Watches
Barry Glasgow
In article <3va06u$e...@nntp.interaccess.com>, j...@interaccess.com (J.T. Piekarczyk) writes:
|> I've been looking at getting a new watch. I want something that can
|> take some abuse and is easy to read in darkness. I've seen watches
|> that said they were luminous. My understanding of luminous is that
|> you shine your light on the watch and hope it still glows five minutes
|> later in darkness. Now I've seen watches advertised as having Tritium
|> lumination. What is that? I once saw a watch that had a special
|> chemical on the hands and markers that produced it's own light
|> compared to the glow in the dark version that went dim shortly after
|> being exposed to light. Is that Tritium? I'm looking for something
|> with hands (I already have a Timex Indiglo.)
|>
There's nothing wrong with the Indiglo (except the need for a battery -
which the true survivalist would frown upon).
My Timex goes everywhere with me and has taken quite a pounding,
many submersions and is still "ticking" after 3 years.
I'm hoping any replacement battery I get later has the same endurance.
I use the alarm to wake up in the morning and the stopwatch comes
in handy at times.
The Indiglo is the best illumination on a watch that I've ever seen.
Barry
Julie Cochrane
>I've been looking at getting a new watch. I want something that can
>take some abuse and is easy to read in darkness. I've seen watches
>that said they were luminous. My understanding of luminous is that
>you shine your light on the watch and hope it still glows five minutes
>later in darkness. Now I've seen watches advertised as having Tritium
>lumination. What is that? I once saw a watch that had a special
>chemical on the hands and markers that produced it's own light
>compared to the glow in the dark version that went dim shortly after
>being exposed to light. Is that Tritium? I'm looking for something
>with hands (I already have a Timex Indiglo.)
>Awhile ago someone posted a message asking about a watch offered by
>Ken Nolan, Inc. The add compared the watch to that a Rolex. Had
>Tritium hands and was water and shock resistant. For the low low
>price of 159.95. I was wondering if who ever posted the question ever
>got any response or if they bought it and if they did what do they
>think of the watch?
The best watch I ever had for low-light conditions, for the money,
was a plain old timex with a light face that had a bit of a sheen
to it, and black hands. That thing would pick up even the tiniest
amount of light on the face, and throw the hands into sharp relief.
It was great for necking in the back of the car as a teenager. :-)
Always knew when it was time to climb over the seat and drive home,
without having to turn on the interior lights, etc. :-) :-) :-)
The thing was readily readable by ambient moonlight at night way
out in the boonies on all but the most moonless or cloud-covered
nights. It had to be *really* dark to defeat the thing.
Anyway, nothing to break other than the watch itself.
For whatever it's worth,
Julie
>Joe Piekarczyk
>j...@interaccess.com
--
Julie Cochrane
* * *
No Work Ethic, No Peace.
Hal Lillywhite
> Now I've seen watches advertised as having Tritium
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Chemically it acts
like hydrogen but it decays with a half life of about 11 years (if I
remember correctly) emitting electrons. To make a luminous material
a tritium compound is mixed with a phosphor (a chemical which gives
off visible light when supplied with energy). The tritium decay
provides the energy and the phosphor converts that energy to visible
light.
Don't let the "radioactive" property of tritium scare you. The
radiation it emits is easily stopped and almost certainly never gets
outside the watch case and cover in any significant quantity. You
are in greater danger from radiation walking around on a sunny day.
HM3C
night light, 2 alarms, countdown timer, chronometer, keeps 2 time
zones (one can be in military time if you want.) Water proof,
apparently impact resistant as it has not even a scratch, this after
a 7-8 pound metal rail fail on it from a height of 4 feet (ouch,
my arm didn't fair so well.)
Oh, and a compass ring. All that for around $55.00 to $59.00
Love it. Keeps *excellent* time too.
-McDaniel -- speaking for himself.
J.T. Piekarczyk
take some abuse and is easy to read in darkness. I've seen watches
that said they were luminous. My understanding of luminous is that
you shine your light on the watch and hope it still glows five minutes
later in darkness. Now I've seen watches advertised as having Tritium
lumination. What is that? I once saw a watch that had a special
chemical on the hands and markers that produced it's own light
compared to the glow in the dark version that went dim shortly after
being exposed to light. Is that Tritium? I'm looking for something
with hands (I already have a Timex Indiglo.)
