sneed12

No one has ever torn one of these down before?

You might have a PhD in arrogance for all I care

For that I'd need lessons from you. It takes serious arrogance to tell someone with a PhD in particle physics flat out to their face that they're wrong about how the Van Allen belts work.

it clearly hasn't given you a very wide perspective on life nor the world at large

The fact that I dismiss you as an ignorant twit is not evidence of what you claim here, because you are in fact an ignorant twit. I've seen quite a bit of the world, less than some but more than most, as a Marine and later as a scientist and now in my current job (I'm a management consultant, I travel quite a bit). I've met thousands of people of all kinds, from all walks of life. None of them were as aggressively stupid as you are.

, instead you appear only to see via the blinkers that came with your tussled mortar board;

PhD graduates in the US graduate under a tam, not a mortarboard.

In any case only certified to practice doctors have any ethical or moral right to use such a term 'professionally' or otherwise

That's not at all true -- PhDs have been using the title "Doctor" for over a thousand years, while it only came to the medical profession in the last 150 or so. It would be inappropriate for a non-medical doctor to insist on being addressed as "Doctor" in a clinical setting, but in any other setting "Doctor" is both correct and appropriate as an honorific for someone with a PhD.

(Not that I insist on it, I prefer to be called by my first name.)

, not a research grad upstart hoping to get a free room upgrade at some dingy hotel.

I'm no longer a researcher -- I work for one of the world's top consulting firms. I travel quite a bit, and I actually stay in quite nice hotels.

And its ALL related, both subjects - why? Because its ALL about fakery at the highest levels with intention to deceive and manipulate the masses for political ends and both at the public's expense.

Err you're still grade 1 FAIL on 9/11 I'm afraid so must go back and do some more homework before progressing to the next level of Deception Studies, Mr Arrogant.

 

Kind Rgds

That makes no sense. The two are utterly unrelated. Also, that's "Dr. Arrogant" to you.

So agree, but I expect his mum's impressed which is all that counts.

 

Kind Rgds

You were the one who challenged my credential. I would not have posted any details had you not suggested I was lying about having a PhD (in particle physics, from a prestigious R1 university...)

Its not really relevant but FYI no, Armstrong never did walk on the moon in the Apollo 11 space mission of 1969. Getting out past the Van Allen Radiation Belt 400 miles up would be an impossibility for starters back then, out and back alive at least.

Once again, this is incorrect. Again, I'm a particle physicist, this is what I literally spent years of my life studying. Passing through the Van Allen belts is a serious but entirely solvable issue. The Van Allen belt's radiation is massive, so it's a type that's easily shielded against. The Apollo missions traveled through the thinnest part (they span roughly 20 degrees north and south of the equator) and traversed quickly. The astronauts received a very small dose of radiation -- far less than what a Space Shuttle or ISS crew receives, or what the Gemini crews received.

Just like the 9/11 idiocy, every stupid question you'll spout off about regarding the moon landing has a simple answer. 

WOW! You know all this and have all that experience and inside 2 years of qualifying, that's most impressive - to some at least. Yet its deeply troubling that such an expert follows the same denial mindset as most other bought and paid for ones in the so-called professions, in that you won't or can't accept the genuine science of 9/11 together with all the intricacies associated to it. Instead you attempt to baffle with BS and meaningless 'paperwork' which anyone can print off from any 'paper' online they like; is that what you did? By the way, why take a PhD so late in life, were you not quite at the right level, as a 27-30 year old or something? Not that I'm saying one 'gained' later in life is worth any less of course, it isn't, why in some ways its more valuable. If its a worthwhile study and overall achievement that is and real too, of course.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This not only doesn't make sense, it has nothing to do with what I posted. I finished my PhD in 2012, this thesis was written then, not "inside 2 years of qualifying". It represents 6+ years of work. I was 30 when I finished my PhD, which is a pretty normal age and not "late in life" for a PhD at all (at least in the US -- the UK has a different system, PhDs only take 3 years there).

As for being real... I've posted photographs of my degree and my thesis. Here's a proof of the snap the photographers tried to sell me when I got hooded

A pic of me in my CERN days (I no longer work there)

And, just to prove that very average looking Asian dude is me, here's a pic of me holding a sign saying "Ipcress is an ignorant twit"

I have a PhD. I'm baffled by why you'd think I would lie about it. Having a PhD doesn't get you much of anything (I do go by "Doctor" in hotels, I've found it gets me better service, but that's about it). You've been as shockingly wrong about pretty much every aspect of what a PhD is (I still find it hilarious that you think a PhD has a "cert number") as you are about everything else. Own up to being an idiot and move on. You're embarrassing yourself.

 Nothing to the 30 or so questions raised in this thread earlier on 

They are, frankly, dumb questions. They're a mix of incorrect assertions (like the stuff about the seismographs: there absolutely were seismographic readings of the collapsing towers) and questions with obvious answers (WTC7 was hit by debris and burned out-of-control for hours before collapsing) and flat-out lies (the buildings weren't "pulverized", they collapsed).

This is the thing that truthers never seem to understand: being able to spout a million questions doesn't mean you've found a "hole" in the "official story." What it means is that reality is complicated. If you want real answers to all of those questions, they are all out there -- but you don't want answers, you just want to ask questions as though that means something. Some questions are just dumb questions. People refusing or ignoring your questions doesn't mean you've "caught" them it just means they don't feel like dealing with your idiocy.

But looking at your wider response - you did your PhD in 2012 did you? And at 'Evanstone, Illinois'?    Before ripping pictures from the internet its best to check for a fit beforehand  Surely you'd show YOUR cert. as you're so proud of it, I know I would be; still cover up the name, sure, but why not show an authentic one if that is what you're attempting to pass off here. But anyway, the insults - most unbecoming and doesn't say much for a holder of any PhD qualification. And FYI I meant the issuing Cert number at the University - believe me, they have them - but maybe you're not aware of that. So just state WHICH University you earned your PhD in Physics and WHEN....date please?

The planes were hijacked at altitude. They came down from that altitude. Therefore, they were high up in the sky and then came down. Do you need me to draw you a picture? The fact that they were in straight and nearly level flight for the last few miles doesn't mean they didn't come down from high up.

And we've reached the end of the rabbit hole -- you can't logically refute what I'm saying, so you accuse me of being a "DisinfoOp" (a word which I'd never heard until today, but whose meaning seems clear from context). I guess you've "uncovered" the "truth". I'll go back to running the X-files now.

Yes it is - and most definitely IS whatever you postulate about Vmax.

No, it's not.

Vne is a number (well, it's a number as a function of altitude at any rate). It's an arbitrary line drawn across the flight envelope. If an airplane is going 1 knot below Vne, it's within the envelope. Going 2 knots faster puts it 1 knot outside the envelope.

This does not cause the airplane to explode, or the wings to rip off, or any other nonsense. That's not how structural failure works. Vne can be and has been exceeded without catastrophic damage. An aircraft that exceeds Vne MAY experience immediate catastrophic structural failure (Egyptair 990 for example), but it doesn't automatically break into a million pieces.

Among the other things you know absolutely nothing about, a PhD is not "numbered" nor does it have a "cert. number" or an "issuing signature". Take a look:

If he's a REAL pilot I guess he has one of these

I used to be a demo guy in the Marine Corps (well, technically I was an 0351, not EOD or combat engineers, but we did a lot of demo). I have seen pieces of plywood punch through sheet metal and glass marbles go through concrete. Aluminum will cut steel and concrete when it's traveling at a relative speed of 800 mph, no problem at all. Simple physics.

Congratulations, you're an idiot. I'm not even talking about the 9/11 thing now -- you don't understand basic physics like "when airplanes come down from high up they can go fast." You display a shocking lack of ability to reason. 

Straight away its a FAIL; No Boeing 767 can fly @ 550 knots at 800 feet for all kinds of reasons but I'm not going to repeat myself here

That's simply not true. Yes, it's outside the certified flight envelope, but airplanes don't magically explode when they exceed Vmax.

( I have both a PhD in physics and a pilot's license.)

So you swapped the fourth wheel, which carries the seconds hand, by removing the train bridge on the back side of the movement? And now when you wind the watch, all the hands spin very quickly? If so, then the escape wheel is not engaging the pallet fork, and the mainspring is discharging through the gear train without being stopped. You need to find out why. Something didn't go together correctly when you reinstalled the bridge.

I’m not an expert but I know an old time watchmaker who is and has been around from the old really low beat pocket watch days thru the present.  He says that he doesn’t believe the human eye can distinguish visually the difference in second hand movement from 21,600BPH to 28,800BPH???

Well, tell him I'll bet him everything he owns that I can tell the difference by looking, in good light.

"Jerkiness" has as much to do with lash in the gear train as it does with beat rate.

gen ceramic insert snaps in place similar to the old inserts,

No, it absolutely does not. If you try to snap a ceramic insert in (or out) you'll break it. It's true that it's pressure-fit, but not true that it snaps in.

I did a build of a blue sub-C on the BP case about a year ago (before BP started offering the blue model) here's a pic of everything torn down

Your bezel assembly, gasket, and retaining ring are all stuck together.

It's not uncommon to have everything come off together with a gen either.

I don't recall seeing any retaining ring or gasket. When I removed the bezel, the crystal came off with the bezel attached in one piece. The drill holes in the head look sloppy as hell to me. I don't have a disassembled gen for comparison, but I can't imagine that this assembly is authentic, or even remotely accurate.

This is how the gen is designed. None of us can make you believe this is the case, but it's true. The retaining ring and crystal gasket are still inside the bezel assembly (the "bezel" itself is just the part with the teeth).

I don't see any "disaster" here: you have a $25 repair you need to make, replacing the rep crown with a TC crown and tube which is more accurate anyway. Fix the watch and enjoy it.

I also use the plastic bag trick for things like this, and clutch / date jumper springs for a 7750.

