Bought a water resistance tester - What am I doing wrong?

[Doud]

I always hated not being able to wear most of my watches in the summer so earlier in June I purchased a Chinese water resistance tester.

I first tested watches that I had previously sent to watchsmiths and that were supposedly made water resistant and tested to 5 or 6 ATM, to my surprise most failed the test, even at 3 ATM. This is pretty scary knowing that I had been swimming with them all this time (luckily everything was fine once I opened them)...

Since I had Seiko silicon grease and a Bergeon lubrigaskets I went on to grease all the gaskets etc... After which, once again most watches failed the test. Some of the watches that failed were JF AP diver v7 and noob v3.5, Forged Carbon Diver Noob v4, Noob AP Roo chronos, Noob v7 submariners, JF AP 15400, PAM Luminors...

The only rep that passed to 3 and 5 ATM after I greased all the gaskets was my Pam26K.
I also tried with a gen watch and it also passed to 5 ATM.

PASS:

FAIL:

I dont know what conclusion to draw form all these tests:

1- The tester I am bought is crap

2- Its very hard to make reps water resistant and some watchsmiths/modders dont go through the hassle of really testing them.

3 and most likely scenario- I am doing something wrong, may it be in the testing or the greasing/sealing of the watches.

For the test here are the steps I followed:

1- I fill up the water till the red line
2- place the watch above the water, pressurize the tester till 3ATM, wait a minute or so for the pressured air to get in the watch
3- drop it in the water and lock it in, wait a minute or so and observe the watch to see if it leaks
4- release the pressure progressively and everytime I release a bit I check the watch for bubbles.
If bubbles come out of the crown/crystal etc I bring the watch back up before I release the rest of the pressure. If no bubbles come out of all the possible entry points then it passed and I go on to test at 5 ATM.

I am aware that air can be trapped in some areas which are not in the sealed part of the watch but everytime the bubbles would come out from the crystal/crown or bezel and case-back screws (APs).

To make the watch water resistant I simply grease all the gaskets and tighten the caseback, crown as well all the possible screws.

Would really appreciate input on what I am doing wrong. Thank you.

 

[orson]

We test flanged joints containing 'O' rings to over 240 atm and never apply grease of any sort to the gasket.

The only reason I can see to apply the absolute minimum of silicone grease is where the gasket may be rippled, necked or torn by the screwing action during compression by the crown or back but silicone itself plays no role in the seal.

So the AP crown gaskets could have a tiny amount of silicone to allow "sliding" of the metal screwing action but the back gasket would not need it nor would a PAM crown gasket that will have straight compression on closing the lever.

 

[chris3007]

There are ALWAYS some bubbles. because there is always a bit of air under the bezel or around the crown.
The watch is not waterproof when a line of bubbles comes out for more than 1-2 seconds.

 

[QueTip]

There are ALWAYS some bubbles. because there is always a bit of air under the bezel or around the crown.
The watch is not waterproof when a line of bubbles comes out for more than 1-2 seconds.

I second what Chris said and also if I were you, I would remove the inside of the watch when testing. Because once a watch REALLY leaks, you'll have the mess all around the dial, hands and movement. If you remove the inner part of the watch, you eliminate the chance of ruining these parts and only have a wet case if it really leaks.

 

[chris3007]

And this is how you should use such a tester

 

[Doud]

Thank you for your replies.

I know it's advised to test the watch empty but I have limited skills and I sometimes struggle to fit back the movement dial etc properly so I chose the lazy/risky road.

In the case of the diver (pictured), each time I would press the release button new bubbles would appear around the bezel but while pressure was not being released the bubbles would stay still, I assume if I had pressed the release button continuously it would have formed a line.

I will try again following the Bergeon instructions Chris3007 provided. Thx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UDTMIKE]

I was thinking of buying one for myself. But are they accurate? I don't want to spend $150 on ebay to buy one if they aren't accurate. Comments?

 

[chris3007]

I was thinking of buying one for myself. But are they accurate? I don't want to spend $150 on ebay to buy one if they aren't accurate. Comments?

This Chinese testers work exactly the same as one from Bergeon.
I have one of this Chinese testers at home and I use it up to 6bar without any problems

 

[Rx4Time]

I have what is probably the same as above, use it to test all my divers, and yes they are accurate. Remember, this is a static test. There is alot more to water resistance. If you just dunked it in a foot of water at the pool, most watches would survive. There is dynamic pressure as you move and jump in where the pressure jumps for a second or two, duration of exposure and temperature of the water which can very results and which is why noone will cover water damage, not even ADs...It is unpredictable. How many bubbles are you getting? Is it a steady stream? I'd suggest releasing pressure slowly as there is a change you can blow the crystal off if there is too much of a pressure differential. Post a short video and you can get a better opinion of if you have a crystal gasket leak or if it's residual air under the bezel.

