I have a consignment from a watch maker's widow of a Bergeon Waterproof Watch Tester 5555 (older model.) It was working when she closed his shop. Now the handle is pumping but the gauge is not showing pressure. I have watched many videos, put in water, sealed the top, gaskets are in place but nothing works. I cannot find anything on repairing the lower unit (even from Bergeon online.) Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
It is difficult to repair the tester by yourself. But I would go about it by testing each aspect separately. Like "is the chamber pressurized at all", if yes then check the gauge, if no then check where it's leaking, the chamber or the pump. Hope this helps
the info on ur website is wrong, the wet test will not pick up small leaks, the bubbles that come from microscopic leaks cant be seen, only the digital dry tester will show tiny leaks, and it can specify the rating.
Shouldn't the test be done with the movement removed first for extra safety? I've seen some people doing 3 tests - regular test with the movement removed, preliminary test with movement inserted, regular test with movement inserted.
Hi, thanks for the nice demonstration! I have one point of confusion though: Eventually, your watch passes the test, but several times during the video you show what is apparently the exact same piece failing the test, as indicated by the stream of bubbles. Did you set this up on purpose for the demonstration? If so, how? Or did you actually notice a leak and fix it? Again, if so, how? 😅 Thanks mate!
Great and informative video! Can I ask, if a watch is 10bar (100m) BUT has push-pull crown (not a screw down crown), is it safe for pool/ocean swimming? Based on this video - it should be absolutely fine? But I was told my Seiko should be screw down to be safe? Interested to know your thoughts on screw down vs push crown.
The crown construction is already incorporated into the WR rating. So whether it's screw down or push crown, as long as it's rated for 10 bar it should be fine for swimming.
I have Tissot prc 200,about 10 years old and battery was replaced by dealer..so they did wr test naturally and it passed ok but highest pressure was 6 bar just like on that tester. However my watch theoretic proofness is 20 b so how come they dont test it in 20 bar,only 6? Of course im not gonna dive 200 deen but still? I would like 2 know if my watch could still hold against 20 bar pressure,not 6 🤣
I know that feel lol. But in their defense, a tester that tests to 20 bar is considerably more expensive than one that tests to 6 bar. And most common structural failures usually reveal themselves in a 6 bar test. It's a practical compromise. And I mean, if they replaced new gaskets for you during battery replacement, it's quite safe to assume the WR to be more or less intact. Personally I would dive with it without fear.
@@DIYWatchClub Ok,Thanks 4 this, i did not thought that 20 bar test would be more expencive but then again it is quite obvious. I had to ask it because i could not contact directly to person who did the job cause the dealer uses third party company(clock smith) for Tissot maintenance
Thanks for the video. One question though, can we use a vacuum pump instead of the pressure pump? That would suck at a certain pressure and the bubble would occur. I use it to fill guitar pickups with wax for a quiet pickup.
No. You're talking about negative pressure. Few watches account for that. You can have a perfectly water resistant watch but you can still suck the crystal out. Do not attempt it.
I'm interested in your opinion: -Would you be comfortable to regularly swim with watch after this test passed? -For how long? 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, until next service? -What about salt water? snoorkling/diving up to 5 meters depth? Please comment and tnx for video :D
-Yes -Usually brands recommend a yearly service for watches that are frequently used in water. -Salt water is fine as long as you rinse off the sea water with fresh water after every dive.
Wash hand and shower should be ok. Swim is a bit controversial. We have a in depth blog post on this: diywatch.club/en/blog/true-meaning-of-water-resistance-rating-on-watch
I noticed that too. I ain't buying a watch with that number on it, plus its a lie in itself. Mathematically 200 meters does not equal that, it is 656 feet like you mentioned.
