Sort of HAQ question
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Sort of HAQ question

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    Member pantagruel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nassau County, NY
    Posts
    6,165

    Sort of HAQ question

    I have two Bulova watches that are not exactly HAQ (no thermocompensation) but are certainly supposed to be more accurate than the average quartz watch. My UHF chronograph and my Accutron II Snorkel. On the UHF the second hand ticks every half a second, on the Snorkel it is a smooth second hand. Theoretically, which one would you suspect to be more accurate? Should there be a difference?
    Last edited by pantagruel; September 28th, 2019 at 19:44.
    "This thing all things devours:
    Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
    Gnaws iron, bites steel,
    Grinds hard stones to meal;
    Slays king, ruins town,
    And beats high mountain down."
    J.R.R. Tolkien

  2. #2
    Banned ppaulusz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    3,654

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by pantagruel View Post
    I have two Bulova watches that are not exactly HAQ (no thermocompensation) but are certainly supposed to be more accurate than the average quartz watch. My UHF chronograph and my Accutron II Snorkel. On the UHF the second hand ticks every half a second, on the Snorkel it is a smooth second hand. Theoretically, which one would you suspect to be more accurate? Should there be a difference?...
    - In my book both Bulovas are HAQ as they use a 262kHz high-frequency quartz crystal compared to the 32kHz quartz crystal used by the ordinary quartz watches. Bulova use 262kHz quartz crystal for the one and only reason: improve accuracy!
    - Theoretically, both of your watches should perform similarly (since they both use the same technology from an accuracy point of view) and that does not necessarily mean similar performances in practice due to possible calibration differences (a quality control issue).
    pantagruel likes this.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    690

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by ppaulusz View Post
    - In my book both Bulovas are HAQ as they use a 262kHz high-frequency quartz crystal compared to the 32kHz quartz crystal used by the ordinary quartz watches. Bulova use 262kHz quartz crystal for the one and only reason: improve accuracy!
    - Theoretically, both of your watches should perform similarly (since they both use the same technology from an accuracy point of view) and that does not necessarily mean similar performances in practice due to possible calibration differences (a quality control issue).
    I'm by no means an expert, but haven't there been lots of posts bemoaning the lack of accuracy in the UHF Bulovas? Isn't this the old story of the company says 10s but the customers say not measured by me?

    As an aside, do they qualify for Ronald's definition of HAQ? https://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/wha...t-5039357.html I wouldn't say there is a resounding affirmation of 10s from this forum's members, and I don't believe they are TC.

    While I'm here, does anybody know when the 8j41 was introduced?

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Banned ppaulusz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    3,654

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by woodville63 View Post
    ...As an aside, do they qualify for Ronald's definition of HAQ? https://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/wha...t-5039357.html...
    Ron's definition of HAQ is useless because it is not clearly specifies the requirements. According to Ron's description a modern HAQ is a watch that who's offset is no worse than 10 s/y, based on measurements.
    Offset to the atomic clock or offset to the watch own timebase (the way it is calibrated in the factory)?!
    Here is an example, let's take a Citizen Cal.G530: Let's say, it gains consistently 24 seconds/year (years after years) according to the atomic clock. On the other hand, it is rock solid according to its own timebase (the way it is calibrated in the factory). You might say reading the above figure that it is not HAQ and I might say it is! Which means Ron's description of HAQ is useless.
    Now, take ppaulusz's description of HAQ: https://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/jus...l#post49898711 (post #51):
    How we know if the actual watch is HAQ? Very simple, by knowing the applied technologies it uses to achieve high-accuracy...
    Applied technologies are the key! Does the watch feature any technology that is installed for the purpose to improve accuracy/precision over the standard (unaided) 32kHz quartz watch? If the answer is yes then we have a HAQ watch. The applied technologies might differ in form and efficiency but that is secondary.
    Naturally, we are talking about intrinsically(!!!) accurate/precise watches as opposed to RF/GPS/BT (only) aided watches.
    pantagruel likes this.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    690

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by ppaulusz View Post
    Now, take ppaulusz's description of HAQ: https://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/jus...l#post49898711 (post #51):
    How we know if the actual watch is HAQ? Very simple, by knowing the applied technologies it uses to achieve high-accuracy...
    Applied technologies are the key! Does the watch feature any technology that is installed for the purpose to improve accuracy/precision over the standard (unaided) 32kHz quartz watch? If the answer is yes then we have a HAQ watch. The applied technologies might differ in form and efficiency but that is secondary.
    Naturally, we are talking about intrinsically(!!!) accurate/precise watches as opposed to RF/GPS/BT (only) aided watches.
    Very interesting explanation. So there's two definitions, yours and Ronald's. I wonder which one will win out? Either way, I would be annoyed if I bought a watch that said Xs/year and didn't perform to spec. Who ever wins, I trust people will not be dogmatic about their definition and inform new members what companies say in their marketing sometimes ain't true in practice, as evidenced by esteemed members' postings on accuracy.