 

[trailboss99]

As the lads have said those all passed. What you don't want to see is a line of bubbles.
Never saw the point of testing empty cases, you need to open it again to put the guts back so you then need to retest anyway. At any rate if you test correctly there is no real chance of water entering the watch. The idea is to slowly release the pressure not dump it. That way if you see the dreaded line of bubbles you stop depressurising and raise the watch back out of the water before things equalise. I've tested literally 1000s of watches over the years with zero damage.

 

[svshawn]

I have one as well and it works great, but I have never tested the watch with the movement inside? I don't believe that's a safe bet. If you get any type of leaks then you are out of a good timepiece.

 

[Doud]

Thanks for all the answers. As soon as I have a bit of time on hands I will retest and try to take a video.

As for the tester it's pretty well build, and if unlike me you use/read it properly then I think it's totally worth it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nanook65]

I second what Chris said and also if I were you, I would remove the inside of the watch when testing. Because once a watch REALLY leaks, you'll have the mess all around the dial, hands and movement. If you remove the inner part of the watch, you eliminate the chance of ruining these parts and only have a wet case if it really leaks.

I think testing with the movement out is pointless

As the lads have said those all passed. What you don't want to see is a line of bubbles.
Never saw the point of testing empty cases, you need to open it again to put the guts back so you then need to retest anyway. At any rate if you test correctly there is no real chance of water entering the watch. The idea is to slowly release the pressure not dump it. That way if you see the dreaded line of bubbles you stop depressurising and raise the watch back out of the water before things equalise. I've tested literally 1000s of watches over the years with zero damage.

As TB says in order to really be sure you would really have to re test after putting the movement back in. Once you remove the back to put the movement back in you re introduce possible new leaks thus testing with the movement out does eliminate the possibility of damaging the movement it makes the test invalid

 

[Ko67]

I understand the point of tb and the others . My first test of a rep case is always with the movement out . I want to see if the case is capable of sealing up. If it is capable of a seal, i know that once the watch is assembled and sealed and retested I have a higher confidence of a safe test. I don't do the same thing with gen watches, as I assume that they are capable of holding a seal. Many rep cases just are not and I want to know that before I put the dial and mvt at risk. Just my process.


Sent from my iPhone using RWI

 

[secfincorp]

Hey @Ko67 haven't seen you for a while hope all is well down in Texas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ko67]

Hey @Ko67 haven't seen you for a while hope all is well down in Texas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Howdy.@secfincorp All is well, but the day job keeps me hopping.



Sent from the RWI mobile app

 

[tomdavison]

I always thought that the reason for removing the movement was to avoid it being destroyed if the crystal blew out while the watch was underwater, and pressure released. Once you've proven the crystal sound, you can safely put the movement back in and do the "proper" leak test. Any leakage found there would be air coming out of the case, so as long as you immediately removed the watch from the water if it was showing bubbles, there would be no chance of getting water in.

 

[Doud]

Ok so here are some videos of tests I did, sorry about the poor quality but only had my phone and I think it got even worse once I uploaded them. I am still unsure if the bubbles are just trapped air or leaks.

In the case of the forged carbon diver it might be a leak since there are lots of bubbles coming from the crystal. I am unsure about the hulk and the 15400, I think the Pam passed.

I havent had time to film all the watches that I want to test but hopefully with your comments on these I will be able to understand better when the test can be considered passed. Thank you.

NOOB v7 sub LV:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zu6knkyfrzfidz1/SUB LV test .mp4?dl=0

AP JF 15400:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3brug74uxmlk23s/15400TEST.mp4?dl=0

PAM 390:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/svnwf1gmhj7j1q4/PAM 390 TEST.mp4?dl=0

Noob FC fiver v4:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2n9yg08tswofcdt/FC diver TEST.mp4?dl=0

 

[Diver.Dave]

The method the OP describes as his test is incorrect, and if the correct process is followed there's no discussion of "movement in or out". The test MUST be done with the watch assembled, otherwise when you re-open it you've breached the seal. This is from doing hundreds of tests of instruments as well as watches used at extreme depth i my former career as a professional diver.

The key is to pressurize the watch in the dry, let it sit for a bit, depressurize it DRY and then IMMEDIATELY submwege it in the water. All that you can POSSIBLY get doing this is a bubble trail out of a leak and it's NOT POSSIBLE to flood the watch.

To review:

Pressurize dry.
Let sit.
Depressurize it QUICKLY in the dry.
Submerge IMMEDIATELY and look for leaks (not trapped bubbles escaping from nooks and crannys)

You NEVER submerge it pressurized. You're begging for water in the watch if you do this.

 

[R2L]

Been following this thread with interest as I hope to pick up a tester in the near future.

Here is a YouTube video from our friends at StarTime which may help illustrate the correct method for water resistance testing:

https://youtu.be/GS8vWBuQ2eg

I found his final comment of 3bar vs 6bar testing on units with 6bar gauges interesting!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk