ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
27 February 2010, 02:32 AM | #31 |
"TRF" Member
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 :) |
27 February 2010, 04:04 AM | #32 |
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. |
27 February 2010, 04:32 AM | #33 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Mikey Uí Néill
Location: Olden Texas
Watch: 14060M & 16570
Posts: 1,941
|
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!
|
27 February 2010, 05:01 AM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
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. |
27 February 2010, 06:12 AM | #35 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SE Asia
Watch: SS Sub Date
Posts: 431
|
Quote:
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. |
|
27 February 2010, 06:43 AM | #36 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Way Up North USA
Watch: Rolexes & Tudors
Posts: 6,361
|
Quote:
|
|
27 February 2010, 08:19 AM | #37 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Brady
Location: San Antonio
Watch: yes please
Posts: 525
|
Quote:
|
|
27 February 2010, 08:22 AM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Way Up North USA
Watch: Rolexes & Tudors
Posts: 6,361
|
|
27 February 2010, 08:45 AM | #39 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Vince
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC
Posts: 626
|
I don't think so
Quote:
|
|
27 February 2010, 09:09 AM | #40 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Rick
Location: At what TIME?!!!
Watch: the SKY tonite!
Posts: 3,225
|
Quote:
Quote:
The 2.5 magnification is more evident back in the day compared with Rolexes today. |
||
27 February 2010, 09:28 AM | #41 |
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. |
27 February 2010, 09:46 AM | #42 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Rick
Location: At what TIME?!!!
Watch: the SKY tonite!
Posts: 3,225
|
Quote:
Nobody from the original design team has chimed, so maybe this could just go away! |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.