Hi Don,
Good questions. Are manufacture movements an improvement?
Here's another way of thinking about it.
Hope-Jones makes an interesting remark that the jumps in precision
timekeeping and longterm stability from the classic Graham escapement to
the Synchronome and then from the Synchronome to the Shortt were
accompanied by a need to revise the units used to measure the
performance. The rate of the Synchronome was mesured in 1/10ths of
seconds per day, but the Shortt had to be measured in 1/1000ths of
seconds per day.
There have been inumerable improvements, inventions, techniques,
materials, manufacturing equipment, computers, CAD/CAD etc in the last
decades, but the unit of time needed to measure watch performance is the
same as it was a century ago - seconds/day.
...springs with flat power curves, optimised power trains, precision
tolerances, computer-designed n-dimensional tourbillions, non-magnetic
balance springs, shock resistance, space-age lubricants...and the
observatory competition standards of a century ago are still a
challenge.
Is this because the precision of wristwatches has reached its natural
limits (my belief) or are we waiting for a quantum leap that's lurking
in the wings? What improvement has to happen for COSC to have to use
the 1/10th of the second because the second is too coarse a granularity?
nick