ClockInfo.com

As received: the time mainspring was 3/4 inch wide by 0.0175 inch thick, and the strike mainspring was 0.0165 inch thick. There was very bad T4F pivot hole wear. The strike train had virtually no wear.

Showing front time pivot holes 3, 4, and 5 before bushing. Note excessive wear on #4

After the overhaul, (I did no bushings on the strike side), the pendulum motion was excessive, and the striking sounded sluggish. I swapped the time and strike mainsprings, and then the pendulum motion was excellent (could still have been less) and the strike sounded fine. Here are the final values of the mainspring sizes (remember that these are ORIGINAL OLD mainsprings, if they were being replaced, thinner spring should be used):

Time Spring: Original old 3/4 x 0.0165 inch

Strike Spring: Original old 3/4 x 0.0175 inch

The bottom of the clock showing date code “6091L” which means December 1906.

My job no. 4487

I just repaired an Ingraham oak shelf clock, with a date of 6 14 (June 1914) on the movement.

A previous repairer had installed a time mainspring that was way too strong (.018 inch thick), which had caused about 50% tooth wear on the time mainwheel. After the overhaul, I installed a Merritt’s P1496 mainspring 3/4 inch wide, 0.0155 inch thick, and 96 inches long. This gives a moderate amount of overswing to the pendulum, only time will tell if the power is sufficient to reliably run the clock for a long period. If not, I will install a spring about 0.0165 inch thick.

The strike train has its original mainspring of 3/4 x 0.0172 inches.

My job 4469.

Follow up: On 2/28/08, the clock came back because it would sometimes stop at three minutes before the hour. I did two things to correct this:

1. Smoothed the tip of the strike locking lever.
2. Replaced the time mainspring with one of the new Merritt’s 3/4 x 0.0165 x 96 inch spring.

I just overhauled a Schatz 8 day cuckoo clock. The movement is model 50 (has a 50 in the circle on the back plate). The customer has the top piece, so I could not include in in the photo. The nicely made movement has some surprises!

• The movement plates are very classy with the design of a bird worked into them,
• Separate controls for door and bird - bird goes in and out with each cuckoo while the door stays open,
• The cuckoo and time train are on the opposite sides of the movement, compared to the majority of cuckoo movements,
• Very large teeth on the time first and second wheels.

The weights are 2 lb, 12 oz. and 2 lb, 14 oz.

My job no. 4492. This clock had probably seen years of use, as many of the pivots needed to have wear removed and be polished. I installed 14 bushings.

The circle on the back plate says:

JAHRESUHRENFABRIK
50
GERMANY

The rectangle says:

NO (0) JEWELS
UNADJUSTED

Jahresunherfabrik means “Year Clock Company”. This was the company’s name for many years, as they started out as a manufacturer of 400 day or “Anniversary” clocks. In the early 1950’s they became known as Aug. Schatz and Sohne.

The photo above was made before the movement cleaning, as the dirt in the engraving makes the lettering show up better!

In English case, brass plaque on back says:

London, October 17, 1877
I bought this clock of
Elkington & Co.
Edward Livingston Davis

Movement approximately 3-3/4 inch diameter

Case dimensions: 17 inches H, 14-1/2 W, 7-3/16 D

5-1/2 inch dial, silvered brass, painted numerals and time track.

Measured mainspring dimensions

T: 22.3 mm wide (7/8 inch), 0.0138 - 0.014 inch thick, 54 inches long

S: 22.5 mm wide (7/8 inch), 0.013 inch thick, 46 inches long.

The strike mainspring has been shortened, so I calculated the proper size.

Mainspring thickness formula:

L = pi (B squared - A squared) / 2 T

L = Length
B = Barrel inside radius
A = Arbor radius
T = Thickness

Time Barrel
B = 18 mm
A = 5.8 mm
Optimum calculated length: 51.3 inches
The spring was 54 inches long, it looked very old and had no problems, so it was left alone.

Strike Barrel
A = 18,9 mm
B = 6.5 mm
Optimum calculated length: 59 inches
The spring is only 46 inches long, so it must be replaced.

Looking in the R & M catalog, there were springs of .012, .0125 and .013 inches thick that looked correct for the clock. Since new spring are stronger than old springs, I chose the thinest spring, .012″. I felt that there was only a very small chance that this spring would be too weak.

I calculated the optimum length for a .012 inch thick spring: 63.9 inches.

The spring in the catalog is 7/8 inches wide, 0.012 inches thick, 61 inches long. It is shorter than optimum, but considering that a much shorter spring had worked in the clock before, and based on past experience that 8 French clocks are often designed to run around 2 weeks on a winding, I used this spring. It is being tested now, and after 9 days, the striking has not slowed down significantly.

Strike setting up: There must be only a very small run after the last hammer drops, otherwise the quarts will not be struck correctly.

My job 4353.

I just repaired a standard size 400 day clock by Herr (Horolovar back plate #1159). This clock seems to be a copy of the Schatz standard 400 day clock (movement model 49) but is not as well finished. This clock needed more pivot polishing than most 400 day clocks. Quite often a Schatz 49 will need 3 pivots polished (T2F, T3F and T4F) but this one needed 8 pivots polished (T2 - T5 front and back). Also the verge (pallet assembly) on this clock is not as well adjusted as on the Schatz. When the depth is set so that the drops are equal, the locking is not as deep as I would like. It has a one piece pallet assembly like the Schatz, so you can’t correct the lock by moving one pallet out. I made the best compromise adjustment and the clock runs well.

Another annoying thing with this clock was the process of installing a new suspension spring. A .004 inch thick spring was specified in the book. but it made the clock run slow. The next thinnest available spring is .0038, which is too thin. So I removed the blocks and fork from the spring two times to thin it. Finally after being thinned with 90 stokes of 600 grit abrasive paper, the clock could be regulated.

My Job 4496.

On a web site, there is no need to have a link to the home page on the home page itself! (It makes no sense for a web page to link to itself). This is a commonly known usability guideline, yet nearly all WordPress blogs and web sites have links on the home page to the home page.

In a new blog I am creating, I fixed this by modifying the header.php file in the theme. I did similar fixes to this blog as well.

Original code:

<div id=”h1″><h1>
<a href=”<?php bloginfo(’url’); ?>” title=”<?php bloginfo(’name’); ?>”><?php bloginfo(’name’); ?></a>
</h1></div>

Modified Code:

<div id=”h1″><h1>
<?php
if (!is_home()) { ?>
<a href=”<?php bloginfo(’url’); ?>” title=”<?php bloginfo(’name’); ?>”><?php bloginfo(’name’); ?></a>
<?php }
else {
echo bloginfo(’name’);
}
?>
</h1></div>

Similarly, on the home page, “Home” should not be listed with the list of pages.

Original code:

div id=”tabs1″>
<ul>
<li><a href=”<?php bloginfo(’url’); ?>” title=”Home”>Home</a></li>
<?php wp_list_pages(’depth=1&title_li=’); ?>
</ul>
</div>

Modified Code:

<div id=”tabs1″>
<ul>
<?php if (!is_home()) { ?>
<li><a href=”<?php bloginfo(’url’); ?>” title=”Home”>Home</a></li>
<?php } ?>
<?php wp_list_pages(’depth=1&title_li=’); ?>
</ul>
</div>