901 Module battery question

Thread: 901 Module battery question

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Member Snowback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,527

    901 Module battery question

    I was checking a spare DW-5600 that I have yesterday (a real bear to get the case back unscrewed). I finally managed to get the back off by soaking the watch in hot water & then putting ice directly on the case back. I was surprised when I opened the back & found that the 901 module had a CR 2016 battery in it! It seems very strange that a battery that small is used, so I checked my battery chart & that is what is specified. My other DW-5600 (691 module) has a CR 2320 battery in it; that looks correct as it fits in the battery compartment snug. Any body else seen this before? Is there a chance that the size of a CR 2016 has changed? I know the module is original to the watch & the hold down strap for the battery is stamped "2016" but there must be about an 1/8"/3.175 mm clearance all the way around the battery. It just doesn't seem the way to build a G-Shock. Anybody else seen this?

  2. #2
    Member casiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowback View Post
    I was checking a spare DW-5600 that I have yesterday (a real bear to get the case back unscrewed). I finally managed to get the back off by soaking the watch in hot water & then putting ice directly on the case back. I was surprised when I opened the back & found that the 901 module had a CR 2016 battery in it! It seems very strange that a battery that small is used, so I checked my battery chart & that is what is specified. My other DW-5600 (691 module) has a CR 2320 battery in it; that looks correct as it fits in the battery compartment snug. Any body else seen this before? Is there a chance that the size of a CR 2016 has changed? I know the module is original to the watch & the hold down strap for the battery is stamped "2016" but there must be about an 1/8"/3.175 mm clearance all the way around the battery. It just doesn't seem the way to build a G-Shock. Anybody else seen this?
    The module 901 takes the 2016 battery and the module 691 takes the 2320 battery. Otherwise they're identical. I think the only difference between the two is the thickness of the battery retainer - that black rubbery piece that fits around the battery.

  3. #3
    Member Lexxorcist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,619

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    Quote Originally Posted by casiophile View Post
    I think the only difference between the two is the thickness of the battery retainer - that black rubbery piece that fits around the battery.
    Snowback, if there is a 3mm clearance around the battery, could the 'black rubbery piece' be missing?
    "The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is." C S Lewis

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Member Snowback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,527

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    Everything is identical on both watches. There is a black rubber retainer (looks like a donut with bumps on one side) that fits between the case back & the battery retainer. It just seems strange that in one case, the battery fits snug in a ring while the other has so much clearance between the battery & the ring. Is there any reason that I couldn't put the same battery in both watches? If the voltage is the same & they are the same thickness, I wouldn't think it would make any difference. I did notice that the 691 movement has a brighter light than the 901 movement, but that could be just the difference in battery age.

  6. #5
    Member Lexxorcist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,619

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    I've not seen inside one and can't find any pics, but I wasn't referring to the shock absorbing rubber cover. Casiophile seems to describe something that fits inside the ring so the smaller battery fits snuggly.
    "The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is." C S Lewis

  7. #6
    Member Snowback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,527

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    Now that I've read his posting again, I would agree. There was nothing in mine. The 901 is the same as the 691. I'll try & post pictures in a bit.

  8. #7
    Member Snowback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,527

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    Here's the 2 modules side by side. The one with the bezel & strap is actually a DW-5600C-9V (gold pushers) and has the 901 module:
    Both disassembled (same rubber ring between the case back & battery):691 module (note the gap between the battery & the side:901 module (note that the battery is tight to the side):And I promised Leon a picture (got them from him):

  9. #8
    Member Lexxorcist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,619

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    I see what you mean now. As you say, it looks like it was designed for a larger battery, but the rubber cover/ring might be designed to stop the it moving about. I'm interested in what the experts have to say on this one.
    "The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is." C S Lewis

  10. #9
    Member hoochy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wigan, UK
    Posts
    2,223

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    As luck would have it I recently changed a battery on my DW-6400 which is a 901 module. I can clearly see from you pics that you are missing a rubber '0' ring that sits snugly around the battery, stopping it from slipping about.

    Apart from that I had a shite of a time removing the battery as i couldnt lift the metal clip and had to slide it out from the side (by moving the '0'ring), underneath the battery is a metal sensor (for want of a better word) plate that sits on contacts on the circuit board. Be careful not to disturb it.

    In conclusion to my drunken rambling post, It does indeed take a CR2016 but a rubber ring is missing that wraps around the battery itself, thus leaving a gap. I will be more than happy to take a pic of what the insides should look like at a later (more sober) date!

    Watches are frickin evil!

  11. #10
    Member Lexxorcist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,619

    Re: 901 Module battery question

    Quote Originally Posted by hoochy View Post
    In conclusion to my drunken rambling post, It does indeed take a CR2016 but a rubber ring is missing that wraps around the battery itself, thus leaving a gap. I will be more than happy to take a pic of what the insides should look like at a later (more sober) date!
    Is it possible that this o-ring was removed with the battery on a previous battery change? This may not be much of a problem, as it shouldn't be hard to come by an o-ring that will do the job.
    "The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is." C S Lewis

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •