[GravityZ]

before omega had their Co-Axial movements, most movements were very easy to adjust by just turning a screw or moving a lever.

With the Co-Axials regulation is done by turning 2 screws on the balancewheel(at least that is what i think)
so it looks like they use this to both balance it and regulate it at the same time.

There is nothing wrong with a perfectly balanced balancewheel but why did omega not use a second screw for adjusting.

so balancing the wheel for accuracy and an extra screw for timing the movement.
this would make it much easier to regulate for a less skilled person(eg myself)

if you look at this movement from A. lange you notice the balancewheel can be adjusted very precise but adjustimg the timing is done with an ordinary screw, just like the classic omega movements.

 

[joeuk]

yes I know what you mean I would adjusted many on other watches but this one I wont touch, even some watchguys wont touch these or rolexs as you need the right tool

 

[Omega 1120]

I also like the screw regulator. I have adjusted a lot of watches with only a small screwdriver and it was both fun and productive. As for why Omega changed from regulator to free sprung balance, I think they thought it would give better rate results to their movements.

Here is a link that says it better than I can:

http://home.watchprosite.com/show-forumpost/fi-17/pi-3662881/ti-587501/s--8/

 

[GravityZ]

thanks

i am beginning to understand the why.
i however am not sure that free sprung is better than regulator.
it al depends on how good the watch is calibrated.

personally i think the regulated type leaves less room for error since you only need to adjust 1 screw

I also like the screw regulator. I have adjusted a lot of watches with only a small screwdriver and it was both fun and productive. As for why Omega changed from regulator to free sprung balance, I think they thought it would give better rate results to their movements.

Here is a link that says it better than I can:

http://home.watchprosite.com/show-forumpost/fi-17/pi-3662881/ti-587501/s--8/

 

[Francois Boucher]

so balancing the wheel for accuracy and an extra screw for timing the movement.
this would make it much easier to regulate for a less skilled person(eg myself)

Well, I think you answered your own question…

Klutzes like you (…and me) should NEVER be allowed to "adjust" these fine movements…

 

[M4tt]

Having a free sprung balance moves the escapement much much closer to the mathematical ideal. This will always (all things being equal) make a watch more stable. Stability, not accuracy, is the ultimate goal of horology.

 

[GravityZ]

Ok Clear

@M4tt, do you know how Omega makes sure the screws in the balancewheel can not accidently move?
putting loctite on the screw will inbalance the wheel
do they use some kind of special thread to make sure the screw stays in place

 

[M4tt]

As far as I know it's just a very precise interference fit in a material with a very low expansion coefficient.

 

[I Like Watches]

Who's to blame?

Why did Omega made regulating a coaxial so difficult?Is Omega to blame or is it George Daniels?:-s

 

[Archer]

With the Co-Axials regulation is done by turning 2 screws on the balancewheel(at least that is what i think)
so it looks like they use this to both balance it and regulate it at the same time.

Actually, no they don't use the screws that change the rate to posie (what you refer to as balance) the balance wheel. These screws are moved the same amount, either in or out, to change the rate of the watch. In makes the watch faster, and out will make it slower, but they must be moved the same amount to maintain the poise.

The screws are typically quite tight, so they won't move on their own, to answer the question in your other post.

Free sprung balances have pros and cons, but are generally considered to be better than those with a regulator (all else being equal of course).

Cheers, Al

 

[JRoss]

Re: Who's to blame?

Blame W.!!