I am a watch collector & repairer. I also have a fair, though somewhat
dated, electronics background. I have several early '60's vintage
Bulova Accutron wris****ches. These watches operate using a very basic
oscillator circuit which energizes a tuning fork via a pair of coils.
The tuning fork then drives the mechanical movement of the timepiece. A
basic description can be found he
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...72882451976629

These are very cool watches to the collector. They are stylistically
very much of their era, and because of the tuning forks, they hum,
rather than tick. The problem is, these watches were originally
designed to run on a 1.35 volt mercury oxide cell (343) which is no
longer available. There is a 1.55v silver cell which will fit, but it
can cause some Accutrons to run very fast, and possibly even damage
them. At least one supplier sells modified cells with a component to
drop the cell's voltage to 1.35 volts. I think this is accomplished
with a surface mount type diode. Here's a thread on these cells in a
watch discussion, with pictures of the component added
http://bdwf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75397 I would like to simply
insert an appropriate diode into the circuit of the watches as a one
time modification, after which I can use the much cheaper/readily
available silver cells. But, as I said, my electronic component
knowledge is late 70's vintage, so I'm not sure what component to add. I
know in general silicon diodes have a forward voltage drop on .7V,
germaniums, .3V, so I'm not sure how to produce .2V. A zener? A
Schottky? Anyone have any suggestions on what would lower the output
of the 1.55 volt cells to 1.35 volts, over the life of the cell? It
would have to be fairly small, about 1/2 the size of a 1/4 watt
resistor, or less.

TIA

Dan

D wrote:
I am a watch collector & repairer. I also have a fair, though somewhat
dated, electronics background. I have several early '60's vintage
Bulova Accutron wris****ches. These watches operate using a very basic
oscillator circuit which energizes a tuning fork via a pair of coils.
The tuning fork then drives the mechanical movement of the timepiece. A
basic description can be found he
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...72882451976629

Is there a hearing aid battery that will fit? They are listed as 1.4 volts,
but work fine in everything that uses them that I have heard of.

The only problem with them is that they need air to activate and once
opened dry out. In a watch, where the current draw is low, they would
probably last 3 to 6 months depending upon where you live.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Making your enemy reliant on software you support is the best revenge.

On 6/07/2011 2:46 PM, D wrote:
I am a watch collector & repairer. I also have a fair, though somewhat
dated, electronics background. I have several early '60's vintage Bulova
Accutron wris****ches. These watches operate using a very basic
oscillator circuit which energizes a tuning fork via a pair of coils.
The tuning fork then drives the mechanical movement of the timepiece. A
basic description can be found he
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...72882451976629

These are very cool watches to the collector. They are stylistically
very much of their era, and because of the tuning forks, they hum,
rather than tick. The problem is, these watches were originally designed
to run on a 1.35 volt mercury oxide cell (343) which is no longer
available. There is a 1.55v silver cell which will fit, but it can cause
some Accutrons to run very fast, and possibly even damage them. At least
one supplier sells modified cells with a component to drop the cell's
voltage to 1.35 volts. I think this is accomplished with a surface mount
type diode. Here's a thread on these cells in a watch discussion, with
pictures of the component added
http://bdwf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75397 I would like to simply
insert an appropriate diode into the circuit of the watches as a one
time modification, after which I can use the much cheaper/readily
available silver cells. But, as I said, my electronic component
knowledge is late 70's vintage, so I'm not sure what component to add. I
know in general silicon diodes have a forward voltage drop on .7V,
germaniums, .3V, so I'm not sure how to produce .2V. A zener? A
Schottky? Anyone have any suggestions on what would lower the output of
the 1.55 volt cells to 1.35 volts, over the life of the cell? It would
have to be fairly small, about 1/2 the size of a 1/4 watt resistor, or
less.

TIA

The forward voltage drop is more a rule of thumb approximation than a
physical reality. A diode's current versus voltage graph is a continuous
exponential curve, with the actual forward voltage drop being a function
of current.