  7. #6
    Banned ppaulusz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    3,654

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by woodville63 View Post
    Very interesting explanation. So there's two definitions, yours and Ronald's. I wonder which one will win out? Either way, I would be annoyed if I bought a watch that said Xs/year and didn't perform to spec. Who ever wins, I trust people will not be dogmatic about their definition and inform new members what companies say in their marketing sometimes ain't true in practice, as evidenced by esteemed members' postings on accuracy.
    My definition is clearly the "winner" (practical would be the right word here):
    - no need to measure anything
    - cannot be misinterpret
    - it is based on applied technologies (just as any high-accuracy watch)
    - simple, easy to understand
    - in-line with the heritage of this forum
    - ignores sample to sample imperfection (like non-optimal calibration out of the factory)
    - accepts and acknowledges older and newer technologies while open for future technologies
    Shall I continue?!

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    209

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by ppaulusz View Post
    My definition is clearly the "winner" (practical would be the right word here):
    - no need to measure anything
    - cannot be misinterpret
    - it is based on applied technologies (just as any high-accuracy watch)
    - simple, easy to understand
    - in-line with the heritage of this forum
    - ignores sample to sample imperfection (like non-optimal calibration out of the factory)
    - accepts and acknowledges older and newer technologies while open for future technologies
    Shall I continue?!
    Sounds like a sensible idea.
    My only caution is that we must not rule out innovation.
    If somebody invents a way of making a 32Khz xtal thermo-insensitive we want to know about it !
    -Watches with a 'ppaulusz passport' are waved through immigration.
    -Posts about no-passport watches are deported unless they make a credible case for the watch including 'new HAQ technology'.
    -If in doubt allow
    Wempe Quartz Marine Chronometer, Longines VHP, GO Senator Excellence

  9. #8
    Banned ppaulusz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    3,654

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveM View Post
    Sounds like a sensible idea.
    My only caution is that we must not rule out innovation.
    If somebody invents a way of making a 32Khz xtal thermo-insensitive we want to know about it!...
    "- accepts and acknowledges older and newer technologies while open for future technologies"
    innovation = open for future technologies as long as it is within the intrinsically accurate/precise term
    Eeeb likes this.

  10. #9
    Member pantagruel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nassau County, NY
    Posts
    6,165

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by ppaulusz View Post
    Ron's definition of HAQ is useless because it is not clearly specifies the requirements. According to Ron's description a modern HAQ is a watch that who's offset is no worse than 10 s/y, based on measurements.
    Offset to the atomic clock or offset to the watch own timebase (the way it is calibrated in the factory)?!
    Here is an example, let's take a Citizen Cal.G530: Let's say, it gains consistently 24 seconds/year (years after years) according to the atomic clock. On the other hand, it is rock solid according to its own timebase (the way it is calibrated in the factory). You might say reading the above figure that it is not HAQ and I might say it is! Which means Ron's description of HAQ is useless.
    Now, take ppaulusz's description of HAQ: https://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/jus...l#post49898711 (post #51):
    How we know if the actual watch is HAQ? Very simple, by knowing the applied technologies it uses to achieve high-accuracy...
    Applied technologies are the key! Does the watch feature any technology that is installed for the purpose to improve accuracy/precision over the standard (unaided) 32kHz quartz watch? If the answer is yes then we have a HAQ watch. The applied technologies might differ in form and efficiency but that is secondary.
    Naturally, we are talking about intrinsically(!!!) accurate/precise watches as opposed to RF/GPS/BT (only) aided watches.
    I like your definition. Makes sense to me!
    "This thing all things devours:
    Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
    Gnaws iron, bites steel,
    Grinds hard stones to meal;
    Slays king, ruins town,
    And beats high mountain down."
    J.R.R. Tolkien

  11. #10
    Banned ppaulusz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    3,654

    Re: Sort of HAQ question

    Quote Originally Posted by pantagruel View Post
    I like your definition. Makes sense to me!
    Common sense, that is all it takes!
    pantagruel likes this.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 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
    •