Why doesn't the Seadweller have a lens?

[Cato]

Why doesn't the Seadweller have a lens? Is it because the lens would fall off at deeper depths?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Cato

Why doesn't the Seadweller have a lens? Is it because the lens would fall off at deeper depths?

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

[vjb.knife]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

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.

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by Cato

Why doesn't the Seadweller have a lens? Is it because the lens would fall off at deeper depths?

Then it will looks like a one eyed JJ.

I believe you already have the answer,

[snow_rocks]

The size of the cyclops needed to work correctly would be too big for the crystal.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

The size of the cyclops needed to work correctly would be too big for the crystal.

Yep. It is due to the crystal being too thick I think.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

The size of the cyclops needed to work correctly would be too big for the crystal.

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.

[rkammer]

Originally Posted by JBat

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.

Not really.

[Speedmeister]

I think everyone is forgetting that the SD started with a PLASTIC crystal. I'm pretty sure that a cyclops molded in would have distorted that thick A$$ crystal.

When they replaced it with Sapphire, they left it off to preserve the bloodline..

[brietlingman]

Originally Posted by Speedmeister

I think everyone is forgetting that the SD started with a PLASTIC crystal. I'm pretty sure that a cyclops molded in would have distorted that thick A$$ crystal.

When they replaced it with Sapphire, they left it off to preserve the bloodline..

OK, THIS makes sense ....

Cheers!
Bill

[JBat]

Originally Posted by rkammer

Not really.

My comment was taken right out of the Dowling and Hess book.

[JBat]

.

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

The size of the cyclops needed to work correctly would be too big for the crystal.

Originally Posted by JBat

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.

Originally Posted by rkammer

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.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

The size of the cyclops needed to work correctly would be too big for the crystal.

That too - my explanation's a bit more technical!!

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

That too - my explanation's a bit more technical!!

JJ, I was Part 2 explanation.

You were definitely Part 1 explanation! Ya lovable tosser!

[brietlingman]

My friend Ray K has a Sea Dweller with a Submariner cyclops attached; he bought it that way. And before anyone cries "fake!", it's been authenticated by at least two watch-makers that I'm aware of.

Anywho, I've seen and held this beauty and can report that the date appeared no smaller or larger than the date on the Sub. In fact, the SD looked "natural" with the cyclops on it.

I believe that Ray has images posted here; if not, you can find shots on that other big watch forum ... something about seeking as I recall ....

Cheers!
Bill

[rkammer]

Originally Posted by brietlingman

My friend Ray K has a Sea Dweller with a Submariner cyclops attached; he bought it that way. And before anyone cries "fake!", it's been authenticated by at least two watch-makers that I'm aware of.

Anywho, I've seen and held this beauty and can report that the date appeared no smaller or larger than the date on the Sub. In fact, the SD looked "natural" with the cyclops on it.

I believe that Ray has images posted here; if not, you can find shots on that other big watch forum ... something about seeking as I recall ....

Cheers!
Bill

Thanks for the explanation, Bill. Yes, my SD does have a cyclops on the original SD crystal installed by the original selling AD 4 years ago. Here it is next to my Sub. The size of the date numbers is minutely smaller because of the thick SD crystal but just barely. Seeing is believing, folks.

[HL65]

Exactly.

[moviefreak]

If the cyclop is glued to the crystal the breaking or safety point would be the cyclops and not the watch crystal.. So the huge pressures would break the cyclops and this could end up damaging the crystal.. Right?

[snowbird]

As others have said the cyclops would have to be much larger than the Sub cyclops to get the right magnification, due to the thicker SD crystal.

One of the Rolex books has a discussion on this, I believe it's the Dowling and Hess book, if not it's the Brozek book.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by moviefreak

If the cyclop is glued to the crystal the breaking or safety point would be the cyclops and not the watch crystal.. So the huge pressures would break the cyclops and this could end up damaging the crystal.. Right?

