How Deep Can a Dive Watch REALLY Go? Deep Sea Chamber test!

[@Beyondthepress]

I just ordered the Vostok Amphibia which has been most requested watch to test with this. So subscribe the channel to see that one :D

[@MK0272]

Working with those kinds of pressures you REALLY should upgrade to a stronger blast shield. If something went wrong with the chamber I doubt that blast shield would provide much protection. It might just shatter into a bunch of shards moving at lethal speeds.

[@spavliskojr]

By far i think a lot of people would like to see how a vostok amfibia holds up! I know a lot of watch enthusiasts who swear by them! The way they are made, they are rated for 20bar and get more water resistant the more pressure is exerted on them. they use a large compression gasket on the back and an acrylic pressure fit crystal on the front that when under pressure, both compress inwards to become better water resistant.

[@KarunaMurti]

@@spavliskojr why do I feel it's going to be 300m, some of them are rated 300m and the thick ass plastic face is quite good

[@robinhede7467]

You should try to see what happens to co2 canisters, you know, the ones used for airsoft guns or bicycle repair kit

[@chevyro9816]

Can you test a Square, digital only G shock? They have a reputation for being indestructible and they are all marketed as having at least 200m of water resistance but many speculate that number may be quite higher

[@WoodworkerDon]

I really like the new digital pressure guage. Prrriiti Guud.

[@Beyondthepress]

I have even better one coming :D After I bought this I got email that some company is going to send even better one for free.

[@WoodworkerDon]

@@Beyondthepress Better stuff for FREE. Can't beat that. 👍

[@Speeder84XL]

@@Beyondthepress That's awesome! Many companies probably realize that this is one of the best ways to show off their products and it's most likely cheaper for them to give off a few products for free, than having to pay normal advertizement - a win win situation.

[@mal2ksc]

@@Speeder84XL That's pretty much the norm in the tech business. If you want to get reviewed, send out a bunch of free samples. This just isn't nearly as high-volume a business.

[@WoodworkerDon]

@@mal2ksc it's more of a high-pressure business. 🙂👍

[@dbrown2264]

This is an absolute success for the citizen. It kept running past 200m.

[@bobbybrainstorm]

and its actually rated to 100m only

[@oandgw]

It looked like it lost it's ability to keep time approaching 200M, at least the case is intact.

[@PlasmaChannel]

You've successfully answered the question i've had my whole life. I have always rocked 300m watches. Don't ever wear a watch that isn't waterproof. But it's my understanding that the meter ratings are not truly accurate. So, it's super nice to see a real test!

[@AKAtheA]

note that most times there's a "M" instead of "m" and it's not a mistake...capital M = it's not meters, but some bullshit rating that has a conversion table into actual meters of water depth, which is never 1:1 (usually more then 10:1)

[@thecloneguyz]

"WATER RESISTANT" "WATERPROOF" TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

[@MrLogistician]

Water depth on a watch dial is static pressure (which the deep sea chamber simulates) when the watch is moving (or if your arm with the watch is moving), you're dealing with dynamic pressure. This is why a 30m watch is not considered to be water resistant enough for swimming. If you look at the ISO 6425 standard, a watch meeting the standard must be able to withstand 25% more static pressure than what's written on the dial. So if the dial says 200m, the watch can withstand 250m static pressure. Because of the difference in static and dynamic pressure, 300m dive watches tend to be overengineered, since a watch working at 200m will almost certainly experience occasional dynamic pressure exceeding 300m. Or at least that makes sense, but as another commenter pointed out total pressure is the sum of dynamic and static pressure. Edit: changed "bec4of" to "because of". Removed an extra space. Edit 2: ISO 6425 is 125% not 150% as I originally had. Thanks for the correction. Edit 3: total pressure = static pressure + dynamic pressure. Just like total energy = kinetic energy + potential energy. In fact, the equation for dynamic pressure is extremely similar to the equation for kinetic energy. Both have v^2 and 1/2 coefficients. So I dun goofed (sorry, I'm a lazy math guy) and I tried to update the original comment.

[@thecloneguyz]

@@MrLogistician Almost everything is purposely overrated for a safety standard

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@MrLogistician How can you add 100m of "depth" by simply moving the watch at human speeds? Banging it into things? I doubt that you can get more than a few pascals differential from motion.

[@DonCacomixtle]

That citizen is NOT a diver, it is a 10bar non screw down crown, diver-like watch. In fact its water resistance is remarkable.

[@simonrano8072]

it is pretty standard for "sporty" mechanical watches. Most chronographs are 100 m but cannot be operated under water in general. It it almost impossible to sell a "diver-like" with a 5 bars rating, lets be honnest ^^

[@gimaticnordic993]

Yes, it`s a diver. Even a ISO certifiering diver watch. Citizen is one of the divers’ watch brand with best pedigree (Unlike the other watch). It`s just not a contemporary model 100M used to be the standard diver rating also for Seiko, OMEGA and ROLEX. The first diver ‘s wrist watch launched was Blancpain Fifty Fathoms, rated to just 50 fathoms which is 90 meters which is plenty for scuba diving. A ISO certified diver for 100M is more than enough for scuba diving but not a “waterproof 100m” because it means nothing.