I'd have thought these watches would draw a pretty much constant
current, knowing which would allow a resistor to be used.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/07/2011 2:46 PM, D wrote:
I am a watch collector & repairer. I also have a fair, though somewhat
dated, electronics background. I have several early '60's vintage Bulova
Accutron wris****ches. These watches operate using a very basic
oscillator circuit which energizes a tuning fork via a pair of coils.
The tuning fork then drives the mechanical movement of the timepiece. A
basic description can be found he
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...72882451976629

These are very cool watches to the collector. They are stylistically
very much of their era, and because of the tuning forks, they hum,
rather than tick. The problem is, these watches were originally designed
to run on a 1.35 volt mercury oxide cell (343) which is no longer
available. There is a 1.55v silver cell which will fit, but it can cause
some Accutrons to run very fast, and possibly even damage them. At least
one supplier sells modified cells with a component to drop the cell's
voltage to 1.35 volts. I think this is accomplished with a surface mount
type diode. Here's a thread on these cells in a watch discussion, with
pictures of the component added
http://bdwf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75397 I would like to simply
insert an appropriate diode into the circuit of the watches as a one
time modification, after which I can use the much cheaper/readily
available silver cells. But, as I said, my electronic component
knowledge is late 70's vintage, so I'm not sure what component to add. I
know in general silicon diodes have a forward voltage drop on .7V,
germaniums, .3V, so I'm not sure how to produce .2V. A zener? A
Schottky? Anyone have any suggestions on what would lower the output of
the 1.55 volt cells to 1.35 volts, over the life of the cell? It would
have to be fairly small, about 1/2 the size of a 1/4 watt resistor, or
less.

TIA

The forward voltage drop is more a rule of thumb approximation than a
physical reality. A diode's current versus voltage graph is a continuous
exponential curve, with the actual forward voltage drop being a function
of current.

I'd have thought these watches would draw a pretty much constant
current, knowing which would allow a resistor to be used.

Sylvia.




Might be interesting to know the startup current. Resistor may run it,
but starting may...or may not...be an issue. Don't forget to check it
over temperature. Yes, the arm is a quite stable environment, but
some people take their watch off occasionally.

For fun I stuck an old HP 5082 Schottky diode on the curve tracer.
200mV at 10uA.
I'd look at the spec sheets for modern SMT diodes and find one that
has the right voltage at the required current.

"D"
I am a watch collector & repairer. I also have a fair, though somewhat
dated, electronics background. I have several early '60's vintage Bulova
Accutron wris****ches. These watches operate using a very basic oscillator
circuit which energizes a tuning fork via a pair of coils. The tuning fork
then drives the mechanical movement of the timepiece. A basic description
can be found he
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...72882451976629

These are very cool watches to the collector. They are stylistically very
much of their era, and because of the tuning forks, they hum, rather than
tick. The problem is, these watches were originally designed to run on a
1.35 volt mercury oxide cell (343) which is no longer available. There is
a 1.55v silver cell which will fit, but it can cause some Accutrons to run
very fast, and possibly even damage them. At least one supplier sells
modified cells with a component to drop the cell's voltage to 1.35 volts.
I think this is accomplished with a surface mount type diode. Here's a
thread on these cells in a watch discussion, with pictures of the
component added http://bdwf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75397 I would like
to simply insert an appropriate diode into the circuit of the watches as a
one time modification, after which I can use the much cheaper/readily
available silver cells. But, as I said, my electronic component knowledge
is late 70's vintage, so I'm not sure what component to add. I know in
general silicon diodes have a forward voltage drop on .7V, germaniums,
.3V, so I'm not sure how to produce .2V. A zener? A Schottky? Anyone
have any suggestions on what would lower the output of the 1.55 volt cells
to 1.35 volts, over the life of the cell? It would have to be fairly
small, about 1/2 the size of a 1/4 watt resistor, or less.


** A Germanium diode has a 0.2 volts drop at low currents - eg sub 1mA.

SMD versions must be made by someone.

But do you know any voltage drop is really NEEDED ??




.... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.




What a crap design then.



Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

How old are you?

The Accutron was designed 50 years ago. It uses a discrete circuit, which
seemed rather marvelously miniature at the time. And the Accutron was the
first wris****ch accurate to a minute a month -- quite an achievement for a
"crap" design.

William Sommerwerck schrieb:
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message

[...]
What a crap design then.

How old are you?

