BigFatPauli
1710
Again, I am not asking for a scientific paper. I am just asking for a simple proof of concept.
Nov 15, 2022,23:40 PM
I understand that people get defensive of this, but I wish that wasn't the case: I am just trying to understand how it is supposed to work and I am not attacking anyone, or their choice or watch. You say I have been shown proof here... I have seen people get mad, I have seen people say, "well it does work" or, "someone told me it works" but I have yet to see actual proof.
I just have a simple ask: a proof of concept. I can't think of another watch making item that can't be shown via proof of concept, yet I have yet to see someone present if for this complication. Doesn't that give you pause?
Don't you as an owner want to actually be shown it is working? The reality is that the balances tick too quickly for our eyes to tell if they are truly synced and a model showing this working while moving would put all the debate to rest.
If you feel that no proof is needed for you, or that you have sufficient proof, despite not being able to see it work, that's fine but I personally want more, and there is no need to get upset about things as I have said many times.
We are all watch lovers here, right? WPS is a place for people to share knowledge and I am humbling asking for this. I am not a mathematician so formulas and other charts have little meaning to me here. More over, NASA wasn't 100% certain we could land on the moon, even though they did all the math prior, until we ACTUALLY landed on the moon. There are larger models of escapements, tourbillions, chronographs, automatic winding systems, keyless works - everything we see in watches - that all are proof of concept. The resonance effect, within a moving object, seems to totally exclusive to this particular watch where no such model seems to be available.