[@alexfreetime9597]

@@gimaticnordic993 It's a diver style watch, not a proper diver, that's a Citizen NH8380-15EE, not ISO certified. Usually they write "Diver's xxxmt" on the dial if that's the case.

[@giveML]

True. Besides, it being a mechanical watch instead of quartz puts it at a disadvantage, since the rotor and the whole mechanism is easier to jam compared to the simpler quartz construction.

[@simonrano8072]

@@giveML I wouldn't consider quartz for a diver as, especially nowdays, as it is a back up tool for divers. You can't afford running low on battery. It paticularly true for commercial diving as they spend a full month in saturation. But even for none divers quartz is a bad option for a diver watch. It is expensive to re-certified the resistance after each battery change. Usual shops can performe 50 m re-sealing but 200 or 300 m needs dedicated equipements.

[@John-ym9ht]

Both manufacturers can be proud of their work. Both watches surpassed their ratings and I would feel confident buying either one. Thank you for doing this one. I've always wondered if those depth ratings were accurate.👍🏻

[@noegmad]

Actually no the second watch messed up far before hitting 30 bars i think it was around 5 bars that the movement skips ahead fpr some reason and the second hand started missing the indexes and before it hit them well and after it was completely missing the index

[@ernestochang1744]

There's a video of a casio g shock by these guys being able to survive over 300 metres of water depth when the casio is rated for only 200 metres of water depth, and the casio did not stop at 340 metres it kept going until it broke the screen way beyond 400 metres

[@tesmat1243]

​@@noegmadthat's just the behavior of a cheap quartz movement

[@Zenan466]

@@tesmat1243the citizen is definitely not contending a quarz movement.

[@corail53]

@@noegmad And it really doesn't matter because you would not be hitting those numbers while diving anyway and if you are saturation diving you are not using one of these.

[@eddieguyvh4765]

Both watches are not ISO certified, that puts things in perspective! I'd like to see how the Citizen NY0040 reacts to important depths. The italian navy tested it up to 500 meters and it kept working reliably.

[@CorePathway]

If you are even 100 meters underwater, you are likely already dead tho. There is ZERO utility for these ridiculous ratings.

[@bubbajenkins123]

This is an important test because sundials don’t work at the bottom of the ocean very well

[@redsquirrelftw]

They work if you bring a flashlight but the time shown will be in a random time zone.

[@pixelmaster98]

@@redsquirrelftw with an accuracy of +/- 30 minutes ^^

[@NorseGraphic]

lol! 🤣

[@edwindude9893]

😂🥴👍

[@reverseroundhouse]

Just bring a flashlight

[@n1msu]

You guys should do repeated deep sea tests on these diver watches. It's a fact that a seal will only last a certain number of 'cycles' before it fails. Same way an airliner only has a certain lifespan depending on how many high alt cruise back to ground level the plane has. Many watch manufacturers claim to be dive resistant, but forget to mention how many times it can be used before the seal fails!

[@Faesharlyn]

This comment needed a wider audience...

[@dougs3909]

​@ralphmacchiato3761hahaha, cold blooded

[@Gainn]

Nostradamus in here.

[@XLR8bg]

I presume another component of the certification is time under pressure, judging by how phones are rated for X amount of time at Y depth.

[@24934637]

@ralphmacchiato3761 Oh wow, that's incredible. Sounds like the ideal materials to make an experimental submarine......Someone who had insane amounts of money could even set up a business to take other people with insane amounts of money to visit the Titanic wreck! Obviously there would be a very strict safety limit on the number of times it could be used, because of the really obvious factor of cyclic use and material failure but you'd have to be incredibly stupid to not take that into account..... ;)

[@jsveiga]

Take them to a watch repair shop; "I was free diving and I think I went a bit too deep; can you please check?"

[@fie1329]

Then he puts out other ones: "These got crushed in a hydraulic press by accident. Is that covered by warrenty or can you repair them in some way?"

[@TheDrdounut]

@@fie1329 tbh it would be super interesting just to see what damage the clockworks had taken. i´m shure the watchmaker would be interested to

[@theflyinfox9250]

@@TheDrdounut Since the citizen most certainly is a cheap quartz watch (no-one would try this on a mech, cost is so high) the "clockwork" is most likely damaged by water entering the battery more than the pressure itself

[@TheDrdounut]

@@theflyinfox9250 there is a possibility that the ruby bearrings are pushed out of place.. i'm a watchmaker myself abd would be super interested what happend to the movement

[@theflyinfox9250]

@@TheDrdounut me too, I just think the watch isn't fully representative of modern watchmaking technology and talent

[@pyro1324]

As a watchmaker the most probable reason for the Citizen stopping and starting is that the crystal pressed on the second hand above 30bar causing it to jam. And the same seems to be the case for the Dugena.

