gran

OK! I will fill in the details and the information is from this link: http://www.qahill.com/tz/conant/conant.html Multiple Escapements By Ron DeCorte, Toledeo, OH ThePuristS.com March 19, 2002 I was fortunate enough to have worked with Philippe Dufour during the summer of 1995 and winter of 1995-96 encompassing the development and manufacture of the first Duality watches. Later, in 1997, I wrote a detailed technical article describing the operation of Duality for the AWI (American Watchmakers Institute) that was published in their magazine, Horological Times, June 1997. (The March 1998 issue of Horological Times also contains an article on Duality, one that is more of an overview than technical.) During my involvement with Duality I did a lot of research regarding multiple escapement timepieces. It wasn't until 1887 that I could find a patent for a multiple escapement timepiece that used a "single" power source. Prior to 1887 it seems that all multiple escapement timepieces used individual power sources for each escapement. On August 23, 1887 a US patient was granted to Mr. Hezekiah Conant of Pawtucket, RI for a multiple escapement "Improved Isochronal Clock" (see figures below). A detailed description of Mr. Conant's clock is that of a floor standing clock with a single weight driving four completely independent, seconds beating, dead-beat escapements. This clock was later manufactured by E. Howard & Co. for Tiffany & Co. and was eventually owned by the Time Museum in Rockford, IL. I saw this clock on several occasions when I visited Rockford, and it was exceptionally impressive and massive! An interesting aspect of this clock was that it had the normal concentric arrangement of hour, minute, and seconds' hands on a large central dial, but there was also 4 smaller seconds' dials arranged in a straight line across the bottom of the dial panel showing the exact rate of each individual escapement. In 1890 an 8 day marine chronometer covered under Mr. Conant's 1887 patent was constructed bearing the names Conant and Tiffany, the actual manufacture was most likely in England. This marine chronometer also used a single power source to drive 4 independent spring detent escapements and as with the above mentioned clock had 4 small seconds' dials to indicate the exact rate of each individual escapement. This chronometer was also eventually owned by the Time Museum in Rockford IL and was prominently documented in a wonderful book by Anthony G. Randall entitled "The Time Museum Catalogue of Chronometers" published by The Time Museum, Rockford, IL, in 1992. In the early 1930's, at the Ecole Technique in LeSentier (Vallee de Joux) Switzerland, there was approximately 6 pocket watches made by individual students using two escapements and a single power source. Some of these watches used stationary escapements and at least one used a double tourbillion. An example of these watches was also eventually owned by the Time Museum in Rockford IL and featured in the book by Anthony G. Randall. And so, for 60 years, the idea of multiple escapements seems to have lost favor. And along came Philippe Dufour, a former student at the Ecole Technique in LeSentier, who decided to take the idea of multiple escapements (with a single power source) one step further - a wristwatch. And the rest as they say is history! Isochronal Clock Patent Hezekiah Conant U.S. Patent No. 368,814 1887 Note that a time piece acn have multiplke

Well said archibald

Dont talk like that about my heroes JTB

Is it quartz or an automatic? g.

Nice But to me the SEIKO MARINEMASTER is the very best diver ever http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showtopic=3334

MY AP JAs are the closests to the genuine so far

I had to put on this for the match overtime +

I think it is important to know that there is no ultimate truth Discussions like this reveal how little we know and our hero Socrates would have been pleased about that g.

Great find Neil never knew how these OMEGA-matics looked and the movement is a wonder in itself

Only picture I have found of a OMEGAmatic is this one. Notice the date window. It is indeed a rare watch http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tre...=0&rev=&reveal= http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tre...=0&rev=&reveal=

Time is indeed a conundrum but let us trough dialogue understand more about it. lets not give up before it is time. g.

Yes but the hammers gave them a very diificult match

What about this? "Traditionally, the motion of the sun is represented by the moving hands on the dial face of a clock. The sun's motion has been called, "time" but it would be incorrect to call the motion of the hour hand, or the minute hand, or the second hand, "time." The hour hand moves twice as fast as the sun's motion. It appears to go around the dial face 2 times for every time the sun appears to go around the earth once. The minute hand moves moves 24 times as fast as this traditional definition of time. It appears to go around the dial face 24 times for every time the sun appears to go around the earth once. The second hand moves 1440 times as fast as the solar definition of time. It appears to go around the dial face 1440 times in a day. Almost everyone knows how to use a traditional timepiece. Almost everyone knows how to tell time. The problem is, everyone who knows how to tell time in the traditional way and is using time in the traditional way, is making a mistake. From a modern physics point-of-view, it is really stupid to use the sun's motion as our standard of motion. The reason is, if you move a traditional timepiece--whether it is analog or digital, whether it is a sundial or an atomic clock--the motion on the clock combines with the motion of the clock, and your standard constant quantity of motion is now different. You can move a ruler to a new location. But, you can not move a traditional timepiece. Moving a traditional timepiece defeats the purpose of the timepiece because the standard of motion represented by the timepiece is destroyed by moving it. But why? How did this come about? As people developed timepieces over hundreds of years they did not understand modern physics. The key detail that is now known in modern physics is, it appears impossible to move an object infinitely fast. The universe has a speed limit. Currently, the fastest known motion is the speed of light. This fact is why it is a mistake to move a traditional timepiece. It is the reason you can not move a traditional timepiece. Add 1 to 1, you get 2. Add 1 foot to 1 foot, you get 2 feet. But adding 1 second to 1 second does not necessarily give 2 seconds. If the 1st second is measured with a stationary clock, then its "1 second" is a true second. But, if the 2nd second is measured with a moving clock, its "1 second" is not equal. Einstein solved this problem one way. I found another way. He took the "traditional second," as defined using the sun's motion--or, as defined with an atomic clock--and made that "traditional second" slow down if the clock moves with respect to an earthbound reference frame. I abandon the "tradional second," and redefine time to travel at the fastest known motion. What has been called, "the speed of light" is now defined as "time." If time is defined as the fastest known motion, then all other motions are fractions of this fastest motion. You can add 1/2 the speed of light to 1/2 the speed of light and get the speed of light. You can add any fraction of the speed of light to another fraction of the speed of light just as you would expect when it comes to adding fractions--with one catch. You can not get a result greater than one. That would be improper."

Thanks I am just so pleased

How to define time? How should it be defined? By the atomic clock or by the motion of the earth? or both? It can be: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 a.m. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time. An interval, especially a span of years, marked by similar events, conditions, or phenomena; an era. Often used in the plural: hard times; a time of troubles. times The present with respect to prevailing conditions and trends: You must change with the times. A suitable or opportune moment or season: a time for taking stock of one's life. Periods or a period designated for a given activity: harvest time; time for bed. Periods or a period necessary or available for a given activity: I have no time for golf. A period at one's disposal: Do you have time for a chat? and so on.....

Liverpool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are the Champions

Penalties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am so nervous........................................................... I hope Riise and company will score

Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am getting a heart attack

Even that is not completely correct...real time it differs slightly from 365 and 1/4 of our "watch" days

I am starting to think you do not understand what I have meant by time in this thread You are desperate to be right and I am desperte to get you to think in favoir of sundials Why! because the day(time) is in fact a celestial phenomenon. The seconds, minutes, day, year week monmths and years that we are measuring them in are indeed a constructions , a system and approxiamte measure but not real time. The sundial can measuer the real time provided it is placed correctly and there is sunlight)

I know

Hammers are ahead by 2-1 But Liverpool will win....I hope