Talk:Tourbillon

accuracy vs regular mech watches
''The escapement of a watch placed in the horizontal plane ("pendant up" or "dial up" positions) will have little variations in the frequency of its balance wheel as the changes in the escapement's center of gravity are negligible. Therefore, one can deduce that the tourbillon does not correct the rate variations in the horizontal position; in fact, Breguet was careful not to say this in his application for a patent. On the other hand, a watch placed in the vertical positions (crown left; right; down; or up) may have zero to large variations in the frequency of its balance wheel as a result of changes in the escapement's center of gravity. Thus, for example, in vertical position one, the watch may have a variation of 2 seconds/day, in vertical position two, 4 seconds/day, and yet in vertical position three, 0 seconds/day. As a result, a watch laid flat at night and always placed in the same vertical position during the day does not provide better results when equipped with a tourbillon. It's more the contrary that is true, because in a vertical position the tourbillon watch gives an average rate while the watch without a tourbillon gives only the rating result corresponding to the position it occupies.

the possible advantage of the tourbillon then manifests only if the watch without tourbillon remains in any one vertical position during the day. The performance advantage is even further nullified by the fact that wristwatches spend a less predictable amount of time in less predictable positions. The actual moving of your wrist acts as a tourbillon for your wristwatch! When you wear them, they occupy an infinite variety of positions and their rating results give an average of this constant motion.

Breguet was correct in observing that the regular functioning of a watch was influenced to a great extent by the watch's position. Therefore, he concluded that the cause of such variations was due to the effects of gravity on the escapement and he mentions this in his patent application. However, it never occurred to him that perhaps these variations were due to some components in a watch's movement. 19th century Breguet constructed watch components of such high level that he considered (but was only partly right) the perfect balancing of balance wheel and balance spring to be a given. Eventually it was discovered that the real problem was the balancing of the balance wheel and, only in second place, its friction. For a watch's operation to be consistent (i.e. "accurate"), the balance wheel must be perfectly round and poised (i.e., in balance, without heavy points on the wheel) and the spring must extend and contract symmetrically from the exact center of its coil.

Of greater importance to watchmaking at the time of the tourbillon's development, was that Breguet's invention produced watches requiring less frequent maintenance. Because 19th century portable watches were almost exclusively pocket watches, they were frequently carried in coat vest pockets and held constantly in a vertical position. Carried in this fashion, the balance wheel pivot rested only on one side of its seat and consequently, friction - which was considerable given the materials used, the internal surface finish, and the lubricants adopted at the time - caused a strong wear on both seat and pivot and made frequent servicing necessary." User:Ericg33(talk)

Id like to argue that breguet knew more then well that it was parts of the escapement, it was after all he who invented the breguet overcoil to counteract the exact same things you argue was only realized after his time. And i find it a little brash to say such things never occurred to him.

And wrists dont act as tourbillons for watches, the great majority of the time a wristwatch is hanging with the crown down or with dial up. think about it, how often to you have your wrist straight up(9 o'clock down). most of the time, its in front of you writing or walking or holding something up. sometimes 12 o'clock down, but most of the time with the hand hanging down as in walking, which means penduling from 3 o'clock down to 12 o'clock down. very rarely 6 o'clock down(except for checking time, which in total isnt that much time in total) and even more rarely 9 o'clock down.

However, i concede the point that the swiss lever escapement is at its maximum a 3 second a day escapement, tourbillon or not(yes, i have managed to make perfect tourbillons, with >1 second delta and awesome amplitude in all positions, but thats the exception). So adding a tourbillon will not make the swiss lever escapement more accurate. There is a tiny bit of difference, but it is rare and is only ever 3 seconds difference(ass pulled number, but somewhere around there)

Furthermore, in regards to the article. id like to point out that "In horology, a tourbillon (pronounced /tʊərˈbɪljən/, French: [tuʁbijɔ̃], "whirlwind") is an addition to the mechanics of a watch escapement." is not entirely correct. a tourbillon is no addition to the mechanics of the escapement. The mechanics of the escapement stay exactly the same with or without the tourbillon. I would say its a mechanic that carries the escapement to work against the effects of gravity on the balance wheel.

also " ostensibly in order to negate the effect of gravity when the timepiece (and thus the escapement) is rotated", it was actually created to allow the watchmaker to regulate the watch so that no matter which position it stays in it regulates the same, as a pocket watch was almost always kept in a breast pocket, vertical position, but the watchmaker could never count on which of the 4 vertical positions (arguably almost always crown up, but a difference between 10 o'clock up and 2 o'clock up can affect the balance wheel a lot). So in short. it was made to negate the effects of a fixed position, but to allow the watch to regulate the same no matter which.