[@watchesandwheels2093]

I'm a Master Watchmaker myself and I specialize in Citizen 8110a chronographs. 31 Jewels is my name. You pyro1342 are 100% correct. We did a similar test in watchmaking school....the crystal is the culprit at depth. I would love to get these watches on the bench and have a look at them inside. The case backs crushing has me interested. The quartz one lasted longer and deeper because it was quartz and had no rotor. The Citizen has a rotor and less clearance between the movement and the case back.

[@MrGTAfan93]

Film a gopro hero 4 with a waterproof housing, and see how much pressure it can take. the housing alone without gopro would be interesting, but if you put a gopro in there make sure it's filming!

[@blaircox1589]

Second this!

[@SeanBZA]

SD card will probably not survive...... Need to have a wireless version.

[@brianmurray2377]

I'd go with the hero 9 it's waterproof but you could add the case too

[@steffenjespersen247]

Once tried to Scuba with a Hero5 Session (no case), they are correct it is only good for about 10m. Beyond that is just stopped filming.. After going beyond that a few times it stopped working right :)

[@a_tiny_cactus]

@@SeanBZA MicroSD cards are waterproof by design, and likely to survive the pressure given how dense they are (there is no empty space inside of one).

[@pahom2]

I am going to casually dive 1 kilometer this summer. Thanks for testing.

[@diegocanale1124]

😱

[@zoomboom4696]

Contact a Finnish Rolex AD and ask them to loan a Deepsea Seadweller for testing. Those are rated for 4000 meters so they should have nothing to worry about...

[@CaptainHoratioPugwash]

How to guarantee that you won't get a reply 101 right here.

[@YeCannyDaeThat]

Yeah Rolex AD's don't "loan" out watches for a youtube channel to "test"

[@JK-sm7ni]

The meme watch company

[@warrenmichael918]

@@YeCannyDaeThat not so sure, ive seen huge gold bars get destroyed and many other things worth more.

[@YeCannyDaeThat]

@@soundspark tougher materials and different, more rounded shapes.

[@andyclark1173]

Great I’ve searching for months for someone like you to really give these watches a thorough test. Most of my collection are dive watches and it’s great to see real pressure. That’s impressive kit you have there. Please keep your channel going. Great stuff. 👍

[@swagner58]

As a SCUBA professional, I can verify that if you're at 1200 meters, "What time is it?" is the last of your concerns. As a equipment buff, you bet I'm going to show this to all my dive buddies. Happy Bubbles.

[@davidwarland2680]

whats a scuba professional, im a commercial diver, scuba professional ?

[@swagner58]

@@davidwarland2680 I'm an instructor, operations manager for a SCUBA shop and a repair technician for a number of different brands. Not commercial diver, but know a number of them.

[@johndododoe1411]

@@swagner58 But what about diving in a full suit instead of SCUBA gear?

[@armchairgeneralissimo]

@@johndododoe1411 Even with the best deep diving suit money can buy you will be crushed like a can of Coke at those depths. Google says the deepest the best suit can go is 610 meters under water.

[@incognitoburrito6020]

@@johndododoe1411 Past a certain point you're really just wearing a small submarine and you wouldn't be able to test your watch.

[@salmatosjr5285]

I wish they had a watch person there who could have opened and described what actually caused the failure. I was fascinated by the Citizens performance as he released the pressure. I'm guessing the case back failure was the culprit at the normal pressures. The crush failure was fantastic.

[@unknowninvictus2520]

The failure was actually the crystal that was getting pressed against the dial and warped so much that it touched the seconds hand and held it in place. When the pressure went away, you can see the watch immediately restarting, because the crystal resumed normal form.

[@Niraol]

The citizen wasn't a diver watch anyway. 100m water resistant really isn't that much in general terms, I wouldn't go further than maybe swimming on the surface with it if you plan to keep it for longer

[@bubba99009]

If you find yourself scuba diving at even 1000 feet (~300 m) you probably have much bigger problems than your watch.

[@Kirillissimus]

Especially if you experience a pressure drop as quick as the watch had.

[@vast634]

They would likely break in saturation diving, when ascending in the bell, due to helium buildup. So they can only be used for scuba diving anyways.

[@johndododoe1411]

If you find yourself thinking about your depth scuba diving at 1000', you are strong enough to complain about a watch letting you down.

[@NathanChisholm041]

Dove to the bottom of the Mariana trench yesterday had no dramas! ;-)

[@johndododoe1411]

@@NathanChisholm041 Really? That's supernaturally strong.

[@raylcc2620]

As others have suggested, I think it would be interesting to see what a watch repair shop would think. It would make a good video to see the repairman reaction as he/she inspects the watch, trying to figure out what happened to it and then what went wrong with the watch to get it in that shape. Then try to actually fix it.

[@thomasflynn5366]

Neither of these are rated as dive watches so the ratings don't really mean they can go that deep so they both drastically over performed. That was amazing.

