1968 Seamaster 300 Homage Build and 565 Service

[JohnR725]

5 hours ago, AndyGSi said:

Try putting it directly in the timegrapher without the holder and see what results you get.

2 hours ago, neevo said:

1. Out of the movement holder doesn’t make any difference

the timing machine microphone is specifically designed to hold the watch movement. Holding a watch in a movement holder sometimes works and sometimes does not work. this is because the signal which is not an audio signal yes it's an audio frequency but the signal is a vibration and that vibration has to cleanly make contact with the metal plate on the end of the microphone where the sensor is mounted. then this subject has come up quite a bit lately on the discussion group including a confusion of exactly how the holder is supposed to hold the watch so you would hold it like in the image below.

[GPrideaux]

3 hours ago, neevo said:

Seconds pinion is indeed meshed properly. It looks like a poor photo

Ok, good.

 

3 hours ago, neevo said:

Balance above the fork goes way off on the amplitude and even the beat error is massive.

I'm keen to see @nevenbekriev's reply to this to learn the significance and what to do to address it.

[neevo]

Could it be the regulator pin adjustment? Sounds like when the hairspring is affected by gravity it’s leaning too much on one of the pins.

My guess is that’s why it’s not impacted in dial up/down and is more affected by balance above vs balance below.

[neevo]

So it looks like the hairspring is touching the inside regulator pin at rest. The stud looks fixed so I don’t think I can adjust the position using the stud, but there is a screw on the pins.

How can I adjust the position of the hairspring in the regulator pins on the 565 movement?

Edited February 21 by neevo
Improved wording

[Neverenoughwatches]

27 minutes ago, neevo said:

So it looks like the hairspring is touching the inside regulator pin at rest. The stud looks fixed so I don’t think I can adjust the position using the stud, but there is a screw on the pins.

How can I adjust the position of the hairspring in the regulator pins on the 565 movement?

The screw is holding the boot and allows it to turn, so really just keeps the hairspring from escaping the pins. The important thing is that the hairspring is concentric and flat - all the coils are evenly spaced - they should be so without any interference from the pins. So the hairspring should sit directly between the pins with minimal gap either side, just allowing enough for rate regulation. Any more than a minimal gap then the hairspring's active point can back up to the stud when amplitude starts to drop - weaker oscillations unable to bounce the hairspring between the pin's larger gap - having the effect of the rate dropping rapidly. So if the hairspring is resting on one pin, how much energy is required for it to reach the other pin at a distance. I would want to free the hairspring from between the regulation pins, check that the coils are concentric, adjust the hairspring at the stud to make them so , then tighten the pins back up with the hairspring resting in the center of a very small gap between the pins.

[neevo]

So if I understand correctly, that screw can be undone and a small amount of movement can be achieved on the regulator pins.

So this weekend I’ll remove the balance, check the hairspring for any damage or bends and if all looks good. I will look to center the regulator pins on the hairspring.

Edited February 21 by neevo
Wording change

[Neverenoughwatches]

13 minutes ago, neevo said:

if I understand correctly, that screw can be undone and a small amount of movement can be achieved on the regulator pins.

I doubt it, the screw will be just to give the boot rotation. The pins can be moved independently, ideally need to stay upright and parallel with each other.

Removing the balance won't give you all the clues as to how the hairspring wants to behave. It will let you see damage, but there are influences in the watch that act on the hairspring, such as the staff becoming fixed in its bearings and the stud then being held. Behaviour in the watch tells more story.

[neevo]

So is this leaning on the regulator pins a sign of damage or can the spring be adjusted?

For example I’m used to a NH35 where the stud can be slightly rotated to move the hairspring in relation to the pins.

But the 565 appears to have a fixed but removable stud and that doesn’t appear to be an option in this case.

[Neverenoughwatches]

2 hours ago, neevo said:

So is this leaning on the regulator pins a sign of damage or can the spring be adjusted?

I wouldn't call it damage no. It's possible that someone has bent the regulation pin at the arm, though it doesn't appear to look that way. More likely that the hairspring needs a slight adjustment at the stud to make it sit central of the pins, as long as the coils remain concentric after the adjustment. If not then open the pins to make the hairspring free, adjust to even the coils spacings then close the pins back up with the correct gap for the hairspring.  

There is no luxury of adjusting the hairspring spacing between the pins with this movement, not like with Etachron systems .The spacing is adjusted by bending the hairspring at the stud or bending the regulation pins depending on which method is required to make the coils evenly spaced.

[neevo]

Ok, clear. Thanks.

Ok I’m definitely getting some improvement which is great. I massaged the hairspring from the stud and was able to get it in the middle.

Then after some regulation I was able to get the following:

DU:

CL:

CR:

The amplitude is still taking a hit on CR but I’m pretty happy with a delta of 25 vs where it was at before.

So I might button it up for now and wear it a bit. I need to replace the date disk in the future so I’ll have another go at the hairspring when I do that. Whilst I have tweaked the hairspring in the regulator pins, there is definitely something that needs further attention because the sweep of the regulator is not perfectly on the hairspring. So when it comes out for the date disk, I’ll do a proper strip down of the balance and see if I can get it back and working properly.

