Reply With QuoteWellcome to the forum. I don't have the slightest clue re your question. I've been wondering about the same question re the Sinn DiaPal-technology. Does it require less attention, so to speak?
Cheers
Henrik
How do you do? I have been a lurker for some time and have been constantly amazed by your collective knowledge. Whenever I have had a query or misunderstood something a quick search of the forum has answered my question. Thank you.
Now I have something I should like to know.
The Co-Axial escapement has been out for some six or seven years in commercial form. As someone who has been interested in marine chromometers I have wondered if anyone on the forum can tell me:
How accurate have the co-axial chronometers turned out to be and do they, as Dr Daniels intends, require lubricating less frequently than levers?
I went to the recent exhibition at Sothebys' and spoke - briefly - to Dr. Daniels. His hand made watches are beautiful.
Thanks.
Wellcome to the forum. I don't have the slightest clue re your question. I've been wondering about the same question re the Sinn DiaPal-technology. Does it require less attention, so to speak?
Cheers
Henrik
Welcome,
All i know is that they seem to cost more.
Martin
I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE
The Sinn Diapal technology is actually the old Damasko patented Diapal technology being used without permission but the cost of going legal isn't worth the time and money, especially to protect technology which is now superceded (so I'm told).
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Originally Posted by swanbourne
LOL!! That certainly isn't the story you hear from Sinn. So what did supercede the Diapal?
Bernard
I suspect that there isn't any hard data on the co-axial publically available, but lots of anecdotal evidence both ways.
On TZ, Odets has an oldish 4 part article describing what it is supposed to be doing, and why it is suppose to need less lubrication. (Basically, the pallet stones don't slide across the escape wheel "club feet" in the same way, and it is the lubrication of the pallet stones which cause the biggest problems on standard anchor escapements. (There are other features that are supposed to result in a more stable rate.)
My guess is that it gives a better rate, but requires more precise lubrication, etc. And it is difficult to decide how much of the improvement is because of the redesign of the escapement and how much is down to things like it being free sprung.
Best wishes,
Bob
That in itself is something of a puzzle Bob because the co-axial was originally touted as requiring NO lubrication.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I may well be mistaken. I thought that the pallet jewels need no lubrication, or minimal lubrication, but that the whole setup needed minimal, but precise lubrication.
Best wishes,
Bob
Originally, Daniels presented his co-axial concept to Rolex who still couldn't decide after 15 years whether they wanted it so he lost patience and took it to Omega. I'm sure Rolex would have taken it if it had been the promised breakthrough.
Don't think I'm knocking the co-axial because I'm not, it's certainly competent and different but is it a design breakthrough?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I don't know if it is breakthrough or not. But if it is, it isn't a lightbulb going off one. The escapement is made quite a bit more complicated with closer tolerances, it seems to me. But, the rate seems exceptionally good, from what Odet says. I certainly would like one.
Best wishes,
Bob
I really don't have any empirical evidence on the supposed improvements in isochronism with the co-axial escapement. I reset mine every month or so, when usually it's a minute or two off.
I happened to like the design, and thought the Daniels story a fascinating one.
Any excuse...
Kevin
Posting Permissions
