Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.

sneed12

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,836

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sneed12

  1. sneed12
    The 2892 is not inherently any "better" in most respects than the 2834/2836 movements. The biggest difference is that it doesn't come in Standard grade, so most 2892s out there are better finished and better regulated than most 2824/2836 movements. But an Elabore 2824 compared to an Elabore 2892 is very comparable, and in some ways more robust. Both movements are available as COSC certified versions. That's true. There's a ton of chrono modules that could be added to a 2892. But there's no reason that one couldn't design a DD chrono module to fit on top of a 2824. Dubois-Depraz simply didn't. I didn't say they were equal. I said in terms of design, they work the same way. They're both GMT versions of non-GMT movements, built by bolting on some extra parts.
  2. sneed12
    The 2892 is "not made as a GMT movement" either but slap some parts on it and it becomes a 2893. The 2893 and the 2836 with GMT module work in exactly the same way. The problem of the slipping GMT hand on the 2836 GMT is largely in the past, since most 2836's have the "jumping" GMT hand now and the spring setup in the 4th wheel doesn't allow the hand to slip. Yes, there's a factory version of the 16710 with ETA date window now (and has been for years). You don't see a lot of them on the forums. BTW, my CHS 16710 has been running flawlessly for 2+ years now. It's also an ETA 2836 based GMT movement.
  3. sneed12
    I sincerely, sincerely doubt that you'll find 10 people who want ETA date rep dials. 1) It's an instant tell 2) the 2836 GMT movement has come a long way and I've not had problems with one of them in years 3) you'll have to source Rolex font ETA datewheels
  4. sneed12
    OK. So what? You're still wrong. There's a reason why the 2836 has the extra height, it's because the dial side of the movement is different. The 2836 has a different date change mechanism. It has extra springs to power the instant change at midnight. The double corrector mechanism works differently. The hour wheel rides under a top plate. The calendar gear driving wheel sits on a pin machined into the mainplate (whereas on the 2824 it sits on a pin which is part of the thing that covers the date jumper spring). The cutout for the date disc is shaped differently, it's stepped on a 2836. Many of the parts on the dial side of a 2836 are interchangeable with a 2824, but many are not. They are not "the same movements" at all--they're two different variants of the same basic design.
  5. sneed12
    You are correct, running the chronograph on a 7750 does not drain the power reserve any faster. It's pretty obvious when you look at how the 7750 operates. This typically does, but may not always, apply to other chrono movements as well.
  6. sneed12
    You are simply wrong. Airplane wings can easily go through steel if they're going fast enough (not "slice", they will deform and it's more of a tearing action, but effectively it's the same). It is basic physics. You can punch most things through most other things with enough pressure. You start from an incorrect premise. That's how your whole idiocy works. Please take it elsewhere, this is a forum for watches.
  7. sneed12
    No one has "insulted" you and no one has "provoked" you. (Well ok, ceoCorona called you a "waste of time" which arguably is marginal.) When you ask stupid questions which are supposed to be provocative, calling them "idiocy" isn't an insult. It's simply descriptive. Citing "aluminum wings through steel girders" or "melting point of steel is higher than the temp fuel burns at" as though that is a compelling question somehow betrays a fundamental lack of basic physics understanding. Those are stupid questions with obvious answers--answers that have nothing to do with government conspiracies, because they are basic physics.
  8. sneed12
    Meh. A 2824 in good shape is every bit as good of a movement as a 2892 / 2893 IMO. I think using a 2893 in that application is a waste of time and money.
  9. sneed12
    This is false. They are very similar and share many parts, but they are not the same. The mainplates are different and many of the parts on the top (dial side) of the movement are different. Basically everything on the bottom is the same. This can be important because for example, a 2836 date disc will fit on a 2824 but not vice versa. That's why building a low beat AP diver movement is such a pain in the ass.
  10. sneed12
    Someone whom you will never meet in person who was trying to sell you something pretended to agree with what you said just to get a sale? That's a real shocker. Who's the babe in the woods?
