Thanks Al! I really enjoyed how well you explained these details!

 

Archer.
I noticed Omega has bought the Swiss Castle (Column Wheel) back with their 3330 and now recent 9904 calibers. Why did they do this? Since with the open back displays you cannot really enjoy the appearance?

Are the new Omega Swiss Castles more durable and reliable than the old service-heavy Column Wheels that dominated the pre-Cam era?

Also I've noticed the change back to the Column Wheels seem to make all the recent calibre watches grow from the 40mm/42mm Speedy's of old to the new 44mm/45mm Speedy range. Not to mention the watches have become tremendously thicker.

Is Omega doing this because of design limitations when you put a double barrels, Co-Axials and in some cases two Swiss castles on a ebauche? or are they late to the game when big gaudy watches were fashionable a few years ago? In other words can you beef up the ebauche with goodies while keeping it slim or is there a physical limitation between design goals and end product size?

thanks.

 

Sorry, but the inner workings of the vertical clutch are poorly explained (i.e. missing entirely)... In a car, there is a strong compression spring that presses the discs together, as experienced (in some cars at least) by how hard it is to press the clutch pedal. How is that attained here? Also, in cars, there is a lot of wear and tear on the clutch friction discs, especially when cars are driven by beginners, the badly timed friction shocks grind the disc to a complete shave... And then there is slippage to consider when friction is the main driving principle. How are all these things addressed in the watch vertical clutch -- is it all by gravity? Because this is how it sounds... What if the watch is turned face down, does the chronograph stop working (gravity is being reversed)?
Thank you,
Z.

 

It was explained farily clearly, even I could understand it.

From the text by @Archer (my empasis added).


Now back to the Cal. 3301 photo, and parts C and D are the parts that swing in and out to engage/disengage the clutch, which is a spring loaded disk. When they swing in, they press on the underside of the flat disk like part on the runner, and this lifts the disk and disengages the chronograph portion of the runner from the train wheel, so the gear portion keeps turning, and the chronograph hand stops. When they swing out, they let the disk go back down, and the whole assembly turns.

 

"Spring loaded disk" equals three words, out of which "disc" is also the subject of the explanation, leaving two words actually. If two words mean to you "explained fairly clearly", than this must be a terseness contest of some sort -- I suggest we move on to the next level and find only one word that "explains it fairly clearly"... But it cannot be "spring" or "loaded".

 

We professional, technical writers don’t fuss about the number of words use when those words are necessary for understanding.

I honestly have no idea where you’re coming from and I’m pretty darn good at this stuff.

 

Are you an academic or a technician?

 

Hello Z,

Thank you for the feedback.

Let's look at your highly detailed dissection of the clutch in a car...

"In a car, there is a strong compression spring that presses the discs together"

I'll revise this to explain the chronograph, the way you explained the clutch:

"In a vertical clutch chronograph, there is a strong compression spring that presses the disc to the wheel"

Given that this is the same level of detail you provided, I trust this is adequate.

Using a car, which engages a clutch turning at hundreds of revolutions per minute, with hundreds of HP behind it, to move an object weighing thousands of pounds as an example of issues that come up in a watch movement, where the mechanism is turning at 1 revolution per minute, with a very small torque, to move an incredibly small load, and saying that they share the same problems is such a bizarre comparison it's difficult to know where to start.

To further suggest that gravity is the mechanism of action, when I've already explained that the disk is spring loaded, is even more bizarre. Does the clutch on your car stop working when you drive downhill, as compared to driving on a flat surface? Do you see complaints on forums from people that when they move their vertical clutch chronograph watch around the chronograph hands stops working and flops all over the place? Do you believe that watch companies would design and market a product that was, if it were as you describe, completely useless for it's intended purpose?

The fact that you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand how this works, may tell you that the way it was explained wasn't the problem. I would suggest if you are not satisfied with the information you are getting here, you ask for a refund of your membership and subscription fees.

Cheers, Al

 

We can get our subscription fees refunded? That's great -- it will help offset all the costs I've incurred since joining!

p.s. agree 100% that if one understands how a clutch in a car works than Al's original description here was very easy to follow/ understand. Good technical writing does not involve adding a bunch of flowery words. Of course there is also "write for your audience" -- which Al did. Well, at least for 99.9% of the audience. There will always be some who cannot follow.

 

I want to thank OP for his post. The post brought @Archer ’s excellently written explanation to the “Latest” list, so I could read it and learn from his knowledge and willingness to share six years ago. It was descriptive, clear, and completely understandable. Thank you, Archer.