If it doesn't specify the exact WR rating, most probably that means it's on the lower, or even lowest, tier of water resistance capability. Something like splash proof or 3ATM. But if you want to make sure, you should check your watch model number online to see the exact specification
Good question. It's fine to wash hands with a 3 ATM watch. But keep in mind that all water resistant watch does not stay water resistant forever, as gaskets naturally degrade over time. So it's a good idea to give it a water pressure test once per 1 or 2 years, if the WR rating is important to you
3ATM means 30m of water. Washing hands, showering is fine. I have taken 3ATM watches to swim and dive underwater to about 5m depth. No problems at all. Having said that, not all watch manufacturers are reliable. If your watch is Casio, Seiko, Citizen, I am pretty sure your 3ATM watch can take 5 ATM or more. You can buy a Toyota and it can still run after 15 -20 years. You can buy a Ford or a Peugeot and it breaks down in a year or two.
@@standardnnn6064 I'm totally with you on Ford and Peugeot lol This is controversial, but I agree that it's generally safe to take a 3ATM watch to swim, with a little bit of nuance here and there. But the rabbit hole of WR rating goes deeper. I actually wrote a piece on it, check it out: diywatch.club/en/blog/true-meaning-of-water-resistance-rating-on-watch
Informative and entertaining! Just wondering, is there any way to improve a watch's water resistance? I'm just getting into building my own watches, but find cases that I can purchase generally have a pretty low water resistance rating, even when they are supposedly for dive style watches. I'm guessing the vendor is partly just covering his ass, especially in case the amateur watch builder does not do a good job when assembling. But is it possible, either through upgrading gaskets, using silicon, changing the crystal or by some other means, to improve a watches water resistance?
Ah, this is a good question, one could do an entire video on it. But in short, no. Much of the WR rating is baked into the construction and the structure of the watch. Let's use crystal as an example. A 10 atm would require a thicker crystal than a 3 atm watch, as thicker = stronger against pressure. Now let's say you have a 3 atm watch that you want to "upgrade" the WR rating. You'll need a thicker crystal, but the thicker crystal won't fit into the watch, because the case is designed to take a thinner crystal. (You'll have extra crystal sticking out on top). And remember WR rating is much like a chain - it's as strong as its weakest point. Crown gasket, case gasket, crystal, case material etc. Any one of these elements fails, the watch fails. So in order to do that, you might as well get a new watch. BUT in the case of a rated 10atm watch that, due to degradation, can only pass a 3atm test, you can improve the WR rating back to its original by replacing or repairing the failure point.
@@DIYWatchClub Thanks for the quick and detailed response! I appreciate what you are saying. Still I'd like to try to upgrade the WR if it is possible. It's not that I have a watch that I want to upgrade. Instead, as a hobby, I want to BUILD my own watch, but one that can handle a reasonable amount of submersion in water. It turns out that there are not many cases (at least in my desired size and style) that I can find which have truly decent WR. I'd see a case in a listing with a stated WR of 20 atms or even 30 atms, then see the same case from other vendors with a rating of 5 atms or even 3 atms. Just to make sure, I'd contact the sellers of the 20 or 30 atms cases, and none of them stood by their stated WR specs, all of them (literally all of them) telling me their cases shouldn't get wet. So again, I'm willing to spend a little money on the project, just for the challenge. As such, would I be able to install a thicker crystal if I was ok with it sitting a little proud of the case? Would the shape of the crystal make a difference? Like, would a domed crystal be able to withstand more pressure than, say, a flat one? Are there 3rd party gaskets for sale out there that might be an improvement on the ones that come with a cheaper or lower spec case? Would silicon grease be helpful on the gaskets? Just some ideas I'd appreciate your thoughts on.