I have a 7750 with a faulty hour counter brake also. Are repair parts available for this? I've heard A7750 parts are not readily available.

Genuine ETA parts will fit. I just did this repair, ETA replacement part fit with no issues. I think have one somewhere if you're looking for one.

I know that with the 2836 modified movements that 24hr hand slippage can be an issue. I had it happen a couple of times with my sterile PAM063.

The newer generation of 2836 GMTs with the spring-loaded GMT wheel seem much more reliable, I've never seen one slip.

@ the OP: no offense, but are you sure you know how the GMT is supposed to work?

Failure of the hour counter lock on any 7750 (Swiss or Asian) is a pretty common problem, and easily fixed when you have the movement apart (take off the calendar plate, reset or replace the brake, and reassemble). It does require a full disassembly, however.

I know dw cases has asy pushers but fits a v7750 its a hard job as v7750 has different pusher position dont u know?

Yes, the stock 7750 has symmetric pushers. So what? Rep Daytonas with 7750s (and ST19s) have had asymmetric pusher configurations for years, it's not complicated. 

Looking for a rep (or gen if you happen to know of one for sale in good condition) of this dial

Blue, triangle dial with or without date. Anyone have an idea where I could get one? Yuki's website doesn't list it, and the usual suspects (ingod, mahand) don't really seem to list their wares anyplace.

Thanks

The other thing to watch out for is that on a 2824, the DWO can drag on the top of the movement. A 2836 has a datewheel which is slightly raised.

Here is a question from a totally non-engineer type person. while the power reserve is not affected, what about wear on the chrono mechanism? When the chrono is disengaged, do all the chrono gears stop, or they all still turning, but not engaged? My question would be if they are in fact not turning, what about increased wear to the chrono mechanism if it were left "on" all the time? I know that with some chronos the recommendation is to use them as little as possible, although I have never seen this admonition with genuine watches running an ETA 7750.

When you start the chrono in a 7750, two things happen:

1) the tilting pinion moves over and engages the center sweep seconds hand

2) the brake that stops the hour totalizer from rotating is disengaged

The tilting pinion is always rotating, so starting the chrono doesn't make it wear any "more". The hour totalizer clutch is slipping when the chrono is NOT running, so arguably when the chrono is running the wear is less.

You don't have to understand, just respect someone else's view as we respect yours

Unfortunately, and with full knowledge that it makes me look like an [censored] sometimes, I have difficulty allowing people to believe things that are false.

Again, no. The statement I responded to is quoted below:

The 2836-2 GMT has had problems over the years, quite simply it not made as a GMT movement

You could argue that the 2892 was "not made as a GMT movement" either. Adding the GMT functionality to make it a 2893-2 is done by adding more parts to the top side of the dial. Those parts work in exactly the same way that the 2836 with GMT modification works. If ETA were to build a GMT movement based on the 2836-2, they'd probably do it exactly the same way that the Chinese factories have done it.

I at no time argued that the parts made in Chinese factories are likely to be at the same level of quality as those made in Swiss factories. I'm simply tired of people saying things like "the DG3804/2893-2/whatever is a TRUE GMT movement". They all work the exact same way, it's just a matter of how well it's done.

One of these days Seagull will start cloning the 2893-2 (they already clone the 2892). What will you say then?

And finally: I don't have a "favorite" movement. The 2824 and 2892 are simply different. I do have to admit the 2892 is prettier.

Most experts would disagree.

http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html

 

http://www.asthewatchturns.com/?page_id=112

The first link you posted does not contain any comparisons between the 2892 and 2824/2836, but its companion piece on the same website (http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html) says this:

"I don’t see any difference in accuracy between the two, provided that they are both fitted with the highest – chronometer – grade parts, carefully lubricated and adjusted to the best accuracy possible. Of course, very few fall into that category, so it’s no wonder that the 2824 has gotten a bad rap as the 2892’s poor cousin."

The second link says this:

• At the top grades, some people consider the 2824 to be more robust 
• It’s sometimes mistakenly implied that the 2892-A2 is a significantly newer design than the 2822
• At top levels, both can be made equally accurate

"Generally however, most high end makers will use 2892A2 or a derivative of the 2892 simply from market impressions that the 2892 is superior regardless of grade."

So the link you posted actually contradicts your assertion. A chronometer-grade 2824 is in pretty much every respect the equal of a 2892, with a more efficient winding system and better shockproofing. People "think" the 2892 is "superior" but there are few techincal reasons that really support this opinion. The design isn't significantly newer. The only main substantive difference is that it's thinner.

Calling the 2824 a "turd" is just ignorant. And I should have been more clear: most DD chrono modules are designed to sit on top of 2892s, but the 2824 has been used as a tractor as well in the past and there were DD chrono modules designed for that use as well. Heck, there's on one on eBay right now.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Dubois-Depraz-2020-flyback-chronograph-movement-based-on-a-2824-ETA-/111328789004?pt=Wristwatches&hash=item19ebb6820c

I don't understand why you're so emotionally attached to the idea that "2892 is better" and "2824 is a turd."