32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Yeah, no problem. This did get me thinking, out of shear curiosity I am going to try a multi-day 24hr test. Hopefully start of next week. I’m curious to see what the variance, if any, looks like. Again, my bet is not more than a couple of tenths, but willing to see it to believe it…..you know….for science.

Best of luck!

And when you make a new scientific discovery and are awarded the Nobel prize for physics and make a billion dollars…. I’ll be very satisfied with my 48% cut

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Best of luck!

And when you make a new scientific discovery and are awarded the Nobel prize for physics and make a billion dollars…. I’ll be very satisfied with my 48% cut

Have to agree Paul but some all this checking stuff have taken over the lives, and perhaps taken the enjoyment of owning and wearing a Rolex watch.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree Paul but some all this checking stuff have taken over the lives, and perhaps taken the enjoyment of owning and wearing a Rolex watch.

We are of the same mindset PADi, but I was remembering some of my college physics and brought up a point about measuring error rate and bias towards failure in the results due to a stricter tolerance, I.E. the +-2 seconds day versus +6-4. Keep in mind this is back in the days of slide rulers, (really was). I think Isocoles was one of my teachers, but Easy E was kind enough to explain some points (way over my head) and said he would test the hypothesis. I am very interested in the results, see if there is anything to that thought process or not. It may be nothing, but then again it MAY explain some of the bad test results the 32 has shown in this thread, so I am looking forward to hearing what he discovers.

Easy E, don’t forget my 62% cut of all the millions we make off of this idea!

[Easy E]

All proceeds are being donated to the Jr Mensa Society

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Easy E

All proceeds are being donated to the Jr Mensa Society

Then FOR SURE I won't get any

[CaptT]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I was just wondering if the issue was not so much the new movement but rather the new standard, and the testing for such a strict and limited tolerance.

I'm wondering if this question is meant to suggest that there really isn't an issue with the 32xx movements, and instead maybe it's all just testing and bias?

Is that what's being asked? Is that really a possibility here, the the movement is fine but it's the testing/standard that is the cause for concern?

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by CaptT

I'm wondering if this question is meant to suggest that there really isn't an issue with the 32xx movements, and instead maybe it's all just testing and bias?

Is that what's being asked? Is that really a possibility here, the the movement is fine but it's the testing/standard that is the cause for concern?

It’s an interesting thought, but if we consider how many owners have had to send in multiple watches in multiple times I think the testing is just a small part of the problem.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptT

I'm wondering if this question is meant to suggest that there really isn't an issue with the 32xx movements, and instead maybe it's all just testing and bias?

Is that what's being asked? Is that really a possibility here, the the movement is fine but it's the testing/standard that is the cause for concern?

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

It’s an interesting thought, but if we consider how many owners have had to send in multiple watches in multiple times I think the testing is just a small part of the problem.

I am not suggesting there is no issue, only if the testing being done could possibly be skewed because of the physics tendency (in regards to testing and sample size and decreased tolerance) I mentioned earlier. College physics was a long time ago and I doubt I even understood it then, but I think it IS possible that the test results we are seeing could be (slightly or even moderately) biased towards the negative because of that tendency. Please don't ask me to remember what the actual law was, I can barely remember what I had for breakfast.

Easy E seems to understand and has offered to test the hypothesis. I am very interested in what he finds out if anything.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I am not suggesting there is no issue, only if the testing being done could possibly be skewed because of the physics tendency (in regards to testing and sample size and decreased tolerance) I mentioned earlier. College physics was a long time ago and I doubt I even understood it then, but I think it IS possible that the test results we are seeing could be (slightly or even moderately) biased towards the negative because of that tendency. Please don't ask me to remember what the actual law was, I can barely remember what I had for breakfast.

Easy E seems to understand and has offered to test the hypothesis. I am very interested in what he finds out if anything.

