Tempest in a Teapot: On What Is And Is Not A Tourbillon

What is a tourbillon?

In the immortal words of Harry Callahan, I know what you’re thinkin’ –but before you sniff, say to yourself, “for God’s sake, man, I know what a tourbillon is, don’t insult my intelligence,” and head off to other, more compelling regions of the Internet, lend me your ear, I prithee –I’m going somewhere with this.

Most discussions of the tourbillon focus not on what it is physically, but on what it does; and of course the odds are pretty good that if you’ve found your way to this website at all, you know that Breguet invented the tourbillon, patented it in 1801, that it’s intended to create a single averaged rate error in the vertical positions and so simplify the task of matching the vertical rate to the flat rates of the oscillator, thus making the watch immune to positional rate variations. (Those who object to the tourbillon do so on the grounds that it eliminates no error at all –that it merely smears together the four different errors in the four different vertical positions into a single mélange of imprecision, and that four wrongs don’t make a right –but that’s another argument.)

But what makes a tourbillon watch a tourbillon watch? The question came up during an exchange on that most unsuitable medium for rational discourse, Twitter, when several of us got into a brouhaha over what constitutes a double tourbillon –and, specifically, whether the Greubel-Forsey Double Tourbillon 30 Degrees is a “real” double tourbillon.

For comparison, one of the participants instanced the Roger Dubuis and Breguet double tourbillons –two separate cages, two balances, two escapements –surely these, went the thesis, were examples of “real” double tourbillons.

To know what a double tourbillon is, it seemed to me, one ought to think about what a tourbillon is –that is, what makes a tourbillon watch a tourbillon watch and not something else.

Despite the lamentably freewheeling tendency to use the term “tourbillon escapement” (which can be found in professional reference texts going back generations; my 1946 copy of Britten’s Watch and Clockmaker’s Handbook uses the terms “tourbillon” and “tourbillon escapement” virtually interchangeably) it seems to me that the tourbillon, strictly speaking, is not an escapement but a regulating mechanism. To illustrate this one need merely consider that a tourbillon watch may be fitted with any of a number of different escapements: there are tourbillon watches with lever escapements, side lever escapements, chronometer detent escapements, co-axial escapements, and so on.

A watchmaker friend (who I hope will weigh in in person) challenged me on the subject of a double tourbillon necessarily meaning two oscillating organs –two balances. “Is a tourbillon a tourbillon without a balance?” he asked. My reply was that we can refer to the components of a watch –composite or single –without requiring that the balance be thought of as a part of that component. A mainspring barrel, out of a watch, disconnected from the balance, is still a mainspring barrel.

I have asked someone who should know, if anyone does: Stephen Forsey, of Greubel Forsey, whom I’d last seen in Geneva during SIHH (he was gamely nursing a badly injured back and was both introducing the Garde Temps project as well as the new Greubel Forsey GMT watch.) An email to Stephen at the manufacture sat in limbo for a few days but in the fullness of time, Stephen responded that a tourbillon is composed of a fixed wheel and a functionally distinct, rotating cage or carriage.

The definition is reductive and accurate –after all, it is only the presence of those parts that makes a watch a tourbillon. Without the cage and fixed fourth wheel, one simply has an ordinary watch.

Greubel Forsey’s “double tourbillon” is therefore certainly a real double tourbillon –it is simply that it is one with a single oscillator, unlike double tourbillons made by Roger Dubuis and Breguet, for instance, in which there are two regulating systems (2 tourbillons, 2 escapements, and 2 oscillators) linked by a differential. The habit of referring to the tourbillon as a “tourbillon escapement” has been decried by some experts as sloppy; I once regarded this attitude as egotistically self-serving hairsplitting from individuals over-invested in being perceived as experts --but having thought about it I think I see the point. The tourbillon is no more an escapement than is a remontoir or chain-and-fusee –both, like the tourbillon, intended to improve rate stability (over power reserve rather than across positions, but the basic purpose is the same.)

Fine distinctions? Sure. But without such niggling semantic debates, as one of my favorite watch writers, Kenneth Ulyett, put it, “keen horologists would be deprived of the pleasure of arguing with each other.”

Jack

PS as an interesting aside there is the question of whether Greubel Forsey's double tourbillon might more narrowly and usefully be referred to as a multi axis tourbillon, as it seems impossible to build (say) a multi axis tourbillon which is not also a double tourbillon . . . but perhaps I ought to let others who wish to do so weigh in.

JF

Hello Jack,

First, let me commend you on the sporting gesture of NOT posting this on the GF forum.

As you have framed the question, I think your points are supportable, erudite and show your usual insightfulness. I cannot help but feel that the gist of the question as I understand it has either been missed or glossed over however, and moreover, I arrive at a different conclusion from you.

The reason the question arises is obvious: We all think we know what a double tourbillon is. If there was any doubt, Roger Dubuis, Breguet, Romaine Jerome and Beat Haldimann have made it clear by manufacturing watches with two tourbillons inside and calling them double tourbillons (in all fairness perhaps not entirely explicitily in all of the cited instances, something I'll not bother researching at this time).

Furthermore, we also have a variety of multi-axis tourbillons that precede the GF Double Tourbillon. Once again, the term multi-axis tourbillon is clear and has been used to mean exactly what we think it should mean. Granted, some companies called them 3D, Gyrotourbillons, Spherotourbillons, Bi-axial, Tumbling, Torkel and various other things (mostly somewhat descriptively I might add), but in so far as those names are either completely made up or at the least NOT already in use for something more appropriate, I see no reason to quibble over them. All of these multi-axis wonders have distinctive mechanisms that bear further explanation, so simply to call them multi-axis in the marketing literature would be perhaps to do them a disservice.

But therein lies the rub. To call the GF multi-axis tourbillons Double Tourbillons obfuscates what they really are by using a term that is already in use in a much more obvious way. Does it possibly invite an interesting question as Jack mentions above? Sure. Is it important or instructive as far as what separates the GF multi-axis tourbillons from others? I don't think so. I think it does their watches a disservice in that someone might get excited by the name Double Tourbillon and then feel let down when they find that it is not at all like the Roger Dubuis Double Tourbillon. And yes, it is a crime against horology that one could think that the Greubel Forsey piece is somehow inferior to the Roger Dubuis, but let us not invite the comparison in the first place. If the same were to happen to the GF Quadruple Tourbillon and the Jacob Quadra, well, so much more the pity.

I don't think the use of the name is meant to obfuscate (as Jack asked me: "What would be the point?") and I don't think it is even some kind of cynical ad-speak really. I can only assume that its use is idiosyncratic in some way. Idiosyncratic and unnecessary is what I said to Jack initially and I stand by that assessment. Just make up a nice pithy (as yet unused) name for them. Tilt-a-whirl? Precessional? Gyrator? Whirligig? (You can see there is plenty of apellative gold here!)

_john

John: I didn't see what you were getting at on Twitter, but your post here makes it clear.

But here is something else to consider. Jack finished with the question, " . . . as it seems impossible to build (say) a multi axis tourbillon which is not also a double tourbillon."

Surely that is far from impossible? I would imagine that that there are quite a few ways - some no doubt better than others - to rotate an escapement around a second axis without using a fixed 4th wheel and a rotating cage/carriage.

Now John points out that (to him), the fact that the escapement of the Greubel Forsey Double Tourbillon 30° rotates in two axes is more important than how it rotates, i.e. using two tourbillons. So stressing 'tourbillons' in the name over multi-axis does the description of the movement an injustice.

But what if Mr Greubel and Mr Forsey happen to think that the fact that the escapement is multi-axis is fairly evident, but that how they have achieved it, i.e. by using two separate tourbillon cages offset by 30°, is less so?

We should bear in mind that when they launched the Double Tourbillon 30° in 2004, there were no other double tourbillons with two escapements, though multi-axis escapements existed.

Did Randall's double and triple-axis clocks have two (or more) tourbillons? Do Prescher's double and triple-axis watches have two (or three) tourbillons?

Ian Skellern -Revolution Online moderator

www.facebook.com/underthedial
twitter.com/underthedial



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2012 08:45AM by IanS.

Hi John and Ian, thank you both for your replies.

Ian, I am intrigued by your comment --that surely there must be other ways to rotate an escapement around two axes without making a double tourbillon per se. If a tourbillon is defined by the presence of a fixed fourth wheel and functional cage then, of course, we already have an example of how to rotate an escapement without using a tourbillon --we have the Bonniksen karrusel, in which the carriage is driven by the pinion of the third wheel and the fourth wheel is not fixed but rather driven by the gear teeth of the third wheel, and rotates just as it does in an ordinary watch.

I can easily imagine a situation where the fourth wheel, in this case, could in turn drive an inclined platform (one might gear its teeth to teeth on the perimeter of the second platform) which as it rotates, works as a conventional tourbillon. We would have a hybrid --a multi-axis karrusel-tourbillon.

I'm not sure why anyone would want such a thing but there's no theoretical objection I can see to building one.

As I understand John's point, it's that "double tourbillon" is obfuscation insofar as we "all think we know what a double tourbillon is." This is a logically flawed argument and I'll explain why.

The first step in seeing the lapse in logic in this assertion is to ask whether or not the Greubel Forsey tourbillon is or is not a double tourbillon. There are certainly two tourbillons (I think we would all at least go that far) which are nested the one within the other, and which rotate on different axes. Whether such a thing should be called a double tourbillon, therefore, rests on the question of whether or not a tourbillon watch with two, separate cages and two separate oscillators IS a double tourbillon, but Greubel Forsey's is not. In both cases, there are two tourbillons; the difference between the systems is not whether there are two tourbillons, but whether there need to be two oscillators for there to be two tourbillons.

It is clearly not the case that two oscillators are a necessary condition for there to be two tourbillons in a watch. (As an aside, it is also clear that it is not the case that they are a sufficient condition, as there are two oscillator watches which have no tourbillon systems and of course we don't call them tourbillon watches either.) "Double" simply means two identical parts or things, and if one has two watches which both have two tourbillons in them, whether separate and linked by a differential (Roger Dubuis, Breguet) or nested one inside the other (Randall, Good, Greubel Forsey) then it seems to me illogical to call the former double tourbillons but not the latter. So much for any technical objection.

John's real objection in any case does not rest on denying that there are two tourbillons in the Greubel Forsey watch, but that using the name is obfuscatory insofar as we all "think we know" what the term "double tourbillon" means. This might be refuted as an appeal to authority --a well known species of elementary error in logic --but common usage has, it seems to me, a special status in language, where what is and is not acceptable in grammar and in the denotative range of words (among other things; we can include pronunciation as well) is defined both prescriptively (by dictionaries, e.g.) and descriptively (by what people actually say and do.)

The thing that I'm uncomfortable with (and I ought to say I tend to side with prescriptivists) is the phrase "think we know." In any kind of discourse there is what we think we know, and we may be right or we might very well not be. The disciplines of science and philosophy take as their most fundamental tenet that what we think we know and what we find out to really be true may not be the same thing. John says that calling Greubel Forsey's double tourbillon a double tourbillon "obfuscates what they really are," but this clearly is not true, as they "really are" double tourbillons, at least if you think a double tourbillon is a watch with, well, two tourbillons. If you think they are "really" not double tourbillons the burden of proof is on you to show that you have a reasonable alternative definition. What is offered by John is "multi-axis tourbillon." This is also descriptive of an aspect of the Greubel Forsey watch but as we can see from our hypothetical multi-axis karrusel/tourbillon, a multi-axis watch containing a tourbillon need not necessarily be a double tourbillon.

I dislike the insistence on what we "think we know" in principle anyway, and I dislike it in this context because it reminds me of another debate --whether or not the Blancpain/Calabrese carrousel tourbillon is a "real" tourbillon (and whether lots of other tourbillons that have unconventional designs are "real" tourbillons.) There was an awful lot of strident argument that these other designs weren't "real" tourbillons from people who "thought" they knew what a real tourbillon is, but such "thoughts" should be called by what they are: misconceptions, and a misconception is not accorded the status of correctness because at some point lots of people believe it.

The real problem as far as I can see, is that neither "multi-axis tourbillon" by itself, nor "double tourbillon" by itself, really captures the essential nature of the Greubel Forsey watch. It is, indeed, both a double tourbillon AND a multi-axis tourbillon

I mean, aw, heck, John's right. Those guys should have called it something that MORE fully captured the nature of the watch.