The Accutron was designed 50 years ago. It uses a discrete circuit, which
seemed rather marvelously miniature at the time. And the Accutron was the
first wris****ch accurate to a minute a month -- quite an achievement for a
"crap" design.

FACK!

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fotoplot/acc.htm

Reinhard

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:46:06 -0700, D wrote:

I am a watch collector & repairer. I also have a fair, though somewhat
dated, electronics background. I have several early '60's vintage
Bulova Accutron wris****ches. These watches operate using a very basic
oscillator circuit which energizes a tuning fork via a pair of coils.
The tuning fork then drives the mechanical movement of the timepiece. A
basic description can be found he
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...72882451976629

These are very cool watches to the collector. They are stylistically
very much of their era, and because of the tuning forks, they hum,
rather than tick. The problem is, these watches were originally
designed to run on a 1.35 volt mercury oxide cell (343) which is no
longer available. There is a 1.55v silver cell which will fit, but it
can cause some Accutrons to run very fast, and possibly even damage
them. At least one supplier sells modified cells with a component to
drop the cell's voltage to 1.35 volts. I think this is accomplished
with a surface mount type diode. Here's a thread on these cells in a
watch discussion, with pictures of the component added
http://bdwf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75397 I would like to simply
insert an appropriate diode into the circuit of the watches as a one
time modification, after which I can use the much cheaper/readily
available silver cells. But, as I said, my electronic component
knowledge is late 70's vintage, so I'm not sure what component to add. I
know in general silicon diodes have a forward voltage drop on .7V,
germaniums, .3V, so I'm not sure how to produce .2V. A zener? A
Schottky? Anyone have any suggestions on what would lower the output
of the 1.55 volt cells to 1.35 volts, over the life of the cell? It
would have to be fairly small, about 1/2 the size of a 1/4 watt
resistor, or less.

TIA

Dan

I own a solid gold 1965 Accutron. My jeweler has a device he lays the
watch on, it listens to the mechanism and tells you how much the movement
is off time. He was able to adjust mine down all the way to about 30
seconds a month fast. I have no suggestion other than his suggestion that
there may be a retro-fit tuning fork out these somewhere. This was around
2004.

Do some research, you may be able to find a fix. I wouldn't screw with it
myself, that stuff is awful delicate.



--
Live Fast Die Young, Leave A Pretty Corpse

On 7/6/2011 10:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
n Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

I'm afraid your ignorance is showing.


How old are you?

The Accutron was designed 50 years ago. It uses a discrete circuit, which
seemed rather marvelously miniature at the time. And the Accutron was the
first wris****ch accurate to a minute a month -- quite an achievement for a
"crap" design.



Thanks for that, Bill. The design is quite elegant, with the ruby
tipped tuning fork tines operating a micro-toothed wheel. That, the
fact that it hums rather than ticks, and that the sweep second hand
moves smoothly like an AC clock. Very unique concept. The design was
also used in a marine chronometer for navigating longitude, which
requires high accuracy
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/exp...cfm?ID=ZAA0275. They
were also used in space, with the first Accutron timepiece sent up
aboard the Vanguard 1 satellite, which achieved orbit on March 17, 1958
(5 months before I was born). Very cool, but ya know, some people will
probably not get it, not to mention being rude enough to pointlessly
dismiss with the word "crap" something another person is sincerely
interested in.

Kids.

Here's more on the Accutron & space exploration, etc:
http://accutron.org/214/aerospace.htm

Here's a pic of one of my own Accutrons.
http://i1201.photobucket.com/albums/...gen/AAlpha.jpg An "Alpha"
from 1961. Solid 14Kt gold. Now tell me that's not a cool looking
timepiece. ;-)

The effect of the silver cells varies from watch to watch, and there
have been cases of the movement being damaged by the extra voltage. I'd
prefer not to take that risk.

Dan

On 7/6/2011 3:28 PM, Meat Plow wrote:


I own a solid gold 1965 Accutron. My jeweler has a device he lays the
watch on, it listens to the mechanism and tells you how much the movement
is off time. He was able to adjust mine down all the way to about 30
seconds a month fast. I have no suggestion other than his suggestion that
there may be a retro-fit tuning fork out these somewhere. This was around
2004.

