The Dive Watch Connection

If anyone here does this or has direct contact with someone that does please hit me up.

Thanks, -Matt

Going to finally put the dynamic water resistant debate to rest with your watch, eh?

Gonna take a run at it. It’s interesting to me that we have accepted depth and anti magnetic testing but nothing listed or spec’d for G forces.

I find it interesting that my helmet, my armor, my rifle optics, and my light/laser all have Force impact ratings but not watches.

So, like I said, I’m gonna give it a run.

you are the Tip of the Spear, Graham - good luck, sir

Grahamcombat wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:17 pm

I find it interesting that my helmet, my armor, my rifle optics, and my light/laser all have Force impact ratings but not watches.

So, like I said, I’m gonna give it a run.

I suppose the question is if all those other rating mean dick or are they akin to FDA standards when dealing with Food and Drug? Not sure if there's a NSF/FDA-like equivalent for gear like that?

You might just need to do it all yourself with some connections I'm sure you have. Have some SOF-types take it for a dance (water jump, etc) with go-pros which would mean far more than any test and look killer. There's at least one U2 pilot on WUS and possibly more on the Bremont forum. Ask the Beale boys to take it for a ride in a T38 and into near-space. Those guys routinely do unrestricted seat-in-your-pant airport climbs in my area from Stockton, Sacramento, and Oroville.

Having Dr. Poindexter give his expert opinion would be great but real world testing would speak for itself.

I’m entering into the t&e phase with my prototypes, which I’ve set for 9,000 hours, aggregate over the number of units. The watches are already slated for jumps, dives, and ops with metrics for gathering data.

I have no problem establishing the testing protocol: I’d rather it be me than someone else. I’m already redefining the depth-test standards for my product peer group by utilizing a series of three tests: the standard vacuum test and depth tests that are conducted without movements and then adding a 125% individual wet test with the completed watch.

Most companies batch test without movements because its expensive to flood a watch - you basically destroy the movement. My position is: I’d rather take the failure on my end than you experience a failure at yours. I’m making and delivering operational mission timers that can not afford to fail.

My attention to detail delivering you an Ares watch is on par with my attention to detail when I was delivering national security operations at the CIA: failure is unacceptable.

Do it right and you only need to do it once.

Copy. Good stuff all around. Anxious to see the end result.

How do you know for certain that a completed watch doesn't suffer water ingress during the test?

gonzomantis wrote:How do you know for certain that a completed watch doesn't suffer water ingress during the test?

Heat pad is final for condensation test

I just did this at the table with Ed over pizza. Not hard.

gonzomantis wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:26 pm

How do you know for certain that a completed watch doesn't suffer water ingress during the test?

If it passes the "dry" test, the odds are very good that it'll pass the "wet" test.

So basically what I’m saying is we’re doing it twice: without movement and then with movement.

A wet watch test without full assembly to me is like dry firing a weapon: you know the cycle of operation works but it didn’t fire an actual round. So I’m going to take the time to do it twice, empty then full.

You are building a lot of anticipation here. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result.

gonzomantis wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:33 pm

You are building a lot of anticipation here. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result.

This.

I’ll start ‘officially’ posting some stuff up in a few weeks. My intent is to make certain that everything is already well into t&e before I start communicating about the product specs and particulars.

Everything is in place, just wanting to wring it out more before bringing it out.

When I hand you a watch I want you to know you can bet your life on it, because I’ve already bet mine.

I’m in Panama City for something and my buddy is the test director for the SAT/FADS project down the street (I think you can google it?). They are ramping up for a 1000 foot open ocean dive - maybe he’ll sneak in a prototype for you - I’ll ask him tomorrow. They are pretty squirmy on putting anything in the ‘people tank’ without authorization from the IRB, but it’s a watch... so, maybe? Don’t know the time line, though. It’s 14 semi trucks worth of gear; he has his hands full

Grahamcombat wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:38 pm

I’ll start ‘officially’ posting some stuff up in a few weeks. My intent is to make certain that everything is already well into t&e before I start communicating about the product specs and particulars.

Everything is in place, just wanting to wring it out more before bringing it out.

When I hand you a watch I want you to know you can bet your life on it, because I’ve already bet mine.

But, will you sell your entire first run in 20 seconds, and leave internet weenies crying because they are butt-hurt?

I don’t know shit about applied physics or oceanography, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Can't wait for the specs of your watch ...... at least some spy shots...

*following

Grahamcombat wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:12 pm

Gonna take a run at it. It’s interesting to me that we have accepted depth and anti magnetic testing but nothing listed or spec’d for G forces.

I look forward to seeing your approach here to watches given that they are not solid state like your armor or helmet/optics. The impact resistance probably largely depends on the axis of the watch that takes the impact. Hands/rotor/crystal are probably the weak points.

Apple initially listed their watch as "Impact Resistant" but removed the tag after a lawsuit from owner's with cracked watches. The entire concept that G-Shock sells with their watches is based on high impact/shock resistance, and yet they seem to give no actual objective metrics to their testing, although I have seen references to the "triple 10" - surviving a 10 meter fall, 10 bar WR and 10 year battery.....

Shock Resistance in the watch world is the closest mechanism in place to measure impact for the movement, usually following the ISO 1413 standard.
ISO 1413:2016 specifies the minimum requirements for shock-resistant wrist watches and describes the corresponding test method.

It is based on the simulation of the shock received by a wrist watch while falling from a height of 1 m onto a horizontal wooden floor (an equivalent surface is described in B.1.1).

In practice shock resistance is generally tested by applying two shocks (one on the 9 o'clock side, and one to the crystal and perpendicular to the face). The shock is usually delivered by a hard plastic hammer mounted as a pendulum, so as to deliver a measured amount of energy, specifically, a 3 kg hammer with an impact velocity of 4.43 m/s (This will deliver approximately 30 Joules of energy to the watch). The watch must keep its accuracy to +/- 60 seconds/day as measured before the test.

Dynamic water resistance comes up on watch forums but does seem to be rather absent from watch companies. However coincidentally I was just looking at the WR specs/ratings for my Garmin Fenix 5 the other day, and one of their lines of guidance among the usual suspects is "High-speed watersports" (which shows up as "suitable" at 10 ATM).

Water sports,
10 ATM
Suitable:
Splashes
Rain or snow
Showering
Swimming
Diving into water
Snorkeling
High-speed watersports

Unsuitable:
Scuba Diving

I'm only interested in this watch if it can stand the dynamic water pressure while I'm taking a shower.