I’m sure it’s going to fail that test as the speaker is designed to keep water out, not an Apple Watch made would pass it. The test is more for testing a regular completely sealed watch like a dive watch. Go swim away OP, you won’t have any issue unless the machine damaged it by pressurizing it three times.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
S3 Water resistance test
- Thread starter martinarlaw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He never said he had direct access to this machine. He said his friend, who works on high end watches for a living has it. I would think that anyone who works on high end watches for a living is very likely to have a test device like this so they can verify their work. I know if this was my business I wouldn't want to be on the hook for a very expensive watch because the inexpensive repair work (relatively speaking) I did on it may have caused it to fail.
He said he used a test device like I talked about (and linked to and article about) in my post above.
Since the test device he was using does not use water, no water was introduced to the inside of the watch so the watch does not get damaged. That is why he was able to test it multiple times. The test device is pressurized, air gets into the watch and deflects the screen, the test device says the watch failed, the air pressure is reduced, and the air that leaked into the watch case is released and the watch face goes back to normal. No permanent damage to the watch.
This is a very good point, that I had not thought about. The speaker and microphone in the watch are not rigid materials. As the air around the watch is pressurized they most likely are allowed to deflect into the watch case, which would cause the air pressure inside the watch to increase in line with the air outside the watch. As that air pressure increases the watch face is probably going to deflect since it will be less rigid than the aluminum/steel casing (not sure which watch he has). Since the face of the watch deflects, this test device reads that as a failure of the waterproof seals.
This test device is probably not suitable to test the water resistance of an Apple Watch because of this.
Like the others have said, you shouldn't worry about the watch failing this test. Unless you actually plan on wearing this watch on deep dives I probably wouldn't worry about the water resistance. For regular swimming, bathing etc. I'm sure it is fine.
Last edited:
Which The OP did not indicate from their initial start of the thread any details how the watch failed, processing and/or what type of machine , which is what I was questioning after the fact after multiple posts was not clear to any specific process they use and or tested until later in the thread.
Shirasaki
macrumors P6
Imagine you run a benchmark to test pc functionality multiple times. Failing first time does not mean a lot (maybe an error, wrong sensor reading etc). Failing more than once does mean something. This is very simple.
And we are in the deep bottom of air just like deep water, as the air pressure at the sea level is the highest, then drops when latitude rises.
When a device fails, there is only one time that it fails and can't be resurrected if it's defective to conduct further testing. UnLess it's a test in itself to test again, that specific test might be able to be tested multiple times as long as it doesn't affect the operability of the device from performing as intended. That in itself is exactly what others were questioning.
Last edited:
Yes they are, but I would assume that equipment such as this takes that into account (as far as the difference in the fluids). I'm sure the pressure of the air used to simulate being 50 meters underwater is actually lower than the actual pressure that water would be placing on the seals at that depth since the air molecules would be smaller and easier to slip by the seals than water molecules would be.
Also, for those of you still thinking this test was run in water, it probably could be run using distilled water. Distilled water is actually a pretty good insulator at lower voltages like what is used in the watch. You could most likely run a test like this in distilled water and not cause any damage to the watch even if water did get inside the case. You would just need to take it apart and dry the watch out after.
It is the impurities like iron, calcium, magnesium, and sodium in tap water that make it a good conductor, and causes damage when it comes in contact with circuit boards causing shorts.
honglong1976
macrumors 68000
how does one know if a watch rated to be water resistant to 50m has a problem without submerging it in water?
I don't believe there is a dry waterproof test
It's rated to be water resistant to 50m. If the seal doesn't work, water will go inside. So of course it would be covered.
[doublepost=1515746689][/doublepost]
The watch is water resistant to 50m, it failed.
Warranty wise he would tell Apple is swam and it failed. Replacement on the way 🙂
The watch failed some kind of air pressure test it isn't made to pass. Nothing has failed till he gets in the water and it fails which I'm pretty sure it wont.
BugeyeSTI
macrumors 604
If anyone is interested in how a mechanical watch should be pressure tested.. A proper test should use both dry and wet testing.
https://omegaforums.net/threads/pressure-testing-a-watchco-sm300.45375/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/pressure-testing-a-watchco-sm300.45375/
Not everyone here understands science or testing. They can be the type to read a headline about a one-time event and cry to Apple for refunds or better batteries.
That being said, I've worn my S3 in the ocean without a problem. However, I haven't gone 50 meters deep.
Last edited: