No1 Sport Chrono.... Daytona or....?

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by belligero

Grand Seiko may deserve a mention if we're including quartz movements, but its accuracy is nothing too special by quartz standards, and I think their chronographs are too much of a design mess to rank very highly as complete watches.

PS: I appreciate the point about the Soviets not being able to debunk the moon program, though! Conspiracy fantasists tend to conveniently ignore that one, as they do with anything that doesn't agree with their made-up world.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the Springdrive being a "quartz movement", which it has nothing in common with besides the presence of a crystal. The crystal in the Springdrive is completely out of the drive loop, and does nothing more than set a reference wavelength the electromagnetic brake that replaces the escapement/balance wheel uses to apply appropriate force to slow and regulate the mechanical-powered rotation. Saying it's a quartz movement is like saying a modern aircraft jet engine is an "electric motor" just because it's equipped with a FADEC powered by its own PMA instead of physical linkages to old hydromechanical fuel control units.

I included the Springdrive because it's worth mentioning a mechanical movement that does away with the friction and stoppage issues that go with a traditional escapement. The Springdrive regulator is frictionless. Seiko applied a high-tech electromagnetic answer which purists seems to discount but on the other hand seem okay with high tech solutions applied to computerized machine tools, chemistry/metallurgy for modern lubricants/oils, seals, cases and ceramics, or the design of things like helium escape valves.

The Springdrive isn't purely mechanical, but it's certainly not a quartz or electric movement. It's it's own thing and others may not agree but I think it deserves inclusion. As for being the chrono being "design mess", well, that's a new one I've never heard applied to any GS. The GS people aren't merely exacting, they're fanatical about design and finish. I think many just discount something like the Springdrive because it confuses them how someone could come up with something as off the wall as it is and then actually bring it to market.

P.S. I'm still waiting for any moon-landing doubter to tell me how the U.S. got the Soviets to agree to go along with the supposed Moon Landing Deception (without them devolving into something about Reptilian aliens living under the Denver airport pulling the puppet strings of all world leaders etc etc)

[jaymyms]

Speedmaster Professional

[GolfPunk]

I've been monitoring timekeeping on my Rolex Daytona 4130 and my Breitling Chronomat with in house B01 and over 5 days, the Daytona has lost just 1 second. The Breitling has not lost or gained a single second, both very impressive results

[belligero]

^

I know all about how Spring Drive works, and it's a very innovative movement... but despite all its mechanical components, it's most definitely a quartz watch because it depends utterly on a quartz oscillator for its timekeeping. Without it, it doesn't keep time, it just freewheels.

Here's what controls the timekeeping of a Spring Drive watch:







Not that there's anything wrong with quartz.

[Jari from Finland]

In my opinion Daytona is the best and after that on the second place is Speedmaster as to comes to those criteria you mentioned. They both
are iconic watches.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by belligero

^

I know all about how Spring Drive works, and it's a very innovative movement... but despite all its mechanical components, it's most definitely a quartz watch because it depends utterly on a quartz oscillator for its timekeeping. Without it, it doesn't keep time, it just freewheels.
.

So are you telling me that the jet engines on the airplane I fly aren't actually turbofans despite all their mechanical components, but rather classified (or should be thought of) as electric motors just because each depends utterly on a FADEC for it's operation? Without it, it doesn't produce any thrust, the fan just freewheels.

(If that's the case, then why are they so noisy and is the mysterious stuff i keep putting in the fuel tanks really just to produce chemtrails?)

Here's what controls the operation of a turbofan engine. It's that black electronic box thingy on the side. Sorry I don't have a cutaway of it, but without those working on your engines, you're pretty much doomed.

[Zweig]

I vote Sinn EZM1 with Lemania 5100.

[belligero]

Originally Posted by CRM114

So are you telling me that the jet engines on the airplane I fly aren't actually turbofans despite all their mechanical components, but rather classified (or should be thought of) as electric motors just because each depends utterly on a FADEC for it's operation? Without it, it doesn't produce any thrust, the fan just freewheels.

