Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Watchrap was the last place on earth where one could discuss the finer points of everything from aesthetics to the nuances of drawing and locking angles of escapements without the incessant noisy drivel that plagues nigh on every other watch site. Oft accused of elitism, it was in fact a most inclusive watch discussion board if you gave it a chance.
It is a cliche but appropriate to state that you don't realise you're living in a golden age until it has passed and we became complacent and took Watchrap for granted. It could only get better couldn't it? And then suddenly -disaster- the last oasis of horology was taken from us.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Nobody ever discredited your 2004 inspiration; it was simply not the right timing for the watch, for JLC and for the market.Your inspiration was based on a JLC watch that is part of JLC patrimony, so even if your designs were published in 2004, nonetheless this piece is propriety of JLCThe 3 people that made this idea a project have never claimed to be the owner of any designs and material. However, extensive researches and works were carried to be in details as precise as possible to the original versions.The idea of re-introducing a Polaris was made due to several converging circumstances (growing appreciation of Vintage watches, Heritage Gallery, JLC diving patrimony etc…) with respect to managing JLC marketing, budget and product development strategy, thus leading to further analysis and ending in a triumphant project.You may feel let down, but all it falls down to, at the time you never presented a satisfactory proposal outlining the benefits and or motivations which could have led to a proposed project.In the end all that matters is that all watches and Polaris enthusiasts are given an opportunity to acquire an accurate re-edition of a legendary JLC piece.You ought to know that your 2004 inspiration and support was noted!Don’t be left out, get one too ;-)YVES
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
There are some great drawings and even a sectional view in the patent document.
All looks very close to ideas from 1876 and 1889 though.
Not self starting as far as I can tell and I'm still not seeing how part 13 provides shock proofing.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Of course, in so far as the movements will be modern and equivalent and with '65, '68 and Paris Boutique versions (apparently awarded for getting JLC to go ahead with the Polaris re-issue..... errrr is that some kind of joke?) to choose from, it encourages an 'authenticity' and aesthetic review rather than a technical one.
Nothwithstanding the ongoing debates of what JLC did exactly make 40+ years ago (hands and dials) they remain somewhat moot when the choice implied is now or never. As to the 65/68 debate, frankly from what I've seen of the protos, I'm amazed and they got the look perfectly right. Forget the backs it's all about the look and the discrepancies beween the originals and re-issues in the dial execution are small.
So which one? For me, I would go for a 68, just don't expect it to be an investment.
Except I won't be. One more for you then........ Why? Well, with the cachet of Polaris better established in the brand DNA of JLC after and somewhat in spite of the AMVOX debacle, let's just say you can expect more Polaris 'inspired' pieces so maybe you shouldn't blow your wad yet.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Can anybody make it?
After many hours in the laboratory, the concept of the required mechanical oscillator is clear. We need to improve the 'Q' factor and yet preferably have a system capable of being tolerant to wrist movement. The answer lies in the form of running a low inertia balance wheel with an ultra high speed escapement. Hitherto impossible, the solution arises from the adoption of a predominantly co-axial escapement combined with silicon/ruby parts giving both stability, low friction and particularly low inertia of the pallet fork. I then decided on the superclock philosophy of a free balance only concerned with keeping time rather than releasing the escapement.
With spring barrels similar to those now appearing in most long duration watches, three days running can be achieved with a balance wheel from a typical modern 8 day movement (around 4 mg cm2) oscillating at 43200 vph.
The master balance sits next to the slave. The master balance is entirely free and has no function to perform such as counting or releasing an escapement. It oscillates in solitary spendor preferabl in a vacuum. It would eventually come to rest of course as there is no perpetual motion, and therefore it must receive an impulse to keep it in motion. This is delivered every thirty seconds and just in time by a light arm. This itself is re-set by a heavier arm. The triggered reset of the heavy arm releases the impulse which is fed back to the slave balance.
The slave balance commands the watch timing, entirely self contained and is of the form of any high standard timekeeper that takes one’s fancy, but it must be a highly accurate one and needs to be so as it feeds an impulse to unlock the master light arm and just in time. The phase of the master and slave balances are directly compared, and if the slave is late, it is given an extra force to push it back in phase with the Master. If it is early, no action occurs, but the slave is deliberately set to run a few seconds slow a day, so that hits and misses occur regularly, thus ensuring that the phase of the slave is locked to the master. This is an incredibly sensitive action, with a timing interval of only some mili-seconds. The slave is kept in synchronisation with the master in a phase locked loop. The only engineers I can imagine that could pull this off in a wristwatch would be JLC. I await it.