<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Strangely quiet here....

August 28 2006 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous  (no login)

 
Is it normal? not seeing much discussion going on this forum...

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

bernardcheong
(Login bernardcheong)
AP Discussion Group

The settling of dust as a new factory at HWRT is born. nt

August 28 2006, 8:56 AM 

nt


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

PIC?

August 29 2006, 10:06 PM 

nt...

 
 Respond to this message   
Jacob Saaby Nielsen
(Login jsnielsen)

Here's a read...

August 31 2006, 4:22 AM 

... I'm still scouring the web for that Opus 3 pic that might win the contest ;D

Found this story. Not directly HW related, but still - GF related, with a story on three types of
tourbillons:

http://www.europastar.com/europastar/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002951095

 
 Respond to this message   
Ed
(no login)

Why not 45 degree?

September 1 2006, 5:33 PM 

Interesting read...While to best avoid the situation where balance will not suffer violent devi-ations in operation or in amplitude, between flat and vertical positions....

why not 45 degree? One reason i can think of is the thickness of the finished piece. perhaps JL's Gyrotourbbillon is a better evolution from this one? since it does 360 degree rotation?

just curious:p

 
 Respond to this message   

bernardcheong
(Login bernardcheong)
AP Discussion Group

Personally I prefer the GF interpretation.Or Opus 6. Here's why..

September 1 2006, 11:35 PM 

From my own small collection of tourbillons, of which soon I intend to add a GF. I enjoy the aesthetic most of all.

The balance must be large enough, and visible enough.

It must oscillate in such a way that it dances across the stage set by the cage and aperture made for the visual display of the tourbillon at work.

Now, technically, there will be both purely mathematical arguments for a nd against either version. On the surface, it would seem a true multi axis is superior, but deeper than that, the variations in torque and transmission will be greater...whatever.

Now, the crunch...I dare say, as a long time owner of various forms of these devices, I would go for visual aesthetic FIRST. Therefore...a fine finish to the ENTIRE tourbillon assembly is paramount and a very forward presentation of the tourbillon rotation is VERY pleasing and soothing to the senses.

That's what I pay for.

Which is able to tell time better??? Does it really matter at the level of this machine? It may to some, and there's nothing wrong about that.



    
This message has been edited by bernardcheong on Sep 1, 2006 11:35 PM


 
 Respond to this message   

IanS
(Login ian.s)

Why not 45 degree?

September 5 2006, 11:14 PM 

At 45° you would either have to make the watch much thicker or to reduce the diameter of the balance wheel.

Greubel Forsey did not wish to do the former for reasons of esthetics nor the latter for reasons of chronometry - generally the larger the balance the better the timekeeping all else being equal.

JLC's Gyrotourbillon is a true masterpiece of watchmaking engineering; however, GF put chronometric performance higher up the list of priorities.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
ThePuristS.com Home Page