Talk:Water Resistant mark

ATM vs Depth is wrong?

1 ATM => 0 meters depth (1 ATM = ground level)

2 ATM => 10 meters

3 ATM => 20 meters

6 ATM => 50 meters

11 ATM => 100 meters

Description of depths is off by one?

The section that describes what is permissible at each depth does not match up with the reference it cites (footnote [1]). The cited chart says that "water resistant" (usually means 30m) is for splashes only, 50m is OK for swimming, and 100m is OK for swimming, snorkeling, or water sports.

Here is a slightly more readable version of the same chart (1 bar == 10 meter of depth): Seiko Water Resistance FAQ

incandenza 06:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ISO standards

Does anyone know where iso standards can be looked up for free?

Itn't it a bit ironic that you need a watch that says it can resist water 100 meters deep before you can swim in a 3 meter deep pool with it?

ISO 6425 and Breitling

Regards this statement: "Watches conforming to ISO 6425 are marked with the word 'Divers'." Looking at my two Breitlings right now, I don't see the word "Divers" anywhere on either one of them. They're both diving watches, rated to 500 and 1,500 meters. Assuming Breitling conforms to ISO 6425, the statement above should read "Watches conforming to ISO 6425 are allowed to be marked with the word 'Divers.'" --ExarPalantas (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about operating?

Can you operate a watch marked Water Resistant X M under water? Can buttons be pushed? Is that part of the spec or is it arbitrary? --Olethros 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition is wrong?

I don't understand, if this mark means, that watches able to resist some water pressure, why they are unable to resist it actually while scuba diving? If they unable, hence either this mark means something else, or the pressure while scuba diving is higher than while testing. But second is may be truth only on Jupiter :), so probably the first is right. So, the definition of term is wrong, it seems to me! Excuse my English. Dims 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be nice to see an explanation of why, for example, a 30M rating doesn't correspond to a depth of 30 metres underwater, and where the rating actually comes from. That's what I came here to find out. Funkdafied 07:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you read the article carefully, it says that 30M rating for example referrs to static pressure. That means that if you for example teleport the watch to 30M depth, it will widthstand the pressure. However, if you just swim with the watch, when you do a stroke it will be faced with much higer pressure, possibly equivalent to 50M+. Just think, as you swim, don't you feel the pressure of the water when you move your arms? That is the pressure the watch will experience, and it won't be equivalent to just 1M of static water pressure. I cannot give you a formula (it depends on the shape of the watch), but a watch in 1m depth moving at 10km/h, will probably face more pressure than if it was static in 50m depth. But anyway, the equivalence to depth is comfusing, I guess it all started for show and for giving something closer to common understanding than bar measurements. Dkechag 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I don't think that explanation was there when I first posted the comment, but its good to see that it's there now. Funkdafied 02:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me, that dynamics does not explain situation. It seems, that it can't be true, that some human moving can change pressure, equivalent to several times static pressure. The pressure at the h meters depth approximately is h/10 atmospheres. So, it is one atmosphere at 10 m. So, if you say, that moving hand equivalent to arising pressure to 50 m, it means, that moving hand making pressure of 4 atmospheres! It looks unreal! Dims 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to believe? 4 atm is about 60PSI - that means a pressure of 60 pounds (assuming the seal of the watch is 1 square inch). That's no problem for a human. And in fact the seals of a watch are much smaller then 1 square inch, they might be a tenth of that, so it's very easy to apply that much pressure to them (6 punds). Ariel. 21:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is so hard to believe because the question isn't how much pressure you could possibly apply with your hands, but how much the water pressure rises momentarily when you move your hands around in the water. I, too, find it pretty incredible that waving your hand around at, say, ten meter's depth would make the water press as hard against the watch (and vice versa) as the static pressure at fifty meter's depth. That is all, not to put too fine a point on it, BS. (Note that I am NOT saying Ariel is intentionally committing such; only that he/she is being too generous, trying to find a reasonable explanation where there is none.) These pressures can't be equivalent; it is nonsensical to claim that a watch marked "30m/100ft" should only be usable for surface swimming [and rarely that -- mine didn't stand a bout of intense RAIN]; this is quite simply a case of at least semi-fraudulent marketing by the international watch-making industry. (And that they've managed to wangle an ISO seal on it is no excuse for the practice, but an indictment of the ISO too.)--CRConrad (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To put things in perspective. According to an IOC medical study an Olympic level swimmer (a strong elite athlete) can achieve maximum hand velocities of 6 to 7 m/s. This hand velocity generates only modest amounts of movement induced water pressure. Since water is a much denser fluid than air it takes lots of effort to move a submerged arm or hand and a watch attached to its wrist fast through water. The most significant problems with ISO 2281 regarding situations where one has to rely on water resistance are that this standard does not take any safety margins into account and not every single watch is tested for water resistance.

The standard for diving watches ISO 6425 always takes a 25% safety margin regarding water resistance into account, to cater for aging of seals and unexpected factors. Also every single watch has to be tested. Since ISO 6425 demands at least a 100 m water resistance these watches are tested to at least a water pressure equivalent of 125 m or more.

An ISO 2281 compliant normal watch with a 30 m water resistance would with the minimal 25 m safety margin applied for ISO 6425 diving watches subtracted only have 5 m water resistance to spare. Though this is no honest comparison, the statement that it is not a good idea to rely on the water resistance of a ISO 2281 compliant 30 m water resistant watch for longer time periods is by no means totally wrong. Since the text was cryptic to some readers I edited it.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Depth Chart

I think that the chart on this page is a little sparse compared to others I've seen, including the one in the instruction manual to my own diving watch. I'm working on a new one. Does anyone know what the reference is for "20 bar/200 meters/scuba diving to a depth of 30 m"? It's not in the FAQ pages at Seiko Watches website, which is the only reference on the site. --ExarPalantas (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC) ^

This chart is misleading in it's use of helium as a way to denote a particular depth. At depths beyond 50m helium is usually introduced into breathing gas, to help dilute the physiological effects of nitrogen and oxygen at these pressures, the chart seems to imply that "mixed gas diving" and "saturation diving" are the same thing. Diving with helium and saturation diving are two very different things, see the articles for trimix, heliox, and saturation diving.

I'm thinking a better way to index things would be for Divers 100m to refer to "Scuba diving at Recreational Depths" (which equates to 40m max), Divers 200m and 300m as suitable for "Technical Scuba Diving" (which typically can reach 100m or more), and Divers 300+m for mixed gas as suitable for "Saturation diving or long term exposure to pressures of several hundred meters".

--Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.165.178 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Remind ISO 6425 deals with diving watches that do not need breathing gas in contrast to divers. The only problem the diving watch/watchcase has to deal with are the exposition of liquids and/or (in much rarer cases) gases in the watch environment. What liquids or gasses the divers are exposed to is often irrelevant for the watch. A technical scuba diver might be exposed to helium gas during a dive, whilst a during that dive used diving watch only gets submerged in seawater. During saturation diving operations the used watches are often subjected to the same environment as the divers for prolonged time periods. Since the presence of helium in the watch environment posses practical problems I pointed helium exposure out in the table.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ISO 22810

this page should be updated to include ISO22810, the replacement for ISO2281 that was released in 2010.