@@greggusan That's insane to hear that you're not supposed to get your 20atm case wet! Gasket is something that fits or not. There's not much of an "improvement", since you see, gasket works by it "changing shape" to fit the gap to a T. A thicker gasket isn't necessarily better, as you're squishing more rubber into the same tight gap, which put more pressure on the gasket itself (assuming you can squish it in at all) and it can cause to gasket to break more easily. The shape of the crystal theoretically has an effect, but it should be minimal compared to the actual thickness of it. I've had success with silicon grease on a used watch, rated 5atm but fails a 3atm test, and gets back to 5atm after application of silicon grease on the case back gasket (which was the failure point). I don't have experience with crystal that sticks out, but I'm not optimistic about the fact that the contact area between the crystal and the case stays the same, so the seal is basically the same. If you have the budget, I'd suggest you get a Seiko Tuna and a Seiko SKX007. Dissect them and you'll see the massive difference in crystal thickness (which is ultra thick in a Tuna) + case construction that help the Tuna with its WR rating. It's not just one element that propels it to a beast in WR, it's the ensemble of structural elements that achieves it. But I digress. What you can do is perhaps set up an experiment, where you change one element (say gasket grease) and then pressure test the watch. Through trial and error you should come up with some interesting finding! Could be a fun little project!
@@DIYWatchClub Haha I should have written that part a bit better: these vendors didn't say never get them wet, they said you can wear them while you wash your hands, and occasionally splash water on it. But that's it. As for the gaskets, I understand you probably can't change the size/thickness of them. I just was wondering if there were higher end ones that were perhaps more supple/pliable/durable/compressable (or whatever characteristic is better for sealing - not quite sure). Your idea for testing of experimenting by changing variables one by one and testing if there is an improvement sounds great. Maybe even combine all the variables where there were improvements, and see how much improved WR gets. Would be perhaps a great idea for future video (hint hint haha)?
50m is actually 6Bar - 1Bar is sea level (0m) and increases by 1Bar every 10m. That simple error doesn't give me confidence in the accuracy of this test.
@@Przemo-c I disagree. You wouldn't use a real baby to test a child safety seat would you? Why would you risk water logging the movement and causing further damage so long as you can assure , as best you can the integrity of the case? Makes no sense.
@@thejupiter2 Thing is this way you know in an environment where you can pull it out immediately while there's overpressure inside the watch so risk of water ingress is minimal compared to unknown seal state and diving where the pressure outside is higher an water ingress is way more likely and less apparent and there's a significant time delay before you can act.
@@Przemo-c As an engineer we would often carry out destructive testing. One of the many reasons for doing that was to engineer preventative maintenance programs. If there is any risk that a seal or crown may be compromised during a pressure test then replace all seals prior to seating the movement. Pressure testing places watchcases under pressures which are never likely to be required to exceed.
@@thejupiter2 I'm also a mechanical engineer. Pressure tests without movement would be a nice first step. But it won't tell you if there was damage during final assembly. And without final QA you can't know if it's actually watertight. So your proposal doesn't test the watch that's actually going to be used because of risk of test failure causing damage. The same damage that would occur if same conditions were present during use and in fact the risk of damage during test is vastly lower than same pressures in real world scenario. The purpose of QA is to make sure you catch issues before it may become an issue for actual use. Test when you can act immediately while observing air egress is vastly safer than real world water ingress which can occur without air displacement due to pressure difference meaning it might stay undetected for significant period of time.
A water resistance test isn't a test you would do frequently, nor is it needed so. And certainly bezels aren't designed to be non-removable (I'd agree that it's not something you should do frequently though). Perhaps I didn't word it clear enough in the video - what I was trying to say is, for beginners, if you have trouble distinguishing the bubbles coming out from the gaps of the bezel, you can remove the bezel to eliminate that confusion. It's not an absolutely required step at all. Thanks for the comments anyway, appreciate it
It would be interesting to hear your reasoning. You can see that Omega do wet test with their watches: th-cam.com/video/IRiBOtsRan4/w-d-xo.html. A wet test is far from pointless. The wet test you see in the video does one thing that a dry test cannot do: reveal the exact point of leakage. All tests have their places in checking the WR rating of a watch. A dry test does so without the risk of water intrusion. A wet test reveals the point of leakage. In fact, both tests are often used in tandem in professional settings (read: when you really want to make sure the watch is water resistant). But interesting comment anyway, appreciate it!