Awhile ago someone posted a message asking about a watch offered by
Ken Nolan, Inc. The add compared the watch to that a Rolex. Had
Tritium hands and was water and shock resistant. For the low low
price of 159.95. I was wondering if who ever posted the question ever
got any response or if they bought it and if they did what do they
think of the watch?
Joe Piekarczyk
j...@interaccess.com
Steven Chance
: The watch offered by Ken Nolan is manufactured by a company called
: MilTime. It's a self-winding watch with a combination of tritium dioxide
: and luminesent paint on the hands and hour marks. It can be momentarily
: charged by a light source to give a highly intense glow, and will also
: glow independently, although not as brightly. I have the version with the
: stainless steel band, and it is an excellent watch. It is also waterproof
: to 20 atmospheres (300 feet) and has a virtually scratchproof mineral
: crystal. I had the watch regulated by a watch repairman, and it is never
: off by more than a minute (I adjust my watch to the Naval observatory's
: atomic cloc about twice a month). I paid much more that the $159.95 that
: Ken Nolan is asking, and I still feel that I got a bargain.
For my money, the Casio G-Shock (original model from 1988) is the best
watch I have ever owned, after a host of Timex and Pulsars. Still on the
original battery and keeps very accurate time. Waterproof to 200 meters,
and I've never met a diver while living in the Florida Keys who ever went
that deep, so I woulkd say thats plenty waterproof. And the G-Shock is
without a doubt the most shockproof watch in the world for under $75.00.
Chance
cha...@nix.com
Michael Stovall
is water and shock resistant, (its not a dive watch but I have
snorkeled,swam and whitewater rafted with it. I wanted a watch I could
read in the predawn light of the woods to verify legal shooting hours.
This watch has not failed me. It keeps time like a, well, Swiss watch.
The only serious drawback is that this watch runs on a battery, it
will just have to do until I can afford a Rolex submariner.This watch
sell for under $100 at finer department stores and some outdoor
equipment outfitters ( REI, U.S. Cav, Bon Marche) This is just my $.02
FWIW
Mike Stovall
J.T. Piekarczyk
>The best watch I ever had for low-light conditions, for the money,
>was a plain old timex with a light face that had a bit of a sheen
>to it, and black hands. That thing would pick up even the tiniest
>amount of light on the face, and throw the hands into sharp relief.
I hate to admit but I never even thought of that. It seems obvious.
Not to mention cheap.
>It was great for necking in the back of the car as a teenager. :-)
Julie - YOU??? Tsk. Tsk. :-)
Joe
Patton M Turner
>I went through 5 watches in the military and then purchased a stainless
>steel Rolex (23 years ago). I've had the crystal polished (11 years ago)
>and the watch cleaned and adjusted (2 years ago). This watch probably
>will out-live me. No batteries are needed. Yes it is verrrrry expensive
>to purchase but the value holds up pretty good over time.
I'll second that, but the time keeping sucks. I went through 3 watches
every 2 years until I got my rolex. The best feature is the locking
band. Having almost dropped a Sekio from a 350' tower I will never climb
again with a watch band less secure than the rolex's. Now if only it
didn't loose several minutes per month.
Pat
Steve Harris
can be wound manual, water proof to 200 or 300 meters, and severly
shock resistant. It cost $45 at a russian store in St Louis MO. The
hands glow quite nicely too, there is hardly a time when I cannot read
the hands in the dark. I do not know what they used, I just hope that
I do not start to glow in the dark someday.
sha...@sojourn.com
Paul Hsieh
Technical Intelligence-MN-USA <tec...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>This opens this whole issue of analog vs. digital watches, though
>self- winding has its advantages if all of a sudden there's no
>more 7-11, k-mart or sam's club to go buy batteries.
