WR thingy

[Strela167]

In the past taken a Seiko out in the med. What's that two feet deep in a hundred out , well there you go, a hundred footer. Wash in the showers after btw , stainless isn't , it will show

[Samanator]

Let's fix it once and for all

Attachment 91257

Rated and laboratory tested @15,000m and actually used in real life @ 10,928m.

You fail to mention it’s like 30mm thick.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[CFR]

You fail to mention it’s like 30mm thick.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I thought - better not to...

[OhDark30]

You fail to mention it’s like 30mm thick.

55mm case, ‘just shy of 28mm thick’ according to this review
https://www.watchtime.com/featured/f...-professional/

Wow! Seriously busts my 1/3 max thickness rule. My *wrist* is 42mm thick at the watchwearing area

[Pip]

I was only reading about this last week coincidentally. Water resistance on the watch relates to static pressure at the equivalent depth shown; so 50m = it will only leak a given amount at a static pressure equivalent to being 50m below sea level. In real terms if you wave your arms around (as I tend to do when I'm swimming) it's not a static pressure, it will go up and down so you get both overload of pressure and elasticity issues.

So in other words a 50m watch is theoretically fine if slowly lowered to 50m in a non-moving body of water (or subject to that pressure in a test rig). It doesn't mean you can actually use it at a depth of 50m.

Silly isn't it?

[tribe125]

In real terms if you wave your arms around (as I tend to do when I'm swimming) it's not a static pressure, it will go up and down so you get both overload of pressure and elasticity issues.

Theoretically, yes, but I’ve read that it’s physically impossible to rotate your arms fast enough to make a difference.

[Pip]

Theoretically, yes, but I’ve read that it’s physically impossible to rotate your arms fast enough to make a difference.

Although that sound like it is probably right it does give them a get out of jail card. It just demonstrates that it is not a depth rating per se, It is a rating on a different scale that should be depth if there was any common sense involved, and sounds like depth as it is a scale that equates to that, but isn't. And damn them all, that's just what it is.

Apart from 'proper' divers that are rated to ISO 6425:1996 which should equate to the depth that is listed on them I think.

[tribe125]

I would trust ISO 22810:2010 too (quoted earlier).

Although I remember someone once saying that the great thing about standards is that there’s so many of them.

[Pip]

I would trust ISO 22810:2010 too (quoted earlier).

Although I remember someone once saying that the great thing about standards is that there’s so many of them.

Agreed, although ISO2281 doesn’t cover dive watches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Seriously]

Wow! Seriously busts my 1/3 max thickness rule.

I did what now