Boris ²×·¥·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: May 08, 2003 ¤å³¹: 6923
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¥| 2005-03-03 23:21
keigen ¼g¨ì: | §Ú¤]Å¥»¡¦Û°Ê¤W½mªºªí¤£¾A¦X±`¥Î¤â¤W½m! |
»²§U¤WÁå¯uªº¤£n¤Ñ¤Ñ¥Î,
§Ú誱¿ö®É¦]¦¹±¾±¼¤@¤ä
½Ð±Ð¤ý¦ÑÁó¤]«ù¬Û¦P·N¨£.
|
|
lkapia ¤¤¯Å·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Oct 11, 2004 ¤å³¹: 204 ¨Ó¦Û: ¹ü¤Æ
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤ 2005-03-04 00:01
calatravayang ¼g¨ì: | 1.¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö¨Ã¤£¾A¦X¤Ó±`¨Ï¥Î¤â¤WÁå¸É¨¬°Ê¯à¡An¤£¥Î¤â·n¡An¤£¥Î±ÛÂರ¡A¯uªº¨S¿ìªk´Nµ¥nÀ¹¤F¦A«·s½Õ®É¶¡
|
这个说ªk¤£¥¿ÚÌ¡A¬Æ¦Ü§Ú´¿经将¦Û动盘®³±¼¡A当¤â¤W链¨Ï¥Î¡I
¦Û动¤W链ªí¡A绝对¥i¥H当¤â¤W链¨Ï¥Î¡A没¦³¥ô¦óªº伤®`¡A¦Ó¥B¤ñ¤â¤W链ªí还¦n¡A¥L¤£会§á断发条¡I
|
|
keigen ¥Õª÷·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Jul 04, 2004 ¤å³¹: 4116
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤ 2005-03-04 00:15
lkapia ¼g¨ì: | calatravayang ¼g¨ì: | 1.¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö¨Ã¤£¾A¦X¤Ó±`¨Ï¥Î¤â¤WÁå¸É¨¬°Ê¯à¡An¤£¥Î¤â·n¡An¤£¥Î±ÛÂರ¡A¯uªº¨S¿ìªk´Nµ¥nÀ¹¤F¦A«·s½Õ®É¶¡
|
这个说ªk¤£¥¿ÚÌ¡A¬Æ¦Ü§Ú´¿经将¦Û动盘®³±¼¡A当¤â¤W链¨Ï¥Î¡I
¦Û动¤W链ªí¡A绝对¥i¥H当¤â¤W链¨Ï¥Î¡A没¦³¥ô¦óªº伤®`¡A¦Ó¥B¤ñ¤â¤W链ªí还¦n¡A¥L¤£会§á断发条¡I | §Aªº¿ö¤£¤@©w¯à¥Nªí©Ò¦³ªº¦Û°Ê¿ö§a?
|
|
calatravayang ºaÅAª©±ºÞ²zû 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Jun 14, 2004 ¤å³¹: 4073 ¨Ó¦Û: ¥x¥_
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤ 2005-03-04 06:48
lkapia ¼g¨ì: | calatravayang ¼g¨ì: | 1.¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö¨Ã¤£¾A¦X¤Ó±`¨Ï¥Î¤â¤WÁå¸É¨¬°Ê¯à¡An¤£¥Î¤â·n¡An¤£¥Î±ÛÂರ¡A¯uªº¨S¿ìªk´Nµ¥nÀ¹¤F¦A«·s½Õ®É¶¡
|
„±ƒª‡Sªk¤£¥¿ÚÌ¡A¬Æ¦Ü§Ú´¿…î’â¦Ûƒð‡÷®³±¼¡A…å¤â¤W‹Î¨Ï¥Î¡I
¦Ûƒð¤W‹Îªí¡A…E†Á¥i¥H…å¤â¤W‹Î¨Ï¥Î¡A•ʦ³¥ô¦óªº…´®`¡A¦Ó¥B¤ñ¤â¤W‹ÎªíŠx¦n¡A¥L¤£…ѧáŠÊ„ú„W¡I |
¥H«e±´£¨ìªº»¡ªk¡A´N¬O¦]¬°¦³¦Û°Ê½L¤~¦³°ÝÃD°Ú
±z¥i¥H¸Õ¸Õ¬Ý¤£n§â¦Û°Ê½L®³±¼¦A·í¤â¤WÁå¿ö¬Ý¬Ý
|
|
spikegifted ¶i¶¥·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Dec 30, 2004 ¤å³¹: 280 ¨Ó¦Û: London, UK
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤» 2005-03-05 07:48
calatravayang ¼g¨ì: | "¤£¾A¦X¸g±`¨Ï¥Î¤â¤WÁå¤è¦¡ÅX°Ê¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö",³o¥y¸Ü§Ú¦b³}thepuristsªº®ÉÔÅ¥¹L´X¦ì¨ã¦³»s¿ö®v¸ê®æªº«e½ú»¡¹L,²z¥Ñ¬O§_¸ò§Ú¤W±»¡ªº¤@¼Ë§Ú¤£½T©w |
Of course, there are two sides to every coin and there are arguments for and against watch winders.
