Jump to content

Talk:Diving watch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water Resistance Section

[edit]

The water resistances I usually see are 30/50/100/200/300/500/1000 meters and on up. I looked up the ISO standards online, but of course they want to charge me for them. I hope to improve this section not only reflect the ISO standards, but depict the common depth ratings one is likely to find in diving watches on the market.--ExarPalantas (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bezel Section

[edit]

The section on bezel marking is incorrect, and my edit to correct it was deleted by the original poster. The forum citation used to support the description of how a dive bezel is used is factually incorrect. JohnYVR (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That forum does have professional dive masters contributing on a regular basis but anything written can be wrong, so I advice you to find some external reference for your point of view. The main Japanese diving watch manufacturers design teams often gave up on 15 or 20 minute bezels anyhow after consulting diving professionals regarding their tool-watch wishes.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The error under discussion isn't a point of view. The bezel on a dive watch is an elapsed time device, and does not work in the way the article states. One doesn't turn the bezel to align the planned dive time with the minute hand - one turns the bezel to align the zero mark with the minute hand, so that the minute hand tracks elapsed bottom time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnYVR (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia likes articles to be constantly reviewed and questioned and if possible externally referenced to improve their quality. I have no preference regarding 2 differing positions of which 1 is referenced once on a forum and hard to check since it refers to diving methods/habits of the 1950s. If no more references could be found it would be best to delete the “Bezel markings” subsection of the “Elapsed time controller” section. Some Citizen diving watch manuals (look at the references) are however quite open minded regarding bezel use and state: "The rotating bezel can be used as a reference for elapsed time during diving or for the amount of time remaining relative to a predetermined amount of time." After that Citizen elaborates with drawings to clarify things.
The Elapsed time controller” section just states: “After a period of time passes, the elapsed time can be read off the bezel” and leaves the exact use of the bezel and scope of activities it can be used for open.
Remind his article is about diving watches. Underwater diving is dealt with in a main article and in more detail in lots of other sub-articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the rotating bezel is only suitable for "basic diving" only is WRONG too. The bezel is a time-tracking device, that allows tracking elapsed time up to 60min (or more but then it becomes tedious). Consequently, you can very well use a rotating bezel to monitor any deco-plan set up with a continous runtime (mixed gas or not). That is in fact what is done in really technical dives. Instead of trusting a dive-computer, the dive is pre-planned, a deco-runtime is set and then followed with a time tracking device (bottm timer). Digital chronometers are very popular, but they don't usually do not have the "fail-safe function" of the uni-directional rotating bezel... So any runtime or dive up to 90min.... rotating bezel. Fast to set, easy to read, failsafe!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.41.6 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how others disagree with the elapsed-time description, and I agree, it's not right. The article says, "for 35 minutes bottom time the diver would align the 25 minute bezel-mark with the minute hand." To understand how this might get confusing, let's just use that scenario as an example. So at the start of the dive we align the 25min bezel with the minute hand, which is the easy part. Then things get confusing. As soon as the diver starts the dive, the minute hand reads "25" on the bezel, which is meaningless: "25" is neither the elapsed time (which is zero) nor the time remaining in the dive (which is 35min). It gets worse: if the 25min bezel mark is initially aligned with the minute hand as the article suggests, then after 15min under water, the minute hand would now be aligned with the 40min bezel mark. Which makes no sense either, as "40" is neither the elapsed time (15min) nor time remaining (20min). After 15 more minutes, the diver has been submerged for a total of 30min, and the minute hand would now be aligned with the 55min bezel mark. That makes even less sense! And the last thing a diver needs is confusion, right?... especially with nitrogen in his bloodstream, lol! But... if you were to INSTEAD align the minute hand with the zero bezel mark at the start of the dive, then the bezel will indicate elapsed time: the minute hand points to the 10min bezel mark after 10min submerged, 20min bezel mark after 20min submerged, and so on. --Kevin (non-diver)

I've never known anybody try to use an elapsed-time dial to mimic a time-remaining one. "60 - bottom time formulae" is just the sort of thing you don't do underwater. Time-remaining bezels are marked in the opposite direction like the one in this image, but you don't find them on dive watches. I have always assumed that the reason is that if you accidentally exceed your bottom time, you need to know your actual elapsed time to use your backup deco schedule. Using a countdown timer (time-remaining bezel) does not give you this information and is dangerous because such situations are stressful and you really don't want to be doing mental calculations at that point. --RexxS (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written like an advertisement tag

[edit]

I feel the remark

This article is FILLED with watch companies and inserts of several watch marks.