Have to agree Paul now many on forum would state their watch is well out of tolerance for Rolex timekeeping requirements. As the +5 seconds and -3 seconds are out of the +2 -2 range, but this Rolex movement is actually in spec for Rolex. And have seen two tests with the same watch on the same timegrapher with slightly different results. The only main difference one was done with the case back off, because in general say Rolex watches in the professional range have much thicker cases and case backs and test microphones are often fooled giving slightly false information. And just like the Rolex precision test and these timographer test result is for that exact particular time of testing.


Position Of Watch seconds Per Day
Dial Up +2
Dial Down -1
6 o’clock +3
9 o’clock -3
3 o’clock +5

[77T]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I am not suggesting there is no issue, only if the testing being done could possibly be skewed because of the physics tendency (in regards to testing and sample size and decreased tolerance) I mentioned earlier. College physics was a long time ago and I doubt I even understood it then, but I think it IS possible that the test results we are seeing could be (slightly or even moderately) biased towards the negative because of that tendency. Please don't ask me to remember what the actual law was, I can barely remember what I had for breakfast.

Toast…it was toast you had for breakfast. And it was slightly drier than the day before due to lower relative humidity in your kitchen…maybe I’m over-reaching on this pinpoint accuracy thing by polling the IoT devices in your home…

Now actually on the point you’re making…
I don’t believe there is a single specific law in physics that pertains to a tendency for bias in regards to testing and sample size, as well as decreased tolerances.

However, there are several principles and concepts that address these aspects in scientific experiments and measurements.

Maybe you were remembering one such principle: the Law of Large Numbers. It states that as the sample size increases, the average of the sample will get closer to the true value of the entire population being measured. This principle helps mitigate the impact of biases and random errors that may be present in smaller sample sizes. And since the samples here on TRF are neither random, nor stratified, skewness is rife.

Another concept that relates to this is the Uncertainty Principle, which I’m less certain you were remembering. It is a fundamental principle arising in quantum mechanics. So not sure you would’ve been applying it here.

It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be known simultaneously. This principle implies that there will always be inherent limitations and uncertainties when making measurements at very small scales.

While there isn't a specific law that combines all these aspects, these principles and concepts are important in understanding and accounting for biases, sample size, and tolerances in experiments.

Let me know if there's anything else I can assist you with!

For example, what will you eat for breakfast tomorrow…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by 77T

Toast…it was toast you had for breakfast. And it was slightly drier than the day before due to lower relative humidity in your kitchen…maybe I’m over-reaching on this pinpoint accuracy thing by polling the IoT devices in your home…

Now actually on the point you’re making…
I don’t believe there is a single specific law in physics that pertains to a tendency for bias in regards to testing and sample size, as well as decreased tolerances.

However, there are several principles and concepts that address these aspects in scientific experiments and measurements.

Maybe you were remembering one such principle: the Law of Large Numbers. It states that as the sample size increases, the average of the sample will get closer to the true value of the entire population being measured. This principle helps mitigate the impact of biases and random errors that may be present in smaller sample sizes. And since the samples here on TRF are neither random, nor stratified, skewness is rife.

Another concept that relates to this is the Uncertainty Principle, which I’m less certain you were remembering. It is a fundamental principle arising in quantum mechanics. So not sure you would’ve been applying it here.

It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be known simultaneously. This principle implies that there will always be inherent limitations and uncertainties when making measurements at very small scales.

While there isn't a specific law that combines all these aspects, these principles and concepts are important in understanding and accounting for biases, sample size, and tolerances in experiments.

Let me know if there's anything else I can assist you with!

For example, what will you eat for breakfast tomorrow…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Toast… I will eat toast…

Thanks Paul I think all your points make sense, although when I tried to understand them my head exploded

[digitalcrocodile]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Toast… I will eat toast…

Thanks Paul I think all your points make sense, although when I tried to understand them my head exploded

Well, I am certain of one thing: the uncertainty principle does not apply in this case. If you can verify empirically that I'm wrong about this you will be in line for a Noble prize!

[amh]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

It’s an interesting thought, but if we consider how many owners have had to send in multiple watches in multiple times I think the testing is just a small part of the problem.

I'll get tarred & feathered for saying this, but I think part of the problem is those particular owners.

How is it that many people have no issues, whereas some others have problems with a majority of their watches? Seems impossible.

