jvanbiene
46
Some comments about the Dufour Interview
When Mr. Dufour is asked about new escapement possibilities and if there is room to expand, he answers: ?Of course. But nobody wants to invest in that. Except ETA, they invest in the George Daniels escapement, the co-axial, but it was the first time since 100 years you know?
We have the Freak escapement; we don't know exactly what is going to . . . I just saw at Basel (2001). I cannot say much about it. It's interesting because it's a different approach with modern technologies, modern materials. But I don't know in the long term, I have no idea how it's going to be.?
Now I have been thinking about this very topic for quite a while now, why can?t we manufacture more accurate, less temperamental escapements? If we look along the lines of UN (Ludwig), we see that they were able to manufacture a much-improved perpetual calendar by using gearing, thus a more precise, easily controlled, more effective mechanism was made. Why is it not possible to loose the balance spring, and find a way to replace it with a gearing system that regulates (and mimics the current spring-driven system) a watch, without allowing any temperature or positions deviations affect it?
Would it not benefit the great houses to develop a system in which the watch would be more precise and better performing, yet still would require regular service intervals (they have to make a living you know)?
Just my comments, JVB>.