Parachrom Hairspring and Why it is so Good!

[Thai]

Thanks to another member on the Omega forum, i found this cool little video: http://watchmakingblog.com/2008/10/17/parachrom-video/

This should put to rest some of the arguments regarding PC hairspring vs. Nivarox hairspring. PC is indeed significantly better...and it is not just a marketing ploy by Rolex, as implied by few members with the older movements.

I must say...i now want Si hairspring in my Omega and PC in my Rolex!

[JimC]

I can't speak for much more than my experience, but the movement (including the blue PC spring) is much more accurate than the other three in my stable.

Also, I don't know if it has anything to do with it, but the Deepsea is the only watch that appears to follow the "placement" guidelines. For example, the DS does seem to gain a few on its back, and lose more when on it's side (crown up), and less crown down...

[ParisDakarBmw]

Interesting info!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by JimC

......but the movement (including the blue PC spring) is much more accurate than the other three in my stable.

Also, I don't know if it has anything to do with it, but the Deepsea is the only watch that appears to follow the "placement" guidelines. For example, the DS does seem to gain a few on its back, and lose more when on it's side (crown up), and less crown down...

Yes, I can definitely vouch for the superior accuracy, in fact ZERO deviation, on my TT GMT-IIC and V-series Exp-II with the 3186 movement.

Funnily, howver, the two work in opposite ways with placement of the watch.

The GMT-IIC runs slow crown DOWN, while the Exp-II gains when placed crown DOWN. Of course the loss and gain is very insignificant, but it's puzzling how the same movement acts in different ways in 2 different watches.

JJ

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Yes, I can definitely vouch for the superior accuracy, in fact ZERO deviation, on my TT GMT-IIC and V-series Exp-II with the 3186 movement.

Funnily, howver, the two work in opposite ways with placement of the watch.

The GMT-IIC runs slow crown DOWN, while the Exp-II gains when placed crown DOWN. Of course the loss and gain is very insignificant, but it's puzzling how the same movement acts in different ways in 2 different watches.

JJ

That's great to hear. I have to wonder why Rolex did not go with Si14?? I know that Silicon is hard to produce in large amounts...i wonder if that is why Rolex went with PC because Rolex can make lots of it?? Anyway, with the PC hairspring, i don't see any disadvanage over Si14.

[DRAWTOOL]

Cool little video, however I am perfectly satisfied with my EXP-IIs performance using the junky old Nivarox spring.

[HL65]

One thing I can tell you: My 3186 movement in GMT ll Pepsi has gained only 3 seconds in 3 weeks--That is far better than most I have owned.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Yes, I can definitely vouch for the superior accuracy, in fact ZERO deviation, on my TT GMT-IIC and V-series Exp-II with the 3186 movement.

Funnily, howver, the two work in opposite ways with placement of the watch.

The GMT-IIC runs slow crown DOWN, while the Exp-II gains when placed crown DOWN. Of course the loss and gain is very insignificant, but it's puzzling how the same movement acts in different ways in 2 different watches.

JJ

Interesting! I have a similar experience from my two 3186. Very consistent, but different behaviour when it comes to position. Haven't figured out why yet.

[mike]

Originally Posted by JimC

I can't speak for much more than my experience, but the movement (including the blue PC spring) is much more accurate than the other three in my stable.

Also, I don't know if it has anything to do with it, but the Deepsea is the only watch that appears to follow the "placement" guidelines. For example, the DS does seem to gain a few on its back, and lose more when on it's side (crown up), and less crown down...

I've noticed the same thing Jim.

[tkc324]

Interesting video... thanks for sharing~

[sparky_magoo]

Does the PC hairspring make the Milgauss obsolete?

[LouS]

The Milgauss has a parachrom hairspring, does it not?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by LouS

The Milgauss has a parachrom hairspring, does it not?

Definitely does!!

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Definitely does!!

Is the hairspring the only thing that can get magnetized in a mechanical watch?? I think that other parts (steel) in the watch can get magnetized and affect performance??? I think that the hairspring is a biggie in terms of magnetism, which i think Si4 and PC solved.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Thai

Is the hairspring the only thing that can get magnetized in a mechanical watch?? I think that other parts (steel) in the watch can get magnetized and affect performance??? I think that the hairspring is a biggie in terms of magnetism, which i think Si4 and PC solved.

You're right, but the Milgauss would also be equipped with a powerful anti-magnetic inner shield covering the movement.

JJ

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

You're right, but the Milgauss would also be equipped with a powerful anti-magnetic inner shield covering the movement.

JJ

Sorry JJ, i misunderstood you. I thought that you answered the other member who stated that the PC made the Milgauss obsolete, which i think that it does not.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Thai

Is the hairspring the only thing that can get magnetized in a mechanical watch?? I think that other parts (steel) in the watch can get magnetized and affect performance??? I think that the hairspring is a biggie in terms of magnetism, which i think Si4 and PC solved.

