I have a WE Space Saver 43A/G1 with 5H dial and 684 subset. I have restored the 684 with no problems (I restored one earlier with lots of help form the forum - thanks!).
1. The phone came with a 5-cond subset cord to the 684. I don't see the need for 5-cond with a 684. Am I missing something?
2. The diagram I'm using is a 211 diagram from telephonecollectors.org but the diagram is confusing (to me anyway) as there are places where a wire seems to split into separate solid and dashed sections. For example, the white lead of the handset cord seems to split with a solid line to the W terminal of the hookswitch and a dashed line to the W terminal of the dial. Am I using the correct schematic? Is there a correct or better one?
I've searched the forums here with no success. You think I'd be able to read a schematic after GA Tech, but it was 26 years ago. Do I need new glasses?
Thanks!
The dashed and solid lines depict the optional wiring of a dial or no dial arrangement.
I thought I'd jump in and say that, but being at work at the moment, I cannot delve into it to give you a more solid answer. Someone else may want to jump in at this point. I can definitely look at this late tonight.
-Bill
Bill is correct. The dashed lines are for the dial and 61M filter if used.
The filter was used mostly in the old days so the dial pulses would not be heard in your AM radio.
Dougpav
I understand the 61M filter, but all of the connections to the dial are dashed in the schematic. The handset cord has two conductors (black and white) that appear to each diverge to two separate locations. I'm stymied.
Bill, if you'd check my work on this, I'd appreciate it. I took the diagram and altered it to reflect the dial, without a filter.
j.bridwell, give this a try, I think it should work:
Bingster:
Looks good just by looking at it. My only further comment would be that the cold cathode ringing could be replaced with a straight line ringer. I will check it more when I get home tonight, but this is much appreciated. The dashed lines on the dial and filter are confusing to say the least. Both the dial and the filter are mutually optional, and the phone could have both a dial and a filter, a dial only, or none of each.
Most of us will only want it wired for a dial only withoug the filter.
I had an occasion to wire my 211 not long ago, and I was frustrated by the diagram myself. This one you have drawn should be saved for posterity.
-Bill
Bingster:
The diagram is correct.
J. Bridwell: The 684 needs only 4 wires.
-Bill Geurts
Now that makes much more sense to me! This is only the second phone I've purchased and worked on and neither was wired correctly. Thanks guys.
J:
Good luck with it, and we hope to hear that it works.
-Bill Geurts
Quote from: Phonesrfun on February 02, 2010, 09:13:37 PMMy only further comment would be that the cold cathode ringing could be replaced with a straight line ringer.
Is that what that is in the subset diagram? I've always wondered what it was, because it didn't match anything I had. I've changed the diagram to remove that portion and show the proper connection of the ringer. It still doesn't show the condenser, but that can be found in the standard 684 diagram.
Yep, that's what it is. The cold Cathode was Western's solution to making it so a larger number of ringers could be selected on a single party line.
The independants were mostly into frequency selective harmonic ringers. WE was more into the Cold Cathode tubes, using straight line ringers, and then doing some tricks with line polarity, coupled with which side of the line the ringing current was applied. I think with cold cathode tubes they could get 8 different combinations of party line ringing using straight line ringers.
Bell System did have frequency ringers, but not nearly as much as the independants. From what I understand, WE (Bell) did frequency ringing mostly in areas where they had acquired the territory and existing central offices from an independant that was already using frequency ringing.
-Bill
Apologies in advance for reviving a slightly older topic, but I have a question about wiring a 211 of a similar vintage. Why would Western Electric create a dial cord with three conductors, then still require additional wires from the dial to the switch contacts? Even the schematic diagram shows three wires grouped together with a dashed circle, labeled "dial cord". Added to these three are two more connections: one longer white lead from the handset to dial connection W, and another lead from dial connection Y to switch connection BK.
Just ??? wondering....
Funny thing about that diagram is that the cord from the "Y" terminal on the dial IS grouped together with the other dial wires into one cord on mine. I don't know why it's not shown that way on the diagram. Do others vary from that? As for the white, it makes sense not to have another connecting block inside a tiny case, and just run the white handset cord all the way up to the dial.
