Clean & lubricate NOS old stock mainsprings or just install?

[Neverenoughwatches]

20 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

There seems to be a bit of different thinking about some of Frieds stuff. I certainly don’t know enough to call any of his work into question. I think the dog leg part of it is somewhat like regulator pins, if you do bend them then the working edge still needs to be parallel, which would make sense.

I would love if the German company who reprinted some of Jendritski’s stuff would do his adjustments book, it seems fascinating to me.

I think I am a bit like @VWatchie , I will try to get the absolute maximum possible performance out of something and tear my beard out trying!

 

Tom

Which book do you have Tom ? I have the Swiss watch repairer's manual 1970

[tomh207]

For Jendritski I have “the watch repairers manual “ and “the watchmaker and his lathe” also have Fried “the watch repairer’s manual “ and “bench practices for watch repairers “

probably much the same as you Rich.

Tom

[mbwatch]

Oh no, theory tsunami happening here...

Here's what I know and have measured:

The lift angle of 48° is not a Hamilton factory suggestion, but rather an anecdotal number from this thread - so 48 might have been the angle measured one time on one watch (whose banking pins may have been moved, remember these American watches mount banking pins on eccentric screws for too-easy adjustment)

So I have been measuring at 48° all along, and previous checks of the balance at 180 were close enough that I didn't try to dial it in further. Until just now.

I took all the wind out of it and brought it up until the 2 arm balance was landing in the same spot on both swings and adjusted lift angle until I had 180. That angle is 45°.

I didn't do this precise a measurement before moving the banking pins, so either the LA went down 3° after moving them, or the original 48 number was a guideline that may not have been exactly right on this particular watch to begin with.

With slow -motion video and laying a protractor over my phone to measure the angle beyond 180 per swing, I am seeing about 240° - so less than 255 as I suspected, and pretty consistent with the difference between measuring with LA at 48 vs lower at 45. And the tg calls this 235.

If someone else wants to do the science and move their banking pins around to test amplitudes, you are welcome to. I am not messing with this one any further.

Edited January 15 by mbwatch

[tomh207]

@mbwatch personally I think you have done rather well on this watch. but you do know us unruly lot by now, if there’s a rabbit hole to go down, we’ll find it.

 

Tom

p.s. Especially me and Rich

[Neverenoughwatches]

6 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

For Jendritski I have “the watch repairers manual “ and “the watchmaker and his lathe” also have Fried “the watch repairer’s manual “ and “bench practices for watch repairers “

probably much the same as you Rich.

Tom

Not quite, I really like books. There's a couple of obscure ones in here.

[mbwatch]

Just now, tomh207 said:

@mbwatch personally I think you have done rather well on this watch.

A heavier mainspring just showed up in the mail, so I guess I'm not done...

[tomh207]

1 minute ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Not quite, I really like books. There's a couple of obscure ones in here.

Much better library than mine, now where do I pick up my library card?

Tom

[Neverenoughwatches]

28 minutes ago, mbwatch said:

Oh no, theory tsunami happening here...

Here's what I know and have measured:

The lift angle of 48° is not a Hamilton factory suggestion, but rather an anecdotal number from this thread - so 48 might have been the angle measured one time on one watch (whose banking pins may have been moved, remember these American watches mount banking pins on eccentric screws for too-easy adjustment)

So I have been measuring at 48° all along, and previous checks of the balance at 180 were close enough that I didn't try to dial it in further. Until just now.

I took all the wind out of it and brought it up until the 2 arm balance was landing in the same spot on both swings and adjusted lift angle until I had 180. That angle is 45°.

I didn't do this precise a measurement before moving the banking pins, so either the LA went down 3.5° after moving them, or the original 48 number was a guideline that may not have been exactly right on this particular watch to begin with.

With slow -motion video and laying a protractor over my phone to measure the angle beyond 180 per swing, I am seeing about 240° - so less than 255 as I suspected, and pretty consistent with the difference between measuring with LA at 48 vs lower at 45. And the tg calls this 235.

