Vacuum Chronometer: a genial invention, which unfortunately did not become a standard in watch making

[the swisswatchguy]

In another thread, we have come up again to an interesting subject,
which, in my opinion, merits a thread by itself.

All the worst enemies to any mechanical watch movement long time
precision reliability, i.e. moisture, dust and pollution as well as
sharp differences of temperature are being conveyed by air. In the
Fifties, at the time when only Rolex and Mido had invented somewhat
satisfying water and moisture protective systems, Hans-Urlich
Klingenberg, a young watch salesman decided to tackle the problem and
solve it once and for all.

Since air is the vector, he decided to keep it out of the inside of a
watch case and invented the Vacuum Chronometer system, which he then
patented, developed and distributed directly to watch dealers, firstly
on behalf of the company he was working for at the time: Glycine &
Altus, and as from January 05, 1966, through his own company: Vacuum
Chronometer Corporation.

The system, like any genial invention, is very simple: a one piece
case, a flat mineral, later sapphire crystal, sealed by a sizeable
0/ring gasket, a three 0/ring gasket fitted oversized crown and two
clamps, positioned at 12 and 6, holding the crystal sidewise and
refraining it from falling away, should the ca 85-90% vacuum be
impaired for one reason of the other.

You can have a look at a Glycine Vacuum as well as at the consecutive
final classical Vacuum Chronometer:

http://www.glycine-watch.ch/e/history/history2.e.html
http://www.eyewel.co.jp/official/waltham/goods01.html
http://www.waltham.ch/cgi/waltham/period_3_2.asp

The - then 36'000 oscillations! - ETA movement, trimmed to
chronometer precision by Klingenberg's Vacuum Chronometer Corporation
highly trained watchmakers, would thus, upon having been tested and
having obtained the Chronometer title as a complete watch by C.O.S.C.,
keep its perfect time keeping until the recommended re-oiling and
gasket exchange every 5-8 years (what anyhow any other watch needs).

Although establishing vacuum, respectively opening the watch for repair
and re-establishing the vacuum afterward was (still is) a very simple
operation with a special hand held device also invented and developed
by H.U. Klingenberg, for want of investors & lack of marketing savvy,
the Vacuum Chronometer could not establish itself as a watch standard
as the Rolex Oyster.

[Jack Denver]

I also gather that running in the vacuum has advantages for timekeeping and
not just durability - the balance wheel no longer has to contend with air
resistance and swings more freely. Also, I imagine that oxidation and
contamination of the lubricants and of the other parts of the watch would
not occur in the absence of oxygen and moisture so that longer service
intervals would in fact be possible.

Hi-beats were then enjoying popularity at the high end so the choice of 36k
would not have been surprising. I am surprised that COSC was willing to
evaluate an assembled watch - it was my understanding that their procedures,
to this day, are based on the evaluation of uncased movements only. Since
they evaluate many thousands of watches they have automated systems where
all the movements are place in standardized racks with temporary faces and
hands where they are photographed in groups and the ratings are done by
analyzing the photos. The automatic systems are supposed to be remove for
COSC rating and they wind them thru temporary crowns with a motorized crown
winder. They are just not set up to evaluate cased watches AFAIK, though it
would be better - by the time a COSC passed movement has its automatic
system attached and is recased, it may no longer perform the same as did was
while at COSC.

I wonder whether the vacuum gives the watch a tendency to suck dirt into
itself as the seals fail - just like a vacuum cleaner. Perhaps it would be
better to fill the watch with dry pressurized inert gas - say nitrogen or
argon.

Of course, the accomplishment of the vacuum chronometer, worthy though it
is, was swept aside by the quartz revolution. When mechanical horology
regained its footings, it was no longer on the basis of offering the
greatest accuracy, so technical refinements like the vacuum chronometer and
even the 36k movement were ignored in favor of marketing driven concepts and
the mechanical technology that is being offered today is frozen at 1960
levels.