[@gilbertoflores7397]

But it also goes to show that sometimes when a brand says a watch is 200m, but not certified, and the watch snobs who've never been deeper than a pool complain that it's false advertising, can bow shut up about wanting "true divers" to only have 200m.

[@erikhaw7313]

Yeah, I was shocked and impressed 😱

[@nunyabusiness9056]

@@gilbertoflores7397 I mostly see pointing out how the bar rating is basically horse shit and literally false advertising how they put bar interchangeably with meters. Like a 3 bar watch is rated for like...being able to get it damp in the rain, it's not even safe to take a shower in it.

[@markz4467]

@@nunyabusiness9056 But they are interchangeable, for every 10 meters in the water, static pressure increases by 1 bar. Now, that doesn't take into account dynamic pressure because it would be hard to rate, since dynamic pressure is connected to the velocity at which you are moving under water.

[@nunyabusiness9056]

@@markz4467 My point is that none of that matters because those terms aren't regulated in any way and companies have their own standards. Go get a seiko watch and look in the manual and it will tell you what you can safely do in a watch based on it's water resistance or divers rating. A 5 bar watch is not a watch they tell you can safely go 50 meters under water with, a 5 bar watch they say you can safely get it a little bit wet in the rain. Basically companies can put whatever the hell they want on their watches with those terms. A divers 200 meter is an ISO standard and it absolutely has to be able to withstand at least that amount of pressure.

[@AirNorthOne]

If you are in a submersible and your watch stops working, you have a problem.

[@EricTViking]

Years ago I was told that if you took a polystyrene cup and tied it to a ship anchor, the pressure would shrink it to a fraction of its original size. I'd be interested to see you take a polystyrene cup to 3km depth to see if you can bust the myth 👍

[@busybusiness9121]

the polystyrene cup thing is real bro.

[@endospores]

I have that same Dugena watch but the automatic version. I never expected this. Not that I would ever take that watch even swimming, but wow, for the price, nice.

[@RvSun]

Impressed by Dugena. What is the model no. of the Dugena & at what price?

[@unixtippse]

Man with watch knows exact time, man with two watches, not so sure anymore.

[@fie1329]

Man with the press crushes them and has a good time!

[@prophet3091]

"Too much magic can be dangerous. M'aiq once had two spells and burned his sweetroll."

[@3mar00ss6]

deep ( ᷄ᴗ _ ᴗ ᷅)

[@mauricegold9377]

Man with 4 watches has too much time on his hands.

[@Jorj57]

i got a small watch collection, and i know times well 🤷

[@isaacjoyagalvan7923]

Test a g-shock, almost all of them are rated to 200 m, a casio marlin would be fun to watch too

[@JLchevz]

yeah that would be interesting

[@adiwild]

@@JLchevz these guy has already testet the gw-7900 last week, you can check it out here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWPaeJ2loMeDgNE

[@JLchevz]

@@adiwild thanks

[@ReverendTed]

Looks like what happened was the pressure collapsed the back panel, pressing the hands into the watch face. I wonder if the center of the watch hands and pinion created a pressure point that shattered the glass more than the glass "imploding".

[@Darwinpasta]

On the second one you can see when the glass touches the hands. I'd expect both sides of the watch are moving towards each other until they bind (and then mush) the mechanism.

[@oliverwilson11]

There are many other moving parts in a watch besides the hands. Any one of them getting squeezed would stop the watch. And the pivot touching the glass would actually help support it, not cause it to break more easily.

[@adlerbr5148]

A really cool video. Just a quick note: for every 10 meters of depth, the pressure increases by 1 atm. However, it's important to remember to include the baseline atmospheric pressure at sea level, which is also 1 atm. To calculate the total pressure at a certain depth, we use the formula (p/10) + 1, where p represents the depth, and the +1 accounts for the atmospheric pressure at sea level. So, at a depth of 10 meters, the pressure is 2 atm; at 20 meters, it's 3 atm; at 30 meters, it's 4 atm, and so on. Take care, Alex.

[@melody3741]

The pressure inside the watch is 1 bar…

[@dmkinsey]

Interesting. I never considered that the caseback would cave in so much that the movement would stop. Cool how the Citizen started going again when the pressure was reduced.

[@gtv6chuck]

Really cool to see that these watches worked far better than advertised.

[@lindboknifeandtool]

Watch companies notoriously underpromise and over deliver. Same with accuracy.

[@Spurdospaerde692]

The printed depth/pressure ratings in this case are primarily with regards to guaranteed protection against water ingress during prolonged exposure, not with regards to when the watch will fail due to being bloody crushed! From this video, we can't tell whether either of the watches fulfilled what they promised.

[@TCL_Dasler]

That Dugena, serious value for money. Great test.

[@sysghost]

For those who wonder why the watchmakers don't rate it higher if they can take it. Rating for a specified depth also requires the watch to survive at the given depth over an extended time. They're likely to slowly leak when they go deeper than their rated depth.

[@clintonleonard5187]

It's also just normal for engineers to design something to perform a lot better than it's advertised. If they designed it to only go to exactly the depth it was advertised for, going even 1 ft. deeper would break the watch. They overengineer it so that it won't break anywhere near the advertised depth.

