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?
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.
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.
Your understanding of mechanical watches is incorrect. They aren't somehow up-sampling the stepped movement of the 'governor' to make a more smooth movement. The balance of the watch ticks at a rate higher than 1Hz (4Hz is a very common beat rate.)
Oh that’s interesting. So most mechanical watches don’t have smooth motion, just smoother motion? What about music box movements, are those the same?
Music boxes don’t have escapements