If someone else wants to do the science and move their banking pins around to test amplitudes, you are welcome to. I am not messing with this one any further.

To me that makes sense..some of it. I can understand that by bringing the banking pins together that the lift angle would get smaller. The impulse pin is arriving at the fork later and leaving sooner, so taking up a smaller portion of the swing, so that now lowers the timegrapher's amplitude reading. But how that would visually cause a different size arc of the balance I dont understand...I'm clearly missing some information here and need to think a bit more about it...a bit of drawing required.   But no dont mess any further with it Michael,  you've done a marvellous job , dont risk what you've gained.

21 minutes ago, mbwatch said:

A heavier mainspring just showed up in the mail, so I guess I'm not done...

Lol quit while you're ahead ?

Edited January 15 by Neverenoughwatches

[mbwatch]

I don't trust the weishi 1900 amplitude on this movement. It takes forever to update (minutes instead of 20sec on other movements) and readings are not consistent. To me this looks like about 240, tg wants it to be 224 while the LA is at 45 (where it landed measuring 180 visually) https://imgur.com/a/MrR8tZe

And back at LA 48 it reads 240. Who knows. Why didn't Hamilton publish lift angle specs 40 years before electric timing machines were invented anyway.

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

21 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

Much better library than mine, now where do I pick up my library card?

Tom

I think actually there are a couple of library books stolen or aquired in there, not my doing. I have to behave at mine or i wont be allowed back in.

[mbwatch]

11 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Lol quit while you're ahead

Did Ahab quit while he was ahead?

[Neverenoughwatches]

24 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

Much better library than mine, now where do I pick up my library card?

Tom

The cd wallet laid on top has all the monthly Horology Times mags downloaded that Watchie posted up last year. I cant remember how many years but it took me a while to download and copy them.  Did I just say that !   I think I've read just two.

1 minute ago, mbwatch said:

Did Ahab quit while he was ahead?

Had he put a ton of effort into repairing a valuable and sentimental pocketwatch that might decide to put up more fuss ?    I admire your tenacity Michael....you crack on matey .

[JohnR725]

7 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I'm clearly missing some information

yes were missing information here is the problem

okay why do we have banking pins well to annoy watchmakers but do they serve any other purpose? The best of my knowledge the purpose of baking pins are a safety feature specifically for porn clearance and it also gives the pallet fork some place to rest when it's blocked. So ideally the banking pins should purely be adjusted for porn clearance that's it that's although the used for except as we know they have secondary consequences of changing things but does that change the angle of the lift angle? We need somebody listen computer simulation simulate this forest

we get interesting problems of from a timing machine point of view?

one of things we can see is moving the banking pins changes the law if we increase the lock that means we take more time to unlock and the more time to unlock greatly reduces amplitude. It also changes when you get your impulse which would be much later which of course reduces amplitude.

Then of course it changes the horn clearance with worst-case of the roller jewel rubbing on the horns or the guard pinned rubbing on the safety roller other things that shouldn't happen. If you have the right timing machine this will show up on a oscilloscope display. or worst-case if you play with the banking pins you get the watch where will not run at all. Sometimes on full plate watches were I can't see the banking pins or the fork I basically have to rotate for best performance which really is not the way you do these things but if you can't see what you're doing and ESC go too far in either direction the watch stops.

now we get those interesting little problems. So obviously even though mentally I don't want to grasp this at all I think somebody said I'm supposed to be on vacation right now? If I'm on vacation what am I doing why am I here? Okay so moving the banking pins from where it's supposed to be as it's supposed to be adjusted for a safety feature not used for other purposes like it's being used for. Ours is not supposed to use to play with amplitude unless of course somebody played with it before you. Which unfortunately on pocket watches they do.

so it looks like from the image  if you move the banking pen it changes when the roller jewel hits the fork which is going to screw up things but how much angle of screw up to we get here anyway? Then on the other side of the timing machine is supposed to use locking with overlap crashing into the banking pins for the other part of the signal for amplitude which obviously change a little bit if the banking pins isn't where it's supposed to be. But how much angle change is there and even if there is you can dramatically increase the lock and that will dramatically decrease the amplitude.

