SD and Deep Sea magnification

[aldo_ellul]

Hi all

Is there any particular reason why Rolex does not include the cyclops on the SD and the Deep Sea models?Technically I mean. What are your views?

Personally I see the date on these models a bit small and I believe that it would be more practical for daily use to have the cyclops on the models.

Kr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DamienStepien]

I believe it has to do with the pressures at which they are tested and capable of diving to. Perhaps when diving down below 1000m the added sapphire lens compromises the sapphire faces' structural integrity? Funny things begin to happen at this pressures. Granted I'm no professional in this field.

Damien

[johneh]

A better question is why DO they include it on a sub?

Also, see here.

[wallasey runner]

Going back to the first Sea-dweller in 1967 there has never been a cyclops on them or the later Deepsea when that came out a few years ago.

I agree with Damien that it will be to do with the greater depths that SDs can go - afterall it is supposed to be a professional divers watch.

However, in watch collecting circles there are those of us who do not like the cyclops and therefore for us the Sea-dweller is the watch of choice.

If you like the cyclops, a Submariner would seem the obvious choice for you.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by aldo_ellul

Hi all

Is there any particular reason why Rolex does not include the cyclops on the SD and the Deep Sea models?Technically I mean. What are your views?

Personally I see the date on these models a bit small and I believe that it would be more practical for daily use to have the cyclops on the models.

Kr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very simple as the cyclops is just stuck on cystal its all about pressure and the type of gas like helium that's breathed by saturation divers while in there compressed depth atmosphere living chamber.Now the molecules of helium gas are that small they can pass through the seals into the watch case even get under the cystal.So as the saturation divers are returned to normal atmospheric pressure any breathing gas that has entered the watch case escapes through the HEV other wise the crystal would explode with the rise to normal atmospherics pressure same would happen to the cyclops it would just blow off..Think of it this way at 10 meters that's two atmospheres one air one water so breathing say air at 10 meters the air is compressed 2X so in theory you could put twice as much air in a balloon at 10m underwater to inflate it.But if your returned to the surface as the pressure is released back to normal atmospheric surface pressure.This would because you filled that balloon at 10 meters under pressure and because there was twice as much air in it it would just expand and explode at surface pressure same could happen to your lungs.

[Ferdelious]

Originally Posted by padi56

Very simple as the cyclops is just stuck on cystal its all about pressure and the type of gas like helium that's breathed by saturation divers while in there compressed depth atmosphere living chamber.Now the molecules of helium gas are that small they can pass through the seals into the watch case even get under the cystal.So as the saturation divers are returned to normal atmospheric pressure any breathing gas that has entered the watch case escapes through the HEV other wise the crystal would explode with the rise to normal atmospherics pressure same would happen to the cyclops it would just blow off..Think of it this way at 10 meters that's two atmospheres one air one water so breathing say air at 10 meters the air is compressed 2X so in theory you could put twice as much air in a balloon at 10m underwater to inflate it.But if your returned to the surface as the pressure is released back to normal atmospheric surface pressure.This would because you filled that balloon at 10 meters under pressure and because there was twice as much air in it it would just expand and explode at surface pressure same could happen to your lungs.

Great post, thank you for clarifying

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by padi56

Very simple as the cyclops is just stuck on cystal its all about pressure and the type of gas like helium that's breathed by saturation divers while in there compressed depth atmosphere living chamber.Now the molecules of helium gas are that small they can pass through the seals into the watch case even get under the cystal.So as the saturation divers are returned to normal atmospheric pressure any breathing gas that has entered the watch case escapes through the HEV other wise the crystal would explode with the rise to normal atmospherics pressure same would happen to the cyclops it would just blow off..Think of it this way at 10 meters that's two atmospheres one air one water so breathing say air at 10 meters the air is compressed 2X so in theory you could put twice as much air in a balloon at 10m underwater to inflate it.But if your returned to the surface as the pressure is released back to normal atmospheric surface pressure.This would because you filled that balloon at 10 meters under pressure and because there was twice as much air in it it would just expand and explode at surface pressure same could happen to your lungs.

Never hear that before. Sounds unlikely to me. For you're equating the glue that holds the cyclops in place with the molecular construction of the metal in the case, and I don't think helium would get trapped under the cyclops the way you imply (and the way it does with the watch case). I've heard two explanations: it's all about the surface of the crystal needing to be structurally smooth under severe pressure lest it concentrate stress in one area due to the cyclops and rupture the crystal. I think the material of the cyclops would be more forgiving than that, but I don't know. I've also heard the thickness of the crystal and the distance from the surface of the crystal to the date window makes a normal cyclops impossible, and it would have to be unusually shaped to work, and inappropriately sized. This makes more sense to me. Only the Rolex engineers know for sure.

[artschool]

maybe because divers dont need to look at the date when underwater?

[joli160]

I would like to add a cyclops on the domed crystal of my DSSD, like the OP I find the date small, anybody done this ?