Mine arrived with the original three-wire dial cord, fabric covered, mostly brown, one w/red, another w/blue, the last solid brown. They're bundled together with thread wrapped around them in the center. Would the 4H or 5H dials function correctly with only three wires?
I don't think so. The early dials had four contacts instead of five, so you could probably get by without one, but I think four is absolute minimum. Interestingly, my C1 has a full five-conductor dial cord, while my G1s have four.
The 211 or G-mount (43A is the model of the dial mounting only) was to be used with a 634/684 subset when the phone is equipped with an F1 handset. The 211 equipped with a more modern G style handset was to be used with a 685 subset.
I'm sure the subsets of other manufacturers would work, too, but they'd have to be actual subsets, rather than extension ringers (like the little external Automatic Electric ringers).
there's that wiring diagram I was looking for.... what is the practice code for that.... I can't seem to find it in the library....
Hello All,
I'm new to the forum, so i do apologize if this has been covered elsewhere. I am currently re wiring a WE 211 (43A/G1) with a 5H dial, and have been looking for a wiring schematic. I came across this post and the referenced wiring schematic which does work for my phone. But I also found 2 other wiring diagrams that are different than the one in this post (see attached). I tried using them, and they also work.
So here's my question? Is one wiring method better than the other? Besides the fact that the third option only needs 4 connectors to the network and the other two need 5, is their any advantage to one versus the other? FYI - the second wiring diagram is actually for a 202 telephone, but read elsewhere that it will work for the 211, and it is almost identical to the first diagram attached. Again, both options do work, but I can't help but wonder is there a benefit to one over the other.
Thoughts?
The first two diagrams you posted are for using a 425B network, while the last one is for an induction coil subscriber set.
The hangup hand telephone sets with a G1 handset mounting were made from 1936 into the 1970s or so, so they were used with all the major subsets of that period and with a multitude of wiring modifications for various services.
When you described yours as 43A/G1, do you mean you have a G1 handset, or a G1 handset mounting, i.e. the instrument itself ? These handset mountings came in the varieties G1, G2, G3, G6, G7, G8, all with different contact arrangements.
These were equipped with both an F1 handset for use with induction coil subscriber sets, as well as G1 handsets starting in the 1950 for use with network type subscriber sets, such as the 685A which contained the 425B network.
The 425B network has additional technical features than an induction coil subset, such as a 684A or 634A, and the additional features require the use of five-conductor inside wiring to the subset. We have had many discussions in the Forum about the virtues of these wiring options.
Welcome to the Forum!
Thanks for the great response! Please let me clarify a couple of things regarding my particular equipment. First, I'm actually using an "F1" handset (I fat fingered the previous post). Also, I'm connecting to a 4228A Network, only because that is the only one I had in my parts box right now, and have been led to believe its equivalent to the 425A. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure which handset mounting I am working with, I believe its the G7, but could b wrong. I've attached a few pics, if you want to take a look and see for yourself.
While both wiring methods work, I can't help but think that the 5 wire configuration is probably the preferred method for this combination of phone hardware and network.
I'll go scourer the forum for some of the other threads regarding the virtues of both.
The Gx number should be stamped on the front of the phone.
You are correct that the BSPs will show 5 conductors from the phone to the 425 or 4228 network/685A subset.
Some of the diagrams on the forum show alternate facts ways of connecting a 202 or 211 to a 425/4228 network using only 4 wires, but one reason for doing so is to avoid having to purchase a new 5-conductor mounting cord and having to move one wire (the black handset wire from BK on the dial).
Four versus Five for me is not a problem, I have a 5 conductor cord for the phone (FYI the cords in the pictures are just some test cords and not the actual ones I will be using). Is there an advantage to having (BK) from the handset going to the network versus the 5H dial?
If you are using a 4228, then the black handset wire no longer connects to BK on the dial. Rather, it connects to the terminal which has the wire going to B on the network.
And that is where I have it now, but I also have a jumper from terminal B to BK on the 5H dial.
The first diagram shows the correct wiring. Notice that the black handset wire goes to B in the phone, which goes to B on the network.