Post by the swisswatchguy
In another thread, we have come up again to an interesting subject,
which, in my opinion, merits a thread by itself.
All the worst enemies to any mechanical watch movement long time
precision reliability, i.e. moisture, dust and pollution as well as
sharp differences of temperature are being conveyed by air. In the
Fifties, at the time when only Rolex and Mido had invented somewhat
satisfying water and moisture protective systems, Hans-Urlich
Klingenberg, a young watch salesman decided to tackle the problem and
solve it once and for all.
Since air is the vector, he decided to keep it out of the inside of a
watch case and invented the Vacuum Chronometer system, which he then
patented, developed and distributed directly to watch dealers, firstly
on behalf of the company he was working for at the time: Glycine &
Altus, and as from January 05, 1966, through his own company: Vacuum
Chronometer Corporation.
The system, like any genial invention, is very simple: a one piece
case, a flat mineral, later sapphire crystal, sealed by a sizeable
0/ring gasket, a three 0/ring gasket fitted oversized crown and two
clamps, positioned at 12 and 6, holding the crystal sidewise and
refraining it from falling away, should the ca 85-90% vacuum be
impaired for one reason of the other.
You can have a look at a Glycine Vacuum as well as at the consecutive
http://www.glycine-watch.ch/e/history/history2.e.html
http://www.eyewel.co.jp/official/waltham/goods01.html
http://www.waltham.ch/cgi/waltham/period_3_2.asp
The - then 36'000 oscillations! - ETA movement, trimmed to
chronometer precision by Klingenberg's Vacuum Chronometer Corporation
highly trained watchmakers, would thus, upon having been tested and
having obtained the Chronometer title as a complete watch by C.O.S.C.,
keep its perfect time keeping until the recommended re-oiling and
gasket exchange every 5-8 years (what anyhow any other watch needs).
Although establishing vacuum, respectively opening the watch for repair
and re-establishing the vacuum afterward was (still is) a very simple
operation with a special hand held device also invented and developed
by H.U. Klingenberg, for want of investors & lack of marketing savvy,
the Vacuum Chronometer could not establish itself as a watch standard
as the Rolex Oyster.

[Jim Bianchi]

Post by Jack Denver
I wonder whether the vacuum gives the watch a tendency to suck dirt into
itself as the seals fail - just like a vacuum cleaner. Perhaps it would be
better to fill the watch with dry pressurized inert gas - say nitrogen or
argon.

This was my thought also. I've no idea, though, which event those
engineers considered more likely, or that would hamper accurate timekeeping
more: dirt and pollution getting in, or air resistance to the balance wheel.

Post by Jack Denver

Post by the swisswatchguy
Although establishing vacuum, respectively opening the watch for repair
and re-establishing the vacuum afterward was (still is) a very simple
operation with a special hand held device also invented and developed
by H.U. Klingenberg, for want of investors & lack of marketing savvy,
the Vacuum Chronometer could not establish itself as a watch standard
as the Rolex Oyster.

Well, if reestablishing the vacuum was such a simple operation, then
reestablishing a slight overpressure of inert gas should be the same. Of
course, you'd need a small canister of the inert gas.

[the swisswatchguy]

Jim: not quite as simple. The atmospheric pressure itself is holding
down the crystal tight onto the gasket, keeping the air out in a very
simple and reliable manner. In case of loss of airproofness, the amount
of potential sucked pollution is at worst equal to what was left into a
traditional watch.

The only reliable reverse way would be to fill the entire watch with an
innert liquid, making the watch really waterproof deepest down.
Actually it has been the subject of another H.U. Klingenberg patent and
successfully tried out technically by several makers, including Swatch.
However the potential demand did not make such a venture worthwile
marketing.

[Jim Bianchi]

Post by the swisswatchguy
Jim: not quite as simple. The atmospheric pressure itself is holding
down the crystal tight onto the gasket, keeping the air out in a very
simple and reliable manner. In case of loss of airproofness, the amount
of potential sucked pollution is at worst equal to what was left into a
traditional watch.

Right. Well, the whole concept of pollution damaging a watch, in the
sense of 'normal' air getting in and not huge chunks of soot or whatever,
seems kinda like overkill to me. At least for a watch for everyman. Now if
you were designing a watch that was guaranteed to last for millenia, then
preventing atmospheric contamination might be worth preventing.

Post by the swisswatchguy
The only reliable reverse way would be to fill the entire watch with an
innert liquid, making the watch really waterproof deepest down.
Actually it has been the subject of another H.U. Klingenberg patent and
successfully tried out technically by several makers, including Swatch.
However the potential demand did not make such a venture worthwile
marketing.

Hmmm, I've thought that one sure way to waterproof a watch would be
to fill that sucker with, say, 3M 'Gorilla Snot' (which was a yellowish sort
of filling adhesive used for, eg, sealing headgaskets and such, and was much
beloved by motorcycle roadracers), or something else, that would seal off
the quartz movement (obviously this couldn't be done to a mechanical watch)
from contact with water OR air.

Oops, then you'd need to allow for the spindle driving the hands,
plus the setting stem. Also adjustment (regulating) it would be a chore.
But you could always send it to dAz for that [grin].