Yeah, and even PUT IT ON THE DIAL, just to make sure everyone couldn't possible be confused. :-D





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2012 01:28PM by Jack Forster.

Hello Jack and Ian,

A few things conspired to change my mind on this subject.

1. I didn't realize there were not other double tourbillon examples around when the GF Double Tourbillon was introduced. Absence of precedence makes the use of the term far less provocative/controversial IMHO.

2. Jack's point that the tourbillon is the cage and the fixed wheel NOT the escapement and oscillator is compelling. It's pedantic and generally beside the point, but also, begrudgingly, correct.

3. The choice of the name makes more sense when we consider that the work was building on prior inclined tourbillon designs involving a single tourbillon (similar to the later GF 24 seconds inclined tourbillon). Following up on these prior works with a double tourbillon implementation makes one want to draw attention to this distinction.

4. It's not a Double Tourbillon. It's a Double Tourbillon 30°, which makes a difference.

Thanks for a thought provoking discussion.

_john

Robert Greubel and Stephen Forsey call them themselves 'inventor watchmakers' rather than simply watchmakers. Where you think the term apt or not, to be considered an inventor you have to invent things, not just restyle something existing.

Double-axis escapements, triple-axis escapements and multi-axis-escapements already existed in some form or other; however, they were awarded a patent for the double tourbillon 30°. This is just a guess but it isn't far fetched to think that nobody had created a multi-axis escapement using two tourbillons before.

If so, that might lead us to consider that to Robert Greubel and Stephen Forsey, the fact that their escapement roated inside two tourbillons (new invention) is more important than the fact that it rotates on multiple axis (old hat). Perhaps not a more important description technically, but more important in differentiating and defining a new brand.

Then there is the fact that in 2003, Thomas Prescher launched his double-axis tourbillons (pocket watch and wrist watch) at Baselworld.

If you were Greuebl Forsey in 2004 at Baselworld launching your brand and first watch, would you announce 'Here is the world's second double axis tourbillon' or 'Here is the world's first double tourbillon'?

Ian Skellern -Revolution Online moderator

www.facebook.com/underthedial
twitter.com/underthedial



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2012 02:44AM by IanS.

Hello all,
Interesting discussion and fun to follow you all as best I can! However I think the discussion has become a bit circular at this point?
May I add my 2 cents for whatever it is worth?

First of all, as some of you her have noted, many brands have indeed tried to obfuscate the definition of the tourbilon; in addition there have been many new inventions of greater or lesser merit created in the past 12 years, fueled by the tourbillon craze since the turn of the century. I think simplicity is the only solution for (attempting) to define or discuss these issues.

The escapement IS the regulating organ of he watch, so escapement = regulating organ, they are synonymous…. I don't see much benefit in redefining what is already widely understood and accepted? Whichever term you use, a regulating organ or an escapement comprises several parts in order to be considered complete and functional - as we can all agree. And one of those parts within the tourbillon could be a detente, Swiss anchor or other. Leading to 'detente tourbillon', 'Swiss anchor tourbillon' or if you prefer: 'tourbillon with detente and constant force mechanism' etc. etc. as variants for defining discussions. There is no complexity or lack of clarity defining these issues in this pre-existing manner.

Further, as you all have correctly stated, a tourbillon has to have a carriage to hold the balance, and a fixed fourth wheel.
However, a carriage does not a tourbillon make as some in this thread promulgate. (Hey, that ryhmes !)
Using that definition would result in many carrousel constructions being defined as tourbillons, simply creating even more obfuscation of horological terminology.

If you follow simple steps stated above, the only logical answer is simple: if the G&F 'double' tourbillon has 2 complete regulating/escapement organs, it is a double tourbillon. I repeat: IF is has 2 complete regulating/escapement organs.

Should this not be the case, then it is simply a single tourbilon with a double carriage, no more, no less.
This also has the added benefit of leaving the definition of double unsullied for those watches with two tourbillons and a differential, whether invented now or in the future….

I am afraid I cannot agree on any other definition of the situation, not to be stubborn, only due to the fact that any other definition has no basis in logic.

That does not diminish anything about the piece and the innovation it represents. However if we call this a double tourbillon, then it is simply a further breakdown of horological definitions, already hard hit by unnecessary reinterpretation for many years now.

Just my 2 cents worth!
Theodore

Theodore Diehl
Richard Mille Forum Moderator
'There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.' - Francis Bacon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2012 05:40AM by Theodore.

Hi Ted,

Very good to hear from you. I will try to address what seem to me flaws in your arguments, if I may.

First, a point of clarification: I think what I said was "a regulating mechanism" not "the regulating organ." The oscillator is certainly the regulating organ of the watch in a broad sense of the word "regulating" but saying "regulating organ" is synonymous with "escapement" and that therefore the definition of a tourbillon necessarily includes the oscillator and escapement (which, by the way, are not the same thing) is in my opinion drawing an unjustified conclusion, insofar as the premise is based on accepting that "regulating mechanism" is synonymous or in some way obliges us to conclude the oscillator is part of the component under discussion.

You assert that this is the case, but the assertion is based on substituting "organ" for "mechanism." It may seem hairsplitting but there is a difference between referring to _a_ regulating mechanism, and _the_ regulating organ, of a watch. Ultimately, of course, the appearance of the term "regulating" in both "regulating organ" and "regulating mechanism" is incidental to the point anyway, which is that the tourbillon, like any other component whose purpose is to improve rate stability, is not necessarily defined by the inclusion of the oscillator (the remontoir and the fusee and chain being two examples.)

Note also that the proposed definition of a tourbillon is that it consists of a fixed wheel (the 4th in a traditional construction, though in the GF design, the inner "fixed" wheel is fixed not with respect to the plate but with respect to the oscillator and escapement) _and_ a functional cage or carriage, not just a carriage. Your objection to the definition I propose for a tourbillon (that there are other systems with rotating carriages that aren't tourbillons) is based on a re-statement of the proposed definition that leaves out half the original definition! You then argue from this altered premise. This is a logical fallacy (question begging.)