 

 

 

 

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

36 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

So obviously even though mentally I don't want to grasp this at all I think somebody said I'm supposed to be on vacation right now? If I'm on vacation what am I doing why am I here? 

you're here because you are kind enough to answer Tom's and mine random obscure questions. When really you could have taken the opportunity to use the subtle excuse I supplied for you, to not be here

[JohnR725]

10 hours ago, fellerts said:

Yeah, I’m wondering if that’s plausible or totally outlandish. Anyway, outlandish suggestions tend to spark some interesting discussions in these threads, so I figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask.

yes you thought it wouldn't hurt but I should be watching YouTube right now instead I'm looking at a book or two or three.

fortunately one of the books is falling apart so I will scanned that farther down the meantime let's look at other things.

10 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I'm hellish to know what John meant though.

I'm not sure you really want to know what I was thinking because? My asking a question about something I'd quoted gets the same thing that the person who asked the question gets ultimately we get a discussion and I may end up with a mild headache.

10 hours ago, tomh207 said:

Jendritskis book

which book? by the way he really sucks with indexes in his books let's start with the Swiss watch repair manual.

isn't that nice his banking pins are not movable but don't worry the famous company that puts their tools in yellow boxes will sell you a tool for bending those so yes they can be bent to make adjustments.

so in the image below and I'd have to go and look at another reference is basically it's saying that both the horn clearance the guard pin clearance is identical but another reference I have I think suggests one should be?okay and the other reference I look dad the guard pin clearance has to be equal to or less than the horn clearance. Then just a minor warning of every single reference you look at is going to have slightly different terminologies so he is going to have to deal with whatever terminology I use. It is the consequence of looking at different references over time. Then one of the references indicates the clearance on the gents watch should be no more than 0.04 mm and are going to measure that how exactly? So in other words the roller jewel has to pass really close to the Crescent to the safety roller but it must not touched. Then both sides are supposed to be equal

this is where with the balance wheel removed you can look at the fork when it's pressing on either banking PN and look straight down at the balance jewel citing off the end of the four can just make sure both sides are equally spaced and if do not equally spaced definitely somebody's played with the banking pins. Usually if they play with the banking pins they do not get the escapement symmetrical they might build to do it but usually they don't and usually they don't play with the guard pin which is really nice. So yes on American pocket watches you should always check your horn clearance and get out your feeler gauge of zero point something millimeters let me know how you managed to get that in there so basically just get it as close as possible without touching and the watch of course has to run.

continuing on to section 10

I really should airbrush out some offending text. Yes occasionally on vintage watches I've seen where people have modified the fork horns apparently it might be a sin the move the banking pins I guess? Plus other types of things it really shouldn't be done even if it is in the book although it doesn't actually say to grind the horns to oblivion either

notice the reference to the pins can be straightened it doesn't say why they got bench in the first place?

searching for something in the computer like the word escape but comes up with a lot of entries here's something from Elgin and the math I came up with 0.03 mm which is slightly better than whatever was listed up above from somewhere else. so basically the roller jewel has to pass as close as it can without touching.

if you look at things like early watches pick on American pocket watches movable banking pins as they had to make adjustments. Then we end up with banking pins shoved the end with very little adjustments other than nifty tools for bending them. Finally ending up with machined slots no banking pins at all and you're not supposed to change that.

to a certain degree there is amusement when looking at the various reference material. This is basically out of a more modern Swiss book that happens to be pink in color at least I assume that's for this came from because the artistic work looks like the same thing. It's amazing the things you accumulate with time in any case there is some minor specifications of what clearances should be based on other things.