[gontomt]

I think most of the technical explanations here of the "no Cyclops" on the SD/SDDS may have at least some technical, scientific merit.

I also agree that a diver does not necessarily need to have a reminder, submerged, what the date is. He or she should be living in the moment (THAT is adaptive/survival behavior). If they survive to the surface, they can certainly ask an acquaintance or consult a cell phone or calendar for today's date.

If, in their own mind, they cannot figure the ballpark date while submerged ("I have a wedding to go to later"), maybe, right then, they shouldn't be diving.

For most "Dive Watch" wearers, we are topside with cell phones, people and calendars to consult. Also, if we figure it out in the morning, with a little cognitive effort, we can remember the date almost all day. If we can't, we are probably some of the happiest people on the planet. Ignorance is bliss. But, if in this state, we should not be submerged.

I admit - I am biased. I do not particularly like the "Cyclops".

And I won't even start to go into the "Magnification Issues".

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by DamienStepien

I believe it has to do with the pressures at which they are tested and capable of diving to. Perhaps when diving down below 1000m the added sapphire lens compromises the sapphire faces' structural integrity? Funny things begin to happen at this pressures. Granted I'm no professional in this field.

Damien

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravager135]

Gases expand at altitude and compress at depth.

[Cdn328is]

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

Never hear that before. Sounds unlikely to me. For you're equating the glue that holds the cyclops in place with the molecular construction of the metal in the case, and I don't think helium would get trapped under the cyclops the way you imply (and the way it does with the watch case). I've heard two explanations: it's all about the surface of the crystal needing to be structurally smooth under severe pressure lest it concentrate stress in one area due to the cyclops and rupture the crystal. I think the material of the cyclops would be more forgiving than that, but I don't know. I've also heard the thickness of the crystal and the distance from the surface of the crystal to the date window makes a normal cyclops impossible, and it would have to be unusually shaped to work, and inappropriately sized. This makes more sense to me. Only the Rolex engineers know for sure.

That's more what I was thinking too...unless there's a lot of empty space between the crystal and the cyclops for the helium to go to and then burst out, I would think that it has more to do with the structural integrity and required shape of the crystal.

[Blackdog]

Helium, as a gas, can dissolve into another gas or a liquid. But not a solid. Helium gets into the watch through the seals, probably through the grease film between the case-back and gasket.
The glue that holds the cyclops in place is a solid for all intents and purposes, so unless there is a void under the cyclops I don’t believe that’s the reason.

The optical argument (crystal too thick, etc. renders the cyclops unusable) has been debunked too. Several users have stuck a cyclops on modern SDs for practical reasons, and they seem to work just fine.

I have my theory about the subject, though.
When the 1665 was developed, Rolex used the Tropic 39 crystal that was not only thicker, but also heavily domed. The dome shape is very efficient for distributing the pressure towards the edges, where it actually helps in sealing the crystal against the case. The much flatter Tropic 127 used on the 1680s of the time was much more prone to deformation at extreme pressures.

Additionally, the cyclops on the plexi crystals is not a separate piece, the crystal was molded with the cyclops built-in. I presume that the sharp transitions between the cyclops and the crystal face would create some internal tensions in the plastic that could become a problem at the higher pressure (3 times that of the Sub).

Getting rid of the date complication was not a clever option either. If there is one watch in the Submariner line that has to have a date is the SD. Those saturation divers would spend several days in a confined space breathing hypoxic, presssurized gas mixtures. Knowing the date was an important feature. Coming to think of it, a sync’ed 24 hrs hand, a la ExpII, would have probably come handy too…

So that’s my theory for the non-cyclops SD. When the watch transitioned into the sapphire crystal 5-digit references, the non-cyclops look was an integral part of the SD DNA, so they just kept it like that for tradition’s sake.

[Vincent65]

I think it's as simple as basic aesthetics and practicality. A glued-on magnifier is slightly crude on a flat crystal, but not really viable on a domed one, IMHO. Plus, it wouldn't look too hot. I don't think the massively thick, domed crystal's structural integrity would be impeded by having a lens glued on any more than sticking a bit of chewing gum on it.

[Abdullah71601]

My speculation:

Under high pressure differential the crystal will change shape. This would occur when blowing down (pressurizing) before the gas pressure inside the watch equalizes with the pressure outside the watch. I have seen this effect in the lab on high pressure instruments.

The center of the crystal will flex inward and the surface will deform in a fairly uniform way, as long as the surface is symmetrical on all axis, which it wouldn't be with the cyclops. The plexi dome would compress downward and outward uniformly the way it is now.

I'm not sure the cyclops reinforcing one area of the dome would allow the crystal to flex uniformly with out stressing that bit of the crystal. Even if it worked right most of the time in the lab, Rolex may not have been sufficiently comfortable with the failure rate to guarantee the watch to that depth.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

My speculation:

Under high pressure differential the crystal will change shape. This would occur when blowing down (pressurizing) before the gas pressure inside the watch equalizes with the pressure outside the watch. I have seen this effect in the lab on high pressure instruments.