Do some research, you may be able to find a fix. I wouldn't screw with it
myself, that stuff is awful delicate.




Thanks MP. I've worked on a lot of watches, so that part doesn't
trouble me, I just want to find the ideal way of dropping the voltage.
It is possible to adjust the action of the tuning fork, which sounds
like what your jeweler did.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.




What a crap design then.



Gareth.

Makes a bit of a mockery of the name "Accutron" ...

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

How old are you?

The Accutron was designed 50 years ago. It uses a discrete circuit, which
seemed rather marvelously miniature at the time. And the Accutron was the
first wris****ch accurate to a minute a month -- quite an achievement for
a
"crap" design.



But apparently not when you stick new batteries in, which I think is the
"crap" characteristic that Gareth was alluding to ...

Arfa

"D" wrote in message
b.com...
On 7/6/2011 10:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
n Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

I'm afraid your ignorance is showing.


How old are you?

The Accutron was designed 50 years ago. It uses a discrete circuit, which
seemed rather marvelously miniature at the time. And the Accutron was the
first wris****ch accurate to a minute a month -- quite an achievement for
a
"crap" design.



Thanks for that, Bill. The design is quite elegant, with the ruby tipped
tuning fork tines operating a micro-toothed wheel. That, the fact that it
hums rather than ticks, and that the sweep second hand moves smoothly like
an AC clock. Very unique concept. The design was also used in a marine
chronometer for navigating longitude, which requires high accuracy
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/exp...cfm?ID=ZAA0275. They were
also used in space, with the first Accutron timepiece sent up aboard the
Vanguard 1 satellite, which achieved orbit on March 17, 1958 (5 months
before I was born). Very cool, but ya know, some people will probably not
get it, not to mention being rude enough to pointlessly dismiss with the
word "crap" something another person is sincerely interested in.

Kids.

Gareth is not a kid, and is in fact a highly experienced electronic service
engineer, as are many of us on here. I'm sure that he did not intend any
direct disrespect to you personally, as that is not generally his nature.
However, just because a design is 50 years old, and was 'elegant' in its
concept, that does not make it necessarily 'good', and by today's standards,
a design that purports to be an extremely accurate timepiece, but which runs
at an incorrect speed when the batteries are replaced, probably legitimately
counts as being 'crap'.

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


Gareth is not a kid, and is in fact a highly experienced electronic
service
engineer, as are many of us on here. I'm sure that he did not intend any
direct disrespect to you personally, as that is not generally his nature.
However, just because a design is 50 years old, and was 'elegant' in its
concept, that does not make it necessarily 'good', and by today's
standards,
a design that purports to be an extremely accurate timepiece, but which
runs
at an incorrect speed when the batteries are replaced, probably
legitimately
counts as being 'crap'.

You're an intelligent person, and I never expected to hear that from you.

Mercury cells start at a slightly higher voltage than their "running"
voltage. The Accutron was designed to give accurate timing over that long
period of more-or-less stable voltage.

You'd probably find that modern watches aren't much more-accurate than an
Accutron.

On 7/07/2011 11:40 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arfa wrote in message
...


Gareth is not a kid, and is in fact a highly experienced electronic
service
engineer, as are many of us on here. I'm sure that he did not intend any
direct disrespect to you personally, as that is not generally his nature.
However, just because a design is 50 years old, and was 'elegant' in its
concept, that does not make it necessarily 'good', and by today's
standards,
a design that purports to be an extremely accurate timepiece, but which
runs
at an incorrect speed when the batteries are replaced, probably
legitimately
counts as being 'crap'.

You're an intelligent person, and I never expected to hear that from you.

Mercury cells start at a slightly higher voltage than their "running"
voltage. The Accutron was designed to give accurate timing over that long
period of more-or-less stable voltage.

You'd probably find that modern watches aren't much more-accurate than an
Accutron.


I had an earlyish quartz watch that was achieving a minute a year, which
in practical terms meant it only had to be reset at daylight saving time
changes. It's true I've seen nothing that accurate since.