Seiko makes watches with a technology which they call "Kinetic
Quartz". These watches have the accuracy of a quartz digital watch, but
they do not require batteries. Instead, normal everyday hand motion
drives a small mechanical device within the mechanism which charges a
capacitor. The capacitor holds enough charge to keep the watch powered
for at least 72 hours when it is fully charged.
During the 3 years I've owned my Kinetic Quartz Seiko, the charge has
never run out during normal daily wear. It is possible to check the
current charge status by pushing a button -- an indicator will let you
know if you have 72 hours of charge, 48 hours of charge, 24 hours of
charge, or less than 3 hours of charge. Once, as an experiement, I let it
run down to 3 hours of charge by leaving it unworn on my dresser for a few
days. It only took a few minutes of gentle shaking to restore it to full
charge.
In addition the watch is water resistant to 150 meters. I don't
know how shock resistant it is.
The technology is truly wonderful, and I like the idea of quartz
accuracy without ever having to worry about batteries. As long as I am
willing to wear it on my wrist at least once every 3 days, it will run
perfectly well indefinitely.
However, the watch is expensive -- when I purchased it in the fall of
1992, it was over $400. I don't know if the price has come down since
then. But it is sleek and handsome and it looks like any other
good-quality gentleman's dress watch. I've been very satisfied with it,
and I recommend it to anyone else whole-heartedly and without
reservations.
(For the record, I have no affiliation with the Seiko company,
except for being a happy customer.)
=====================================================================
|| || "What do you mean, 'Keep down'? Those Rebels ||
|| Paul S. Hsieh || couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." ||
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || ||
|| || --- Last words of Union Gen. John Sedgwick, ||
|| || Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse, 1864 ||
=====================================================================
Technical Intelligence-MN-USA
: I'll second that, but the time keeping sucks. I went through 3 watches
: every 2 years until I got my rolex. The best feature is the locking
: band. Having almost dropped a Sekio from a 350' tower I will never climb
: again with a watch band less secure than the rolex's. Now if only it
: didn't loose several minutes per month.
anyone got a table of watch/drift-per-month/price?
From Pat's statement, it looks like a Rolex is no more accurate than
a $50 digital watch. Perhaps less, even.
This opens this whole issue of analog vs. digital watches, though
self- winding has its advantages if all of a sudden there's no
more 7-11, k-mart or sam's club to go buy batteries.
Ed
--
Technical Intelligence - voice 612 225 0954 fax 612 222 2353
PO Box 11145 - tec...@winternet.com
Saint Paul, MN 55111 USA - http://www.winternet.com/~techint/
computer sales-training-consulting, Amway sales, water purifier sales
Chester Bateman
ADV5500 and put it through a lot of rigorous circumstances ( field
archaeology in the British Columbia interior and coast, hunting, diving
etc..). Price: 450.00. Sector will service the watch and re-seal (&
test it) the screw down back as long as I own it -- free. The watch is
cut out of soild stainless steel with Swiss movements and a Italian
design. Watches are similar to guns (like most tools I guess) in that
you need to define what you want it to do and in what conditions. I
would vote for Rolex as well, my dad is a rancher in Texas and has worn a
Rolex everyday for twenty years. He calls it his Texas Timex :-)
However, if you need the money go buy a g-shock and save your hard earned
cash for wilderness first aid training, medicine, seed, food storage
system, shortwave radio, water purification system etc.. Just my .02
Chester
Oregon
Freedom of press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
- A.J. Liebling
>I know Rolex watches are suppose to be tough but I would have a
>problem wearing one as an every day watch. (That is if I could
>actually afford one.) I know you are suppose to be able to roll over
>it with a truck and it will still work but are they really worth that
>kind of money? How about something like a Sector watch or a TAG Heuer
>watch? Those are suppose to be tough watches (according to their
>ads). I've seen some nice looking watches from both companies in the
>$500 price range (+/- $100 depending on style and looks). If they are
>half way decent I could purchase a couple as back up watches (and a
>small car) for the price of some of the Rolex watches. Don't get me
>wrong - I've wanted a Rolex since I was about 10. I saw one I liked
>in a store window. It just looked sharp. Such a deal at $12,000.