However, one thing I think I ought to mention just to muddy the waters even further is that there is a "tourbillon" which has no cage or carriage at all, designed by Benoit; there's a very nice picture of it in Daniels' _Watchmaking_ on page 300. Daniels devotes quite a lot of space to discussing it. I can't reproduce the image at the moment, but there's no fixed wheel and no carriage. The thing's very odd --basically,you have the lower pivot of the balance staff sitting in a bearing on top of the escape wheel; the escape wheel has the lowest coil of a cylindrical (well, actually spherical) balance spring attached to it. The upper coil of the balance spring is attached to the collet of the (rather massive looking) balance --it looks like Benoit might have meant it for a marine chronometer; it's certainly too tall for a wristwatch and probably for a pocket watch too.

The escape wheel unlocks when the balance reaches the limit of one oscillation and the tension in the balance spring draws the escape wheel free of one of the pallets (it's almost impossible to visualize this without a diagram; I apologize and will see if I can find one.) As the balance swings back, the escape wheel advances until one of its teeth is locked by the other pallet of the lever (and it's a weird lever, by the way.) As the escape wheel advances, it carries 'round the attachment on it for the balance spring; this tightens the spring and transmits energy to the balance. The trick here is that impulse is transmitted to the balance by the balance spring, not by the lever.

Daniels calls this a "cageless tourbillon" but as the only similarity between it and what we usually understand to be a tourbillon is the rotating balance spring attachments, perhaps it would be better to call it --well, something else. It lacks a fixed fourth wheel (the absence of which is critical in distinguishing a Bonniksen carrousel from a tourbillon, and it's generally accepted that they are not the same thing) as well as a cage/carriage, and on top of that, the escapement proper doesn't rotate either --just the attachment points of the balance spring.

Giving impulse to the balance via the balance spring itself is a very interesting idea --it was used by Mudge, in his famous "Blue" and "Green" chronometers --but in this case, according to Daniels, what at first seems like an ideal escapement in fact does not work. I will quote Daniels:

"Because the escape wheel is reversed by the balance spring to effect the unlocking, the strain energy in the balance spring must equal the potential energy in the escape wheel. This can only occur at the limit of the vibration when the balance spring is fully wound. The slightest reduction of balance energy before reversal of the escape wheel will result in failure to unlock, and the watch will stop."

So the basic problem with the device is that of a hypothetical perpetual motion machine --it only works if there is zero energy loss! A great idea but one which the laws of thermodynamics conspire to make a fantasy.

Actually, the strongest argument I can think of for asserting that the GF double tourbillon should not, for the sake of precision, be called a double tourbillon (and a point I'm surprised no one has raised) is that the inner fixed wheel seems to be fixed with respect to the escapement, not the plate, and also that it is not the 4th wheel in the train (obviously.) That the tourbillon is driven by the third wheel and has a fourth wheel fixed with respect to the plate appears to be the critical distinction (one generally agreed on) between a Bonniksen karrusel and a "real" tourbillon. Right now it seems the only way to be completely unambiguous about what all these tourbillon variations are is to be comprehensively specific; that is, for instance, we should call the GF Double Tourbillon 30 Degrees a "double concentric cage non -orthogonal inclined inner axis single oscillator lever escapement tourbillon" --or some such unwieldy monstrosity.

Jack

PS on the subject of earlier multi-axis tourbillons (Good, Randall, Prescher especially) what they all have in common is that the axes of rotation are orthogonal to each other, so the layout is very similar (at least it looks so to me from what I've been able to glean from pictures.) The GF double tourbillon is the first multi-axis tourbillon, as far as I can tell, in which there are two distinct carriages but the offset of the axes of rotation is 30 degrees rather than 90 degrees. Obviously this means a different layout, which I can only hypothesize is the basis of their patent.

J.

Live from German Wikipedia; the construction appears to be by Benoit but the design by Karl Geitz, which as far as I can glean from the Google translation of his biography was a student of Alfred Helwig.

It's a little tough to make out but you can see the escape wheel hiding out under the balance if you look carefully. Except for the fact that this model uses a flat rather than cylindrical balance spring, it looks pretty similar to what's in the Daniels book.

Jack

Only to discover, that ". . . what at first seems like an ideal escapement in fact does not work."

Ian Skellern -Revolution Online moderator

www.facebook.com/underthedial
twitter.com/underthedial

Jack Forster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, a point of clarification: I think what I
> said was "a regulating mechanism" not "the
> regulating organ." The oscillator is certainly
> the regulating organ of the watch in a broad sense
> of the word "regulating" but saying "regulating
> organ" is synonymous with "escapement" and that
> therefore the definition of a tourbillon
> necessarily includes the oscillator and escapement
> (which, by the way, are not the same thing) is in

Any escapement works as a total unit with many sub-parts Jack. The oscillator is part of the escapement, I have never inferred otherwise.
The watch will simply not function if you remove one part of the escapement, so I am afraid I do not understand what you are trying to say ?
Let me give you an analogy: a woman comes to Heifetz after his concert. She tells him how beautiful his Stradivari sounded. He picks it up, and says to her "funny, I don't hear anything". You seem to want to assign the definition of an escapement to a single part; yet nothing will work with this form of definition.

> my opinion drawing an unjustified conclusion,
> insofar as the premise is based on accepting that
> "regulating mechanism" is synonymous or in some
> way obliges us to conclude the oscillator is part
> of the component under discussion.

Of course it is! You are semantically separating things that in watchmaking simply belong together as part of a larger whole.

> You assert that this is the case, but the
> assertion is based on substituting "organ" for
> "mechanism." It may seem hairsplitting but there
> is a difference between referring to _a_
> regulating mechanism, and _the_ regulating organ,
> of a watch. Ultimately, of course, the appearance
> of the term "regulating" in both "regulating
> organ" and "regulating mechanism" is incidental to
> the point anyway, which is that the tourbillon,
> like any other component whose purpose is to
> improve rate stability, is not necessarily defined
> by the inclusion of the oscillator (the remontoir
> and the fusee and chain being two examples.)

Sorry Jack, I think in splitting hairs you have missed the point as well as mixed up a whole batch of issues that are related yet quite different in reality. By lumping together talk of remontoir, fusee and tourbillon as being of the same regulating value in watchmaking is a serious misconception that has no basis whatsoever in watchmaking theory. You will also not find them grouped together in any watchmaking school text book in that way either, for good reasons. What one does see is that in watchmaking school textbooks the escapement is almost always treated as a total unit, in my words, an organ, which in the King's English can also be a mechanism by the way.This is because all the parts are technically as well as physically interrelated and a change in one part or piece will have a big affect on the other.

