Quartz second hand that Sweeps?
tfo...@yahoo.com
that the Quartz second hand ticks, while the Automatic sweeps.
Is this correct?
I was in the bank the other day, and I noticed they had a giant clock
built into the wall.
I noticed the second hand was sweeping.
I doubt the clock was mechanical, so it must have been electrical
(plugged into the wall somehow behind the scenes)
So how could the second hand sweep?
Do they have quartz watches with second hands that sweep?
Thanks
Jack Denver
line frequency - this is a very old technology pre-dating quartz .
There are quartz movements with smooth sweeping hands as well but they use
more power than a stepper than only ticks briefly 1x/second - too much power
for a wristwatch battery, but no problem for a clock.
<tfo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194969411.1...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
dAz
> I always thought that one way to tell Quartz watches vs Automatics, is
> that the Quartz second hand ticks, while the Automatic sweeps.
>
> Is this correct?
the only quartz watch I know of with constant drive sweep seconds is the
Seiko spring drive, otherwise as Jack mentioned the power requirements
for a wrist watch with a constant motion seconds hand would exceed the
battery capacity
>
> I was in the bank the other day, and I noticed they had a giant clock
> built into the wall.
> I noticed the second hand was sweeping.
> I doubt the clock was mechanical, so it must have been electrical
> (plugged into the wall somehow behind the scenes)
> So how could the second hand sweep?
> Do they have quartz watches with second hands that sweep?
big clock like that would be mains powered electric, and they do make
constant drive quartz clock movements.
J. B. Wood
<dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau> wrote:
> tfo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I always thought that one way to tell Quartz watches vs Automatics, is
> > that the Quartz second hand ticks, while the Automatic sweeps.
> >
> > Is this correct?
>
> the only quartz watch I know of with constant drive sweep seconds is the
> Seiko spring drive, otherwise as Jack mentioned the power requirements
> for a wrist watch with a constant motion seconds hand would exceed the
> battery capacity
>
Hello, and while the OP was about quartz, The tuning fork Accutrons had a
continuous sweeping second hand. Maybe one in good condition would prove
satisfactory. The "Spaceview" models make great conversation pieces.
Just like wearing an original US-made LED Pulsar. Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
y_p_w
> tfor...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I always thought that one way to tell Quartz watches vs Automatics, is
> > that the Quartz second hand ticks, while the Automatic sweeps.
>
> > Is this correct?
>
> the only quartz watch I know of with constant drive sweep seconds is the
> Seiko spring drive, otherwise as Jack mentioned the power requirements
> for a wrist watch with a constant motion seconds hand would exceed the
> battery capacity
Do you mean the battery capacity or the maximum drain? I don't think
capacity is really the issue, since it obviously could be done with
normal silver oxide batteries. The specs I've seen state that a
standard drain battery is capable of a .8 mA drain, while a high drain
battery is capable of up to 8 mA. I think a 5 tick per second
sweeping hand is well within the limit. My ETA movements all have low
battery indicators where the second hand sweeps quickly once every
five seconds across a five second interval on the dial. The faster
power drain every time it sweeps is well within a battery's
capability.
I'm trying to figure out what the typical quartz watch needs for
current. Assuming 28 mAh nominal capacity and a 2 year life, I
calculated an average current of .00107 mA. Several times this, and
you're still well within a low drain battery's capability.
I have no doubt that it could be possible, but battery life would be
abysmal unless it were powered by a large lithium coin cell. Or maybe
something with a rechargeable battery or capacitor. There's a 60-100
day reserve with current autoquartz watches, so I'd think there could
be a reasonable capacity with a similar sweeping hand quartz watch
worn at least once a week.
Jack Denver
the stepper 5x as often, the battery dies 5x sooner. If there was a strong
market demand for it, it could be done - as you point out, using a long life
lithium or a rechargeable of some kind. But just as with super-accurate
quartz, etc. there is no outcry for a "better" quartz watch - the plain old
32k, 1/sec designs that have been around since the '70s seem "good enough"
for most people.
