this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Watches

0 readers
1 users here now

A community for watch & horology discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't understand why most quartz watches are stuck with ticking second hands rather than smooth sweep second hands. I prefer quartz movements for their dramatically superior accuracy, but I also prefer the look of a smooth sweep second hand. I have yet to see a convincing explanation for why quartz second hands must tick beyond vague gesturing at power saving, but not only that, I have seen sweeping second hands on inexpensive quartz wall clocks from IKEA, so it's clearly possible.

I regret to say I've started to think that ticking second hands on quartz watches are essentially cartelized marketing on the part of watchmakers to easily distinguish less expensive but technologically superior quartz movements from luxury-branded mechanical movements. Can anybody talk me out of this conspiratorial thinking, or confirm it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MyNameIsVigil@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

This question is asked all the time. The convincing answer is simple: a sweeping seconds hand uses a lot more power than a ticking one. Wall clocks can do it because they use comparatively massive batteries. Most people would rather have double the battery life than a smooth sweep.

[–] wanderangst@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I guess I just don’t find that answer very persuasive. I mean, I’m no engineer, but it seems like it wouldn’t be that hard to do. I mean, if it’s really only a factor of two, couldn’t you just fit a second battery in there?

But even setting that aside, mechanical movements translate the stepped movement of a governor through a series of interlocking gears to achieve a smooth motion, I don’t see why something similar can’t be added to a quartz movement.

[–] MyNameIsVigil@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those things are technically possible, but they increase complexity and cost. The battery takes up a huge amount of space in most quartz movements - it’s by far the largest part - so it’s not trivial to just add a second one. Also, running batteries in a series causes difficulty…what happens if one battery dies prematurely? Most people wouldn’t be willing to pay double or more for their watch just to get a sweeping second hand.

Hybrid electronic movements that used battery power to drive a mechanical geartrain existed briefly in the early 1970s, but they were quickly replaced by quartz movements because they were inferior in every objective way.

[–] wanderangst@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Idk, it seems like some people are willing to pay quite a bit for watches, including ones that have features that add complexity without clear timekeeping benefit

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)