The escapement - as a unit - is also the place where the greatest divergences take place in timekeeping. A good going train, of which a fusee can be one possibility- is important but only fractionally influences timekeeping compared to an escapement. Talking about parts like these as equals in a group? Well, then you might as well just say 'movement'. You are bunching things together that in watchmaking are examined as separate, yet connected entities. Which is why I find this philosophical concentration on (your own version of) watchmaking semantics rather cloudy.

> Note also that the proposed definition of a
> tourbillon is that it consists of a fixed wheel….

Yes, and a rotating cage. This is the Swiss watch industry's definition of a tourbillon as opposed to other forms. So?

> (the 4th in a traditional construction, though in
> the GF design, the inner "fixed" wheel is fixed
> not with respect to the plate but with respect to
> the oscillator and escapement) _and_ a functional
> cage or carriage, not just a carriage. Your
> objection to the definition I propose for a
> tourbillon (that there are other systems with
> rotating carriages that aren't tourbillons) is
> based on a re-statement of the proposed definition
> that leaves out half the original definition! You
> then argue from this altered premise. This is a
> logical fallacy (question begging.)

Ah...This is an example what I meant about keeping it simple, in order to avoid getting confused.
You are saying, (and others in the fray seemed taken by your standpoint) that the G&F is a double tourbillon by the grace of its single tourbillon (a total complete unit) rotating within another cage.

Following these premises, ergo: a tourbillon cage is the equivalent of a tourbillon. With all respect, that would be a nonsensical argument.
By separating the cage from a concept of the total regulating organ, you will lose all possibilities to group new escapements in a logical fashion in the years to come.

> Actually, the strongest argument I can think of
> for asserting that the GF double tourbillon should
> not, for the sake of precision, be called a double
> tourbillon (and a point I'm surprised no one has
> raised) is that the inner fixed wheel seems to be
> fixed with respect to the escapement, not the
> plate, and also that it is not the 4th wheel in
> the train (obviously.) That the tourbillon is
> driven by the third wheel and has a fourth wheel
> fixed with respect to the plate appears to be the
> critical distinction (one generally agreed on)
> between a Bonniksen karrusel and a "real"
> tourbillon. Right now it seems the only way to be
> completely unambiguous about what all these
> tourbillon variations are is to be comprehensively
> specific; that is, for instance, we should call
> the GF Double Tourbillon 30 Degrees a "double
> concentric cage non -orthogonal inclined inner
> axis single oscillator lever escapement
> tourbillon" --or some such unwieldy monstrosity.

You could be right, and this is exactly why I stand by my recommendation that escapements should be discussed only as total entities and not solely on the basis of a single aspect or feature of construction. Just as your explanation requires many details for its assimilation. Undoubtedly there will be more inventions coming that will defy classification until the industry reaches a consensus. It will kept the forums busy!

I have not had a chance to see these pieces discussed here close up; but i still feel it the clearest to call a spade a spade.
For better or worse, as far as I can see, the G&R is a single tourbillon with a second cage. Perhaps their invention will push the envelop that defines what a tourbillon is, as you have brought up. But for me in any case, the terminology 'double tourbillon' has no real basis in the discussion of this timepiece, however far one is willing to go in stretching semantics to make it so.

Ciao tutti,

Theodore Diehl
Richard Mille Forum Moderator
'There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.' - Francis Bacon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2012 12:06PM by Theodore.

Hi Theodore --my responses below (I've left the exchange intact for clarity's sake.) I see where you are coming from but obviously disagree with some of your logical methodology. As I mentioned I think there is actually a plausible argument to be made against "double tourbillon," though, so I'm probably going to continue to be firmly agnostic (if there is such a thing :-D ).

> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > First, a point of clarification: I think what
> I
> > said was "a regulating mechanism" not "the
> > regulating organ." The oscillator is certainly
> > the regulating organ of the watch in a broad
> sense
> > of the word "regulating" but saying "regulating
> > organ" is synonymous with "escapement" and that
> > therefore the definition of a tourbillon
> > necessarily includes the oscillator and
> escapement
> > (which, by the way, are not the same thing) is
> in
>
> Any escapement works as a total unit with many
> sub-parts Jack. The oscillator is part of the
> escapement, I have never inferred otherwise.
> The watch will simply not function if you remove
> one part of the escapement, so I am afraid I do
> not understand what you are trying to say ?
> Let me give you an analogy: a woman comes to
> Heifetz after his concert. She tells him how
> beautiful his Stradivari sounded. He picks it up,
> and says to her "funny, I don't hear anything".
> You seem to want to assign the definition of an
> escapement to a single part; yet nothing will work
> with this form of definition.

Well, I think this is a flawed analogy; indulge me a moment and I'll explain why. A more apropos analogy would be one that asserts that his violin is only a violin when he's playing it. Why? Because we are not discussing what is necessary for the tourbillon to function, but rather what constitutes its physical parts. I mean, the tourbillon won't work without the mainspring barrel either, but I don't imagine you intend to argue that we include the barrel, going train, plates and bridges, jewels, and lubricants in our definition of a tourbillon as well?

Your key point, of course (and correct me if I'm mis-stating your position) is that we cannot define what constitutes a tourbillon physically, without looking at what it does functionally. I actually think that's a reasonable position up to a point, of course --what it is is after all determined by what it does. However the reason I'm arguing for the narrower definition is because I think there are at least reasons worth considering for using the narrower definition --among them, that it clarifies what is a regulating device (I know you take issue with the term but perhaps you will allow it for the purpose of illustrating a point) vs. the oscillator (which could be a balance and spring, quartz resonator, pendulum, tuning fork, etc.) vs. the escapement (which could be a lever, detent, verge, et cetera ad nauseam.)