 

>> Using a car, which engages a clutch
>> turning at hundreds of revolutions per minute,
>> with hundreds of HP behind it,
>> to move an object weighing thousands of pounds..."
Well, this is what happens when you use the word "clutch" loosely, in a post that is supposed to explain that exact principle in more than two words -- people go to what they know. Thank you for making the point for me.

>> in a watch movement,
>> where the mechanism is turning at 1 revolution per minute,
>> with a very small torque,
>> to move an incredibly small load
Now you are talking -- this is how you should have started, and you are still behind...
A clutch may be spring pressured, but what is really the way that clutch works? Pure pressure and friction? What kind of spring -- spiral, blades, compression, torsion, tension? Any mechanical intertwining between the parts engaging? Conical, flat, cylindrical? Wet vs dry?
I suggest taking a look here -- the ingenuity and creativity of people over time created an extremely large diversity of clutches (and this article only scratches the surface). You cannot just throw the word around and expect people to understand what you mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutch#:~:text=A clutch is a mechanical,drive shafts or line shafts).

>> The fact that you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand how this works
Yes, due to your poor explanation of the core principle.
And the rest of the people are too in awe of your magnificent qualities to think and understand what they are reading, or too coward to express any problems with the subject being explained.
You want to treat something technical? Do it rigorously, and ask yourself every time you write: what is the principle behind it, and am I writing it clear enough that a sixth grader would have no problem understanding? Everything else is self aggrandizing...

And since I smell a bit of a God complex here, remember than even God wrote 783,137 words (??) in the Bible, more or less. If he was humble enough to spend the time and the effort, I think this should not be a problem for you.
And I am exactly the opposite of religious, the comparison just comes in handy.

I sincerely do not care who anyone is -- if they write sloppy, I will point it out. Feel free to do the same to me or to anyone else -- it is one of the basis of the Western Civilization as we know it, even though it is being slaughtered at the present moment...
Don't add to the misery of the world.

And if this site is for specialists only (I am not a watchmaker, I am just an MSc engineer) and if you all know this stuff inside out (I am new to watches, but I want to learn, which seems to be a problem around here), why do you even bother???
This stupid argument really borders on the imbecilic... don't bring it up again.

 

eh, I'm a Civil Engineer and I could follow it.

Perhaps the posts today would have gone a little better if your first post was more about asking for additional info/ clarification rather than damming the OP.

 

Wow.

Anyway, I too had missed this excellent Archer thread and am grateful to have it resurrected, although the circumstances are a little troubling.

@Archer : I understood your detailed, illustrated explanation to begin with, even though I had to reread a couple of sections to really grasp it. I’ve said it before: you are a watch god who enriches OF. Thank you!

@Zalmodegikos : I struggle to understand what you don’t understand. And because I’ve been here for some time, I know of Archer and his contributions. Yes, I hold him in very high esteem. Many of us here probably think Archer is one of our most valued members. He’s written many articles like this one. We have a lot of respect for him.

My undergraduate degree was Literature (from MIT!); I am a retired attorney. In my experience, language is a tricky thing. It’s very hard to write something that everyone will understand same way. I think most people got what Archer wrote.

Very few people here care for this sort of tone, even if some find it entertaining to witness.

 

Luckily there is a "report" option you can use when you want to direct moderator attention to someone acting like a complete moron in otherwise useful threads that add value to this forum.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

Hello again...

As one engineer to another, I'll just say that you seem to believe that you are entitled to come here and demand things, when you have contributed almost nothing to this site since joining. Well sorry, but I don't work for you. I come here on my own time to help explain things to people, and most are able to understand them. If you had simply asked for additional details instead of being a dick, I might have explained things for you, but at this point you appear to just be a troll.

I also sense a God complex here...from you mate. I don't believe in any gods by the way...

I wish you well.

Cheers, Al

 

>> Sorry, but the inner workings of the vertical clutch are poorly explained (i.e. missing entirely)...
This is the most damning part of my initial comment, and the most "inflammatory" (??) of all -- where do you think I am a dick about it?
I even started by apologizing...
Point out the exact paragraph, phrase or words that you considered offensive, and then I can apologize again, if that is the case.
But first, show me exactly where did I rape your fragile and delicate mind, and I will take responsibility for it in front of everybody.
How old are you, by the way? A range would do... Are you at least over 20?
I am over 50, so I need to know if I am dealing with some sort of a delicate creature given the lack of experience with life...
You really seem to have either a real bad ego, or a disproportionate reaction to the mildest criticism...