is a bit over the top. I cleaned up some text and links to watch companies that I feel do not harm the article, but it will be hard not to mention any watch company in an article regarding diving watches, especially if a History paragraph deals with the history of diving watches during the 1930s, 1950s, 1960s and more recent times. The Characteristics, Water resistance and Maintenance paragraphs probably contain less links to watch companies than the History paragraph and are quite technical.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit summary you quoted is hyperbole. Unfortunately, the drive-by poster of the {{advert}} template did not take the time to mention here any examples of what he thought were adverts. This article has to contain the names of the watch manufacturers when discussing their products in order to identify them, and the references, of necessity, give weight to that. If the article were unreferenced and littered with ad-type adjectives praising particular products, then the IP poster might have a point. However, it is not such an article and I suggest the changes you made are more than enough to meet his complaints. I am going to be bold and remove that tag. You should be proud of the detailed work you have done in improving this article. --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salutations! As a Watch Technician, I wanted to see the official definition of a water resistant watch, and so I came to trusty Wikipedia. However, when I came to this article, I was overwhelmed by the number of "Omega" "Rolex" "Sinn" etc references. As I didn't have much time that day to cleanup the article, I felt a little lazy (I admit) and tagged it with the advert tag. Upon looking over the article, I only have a problem with the "Watches designed for extreme water resistance" sections and the two sub sections after, where all I see is advertisement. I admit now, with time to consider my actions, that the speedy deletion was a little rash, but I still see the last three sections as advertisements. What do you guys think?
Pax
=A.M.D.G.=
Ng Ga Ming 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng556 (talk • contribs)

I tried to rephrase the sections you do not like. You could also try to rephrase the "Watches designed for extreme water resistance" sections yourself. The section does however contain information that can be interpreted as critical such as:

  • 1000 m plus water resistance has little to no practical use;
  • the ~11 km dive was a technology demonstration and marketing project;
  • air filled watches like the current commercially available record holder that can survive extreme depths are very large;
  • liquid filled watches find their limitation in their movements.

For your peace of mind (but this does not belong in the article). Lots of modern day saturation divers do not wear watches on the job. They have a surface support team that can inform them regarding everything that has to do with time if the need arises. Professional non-surface supported divers like dive masters, and military and police divers often opt to use cheap ISO 6425 conform watches, since they work in environments where watches can be easily scratched up/damaged. Why should a professional diver or organisation (without external commercial stimuli) invest in expensive (back-up) tools if cheaper alternatives are available?--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a small copyedit on the section, which I hope is acceptable to both of you. Although it still contains some mentions of manufacturers, I personally don't find it obtrusive now. Francis, you may want to consider whether any of the information you took out might belong in specific articles like Rolex Sea Dweller, etc. It's a shame that you feel your last paragraph doesn't belong in the article; it does contain interesting context, but I suppose your objection is there would be a problem in finding sources to verify the statements. I wonder if there are any available interviews with divers where this sort of thing is discussed? --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding the watches used by diving professionals comes from personal observations and contacts with people from the diving industry. Such information can not be used in Wikipedia. I knew/know retired saturation divers/dive masters who wear (for sentimental reasons) vintage "expensive watches" once issued to them. Servicing these vintage watches generally is possible and rather expensive, but they can often be restored to an as good as new condition. More affordable watches like Casio G-Shock Frogman, Citizen, Seiko, etc. have become popular amongst active (non-surface supported) diving professionals as back-up tools. Remind these people are often busy as "underwater construction workers" doing jobs like welding, etc. On land you will also rarely encounter welders, plumbers, etc. wearing expensive watches during work. There are of course still active professional divers who wear expensive watches for their personal pleasure and diving companies with (commercial) ties to manufacturers of expensive watches.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex Sea-Dweller

[edit]

Since the official Rolex site uses the hyphenated form, "Sea-Dweller", I think we should refer to this watch by the maker's nomenclature[1]. --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oris 1000m.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Oris 1000m.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Diving watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diving watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Parts of this Wiki are complete rubbish.

In the depth rating table it implies that there are different dive watch requirements for “skin diving” and “Scuba Diving”. This is rubbish.

People read this sort of rubbish and believe it. It is dangerous.

The whole article looks like a non diving (or even swimming) schoolboy took extracts from watch manufacturer advertisments.

This article needs fixing or removing, before someone dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.91.224 (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russia?

[edit]

Am very surprised neither the Zlatoust deep sea diver watch nor the very popular Vostok Amphibia merit nary a mention.

The Amphibia's have a dedicated claimed rate of 200m but during a mock submarine rescue exercise the Amphibia was found to survive intact to 800m. There is also a small range of 300m Amphibia's.

As for the Zlatoust, some are rated 600/700m and some rated up to 1000m. Very rudimentary construction with 4-5mm plate glass crystal, thick and heavy body construction, thick rubber seals and thick double O rings on the massive canteen crown.

92.25.27.167 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diving_watch&oldid=1206986493"