If the oscillator were part of the escapement, why would we say, in a multitude of watches which all have balances and balance springs in common, that one has a co-axial escapement, one has a detent escapement, another a lever, etc? Simply because one part won't work without the other doesn't mean they necessarily fall under the same term. That logic brings us to a reductio ad absurdum where not only have to say that the tourbillon must include the entire watch, but where it becomes impossible to draw distinctions between any of the components at all. Now certainly I am not saying you intend to go that far, but if you think we should include the oscillator and escapement in our definition of a tourbillon, you must, I think, be prepared to say why think "functional necessity" justifies their inclusion, but not other, equally functionally necessary parts of the watch.

> > my opinion drawing an unjustified conclusion,
> > insofar as the premise is based on accepting
> that
> > "regulating mechanism" is synonymous or in some
> > way obliges us to conclude the oscillator is
> part
> > of the component under discussion.
>
> Of course it is! You are semantically separating
> things that in watchmaking simply belong together
> as part of a larger whole.

See my reply above which addresses the same point. "Of course it is" merely asserts your disagreement, it adds no force to it.

> > You assert that this is the case, but the
> > assertion is based on substituting "organ" for
> > "mechanism." It may seem hairsplitting but
> there
> > is a difference between referring to _a_
> > regulating mechanism, and _the_ regulating
> organ,
> > of a watch. Ultimately, of course, the
> appearance
> > of the term "regulating" in both "regulating
> > organ" and "regulating mechanism" is incidental
> to
> > the point anyway, which is that the tourbillon,
> > like any other component whose purpose is to
> > improve rate stability, is not necessarily
> defined
> > by the inclusion of the oscillator (the
> remontoir
> > and the fusee and chain being two examples.)
>
> Sorry Jack, I think in splitting hairs you have
> missed the point as well as mixed up a whole batch
> of issues that are related yet quite different in
> reality. By lumping together talk of remontoir,
> fusee and tourbillon as being of the same
> regulating value in watchmaking is a serious
> misconception that has no basis whatsoever in
> watchmaking theory. You will also not find them
> grouped together in any watchmaking school text
> book in that way either, for good reasons. What
> one does see is that in watchmaking school
> textbooks the escapement is almost always treated
> as a total unit, in my words, an organ, which in
> the King's English can also be a mechanism by the
> way.This is because all the parts are technically
> as well as physically interrelated and a change in
> one part or piece will have a big affect on the
> other.
>
> The escapement - as a unit - is also the place
> where the greatest divergences take place in
> timekeeping. A good going train, of which a fusee
> can be one possibility- is important but only
> fractionally influences timekeeping compared to an
> escapement. Talking about parts like these as
> equals in a group? Well, then you might as well
> just say 'movement'. You are bunching things
> together that in watchmaking are examined as
> separate, yet connected entities. Which is why I
> find this philosophical concentration on (your own
> version of) watchmaking semantics rather cloudy.

I have no particular axe to grind in this discussion --if I did I'd have avoided pointing out that there is actually a reasonable counter argument to the use of "double tourbillon" for the GF watch, which honors how distinctions between tourbillons and non-tourbillons have been made historically. I am not sure what you mean by "talking about these parts as equals in a group." I did no such thing; I merely pointed out that there are other instances of devices intended, as the tourbillon is, to improve rate stability, which are not structurally defined by including the oscillator and escapement.

> > Note also that the proposed definition of a
> > tourbillon is that it consists of a fixed
> wheel….
>
> Yes, and a rotating cage. This is the Swiss watch
> industry's definition of a tourbillon as opposed
> to other forms. So?
>
> > (the 4th in a traditional construction, though
> in
> > the GF design, the inner "fixed" wheel is fixed
> > not with respect to the plate but with respect
> to
> > the oscillator and escapement) _and_ a
> functional
> > cage or carriage, not just a carriage. Your
> > objection to the definition I propose for a
> > tourbillon (that there are other systems with
> > rotating carriages that aren't tourbillons) is
> > based on a re-statement of the proposed
> definition
> > that leaves out half the original definition!
> You
> > then argue from this altered premise. This is
> a
> > logical fallacy (question begging.)
>
> Ah...This is an example what I meant about keeping
> it simple, in order to avoid getting confused.
> You are saying, (and others in the fray seemed
> taken by your standpoint) that the G&F is a double
> tourbillon by the grace of its single tourbillon
> (a total complete unit) rotating within another
> cage.

This is another example of a subtle re-stating of my position in your terms, so as to support your position. You are saying "by grace of its single tourbillon rotating within another cage." It is precisely the accuracy of that definition I am arguing against, it is _not_ "what I am saying" but rather a restatement of your disagreement with my argument.

> Following these premises, ergo: a tourbillon cage
> is the equivalent of a tourbillon.

No; once again, as I've said repeatedly my proposal is that a tourbillon cage and a fixed fourth wheel are what constitute a tourbillon. What is under discussion is whether the definition of a tourbillon must, necessarily, include the escapement and oscillator. If I understand you correctly you are asserting that a tourbillon necessarily includes not only the cage/carriage and fixed fourth wheel, but also the oscillator and escapement. I am questioning whether that really holds up under examination, irrespective of common usage.

My take is pretty simple: a watch becomes a tourbillon watch when you add a rotating cage and fixed fourth wheel. Since that's what separates a tourbillon watch from a non-tourbillon watch, I propose that we accept those components as constituting a tourbillon. It's quite straightforward, or at least it seems so to me.

It's compellingly tempting to assume the escapement and oscillator should be considered components of the tourbillon; my only point in all of this is that there is a reasonable counter-argument for a more restrictive definition --one, moreover, which has on its side how we traditionally distinguish a tourbillon from a non-tourbillon watch, and a tourbillon from some other sort of watch with a rotating escapement and oscillator.

With all
> respect, that would be a nonsensical argument.
> By separating the cage from a concept of the total
> regulating organ, you will lose all possibilities
> to group new escapements in a logical fashion in
> the years to come.

Only if you accept as a premise that the oscillator and escapement should be included in the definition of a tourbillon. In fact, it is now and has always been possible to distinguish between different types of escapements in watches fitted with tourbillons, and to group them in a logical fashion.