Further. "Gravity was thought to have a very adverse effect on the accuracy of time pieces at the time of the invention of the tourbillon" was thought? it still has, this is why Breguet overcoil and sometimes even grossman innercoils are still used. gravity still has, and always has had, a great effect on the escapement.

"particularly because pocketwatches were often less accurate than stationary clocks of the same construction" There is something missing here, i cant put my finger on it exactly, but part of it comes from "clocks" which for me have a pendulum, and thus not the same construction, but i dont know a good english word for stationary balance wheel escapement clock/watch is called, so i dont really know what could go in here instead. up for discussion i guess. The rest of the "Mechanism of action" is very muddled. I suggest the following:

Mechanics of the Tourbillon Gravity has a direct effect on the most delicate parts of the escapement, namely pallet fork, balance wheel and hairspring. Most notably the hairspring, which functions as a regulator for the escapement and is thus the most sensitive part to any exterior effects, such as magnetism, shocks, temperature, and inner effects such as pinning positions(inner collet), terminal curve and heavy points on the balance wheel. Many different inventions have been developed to counteract these problems. temperature and magnetism have all but been eliminated as problems with new materials. Shocks have much less effect today then at Breguet's time thanks to stronger and more resistive materials. The escapement still gets deregulated at the moment of the shock, but the hairspring does not get as easily deformed from shocks as before. Gravity comes into play on the remaining effects, one of them is easily taken away, namely heavy point on the balance wheel. This leaves pinning point and terminal curve. Both of these are what adds a lot of variation to the regulation of a watch, depending on how it is assembled and regulated by the watchmaker and positioned in the watch and later by the owner. As the balance wheel goes from one extreme position to the other in its swing back and forth, the hairsprings coils extend and contract a great deal, leading to problems that are extremely hard to counteract. Some have tried using hair springs that are cylindrical or even spherical instead of flat as is prominent today. Some variations of Breguets overcoil have been developed to counteract the effects of the terminal curve. As for the pinning point, Grossmann, Berthoud, Breguet, Caspari and Leroy tried many different things, but not much was gained. The biggest obstacle for a watchmaker regulating a watch, even today, is getting a similar result from the escapement no matter the position it is kept in. This has been made infinitely easier with accurate timing machines which give instantaneous timing results, where as in Breguet's time all that watchmakers had was a another watch to regulate from, so results were not very exact and it could take weeks to get them. Effects of gravity on an escapement can have quite significant effects with slight variations of position, even if a pocketwatch was most of the time in a breast pocket, the exact position could still vary over 45°. A tourbillon quite neatly takes away this problem. The watchmaker now only needs to regulate for 3 different positions, instead of 6 like before. Those are two horizontal positions, dial up and down, and four vertical positions, crown at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock. A tourbillon most often makes one complete revolution per minute, which has no effect in the two horizontal positions, but makes all the difference in the 4 vertical positions, since even if a watch is stationary in a random vertical position, the tourbillon makes the escapement spin around its own axis, effectively cancelling out the effects of gravity of each of the 4 generalized positions. Even today with new materials and improved theories, is it nearly impossible to regulate a watch so it keeps the same time in all positions. A tourbillon allows watchmakers today to obtain results that are better then normal mechanical watches. Although, this is still immensely inferior to quartz, which normally vary 3 seconds per month, where a good mechanical watch keeps 3 seconds per day. Mechanical watches today are mostly sold to buyers who value craftsmanship and aesthetics over very accurate timing.

