Miyota 8200 - It's Hacking, Jim, but not as we know it

Printable View

11th October 2006, 04:52
Kamraj

Miyota 8200 - It's Hacking, Jim, but not as we know it

I was fiddling around with my Citizen Blue Eagle (pic on Watcharama http://www.watcharama.com/ct005.htm if you want to see something like it, but mine has blue dial with irregular arabics) and noticed that, although it doesn't hack in the normal sense, if you turn the hands backwards when setting the time, the seconds hand stops, and stays stopped until tension is released. I'm not sure if this is a design feature or a design accident or a production flaw, but it does allow the time to be set with some accuracy.

The movement is a bog standard Miyota 8200, generally advertised as manual winding but non-hacking. Does anyone know if all 8200 movements do this, and if so whether doing it is likely to wreck the movement?

Kam
11th October 2006, 07:05
quoll

The Seiko 7S26 does it too - though I have noticed on both movements that it works best when the movement is not fully wound. Once you have worn it for a day or so this often will not stop the second hand.
11th October 2006, 09:24
Dave E

Likewise, I've done that on both Miyotas and Seikos, but generally only when they're not fully wound.
11th October 2006, 11:51
Griswold

My Seikos do this, as do a number of my other watches including Seconda, Roma, Hoverta and Stanley.

If you get it right (?) you can get the seconds hand to go backwards. :? Though I'm not sure that this is at all good for the movement. :shock: :wink:
11th October 2006, 12:06
ramc181

My Vostok Komandirskie does the same, but I have to remember that on release the second hand snaps forward some 5 seconds before running.

Paul
12th October 2006, 08:16
Kamraj

Thanks chaps - so much for the old myth that the only way to set the time to within seconds on a Seiko 5 is to wait for it run down, set the time (being verrry careful not to start it going again) and then frantically swing it round and round when the set time arrives.

It seems to me now that in user-terms the differences between a Miyota 8200 and a basic ETA auto movt. are not so huge, although the Miyota's obviously rather lo-beat by comparison, and I've no idea of how easy they are to regulate.

Kamraj
12th October 2006, 10:31
abraxas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamraj

.................

It seems to me now that in user-terms the differences between a Miyota 8200 and a basic ETA auto movt. are not so huge, although the Miyota's obviously rather lo-beat by comparison, and I've no idea of how easy they are to regulate.

Kamraj

Two Movements Compared the ETA 2824-2 and the Miyota 8215 Automatic
http://www.17jewel.com/two.html

john
12th October 2006, 10:51
Dave E

I think on balance I prefer the basic Miyota to the basic Seiko. I can live without hacking, but the ability to handwind a watch is just too damned useful!
12th October 2006, 10:57
Crusader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave E

I think on balance I prefer the basic Miyota to the basic Seiko. I can live without hacking, but the ability to handwind a watch is just too damned useful!

I second that. I feel better when I can fully load the mainspring when putting on a watch (knowing that I can take it off again at any time, even after an hour, without having to worry that it will stop).
12th October 2006, 10:59
abraxas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave E

I think on balance I prefer the basic Miyota to the basic Seiko. I can live without hacking, but the ability to handwind a watch is just too damned useful!

The Miyota is a better and more ubiquitous movement.

... but overall (and I am speaking in general and when comparing like with like) I feel you get a better overall package with Seiko.

john
12th October 2006, 11:06
rfrazier

In the setting position, the stem is disengaged from the winding pinion and engaged with a small wheel, which turns the minute wheel, which turns the cannon pinion and the hour wheel.

The cannon pinion is attached to the shaft of the main wheel simply by friction. In setting, this friction is overcome, so that the cannon pinion moves independently of the main wheel. By placing just the right amount of backward pressure on the stem, you can stop the main wheel from turning, which stops everything after it, including the balance and the seconds wheel (however the seconds are done). So, the pressure has to be enough to stop the main wheel, but not so much as to break the friction based connection between the cannon pinion and the shaft of the main wheel.

When the seconds hand goes backwards, you are attempting to wind the watch through the wheel train. ;)

As to harm. This might be based my misunderstanding things, but I would rather stop the watch by slight pressure stopping the main wheel than by sticking something in the balance and doing a shock stop (hacking). It might mean that the cannon pinion has to be tightened earlier, but I'm not even sure about that.

I don't mind not setting my watches to the exact time (according to my computer clock, which is corrected by ntp). But, I do like the seconds to hit the 12 at the minute. So, I just set it so it does, without stopping the movement. This just means a smooth twist and push: twisting the crown to line up the minutes, just as the seconds hits the 12, and a push of the crown in.

Best wishes,
Bob

PS If you can't stop the watch with slight backwards pressure, that's a sign that the cannon pinion probably isn't quite as tight as it should be. (On standard watches --- God only knows how things are arranged on nonstandard ones.)
RLF
12th October 2006, 11:57
Kamraj

Thanks again chaps.

John - thanks for the comparison (which also states that Miyota's non-hacking!)

Bob - thanks for the explanation, which I think I've managed to digest. Interesting that "proper" hacking may be more disruptive than applying backwards pressure.