[c***@hotmail.com]

Moisture is the big killer: oxydation. Worst effects provoked in
Quartz movements, and especially batteries, which like to run off.
Moisture & dust make a good mix to "dry" the oil in the mechanical
movements: actually provoking the same effect as when you make a
mayonaise. Actually, many so called water resistant, might still let
some moisture get in. Vacuum is a superlative way of insuring "water
resistance".

Your 3M solution might be practicable with an LED / LCD digital
indicator quartz movement and a good business proposal for a 3M
company watch (grin back).

[dAz]

Post by Jim Bianchi
Oops, then you'd need to allow for the spindle driving the hands,
plus the setting stem. Also adjustment (regulating) it would be a chore.
But you could always send it to dAz for that [grin].

sure,I could fix it, how much money you got? ;)

[swisswatchguy]

Post by Jack Denver
I also gather that running in the vacuum has advantages for timekeeping and
not just durability - the balance wheel no longer has to contend with air
resistance and swings more freely.

Less resistance: everything working a bit faster: movements have to be
trimmed down in minus.

Also, I imagine that oxidation and

Post by Jack Denver
contamination of the lubricants and of the other parts of the watch would
not occur in the absence of oxygen and moisture so that longer service
intervals would in fact be possible.

Very true. Main advantage: much better regularity in precision and
time keeping performance.
I am surprised that COSC was willing to

Post by Jack Denver
evaluate an assembled watch - it was my understanding that their procedures,
to this day, are based on the evaluation of uncased movements only.

Klingenberg obtained developed and paid for all necessary adjustments,
enabling COSC to proceed with complete watches. Please note that at
that time the quantities involved were not as high as they are now.

They are just not set up to evaluate cased watches AFAIK, though it

Post by Jack Denver
would be better - by the time a COSC passed movement has its automatic
system attached and is recased, it may no longer perform the same as did was
while at COSC.

Basically, all certified Chronometer watches should be controlled and
certified as complete watches. Actually, some Swiss Brands have now
associated their efforts and created a Fleurier testing certificate,
which encompasses all the necessary real testing.

Post by Jack Denver
Of course, the accomplishment of the vacuum chronometer, worthy though it
is, was swept aside by the quartz revolution.

Ture.

When mechanical horology

Post by Jack Denver
regained its footings, it was no longer on the basis of offering the
greatest accuracy, so technical refinements like the vacuum chronometer and
even the 36k movement were ignored in favor of marketing driven concepts and
the mechanical technology that is being offered today is frozen at 1960
levels.

However, now artisan watch maker are again progressing and developing
new systems, like the latest TAG HEUER watch.

[Fortitudo Dei]

Post by Jack Denver
I also gather that running in the vacuum has advantages for timekeeping and
not just durability - the balance wheel no longer has to contend with air
resistance and swings more freely. Also, I imagine that oxidation and
contamination of the lubricants and of the other parts of the watch would
not occur in the absence of oxygen and moisture so that longer service
intervals would in fact be possible.
Hi-beats were then enjoying popularity at the high end so the choice of 36k
would not have been surprising.

To go off on a slight tangent - using vacuum like this had been used before
this - though in clocks, not watches. One of my favorite horological
inventions is the Shortt Pendulum Clock, though the chances of owning one
are slim as only about 100 were made. Accurate to about 1 second per year -
with 1 beat per second! I have only seen them in museums, though the "slave"
unit (which is what actually tells you the time) was an "ordinary"
synchronome clock. When I was a young boy my father had a synchronome clock
in his office from which all the other clocks in the building used to be
driven from. I used to look at that damn thing for hours. They occasionally
turn up on the second-hand used market regularly and I hope to purchase an
example one day.

http://users.actcom.co.il/meccano/shortt.html
http://users.actcom.co.il/meccano/shorttfreepen.htm

http://users.actcom.co.il/meccano/shortt.html

[Hans Uwland]

"Fortitudo Dei" <***@hotmail.com.removethis>
schreef in bericht news:***@muldoon...
[..]

Post by Fortitudo Dei
One of my favorite horological
inventions is the Shortt Pendulum Clock, though the
chances of owning one
are slim as only about 100 were made. Accurate to about 1
second per year -
with 1 beat per second!

[..]

Post by Fortitudo Dei
http://users.actcom.co.il/meccano/shortt.html
http://users.actcom.co.il/meccano/shorttfreepen.htm
http://users.actcom.co.il/meccano/shortt.html

Fascinating information, fully new for me. Thank you for
hint and links!

Kind regards,
Hans Uwland.