> > Actually, the strongest argument I can think of
> > for asserting that the GF double tourbillon
> should
> > not, for the sake of precision, be called a
> double
> > tourbillon (and a point I'm surprised no one
> has
> > raised) is that the inner fixed wheel seems to
> be
> > fixed with respect to the escapement, not the
> > plate, and also that it is not the 4th wheel in
> > the train (obviously.) That the tourbillon is
> > driven by the third wheel and has a fourth
> wheel
> > fixed with respect to the plate appears to be
> the
> > critical distinction (one generally agreed on)
> > between a Bonniksen karrusel and a "real"
> > tourbillon. Right now it seems the only way to
> be
> > completely unambiguous about what all these
> > tourbillon variations are is to be
> comprehensively
> > specific; that is, for instance, we should call
> > the GF Double Tourbillon 30 Degrees a "double
> > concentric cage non -orthogonal inclined inner
> > axis single oscillator lever escapement
> > tourbillon" --or some such unwieldy
> monstrosity.
>
> You could be right, and this is exactly why I
> stand by my recommendation that escapements should
> be discussed only as total entities and not solely
> on the basis of a single aspect or feature of
> construction. Just as your explanation requires
> many details for its assimilation. Undoubtedly
> there will be more inventions coming that will
> defy classification until the industry reaches a
> consensus. It will kept the forums busy!

Well, arguing over inconsequential terminological minutiae does pass the time ;-) . In fact in both our cases it helps pay the bills :-D . Anyway, as you have probably noticed by now, I'm for discussing the escapement as distinct from the oscillator. To illustrate, Dent in 1906 put a spring detent escapement in a pendulum clock. As we can also put a spring detent escapement in a watch with a balance and spring it seems fairly obvious to me that they can be discussed separately --in fact, I'm doing it right now ;-) . Clearly we can see that it's possible to have two timepieces with the same escapement but different oscillators (though I'm not holding my breath for a quartz resonator with a detent escapement, unless Seiko's working on something we don't know about!)

> I have not had a chance to see these pieces
> discussed here close up; but i still feel it the
> clearest to call a spade a spade.
> For better or worse, as far as I can see, the G&R
> is a single tourbillon with a second cage. Perhaps
> their invention will push the envelop that defines
> what a tourbillon is, as you have brought up. But
> for me in any case, the terminology 'double
> tourbillon' has no real basis in the discussion of
> this timepiece, however far one is willing to go
> in stretching semantics to make it so.

Well, there is always a risk in any discourse that one arrives at a position irrationally and then uses the tools of reason to support what is essentially an emotional predisposition. I'm at much at risk as anyone, but at least we can agree that it passes the time. Again, I do understand --and this was John's original point --that we "think we know what a double tourbillon is." My starting point for all of this is simply that conventional wisdom is sometimes the better for a closer look, and, if there's sufficient reason, a revision.

> Ciao tutti,

PS. I am reminded of an anecdote of M. F. K. Fisher's. She says she overheard an argument between a maitre d'hotel and a bartender. Apparently the restaurant menu had listed the Martini and the Lobster Cocktail under "cocktails." The bartender was of course annoyed by this; to which the maitre d' replied, "Look, the Martini is a cocktail, as is the Lobster Cocktail, no? So! They are together on the menu. Besides, it is already printed. Why change it?"

PPS The more I think about it, the more I think this entire discussion is actually a mushroom growth on the dead tree trunk of an obsolete system of classification. When a botanist discovers a new species, the textbook writers don't say, "nonsense, the terminology is fixed, we're not changing a thing." Instead they --perhaps with a certain level of feeling --change the terminology to suit the phenomenology. We can appeal to existing practice only so much before we realize that what's going on in the field has, as it usually does, outstripped what existing systems of classification can encompass.

This whole conversation really needs a few bottles of wine and some breakable furniture ;-) .

Jack

Hello Jack,
Thanks for your patience ;-)
We can either talk semantics, or talk watchmaking. I always prefer watchmaking, and would like to return to a few quotes from your original discussion instead of the froth on the cappuccino:

..My reply was that we can refer to the components of a watch –composite or single –without requiring that the balance be thought of as a part of that component. A mainspring barrel, out of a watch, disconnected from the balance, is still a mainspring barrel.

Bravo! Exactly what I have been trying to get across: you refer here to the mainspring barrel (the unit), not: the winding spring, the brake, the drum, the pinion, the cover, etc. A tourbillon, when taken out of the movement is likewise a self contained entity, a regulating organ, an escapement. The entire unit is responsible for discharging the energy from the barrel. Not just a piece of it, or a part of it, the entire caboodle together does that. Likewise a tourbillon cage taken out of the escapement is merely a piece of metal…It defines absolutely nothing when not in a total mechanical context of function. This is where you and I differ: you are enjoying mental suppositions, and I am trying to deal with the way actual watchmakers and factories view this, (and not with the person who in this case gave the name to the watch being discussed). In real practice, tourbillon escapements are designed, manufactured and worked on in virtual isolation from the rest of the movement and delivered as independent units to companies like AP and others. The same applies to many classical Swiss escapements for more traditional watches. And in watchmaking schools the escapement is treated as a total entity. It may be fun game to argue about semantically, but it is artificial and not in line with reality of practice. However if you prefer to see it that way, I won’t get in your way.

…Stephen responded that a tourbillon is composed of a fixed wheel and a functionally distinct, rotating cage or carriage.
The definition is reductive and accurate –after all, it is only the presence of those parts that makes a watch a tourbillon. Without the cage and fixed fourth wheel, one simply has an ordinary watch.…Greubel Forsey’s “double tourbillon” is therefore certainly a real double tourbillon…

You have already changed that last view in the course of the discussion, but let’s come back to one point: “after all, it is only the presence of those parts that makes a watch a tourbillon”

Really? I think you would be surprised to know how much has to be 'added' to a regular escapement to create a tourbillon escapement that functions optimally, of whatever type you choose. To say that the only difference between them is the cage is not what you will hear from professional watchmakers. The problem is that a tourbillon is not just a cage, as you keep repeating. Without the rest it is nothing more than a useless, small piece of metal. Perhaps you are simplifying for the sake of argument, but it puts the discussion of classification on the wrong footing. We might as well say we understand how zebras function in the wild after seeing one in isolation at the zoo.

Be all this whatever it may, it does not bring us closer to defining what the G&R so-called ‘double tourbillon’ really is. I plan to stick with ‘a single tourbillon with two cages’ until a better and realistic description comes along. As tourbillons get more and more complex through experimentation, I can only repeat that only a total view will help resolve classification issues.