And if they have so many... why do they even bother spending the time to track this stuff? Why aren't they busy playing golf, flying their plane, hanging out on their boat, driving their sports car? Life's too short.

I think the "many owners" thing is vastly overstated.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amh

I'll get tarred & feathered for saying this, but I think part of the problem is those particular owners.

How is it that many people have no issues, whereas some others have problems with a majority of their watches? Seems impossible.

And if they have so many... why do they even bother spending the time to track this stuff? Why aren't they busy playing golf, flying their plane, hanging out on their boat, driving their sports car? Life's too short.

I think the "many owners" thing is vastly overstated.

Wow.
You're certainly quick to blame the victim aren't you.
I mean to label them as somehow lacking in judgement or something or other. Even down to how they chose to spend their time, when they're not harming anyone else.

Let's look at the facts as they stand.
Multiple people have had multiple watches go south, with some having multiple watches going south.
The only thing I would question is some of these poor people have sought to give The Brand the benefit of the doubt at great cost and they have been let down through no fault of their own. I can only assume they believed the Mothership can do no wrong, but they could be forgiven for that as they have been heavily swayed by the marketing just like a lot of other people

Further to this.
You seem to be happy to overlook the feedback and contributions throughout the industry of those people who are directly tasked with handling this issue at the coal face.
Also there has never been an era on the internet forums when people have had reason to express their dismay in the product until now. If the product was broadly doing just as it's supposed to and tell the time in a reliable fashion and in accordance with the expectations set by the manufacturer, then we wouldn't be here talking about it. Would we?
You need to also be mindful of the reason and history as to why this particular thread was started.
Finally.
Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message.

[LNGSD43]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Wow.
You're certainly quick to blame the victim aren't you.
I mean to label them as somehow lacking in judgement or something or other. Even down to how they chose to spend their time, when they're not harming anyone else.

Let's look at the facts as they stand.
Multiple people have had multiple watches go south, with some having multiple watches going south.
The only thing I would question is some of these poor people have sought to give The Brand the benefit of the doubt at great cost and they have been let down through no fault of their own. I can only assume they believed the Mothership can do no wrong, but they could be forgiven for that as they have been heavily swayed by the marketing just like a lot of other people

Further to this.
You seem to be happy to overlook the feedback and contributions throughout the industry of those people who are directly tasked with handling this issue at the coal face.
Also there has never been an era on the internet forums when people have had reason to express their dismay in the product until now. If the product was broadly doing just as it's supposed to and tell the time in a reliable fashion and in accordance with the expectations set by the manufacturer, then we wouldn't be here talking about it. Would we?
You need to also be mindful of the reason and history as to why this particular thread was started.
Finally.
Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message.

Well put Dirt. More than enough contributions in this thread alone to provide sufficient evidence of an issue and not a few isolated “fussy” individuals who don’t know how to spend their own time. In my own experience, we are not talking about a couple of seconds here and there, upwards of -20secs per day in my case, twice.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by amh

I'll get tarred & feathered for saying this, but I think part of the problem is those particular owners.

How is it that many people have no issues, whereas some others have problems with a majority of their watches? Seems impossible.

And if they have so many... why do they even bother spending the time to track this stuff? Why aren't they busy playing golf, flying their plane, hanging out on their boat, driving their sports car? Life's too short.

I think the "many owners" thing is vastly overstated.

[Easy E]

I tend to go all in on a hobby. I used to actively compete in IDPA matches. I could practice almost everyday at an indoor facility and a match was once a month, but the matches would look something like out the door at 9, back home by 6:30. My wife had enough of that. Same with golf, I used to play regular and got pretty decent. Now I am entirely too busy during the work week and, as with the IDPA, burning up a Saturday or Sunday doesn’t work for the family dynamics, so that’s currently out. Which is also why I get nearly zero track time. I also have zero interest in a boat. At one point I was super into photography until I decided to try and monetize that hobby, totally wrecked that interest. Watches are my current hobby of interest.