[@mal2ksc]

@@clintonleonard5187 Rating to 300m and then surviving to 1200m seems like an unusual amount of safety factor though. Maybe they're not as consistent as they'd like, so some of the units shipped are really good and others are just decent, and they rate them all at the lesser level rather than "binning" them like they might if they were CPUs.

[@Skinflaps_Meatslapper]

If you look close at the second watch at 11:10 when he hits max pressure, it looks like there was a tiny little dot of water on the face. Right about the 4:30 position close to the center. It disappears when the pressure is reduced. Curious to know whether that was something internal to the watch or if it was actually water inside. As for why they're not rated at those depths, the seals simply won't stay sealed for long. Anything (not just watches) rated to be waterproof at a certain depth usually has a duration attached to that number, meaning it can handle those pressures for a certain time before seals begin to fail. A watch rated to 500m for 10 minutes might hold up for an hour at 400m, or indefinitely at 250m (arbitrary numbers for this example). So for that watch, what are they going to rate it at? 500m? 400m? 250m? Some manufacturers forgo the duration simply because it can withstand the rated pressure indefinitely (250m forever) and some forgo the duration in order to artificially inflate their rating (500m for 10min), and some simply slap a number on it based on how much they want to charge for it...so it's up to the consumer to decide whether it really can survive what they intend to do with it. Others will actually give you a chart with several depths and durations rather than putting a number on their watch, and those numbers were very likely physically tested similar to this video to give the consumer an accurate picture.

[@Sashimi404]

And divers mostly dive in a salt water. At 200m, pressure reading is higher for salt water compared to tap water. ρ g h.

[@Sashimi404]

@@mal2ksc these test were carried out with distilled/ tap water. Divers were meant to be used inside salt water. At 300m depth, the pressure inside salt water is higher than 30bar. ρ g h. Density of water x gravity x depth.

[@vkmicro2]

very cool test. It's really nice to see that both watches work at their rated depth and even 3-4 times the rated depth.

[@darwinwins]

they were over-engineered. they were built to surpass the ISO rating to pass the ISO rating.

[@joesshows6793]

‘You are also not working at this point’

[@HISKILP]

this sentence killed me xD

[@mattr7274]

The way lauri say squeezed will never get old. I love your English. It’s much better than my Finnish. Your voice is fun to listen to.

[@aaardvaaark]

If the metal back bent rather than water seeping in, that's some damn good seals it's got.

[@johndododoe1411]

Once it's permanently stopped, we don't know if the insides were flooded or dry.

[@vir042]

Most of them are made to "compress" under pressure so they get more water tight the deeper they go. So at surface level they are the least water resistant if that make sense :P But yea they both did amazingly well. The citizen is not even one of their proper "diver"s so thats amazing.

[@WatchUP69MrRangeman]

Hi guys... just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this show, and I was so impressed that I've shared it on my channel with a link in the description to this video... best pressure videos I've seen on watches :) Huge thumbs and support from me as always, cheers from the UK :)

[@ssmit80]

I would like to see this test on a Vostok Amfibia.

[@francescotravi6615]

Finally a test like that on watches!!!! Beautiful!!! Also the setup, compliments!!!

[@patricj951]

Good test! I am impressed about both these watches, who were able to survive the pressure of far higher depth than advertised. At least for a short while. Still it's worth to mention that 200m is the lowest number of water resistance considered to qualify it a true diving watch. Therefore it would also be interesting to see how well a Citizen 200m diver watch can handle the pressure. I have a Citizen BN0191-80L. Apart from that you should test a 1000m divers watch. It should survive 3000m pressure for a short while and 1000m for extended time.

[@davidmilz2990]

I was really happy with your results. I own a number of citizen watches and was quite impressed!! Nice to know I didn't waste my $$!! Keep up the great work!!

[@fjprofis]

Love you guys!! Shared this episode with my whatsapp group of brazilian divers💕

[@paulvalenzuela3625]

I really enjoyed watching this , never seen this done ,this must be how the manufacturers test their product

[@colintinker7778]

Can you take the backs off the watches? I'd like to see how the insides coped with the covers caving in.

[@lionelwylie2326]

That was cool but good on those cheap watches for going way way beyond what any divers will ever go.

[@RealWorldCarReviews]

What an absolutely awesome test! Super interesting! The digital gauge is much better and more readable too. 👍😎

[@VampirusX]

Nearly the best test I have seen (just slightly below the Gshock test). So many cheap watches claiming to be waterproof up to 1000m instead they get destroyed below 200m. Your channel deserves a lot more subs!

[@imbok]

Watch depth ratings are crazy. I have several Seiko watches that are rated to 200 m depth. Seiko also sells watches that are rated to 1000 m depth! This is cool, I love seeing the failure modes of these watches. I would have never guessed that the case back deformation would stop the movement of each watch the way it did. There is an ISO standard for dive watches (ISO 6425) that states that it has to handle 25% more depth in a test than what it is rated for so these watches would have passed that requirement. COOL TEST!!

