Watch pressure testing: dry vs wet?

[stockae92]

Planning on taking a few of my older pieces for pressure testing. I am not going to dive with them, but just for a peace of mind.

So I suppose there are 2 kinds of pressure test, one wet and the other one dry.

Anybody has insight on which one is better? More accurate? Dry "seems" to be a better idea cause the idea of "wet" and "failed pressure test" doesn't go well in my head.

[GerardoG]

Originally Posted by stockae92

Planning on taking a few of my older pieces for pressure testing. I am not going to dive with them, but just for a peace of mind.

So I suppose there are 2 kinds of pressure test, one wet and the other one dry.

Anybody has insight on which one is better? More accurate? Dry "seems" to be a better idea cause the idea of "wet" and "failed pressure test" doesn't go well in my head.

One of the standard tests at Rolex AD is actually a vacuum test. Head is submerged in water and air pulled out, so bubbles would come out of the case in case of failure. No water would go inside the case.

[Burlington]

When AP tested mine it was with the crowns open. I assumed it hadn’t come into contact with water but am equally curious to learn more about the actual process.

[toxicavenger]

Personally they both are testing for the same goal, water resistance. They will both tell you if it fails or not. That is the only thing to worry about.

[Bob the brush]

I'm curious, how does the dry test work, and how is this carried out. I had a couple of my watches pressure tested last year, I asked the person about this, and he just said " we use a machine" , and was no more forthcoming,.

[GerardoG]

Let me put it this way: they will not damage your watch under any circumstance. The idea of the test is to make sure all seals are ok, not to damage the watch. IMHO, either one is perfectly fine.

[kilyung]

I own both a dry and wet tester. I use both on my watches annually. The dry tester measures the minute change in crystal seat height under pressure. If there’s a leak, the crystal height won’t change. The wet tester pressurizes the air in a leaky watch and when dunked in water, you can see where the leak is. If there’s no leak, then no bubbles.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by stockae92

. . .Anybody has insight on which one is better? More accurate? Dry "seems" to be a better idea cause the idea of "wet" and "failed pressure test" doesn't go well in my head.

The watch is put in a chamber with water beneath, and the whole thing pressurized.

If there is any leak in the watch, the watch becomes pressurized; (the inside is filled with pressurized air). You lower the watch into the water and release the pressure in the tank.

As it is lowered into the water, if there is a leak, it bubbles - the air inside is pushing out and so no water will get inside..

The wet method allows you to pressurize the chamber to a "rated depth".

[HobokenRolex]

Will RSC test a watch for free or a small fee? I’m going diving in March and would like my Sub tested ahead of time. It’s 5 years old so better safe than sorry.

[breitlings]

I know they are supposed to be equivalent, but there have been posts on here who have mentioned their watches have failed dry tests, and passed wet test.

[m j b]

Originally Posted by HobokenRolex

Will RSC test a watch for free or a small fee? I’m going diving in March and would like my Sub tested ahead of time. It’s 5 years old so better safe than sorry.

Ain't nothin' free.

As long as the watch has never been opened and you have a submariner or similarly qualified watch, I'd suggest that you'll be fine. But sure, better safe than sorry.

[W&D]

Apologies for reviving an old thread but I think I may have been testing my watches in a wet pressure testing device incorrectly?. I pressurised the watch dry in the chamber and then dunked the watch into the water to look for bubbles but didn't release the pressure until AFTER I pulled the watch back out into the dry area. I assumed as water cant be pressurised that the bubbles would show if there was a leak?. Am I wrong on this?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by W&D

Apologies for reviving an old thread but I think I may have been testing my watches in a wet pressure testing device incorrectly?. I pressurised the watch dry in the chamber and then dunked the watch into the water to look for bubbles but didn't release the pressure until AFTER I pulled the watch back out into the dry area. I assumed as water cant be pressurised that the bubbles would show if there was a leak?. Am I wrong on this?

Yes.

The water is at the same pressure as the pressurised air in the cylinder.
Under your test procedure, if the seals are faulty, it is possible that water will enter the watch as the internal/external pressure continues to equalise.

Do not do this anymore.

I have converted my wet tester to a dry tester using a crystal deflection method.

No chance of water issues.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by W&D

Apologies for reviving an old thread but I think I may have been testing my watches in a wet pressure testing device incorrectly?. I pressurised the watch dry in the chamber and then dunked the watch into the water to look for bubbles but didn't release the pressure until AFTER I pulled the watch back out into the dry area. I assumed as water cant be pressurised that the bubbles would show if there was a leak?. Am I wrong on this?

The water will not compress, true, but the pressure in the case will still be the basis against which the watch internal pressure reacts. If you do not release the case pressure, then there will not be a lower pressure point (the above air void) that your potentially positive pressurized watch will "leak" to.