I have yet to hear a logical explanation to why it does not have one.
The cyclops is a solid piece of sapphire and glued on to the surface of the crystal; there can be no consequence or failure of this part due to extreme pressures, unless there is the presence of a void or "bubble glue joint", which cant happen with UV glue, and if it did would result in seperation and not a catastrophic fx of the timepiece or its water tight integrity...

The reason IMHO as to why ROLEX does not have one attached is it seperates the line from the standard Submariner date and no date; it is the SEA DWELLER...

Thanks,
Randy

Oh yeah, I also saw Ray Ks SD and it magnifies the date just like a cycolps does for the Subdate...

[Rikki]

I believe the reason is because this crystal is pressed into the case gasket not the bezel pressed around the crystal. A flat press is used so unless you cut a piece of the crystal press you would crush the cyclop. The cyclop is put on with ultraviolet cement and would have no affect on the water proofness if that's a word of the watch. The crystal is about twice the thickness of a standard sap crystal and the gasket is as well. That should do it Rikki

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Rikki

I believe the reason is because this crystal is pressed into the case gasket not the bezel pressed around the crystal. A flat press is used so unless you cut a piece of the crystal press you would crush the cyclop. The cyclop is put on with ultraviolet cement and would have no affect on the water proofness if that's a word of the watch. The crystal is about twice the thickness of a standard sap crystal and the gasket is as well. That should do it Rikki

what the heck did you just say ??

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Rikki

I believe the reason is because this crystal is pressed into the case gasket not the bezel pressed around the crystal. A flat press is used so unless you cut a piece of the crystal press you would crush the cyclop. The cyclop is put on with ultraviolet cement and would have no affect on the water proofness if that's a word of the watch. The crystal is about twice the thickness of a standard sap crystal and the gasket is as well. That should do it Rikki

Hi Rik,

IMO you are spot on.

You might need to use smaller words so Steely can understand.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Hi Rik,

IMO you are spot on.

You might need to use smaller words so Steely can understand.

No [REMOVED] !

[WatchTimes]

Ummm same reason my Exp II had a Daytona crystal (ala no cyclops)

Because a sports watch shouldn't have one.... Just something else to get in the way and to knock off....

I just like the cleaner look of a sports watch without that goofy little bubble. Other watches fine just not sports watches for me.

JJ's reason goes with everything I have always heard.

[Jackxv]

Up to normal diving depth with sapphire it shouldn't be a problem but in extreme depth, as stated on the dial, it could become a problem.

Look at the original Trieste Deep Sea, it's extremely domed for this cause.

At max depth of the Plexi Sea-Dweller the plexi will have distortion causing the cyclops to come off.

Also a even surface is more capable of handling pressure.

JJ is right

Jack

[vjb.knife]

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.

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by vjb.knife

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!

[padi56]

Now there is not a problem with the cyclops as long as the diver remained in water or high pressure environments. But when divers started to go deeper and breathing gases with helium.And living in the in chamber at same pressure as divers were working and breathing high concentration helium gas mix. But when said living chamber was decompressed,to normal atmospheric pressure it was not possible for the helium to escape from inside the watch (Helium gas molecules are that small they can pass though crystal and seals) as rapidly as the chamber was decompressing . The NOW very dense gas pressure now inside the watch would blow the crystal , or the cyclops straight out of the case because of crystal warp/flex hence the HEV.But because the cyclops is just glued to crystal,and because the helium molecules can get under the cyclops it would just blow off when the chamber was decompressed.Submariners are fine for atmospheric" dives,but for saturation dives SD type watches must be used without glued on cyclops.

Think of it this way take a balloon down to 10m underwater.Thats 2 atmospheres one water one surface air pressure.Now fill that balloon with air at that pressure of 2 atmospheres.Because the compressed air is now under-pressure and quite dense You fill it but the amount of air content would be twice as much as normal above water surface.Now release that balloon and let it go back to the surface because of the return to one atmosphere surface pressure balloon would expand and burst simply because now there was twice as much air/other breathing gas in it but now at normal surface pressure.