32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Why timegrapher measurements and all my graphs with 32xx data?

Because I am curious, every day, and do not want to stop learning.

The usefulness of the diagrams I have shown in posts #3652 and #3685, which contain measurement data for the so-called 32xx isochronism, may not be so obvious to some members.

If you look at the following three points in such a diagram, one can get a good picture of the health of a 32xx movement:

(1) The maximum value of the average amplitude (X-Amplitude), which is usually measured after a full winding. This value should be as high as possible.

(2) The slope "m" of the fitted curve for the data points. It should be as high as possible, which means that the caliber rates do not depend (strongly) on the caliber amplitude, which is called isochronism.

(3) The average rate (X-Rate) after full winding, which should be inside COSC or better in the -2/+2 sec/day range.

If you repeat this rather simple timegrapher measurements, only about 2-3 times per year, you can detect significant movement changes, e.g., a slow decrease in maximum amplitude (after full winding) after several months. This would allow any interested 32xx owner to perform a simple analysis of his 32xx watch.

The presented isochronism analysis does NOT solve the movement problem, it does NOT detect the root cause of the 32xx issues, it does NOT answer "when Rolex will have a permanent fix" ….

BUT it enables any watch owner to do a simple diagnostic. It is obvious how VERY useful a timegrapher can be, despite the so many negative posts against this instrument and against members who do care about accuracy (and precision) of their Rolex watches.

[Easy E]

For kicks I ran my DD40 measurements out to 60hrs. I have done that previously on a couple of watches, including the DD40 prior to repair. So far I have found the 60hr readings to represent near useless rates and amplitudes. On my recently repaired DD40 the difference between pre and post service are rather distinct.

Pre 60hr AvgRate -26.12, AvgAmp 147.4
Post 60Hr AvgRate -6.36, AvgAmp 159.6

FWIW

[HiBoost]

If there is one bright side to this issue, it is the ease of detection. You don't have to be a super genius with exotic equipment, any normal person who takes a few measurements can clearly see the trend. One horizontal reading, one vertical, at full wind and again at 24 hours, are all you need. Write them down and repeat in 6 months. Done. You literally can't miss it.


Perhaps I should make a framed print of this and try to exhibit it in a gallery in Geneva. I could call it "Death Of An Icon."

rolexturnstopoop.jpg

[Vince_76]

What’s the best iPhone app to track performance?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

What’s the best iPhone app to track performance?

WatchTracker

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by saxo3

WatchTracker

Thanks. Wish it was free. Downloaded ToolWatch

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

For kicks I ran my DD40 measurements out to 60hrs. I have done that previously on a couple of watches, including the DD40 prior to repair. So far I have found the 60hr readings to represent near useless rates and amplitudes. On my recently repaired DD40 the difference between pre and post service are rather distinct.

Pre 60hr AvgRate -26.12, AvgAmp 147.4

Post 60Hr AvgRate -6.36, AvgAmp 159.6

FWIW

Well done, interesting to measure all 5 positions beyond 48 hours after full winding, 24 is for rookies.

Significant caliber improvement after service; especially visible in the linearity of the updated isochronism graph (right plot).

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Thanks. Wish it was free. Downloaded ToolWatch

It’s worth the 10 bucks. I’ve used it for years without issue.

~ Sheldon

[Michael N Q8]

Some positive news.

I was an early contributor to this issue with my 2018 BLRO. It was serviced in Feb 21 (more than 2 years ago) and I have been using it on and off since then. I did a comparison in August 22 and it seemed to not have developed this issue at that stage. I then went through a Daytona wearing phase and neglected the BLRO for a while.

I have been wearing it a bit recently and I am relieved to say that it is not showing signs of this problem. While I have not done a set of readings over the power reserve range since Aug 22, I have been alternating it with my 116600 and it has been maintaining accuracy and some quick measurements are showing amplitude well above 200, small beat errors and around 1-2 sec per day which is confirmed with observations compared to an atomic clock.

I will take some more measurements to see what is happening over a full reserve, but it seems to be performing well now. Holding thumbs...