For example, one of the watchmaking schools at one point had an additional classification that the tourbillon cage and the balance wheel had to be concentrically placed, one over the other, and if it wasn’t like that it wasn’t really a tourbillon. Many watch constructors rejected the idea after analysis and it was later scrapped from the textbooks, based upon a consensus of watchmaker insiders. I am sure if we drop the PR semantics, and talk with other respectable watchmakers, the word double as applied here will be found quite dubious in the classrooms of Le Locle, Neuchatel and Chaux des Fonds. Again this takes nothing away from the fact that it is a fantastic piece of work and design.

Ciao,
Theo

Theodore Diehl
Richard Mille Forum Moderator
'There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.' - Francis Bacon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2012 04:28PM by Theodore.

Hello Ted,

Thanks for weighing in on the subject. It is inherently murky territory and the history of watchmaking language does not make it clear that sound reasoning will ultimately carry the day regardless of how much digital ink is thrown about. Witness the gradual "correctness" of the term "overbanking". What once was wrong is now quite right.

One point of clarification I'd like to offer is that an escapement decidedly does not include the oscillator. The escapement begins at the escape wheel (the escape pinion being technically part of the power train) and ends at the roller (for a common Swiss Lever). The balance staff, balance wheel and hairspring are the oscillator and regulating organ. This distinction is clear in the watchmaking textbooks you refer to.

But this is the thing with the textbooks (as you rightly point out): They are fallible. Apparently they decided that they got it wrong with the balance being central to the cage being critical to being a tourbillon bit and then changed their minds. Can't we then change our minds about what is or is not truly a double tourbillon?

And in no way is a tourbillon an escapement as far as that goes, please cease and desist with that bit of misinformation. It's common enough for novice horology buffs to make that mistake, but let's not let this discussion reinforce that misunderstanding.

Your unwillingness to separate the tourbillon from the escapement and balance doesn't seem particularly well supported except insofar as "that's how we all talk about it". When a watchmaker holds up a complete tourbillon cage (with escapement and balance installed), he or she would say, "This is the tourbillon," but when he or she holds up an empty tourbillon cage... Well, see? I already said it, "This is the tourbillon cage."

The point that Jack is trying to get at (and possbily Mr. Forsey some years ago, assuming we haven't completely butchered his intentions by now) is that this is an imprecise use of the language. Sure, it works and everyone knows what is meant, but it's not truly correct. The reason is because a fixed wheel is a critical component of a tourbillon for one thing (meaning that the watchmaker in the first instance above was NOT in fact holding up a tourbillon), but also as Jack pointed out multiple times, the presence of the fixed wheel and rotating cage (or platform in some cases, perhaps we should say carriage?) are the only things that make the watch a tourbillon. Once you've come to this conclusion, you more or less have to concede that the GF piece does by some merit contain two tourbillons. Yes, it requires some explanation; no, it's not as obvious as the Roger Dubuis creation; but it is fundamentally accurate.

_john

It doesn't matter what you would like people to understand by terms, it is what they do understand that counts.

They may well be incorrect, but common usages of the word 'tourbillon' include:

The escapement rotates in a tourbillon (tourbillon = cage)
60-second tourbillon (tourbillon = cage)
The watch features a tourbillon (tourbillon = tourbillon escapement)

Personally I would never assume out of context that the word 'tourbillon' includes the escapement (though it might), nor that the word 'escapement' refers to the complete regulating organ (though it might).

Ian Skellern -Revolution Online moderator

www.facebook.com/underthedial
twitter.com/underthedial

'Dual tourbillons' might mean two identical tourbillon escapements while 'double tourbillon' refers to two tourbillon cages.

'Dual' means two (two tourbillons) while 'double' is one entity comprising two things (one double tourbillon).

English evolves according to usage so here is our chance to make etymological history.

Ian Skellern -Revolution Online moderator

www.facebook.com/underthedial
twitter.com/underthedial



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2012 07:17AM by IanS.

. . .was what John said to me via email about the Benoit cageless tourbillon --it seems pretty clear that we have a situation where what's revolving is rapidly evolving, and the nomenclature hasn't kept up (Benoit's tourbillon being decades old notwithstanding.)

I mean, we've got:

the tourbillon
the carousel tourbillon (balance not co-axial with escape wheel)
the karrusel (Bonniksen's)
the high speed wristwatch karrusel (Blancpain)
central tourbillons (Omega)
central carousel, single carriage, dual escapement and dual balance tourbillons (only Beat Haldemann, I believe)
central carousel tourbillons (Astrotourbillon)
carousel tourbillon on a secondary rotating platform (Tourbillon Relatif)
multi-axis tourbillons, parallel axes (BLU)
multi-axis tourbillons, orthogonal axes (Good, Randall, Prescher, Gyrotourbillons 1,2; Panerai)
multi-axis, dual-cage, single escapement and balance tourbillons with non-orthogonal offset axis (Greubel Forsey)
inclined tourbillons (Greubel Forsey)
multi-axis, four cage, double escapement and balance tourbillons with differential (Greubel Forsey)
multi-axis, inclined tourbillon with dual carriages vertically rather than concentrically arranged (JLC Spherotourbillon)
rotating movement watches (Freak, the long forgotten Waterbury Long Wind)
rotating movement with tourbillon mounted on the mobile plate (Freak Diavolo)
"cageless" tourbillons (Benoit, and it doesn't work, but, you know, whatever)
double balance spring, single balance tourbillons (Montblanc)
dual cage, dual escapement, dual oscillator tourbillons (Roger Dubuis)
dual cage, dual escapement, dual oscillator, rotating platform, fixed plate tourbillons (Breguet, Gagarin Tourbillon by BLU, who proposes "orbital")

flying tourbillons in all their variety; all the variations from normal rotational speed; and, lest we forget:

dual cage, dual oscillator; one conventional and one ultra-high speed carousel for controlling a chronograph, the second a 50 hz carousel tourbillon active only during operation of the chronograph (TAG Heuer)

. . . if we are going to coin comprehensively logical descriptive names for these things we have our work cut out for us ;-) . I have a horrible feeling the above list is not complete, too.

J.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2012 09:44AM by Jack Forster.