So the peculiar wording here is they're not used to dealing with movable banking pins that have been moved to need to go back to where there supposed to be. So basically adjust the banking pins from foreign clearance if you're lucky nobody touched the guard pin you don't have to play with that and then conceivably it might have to move the pallet stones although rumor has it that this particular watch that isn't going to happen because the pallet stones are friction in

so material to read now I need to go look in the timing book see if it makes any references the banking pins at all because a baking pan isn't exactly part of the escapement sort of and that book is filled with all sorts of amusing theoretical things.

 

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

9 hours ago, tomh207 said:

@mbwatch personally I think you have done rather well on this watch. but you do know us unruly lot by now, if there’s a rabbit hole to go down, we’ll find it.

 

Tom

p.s. Especially me and Rich

So I'll admit I'm still struggling to grasp something Tom that I bet is painfully obvious, I dont want to bother John anymore though. I'll try make it simple . I've mostly understood what lift angle is for a good while now. Just an angular measurement, the amount of arc that the balance travels through the escapement which is able to registered on a timegrapher because of the noises it hears from the impulse pin as it passes through. I know the timegrapher picks up other signals as well from different parts of the escapement, but to calculate the amplitude the timegrapher just needs to hear the first and last noise. It also needs the distance of arc it travels.....which it gets from us and it needs the time it takes to travel that distance...which it can time itself. The timegrapher now know the velocity of the balance, and from that it can calculate the complete arc of the balance during one whole oscillation...that we know is called amplitude. But what I'm not quite getting is that if we change the banking pins positions, yes the lift angle is now different and if we input into the timegrapher that new lift angle then the amplitude reading it will give us will have also changed from when before the pins were moved.  So the amount of arc the balance is travelling is different because the pins have moved and that changes how the escapement performs has absolutely nothing to do with the change in lift angle ie. Lift angle in reality does not influence real amplitude only the reading that the timegrapher gives us.  I think I've just super confused myself now and probably missed something really obvious. 

I think what I might be missing is the fact..that a movement with a low , small lift angle does not necessarily have a different amplitude or performance compared to a movement with  hign or big lift angle.

[tomh207]

28 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

So I'll admit I'm still struggling to grasp something Tom that I bet is painfully obvious, I dont want to bother John anymore though. I'll try make it simple . I've mostly understood what lift angle is for a good while now. Just an angular measurement, the amount of arc that the balance travels through the escapement which is able to registered on a timegrapher because of the noises it hears from the impulse pin as it passes through. I know the timegrapher picks up other signals as well from different parts of the escapement, but to calculate the amplitude the timegrapher just needs to hear the first and last noise. It also needs the distance of arc it travels.....which it gets from us and it needs the time it takes to travel that distance...which it can time itself. The timegrapher now know the velocity of the balance, and from that it can calculate the complete arc of the balance during one whole oscillation...that we know is called amplitude. But what I'm not quite getting is that if we change the banking pins positions, yes the lift angle is now different and if we input into the timegrapher that new lift angle then the amplitude reading it will give us will have also changed from when before the pins were moved.  So the amount of arc the balance is travelling is different because the pins have moved and that changes how the escapement performs has absolutely nothing to do with the change in lift angle ie. Lift angle in reality does not influence real amplitude only the reading that the timegrapher gives us.  I think I've just super confused myself now and probably missed something really obvious. 

I think what I might be missing is the fact..that a movement with a low , small lift angle does not necessarily have a different amplitude or performance compared to a movement with  hign or big lift angle.

You’re making sense to me Rich, like you I am learning and this stuff is interesting. I am grateful for the information @JohnR725 gives us and his immense patience with us. Although his dictation software sometimes do make I laff . 
 

the Jendritski book I was reading John is “the watch repairers manual “ I think it is the same as you mentioned, just without the word “Swiss “.

I have a theory as to why there is a progression from adjustable/adjusting banking pins to today’s that are milled into the mainplate. When most of the watchmaking material we have learned From manufacturing tolerances were no where as tight as can be achieved today. There is an old saying in engineering, “if you can’t make it perfectly, make it adjustable “. So now my theory is that as the tolerances of milling the mainplate have reduced they are now at the point they can be considered negligible compared to the end/side shake tolerances that are required for the pivots to function correctly. Previously part of adjustment of an escapement would be a larger part of the manufacturing process because of tolerances just to get the watch to work. If as Rich hypothesis the lift angle being used in timing machines is to be used to calculate the amplitude we have an inherent potential for error in that we look up the designed lift angle and use that whereas the real lift angle could be something quite different.