I didn’t get a meter until after I was having an issue with a particular piece. That opened a serious can of worms for me, and apparently some others. I have said many times I have some 32xxs that run great and have had several that didn’t. That’s not being fussy, that’s just a fact. The notion that I just take a lap and those issues go away is fascinating.

[Easy E]

Ok, boys and girls, here it is. I ran 4 days of tests with two different watches - my oldest a BLNR 7/19, and my newest LV 4/23. So that's one older 3285, one newer 3235. The older one well within spec, the newer one is very close to edge. There is zero bias, zero emotion, zero fussiness, just data. As predicted I see no change of significance from day to day.

The Test;
Wind each watch, wait 24hrs, take a reading, repeat for 4 cycles.

For sure two variables to consider. The first, did I wind them up with the same amount of power each day? I believe so, I went 60 turns with each, each day. Issue two, which is just a function of my time to bench just is what it is - not exactly 24hrs between readings, so be it. I still don't think that had a material difference in the results.

Maybe someone with some better statistical analysis can chime in on these results.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I tend to go all in on a hobby. I used to actively compete in IDPA matches. I could practice almost everyday at an indoor facility and a match was once a month, but the matches would look something like out the door at 9, back home by 6:30. My wife had enough of that. Same with golf, I used to play regular and got pretty decent. Now I am entirely too busy during the work week and, as with the IDPA, burning up a Saturday or Sunday doesn’t work for the family dynamics, so that’s currently out. Which is also why I get nearly zero track time. I also have zero interest in a boat. At one point I was super into photography until I decided to try and monetize that hobby, totally wrecked that interest. Watches are my current hobby of interest.

I didn’t get a meter until after I was having an issue with a particular piece. That opened a serious can of worms for me, and apparently some others. I have said many times I have some 32xxs that run great and have had several that didn’t. That’s not being fussy, that’s just a fact. The notion that I just take a lap and those issues go away is fascinating.

Interesting journey
What is often overlooked by the deniers is the fact that Rolex(to their credit) will reportedly happily take a watch back into their care and fix it without issue.
We know quite a lot about it now
What we don't know is, are Rolex applying some kind of good will repair policy when a watch presents well but is running poorly when out of warranty

[Yipper69]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Interesting journey
What is often overlooked by the deniers is the fact that Rolex(to their credit) will reportedly happily take a watch back into their care and fix it without issue.
We know quite a lot about it now
What we don't know is, are Rolex applying some kind of good will repair policy when a watch presents well but is running poorly when out of warranty

I just sent mine back last month to D-RSC for the 3rd time. It’s like 6 months out of warranty and rsc contacted me stating it will be covered under warranty.
Last time i sent it in was about 4 years ago. It was losing about 5sec a day back then. Got it back and it ran great until about a month ago, stopped running while i was wearing it and was losing 3 sec an HOUR. If it was due to damage, which it wasn’t, rsc would of made me pay for the service.
When i called Rsc, they told me the new standard for the 3235 movement is -1 to +3.
I’m not ocd or anything like that but if I’m spending 13k for a premium watch, i rather it be more accurate and not lose time. I know it’s a mechanical watch but it can run perfect. If I don’t care about accuracy, I’d get a fake one (not that i would).

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Yipper69

I just sent mine back last month to D-RSC for the 3rd time. It’s like 6 months out of warranty and rsc contacted me stating it will be covered under warranty.
Last time i sent it in was about 4 years ago. It was losing about 5sec a day back then. Got it back and it ran great until about a month ago, stopped running while i was wearing it and was losing 3 sec an HOUR. If it was due to damage, which it wasn’t, rsc would of made me pay for the service.
When i called Rsc, they told me the new standard for the 3235 movement is -1 to +3.
I’m not ocd or anything like that but if I’m spending 13k for a premium watch, i rather it be more accurate and not lose time. I know it’s a mechanical watch but it can run perfect. If I don’t care about accuracy, I’d get a fake one (not that i would).

Glad you got it fixed but no purely mechanical watch made today at any price will run perfect and keep 100% perfect time.And even some Chinese made Seagull movements like the ST19 can when regulated correctly can run to COSC spec or even this new Rolex spec cost of movement now around $80-$100.