>> I come here on my own time to help explain things
No, you are not. Excuses again... Found another thing to hide under, Al?
Maybe you do not have a clear understanding what it means to perform in public.
You may not realise it, but this is what anyone is doing when posting for the large public.
When you decide to go public with something, it would be a good idea to own the subject. Not know something about, not read 10 minutes on the Internet about it, but own it. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE. And that always shows.
Rule of thumb is: you should know AT LEAST ten times more about the subject than you are supposed to write or talk about it.
Ten times -- that is 10, comes after nine...
Also, if you decided to be a beacon of knowledge, you have to be rigorous, you have to be well written, you have to be concise but not at the expense of clarity, and you have to proofread and proofread again, because the public, paying or not, deserves respect.
Otherwise, you come across as a lot of other undesirable things, and again, God complex, aggrandizing and tooting your own horn come to the forefront...
You wanna perform, you wanna razzle and dazzle the audience, you wanna be the Zeus of Horology!
Be my guest, power to the people, hurray and all that -- but do it properly... Or do not do it at all.
Or if you do it whichever way you can, and there is benefit even to a half baked article, be a gentleman about it and accept you did not put all your effort into it, accept the holes in your argument and be gracious to the ones that point that out.
They did their homework, they read your article once and twice and three times, they made the effort to understand, they followed you train of thought from the beginning to the end and they came up short -- how is this their fault, oh God of Horology?? Is it their fault that they put the effort and the time and did their homework, but you did not?

>> most are able to understand them
Yeah, but most is not good enough, is it Al? If you feed only most of your children, the rest will die -- and that is down right criminal. If you provide air for most of the space shuttle flight, even if you miss the last five minutes, guess what, the crew will die right at landing time. And that looks really bad on the resume, doesn't it brother?
MOST is not good enough for an engineer Al, it is actually an admission of guilt bordering the incompetent.
Stupid argument, I warned you about it last time, but you do not seem to get it.
Don't use this argument again, you are really putting yourself down -- engineers do not go by MOST (if that is what you really are, you seem to put a lot of effort in convincing me you are actually not an engineer).
Real engineers go by nailing it to the wall and literally destroying the subject -- at least the good ones do.

Now you know who the real prick is.
A real man would have said: "Good point! I have repaired hundreds of watches (or thousands, or millions), but I never bothered to really see how a vertical clutch works, I have never taken one to pieces and study it closely, I have never really took the time to own the subject to the last minute detail of it. I had a job to do, I was in a hurry, it was enough for me to understand the basic principle, whatever... And you know what, I do not have a vertical clutch at hand right now to take it apart and put up some good pictures, but I am really glad you brought it up -- next time I get my hands on one, I will do just that, and I will nail that subject to the wall, not as much for you, but entirely for my own benefit!
And if I can't take pictures for a better illustration, I can still draw, because that is what us engineers are so good at, technical drawing -- when words fail to make the point, a drawing will definitely kill it. And I will be so smart and so kind as to strip away any technological aspect of it, and I will not draw you a Rolex or an Omega or a Breitling clutch, I will draw you first the ideal clutch mechanism, and then we can take if from there and show everybody how each company applied its own philosophy to the matter.
Because this is how engineers think, this is how engineers explain, and this is how engineers behave!
Keep you posted, Al."

And that Al, is your introduction to the subject of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.
Look it up, it will serve you well in life, but only if you understand the complexities of the subject.

All the best,
Z.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. It doesn't change the fact that I don't work for you, and none of the baiting and trolling you are doing here is of any consequence to me...

Cheers, Al

 

>> you have contributed almost nothing to this site since joining

And how is my lack of posting justifying your sloppiness?
What is a newbie supposed to contribute (??), among so many living Gods of Horology walking naked around here like this is the garden of Mount Olympus?
What kind of an argument is this anyway?
Do you even think of what you write, man???
Do you ever proofread?

General advice for people that want to write anything for the public consumption (nobody cares what you write in your diary, except maybe the people that are in there)... This is not my personal advice, it comes from reputable [professional] writers.
1) Write.
2) Walk away.
3) Do not think of what you have written, go do something else to take your mind off of it.
4) Come back at least one hour later.
5) Read again, thoroughly and closely, pay attention to words, punctuation, train of thought, logic, fundamental principles.
6) If in doubt, don't post. Change it -- that is, go back to point 1).
7) Repeat steps 1 to 6 as much as it is needed, until you fell you can't give anymore and you are really happy with the result. REALLY HAPPY.
8) Post it.
9) Stand by it -- if you did your homework, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
10) Be gracious to those pointing out faults (real faults, not people being mean). Those people wish you well. The others don't really give a fuck about you.

And no, points 9) and 10) do not contradict each other, but they do require effort to reconcile one to the other.
But if you still think that they are contradictory, writing is the least of your problems -- seek professional psychiatric help.

 

"Recommended for you"

 

Reported, hopefully we can clean the thread up and this nobody can have his IP banned.