This conversation is both interesting and thought provoking, always good in my book.

I’m starting to get the idea, I think, of there is only one magic amplitude number when looking at a watches timekeeping not 270 degrees as a minimum but more like 220 degrees after 24 hours running would be closer to an ideal so that during the running time of the watch balance poise errors are minimised.

as in all engineering there is a theoretical world and real world that a machine/system has to work in. Not having been immersed thoroughly in the theory and practice of horology it is sometimes too easy to latch onto something that has been read or heard that maybe tends more towards either theory or an old wives tale.

 

Tom

[JohnR725]

44 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

Although his dictation software sometimes do make I laff

amusingly somebody in a private discussion suggested I should go to chat GPT and it would improve my? okay by theory artificial intelligence should be able to what exactly? I have a theory which goes like this garbage in garbage out. In other words if for variety reasons like probably a dyslexia thing which is why I'm using dictation software anyway Ike if I flip my words around because I'm slightly out of sync with my what my brain is thinking of what comes out is not exactly in sync. Or dictation doesn't hear whatever I say correctly puts the wrong word down. Or dictation just decides to do whatever it feels like because it can. Then something like chat GPT can't.

I think at the time I was answering this for the person I was answering a question somewhere else and noticing stupid goofy knowing mistakes so I took my goofy paragraph pasted it into the chat and no it can't translated if maybe there is a command the say goofy dictation software not worded correctly please worded in intelligent fashion but it has to have something to work with and of course were discussing technical horology and that might be an issue. So basically everybody's frustrated. Although I would be happy if the dictation software would let me correct a paragraph at a time after I've done the paragraph versus what I'm supposed to stare at the screen and correct things as they occur which I do not.

 

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

last noise

technically it's not the last noise. If you look at where the sounds come from there is actually five of them. Then the roller jewel is unique crashing into the fork. but typically if you look at the waveform when people are showing it they only show three sounds because the other two are actually two sounds each overlapping. So locking should occur before crashing into the banking pin but close enough they appear to be the same thing but if were going to be nitpicking its locking.

2 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

that changes how the escapement performs

thinking about that read the PDF I attached is a lot of things that affect the oscillation system namely the escapement the biggest offender. As we know moving the banking pins changes the depth to lock if it's too great the time to unlock increases so you're wasting energy unlocking and what happens if we change when the impulse occurs? Even look in the PDF and it explains that. Then the rest of the book on precision timing is really spent with other stuff I really wish there was a index in this book where I can look up and find out all the references to banking pins but it really doesn't look like they play a big part in the book. They probably assume there where there supposed to be obviously they never worked on American pocket watch

1 hour ago, tomh207 said:

I’m starting to get the idea, I think, of there is only one magic amplitude number when looking at a watches timekeeping not 270 degrees as a minimum but more like 220 degrees after 24 hours running would be closer to an ideal so that during the running time of the watch balance poise errors are minimised.

yes the magical 220° would be really nice but not necessarily necessary. so for instance poise errors are not linear. In other words lower amplitudes have much greater effect than the high amplitudes. Then typically lower amplitude basically screws up everything across the board. Really what would be ideal it is consistent amplitude across the entire timing range which is why typically today we see watches with much longer running times as longer running times usually translate to more linear over the first 24 hours.