John, Dave - on Seiko v Citizen I must say I'm a bit torn, insofar as the autos go. I've had a Seiko for ages, so there's a lot of brand loyalty there. I reckon the present bog-standard Seiko 5s only look any good because there's nothing else at that price point. The 5 superiors can be loverly, and are unbelievable VFM, but I think some of the Citizen styling is better - the Blue Eagle is IMO as good a wacky watch as anything around, the Oxy Military series have a wonderfully classic look, and some of the divers are rather less in-yer-face than the Seiko models. The bad Citizens are however awful when it comes to styling. I'm not aware of anything Citizen does to compete with the Spirit and up - in fact, bar the non-winding, the 5 Superior is probably a better package than anything comparable from Citizen, though the Citizens I've seen are slightly better priced. I reckon I'll get a small (38mm, which 6 months ago I would have called huge) Citizen diver to beat.

Kam
12th October 2006, 12:20
Dave E

I've had a bunch of Seiko divers, but have sold them all. At some stage I think I'll grab a Citizen diver, but I've found I've liked the Seiko Styling more.
12th October 2006, 14:48
DeusIrae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamraj

...if you turn the hands backwards when setting the time, the seconds hand stops, and stays stopped until tension is released.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrazier

When the seconds hand goes backwards, you are attempting to wind the watch through the wheel train.

All sounds quite normal to me (Rolex 1580 movement here).
12th October 2006, 18:00
lysanderxiii

Interesting that "proper" hacking may be more disr

The way most hack levers work is by applying slight braking pressure to the side of the balance wheel. This force is in the relm of mirco-newtons, it doesn't take much to stop the balance. You're not going to disrupt with a standard hack lever

[There is al least one movement I know of that applies a brake to the third wheel to stop the motion.]

The stalling of the movement through cannon pinon is more likely to wear out the cannon pinon faster. However, I don't think anyone is going to "hack" their watch enough to actully see the increase.

And,
"(On standard watches --- God only knows how things are arranged on nonstandard ones.)"
all movements have some form of friction clutch to isolate the hands from and setting mechanism during setting.
12th October 2006, 19:12
swanbourne

The original Glycine Airman hacked the watch by pushing a fine wire post through an aperture at 12 to halt the progress of the centre seconds hand when the crown was pulled out to the handset position.

Eddie
12th October 2006, 22:55
Griswold

Quote:

Originally Posted by swanbourne

The original Glycine Airman hacked the watch by pushing a fine wire post through an aperture at 12 to halt the progress of the centre seconds hand when the crown was pulled out to the handset position.

Eddie

Indeed it does, I have one. :) Not sure what stress (if any) this puts on the movement, but it does seem rather crude. :shock:
13th October 2006, 01:06
Steve264

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave E

I think on balance I prefer the basic Miyota to the basic Seiko. I can live without hacking, but the ability to handwind a watch is just too damned useful!

As a confirmed (desperate and non-recovering) Seikoholic, I just can never see why this is such a big deal. It takes no more time and effort to wave the watch around a bit than it does to wind it. :?

And you can do it with the watch on your wrist - which is not really an option with a screw-down crown for hand winding.
13th October 2006, 07:39
Crusader

Question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve264

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave E

I think on balance I prefer the basic Miyota to the basic Seiko. I can live without hacking, but the ability to handwind a watch is just too damned useful!

As a confirmed (desperate and non-recovering) Seikoholic, I just can never see why this is such a big deal. It takes no more time and effort to wave the watch around a bit than it does to wind it. :?

Answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusader

I feel better when I can fully load the mainspring when putting on a watch (knowing that I can take it off again at any time, even after an hour, without having to worry that it will stop).

:wink:
16th October 2006, 13:18
abraxas

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrazier

???????..

When the seconds hand goes backwards, you are attempting to wind the watch through the wheel train. ;)

As to harm. This might be based my misunderstanding things, but I would rather stop the watch by slight pressure stopping the main wheel than by sticking something in the balance and doing a shock stop (hacking). It might mean that the cannon pinion has to be tightened earlier, but I'm not even sure about that.

?????????..

Best wishes,
Bob

Horo-logically speaking, once a movement has achieved an acceptable rate then it is best left alone ...

I can go as far as to say that the process of hacking (or mission-time synchronisation) is contrary to the pure engineering principle.

I?ve been doing some research into the origins of the revolving bezel ... the first known use of the revolving bezel was by Philip Van Horn Weems (1929) in order to show minor variations in the movement-rate without interfering with the movement itself.

Recently there was this excellent Weems thread on the WUS P&M forum
http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=29814

john
16th October 2006, 14:26
rfrazier

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxas

Horo-logically speaking, once a movement has achieved an acceptable rate then it is best left alone ...

john

I'm pretty sure that in early 19th century RN, it was a capital offense to alter a ship's chronometer while it was being used. You knew the rate, and knew how long it had been running, so you could tell the time with some accuracy. Setting the time would screw everything up.