Well in over 30 years of Rolex wearing and working around strong magnets
capable of picking up 20 plus tons.Myself have never experienced any form of magnetising in any watch I was wearing.And now working in strong magnetic fields with high power radio equipment again no problem with any Rolex modern or vintage.Rolex watches are made mainly from S.steel or precious metals and in conjunction with nickel, brass or beryllium, bronze or Glucydur balance wheels so they were very anti-magnetic to begin.Sure the Nivourax hairsrings were very very very slightly magnetic.But today there must be millions upon millions of them around and without any problems.But as long as you don't wear your watch dial down with the back off with a magnet dangling over movement.Then like a placebo test if you did not know whats inside case I would doubt if you would fine any difference in the every day real world of watch wearing.With quite a few older Rolex running to a couple of seconds a day or less.One Rolex Unicorn 88 years old and still running to just a few seconds a day.

[Dan Pierce]

Wonder why all my old crappy Nivarox hairspring equipped watches run so accurately?
dP

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Wonder why all my old crappy Nivourax hairspring equipped watches run so accurately?
dP

Quite simple Dan because you don't wear your watch dial down with back off
with a magnet dangling over movement.And because all the Rolex movements
since the 1950s have shown tremendous accuracy and longevity of life.

[The GMT Master]

An interesting video, thanks for sharing

[DadsWatch72]

I heard that the material used in the new hairsprings if from alien technology.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

I heard that the material used in the new hairsprings if from alien technology.

Mexico? China?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Yes, I can definitely vouch for the superior accuracy, in fact ZERO deviation, on my TT GMT-IIC and V-series Exp-II with the 3186 movement.

Funnily, howver, the two work in opposite ways with placement of the watch.

The GMT-IIC runs slow crown DOWN, while the Exp-II gains when placed crown DOWN. Of course the loss and gain is very insignificant, but it's puzzling how the same movement acts in different ways in 2 different watches.

JJ

So what you are saying JJ your watches self regulate in different positions.So in fact they are not ZERO deviation.If you left them in the same position there would be some gain or loss correct.???

[DadsWatch72]

I didn't really hear that but the subject reminded me of seeing a show on tv about material that was reported to be from a UFO and that it wasn't effected by magnetic fields.

http://alienufoparanormal.aliencaseb...o-hunters.aspx

http://aliencasebook.blogspot.com/20...cs-in-its.html

[Perdu]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Wonder why all my old crappy Nivarox hairspring equipped watches run so accurately?
dP

[Fofo]

Excellent video! Thank you for sharing it, very interesting and educational.

[cody p]

while it may indeed be anti-magnetic, i'm not sure it's inherently more accurate. anecdotal evidence does not make an assertion so. cosc records might shed more light on this subject...

[Thai]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well in over 30 years of Rolex wearing and working around strong magnets
capable of picking up 20 plus tons.Myself have never experienced any form of magnetising in any watch I was wearing.And now working in strong magnetic fields with high power radio equipment again no problem with any Rolex modern or vintage.Rolex watches are made mainly from S.steel or precious metals and in conjunction with nickel, brass or beryllium, bronze or Glucydur balance wheels so they were very anti-magnetic to begin.Sure the Nivourax hairsrings were very very very slightly magnetic.But today there must be millions upon millions of them around and without any problems.But as long as you don't wear your watch dial down with the back off with a magnet dangling over movement.Then like a placebo test if you did not know whats inside case I would doubt if you would fine any difference in the every day real world of watch wearing.With quite a few older Rolex running to a couple of seconds a day or less.One Rolex Unicorn 88 years old and still running to just a few seconds a day.

Just chalk it up to the 3186 (and like calibers with PC hairspring) being overbuilt for the purpose...isn't that what we all want in our Rolex??? And now, the movement is truly 100% in-house...with actual evidence to backup the benefit of the PC hairspring.

Think of it this way...PC has made the Rolex impervious to yet another source of problem (magnetism)...and depending on who you talk to, magnetism is probably the BIGGEST issue facing a watch that goes bongers. (I say this because the 3185 and older caliber owners will say that magnetism never happens, while the newer caliber owners will say otherwise.) Regardless, i think that most watchmakers will agree that magnetism is an important fact of life of a mechanical watch .

[Thai]

Originally Posted by cody p

while it may indeed be anti-magnetic, i'm not sure it's inherently more accurate. anecdotal evidence does not make an assertion so. cosc records might shed more light on this subject...

Maybe it is more precise over the long haul?? It is totally anti-magnetic AND stronger than the Nivarox hairspring...aka, the benefits of Si14 without the high cost and low production numbers.

[sparky_magoo]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

I heard that the material used in the new hairsprings if from alien technology.

Is this an example of reverse engineering from Area 51?