then because I have way more Swatch group documents here's something for older watches. Notice we have a shorter running time as opposed to 48 hours or more. Or Illinois made a pocket watch with 60 hours in one of things that advertised and promoted was how nice linear the timekeeping was. Or Hamilton 992B is interesting because even though the parts list doesn't show it it also has a another spring that will power the watch for 60 hours and yes it does keep really nice linear time over the first 24 or actually all the weight practically to the end. Which brings up the effect of properly shaped mainspring which could be a problem for anything vintage as the modern springs tend to suck sometimes. I really don't know why there seems be an incredible inconsistency of the quality of aftermarket mainsprings

so we get a variety of sizes from the sample I snipped out. Notice we get a quality difference and typically with quality will notice that the number of positions they look at the watch in increases with the higher quality watch. So while you're looking at the average rate and thinking they look similar not much difference as you get a higher quality watch more and more will of the positions have to deal of time within that range which is yes harder to do. Then notice minimum amplitude at 24 hours I think I've seen for Omega they'll take some watches down 260 but of course the watch has to keep time here some of these are down to 190. That's because the mainspring doesn't have as long of a power reserve.

oh and if you want an amusement for amplitude because typically people in the group don't discuss amplitude at 24 hours or even if their watch keeps time. Which would be better if the watch stayed at 240° over 24 hours versus starting at 300 dropping to 200? Now according to the chart I have below that can amplitude fluctuation will be fine as long as the watch Time. The watches tend to keep better time if their linear and amplitude as unfortunately amplitude does affect timekeeping.

2 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I think what I might be missing is the fact..that a movement with a low , small lift angle does not necessarily have a different amplitude or performance compared to a movement with  hign or big lift angle.

another way to look at lift angle is the amount of time the escapement screws up the oscillation of the balance wheel. this is why ideally a smaller lift angle would be preferred that a bigger lift angle. But were not designing the escapement so were stuck more or less with what we have. Or we can go to a different kind of escapement like detent escapement for chronometer I believe it's lift angle is very very tiny. Although it's not a friendly escapement if something bad happens it can be very bad for Marine chronometer of something is not quite right or if you play with your balance wheel.

2 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

But what I'm not quite getting is that if we change the banking pins positions

we end up with all sorts of interesting problems and questions. So for instance I attached a PDF a light reading may didn't attach the entire book just couple of pages on the oscillations system-level watch. We end up with interesting issues like if the depth the lock increases because we move the banking pins what's the consequence? Well the roller jewel hits the fork and spends way too much time unlocking and receives its impulse late? You can see in the PDF the consequences of the act of the wasted a whole bunch a time unlocking when you shouldn't be unlocking that long and when you receive them Paul's has affect on thickness. But putting the banking pins where there supposed to be the watch definitely runs better and yes you can see an increase in amplitude.

 

the oscillating system first three pages.pdf

[mbwatch]

Ha - I woke up to find I have an entire textbook to read on this thread.

3 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

But what I'm not quite getting is that if we change the banking pins positions, yes the lift angle is now different and if we input into the timegrapher that new lift angle then the amplitude reading it will give us will have also changed from when before the pins were moved.  So the amount of arc the balance is travelling is different because the pins have moved and that changes how the escapement performs has absolutely nothing to do with the change in lift angle ie. Lift angle in reality does not influence real amplitude only the reading that the timegrapher gives us.

Right - The lift angle changed, and the timegrapher needs to be informed of the change.

But the locking depth also changed (reduced in my case) which led to a more efficient impulse, which resulted in a real world amplitude gain of at least 25-35deg on the balance swing. Initially the timegrapher made it look more like a 40-50deg gain because it was not aware of the new lift angle. Two things happened, one of them matters to the performance of the watch and the other only matters to please the Weishi.

This might have been in a PM with John rather than back in the thread but a few days ago he told me about:

3 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

you can look at the fork when it's pressing on either banking PN and look straight down at the balance jewel citing off the end of the four can just make sure both sides are equally spaced and if do not equally spaced definitely somebody's played with the banking pins

...and I ran that test to find that the outer banking pin was noticeably farther off the balance jewel center than the inner one. The exit stone also had a deep lock. So this is why I moved the outer banking pin a little closer to the balance jewel hole. The two pins are now closer to the same spacing either side of it, probably correcting someone's change from 70 years ago.