On the other hand, when I was a radio watchstander, we set the clocks using a time signal (e.g., WWV) once a day (on board ship) and once a watch (at a RCC). ;)

Best wishes,
Bob
16th October 2006, 15:45
lysanderxiii

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that in early 19th century RN, it was a capital offense to alter a ship's chronometer while it was being used. You knew the rate, and knew how long it had been running, so you could tell the time with some accuracy. Setting the time would screw everything up.

Capital offense?

Actually, if you knew the average daily error of the clock and how many day since it was set to can get a better better handle on the true time for navigational purposes*. Having people re-set the clock (prior to radio communication) would make navigation impossible.

_________________
*For example, if the ships clock runs, on average +10 seconds per day and was last set 30 days ago, you know that it is now ahead 5 minutes. This would be critical in correctly calculating your ships longitude.[/quote]
16th October 2006, 16:09
rfrazier

According to my Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea ships had 3 chronometers. With three, if one went off, you could then tell which one, or at least, you had a better chance of doing so. If you only have two, then you know that at least one is dodgy, but don't know which one.

Actual navigation would be done with a chronometer pocket watch, the "hack" watch, which was set from the ship's chronometers. A hack watch (horse, etc.) is a working, everyday watch (horse, etc.). So, "hacking" is to set the everyday watch from a reliable source, is my guess. I don't know whether it was set to the time the chronometers showed, or to the time they showed corrected for their rate. In any case, they used a hack watch for actual navigation so that they wouldn't have to move the chronometers.

Best wishes,
Bob
16th October 2006, 18:45
swanbourne

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrazier

According to my Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea ships had 3 chronometers. With three, if one went off, you could then tell which one, or at least, you had a better chance of doing so. If you only have two, then you know that at least one is dodgy, but don't know which one.

Actual navigation would be done with a chronometer pocket watch, the "hack" watch, which was set from the ship's chronometers. A hack watch (horse, etc.) is a working, everyday watch (horse, etc.). So, "hacking" is to set the everyday watch from a reliable source, is my guess. I don't know whether it was set to the time the chronometers showed, or to the time they showed corrected for their rate. In any case, they used a hack watch for actual navigation so that they wouldn't have to move the chronometers.

Best wishes,
Bob

These are more commonly known as "Deck Watches". Synchronised with the main ship's chronometer and accompanied the Deck Officer on his rounds so that he could record the time of any event at the same time shown by the ship's chronometer. Fantastic watches if you can find one.

Eddie
16th October 2006, 20:22
abraxas

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrazier

According to my Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea ships had 3 chronometers.

..............

Bob

I once saw some inventories on what timekeepers went on what types of shipping ... right down to patrol and escort boats. A battleship can have over 60 official clocks on board ... from chronometers to timers. A destroyer around 40. (I am talking of the pre-electronic era.)

When it came to shipping, you could never have too many clocks.

john
16th October 2006, 21:27
Crusader

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxas

I once saw some inventories on what timekeepers went on what types of shipping ... right down to patrol and escort boats. A battleship can have over 60 official clocks on board ... from chronometers to timers. A destroyer around 40. (I am talking of the pre-electronic era.)

When it came to shipping, you could never have too many clocks.

Maybe the abundance of diver (=maritime) watches is a distant reflexion of this fact. :D
16th October 2006, 22:06
abraxas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusader

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxas

I once saw some inventories on what timekeepers went on what types of shipping ... right down to patrol and escort boats. A battleship can have over 60 official clocks on board ... from chronometers to timers. A destroyer around 40. (I am talking of the pre-electronic era.)

When it came to shipping, you could never have too many clocks.

Maybe the abundance of diver (=maritime) watches is a distant reflexion of this fact. :D

Very doubtful. If anything, the ship?s clocks will be kept as far away from water as possible. At the moment I am very much interested in ship?s watches ... these are watches which have been used by maritime staff but not meant to be exposed to water, the working conditions of these watches being no different to the working conditions of (let?s say) aircraft staff. The first designation of the B-Uhren (observers watches) actually came from maritime large pocket watches most of which had white dials and more than a few even full luminous dials.

There's one here from Stowa (but I have many pictures in a book)
http://www.stowa.com/Collection/Marine/marine.html

john
17th October 2006, 20:35
Crusader

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusader

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxas

I once saw some inventories on what timekeepers went on what types of shipping ... right down to patrol and escort boats. A battleship can have over 60 official clocks on board ... from chronometers to timers. A destroyer around 40. (I am talking of the pre-electronic era.)

When it came to shipping, you could never have too many clocks.

Maybe the abundance of diver (=maritime) watches is a distant reflexion of this fact. :D

Very doubtful. If anything, the ship?s clocks will be kept as far away from water as possible. At the moment I am very much interested in ship?s watches ... these are watches which have been used by maritime staff but not meant to be exposed to water, the working conditions of these watches being no different to the working conditions of (let?s say) aircraft staff. The first designation of the B-Uhren (observers watches) actually came from maritime large pocket watches most of which had white dials and more than a few even full luminous dials.

There's one here from Stowa (but I have many pictures in a book)
http://www.stowa.com/Collection/Marine/marine.html

john

You are taking me too seriously. :(

I resent being sold short. :twisted: :wink:

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53.