>But is a Rolex really that much better then some of the "sport"
>watches on the market currently?
>
>
>
J.T. Piekarczyk
>I went through 5 watches in the military and then purchased a stainless
>steel Rolex (23 years ago). I've had the crystal polished (11 years ago)
>and the watch cleaned and adjusted (2 years ago). This watch probably
>will out-live me. No batteries are needed. Yes it is verrrrry expensive
>to purchase but the value holds up pretty good over time.
I know Rolex watches are suppose to be tough but I would have a
Charles Scripter
> MilTime. It's a self-winding watch with a combination of tritium dioxide
Just a nit, tritium dioxide would be TO2; Wouldn't your watch have
T2O ("heavy water" with one or both of the normal (common) Hydrogen-1
replaced by Hydrogen-3 (Tritium))...
--
Charles Scripter * cesc...@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
Charles Scripter
(tec...@winternet.com) wrote:
> This opens this whole issue of analog vs. digital watches, though
> self- winding has its advantages if all of a sudden there's no
> more 7-11, k-mart or sam's club to go buy batteries.
I'll tell you, my favorite watch is the $20 Casio 50-M water
resistant digital. My experience is that the battery life is longer
than the watch life. I've had my current one for probably 5 years and
have never had to replace the battery. I never replaced the battery
in my previous one, either (same model); I lost it in a river after
owning it for about the same amount of time...
I don't wear analog watches as I tend to magnetize them...
Personally, for long term timekeeping, I'd rely on a sundial...
James Collins
>problem wearing one as an every day watch. (That is if I could
>actually afford one.) I know you are suppose to be able to roll over
>it with a truck and it will still work but are they really worth that
>kind of money? How about something like a Sector watch or a TAG Heuer
As a note on the Rolex watches. My boss has one. After the Jan
Earthquake here in the Northridge area, we were working at cleaning up
the business, and we noticed his crystal had been totally shattered.
How it got that way, we don't know. It wasn't like we were banging it
against anything, but it looked like someone had hit it with a hammer.
The watch itself was fine though. Took a bit of work for the repairman
to get all the crystal shards out though... Personally, well, maybe I am
cheap, but I'd stick with something like a G-Shock or the like, and spend
the rest on a pentium... :)
James
Al Margheim
.>>steel Rolex (23 years ago). I've had the crystal polished (11 years ago)
.>>and the watch cleaned and adjusted (2 years ago). This watch probably
.>>will out-live me. No batteries are needed. Yes it is verrrrry expensive
.>>to purchase but the value holds up pretty good over time.
.>
.>I know Rolex watches are suppose to be tough but I would have a
.>problem wearing one as an every day watch. (That is if I could
.>actually afford one.) I know you are suppose to be able to roll over
.>it with a truck and it will still work but are they really worth that
.>kind of money?
< snip >
.>But is a Rolex really that much better then some of the "sport"
.>watches on the market currently?
I also got my Rolex while I was in the military. My wife gave it to me as an anniversary
gift (on an enlisted man's salary--what a woman). After 19 years of daily wear it
still looks good and has never needed any service. I'm hard on watches; prior to getting the
Rolex I had to buy a new watch about once a year.
Two reasons to get a Rolex:
1) durability (they are very tough)
2) pride of ownership.
Reasons not to buy a Rolex:
1) expense
3) some thieves target Rolex wearers on the assumption they have a lot of money
2) The darn watches are not as accurate as a good digital. Mine loses 4 minutes
a month. It's consistent, but not accurate.
I love my Rolex, but if I didn't have one, it would be way down on my list of survival
equipment to buy, due to the extremely high cost. There are many other items I would
spend my limited resources on first. If cost isn't a factor, I think their durability
is reason enough to have one. They are dependable.
Al Margheim
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
company account
>n3...@netcom.com (Karl J. Alsheimer) wrote:
>>I went through 5 watches in the military and then purchased a stainless
>>steel Rolex (23 years ago). I've had the crystal polished (11 years ago)
>>and the watch cleaned and adjusted (2 years ago). This watch probably
>>will out-live me. No batteries are needed. Yes it is verrrrry expensive
>>to purchase but the value holds up pretty good over time.