This is the best video on pressure testing I've found yet. Thank you!
Thank you for your encouraging words!
Great video as usual
Clear, simple and complete.
Good job 👌
Thanks! 👍
I’m broke but I love watches.
4:48 those finger gloves are crazyy
If it fails & you see bubbles… does this mean water is now inside the watch?
Good video, some informaive tips, about water pressure testing!, many thanks
You're welcome!
I have a consignment from a watch maker's widow of a Bergeon Waterproof Watch Tester 5555 (older model.) It was working when she closed his shop.
Now the handle is pumping but the gauge is not showing pressure. I have watched many videos, put in water, sealed the top, gaskets are in place but nothing works.
I cannot find anything on repairing the lower unit (even from Bergeon online.) Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
It is difficult to repair the tester by yourself. But I would go about it by testing each aspect separately. Like "is the chamber pressurized at all", if yes then check the gauge, if no then check where it's leaking, the chamber or the pump. Hope this helps
Hi. I have a tissot prc 200. Its 200m wr with a screw down crown and back. Is it safe for diving
200m wr is generally safe for diving, barring any mechanical failure, unless you're talking about saturation diving or other extreme diving
the info on ur website is wrong, the wet test will not pick up small leaks, the bubbles that come from microscopic leaks cant be seen, only the digital dry tester will show tiny leaks, and it can specify the rating.
Shouldn't the test be done with the movement removed first for extra safety? I've seen some people doing 3 tests - regular test with the movement removed, preliminary test with movement inserted, regular test with movement inserted.
Is 6 bar enough to go swim with the watch and dive to like 2m (pool?)
6 bar equates to 60 metres so yes
Hi, thanks for the nice demonstration! I have one point of confusion though: Eventually, your watch passes the test, but several times during the video you show what is apparently the exact same piece failing the test, as indicated by the stream of bubbles. Did you set this up on purpose for the demonstration? If so, how? Or did you actually notice a leak and fix it? Again, if so, how? 😅 Thanks mate!
I removed a gasket to create a leak intentionally
@@DIYWatchClub Thanks for your reply!
Hello brother, I will buy my first watch, but it has a 3 ATM water resistance. Can I take a bath with this watch? I will buy it accordingly.
3 ATM is really, really low. I wouldn't take that watch near water, if I were you.
Also, depends how hot your bath is. Metal expands with heat. I don't wear any watches in my bath, regardless of WR rating because of this.
Great and informative video! Can I ask, if a watch is 10bar (100m) BUT has push-pull crown (not a screw down crown), is it safe for pool/ocean swimming? Based on this video - it should be absolutely fine? But I was told my Seiko should be screw down to be safe? Interested to know your thoughts on screw down vs push crown.
The crown construction is already incorporated into the WR rating. So whether it's screw down or push crown, as long as it's rated for 10 bar it should be fine for swimming.
@@DIYWatchClub Thanks! Makes sense, and that is exactly what I thought. Good to get confirmation.
I have Tissot prc 200,about 10 years old and battery was replaced by dealer..so they did wr test naturally and it passed ok but highest pressure was 6 bar just like on that tester. However my watch theoretic proofness is 20 b so how come they dont test it in 20 bar,only 6? Of course im not gonna dive 200 deen but still? I would like 2 know if my watch could still hold against 20 bar pressure,not 6 🤣
I know that feel lol. But in their defense, a tester that tests to 20 bar is considerably more expensive than one that tests to 6 bar. And most common structural failures usually reveal themselves in a 6 bar test. It's a practical compromise. And I mean, if they replaced new gaskets for you during battery replacement, it's quite safe to assume the WR to be more or less intact. Personally I would dive with it without fear.