  11. sneed12
    It's easier and cheaper to sell it and buy a 2836 version than to swap the movement.
  12. sneed12
    I didn't insult you. That's a flat-out lie. See, that's one of the wonderful things about internet forums: everything that's said (well, written) is preserved, right there on the page. There is no place in my post where I insulted you. You clearly lack basic reading comprehension skills. Why? This thread went sideways the second that guy started typing. Either he'll get tired and go away, or he'll say something stupid and get banned, either way it's a win for us.
  13. sneed12
    No, it's the same movement, just with the cover plate installed. The pics I linked to are from the ofrei website. Yes, those wheels connect to the calendar adjustment mechanism to allow independent adjustment. It looks like the movement pictured at Cousins doesn't have the gear-within-a-gear GMT wheel which is required to have an independently adjustable GMT hand (the part holding the hand has to be able to slip against the part geared to the calendar wheel in order to allow adjustment) so perhaps this is a different variant of the same movement. Everything else looks the same.
  14. sneed12
    I have. I have a fairly unique background in that I both served in the military and have fairly extensive experience with explosives, and then went on to be a scientist and hold a PhD in physics. All of the idiocy you spouted is irrelevant non sequitur. The fact that you can't comprehend how stupid those issues are to even voice tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you. Now can we keep the 9/11 truther idiocy out of this forum?
  15. sneed12
    It is a modified 2813. That's what a 3804 is. 2813: 3804: A 3804 is a GMT-modded movement just like a 2836 with GMT module is. The calendar gear driving wheel is used to drive an additional wheel that sits on top of the movement. They are the exact same mod.
  16. sneed12
    Honestly, I have no idea. I used an ETA 2846 in my 1675 build. http://www.rwgforum.net/topic/147952-cartel-1675-converted-to-low-beat/
  17. sneed12
    The DG 3804 has an independently adjustable GMT hand. The Hangzhou 6460 is just a clone ETA with GMT, you need all the usual stuff for a 21j to ETA swap: new hands, new dial or cut feet, new stem, etc. The usual answer is don't bother.
  18. sneed12
    That's the one, $25 is pretty cheap IMO for a very well-done part. Very close to the gen. Honestly, I prefer using the TC tube over the gen tube because you don't have to countersink the case for a TC tube.
  19. sneed12
    Hard to tell with the out of focus pic, but the tube threads don't look as sharp as they should be. I'm going to guess stripped tube. You have a couple of different options to replace, but honestly you might as well upgrade while you're replacing--a TC crown/tube combo is nearly as good as gen, and not that expensive.
  20. sneed12
    Can you post a picture? Maybe let's start there. If it's really just "not screwing down" there's basically 3 things that can be wrong: 1) Inside threads of the crown are stripped 2) outside threads of the tube are stripped 3) threads between the tube and the case are stripped
  21. sneed12
    Again, you've shared absolutely no information that would let someone help you figure out what's wrong with it. There are a number of potential ways to fix it, none of them are very expensive, and there are a number of modders who could help you out (I'm in the Chicago area in fact) but no one can help you if all you say is "it used to be just like my real one."
  22. sneed12
    Why won't it screw down? By that I mean, is there something obviously wrong with the tube? The threads? All that stuff is on the outside of the watch, it's pretty easy to look at.
  23. sneed12
    I have installed gen gasket on a BP GMT IIc and it worked fine, both with rep and gen bezel retaining rings. Gen gasket doesn't work on a BP Sub C because the BP sub-c retaining ring has a larger ID than gen. I imagine a gen bezel with retaining ring would work fine with gen gasket. --- The sub that's pictured in that link almost certainly won't take gen anything. --- This "adding two posts together" thing is annoying, I posted two different posts because I wanted to.
  24. sneed12
    I built a 2893-2 powered 1675 with a DWO just a couple of weeks ago. It was finicky but I was able to make it work. The dial was a cartel dial, so it had the raised indices.
  25. sneed12
    Rodico is great stuff but don't go nuts with it, it can leave smudges and lift paint/lume if used too enthusiastically. Stop using Q-tips.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up