Sylvia.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:11:57 -0700, D wrote:

On 7/6/2011 3:28 PM, Meat Plow wrote:


I own a solid gold 1965 Accutron. My jeweler has a device he lays the
watch on, it listens to the mechanism and tells you how much the
movement is off time. He was able to adjust mine down all the way to
about 30 seconds a month fast. I have no suggestion other than his
suggestion that there may be a retro-fit tuning fork out these
somewhere. This was around 2004.

Do some research, you may be able to find a fix. I wouldn't screw with
it myself, that stuff is awful delicate.




Thanks MP. I've worked on a lot of watches, so that part doesn't
trouble me, I just want to find the ideal way of dropping the voltage.
It is possible to adjust the action of the tuning fork, which sounds
like what your jeweler did.

Glad to offer an opinion for what it's worth. I took the watch, a gift
from my dad to the jeweler and was told immediately to not expect the same
time accuracy without a mercury battery. He was able to get it to +30
seconds a month which I could deal with. You might want to see if there
is a source for the original battery maybe from China that you could get
in a Chinese brand. I don't think they care much about the US
restrictions for mercury. I'm now wearing a gold Seiko Chronographer Date/
Time analog with three separate dials embedded into the watch face.
It's accurate to about one second a month. I don't need anything more
accurate than that. This watch is about 15 years old and takes a standard
lithium cell that lasts about 4 years.



--
Live Fast Die Young, Leave A Pretty Corpse

You'd probably find that modern watches aren't much more-accurate
than an Accutron.

I had an earlyish quartz watch that was achieving a minute a year, which
in practical terms meant it only had to be reset at daylight saving time
changes. It's true I've seen nothing that accurate since.

And I would be dishonest if I didn't admit my Casio Edifice watch is
accurate to within a few seconds a month.

On 7/6/2011 6:27 PM, Arfa Daily wrote:
elegant' in its concept, that does not make it necessarily 'good', and
by today's standards, a design that purports to be an extremely accurate
timepiece, but which runs at an incorrect speed when the batteries are
replaced, probably legitimately counts as being 'crap'.

Arfa


What was I thinking, valuing this gorgeous piece of
electronic/mechanical/engineering/jewelery-art, when I could just go to
Walmart and buy a plastic POS which will be more accurate?

I wonder why NASA didn't just do that, back in 1958???

And while we're discussing it, who are those fools who will fork over 6
figures+ for certain cars from the '20's & '30's, when a 2011 Kia
Something-Or-Other has a higher top speed and better gas mileage?

I have a "disposable" plastic POS I wear while biking, etc. It has its
place, and I'm glad to have it. But judging a 50 year old wris****ch
which was at the cutting edge of its discipline when it was made by the
TECHNICAL standards of today is pretty myopic, and misses the point
entirely.

Dan

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

How old are you?

The Accutron was designed 50 years ago. It uses a discrete circuit, which
seemed rather marvelously miniature at the time. And the Accutron was the
first wris****ch accurate to a minute a month -- quite an achievement for
a
"crap" design.



But apparently not when you stick new batteries in, which I think is the
"crap" characteristic that Gareth was alluding to ...

Arfa


Sorry, guys, the comment was meant to be funny, if a little mischievous.
And I was, as Arfa understood, merely referring to the fact it ran fast
with new batteries.

No offence intended.


Gareth.

This is a common problem with old cameras too as they often relied on the
stable voltage of a mercury cell for exposure metering. If you google for
"PX625" (which was the type of cell many cameras used) you can find quite a
lot of information. Here's one pretty comprehensive document:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/batt_adapt_us.pdf

TimB

"D" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 7/6/2011 6:27 PM, Arfa Daily wrote:
elegant' in its concept, that does not make it necessarily 'good', and
by today's standards, a design that purports to be an extremely accurate
timepiece, but which runs at an incorrect speed when the batteries are
replaced, probably legitimately counts as being 'crap'.

Arfa


What was I thinking, valuing this gorgeous piece of
electronic/mechanical/engineering/jewelery-art, when I could just go to
Walmart and buy a plastic POS which will be more accurate?

I wonder why NASA didn't just do that, back in 1958???

And while we're discussing it, who are those fools who will fork over 6
figures+ for certain cars from the '20's & '30's, when a 2011 Kia
Something-Or-Other has a higher top speed and better gas mileage?