@@DIYWatchClub Ok,Thanks 4 this, i did not thought that 20 bar test would be more expencive but then again it is quite obvious. I had to ask it because i could not contact directly to person who did the job cause the dealer uses third party company(clock smith) for Tissot maintenance
Thanks for the video. One question though, can we use a vacuum pump instead of the pressure pump? That would suck at a certain pressure and the bubble would occur. I use it to fill guitar pickups with wax for a quiet pickup.
No. You're talking about negative pressure. Few watches account for that. You can have a perfectly water resistant watch but you can still suck the crystal out. Do not attempt it.
@@DIYWatchClub appreciate you answering my question! Many content creators don’t!
Great channel!
my orient maestro says 10bar 100m water resistant, can I hangout in a 5ft deep pool wearing it?
10ATM or 100M WR is generally considered safe for swimming, if there is no serious degradation of gaskets.
Thank you so much 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
You’re welcome 😊
I'm interested in your opinion:
-Would you be comfortable to regularly swim with watch after this test passed?
-For how long? 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, until next service?
-What about salt water? snoorkling/diving up to 5 meters depth?
Please comment and tnx for video :D
-Yes
-Usually brands recommend a yearly service for watches that are frequently used in water.
-Salt water is fine as long as you rinse off the sea water with fresh water after every dive.
One of my watches I recently bought is only 3 ATM. But I'm not sure what's that good for?
Can I wash my hands, shower, swim with it at least?
Wash hand and shower should be ok. Swim is a bit controversial. We have a in depth blog post on this: diywatch.club/en/blog/true-meaning-of-water-resistance-rating-on-watch
Great video, useful review before I buy this machine
Glad to be of help!
200 meters is 656 feet, not 666 feet. What's up with that engraved on the watch?
It may be a nod to the old Bulova 666 watches.
I noticed that too. I ain't buying a watch with that number on it, plus its a lie in itself. Mathematically 200 meters does not equal that, it is 656 feet like you mentioned.
My seiko said at the backcase "water resistant-WP" what is that means ? its some normal 7s26 seiko, not seiko diver watch.
If it doesn't specify the exact WR rating, most probably that means it's on the lower, or even lowest, tier of water resistance capability. Something like splash proof or 3ATM. But if you want to make sure, you should check your watch model number online to see the exact specification
If the water resistance is 3 ATM, and I wash my hands regularly and a lot of water gets on the watch, will that destroy it?
Good question. It's fine to wash hands with a 3 ATM watch. But keep in mind that all water resistant watch does not stay water resistant forever, as gaskets naturally degrade over time. So it's a good idea to give it a water pressure test once per 1 or 2 years, if the WR rating is important to you
@@DIYWatchClub thank you for your time!
3ATM means 30m of water.
Washing hands, showering is fine.
I have taken 3ATM watches to swim and dive underwater to about 5m depth. No problems at all. Having said that, not all watch manufacturers are reliable. If your watch is Casio, Seiko, Citizen, I am pretty sure your 3ATM watch can take 5 ATM or more.
You can buy a Toyota and it can still run after 15 -20 years. You can buy a Ford or a Peugeot and it breaks down in a year or two.
@@standardnnn6064 I'm totally with you on Ford and Peugeot lol
This is controversial, but I agree that it's generally safe to take a 3ATM watch to swim, with a little bit of nuance here and there. But the rabbit hole of WR rating goes deeper. I actually wrote a piece on it, check it out: diywatch.club/en/blog/true-meaning-of-water-resistance-rating-on-watch
I recently purchased this tester. Having difficulty moving the plunger up and down. Any advice?
If I want to assemble what is the price of your watch in this clip？
This is the kit of the watch in the video: shop.diywatch.club/collections/frontpage/products/diy-watchmaking-kit-black-dive-watch-with-date-dwc-d01
I want to ask you $295. is it us dollars ？
Yes it's in USD
ok , thanks for your answer "
"water can enter the watch and cause irreparable damage'
😂
Ummm, they said it's water resistant
Спасибо за субтитры 👍
Kindly suggest me some water resistant watches including your
Sure! Check out our diver series: shop.diywatch.club/collections/watchmakingkit-diver
Я свій Certina Titanium 43 мм провірив тиском на 100 бар , це погруження на 1000 метрів,годинник витримав без проблем.
