Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hello all, I hope this post finds you all well!  I’ve been working on a small ladies watch with an FHF 60 movement.  I’ve cleaned and oiled the movement and replaced the balance assembly due to a bent pivot.  With the watch completely assembled, amplitude is almost non existent.  With the pallet fork removed, the gear train moves very well, with that slight reverse in motion evident in the escape wheel.  With the balance installed without the pallet fork , the wheel spins freely for quite some time, so no issue there either.  So at this point I believe I my loosing power through the pallet.  When I move the pallet back and for with watch wound I don’t get a good snap back and forth to the banking pins.    I don’t have much experience in escapement testing and adjusting.  My first thought is if the lock is to deep.  I thought it seemed ok, but would like to know what others with more knowledge on the subject think.  It’s hard to get pictures of both stones as one is quite hidden and a picture from the front through the inspection holes doesn’t show it very well.  Both stones are about the depth in the picture provided.  If this looks ok, any other tests that would be recommended?  I apologize if the picture quality isn’t great.

IMG_0733.png

Posted

The lock does look quite heavy, but I don't think it is the cause of your problem. If the fork is not snapping back and forth, then check the pallet fork pivots and holes are clean and smooth, and check the end-shake.

If you are sure the fork is moving freely, then focus on what you changed. Maybe there is interference between the guard pin and your new balance, or between the impulse jewel and the fork horns.

  • Like 1
Posted

Hi. Follow what klassiker said but also check the balance is free running. Take the fork out (remove power first). And fil balance and give it a puff of air,  does it swing ok for up to 25 secs freely.   Also check its pivots if it’s had a knock one of the levels may be broken or cracked.

  • Like 1
Posted

I agree with @Klassiker. Also, make sure that you do not oil the fork pivots. Have you oiled the pallet stone impulse surfaces? The type of oil that you use and how much can make a dramatic difference. Even dry impulse surfaces make a dramatic difference.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

No study of the cosmos, a test for the fork and balance assembly is to put  just the fork/cock  and balance/cock on the mainplate and observe, this will also provide wider angle of side view to see fork/ roller engagement.

 

 

Posted

With just the fork installed, no power, it should move easily with a light puff of air. Then, as you have already checked the balance freedom, check with fork in no power (without escape wheel would be best).

 

As said, no oil on the pivots, peg the jewels, no oil on the roller jewel (!), make sure the fork slot that interacts with the jewel is dead clean, also have a look at the roller jewel, they sometimes are grimy even after cleaning. While the lock does look a bit heavy, there's a whole checklist of things to examine before considering moving a/both stones or adjusting the bankings.

  • Like 3
Posted

Thanks everyone for your input!  So I removed and re-cleaned the pallet fork and its pivot jewels.  I don't oil fork pivots so there was no concern there.  As far as lubricating the pallet stones I use Moebius 9415 on the exit stone.  I've seen it applied to only the exit stone and also both stones as well.  Is one more acceptable than the other?  After cleaning again, the action of the fork seemed to be better, but with the balance installed it would still hardly run.  The only balance ran in horizontal positions, but not in vertical positions, so I decided to try the old balance to see if things would work better, and sure enough it did!  I swapped over the roller table to the new balance and it ran much better.  I will do some more comparison to see what the difference might be between the two tables causing the issue and post again shortly.  

Posted (edited)

From the photo, the pallet fork arbor jewel looks massively worn to me creating a big side-shake and a much deeper and shallower lock in vertical positions because of the excessive side shake reducing your amplitude because of that deep lock.  A shallow lock may cause mislocking

There should be no discernable or visible side shake, so if you give the pallet a wiggle and see the arbor visibly moving sideways, that is far from acceptable. There should be about 0.01 mm to 0.015 mm side shake of the pallet fork.

ovalled.jpg.7dd6d79b42ce02ff105b23056ebb2356.jpg

Edited by Jon
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Tool for removing or pressing the bezel? Most likely you have to remove the bezel (with a knife) before removing old crystal or inserting a new one. You can press the bezel with the crystal press if you have a suitable die with straight walls or otherwise a die that has enough clearance that it doesn't touch the crystal when pressing the bezel.
    • This will be my first crystal replacement, I have a press, but looking at the watch I wonder if I might need a bezel tool also. Any and all help appreciated. 
    • I'm not entirely sure you fully understand what he's doing in the video. For one thing he's giving examples of things like about 16 minutes he talks about opening up the regulator just a little bit. Opening up the regulator slows the watch down to compensate for that he moves the regulator fast and now it's keeping time again but the regulator pins are too far apart. I have an image down below on top of it shows the effect of regulator pins and amplitude. If the regulator pins are farther apart than the example down below then at a higher amplitude timekeeping will be much worse. Why the regulator pins are supposed to be adjusted as an average rule approximately twice the thickness of the mainspring itself. In other words if you look at the spacing it have one half of the hairspring thickness on either side of the hairspring itself. There is like he talks about the video a little bit of adjustment here and there. So in his example where he opened them up it will really dramatically screw up timekeeping based on amplitude. Then when you get to the 20 some minutes like you say he is adjusting the regulator pins closer together to get a more even timekeeping based on amplitude and amplitude changes are caused by going to various positions. Then and the other example of the image down below regulator pins too far apart and they hairspring is not centered and look what that does the timekeeping. So hairspring is supposed to be centered regulator pins are supposed to properly spaced. Then you get reasonably even timekeeping like it shows in the upper image. It's not like we're regulating out positional errors like poising errors because that's something entirely different.   In the part number above and in the video both of you left off details. I which version of either of your watches I will just make you's timing specifications for your watch down below may specify how you're supposed to do it other words you wind up the watch fully wound up you wait 10 to 60 minutes in the four positions it should be within 60 seconds. Yes it can be closer but you may not actually get zero.     Now let's compare with the 2892 and see where we might have a discrepancy. First off we have a problem of which one is a using did he use the chronometer grade 1 or the top grade or what?  None is basically just much tighter timing tolerances. So when he's using an example watch conceivably might be a chronometer grade watch then things are going to be much more  perfect than what you're going to see.       NH35_TG.pdf ETA 2892-A2 Manufacturing info.pdf
    • Note the 8992 is 850 pounds for a liter. I think this is really for industrial settings like they say, where it would be used as a final bath in a 20,000 buck cleaning machine. I use the 8981.   That is excellent- I don't often get to see a serviced watch 5 years later, but when I do I expect to see pretty much the same oiling on the balance jewels as when it went out. I think at that area, being essentially sealed, it really should remain fairly pristine for likely 10 years. It's why some makers go to the trouble to use cap jewels on the escape wheel as well- not so much for friction reduction, but to keep the oil longer where it really counts.
×
×
  • Create New...