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 27 February 2010, 02:32 AM   #31
ABChop
"TRF" Member
 
ABChop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 671
FYI

the pressure at 4000 ft of Sea Water is 1789 psi
the pressure at 4000 ft of fresh water is 1726 psi

SW weighs 8.6 ppg (pounds per gallon)
FW weighs 8.3 ppg

HHP= .052 x depth in ft x ppg of fluid

That concludes todays math lesson :)
ABChop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 04:04 AM   #32
Clogger
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SE Asia
Watch: SS Sub Date
Posts: 431
I tend to agree with the idea about just keeping the SD looking original, I don't think it has anything to do with magnification or pressure. Again it made it unique with in the Rolex line and was often picked by people that disliked the look of the cyclops, I am sure Rolex marketing was aware of this.

I have never heard of a cyclops poping off in Sat.
Clogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 04:32 AM   #33
DRAWTOOL
"TRF" Member
 
DRAWTOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Mikey Uí Néill
Location: Olden Texas
Watch: 14060M & 16570
Posts: 1,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato View Post
Why doesn't the Seadweller have a lens? Is it because the lens would fall off at deeper depths?
Sometimes people will have them installed on theys SD and or theys DDSD, but you are gonna wanna be prepared for the consequenses iffun ye stick yer arm outta the manway at that depth!
DRAWTOOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 05:01 AM   #34
frank gama
"TRF" Member
 
frank gama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Real Name: ExhibitionOnly
Location: Earth
Posts: 330
I think Padi is right in that helium could cause problems during rapid ascent.

Last edited by frank gama; 27 February 2010 at 05:14 AM.. Reason: posted before I had read all the replies.
frank gama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 06:12 AM   #35
Clogger
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SE Asia
Watch: SS Sub Date
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank gama View Post
I think Padi is right in that helium could cause problems during rapid ascent.
The only way for the watch in Sat to really suffer a rapid ascent would be if the Diver decides to lock out the watch through the med lock in the chamber for some reason, and the life support crew vented the lock to surface at full tilt, again I don't think this would effect the cyclops, not something I would be willing to test though, as it may well knacker the whole watch.

In scuba Gas diving there is no way for Helium to present any probs to the watch, as there is no way for Helium to enter it in the first place.
Clogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 06:43 AM   #36
joeychitwood
"TRF" Member
 
joeychitwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Way Up North USA
Watch: Rolexes & Tudors
Posts: 6,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by padi56 View Post
Its not air but you bet there is still a tiny space,its like when you have your tooth filled or root canal at the dentist.If you was not a diver fine but if said dentist left a minute airspace in the tooth/canal,and that airspace could not be equalised it would blow with the water pressure or have a very painful squeeze.
I had a new crown placed on a molar and went diving a few months later. While slowly ascending from a 135 foot dive, the crown exploded in my mouth due to the expansion of air under the crown. For about 30 seconds, I had no idea what had happened as I spit out bits of porcelin material.
joeychitwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 08:19 AM   #37
brady
"TRF" Member
 
brady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Brady
Location: San Antonio
Watch: yes please
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeychitwood View Post
I had a new crown placed on a molar and went diving a few months later. While slowly ascending from a 135 foot dive, the crown exploded in my mouth due to the expansion of air under the crown. For about 30 seconds, I had no idea what had happened as I spit out bits of porcelin material.
That must have given you a bit of a scare.
brady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 08:22 AM   #38
joeychitwood
"TRF" Member
 
joeychitwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Way Up North USA
Watch: Rolexes & Tudors
Posts: 6,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by brady View Post
That must have given you a bit of a scare.
It felt like I'd been shot in the mouth. Very bizarre sensation.
joeychitwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 08:45 AM   #39
vjb.knife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
I don't think so

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Irani View Post
Well, since the official rating of the SD is an enormous 4000 feet, it means the watch can literally be submerged to that depth - no hassels whatsoever.

It also means that the tremendous pressure exerted at that depth which would run into several hundreds of pounds per square inch, would need to be dispersed over an EVEN surface.

A cyclops would be a hindrance to the pressure distribution and would be blown off.

JJ
This is not true. What force exactly is going to act on the lens to make it be blown off. At 4000 fsw the pressure is 1820 psi by the way not several hundred. And the outer shape of the lens has nothing to do with the force distributed on the crystal. The area of the seating surface is the determining factor.
vjb.knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 09:09 AM   #40
snow_rocks
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Rick
Location: At what TIME?!!!
Watch: the SKY tonite!
Posts: 3,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by snow_rocks View Post
The size of the cyclops needed to work correctly would be too big for the crystal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBat View Post
Yup. It has to do with the thickness of the crystal. Like Rick said, the cyclops would have to be proportionally huge to work with the SD's thick crystal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkammer View Post
Not really.

My explanation deals with the SeaDweller when it was 1st conceived, with an ACRYLIC CRYSTAL, not the current sapphire crystal!

The 2.5 magnification is more evident back in the day compared with Rolexes today.
snow_rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 09:28 AM   #41
vjb.knife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
I don't know why......

I don't know why it doesn't have one but it certainly could with no ill effects.

On the technical issues here Speedmeister and Steelinox are correct many other points are quite wrong.
vjb.knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2010, 09:46 AM   #42
snow_rocks
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Rick
Location: At what TIME?!!!
Watch: the SKY tonite!
Posts: 3,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjb.knife View Post
I don't know why it doesn't have one but it certainly could with no ill effects.

On the technical issues here Speedmeister and Steelinox are correct many other points are quite wrong.
To be fair, we are all wrong!

Nobody from the original design team has chimed, so maybe this could just go away!
snow_rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

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

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*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.