Dials that short out the rec, vs. Dials that open the rec cir,whats the purpose?

[RB]

I see a lot of dial configurations.
some, short the rec when dialing, and others open the rec circuit when dialing.
I can see opening the circuit, I guess, but I wonder about the result of shorting a receiver out of the circuit.
That is to ask, what happens to the line, or the phone, when a portion is shorted out of the active circuit?
Does that cause a strain on the line, or phone when you short the receiver?
What would the line level look like, if you short/bypass the receiver on an active line?
Obviously, the resistance of that portion, would lower by the amount the receiver was adding, allowing the current on the line to raise.
Has anyone looked at that? just curious what the current level looks like in that condition.
Would some phones suffer, and others not?

[Jim Stettler]

I see a lot of dial configurations.
some, short the rec when dialing, and others open the rec circuit when dialing.
I can see opening the circuit, I guess, but I wonder about the result of shorting a receiver out of the circuit.
That is to ask, what happens to the line, or the phone, when a portion is shorted out of the active circuit?
Does that cause a strain on the line, or phone when you short the receiver?
What would the line level look like, if you short/bypass the receiver on an active line?
Obviously, the resistance of that portion, would lower by the amount the receiver was adding, allowing the current on the line to raise.
Has anyone looked at that? just curious what the current level looks like in that condition.
Would some phones suffer, and others not?

I think shorting the receiver is to prevent dial clicks in the receiver. This could be for customer convenience or the clicks may add additional wear to the receiver element.
I think a telephone is designed with a specific dial type for it's configuration
Just a guess,
Jim S.

[RB]

I think shorting the receiver is to prevent dial clicks in the receiver. This could be for customer convenience or the clicks may add additional wear to the receiver element.
I think a telephone is designed with a specific dial type for it's configuration
Just a guess,
Jim S.

You are absolutely correct Sir. on both accounts.
My thing is, I do not have really 2 of anything, my phones are all different, so it is a mixture of everything, trying to talk to each other.
And the technician in me, "and Paul Harvey", always asks, what is the rest of the story? 

[Key2871]

The dial clicks are very loud, and it could be very distracting to the point where you would have to put the receiver down while dialing. Same with touch tone dials, without the receiver shunt to dampen the tones in the receiver. I used a phone where this shunt wasn't working, and the tones were extremely loud and could cause hearing damage.

[RB]

Yup, have noticed that too.
Makes one of your eyes, want to jump into the other socket.
So, it is mainly for the dialers ears?
And, I suppose, a small line current jump, would be absorbed by the CO, PBX, or whatever is on the other end?

[Key2871]

If the set were very close to the CO, but longer wires wouldn't be a problem, because it wouldn't phase the CO being so far away.

[Jim Stettler]

Yup, have noticed that too.
Makes one of your eyes, want to jump into the other socket.
So, it is mainly for the dialers ears?
And, I suppose, a small line current jump, would be absorbed by the CO, PBX, or whatever is on the other end?

My guess is that the current jump would be absorbed by the  network in the telephone.
Just a guess,
Jim S.

[dsk]

We may even split those dial in 3 different ways of reduce/eliminate sound in the receiver.
1 Disconnect receiver.
2 Short receiver
3 Short out the entire voice circuit.

Combinations are also used.

1 Disconnecting the receiver who actually not are a part of the DC path will make the receiver silent, and the inductive part of the circuit will be changed with a negligible value at only 10 pps. (We may roughly make it equal to 10 HZ)

2 Shorting the receiver who actually not are a part of the DC path will make the receiver silent, and the inductive part of the circuit will be changed with a negligible value at only 10 pps. (We may roughly make it equal to 10 HZ)

3 Shorting the entire circuit will ofcourse make the receiver silent, but here we will remove the entire inductive load of the telephone, reduce the total voltagedrop in the phone during signalling. This may give a cleaner DC pulsing to be registered in the exchange. By experience this has not been of importance for most systems.

Why choose this or that? They all work acceptably well.
Her are my ideas:
Western Electric did have less problems with clicks (pops) in the receiver with solution 1. (+3)
When the 500 came, the reconsidered, slightly easier to go to solution 2

Siemens was early in use of Strowger dials (1911) and shorting was chosen. when they made their own systems, and those dials grounded one wire when dial was out of rest position. Later they just kept it that way. Easy simple reliable and no need to reconsider. The kept on solution 3  and it looks like Ericsson just did the same.

S.E. and European relatives (ITT related) did use a combination of 2 and 3
In Norway from  1934 The telco (our "MA-Bell" named "Telegrafverket") was ordering telephones from Elektrisk Bureau, but specified the dial to be from Standard, (=STC)  Later Elektrisk Bureau made dials according to that spec.

These specification was made based on experience with Early W.E. phones Standard, Siemens, Ericsson, and locally made phones.

dsk

[RB]

Ahh! there we go.
I was waiting for you to respond DSK!
Your comments/posts always add another level of understanding!
Thanks, all of you for your wisdom.

[dsk]

My interests are related to solutions, often back engineering, but I try to look for why. 

We used to have more tech-talks here, and I miss them.


Design is interesting indeed, but for me is the function, how it works, how simple it could be done, the phones made to work not a year, a decade but "for ever" is so fascinating.

We have to the working phone tied to the wall by a wire is almost history today. so are the veterans working with them, and we are a few hobbyists with different interests and goals.

We got fiber her less than 2 years ago, and within a few years even that may be out.

So to all of you, general question: What is the cost of forgetting the history?
And please do not answer here! 

dsk