Against:
Potential damage to self-winding mechanism - This has to be the biggest down side. You're completely right in pointing out that the motion of the winders are completely different from the movements of human arms. Watches are designed to be worn on your wrists not sitting in a box being spun around and around, even just over short periods.
For:
Keeping the movements lubricated - The problem with leaving a watch unworn and unwind for any period of time is that, especially in less than ideal temperatures (ie. too hot or too cold), the lubricants will cease to function as they should. So the next time you pick up your prize pieces, you to damage to the movements...
For:
Saving you from setting a complicated watch - You don't need to look too hard, just an average moon-phase complication is enough. Imagine the moon is out of phase when you pick it up... You have to change time, date, day, moon phase, etc... Quite a lot of work for a lazy person like me!
At the end of the day, it is a fine balance and the argument for and against are equally compelling (IMHO).
|
|
calatravayang ºaÅAª©±ºÞ²zû 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Jun 14, 2004 ¤å³¹: 4073 ¨Ó¦Û: ¥x¥_
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤» 2005-03-05 08:52
spikegifted ¼g¨ì: |
Of course, there are two sides to every coin and there are arguments for and against watch winders.
Against:
Potential damage to self-winding mechanism - This has to be the biggest down side. You're completely right in pointing out that the motion of the winders are completely different from the movements of human arms. Watches are designed to be worn on your wrists not sitting in a box being spun around and around, even just over short periods.
For:
Keeping the movements lubricated - The problem with leaving a watch unworn and unwind for any period of time is that, especially in less than ideal temperatures (ie. too hot or too cold), the lubricants will cease to function as they should. So the next time you pick up your prize pieces, you to damage to the movements...
For:
Saving you from setting a complicated watch - You don't need to look too hard, just an average moon-phase complication is enough. Imagine the moon is out of phase when you pick it up... You have to change time, date, day, moon phase, etc... Quite a lot of work for a lazy person like me!
At the end of the day, it is a fine balance and the argument for and against are equally compelling (IMHO). |
spikegifted¥S¡A§Ú·Qªø´Á¨Ï¥Î¤WÁå¾÷¤WÁ媺¦nÃaÀ³¸Ó¬O¥t¤@ÓÃD¥Ø¤F¡A¤§«e°Q½×ªº¥Dn¬O¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö¬O§_¾A¦Xªø´Á"¥Î¤â¤WÁå"
|
|
spikegifted ¶i¶¥·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Dec 30, 2004 ¤å³¹: 280 ¨Ó¦Û: London, UK
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤» 2005-03-05 09:14
calatravayang ¼g¨ì: | spikegifted¥S¡A§Ú·Qªø´Á¨Ï¥Î¤WÁå¾÷¤WÁ媺¦nÃaÀ³¸Ó¬O¥t¤@ÓÃD¥Ø¤F¡A¤§«e°Q½×ªº¥Dn¬O¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö¬O§_¾A¦Xªø´Á"¥Î¤â¤WÁå" | Good point... Thanks for the correction - I should've read your answer more carefully to begin with... And now that I've read your post a second time, you're completely right also.
|
|
BrianTeng ¶i¶¥·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Jan 10, 2005 ¤å³¹: 309
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤@ 2005-03-28 14:27
¬JµM¤w¸g«Ü¦h¤H³£»¡¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¾÷¤ß¤£¾A¦X±`¥Î¤â¤WÁå¤F¡A¤£ºÞ¯u¹ê©Ê¦p¦ó¡A§Ú¬Ý¤j®aÁÙ¬O±qµ½¦p¬y¡A¹ç¥i«H¨ä¦³§a¡C°£«D§AÄ@·N®³§Aªº·R¿ö¨Ó°µ¹êÅç¡AÃa¤F¤]¤£·|¤ß¯k¡C
|
|
yukongman ¶i¶¥·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Jan 25, 2005 ¤å³¹: 428
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤@ 2005-03-28 14:40
pppleo ¼g¨ì: | calatravayang ¼g¨ì: | 1.¦Û°Ê¤WÁå¿ö¨Ã¤£¾A¦X¤Ó±`¨Ï¥Î¤â¤WÁå¸É¨¬°Ê¯à¡An¤£¥Î¤â·n¡An¤£¥Î±ÛÂರ¡A¯uªº¨S¿ìªk´Nµ¥nÀ¹¤F¦A«·s½Õ®É¶¡
|
¤£¸Ñ...¨SÅ¥¹L³oºØ»¡ªk...?? |
§Ú¥H«e³Ì¦h¾Ö¦³¤j¬ù¤C,¤K¥u¤â¿öªº®ÉÔ, ¨C¤Ñ¦¤W¤]n¬°¨C¥u¦Û°Ê¤â¿ö¤â¸É¤WÁå, ¤]¤£Ä±·|¦³¤°»ò«~ÃD?
|
|
Junchieh ¤¤¯Å·|û 
µù¥U®É¶¡: Jun 02, 2003 ¤å³¹: 149
|
µoªí©ó: ¬P´Á¤@ 2005-03-28 17:40
¬JµM¶R¤F´NÀ¹µÛ¥¦§a¡I¡I¡I
¤£»Ýn¬°ORIS¶R¤@Ӧ۰ʤWÁ媺¿ö²°¡C
|
|
|
|