[@Beyondthepress]

I also never thought that the back covers are going to fail, but now when you think it it's quite expected. I have also digital watch coming soon that was also pretty interesting on how it's failed :D

[@imbok]

@@Beyondthepress Yes! If you run the numbers, for a 30 mm diameter case back (~1.1 inches), the total force at 1 km/100 bars is >7 kN (1590 lb)!

[@rafaelthome6251]

Wow, so intersting! Now I understand how the watches fail under pressure: case back is bended first, this provokes a movement damage, then, depending on the crystal thicknes it will be broken. Thanks for this high value information

[@mrrandomperson3106]

"Price: Don't tell my wife how expensive this was"

[@Pinkielover]

they arent cheap watches

[@SeanBZA]

Is Anni not the one who does the bill payments.......

[@arthurmoore9488]

@@SeanBZA Aren't most wives the ones who manage the finances.... They see how much the other half spends...

[@jamesharding3459]

@@arthurmoore9488 lol yea. My mum always handled the family finances. Of course, she was the one with a masters in finance.

[@offdagrid877]

He’s referring to the pressure chamber

[@Graymanone]

I just purchased the Citizen prodiver that is ISO certified. Way to go Citizen!

[@BadAssEngineering]

I would really enjoy a video of a test of many different Dive Watches in the same chamber :)

[@crsp76691]

Ive taken my citizen calibre 5700 scuba diving many times, performs flawless

[@williamruiz9186]

This man has valtori bottas’s body with kimmi’s voice

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

and Teemu Selanne's smile

[@Gundal66]

Cool stuff. Can you do the same on a Seiko SKX and a Casio Duro? That would be awesome

[@PsRohrbaugh]

I know you like to focus on catastrophic failures, but it'd be interesting to see a time-lapse at certain depths to see if water slowly leaks in.

[@leximatic]

At one point you could see small bubbles appear, that was when water got pass the seal. It didn't stop the watch immediately, because it's still mechanic inside, but it had been caused later issues through rust.

[@TheTulatokarev]

I have that Citizen for more than 2 years. Great accurate watch, it is part of my edc. For now accurate is ~+5 sec. a day. If you rest it when you sleep, you will have very good time keeper. I will recommend to all this Citizen. Mine is on a good zulu strap. Great value for the money. Very good video, greetings from Serbia! :)

[@diveflyfish]

I would be happy to send you a watch that I modified and is fluid filled to test it. Please let me know if you would like to do so. Cheers and Excellent work!! Bravo. Awesome to see this in real time.

[@zachyurkus]

Considering they couldn’t implode the mechanical one in this vid, which was air-filled, I don’t think there’s any way they could get a liquid-filled one to implode...not on their current setup anyway. Would be an awesome idea if they come up with a higher-pressure chamber! Edit: unless you just want to see how deep it will go and still keep time, and not worried about imploding it.

[@diveflyfish]

@@zachyurkus Thanks! The one I have is Titanium. I was wondering if any of the internal electrical components would fail like a capacitor etc in the quartz movement if liquid filled. Let me know if some day you make a higher pressure chamber ! Have a great week. Thanks again for this video.

[@zachyurkus]

@@diveflyfish that was gonna be my next question for you...what is the case/crystal material, and also if it was mechanical or quartz movement... is the backing plate actually titanium as well? Or just the housing of the case itself?

[@SeanBZA]

@@diveflyfish Quartz crystal itself would collapse the housing, it is only soft aluminium formed into the shape using a die, like a soda can is. It will probably collapse at 10bar or so. Capacitors would have an issue with piezo effect as well, as they get compressed, so generating high voltages across the terminals. Semiconductors would probably survive, though the pressure likely will force liquid into any voids in the epoxy encapsulation, so it will likely popcorn as the pressure is released. Of course the battery will not survive. A purely mechanical movement though would be perfectly happy, though timekeeping with high viscosity fluid damping the balance wheel is likely to be poor, if it will oscillate at all.

[@diveflyfish]

@@SeanBZA I think it would still be an interesting experiment. I used vacuum to fill the watch, and was curious if that would have flooded the capacitor as well as the surrounding crystal. The 3M fluorinert is a liquid dielectric and is essentially 1.8 x as dense as water and is an exceedingly excellent insulator. The electronics do not see it as it were. I agree with you and know mechanical watches are not able to withstand the density of the liquid due to the escapement and fine springs would not be able to work without severely altering time keeping function and efficiency. Thank you for pointing out the piezo effect of the capacitors. What type of capacitor has that issue? Electrolytic or ceramic or both? Thank you for your insights.

[@therraxz]

good advertisment for both watches i would say. realy impressive.

[@Maxpen14]

You should definately try Russian vostok watch! They are cheap and as durable as kalashnikov(at least that is what people say)

[@JanBinnendijk]

@Yuck Foutube I have one.. but my pressure chamber does'nt go over 6 Bars.. that's way more pressure than we mere mortals can handle. These watches were designed with pressure in mind..