Edited February 21 by neevo

[neevo]

Watch is together and I’m going to wear it for a bit before I get stuck in to getting the hairspring properly sorted. It’s not 100% as the coils near the terminal curve are a bit squashed up and I have no doubts it’s robbing some amplitude.

I had a bit of a go at sorting it but I think I was being a bit too gentle as I wasn’t really getting much change. But thought better to go slow than damage something.

So here it is at the moment. I’m very pleased! I did have a stuttering seconds hand, but a little tweak of the tension spring (adding a bit of tension) sorted that.

[nevenbekriev]

Sorry I am not able to participate al the time in the discussions. Here we see the things somehow are gone in a little wrong direction. The differences in amplitude in vertical are not connected to the hairspring. At least in You case. I tried to point to the reasons, but not enough clearly. The hairspring position between regulator pins will affect the timekeeping, but this is another thing. The amplitude differences  reasons are in more friction related to a certain position. When balance is ABOVE the pallet fork, it is closer to it. Closer is hard to imagine, but it is in the limits of radial free plays of balance bearings and in quality movements very small is enough to cause the guard finger to rub in the safety roller for example. Wear of the pivots may cause such problem, as good as change of balance from another movement for example. So here I would try to check the clearance between guard finger and roller in both sides and if there is difference, I would try to equalize thus increasing the smaller one. In movements with banking pins, slightly opening the one where the clearance is small solves the problem. Of course, different reasons also exist for such behavior, but this is what I would try first as most probable.

[neevo]

3 hours ago, nevenbekriev said:

Sorry I am not able to participate al the time in the discussions. Here we see the things somehow are gone in a little wrong direction. The differences in amplitude in vertical are not connected to the hairspring. At least in You case. I tried to point to the reasons, but not enough clearly. The hairspring position between regulator pins will affect the timekeeping, but this is another thing. The amplitude differences  reasons are in more friction related to a certain position. When balance is ABOVE the pallet fork, it is closer to it. Closer is hard to imagine, but it is in the limits of radial free plays of balance bearings and in quality movements very small is enough to cause the guard finger to rub in the safety roller for example. Wear of the pivots may cause such problem, as good as change of balance from another movement for example. So here I would try to check the clearance between guard finger and roller in both sides and if there is difference, I would try to equalize thus increasing the smaller one. In movements with banking pins, slightly opening the one where the clearance is small solves the problem. Of course, different reasons also exist for such behavior, but this is what I would try first as most probable.

Interesting! I would never have guessed anything like that. For me to diagnose should I take the power out of the watch and look with a loupe to see what the clearance is on each side by gently moving the balance from side to side to try and determine which one is tight?

Or should I look for a replacement (pallet fork or balance wheel)?

[Neverenoughwatches]

11 hours ago, nevenbekriev said:

Sorry I am not able to participate al the time in the discussions. Here we see the things somehow are gone in a little wrong direction. The differences in amplitude in vertical are not connected to the hairspring. At least in You case. I tried to point to the reasons, but not enough clearly. The hairspring position between regulator pins will affect the timekeeping, but this is another thing. The amplitude differences  reasons are in more friction related to a certain position. When balance is ABOVE the pallet fork, it is closer to it. Closer is hard to imagine, but it is in the limits of radial free plays of balance bearings and in quality movements very small is enough to cause the guard finger to rub in the safety roller for example. Wear of the pivots may cause such problem, as good as change of balance from another movement for example. So here I would try to check the clearance between guard finger and roller in both sides and if there is difference, I would try to equalize thus increasing the smaller one. In movements with banking pins, slightly opening the one where the clearance is small solves the problem. Of course, different reasons also exist for such behavior, but this is what I would try first as most probable.

i have this exact issue at the moment Nev, no banking pins though on a pin lever with bearing wear , contemplating to reduce the gaurd pin length

[neevo]

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

i have this exact issue at the moment Nev, no banking pins though on a pin lever with bearing wear , contemplating to reduce the gaurd pin length

For someone new like myself, is it worth trying to adjust the watch for potentially worn parts, or should I look to buy a new NOS pallet fork and balance staff and try and find someone in Australia who can do the staff swap?

Whilst not cheap I can source a new complete balance for about $300 and a new pallet fork for another $150

Edited February 23 by neevo

[Neverenoughwatches]

7 minutes ago, neevo said:

For someone new like myself, is it worth trying to adjust the watch for potentially worn parts, or should I look to buy a new NOS pallet fork and balance staff and try and find someone in Australia who can do the staff swap?

if the wear is in the movement, in my case plate bearings that are very prone to wear, then new parts wont fix the issue. Try the guard finger inspection first to see if nev's thoughts are correct.  this check isn't easy to spot, at x25 i was still struggling to see it. After the impulse pin has passed through the fork slot the safety feature then falls onto the gaurd finger, this prevents the lever from moving into an overbanked position in an impact situation which would stop the balance from oscillating. the guard finger should have a little shake, clearance, gap, however you want to express it, between the lever touching the banking pins and the small safety roller, the finger should not be able to freely touch the roller unless a shock to the watch happens , in which case the finger will bump off the roller and keep the lever at its banked position. The lever is under normal running situations held against the banking pin- unable to let the finger and roller touch- through the draw phase in the escapement, tension from the train on the escape wheel pulls the pallet stone further inwards on the locking face of the escape teeth (run to banking). So at this point unless a shock takes place the finger and roller shouldn't touch except when it might be possible if the sideshakes of the lever and balance bring them closer together, more possible in particular vertical postions.