>I know Rolex watches are suppose to be tough but I would have a
>problem wearing one as an every day watch. (That is if I could
>actually afford one.) I know you are suppose to be able to roll over
>it with a truck and it will still work but are they really worth that
>kind of money? How about something like a Sector watch or a TAG Heuer
>watch? Those are suppose to be tough watches (according to their
>ads). I've seen some nice looking watches from both companies in the
>$500 price range (+/- $100 depending on style and looks). If they are
>half way decent I could purchase a couple as back up watches (and a
>small car) for the price of some of the Rolex watches. Don't get me
>wrong - I've wanted a Rolex since I was about 10. I saw one I liked
>in a store window. It just looked sharp. Such a deal at $12,000.
>But is a Rolex really that much better then some of the "sport"
>watches on the market currently?
Get a good Timex. I like my Timex "Expedition" (as mentioned previously.)
Like I said, I droped a 7 pound metal object on it by accident, not
even a scratch (from a height of 4 1/2 feet or so.)
More details? Mail me. Cost: Under $60. US
Abe D. Lockman
> In article <3vk420$n...@nntp.interaccess.com>, j...@interaccess.com says...
> >
> < snip >
> .>But is a Rolex really that much better then some of the "sport"
> .>watches on the market currently?
>
>
money
> 2) The darn watches are not as accurate as a good digital. Mine
loses 4 minutes
> a month. It's consistent, but not accurate.
>
Rolex's, like other mechanical watches, combine the twin virtues of higher
cost and lower accuracy. (But I have one anyway, in case I get stranded
for years without access to battery supplies).
adl
s...@bigbird.rad.washington.edu
[...]
>Reasons not to buy a Rolex:
> 1) expense
> 2) The darn watches are not as accurate as a good digital. Mine loses 4 minutes
> a month. It's consistent, but not accurate.
if a timepiece is consistant,
can't the speed be adjusted to keep time better?
(i.e. in your case can't something be done to speed it up a bit).
ch...@marsh.com
I understand Rolex sells its ($$$) mechanical watches as "rated
chronometers." This is an old term, but it means the rate of loss or gain
will be very consistent under consistent useage conditions. Old navigation
books, pre-quartz-oscillator and before WWV/CHU reception was a $20 radio,
talked about multiplying chronometer RATE by the days elapsed since the
thing was set accurately. Instead of monkeying with the innards to get
perfect fidelity to real time, which always failed, the builders went for
consistent error as the mark of a good timepiece.
For further information on adjusting mechanical timepieces, see Mark
Twain's short story "My Watch: An Instructive Tale."
Chuck.
--
*** Chuck Marsh, Visual Basic and SQL programmer/contractor **************
....Uh, hey, the TV lies! Can it do any other tricks?
URL: gopher://gopher.lm.com, see my newsletter in the Shopping Plaza.
Ron Shewchuk
>The watch offered by Ken Nolan is manufactured by a company called
>MilTime. It's a self-winding watch with a combination of tritium dioxide
>and luminesent paint on the hands and hour marks. It can be momentarily
>charged by a light source to give a highly intense glow, and will also
Hello!
Does anybody have the, address, fax#, phone# of MilTime????
Thanks in advance!
-=Ron=-
=====================
Penticton, B.C.
Canada.
=====================
=====================
JLMayhugh
source, another is Lee DeCovnick of Devon Marketing. His numbers are
(510)-945-6928 voice and (510)-945-0185 fax.
russell.nixon
Charles Scripter <cesc...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>On 28 Jul 1995 23:48:16 -0400, JLMayhugh (jlma...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>
>T2O ("heavy water" with one or both of the normal (common) Hydrogen-1
>replaced by Hydrogen-3 (Tritium))...
>
I believe that the night sights (Meprolite, etc.) use H in a phosphor-
2
++
lined glass tube to create the glow. (or is it H ?)
2
Russ Nixon, speaking strictly for himself
rcn...@cbnews.cb.att.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Two-fifteen. No ambulance needed." I. O. Greg Golden, E. C. P. D.