Design proven, meaning this design has been tested, and the math also agrees. Of course it agreed before it was tested.foodle wrote:Multiple issues here. First, that the design is shown to be water resistant to a certain pressure is not the same as showing that the instance of that design on my wrist is resistant to that pressure, since there can me manufacturing variations, assembly errors, materials defects, etc. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "proven" here, especially since in an earlier post, you allude to being "backed up by the math". Mathematical/analytical modeling is just that, modeling. No modeling is ever absolutely accurate as modeling excludes some second/third/fourth/etc. order effects that are deemed insignificant. However, the history of engineering is replete with examples of product failures due to modeling errors where effects deemed insignificant came back to bite the designers. Third, the seal is confirmed at a lower pressure, but that's not necessarily a guarantee that it will be good at a higher pressure. The failures here aren't necessarily binary (e.g., seal fails at 10m or never).t20569cald wrote: so if the design is proven and tested in R&D, and the seal is confirmed, what then is fly by night bullshit?
On the other hand, functional test is always more rigorous than manufacturing test. Manufacturing test has to factor in test time, test cost, and how it affects throughput/yield/bottom-line. I suppose it's a good thing that most dive watches shipped won't ever encounter conditions near their rated pressures. So whether it's rated at 200m or 3000m, it'll survive a dip in the pool just fine.Obviously you have more insight into the industry than I do, and yes, I was naive to think that a watch rated at 2000m had every instance tested at that depth.I am shocked you thought everyone did it. Where would one by a 3000M tester? Roxer would be special order I think.
true, you could have issues in manufacturing that one case may not quite be the same as the other 49 it was made with.
And also true, that a seal might function at 10M and may not at 100M, but it is more likely that your watch will have water ingress at 10M than it is at 100M, as there is less pressure squeezing it together on the seals. I have found this very much the case in dive bell seals.
Of course I would like to test each one to 701M, (1000M cases actually) but with all my expenses, and the huge financial set back with the Mhvj movements, it has been hard to put 8k towards a Roxer tester. Instead I chose to buy machines to prototype and test ideas (CNC mill and CNC lathe) and I also am almost ready to produce the CD-1 model, which of course money has been spent. Fricker is looking it over now. So it is coming, but it hardly makes it fly by night.
I do not mind being upfront either.