The center of the crystal will flex inward and the surface will deform in a fairly uniform way, as long as the surface is symmetrical on all axis, which it wouldn't be with the cyclops. The plexi dome would compress downward and outward uniformly the way it is now.

I'm not sure the cyclops reinforcing one area of the dome would allow the crystal to flex uniformly with out stressing that bit of the crystal. Even if it worked right most of the time in the lab, Rolex may not have been sufficiently comfortable with the failure rate to guarantee the watch to that depth.

It's not plexiglass or acrylic; it's very thick sapphire crystal. I doubt it flexes or moves much...

[alanszabojr]

I dive with my rolex's (114060, 116660) and for me the best reason to not have a cyclops is while reading the minute hand. When its under the cyclops can be a bit of a pain so not having the cyclops there at all makes it much easier to read the position of the minute hand to the bezel.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

It's not plexiglass or acrylic; it's very thick sapphire crystal. I doubt it flexes or moves much...

The original was plastic. I think they kept the style when they shifted to sapphire.

I haven't seen the 5mm sapphire under 390 BAR design pressure, but I think it will flex as well.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

The original was plastic. I think they kept the style when they shifted to sapphire.

I haven't seen the 5mm sapphire under 390 BAR design pressure, but I think it will flex as well.

I know, thanks!

Not sure about the flex of a 5mm sapphire - maybe someone who knows for sure will enlighten us!

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I know, thanks!

Not sure about the flex of a 5mm sapphire - maybe someone who knows for sure will enlighten us!

I've seen 13mm quartz glass deform at 100 BAR. I'm curious to know how the sapphire responds to DSSD pressure. It's already flat and can't deform too much or it would impinge on the hands.

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

Helium, as a gas, can dissolve into another gas or a liquid. But not a solid. Helium gets into the watch through the seals, probably through the grease film between the case-back and gasket.
The glue that holds the cyclops in place is a solid for all intents and purposes, so unless there is a void under the cyclops I don’t believe that’s the reason.

The optical argument (crystal too thick, etc. renders the cyclops unusable) has been debunked too. Several users have stuck a cyclops on modern SDs for practical reasons, and they seem to work just fine.

I have my theory about the subject, though.
When the 1665 was developed, Rolex used the Tropic 39 crystal that was not only thicker, but also heavily domed. The dome shape is very efficient for distributing the pressure towards the edges, where it actually helps in sealing the crystal against the case. The much flatter Tropic 127 used on the 1680s of the time was much more prone to deformation at extreme pressures.

Additionally, the cyclops on the plexi crystals is not a separate piece, the crystal was molded with the cyclops built-in. I presume that the sharp transitions between the cyclops and the crystal face would create some internal tensions in the plastic that could become a problem at the higher pressure (3 times that of the Sub).

Getting rid of the date complication was not a clever option either. If there is one watch in the Submariner line that has to have a date is the SD. Those saturation divers would spend several days in a confined space breathing hypoxic, presssurized gas mixtures. Knowing the date was an important feature. Coming to think of it, a sync’ed 24 hrs hand, a la ExpII, would have probably come handy too…

So that’s my theory for the non-cyclops SD. When the watch transitioned into the sapphire crystal 5-digit references, the non-cyclops look was an integral part of the SD DNA, so they just kept it like that for tradition’s sake.

Interesting. I had always heard that the He intrusion was though the case itself, as the molecular structure under pressure was such that water molecules were big enough at working depth that they couldn't get in while the diver is working, but helium is so small it could get in while living in the chamber (which is of course at the same pressure as the surrounding water). I've always wondered if anyone has done saturation diving with Seikos, as they've claimed the case is so tight they don't need a He valve as helium can't enter the case to begin with. It certainly seems more likely that the He would get past the seals as you stated, but I really don't know for sure.

[RogerF]

Rolex originally put a cyclops on seadwellers but the sheer awesomeness of the watch kept popping it off.

True story. I posted it on the Internet and we all know if it's posted on the Internet it must be true :)

I love my SD

[Bigguy]

I thought it was all about the added thickness of the crystal on both watches to accomodate the greater depth rating. The magnification of the cyclops does not work with the SD's thicker crystal or the DSSD's domed crystal.

[eonflux]

What Rolex should have done is used a larger diameter calendar wheel on the SD and DSSD which would could have accommodated larger numbers for the date, and would have allowed them to move the calendar window closer to the edge of the dial, which would have looked better balanced. Instead, they simply used the same dial and calendar wheel from the Sub in the SD and DSSD (though matte finish instead of glossy). Cost-effective but not ideal.

[KBM]

They don't include it on the SD because it would ruin it!

[strafer_kid]

Some interesting theories but as someone has already suggested, maybe only Rolex really know the reason?