I have a "disposable" plastic POS I wear while biking, etc. It has its
place, and I'm glad to have it. But judging a 50 year old wris****ch
which was at the cutting edge of its discipline when it was made by the
TECHNICAL standards of today is pretty myopic, and misses the point
entirely.

Dan



I think perhaps it is you that misses the point that was being made here,
friend. I assume that you are from the left side of the pond ? Both myself
and Gareth are from the right side, and it seems to me that you might have
fallen into the usenet 'language trap', and are taking the word "crap" to
have an entirely different level of meaning to that which was intended. It
is used much less literally here than it is in the U.S. Calling your babies
"crap" was merely a tongue-in-cheek poke of fun.

As to cars, for sure, I appreciate a vintage model. I personally wouldn't
hand over large wedges of cash for one - unless I had so much that it was
meaningless in terms of 'real' value - but going down the road of
evaluation, just because a car is rare or was state of the art back when it
was made, doesn't alter the fact that compared to today's offerings - even
KIAs - it would have to count as "crap" in many respects, including
performance, reliability, comfort, economy, and although I hate to say it,
pollution.

Stop being so sensitive, and accept the remark for what it was. A simple
throw-away bit of leftpondian humour. Not a pop at you specifically, or your
hobby.

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
news


"D" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 7/6/2011 6:27 PM, Arfa Daily wrote:
elegant' in its concept, that does not make it necessarily 'good', and
by today's standards, a design that purports to be an extremely accurate
timepiece, but which runs at an incorrect speed when the batteries are
replaced, probably legitimately counts as being 'crap'.

Arfa


What was I thinking, valuing this gorgeous piece of
electronic/mechanical/engineering/jewelery-art, when I could just go to
Walmart and buy a plastic POS which will be more accurate?

I wonder why NASA didn't just do that, back in 1958???

And while we're discussing it, who are those fools who will fork over 6
figures+ for certain cars from the '20's & '30's, when a 2011 Kia
Something-Or-Other has a higher top speed and better gas mileage?

I have a "disposable" plastic POS I wear while biking, etc. It has its
place, and I'm glad to have it. But judging a 50 year old wris****ch
which was at the cutting edge of its discipline when it was made by the
TECHNICAL standards of today is pretty myopic, and misses the point
entirely.

Dan



I think perhaps it is you that misses the point that was being made here,
friend. I assume that you are from the left side of the pond ? Both myself
and Gareth are from the right side, and it seems to me that you might have
fallen into the usenet 'language trap', and are taking the word "crap" to
have an entirely different level of meaning to that which was intended. It
is used much less literally here than it is in the U.S. Calling your
babies "crap" was merely a tongue-in-cheek poke of fun.

As to cars, for sure, I appreciate a vintage model. I personally wouldn't
hand over large wedges of cash for one - unless I had so much that it was
meaningless in terms of 'real' value - but going down the road of
evaluation, just because a car is rare or was state of the art back when
it was made, doesn't alter the fact that compared to today's offerings -
even KIAs - it would have to count as "crap" in many respects, including
performance, reliability, comfort, economy, and although I hate to say it,
pollution.

Stop being so sensitive, and accept the remark for what it was. A simple
throw-away bit of leftpondian humour. Not a pop at you specifically, or
your hobby.

Arfa

That should, of course, have read

.... throw-away bit of *RIGHT* - pondian humour ... :-)

Arfa

"D" wrote in message
eb.com...

I have a "disposable" plastic POS I wear while biking, etc. It has its
place, and I'm glad to have it. But judging a 50 year old wris****ch
which was at the cutting edge of its discipline when it was made by the
TECHNICAL standards of today is pretty myopic, and misses the point
entirely.

The Accutron site referenced states that the stepper wheel was made using a
proprietary process that other companies were unable to duplicate. In fact,
the machine used to make it was deliberately destroyed by the company that
bought out Bulova.

I'm surprised no one has revived the Accutron. I have my father's, and when
my budget allows, I'll have a CLA performed.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to
its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

I repost this to point out that, in this context, there is nothing remotely
humorous about "crap". No reasonable person would interpret it as anything
but a slap.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to
its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

I repost this to point out that, in this context, there is nothing
remotely
humorous about "crap". No reasonable person would interpret it as anything
but a slap.