[Yipper69]

Originally Posted by padi56

Glad you got it fixed but no purely mechanical watch made today at any price will run perfect and keep 100% perfect time.And even some Chinese made Seagull movements like the ST19 can when regulated correctly can run to COSC spec or even this new Rolex spec cost of movement now around $80-$100.

I totally agree with you that no mechanical watches can be 100% accurate. I shouldn’t have said that mechanical watches can run 100%. It’s nice to have it where if it loses or gains a second or 2 a day and can be regulated by resting it dial up or crown up.
If I wanted accuracy perfection, I’d get an Apple Watch or something quartz.
For me, being able to buy rolex watches is a personal accomplishment that hard work and wise investments paid off. Is it too much to expect advertised accuracy when spending so much for a watch?
I daily wear my Rolex watches and there are many scratches that don’t bother me at all because I can have it polished but it’s just going to get scratches more if I keep wearing it.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Yipper69

I totally agree with you that no mechanical watches can be 100% accurate. I shouldn’t have said that mechanical watches can run 100%. It’s nice to have it where if it loses or gains a second or 2 a day and can be regulated by resting it dial up or crown up.
If I wanted accuracy perfection, I’d get an Apple Watch or something quartz.
For me, being able to buy rolex watches is a personal accomplishment that hard work and wise investments paid off. Is it too much to expect advertised accuracy when spending so much for a watch?
I daily wear my Rolex watches and there are many scratches that don’t bother me at all because I can have it polished but it’s just going to get scratches more if I keep wearing it.

The bare uncased movements are still tested at the Swiss COSC to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds a day to get the certified Swiss chronometer .Yes Rolex tests on a machine movement to a Precision -2/+2 sec/day, after casing. What does this mean well just like the Swiss COSC test movement met said spec at time of testing. This dont mean it will perform exactly the same every day as with owners wearing habits and on wrist there are many variables.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Yipper69

I just sent mine back last month to D-RSC for the 3rd time. It’s like 6 months out of warranty and rsc contacted me stating it will be covered under warranty.
Last time i sent it in was about 4 years ago. It was losing about 5sec a day back then. Got it back and it ran great until about a month ago, stopped running while i was wearing it and was losing 3 sec an HOUR. If it was due to damage, which it wasn’t, rsc would of made me pay for the service.
When i called Rsc, they told me the new standard for the 3235 movement is -1 to +3.
I’m not ocd or anything like that but if I’m spending 13k for a premium watch, i rather it be more accurate and not lose time. I know it’s a mechanical watch but it can run perfect. If I don’t care about accuracy, I’d get a fake one (not that i would).

Thanks for the feedback.
It's good information

So along with a precision of +2 to -2, we have a very workable figure for accuracy of +3 to -1.
At least that's how I'm interpreting it

[amh]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Wow.
You're certainly quick to blame the victim aren't you.
I mean to label them as somehow lacking in judgement or something or other. Even down to how they chose to spend their time, when they're not harming anyone else.

Let's look at the facts as they stand.
Multiple people have had multiple watches go south, with some having multiple watches going south.
The only thing I would question is some of these poor people have sought to give The Brand the benefit of the doubt at great cost and they have been let down through no fault of their own. I can only assume they believed the Mothership can do no wrong, but they could be forgiven for that as they have been heavily swayed by the marketing just like a lot of other people

Further to this.
You seem to be happy to overlook the feedback and contributions throughout the industry of those people who are directly tasked with handling this issue at the coal face.
Also there has never been an era on the internet forums when people have had reason to express their dismay in the product until now. If the product was broadly doing just as it's supposed to and tell the time in a reliable fashion and in accordance with the expectations set by the manufacturer, then we wouldn't be here talking about it. Would we?
You need to also be mindful of the reason and history as to why this particular thread was started.
Finally.
Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message.

It's one of these things:
1) Either Rolex has a _massive_ problem on their hands and 60% of the movements really are broken straight out of the factory
OR
2) Certain people are doing nothing except throwing their watches on a timegrapher and calling their results definitive (are they wearing them and getting on with life?)

