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.

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.

@@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

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

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

Don't forget to film it and upload to KZfaq.

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?"

@@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

@@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

@@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

and its actually rated to 100m only

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 ^^

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.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

@@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.

😱

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

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

lol! 🤣

😂🥴👍

Just bring a flashlight

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

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

The meme watch company

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

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

This comment needed a wider audience...

Have you seen the new titanium and carbon watches? It's an experiment but it's supposed to be able to go to 4000 meters

​@@ralphmacchiato3761hahaha, cold blooded

Nostradamus in here.

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.

Second this!

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

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

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 :)

@@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).

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)

"WATER RESISTANT" "WATERPROOF" TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

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.

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

@@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.

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

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

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

deep ( ᷄ᴗ _ ᴗ ᷅)

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

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

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

@@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.

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

@@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.

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

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

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.

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

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

@@NathanChisholm041 Really? That's supernaturally strong.

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.

Yeah, I was shocked and impressed 😱

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

this sentence killed me xD

the polystyrene cup thing is real bro.

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

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@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.

they arent cheap watches

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

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

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

He’s referring to the pressure chamber

yeah that would be interesting

@@JLchevz these guy has already testet the gw-7900 last week, you can check it out here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lZines2g0Mi0eqM.html

@@adiwild thanks

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The pressure inside the watch is 1 bar…

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.

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.

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

@@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 :)

@@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 :)

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

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.

@@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.

@@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?

@@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.

@@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.

Take my like and leave

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

and Teemu Selanne's smile

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

@@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)!

When you are falling in water with high speed, the pressure can break your 300 feet water resistance watch. Even the pressure of the shower..

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.

@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..

But you need to watch your ascent time.

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.

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

You won't be working at 1KM deep.

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

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

I Wonder WHY. 🤔

I have a 20eur smart watch from aliexpress, it said that it's ip67, but I doubt that, maybe just water resistant, like rain, ect.

@@LatvianVideo ip67 is 1 meter for 30 minutes