[@MrTibbs12]

I own that citizen…i got it at half the rrp which i found most agreeable..it is solidly built and very reliable…i’m not captain nemo so you wont find me at the bottom of the ocean but as an avid swimmer it has given me no complaints..if you shop around this can be found in the £150 range which is great value for what you get

[@aarongreenfield9038]

Now this is being pressed for time.

[@acatwithafancyhat5782]

Take my like and leave

[@aarongreenfield9038]

@@acatwithafancyhat5782. Fine!, you pressured me into it... OK I'm leaving.

[@Mart77]

Please-please-please make more of these videos. I'd like to see Invicta Pro Diver, Casio A168 and other cheap waterproof watches being tested. $67 Invicta has a writing that it can go down as 200m, but can it really?

[@anderskohkoinen8065]

Terve kaikille ruotsista! :) You should really try the russian Vostok Amphibia - while other divers (like Rolex and such) are built like safes, designed to be strong and rigid to preserve pressure inside at 1 ATM despite being pressurized, the Vostok Amphibia is actually elastic. The domed crystal flattens out and the caseback gets pressed into the case improving water tightness the deeper it gets. The design is unique in the watch world, and you should really do a comparision! Would it not be fun to prove a $70 cheapo russian watch to be superior to something that costs 10 times more? The Vostok also has a huge global fanbase (almost like the Nightwish Army) and such a video would quickly get viral! You can thank me later! :-)

[@ClaudeMagicbox]

Rolex (Submariner) is not a good diving watch, in fsct Rolex is not specialized in diving watches. Want something serious? Check out Swiss SQUALE (french for "shark")....those are actually diving watch specialists, also Italian PANERAI besides the famed Luminor Marina has a new diver series called SUBMERSIBLE (french for "submarine") which is really cool.

[@havokvladimirovichstalinov]

I dont have an Amphibia but my Komandirske is probably the best 24hr analogue Ive ever owned. So if the Amphibia proves to be superior Ill give it some attention

[@anderskohkoinen8065]

@@ClaudeMagicbox Rolex was just an example for the "brute force principle" that most diver watches are built after. Vostoks are, as I said - unique, built after a totally different principle. Those watches does not need high tolerances or expensive materials to achieve pressure resistance. So, if Lauri and the gang is considering redoing these destructive pressure tests, it would be plenty fun if they included a Vostok Amphibia in the mix :-) If they get to crush a real Rolex or Panerai - Im the last one to object. But thats throwing a lot of money into the bin. Not so with Vostoks :)

[@anderskohkoinen8065]

@@havokvladimirovichstalinov Newer model Vostok Komandirskies are also 200m WR, and are built the same way as Amphibias with stainless steel cases, auto movements and such. The classic komandirskies were made in crome plated brass, manual wind movement and only 100m WR, they were intended as field watches, not divers. So if your komandirskie is a newer stainless steel one with 200m WR - its actually an Amphibia in disguise :)

[@havokvladimirovichstalinov]

@@anderskohkoinen8065 interesting. All the more reason to love these watches. Designed for brute force and functionality, the good looks are a bonus

[@ctbram0627]

On the second watch once the case seal was broken the force on the crystal was equalized on both sides so the crystal did not implode. You could hear a pop when the case seal broke. On the first watch, the pressure differential on both sides of the glass caused the glass to implode before the case seal was broken.

[@MrJerry160]

You guys should test the Vostok Amphibia! It supposed to get more water resistant the deeper it goes by design

[@patchvonbraun]

I watched this series when it first came out. I wonder now if it should be resurrected with a scale model of the Titan pressure chamber--maybe just steel end caps. But carbon-fibre chamber with scale-equivalent thickness...

[@bennylloyd-willner9667]

Test an Apple Watch - I know it won't last long but I just want to see one die 😁

[@alpinist888]

The curiousity since my childhood days were answered already, excellent content guys!, more piwer! Hoping more brands please

[@WoodworkerDon]

I have TIME to WATCH this video. (Likely several times. ) 😄🏊‍♂️⌚

[@jerryfacts9749]

The deepest water my watch would ever see is my bathtub! I like dive watches because of the thicker hands to make them easier to read at a glance. This demonstration was very interesting!

[@frankspencer5368]

If they are quartz do "the hydro mod" Fill them up with oil

[@gaethanos24]

AMAZING JOB! try this: put some diver (certified) like the citizen and put in 1000m/1500m deph for long time and after open the back and check/show the mechanical movement

[@thekingofzapzap5072]

O Citizen foi muito além do seu limite de 10 ATM somado com a tolerância de 25% = 125 metros, suportou muito bem até o limite extremo.