It doesn't pass the smell test. I certainly know it's not [1] else the company would have crashed & burned by now. Instead, they're increasing adoption of the movements.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by padi56

And even some Chinese made Seagull movements like the ST19 can when regulated correctly can run to COSC spec or even this new Rolex spec cost of movement now around $80-$100.

I wish you could see how bad the optics of this statement in this thread really are. A $100 Chinese movement can run within COSC specs or better, and my $40k Sub doesn't and that's cool?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I wish you could see how bad the optics of this statement in this thread really are. A $100 Chinese movement can run within COSC specs or better, and my $40k Sub doesn't and that's cool?

No matter the brand or the price the movement its only as good what it's been regulated to that matches the owner wearing habits.While the ST 19 movement can be regulated to be very accurate it will need more regulation over its life than say a Rolex movement.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amh

It's one of these things:
1) Either Rolex has a _massive_ problem on their hands and 60% of the movements really are broken straight out of the factory
OR
2) Certain people are doing nothing except throwing their watches on a timegrapher and calling their results definitive (are they wearing them and getting on with life?)

It doesn't pass the smell test. I certainly know it's not [1] else the company would have crashed & burned by now. Instead, they're increasing adoption of the movements.

In your case, it's one of these things.
1) You're a card carrying fanboy denier that's not backward at pointing the finger just because in your sample of 1, there hasn't been an issue as far as you know.
2) You aren't capable of digesting the full depth and breadth of the situation as reported on this forum and are so predisposed to point (1) that in order to bolster your arguments you aren't backward in coming forward when it comes to plucking BS figures out your transom like the fictitious 60% in an attempt to mock the data that's been amassed through the generous contributions of honest members of the forum. All of whom i might add, had enough kindness to share out of caring about their watches. That goes for the around 75% percent that don't perceive they have a problem along with the rest that do have a problem with their watch as verified by Rolex themselves.

I might add another thing that you are in vehement denial of.
Consider this.
If Rolex don't think there is a problem, why are they graciously taking the watches into their care and carrying out the myriad(as reported by a Watchmaker) of potential steps to get the affected watches back on track and running to specs whether the individual watches have presented for the first time or the third?
Do you think that Rolex have people just sitting around at the RSCs and just for the heck of it they are happy to simply use it as an exercise in keeping the Watchmakers gainfully employed when the Mothership has had a history of knocking back warranty claims for any reason they deem sufficient?

I put it to you.
Rolex knows they have a problem and to their full credit, Rolex is taking the best practice option of carrying out the repairs as required to get these watches running properly in accordance with their very own specs regardless of your attempts to deny it for all it's worth.
It's a good thing you and or people like you aren't running things at the Mothership when it comes to after sales care.
I imagine you or people like you wouldn't last very long at the Mothership if you were even able to get your collective feet into the door

May the integrity of Rolex remain intact

[enjoythemusic]

The first-year release CHNR is back from service, which i must say was done in a fast four to five weeks. She had amplitude problems, which of course affected accuracy...

Today, after about 20 hours of wear, she is a SOLID and stable 260-ish amplitude in various positions on my Timegrapher. Whatever the situation was, it's been solved and accuracy is excellent as expected with Rolex too :)

Look, i get it gentlemen. It can be a bummer yet it is serviceable. That's one of the benefits of a mechanical timepiece. Rolex is taking care of this under warranty and in a timely manner. Color me very happy.

As a side note, over the decades have chatted with a wide variety of luxury goods companies. RSC has always, in ALL ways, been excellent. If RSC is reading this, please be sure to thank the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. Many thanks.

PS: Have done this previously with watchmakers over the years... I'd be happy to buy lunch / dinner for the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. They earned it

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

The first-year release CHNR is back from service, which i must say was done in a fast four to five weeks. She had amplitude problems, which of course affected accuracy...

Today, after about 20 hours of wear, she is a SOLID and stable 260-ish amplitude in various positions on my Timegrapher.

Thanks; it would be nice to see timegrapher data after full winding and after 24 h.

Out of curiosity: did vote vote in the poll? If yes, what did you chose?