Can you please test FLY5plus? (if you can)
Thanks for asking but sorry I don't do smart watch on this channel
👍👍
Thanks for the encouragement!
Informative and entertaining! Just wondering, is there any way to improve a watch's water resistance? I'm just getting into building my own watches, but find cases that I can purchase generally have a pretty low water resistance rating, even when they are supposedly for dive style watches. I'm guessing the vendor is partly just covering his ass, especially in case the amateur watch builder does not do a good job when assembling. But is it possible, either through upgrading gaskets, using silicon, changing the crystal or by some other means, to improve a watches water resistance?
Ah, this is a good question, one could do an entire video on it. But in short, no. Much of the WR rating is baked into the construction and the structure of the watch. Let's use crystal as an example. A 10 atm would require a thicker crystal than a 3 atm watch, as thicker = stronger against pressure. Now let's say you have a 3 atm watch that you want to "upgrade" the WR rating. You'll need a thicker crystal, but the thicker crystal won't fit into the watch, because the case is designed to take a thinner crystal. (You'll have extra crystal sticking out on top). And remember WR rating is much like a chain - it's as strong as its weakest point. Crown gasket, case gasket, crystal, case material etc. Any one of these elements fails, the watch fails. So in order to do that, you might as well get a new watch. BUT in the case of a rated 10atm watch that, due to degradation, can only pass a 3atm test, you can improve the WR rating back to its original by replacing or repairing the failure point.
@@DIYWatchClub Thanks for the quick and detailed response! I appreciate what you are saying. Still I'd like to try to upgrade the WR if it is possible. It's not that I have a watch that I want to upgrade. Instead, as a hobby, I want to BUILD my own watch, but one that can handle a reasonable amount of submersion in water. It turns out that there are not many cases (at least in my desired size and style) that I can find which have truly decent WR. I'd see a case in a listing with a stated WR of 20 atms or even 30 atms, then see the same case from other vendors with a rating of 5 atms or even 3 atms. Just to make sure, I'd contact the sellers of the 20 or 30 atms cases, and none of them stood by their stated WR specs, all of them (literally all of them) telling me their cases shouldn't get wet. So again, I'm willing to spend a little money on the project, just for the challenge. As such, would I be able to install a thicker crystal if I was ok with it sitting a little proud of the case? Would the shape of the crystal make a difference? Like, would a domed crystal be able to withstand more pressure than, say, a flat one? Are there 3rd party gaskets for sale out there that might be an improvement on the ones that come with a cheaper or lower spec case? Would silicon grease be helpful on the gaskets? Just some ideas I'd appreciate your thoughts on.
@@greggusan That's insane to hear that you're not supposed to get your 20atm case wet! Gasket is something that fits or not. There's not much of an "improvement", since you see, gasket works by it "changing shape" to fit the gap to a T. A thicker gasket isn't necessarily better, as you're squishing more rubber into the same tight gap, which put more pressure on the gasket itself (assuming you can squish it in at all) and it can cause to gasket to break more easily. The shape of the crystal theoretically has an effect, but it should be minimal compared to the actual thickness of it. I've had success with silicon grease on a used watch, rated 5atm but fails a 3atm test, and gets back to 5atm after application of silicon grease on the case back gasket (which was the failure point). I don't have experience with crystal that sticks out, but I'm not optimistic about the fact that the contact area between the crystal and the case stays the same, so the seal is basically the same. If you have the budget, I'd suggest you get a Seiko Tuna and a Seiko SKX007. Dissect them and you'll see the massive difference in crystal thickness (which is ultra thick in a Tuna) + case construction that help the Tuna with its WR rating. It's not just one element that propels it to a beast in WR, it's the ensemble of structural elements that achieves it. But I digress. What you can do is perhaps set up an experiment, where you change one element (say gasket grease) and then pressure test the watch. Through trial and error you should come up with some interesting finding! Could be a fun little project!