[@franco05]

Amazing quality on both watches. great test

[@stargabilondoechever]

I hop they will test VOSTOK AMPHIBIA. They are probably capable to survive much under 300m depth

[@rogeriorogerdiver7lima269]

I dove at least 36 saturations, 15 of then around 290m, with my Technos Skydiver 1000m. Near the retirement I'd bet with ROV pals a box of beer and sent my watch till 980m, attached in front of the tilt camera. Once at shore we drank a pair of beer boxes. I still have the watch, now he has almost 30 years. A classic case of KISS. Keep It Simple S.....d.

[@steffenjespersen247]

I love to dive, and I am fine with my watch only rated at 100m.. If I scuba beyond that I have fucked up and very likely dead myself, why should my watch get to survive :)

[@dymytryruban4324]

For Citizen watch, at 300 m the back lid undergoes elastic deformations that's why it returns to junction when pressure is released. When done repeatedly, this increases yield strength but makes the material brittle.

[@divingdave2945]

When you dive that deep, you have other concerns than your watch ^^

[@johndododoe1411]

But you need to watch your ascent time.

[@leoa4c]

Wow! Working beyond 1000m! Really good watch!

[@SpeshDJ]

The reason the crystal on the second watch didn't shatter is because during the first two tests one or more of the sealing components will have failed. Therefore when you conducted the test at 3000m, the pressure inside the watch would have been equal to that inside the pressure vessel relieving any inward pressure on the crystal. The first watch would have retained atmospheric pressure internally, so there would have been a great deal of force exerted on the crystal when the test was conducted at 3000m, hence why it shattered.

[@dougerrohmer]

But he said there was no water inside the watch, unless I misheard him.

[@RonakDhakan]

There are multiple level of failure: 1. When the water gets in. The watch may still work but the water will damage it and make it stop over time. This is what the watch is rated for and what users are interested in. 2. When the watch stops under pressure, but starts when the pressure is removed. 3. When the watch stops under pressure and does not start when the pressure is removed. 4. When the watch back / glass breaks.

[@ches74]

It's surprising that the seal could be so good that the pressure wouldn't equalise before the glass shattered.

[@SeanBZA]

All the seals are in compression, so as the pressure increases they have more force holding them into position. Till the pressure is high enough to force the seal to extrude through the tiny gaps into the watch body they will hold.

[@clintonleonard5187]

@@SeanBZA This. Dive watches are well engineered. People used to rely on these to tell you how much air you have left, after all.

[@dmaram]

Thank you for using the metric system for measurements

[@stoner27th]

I've got an Invicta 1000 meter rated, can you test that for me? I have trouble diving to 1000 meter. lol

[@Actionary]

Wow, 300 bars! That's a lot of press-soorah! Great video, thanks.

[@beardymcbeardface69]

Would love to see you confirm an oil filled Sinn Hydro, water resistant to 5,000m! However, expensive watch!

[@Maadhawk]

Looks to me that the pressure on the citizen watch compressed the crystal into the parts and then ultimately distorted the tiny components inside. I'm impressed how much past its rating it went before that began though and final compromise occurred. Both watches pretty much will do more than most dives will ever do, impressive.

[@vmark1111]

The citizen one is not a dive watch. it doesn't have the ISO rating like the bit more expensive models.

[@SomaliCoastguard]

Also it started stuttering at about 17.8 bars.

[@snips350]

Millions of people are now fascinated with pressure at depth.

[@hannaht2068]

I Wonder WHY. 🤔

[@alanj9391]

If I ever find myself at 1km deep, whether or not my watch is still working will be fairly low on my things to worry about 😃

[@simontay4851]

You won't be working at 1KM deep.

[@MegaPanerai]

im pretty sure people are diving a that depth , like in oil platforms. They will stay at that depth in special chambers after there dive for hours / days. If they wear a watch like this ... i doubt it :P

[@karvast5726]

@@MegaPanerai you need special equipement for saturation diving and there is some watches made for that even thought it's a realy extreme environement

[@MrRahimhosein]

This is the best thing youve done on your channel

[@Fister_of_Muppets]

How deep can a carbon fiber Titan watch go?

[@notyourrealfather]

From what I've learned from shopping for dive watches, water resistance ratings are basically estimates unless they say "Divers" on the dial which indicates some sort of certification, like ISO. ISO testing goes to 20% or something like that beyond the indicated limit.

[@clintonleonard5187]

Correct. ISO certification is a standard for rating dive watches. If it doesn't say "ISO" or "certified" somewhere, it has only been tested by the manufacturer and has not been through standardized testing. It does not mean it won't work, it's just that ISO certification is more legit.

[@g.e.o.r.g.e...]

WOW the Dugena looks like a cheap replica of even the Amazon listing. Look at that date magnifier, it's not even 1.5x.

[@jinxUKBK]

These two men are amazing at what they do

[@Alias_Anybody]

Boys: Bbut I can't go swimming with my 200m diver, I just don't trust the rating! Men: ... 40 bar, 50 bar, 60 bar, BOOOOM

[@Jaykilla1981]

Hi. Great video! Can you test an Invicta Hydromax?

[@elenazorzolirossi]

"that's really cool. And then, time to kill it" XD

[@fredrikbystrom7380]

This is honestly a great commercial for both watches.