That diagram shows a G1 handset with 4 conductor cord. Since the F1 handset has only 3 conductors, just connect the red handset wire where the diagram shows both red and white on the same terminal.
BK on dial goes to C on network. Do you have a BL terminal in the phone for this?
Yep! and that is exactly how it is wired now.
My original reason for asking the question of four wires versus five, was to get a better understanding of what the benefits of one versus the other was.
No, this phone does not have a "BL" terminal, like some do. FYI - The markings on the interior frame of the phone is "IV 37" So I'm thinking its a G4 base.
In a 500-series phone, or equivalent, using a 425/4228 network, the continuity of the line in series with the line switch and the dial pulsing contacts (2 wires)going to the network input (C and RR) is separate from the network output (GN=receiver, B=transmitter, R=common).
In the older induction coil circuits, the transmitter is in series with the line: when the phone is off-hook, one side of the transmitter is connected directly to the line, rather than to the network output. Thus, the same wire can be used in a 211 (or 202) for the black transmitter wire and for BK on the dial.
Quote from: MGreenwood on February 17, 2017, 10:58:40 AM
No, this phone does not have a "BL" terminal, like some do. FYI - The markings on the interior frame of the phone is "IV 37" So I'm thinking its a G4 base.
IV 37= 4th quarter 1937. The model is stamped on the front or back of the rectangular metal housing (not shown in the photo).
You can just connect the black handset wire to B on network, and BK on dial to C on network using whatever spare terminals,or make your own connector using a machine screw and nut.
Great, I'll have to check tonight when I get home for the model number.
Thanks for all the good info, while the phone works with either wiring configuration, its sounds like the best option for this phone configuration using a 4228 network is the 5 wire approach.
Quote from: MGreenwood on February 17, 2017, 10:58:40 AM
No, this phone does not have a "BL" terminal, like some do. FYI - The markings on the interior frame of the phone is "IV 37" So I'm thinking its a G4 base.
The original type should be punched into metal on the outside of the housing. On the very early sets of 1936 and perhaps 1937, this was positioned just underneath the wiring exit on the side opposite to the cradle cutouts, as shown in my picture below. From then on, it was located between and just below the cradle cutouts.
Your set was made in the fourth quarter of 1937, it will be interesting to hear from you where the marking is located. The pictured set is marked IV 36 and I have not seen an earlier one.
It is very common that the original punched marking is crossed out with an ink stamp, showing a different type. Many times the switches were changed during refurbishing to accommodate current needs.
We don't have any information of a G4, I don't think. It would be interesting to find out why they omitted #4 and #5 when starting with G6 to G8 later.
I will check tonight and get back to you.
Thanks,
Mike
A 685 subset would requirea 5 wire mounting cord.
somewhere there was a discusion of a 202 using a 685 subset.
Well after getting home and checking, its a "G1", and the stamp is on the same side as cradle cutouts.
After doing some more perusing on the forum, thanks for the suggestion of searching for "202 using a 685 subset", I decided to use the five wire option with the 4228 network. At least until I can source an original subset for this phone.
Thanks to all for the responses and suggestions. You've made a new guy to this forum feel very welcome! ;D
Mike
Quote from: MGreenwood on February 17, 2017, 07:38:27 PM
Well after getting home and checking, its a "G1", and the stamp is on the same side as cradle cutouts.
After doing some more perusing on the forum, thanks for the suggestion of searching for "202 using a 685 subset", I decided to use the five wire option with the 4228 network. At least until I can source an original subset for this phone.
Thanks to all for the responses and suggestions. You've made a new guy to this forum feel very welcome! ;D
Mike
Thanks for the info. If we can assume that the housing originally belonged to the "guts" of the set with the date stamp, then it is a valuable data point for determining the cutover in marking style.
But... did someone powder-coat this unit? The surface finish does not seem original.
Thank
Yes, I did. The original finish was virtually gone, with several coats of spray paint. The 5H dial was seized up, so I completely disassembled, cleaned, lubricated and re assembled. the number dial is a NOS exact replacement (Notice the "Z" above operator). Based on the way i found it, with all the jumper wires, wired for a 634A subset and the subset cord still attached (it had just been cut off) I have no reason not to think that it is all original.