@@DIYWatchClub Haha I should have written that part a bit better: these vendors didn't say never get them wet, they said you can wear them while you wash your hands, and occasionally splash water on it. But that's it. As for the gaskets, I understand you probably can't change the size/thickness of them. I just was wondering if there were higher end ones that were perhaps more supple/pliable/durable/compressable (or whatever characteristic is better for sealing - not quite sure). Your idea for testing of experimenting by changing variables one by one and testing if there is an improvement sounds great. Maybe even combine all the variables where there were improvements, and see how much improved WR gets. Would be perhaps a great idea for future video (hint hint haha)?
@@greggusan Lol certainly a good idea for video
50m is actually 6Bar - 1Bar is sea level (0m) and increases by 1Bar every 10m. That simple error doesn't give me confidence in the accuracy of this test.
You're nearly correct but you forgot to account for the air inside the watch. That's where your "extra" 1 bar gets cancelled out.
Lesson number one. Take out the movement first! You're testing the case not the movement!
There's no guarantee that you haven't damaged the seal when you put the movement back in. So testing with everything in place has merit
@@Przemo-c I disagree. You wouldn't use a real baby to test a child safety seat would you? Why would you risk water logging the movement and causing further damage so long as you can assure , as best you can the integrity of the case? Makes no sense.
@@thejupiter2 Thing is this way you know in an environment where you can pull it out immediately while there's overpressure inside the watch so risk of water ingress is minimal compared to unknown seal state and diving where the pressure outside is higher an water ingress is way more likely and less apparent and there's a significant time delay before you can act.
@@Przemo-c As an engineer we would often carry out destructive testing. One of the many reasons for doing that was to engineer preventative maintenance programs. If there is any risk that a seal or crown may be compromised during a pressure test then replace all seals prior to seating the movement. Pressure testing places watchcases under pressures which are never likely to be required to exceed.
@@thejupiter2 I'm also a mechanical engineer. Pressure tests without movement would be a nice first step. But it won't tell you if there was damage during final assembly. And without final QA you can't know if it's actually watertight. So your proposal doesn't test the watch that's actually going to be used because of risk of test failure causing damage. The same damage that would occur if same conditions were present during use and in fact the risk of damage during test is vastly lower than same pressures in real world scenario. The purpose of QA is to make sure you catch issues before it may become an issue for actual use.
Test when you can act immediately while observing air egress is vastly safer than real world water ingress which can occur without air displacement due to pressure difference meaning it might stay undetected for significant period of time.
Removing the bezel before testing? - they're not designed for frequent e.g. 1/year removal. Is this a serious video of advice?
A water resistance test isn't a test you would do frequently, nor is it needed so. And certainly bezels aren't designed to be non-removable (I'd agree that it's not something you should do frequently though). Perhaps I didn't word it clear enough in the video - what I was trying to say is, for beginners, if you have trouble distinguishing the bubbles coming out from the gaps of the bezel, you can remove the bezel to eliminate that confusion. It's not an absolutely required step at all. Thanks for the comments anyway, appreciate it
Steady on.
Those testers only test to 6 bar and are useless for testing any sort of dive watch.
No point in doing a wet test. Do a dry test instead.
It would be interesting to hear your reasoning. You can see that Omega do wet test with their watches: th-cam.com/video/IRiBOtsRan4/w-d-xo.html. A wet test is far from pointless. The wet test you see in the video does one thing that a dry test cannot do: reveal the exact point of leakage. All tests have their places in checking the WR rating of a watch. A dry test does so without the risk of water intrusion. A wet test reveals the point of leakage. In fact, both tests are often used in tandem in professional settings (read: when you really want to make sure the watch is water resistant). But interesting comment anyway, appreciate it!
@@DIYWatchClub Well said