[neevo]

Ok, let me have a go at checking the pallet fork engagement. Might have to read what you wrote a few times before I get the loupe out.

I found this image online and was going to triple check my thought process.

1. I assume I need to put the balance above the pallet fork where possible to replicate the conditions

2. Check the guard pin clearance to the safety roller as per the image below. It should fully clear as the balance wheel rotates from side to side.

3. Should I also be checking the fingers on the pallet fork don’t foul anything? I don’t recall seeing any banking pins on the 565 movement but maybe I need to look a bit closer.

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, neevo said:

Ok, let me have a go at checking the pallet fork engagement. Might have to read what you wrote a few times before I get the loupe out.

I found this image online and was going to triple check my thought process.

1. I assume I need to put the balance above the pallet fork where possible to replicate the conditions

2. Check the guard pin clearance to the safety roller as per the image below. It should fully clear as the balance wheel rotates from side to side.

3. Should I also be checking the fingers on the pallet fork don’t foul anything? I don’t recall seeing any banking pins on the 565 movement but maybe I need to look a bit closer.

Not quite what I was describing, this is when the impulse pin and fork horns provide safety . In the bottom picture as the balance continues to rotate anticlockwise you'll notice that the gaurd finger  ( the center pin of the fork ) takes over the safety of the escapement locking. The gaurd finger keeps the lever banked at its current position on the bottom banking pin shown. You are looking for clearance between the finger and small roller after the crescent  has moved further around. 

1 hour ago, neevo said:

assume I need to put the balance above the pallet fork where possible to replicate the conditions

No you dont need to do that , dial down on your bench you can move the balance wheel around and gently try the lever for the finger clearance. If the sideshakes of the lever and balance are excess then the finger and roller may contact easily.  

[neevo]

Thanks for the guidance. Clear on checking the movement on the bench, dial down and make sure no excessive movement in the pallet fork as the balance swings past each position.

The one bit I’m still not getting (sorry to keep asking) is which bit should not touch? Is it one arm of the pallet fork on the roller? Like this

Or the guard pin on something. I was under the impression the guard pin didn’t touch the impulse jewel as it was set below.

[Neverenoughwatches]

So I've done a little dodgy photo editing for you .....this is the clearance that we are looking for. Gaurd finger/roller safety .

Nothing should rub on the roller, this would be friction...something that kills amplitude in this case.

The fork horns and impulse clearance take over the safety when the finger passes through the cresent as in the top diagram.  There is a lot more to it than this , but this is the rubbing that Nev was referring to.

And no the gaurd finger shouldn't touch the impulse pin , the only parts that should touch it are the insides of the fork slot that give it a shove ( impulse )

[neevo]

Great. Thanks for explaining it (repeatedly) to me. Helps me understand clearly what I’m supposed to be checking.

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, neevo said:

Great. Thanks for explaining it (repeatedly) to me. Helps me understand clearly what I’m supposed to be checking.

Ignore the impulse pin position, i rubbed enough out , it should be directly in front of the passing cresent.

[JohnR725]

maybe it would help if you had a sideways view of the escapement. As you can see the roller jewel comes down far enough to engage the fork slot but not touch the guard pin which is much farther down.

 

[nevenbekriev]

Here I have better drawing to show what checks is needed to do.

The red arrows show where the clearance or free play must be present. If You look at downside right part, the green arrows show how the fork must be free to make some movement between banking and the roller. This movement, thou small, must exist enough to ensure no friction allowing balance to rotate free outside limits of lift angle. As the fork is hard to be accessed due presence of the balance wheel and hairspring, much easier is to reach the part with the stone, so the blue arrows show where it is convenient to check for presence of the free play. This is not obligatory, but more convenient to remove all other parts from the movement for the checks. The balance should be turned to different positions in both directions and hold there while the free play checked.

[Neverenoughwatches]

10 minutes ago, nevenbekriev said:

Here I have better drawing to show what checks is needed to do.

The red arrows show where the clearance or free play must be present. If You look at downside right part, the green arrows show how the fork must be free to make some movement between banking and the roller. This movement, thou small, must exist enough to ensure no friction allowing balance to rotate free outside limits of lift angle. As the fork is hard to be accessed due presence of the balance wheel and hairspring, much easier is to reach the part with the stone, so the blue arrows show where it is convenient to check for presence of the free play. This is not obligatory, but more convenient to remove all other parts from the movement for the checks. The balance should be turned to different positions in both directions and hold there while the free play checked.

If I can ask a quick question Nev, I have a safety guard rubbing on the the roller. A Timex ...pin lever, no banking pins. There is very little or no draw in the  escapement, the lever appears free to move and let the gaurd touch, also due to lever pivot wear. Just wanted to ask before I reduce the gaurd length.