Sources : Watch Adjustment ISBN 2-88380-029-4 The theory of horology ISBN 2-940025-12-6

thats all for today, i will come back in a week or so, and if nothing is disputed i replace the "Mechanism in action" with what i propose above. i will then also continue further down the article of the tourbillon, if anything else needs adding or correcting. Davidolafsson (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

okey, it seems i didnt have the patience for a whole week. but i only redid the old muddy and strange section. will check up on rest as soon as i have more energy in me. One thing i deleted and did not add was the millenary tourbillon reference, the millenary tourbillon watch does NOT have the novel escapement. atleast not as far as i could see on ap's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidolafsson (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

damn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.184.83 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 stated that the Tourbillon is both "not technically a complication" and "one of the most valued complications". I don't know much about watches but I am guessing that both of these can't be true. According to the complications page, "...complication refers to any feature...", so I believe that feature is a more general synonym for complication. I am therefore going to change the second instance of 'complication' to 'feature' to resolve the conflict. If this is wrong, feel free to change it back with explanation. Bendykst (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Bendykst

I believe that your change is correct, thank you. Srajan01 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of a Tourbillon
Whoever changed the language around "keeping the movement vertical" to "averaging out the effects of gravity," that is essentially the same thing; the Tourbillon averages out the effects of gravity by allowing gravity to keep the components in the same position, regardless of the position of the case. Srajan01 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds as though you have a different idea of how tourbillons work than I do. The tourbillon doesn't "allow gravity to keep the components in the same position regardless of the case".  The cage of the tourbillon doesn't keep one side always 'down' in the direction of gravity.  It doesn't respond to gravity at all.  All it does is rotate at a constant rate, driven by the mainspring.  So the escapement components rotate by 360° each minute, and for each orientation with respect to gravity, they spend an equal amount of time in the opposite orientation, averaging out the effect of gravity.  I have to admit your idea sounds ingenious, but tourbillons don't work that way.  Cheers.   -- Chetvorno TALK CONTRIB   00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * that is exactly true, atleast for the tourbillons i build. Davidolafsson (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing Needed
The paragraph I copied immediately below could use some heavy editing, in my opinion. It is so poorly written that I don't think I could edit it in the way the writer intended:

Actually, this carriage clock was equipped with a repeater (not a tourbillon) and calendar, completed in 1796, was the first carriage clock ever made by Breguet. And this carriage clock ordered by Napoleon for his trip to Egypt battel was very handful & light in weight. Indeed first tourbillon regulator of Breguet combined with one of the first works of Arnold. Homage by Breguet to the cherished memory of Arnold offered to his son in the year 1808. (Daniels suggests Breguet thought of this as his first tourbillon because he regarded the 1800 one as a mere prototype.) The watch is now in the British Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.89.205 (talk) at 9:00, 14 December 2008.

You're right, it's a mess. I'm removing it. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Affordability crisis.
I have restored the section titled "Affordability crisis" which was deleted with the edit summary "sourced fomr blogs and the like, come back when you can write a section that will avoid the subjects suing the pants of us. Thanks awfully." Neither point of which is a valid reason for deletion. Tobin Richard (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Illustration can't be viewed
It is obscured by a message asking me to install additional software which I can't install, and wouldn't want to if I could. How about replacing this with an non-software specific illustration, perhaps a nice jpeg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

carrousel
Did we need a part with title tourbilon carrousel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.184.175.119 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo of an open heart design needed
To show the difference in the section where it's mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.160.21 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Numbers, please!
Since the tourbillon is supposed to improve the accuracy, that is a feature that surely must be possible to measure. Watchmakers must have some way to measure the effectiveness of the tourbillon (at least if they are interested). Is it possible to find any measurement results from a reliable, independent source? For example, what could be an example deviation in the speed of a regular movement, when testing it in different orientations? Are the deviations caused by orientation significant in comparison to other sources of deviation such as temperature and winding? Can the deviations caused by the orientation be observably smaller, when a tourbillon is used? HelgeStenstrom (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've wondered about this myself, but clicking around there apparently have been no such experiments. As artifacts of high-engineering you'd think that some lab would have done it, but then again they're probably hard to come by. Adds to their cachet, I suppose. kencf0618 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "For example, what could be an example deviation in the speed of a regular movement, when testing it in different orientations?"
 * Depends on the movement. It can range from negligible (in some modern high grade movements) to rendering the watch unfit for its purpose (in antique low grade movements).
 * "Are the deviations caused by orientation significant in comparison to other sources of deviation such as temperature and winding?"
 * They are more noticeable than temperature (within reason) or isochronism in movements with balances that have not be well poised, or with low balance amplitude, or both.
 * "Is it possible to find any measurement results from a reliable, independent source?"
 * Your best bet would be chronometry trial results, most of that stuff is from a century ago so it is hard to find. PrismaCosmos (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

What does "errors of poise" mean ?
Please would someone horologically knowledgeable add an explanation of this (undoubtedly meaningful) jargon, so that we mere mortals can understand it ?

Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)