That's not what I'm saying at all, because that's not even close to being a valid analogy.

For one thing, it's very much possible to produce a turbine engine without a FADEC — turbofans have been around a lot longer than digital electronics have. For another, the purpose of a watch movement isn't thrust production, it's timekeeping. The core and most-essential element of a movement is the oscillator. In a wristwatch, this will invariably be a hairspring, a quartz crystal or a tuning fork, with the exception of bulky cesium-based systems for those who wish to be pedantic. ;)

In the case (so to speak) of the Spring Drive, it's the quartz crystal that regulates the timekeeping. All other components are ancillary to it; it's irrelevant that the voltage that causes it to oscillate at its resonant frequency is produced by a generator rather than a battery.

Again, nothing wrong with quartz; it's a great timekeeper. Though I personally tend to prefer more-conventional movement designs that are simpler and lower-maintenance than the Spring Drive variety when it comes to quartz, which is why it wouldn't be on my list of top chronographs, I respect the ingenuity and creativity that Seiko's displayed in making such a novel quartz configuration.

I realize there's some anti-quartzitism in the watch world, but I'm not sure how being a quartz denier benefits anyone. :P

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by belligero

That's not what I'm saying at all, because that's not even close to being a valid analogy.

For one thing, it's very much possible to produce a turbine engine without a FADEC — turbofans have been around a lot longer than digital electronics have. For another, the purpose of a watch movement isn't thrust production, it's timekeeping. The core and most-essential element of a movement is the oscillator. In a wristwatch, this will invariably be a hairspring, a quartz crystal or a tuning fork, with the exception of bulky cesium-based systems for those who wish to be pedantic. ;)

In the case (so to speak) of the Spring Drive, it's the quartz crystal that regulates the timekeeping. All other components are ancillary to it; it's irrelevant that the voltage that causes it to oscillate at its resonant frequency is produced by a generator rather than a battery.

Again, nothing wrong with quartz; it's a great timekeeper. Though I personally tend to prefer more-conventional movement designs that are simpler and lower-maintenance than the Spring Drive variety when it comes to quartz, which is why it wouldn't be on my list of top chronographs, I respect the ingenuity and creativity that Seiko's displayed in making such a novel quartz configuration.

I realize there's some anti-quartzitism in the watch world, but I'm not sure how being a quartz denier benefits anyone. :P

Yes I'm well aware of how engines used to be built. I'm old enough to have flown Jurassic jets without FADECS or even EECs and DEC's, and flown some of the latter reverted to hydromechanical backup when those older EECs and DECs have failed.

But you can't fly a FADEC-controlled turbofan aircraft if they fail completely. There is no backup. Engine operation utterly depends on the FADEC in order to start and keep it going. Yet even so, the engine is still considered to be a turbofan, not an "Electric motor" simply because it depends on some battery or PMA-generated electronic wizardry in order for them to function, or because the FADEC uses essential inputs from other sources, computes them, and issues commands to the engine mechanicals for precise operation and rotational speed.

In the same way, I don't define the Springdrive as a "quartz movement" just because it takes a sensor reference reading from what happens to be a crystal for the regulator to do the same type of internal smartypants wizardry in order to manage the rotational speed of a mechanically-powered watch by varying electromagnetic braking.

I think it's a great analogy right down to the PMAs powering the brains. And if it's quartz movement, how come it doesn't tick? I'm not a quartz denier but you could just as easily label the Springdrive an "electric movement" because it not only uses it, but acts as its own power source by generating it through mechanics instead of a battery.

As far as what is the core and most essential element of a jet engine, well, that would have to be money.

[FTX I]

166 x 162 Wow

[belligero]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Yes I'm well aware of how engines used to be built. I'm old enough to have flown Jurassic jets without FADECS or even EECs and DEC's, and flown some of the latter reverted to hydromechanical backup when those older EECs and DECs have failed.

But you can't fly a FADEC-controlled turbofan aircraft if they fail completely. There is no backup. Engine operation utterly depends on the FADEC in order to start and keep it going. Yet even so, the engine is still considered to be a turbofan, not an "Electric motor" simply because it depends on some battery or PMA-generated electronic wizardry in order for them to function, or because the FADEC uses essential inputs from other sources, computes them, and issues commands to the engine mechanicals for precise operation and rotational speed.

In the same way, I don't define the Springdrive as a "quartz movement" just because it takes a sensor reference reading from what happens to be a crystal for the regulator to do the same type of internal smartypants wizardry in order to manage the rotational speed of a mechanically-powered watch by varying electromagnetic braking.

I think it's a great analogy right down to the PMAs powering the brains. And if it's quartz movement, how come it doesn't tick? I'm not a quartz denier but you could just as easily label the Springdrive an "electric movement" because it not only uses it, but acts as its own power source by generating it through mechanics instead of a battery.

As far as what is the core and most essential element of a jet engine, well, that would have to be money.

Regrets; there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about how watch movements are classified.

The regulator doesn't "just happen to be" quartz; in fact, it's the opposite of happenstance. The quartz crystal is the the very beating heart of the watch — it beats at at exactly 32768 hz vs. the 2.5 to 5 hz range of most mechanical movements — and that's exclusively what defines its type. Neither the power source nor the presence/absence of discrete ticks affects this classification, it's only the oscillator that does.

Bulova's Precisionist movemements also move the seconds hand smoothly, and Seiko's Kinetic series is also mechanically-powered, yet they're also undeniably quartz. By the same principle, a mechanical movement with a dead-beat seconds complication doesn't somehow become quartz, either. To complete the analogy, you could make an anti-Spring-Drive by running a dead-beat mechanical escapement from a battery and electric stepper motor rather than a mainspring; it would superficially resemble a typical quartz watch in many ways, yet that wouldn't magically change it into one.

I understand that some people associate quartz with cheapness and low quality, but there's at least as much to appreciate with a good quartz movement as there is with a mechanical one. If it makes the anti-quartzites feel better, I suppose it could be called "high-maintenance quartz" to differentiate it from other sub-types of quartz movements. ;)


Put simply, the function of a watch is to keep time, and it's the oscillator — by hairspring, quartz crystal, tuning fork or caesium-atom resonance — that does the actual timekeeping, and thereby defines the type of movement.



No doubt about the money-core point for turbine engines, though. :)

[mdtddd2007]

Daytona and Speedmaster!

[Bradleyat]

The speedy is awesome, and the most important sports watch of all time, but the Daytona is so damn cool and functions better on planet earth.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by belligero

Regrets; there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about how watch movements are classified.

The regulator doesn't "just happen to be" quartz; in fact, it's the opposite of happenstance. The quartz crystal is the the very beating heart of the watch — it beats at at exactly 32768 hz vs. the 2.5 to 5 hz range of most mechanical movements — and that's exclusively what defines its type. Neither the power source nor the presence/absence of discrete ticks affects this classification, it's only the oscillator that does.

Bulova's Precisionist movemements also move the seconds hand smoothly, and Seiko's Kinetic series is also mechanically-powered, yet they're also undeniably quartz. By the same principle, a mechanical movement with a dead-beat seconds complication doesn't somehow become quartz, either. To complete the analogy, you could make an anti-Spring-Drive by running a dead-beat mechanical escapement from a battery and electric stepper motor rather than a mainspring; it would superficially resemble a typical quartz watch in many ways, yet that wouldn't magically change it into one.

I understand that some people associate quartz with cheapness and low quality, but there's at least as much to appreciate with a good quartz movement as there is with a mechanical one. If it makes the anti-quartzites feel better, I suppose it could be called "high-maintenance quartz" to differentiate it from other sub-types of quartz movements. ;)


Put simply, the function of a watch is to keep time, and it's the oscillator — by hairspring, quartz crystal, tuning fork or caesium-atom resonance — that does the actual timekeeping, and thereby defines the type of movement.

Correction, the narrow view of how you're classifying and defining a movement (that ignores every bit of architecture, power source & delivery, and drive side mechanics) other than what you've asserted "exclusively defines the type" is certainly not any kind of hard and fast rule that is universally accepted. So there is no "fundamental misunderstanding" on my part (unless that's just how you term having a difference of opinion).

From the outset I've made no assertion that the Springdrive is a mechanical movement. I maintain it's a movement unto itself. I'm not singular in this view. If you choose to lump it into being a "quartz movement" by your narrow definition that's fine, but again that's an opinion, educated though it may be, but one that is by no means held by everyone many of whom are just as educated, experienced, and well-versed. Those that disagree with your narrow view of categorization recognize the radical differences in architecture the SD has compared to a "quartz movement" and it's basic design that has been around for 45 years, and the way it's crystal is employed. They deem those architectural criteria (what's there and what's not) important, and don't just dismiss the absence of battery/capacitor/stepper motors etc and in their place the presence of 90% of what makes up a traditional mechanical movement as you seem to.

Bulova's Precisionist "smooth hand" is an illusion. It still ticks, just in smaller, faster increments. It's a souped-up quartz driving a stepper motor moving the hand 16 times per second instead of once, and of course eats batteries. The Springdrive doesn't tick at all, and obviously has no battery.

The Kinetic is undeniably a quartz. It employs the same quartz architecture and electric-driven motor, but with the addition of a mechanical means to charge the capacitor that drives it. It's like putting one of those little crank handles on the side of a flashlight or radio to recharge the built-in batteries that make the light or powers the unit. Kind of neat and convenient, but nothing radical. Hamsters on a wired-in treadmill could do the same.

Some might call the SD a hybrid..mechanical, quartz, electric... except there's no other watch out there using anything like a frictionless, electromagnetic brake on a mechanical movement/architecture up to the point where an escapement/balance wheel/hairspring used to be. Friction is the enemy of anything mechanical, and the escapement/hairspring is a bugbear, but Seiko came up with a solution to them both with their braking system. The sweeping hand is just a visible manifestation of the solution. Unlike the aforementioned Kinetic, this invention is a radical innovation.

What seems to confound the purists is the fact the answer/replacement part is necessarily high-tech. The big picture, however, is that it really doesn't matter if the braking system adjusts itself to a reference wavelength from a crystal or takes it's cues from a tiny little man held prisoner inside the case beating out a perfect rhythm on an even tinier little drum, the point is that a completely new, frictionless system was invented and applied. It troubles me not in the least it wasn't invented by the Swiss. I would be shocked if they had. Any Rolex R&D engineer suggesting something so off the wall would have been immediately tested for controlled substances, and if found clean, taken out and thrown from the nearest Alp to prevent him from poisoning the minds of his colleagues or detract them from their highly-important work developing a new flip clasp, fatter Sub lugs, or yet another Daytona dial that's barely legible even in the most perfect lighting conditions.

It is on that basis (invention and applying it to accurize mechanical movement architecture) I included the SD's chrono version in my top 5. Opinions may differ, and yours obviously does. That's fine, but your view that it can't even be considered because (in your opinion) "The Springdrive is quartz" doesn't fly in mine.

So I'll stick wth my 5th place choice

[belligero]

^
Le sigh. Again, it's not the support components that determine the timekeeping type, it's the oscillator. The Spring Drive has a quartz soul. This doesn't diminish its innovation or quality in any way, however.

But if it instead had a tiny little man with an exceptionally-good sense of rhythm inside, then you're indeed quite right that it wouldn't be quartz-based timekeeping any more.

[DaddyKC]

One more vote for the Speedy Pro

[BNA/LION]

Daytona out of the list and Speedy for a photo finish!

[tle]

either of them...im sorry guys



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fskywalker]

Daytona #1, Speedmaster #2