diving without issues. But, I take my own advice as to pressure tests and new O-ring gaskets.
This includes the crystal and crown O-rings. Double test after installation
or service. Sea water has no mercy on watch caliber internals.

[Ron P]

Professional dry testing is mostly done with underpressure (f.e. -0,7 bar) and overpressure (+10 bar) for divers and the normal Rolex models.
If you do a wet test, always (!!!!!) remove the movement, clean the case and seals, lubricate the gaskets with Foblin and test.

In the case Rolex at their SC in special Roxer equipment tweaked for Rolex so they can do 120 bar or even 400 + bar for the deapsea.

If oke, put the movement back in and to make sure you assembled it all fine do a standard dry testing.

[HiDive]

You should have bought this instead.

[Gruesome]

Originally Posted by HiDive

You should have bought this instead.
...

Seems overkill. A Roxer RXF 500 should do the job for the regular Deepsea.

Regarding the conversion to a purely dry test: The fixture before conversion was already set up for dry pressurization (watch above water level) and wet depressurization (watch lowered), so unless there is a huge hole and you leave the watch submerged all the way to atmospheric pressure, there should be little to no danger of water ingress with the tester as is.

[Ron P]

The official procedure at a Rolex service centre stipulates to test (the wet one) without the movement installed after replacing all seals including the condensation test.
Maybe not needed according to the previous poster, bit this os wat Rolex told us.
What of it goes wrong and you flood a serviced watch, dials and hands most likely need replacement. Immediate drying and servicing again of the movement, so why take the risk??. It is such a small effort to remove the movement from the case taking no more than 2 minutes top.

[HiDive]

Originally Posted by Gruesome

Seems overkill. A Roxer RXF 500 should do the job for the regular Deepsea.

Regarding the conversion to a purely dry test: The fixture before conversion was already set up for dry pressurization (watch above water level) and wet depressurization (watch lowered), so unless there is a huge hole and you leave the watch submerged all the way to atmospheric pressure, there should be little to no danger of water ingress with the tester as is.

Considering that only 1 or 2 if anybody on this forum is going to dive their Rolex any deeper than about 70 fsw, I would say that buying a pressure tester of any caliber is a big waste of money, unless you are going into the watch repair business. I would never consider buying.

[Ron P]

Fully agree: I think that a waterproof tester used by a non expert is a no go.

There are more things to consider and you have to know how to test, what is an acceptable leakrate, the type of case, size etc. So go to a professional and do not gamble your watch.

[Gruesome]

Originally Posted by Ron P

The official procedure at a Rolex service centre stipulates to test (the wet one) without the movement installed after replacing all seals including the condensation test.
Maybe not needed according to the previous poster, bit this os wat Rolex told us.
What of it goes wrong and you flood a serviced watch, dials and hands most likely need replacement. Immediate drying and servicing again of the movement, so why take the risk??. It is such a small effort to remove the movement from the case taking no more than 2 minutes top.

Well, if you tested the empty case, then all you know from that test is that it was watertight to a certain pressure when it was empty. It tells you there is no major mechanical defect that would prevent the seals from working, but that's about it. Are you just going to assume it will be tight to the same pressure after you (Rolex, your watchmaker) open it, install the movement, and close it again, possibly with a new seal?
I think you need to do another test.

[crapvegaspodcast]

Originally Posted by Gruesome

Well, if you tested the empty case, then all you know from that test is that it was watertight to a certain pressure when it was empty. It tells you there is no major mechanical defect that would prevent the seals from working, but that's about it. Are you just going to assume it will be tight to the same pressure after you (Rolex, your watchmaker) open it, install the movement, and close it again, possibly with a new seal?
I think you need to do another test.

Rolex pressure test twice - firstly, without the movement, and again when the movement is cased up.

[Gruesome]

Sounds like the rational thing to do, so I'm glad to hear it ;-) You wouldn't happen to have a Rolex reference link for that? Their website https://www.rolex.com/en-us/watch-ca...cing-procedure only says
"Waterproofness test
Your watch is pressure-tested in water to check that it is watertight, and thereafter the bracelet is refitted to the case.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by crapvegaspodcast

Rolex pressure test twice - firstly, without the movement, and again when the movement is cased up.

Why do it twice?

They test it without the movement and if it passes they open it up again, stick the movement in (possibly compromising the first assembly) and TEST IT AGAIN?

[Gruesome]

Ron P explained the reason for first testing without movement, hands and dial: you verify that there is no catastrophic case defect that could flood the watch, like a cracked crystal or a worn case tube or distorted back or similar.
The second test, for now hopefully only minor water ingress (seen in the condensation test, I assume), is to verify that the complete watch is up to specs, case back and seal properly installed etc..

I'm still intrigued by that 500 bar tester. Did anyone here buy one, either for business or just for the heck of it?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Gruesome

Ron P explained the reason for first testing without movement, hands and dial: you verify that there is no catastrophic case defect that could flood the watch, like a cracked crystal or a worn case tube or distorted back or similar.
The second test, for now hopefully only minor water ingress (seen in the condensation test, I assume), is to verify that the complete watch is up to specs, case back and seal properly installed etc..

I'm still intrigued by that 500 bar tester. Did anyone here buy one, either for business or just for the heck of it?

After removing the movement why would you test the empty case before replacing seals and crystals as required?
This catastrophic defect scenario make no sense?

I test all my watches to 6 Bar using crystal deflection and find this to be a safe water free method that covers any water sports I do.

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Andad

Why do it twice?

They test it without the movement and if it passes they open it up again, stick the movement in (possibly compromising the first assembly) and TEST IT AGAIN?

True confidence in their work would be not testing it at all

[Andad]

Isn't testing at different pressures the same above or below water?

[Gruesome]

To help decide whether to test dry or wet (or above or below water) first,

you could draw yourself a matrix of the possible outcomes:

 
              success              failure

dry     still have a watch    still have a watch
wet     still have a watch       no I don't

[Andad]

As for testing with vacuum first what do they have a helium valve on a deep sea that releases at an internal differential of 2.5 Bar?

Could it be that while pressure on a crystal seal may increase the efficiency of the seal internal pressure caused by an external vacuum will blow the crystal off the case?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Andad

I made this module from bits of PVC and fixed a micrometer to it.

The deflection is shown on the dial and if it holds the deflection for 20 minutes at 6 Bar it passes my test.

Originally Posted by Andad

After removing the movement why would you test the empty case before replacing seals and crystals as required?
This catastrophic defect scenario make no sense?

I test all my watches to 6 Bar using crystal deflection and find this to be a safe water free method that covers any water sports I do.

I have a question about this, largely because I really don't know anything at all about such tests - wet or dry. However, if you are measuring the amount of movement the crystal demonstrates under pressure what happens if a seal, or all seals, are in a completely failed state? Not leaky and/or slow, just effectively nonexistent. Wouldn't the pressure be the same on the inside of the watch as the outside, therefore 0 deflection? Is that something you look for in your test?

[CharlesN]

If the watch is under pressure during a test, either a wet or Dry test, and the seal is found to be not satisfactory, how would it affect the precision and accuracy ?

Would the watch have to be tested afterwards on a timegrapher ?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Andad

That will only read to 60 metres Lee which, in any event, is way more than you need.

I converted my one to a dry test.

Note for SpeedMaster sapphire sandwich WR doubters.

It easily held 6 Bar for my 20 minute test.

Now Eddie … everyone knows moving your arms really fast creates more pressure.