Sinn Copper Sulphate Capsule Advice

[lencoth]

The whole idea is a load of crap. No-one else does it.....doesn`t that tell you something?

Paul

Sure. If it turns blue, just paint it white. Problem (or lack thereof...) solved

[andy111s]

It lets you know if there is water in the case, why is that 'crap'?

[Kingstepper]

It lets you know if there is water in the case, why is that 'crap'?

Because seals are pervious to water vapour, there will always be water present in all watches (there was a thread about this a month or so ago).

So eventually it will turn blue, doesn't mean there is a problem.

[andy111s]

Because seals are pervious to water vapour, there will always be water present in all watches (there was a thread about this a month or so ago).

So eventually it will turn blue, doesn't mean there is a problem.

But a useful indicator if there's sudden failure.

[walkerwek1958]

It lets you know if there is water in the case, why is that 'crap'?

If there's water in the case, you'd know about it. This topic was discussed to death a couple of weeks back; theoretically a rubber seal can allow tiny amounts of water vapour to permeate through the rubber, something I wasn`t aware of but I now know to be true. This is a miniscule amount of water which is hardly likely to condense inside the movement to form water droplets. Without the copper sulphate (which hydrates and therefore acts as a desiccant) the water vapour would stay as vapour. In theory, this would reach equilibrium with the water content of the rubber seals and no more water vapour would enter the watch unless the temperature changed.

This isn`t easy for many people to visualise; the concept of water entering the watch (albeit in miniscule amounts) is hard to grasp. Despite having a scientific background I was a disbeliever, but a bit of background reading opened my eyes. If a watch is placed in a pressurised humid atmosphere the rate of diffusion/permeation will increase.

Taking account of this phenomena, maybe all waterproof watches should contain a desiccant to absorb water from the atmosphere inside the watch? They don`t, and the reason is because the miniscule amounts are unlikely to cause a corrosion problem. Basically, Sinn are using this as a marketing tool; they're solving a problem that doesn`t really exist and taking the kudos for doing so. That's my premise for claiming that the idea is crap.

To clarify, the copper sulphate is not there to prove that the watch has leaked.

Maybe those of us who work on watches should check the relative humidity before sealing the watch up, waiting several days for it to reach a very low level?

Paul

[TaketheCannoli]

If there's water in the case, you'd know about it. This topic was discussed to death a couple of weeks back; theoretically a rubber seal can allow tiny amounts of water vapour to permeate through the rubber, something I wasn`t aware of but I now know to be true. This is a miniscule amount of water which is hardly likely to condense inside the movement to form water droplets. Without the copper sulphate (which hydrates and therefore acts as a desiccant) the water vapour would stay as vapour. In theory, this would reach equilibrium with the water content of the rubber seals and no more water vapour would enter the watch unless the temperature changed.

This isn`t easy for many people to visualise; the concept of water entering the watch (albeit in miniscule amounts) is hard to grasp. Despite having a scientific background I was a disbeliever, but a bit of background reading opened my eyes. If a watch is placed in a pressurised humid atmosphere the rate of diffusion/permeation will increase.

Taking account of this phenomena, maybe all waterproof watches should contain a desiccant to absorb water from the atmosphere inside the watch? They don`t, and the reason is because the miniscule amounts are unlikely to cause a corrosion problem. Basically, Sinn are using this as a marketing tool; they're solving a problem that doesn`t really exist and taking the kudos for doing so. That's my premise for claiming that the idea is crap.

To clarify, the copper sulphate is not there to prove that the watch has leaked.

Maybe those of us who work on watches should check the relative humidity before sealing the watch up, waiting several days for it to reach a very low level?

Paul

I'm no scientist but that makes perfect sense to me. And I refer back to the point about nobody else doing it. Quite a neat marketing trick - I wonder how much business it created for them?

[dougjim8]

If there's water in the case, you'd know about it. This topic was discussed to death a couple of weeks back; theoretically a rubber seal can allow tiny amounts of water vapour to permeate through the rubber, something I wasn`t aware of but I now know to be true. This is a miniscule amount of water which is hardly likely to condense inside the movement to form water droplets. Without the copper sulphate (which hydrates and therefore acts as a desiccant) the water vapour would stay as vapour. In theory, this would reach equilibrium with the water content of the rubber seals and no more water vapour would enter the watch unless the temperature changed.

This isn`t easy for many people to visualise; the concept of water entering the watch (albeit in miniscule amounts) is hard to grasp. Despite having a scientific background I was a disbeliever, but a bit of background reading opened my eyes. If a watch is placed in a pressurised humid atmosphere the rate of diffusion/permeation will increase.

Taking account of this phenomena, maybe all waterproof watches should contain a desiccant to absorb water from the atmosphere inside the watch? They don`t, and the reason is because the miniscule amounts are unlikely to cause a corrosion problem. Basically, Sinn are using this as a marketing tool; they're solving a problem that doesn`t really exist and taking the kudos for doing so. That's my premise for claiming that the idea is crap.

To clarify, the copper sulphate is not there to prove that the watch has leaked.

Maybe those of us who work on watches should check the relative humidity before sealing the watch up, waiting several days for it to reach a very low level?

Paul

If it helps them sell watches it isn't a "crap" idea, its like Rolex making a watch that is water resistant to 3900m (Deepsea). A problem that no living person will ever encounter, yet still they make it, why? It can be used as a marketing tool and a way to say "look at us, look how clever we are making this watch" Sinn do this, but they do it in a different way, with the dehydration capsule. Its all a way of adding perceived value and enhancing the brand.