"y_p_w" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195072199.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
dAz
> In article <473a37e9$0$19803$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, dAz
> <dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau> wrote:
>
>> tfo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I always thought that one way to tell Quartz watches vs Automatics, is
>>> that the Quartz second hand ticks, while the Automatic sweeps.
>>>
>>> Is this correct?
>> the only quartz watch I know of with constant drive sweep seconds is the
>> Seiko spring drive, otherwise as Jack mentioned the power requirements
>> for a wrist watch with a constant motion seconds hand would exceed the
>> battery capacity
>>
> Hello, and while the OP was about quartz, The tuning fork Accutrons had a
> continuous sweeping second hand. Maybe one in good condition would prove
> satisfactory. The "Spaceview" models make great conversation pieces.
> Just like wearing an original US-made LED Pulsar. Sincerely,
yes I know, I still repair them on occasions, I was talking about what
you can buy now new. plus accutrons have problems with battery supply
seeing the 1.35v mercury cells are no longer available, so either
requires a special cell or retuning of the movement which is not always
successful.
y_p_w
> The concern is battery life, that's all. Not drain or anything else. Run
> the stepper 5x as often, the battery dies 5x sooner. If there was a strong
> market demand for it, it could be done - as you point out, using a long life
> lithium or a rechargeable of some kind. But just as with super-accurate
> quartz, etc. there is no outcry for a "better" quartz watch - the plain old
> 32k, 1/sec designs that have been around since the '70s seem "good enough"
> for most people.
Maybe a 303/SR44SW battery. Of course you'd have to have a really
thick case for that, or again a lithium cell might do the trick.
dAz
if you fitted one of the old size batteries of say 220mAh you might get
a couple of years on a constant drive, fine in the days when you had
electronic watches drawing 20microamps you might get 14months run time.
quartz movements commonly use 364 and 377 batteries with 20mAh and 28mAh
capacity a larger 390 is 80mAh, most quartz movement draw 1 to 2
microamps during the pulse, so a 20mAh battery would last about 2 years,
make that same motor pulse 5 times a second would reduce the battery
life by 5 so the same 20mah battery would only 5 months.
I wouldn't do it with a stepper motor anyway, you would still see the
motion stepping of the seconds hand, better with some sort of constant
spin motor, there were quartz tuning fork hybrids years ago, 300 pluses
a second makes for very smooth running.
and I am quite sure someone in Switzerland or japan have already made
one and found it not viable.
those quartz watches with no seconds only pulse the motor every 10, 20
or 30 seconds, one little seiko ladies movement uses a tiny 5mAh battery
and still gets more then 2 years running, its current consumption is way
down in the nanoamp range.
on the other side those multimotor chronographs use a large battery and
do manage more than 2 years running unless you are one of those people
who leave the chrono running all the time then you will only get 6-8
months battery life.
John S.
> I always thought that one way to tell Quartz watches vs Automatics, is
> that the Quartz second hand ticks, while the Automatic sweeps.
Sweeping describes the area covered by the seconds hand not the number
of increments per second. A sweeping seconds hand is centered on the
dial and it's arc covers most of the dial. A subseconds hand is
positioned at an outer extreme of the dial, usually at 6:00 and the
arc is much smaller.
Most electronic movements move the seconds hand in one second
increments to save electricity. There have been a very few quartz
timed movements that provided much smaller increments but they tended
to eat batteries like candy. Electronic tuning fork timed watches
move the seconds hand in a very smooth movement.
The Seiko quartz timed Spring Drive movement also provides a very
smooth seconds hand movement.
A standard mechanical movement will advance the seconds hand in
fractions of a second that are still visible on close observation.