[tomh207]

@JohnR725 having spent most of my working life in IT I can understand what you mean about garbage in - garbage out (gigo). I can figure out what you’re trying to get across to us on here John, I just find it hilarious when the technology does things like in one of your posts above replacing “horn” with “porn”, not once but twice.

i you think you have it bad with voice recognition, I’m Scottish!

Thank you for all you do here

 

Tom

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

49 minutes ago, mbwatch said:

But the locking depth also changed (reduced in my case) which led to a more efficient impulse, which resulted in a real world amplitude gain of at least 25-35deg on the balance swing. Initially the timegrapher made it look more like a 40-50deg gain because it was not aware of the new lift angle. Two things happened, one of them matters to the performance of the watch and the other only matters to please the Weishi.

I'd say that matches with what i was trying to explain Michael.  Who knew you'd cause so much discussion and a compendium of rabbit warren holes to dive down.

52 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

just find it hilarious when the technology does things like in one of your posts above replacing “horn” with “porn”, not once but twice.

My resistance to comment with that had one of my right handed fingers poised over my phone keypad for almost ten minutes Tom. Buckets of sweat were pouring from my forehead, eventually my left hand intervened, took charge and just managed to reach the power off button of my phone. It was touch and go at one point and my WRT forum membership was in dire jeopardy, luckily I pulled through it ok and things are nearly back to normal with me......I say normal........poorrrnnnnnnnnn.   

Yes there Is something not quite right with me, the medication helps to a degree. Apparently if my doctor prescribes a high dosage there could be a real danger to me, a danger that I could end up acting like a mature responsible adult, that's just a risk I'm not prepared to take. Maybe when I'm older, just not right now ....you have my sincere apologies people .

And if you if think I'm a crazy person...you should meet my daughter !!!

[JohnR725]

On 1/16/2025 at 4:48 AM, tomh207 said:

I’m Scottish!

by the way the video does not entirely make sense to me because the number 11 sounds just fine? in fact the entire conversation for the most part makes sense at all and I don't quite get sort of the Scottish joke? Yes I do hear a little bit of an accent.

then yes there are some accents in the UK that I absolutely cannot understand at all but the Scottish one doesn't seem to really be a problem at least not in the video. But maybe I have some sort of genetic biased that Scottish isn't bothering me? Ever hear of a place called Selkirk? apparently is not a very friendly place to go visit as my father told a story that his father after the war with the Selkirk knocked on the door and they wouldn't let him in. But maybe there was a reason why my ancestors left in the first place?

On 1/16/2025 at 4:44 AM, mbwatch said:

Right - The lift angle changed, and the timegrapher needs to be informed of the change.

we end up with some interesting questions and problems. Like obviously moving the banking pins from where there supposed to be outward decreases efficiency of the watch and conceivably changes the lift angle but by how much?

As I have a 992 Hamilton conveniently with the dial off. Which I do have to track down as it originally had a dial in a case and that somewhere else apparently but we have a nice 992 that I'm hoping some time perhaps over the weekend to try an experiment of moving the banking pins and seeing what effect it does have one lift angle and amplitude.

 

 

[tomh207]

@JohnR725 it was a sketch that was broadcast UK wide so the accent would be modified so everyone can understand with just a wee bit Scottishness. There are parts of Scotland that can barely understand each other, part accent, part dialect. There may be something to the genes though, my youngest only spent her first 12-18months here and picks up heavy Scottish accents and dialects easily.

 

Tom

[JohnR725]

16 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

dialects

that include things such as Gaelic?

Of course the other amusement of all of this is the perception that everyone else has an accent except you because you can't hear your own accent?

[tomh207]

32 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

that include things such as Gaelic?

Of course the other amusement of all of this is the perception that everyone else has an accent except you because you can't hear your own accent?

Gaelic is a distinct language, mostly spoken on the western islands a northwest highlands. Yes it’s funny how accents work when you hear your own voice, it’s totally different how a recording of yourself sounds compared to how you perceive it yourself.

Tom