Say that again when you understand English English, rather than American
English, William. As someone from the same country as the person who said
it, I can assure you that it *was* intended as humour. I understood it as
that. You, and the OP obviously didn't. I can understand him getting it
wrong, as I don't think I've seen him as a regular poster on here, so maybe
doesn't understand the subtleties of transatlantic language exchanges, but
you know better, as you've been involved in these conversations many many
times. In fact, come to think of it, on more than one occasion, you have
been the instigator of such interchanges, having said something that others
have taken as offensive. Gareth has even posted to say that it was intended
as humour, and to apologise if it was taken as anything other than that. So
stop deliberately stirring the pot, will you ? The remark was *NOT* intended
to be offensive to the OP, any more than mine along the same lines was.
Accept that, both of you, and get over it ...

Arfa

On Jul 7, 10:29*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

...

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to
its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells..

What a crap design then.

I repost this to point out that, in this context, there is nothing
remotely
humorous about "crap". No reasonable person would interpret it as anything
but a slap.

Say that again when you understand English English, rather than American
English, William. As someone from the same country as the person who said
it, I can assure you that it *was* intended as humour. I understood it as
that. You, and the OP obviously didn't. *I can understand him getting it
wrong, as I don't think I've seen him as a regular poster on here, so maybe
doesn't understand the subtleties of transatlantic language exchanges, but
you know better, as you've been involved in these conversations many many
times. In fact, come to think of it, on more than one occasion, you have
been the instigator of such interchanges, having said something that others
have taken as offensive. Gareth has even posted to say that it was intended
as humour, and to apologise if it was taken as anything other than that. So
stop deliberately stirring the pot, will you ? The remark was *NOT* intended
to be offensive to the OP, any more than mine along the same lines was.
Accept that, both of you, and get over it ...

Arfa

If something this minor upsets everyone, what will it take to start
another world war?????????/

On Jul 6, 6:18*pm, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message

...











"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

*But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so..

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

Gareth.

Makes a bit of a mockery of the name "Accutron" ...


No one could have predicted that mercury button cells would be pulled
from the market. The more so because mercury laden twisty bulbs are
becoming all but mandatory.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to
its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.

I repost this to point out that, in this context, there is nothing
remotely
humorous about "crap". No reasonable person would interpret it as
anything
but a slap.

Say that again when you understand English English, rather than American
English, William. As someone from the same country as the person who said
it, I can assure you that it *was* intended as humour. I understood it as
that. You, and the OP obviously didn't. I can understand him getting it
wrong, as I don't think I've seen him as a regular poster on here, so
maybe
doesn't understand the subtleties of transatlantic language exchanges, but
you know better, as you've been involved in these conversations many many
times. In fact, come to think of it, on more than one occasion, you have
been the instigator of such interchanges, having said something that
others
have taken as offensive. Gareth has even posted to say that it was
intended
as humour, and to apologise if it was taken as anything other than that.
So
stop deliberately stirring the pot, will you ? The remark was *NOT*
intended
to be offensive to the OP, any more than mine along the same lines was.
Accept that, both of you, and get over it ...

Arfa, I think people too often take offense where none is intended. But if
you can't see that there is nothing even remotely suggesting humor or irony
in the exchange... It is you who needs to understand us, not the other way
around.

Believe me, as someone who has been a wise-cracker all his life, and
sometimes gotten into trouble over it, I know whereof I speak.

If something this minor upsets everyone, what will it take to start
another world war?????????

The issue isn't what was said, but Arfa's insistence that WE are supposed to
accept an obscure British usage without complaint or offense. And worse,
that we are humorless fools if we don't.

"TimB" wrote in message
...
This is a common problem with old cameras too as they often relied on the
stable voltage of a mercury cell for exposure metering.




What a crap design then.



Gareth.

On 7/7/2011 9:06 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

No one could have predicted that mercury button cells would be pulled
from the market. The more so because mercury laden twisty bulbs are
becoming all but mandatory.