Jack Denver
C-Cell flashlight battery) that moved the second hand perfectly smoothly
using a 400 rpm synchronous motor (geared down to 1 rpm on the second
hand). In the case of the Dilectron, the synch pulse was provided by a free
running balance wheel but this pulse could just as easily been provided by a
stepped down quartz crystal. If this design could have been reduced to
watch size it could have potentially been one of the most accurate balance
wheel based watches in history because the balance of that watch achieved
the holy grail of total free running - both impulse and escape were magnetic
(and it was ultra high beat to boot - 48kbph). But I'll bet the power
demands of the synchronous motor were much too high for a watch. However,
the synch pulse of this balance could have been divided down to 1x/sec and
used to run a stepper - this would have been a viable design that I wish
someone had built. But the timing (no pun intended) was such that quartz
oscillators became available first and put all hybrid balance
wheel/electrics in the dust bin of history.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:e7d498b7-ee43-43cd...@b36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
John S.
household current that provide a silky smooth seconds hand. I
remember when quartz timed analog watches first came out that the
jumping seconds hand was actually a selling point. There were also a
few exotic mechanical watches that provided a jumping seconds hand.
> > move the seconds hand in a very smooth movement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack Denver
idea was that it was more "exact" and modern to have have the seconds
ticked off precisely instead of the old fashioned way that all their
competitors used, where the second hand moved (more or less) smoothly. Of
course, once $10 quartz watches did exactly the same thing, suddenly it
wasn't "better" after all. IIRC, the Rolex complication did not work well
and ended up being removed from most of the watches that once had it, so
it's very rare to find a watch today that actually works that way.
Here's a post on that subject:
http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=3146583&rid=0
Apparently there were a few others beside Rolex. Oddly enough, I own a gold
Doxa that looks somewhat similar to that one, but mine does not have the
jump second complication (unfortunately for its value). Fairly odd that
they would add something as exotic as jump second to a very plain watch and
not even mention it on the dial. '50s Doxas tended to be quite basic (or
you could say cleanly styled) - note there is no calendar, no autowind, no
water resistance and (I'll bet, because again it's not mentioned) probably
no shock protection either.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:b83967d1-85e7-4ad5...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Moka Java
for time keeping ability but the Chinese market duplexes sure are
pretty. http://barrygoldberg.net/watch22.htm
R "quartz? yawn" TF
Revision
"y_p_w"
> I'm trying to figure out what the typical quartz watch needs for
> current. Assuming 28 mAh nominal capacity and a 2 year life, I
About .050 mA avg, or 50 micro-amps.
Jack Denver
" Run the stepper 5x as often, the battery dies 5x sooner. "
Making a 2 yr watch into a five month watch. Better to go in the other
direction, get rid of the seconds hand in put in a 400 beat per hr quartz,
saving 3200 solenoid pulses.
>Or maybe
> something with a rechargeable battery or capacitor.
Solar.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dAz
> "y_p_w"
>> I'm trying to figure out what the typical quartz watch needs for
>> current. Assuming 28 mAh nominal capacity and a 2 year life, I
>> calculated an average current of .00107 mA. .
>
> About .050 mA avg, or 50 micro-amps.
>
> Jack Denver
> " Run the stepper 5x as often, the battery dies 5x sooner. "
>
> Making a 2 yr watch into a five month watch. Better to go in the other
> direction, get rid of the seconds hand in put in a 400 beat per hr quartz,
> saving 3200 solenoid pulses.
>
a lot of movements that have no seconds hand pulse 3 times a minute or
180 times per hour, and you hardly notice the minute hand moving unless
you stare at it ;)
Revision
>> I'm trying to figure out what the typical quartz watch needs for
>> current. Assuming 28 mAh nominal capacity and a 2 year life, I
>> calculated an average current of .00107 mA. .
>
> About .050 mA avg, or 50 micro-amps.
It turns out that your current numbers are correct. Looking at the specs on
this 6A32 Seiko perpetual calendar it states:
Current consumption
For the whole movement: less than 1.61microamps
For the circuit block alone: less than 0.3 microamps
I just noticed that when copying text from pdf to txt that the symbol
changes from micro to m .... well that is a different subject. Well the pdf
clearly states 1.61 microamps .... that is a small amt of current .....
dAz
nah! that's huge, there are Seiko calibres that uses a 416sw battery and
runs for 3 years drawing 0.3microamps or 300nanoamps :)
a lot of ladies size calibres only draw less than a microamp, 0.8, 0.6
being typical.