[Daddelvirks]

If it helps them sell watches it isn't a "crap" idea, its like Rolex making a watch that is water resistant to 3900m (Deepsea). A problem that no living person will ever encounter, yet still they make it, why? It can be used as a marketing tool and a way to say "look at us, look how clever we are making this watch" Sinn do this, but they do it in a different way, with the dehydration capsule. Its all a way of adding perceived value and enhancing the brand.

I totally agree.

Ad I'd like a second opinion on the usefullness issue from other people.

Daddel.

[andy111s]

I totally agree.

Ad I'd like a second opinion on the usefullness issue from other people.

Daddel.

Sinn's reason for the dehydrating capsule is to help keep the interior of the watch as dry as possible. By making it observable they can also indicate when excessive moisture levels have been reached, either catastrophically or gradually, that mean there may be potential for oxidation within the case.
The inert gas fill is there to further help prevent oxidation, of both oils and metals.

There is logic in the engineering so 'useful' in the sense that they do what they say, whether you feel they are needed or not depends where you are on the scale of diminishing returns against cost, but frankly the cost is minimal.

I don't think they are there purely for marketing BS, they do what they do and Sinn don't shout about it but just explain why they are there. They aren't present on most of their watches so Sinn tacitly acknowledge that a watch can survive without these things and have never said otherwise. They just offer an enhanced solution for those that want it.

[Daddelvirks]

Sinn's reason for the dehydrating capsule is to help keep the interior of the watch as dry as possible. By making it observable they can also indicate when excessive moisture levels have been reached, either catastrophically or gradually, that mean there may be potential for oxidation within the case.
The inert gas fill is there to further help prevent oxidation, of both oils and metals.

There is logic in the engineering so 'useful' in the sense that they do what they say, whether you feel they are needed or not depends where you are on the scale of diminishing returns against cost, but frankly the cost is minimal.

I don't think they are there purely for marketing BS, they do what they do and Sinn don't shout about it but just explain why they are there. They aren't present on most of their watches so Sinn tacitly acknowledge that a watch can survive without these things and have never said otherwise. They just offer an enhanced solution for those that want it.

Thank you very much.

That sounds very plausible.

And Sinn indeed never shouts about the techniques they use, they are just there and explained on their website.

Daddel.

[GrandS]

If it helps them sell watches it isn't a "crap" idea, its like Rolex making a watch that is water resistant to 3900m (Deepsea). A problem that no living person will ever encounter, yet still they make it, why? It can be used as a marketing tool and a way to say "look at us, look how clever we are making this watch" Sinn do this, but they do it in a different way, with the dehydration capsule. Its all a way of adding perceived value and enhancing the brand.

If I wanted a watch that has a doodad on it that does not do anything useful and needs to be replaced periodically by the manufacturer I would buy one.

[Leif]

If I wanted a watch that has a doodad on it that does not do anything useful and needs to be replaced periodically by the manufacturer I would buy one.

If the capsule does nothing, there's no need to replace it periodically, and it can thus be ignored. That's my take on my 756 Diapal which I like a lot (for other reasons than the capsule and the inert gas).

[soundood]

so if it turns blue, does that mean your pregnant?

and do you even have to wee on it?

[snowman]

If I wanted a watch that has a doodad on it that does not do anything useful and needs to be replaced periodically by the manufacturer I would buy one.

Surely that describes EVERY mechanical watch...?

I've no idea if the one in my Arktis is useful, but I love the watch!

M

[clockwatcher]

If there's water in the case, you'd know about it. This topic was discussed to death a couple of weeks back; theoretically a rubber seal can allow tiny amounts of water vapour to permeate through the rubber, something I wasn`t aware of but I now know to be true. This is a miniscule amount of water which is hardly likely to condense inside the movement to form water droplets. Without the copper sulphate (which hydrates and therefore acts as a desiccant) the water vapour would stay as vapour. In theory, this would reach equilibrium with the water content of the rubber seals and no more water vapour would enter the watch unless the temperature changed.

This isn`t easy for many people to visualise; the concept of water entering the watch (albeit in miniscule amounts) is hard to grasp. Despite having a scientific background I was a disbeliever, but a bit of background reading opened my eyes. If a watch is placed in a pressurised humid atmosphere the rate of diffusion/permeation will increase.

Taking account of this phenomena, maybe all waterproof watches should contain a desiccant to absorb water from the atmosphere inside the watch? They don`t, and the reason is because the miniscule amounts are unlikely to cause a corrosion problem. Basically, Sinn are using this as a marketing tool; they're solving a problem that doesn`t really exist and taking the kudos for doing so. That's my premise for claiming that the idea is crap.

To clarify, the copper sulphate is not there to prove that the watch has leaked.

Maybe those of us who work on watches should check the relative humidity before sealing the watch up, waiting several days for it to reach a very low level?

Paul

If this is correct then everything in life that you buy is crap. Can you honestly tell me that you have used every feature on your phone that they market it as doing, or your computer. Or do you really drive your car to its maximum speed? No. Why? because its marketing crap

Some people like the belt and braces approach on a watch, or the fact their car can do 200 mph when they never go over 80. I have a chronograph watch. I never use the chronograph, or the GMT hand on my GMT watch, and I don't dive with my divers watch, so I guess I bought a load of crap as well, but I like them, so who are you to say they are buying crap?