That irony struck me as well. Not that I think any source of toxins
should be overlooked, or improperly dealt with, but some perspective
might be in order. I do think that in addition to being deposited in
landfills, there was concern about kids swallowing the cells. Something
only the most hardy are apt to do with compact fluorescents ;-)

On 7/7/2011 2:13 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:
Both myself and Gareth are from the right side, and it seems to me that
you might have fallen into the usenet 'language trap', and are taking
the word "crap" to have an entirely different level of meaning...
Stop being so sensitive, and accept the remark for what it was. A simple
throw-away bit of leftpondian humour. Not a pop at you specifically, or
your hobby.

Arfa

More what I found troubling and what I was attempting to correct was the
ignorance regarding the significance of these timepieces, and the very
impressive technical achievement they represent, things which users of a
NG such as this one should find interesting. In terms of the "crap"
reference, you may be right about how the word is perceived in different
cultures, but if you and your friend made a bad choice of words, why is
it *ME* (and at least one other poster who also commented on the word)
who have "fallen into the usenet language trap". Perhaps you should
stop being so INsensitive.

Dan

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:19:47 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

But do you know [whether] any voltage drop is really NEEDED?

Gee, Phil, I thought you were omniscient.

Though you'd think the mechanical nature of the Accutron's timekeeping
process would remove any interaction with the electronics, it's not so.

The user manual specifically states that the watch runs a bit fast with
new
cells, until their initially slightly high voltage "settles in" to its
nominal value. Therefore, an Accutron will run fast with modern cells.

What a crap design then.
Gareth.

Sigh. If you have ever worn a spring wound watch of the period when
the Accutron was first introduced, you might change your opinion. When
compared to todays high accuracy, low power, LCD watches, the Accutron
is indeed inferior. When compared to the commodity watches of the
early 1960's, it was a miraculous improvement.

The Accutron has one transistor and one tuning fork. If you can build
a power supply voltage insensitive oscillator watch drive, with the
technology available in the early 1960's, you're welcome to try.

http://www.elektron.demon.co.uk/accutron.html

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I forgot to mumble something about the battery problem. See:
It sorta looks like a silver oxide cell, with a shottky diode in
series to get the 1.55VDC down to 1.33 to 1.35VDC (but I'm not sure).
http://www.boomertime.com/3%20Accutron/A1688/A1688.htm

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Gareth Magennis schrieb:

[...]
And I was, as Arfa understood, merely referring to the fact it ran fast
with new batteries.

Would you blame the car for failing when you replace the 12 V car
battery by a 24 V car battery? An Accutron watch doesn't run fast if you
replace a used 1.35 V mercury oxide battery by a new 1.35 V mercury
oxide battery. So, the running fast problem has nothing to do with using
a _new_ battery; you just have to use the right (new) battery.

Reinhard

"Reinhard Zwirner" wrote in message
...
Gareth Magennis schrieb:

[...]
And I was, as Arfa understood, merely referring to the fact it ran fast
with new batteries.

Would you blame the car for failing when you replace the 12 V car
battery by a 24 V car battery? An Accutron watch doesn't run fast if you
replace a used 1.35 V mercury oxide battery by a new 1.35 V mercury
oxide battery. So, the running fast problem has nothing to do with using
a _new_ battery; you just have to use the right (new) battery.

Reinhard


Reinhard, that is all totally incorrect, you haven't been listening.



Gareth.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
If something this minor upsets everyone, what will it take to start
another world war?????????

The issue isn't what was said, but Arfa's insistence that WE are supposed
to
accept an obscure British usage without complaint or offense. And worse,
that we are humorless fools if we don't.



If the cap fits, William, if the cap fits ...

Arfa

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...


"Reinhard Zwirner" wrote in message
...
Gareth Magennis schrieb:

[...]
And I was, as Arfa understood, merely referring to the fact it ran fast
with new batteries.

Would you blame the car for failing when you replace the 12 V car
battery by a 24 V car battery? An Accutron watch doesn't run fast if you
replace a used 1.35 V mercury oxide battery by a new 1.35 V mercury
oxide battery. So, the running fast problem has nothing to do with using
a _new_ battery; you just have to use the right (new) battery.

Reinhard


Reinhard, that is all totally incorrect, you haven't been listening.



Gareth.



+1

Arfa