Classic Rotary Phones Forum

On the 5302, if they were trying to satisfy the desire for the more"modern" deatures of the 500, why did they offer the F1 handset? It does seem a bit gangly and oversized, but what do I know?? Was it just to clear out their old inventory of F1 handsets? I suppose everyone has their preference, but at the time it seems like the G1 would have been the desired handset.

I think they did it because it was their last chance to get rid of all the F1's that they had laying around and because it was already matched to all the components that were under the hood.

THe F handset was the one designed for the 302. They realized that the G handset on the 5302 gave better transmission. They originally used the G handset 5302 sets in the outlying areas.

Later they made the G style handset w/ F elements. These were to meet the demand for the "new" handset.
JMO,
Jim

So, the G1 was the ideal choice for the4 5302

The F1 handset with the F1 transmitter is a much better match for the 5302 than the handset with the T1 transmitter. 

The T1 transmitter had about a 3dB gain over the F1 transmitter, and was made for the 425 series networks.

The 101B induction coil in the 302 and 5302 phones had no compensation, and did not have any way of lowering the sidetone volume to the user when talking on short loops.  (loop is the distance between the user's phone and his or her local central office).

If you use a G1 handset on a 5302, you will find a noticeable louder sidetone, and it may even seem odd or uncomfortable, and the people you talk to might notice a difference too.

Obviously, the G1 handset will work on a 5302, and the 5302 shell was designed to use either the G1 handset or the F1 handset.  However, I am thinking that the 5302 with the G1 handset was only used on long rural loops, and not at all on short city loops.

I even think there is a BSP out there that describes that practice.

And of course they were refurbishing a 302 that already had an F1 Handset into a 5302 so leaving it with the F1 Hnadset meant they didn't have to spring for a new G1 and junk the F1 saving money which they really liked to do. The thought of PAINTING cords to save about $1 over the cost of a brand new replacement cord pretty much sums up the level of desire to save every penny possible.

Terry

Yes, they were frugal to a fault, that is for sure.

OK, so were these the handset/element possibilities for a 5302?

Listed in order of Handset/Transmitter/Receiver:

1) F1/F1/HA1

2) F1/T1/HA1

3) G1/F1/HA1

4) G1/T1/U1

5) G1/T1/HA1

Just curious, as I'm still not clear on how a team of T1/U1 elements does when paired with a 302 base.  I was under the impression that the 5302's outfitted with F1's (with F1/HA1 elements) were better for long line applications than the early 500's.  That, along with Ma Bell's penny pinching would offer another reason the F1 handsets ended up on many 5302's.

Can one of our experts clarify?

Let's not forget that you could find a U1 element in the F handset.  The handset  designation was changed to F-4.  This was used on many Imperials & continetals.  I'm not positive that it found its way to 5302's.

Here is what I think I know:

The T1 transmitter and the U1 receiver were specifically designed for the 500 model phone, using the 425A and later the 425B network, and were originally designed for the G1 handset.  Together, this combination gave a large degree of signal gain over the 302 model of the 101A induction coil and the F1 handset and the F1/HA1 element combination.  That information is well documented in the 1949 documentation on the development of the 500 telephone set.

The 5302 is nothing more than a 302 with a new cover.  It usually is found with the stock F1 handset using the F1 transmitter and the HA1 receiver, making the 5302 in that configuration an exact duplicate, electrically, as the 302.

To further make a 5302 look like a 500, they came out with a specially made "G" handset that had been modified to physically take an F1 transmitter element and an HA1 receiver, which is electrically the same as an F1 handset, which still kept the match between the 101A induction coil and the F1/HA1 element combination.  This special G1 handset has been sometimes been referred to as a "GF" handset, but I have found no BSP that defines a "GF" handset.  I have seen photos of the bottom of a 5302 indicating "GF" which presumably means there was a "G" style handset with F style elements, I.E. F1/HA1.

Using a T1/U1 combination in a telephone that had the 101A induction coil would have been problematic, because the gain would have been uncomfortably too loud to the user.  I personally do not think they would have equipped any phone that has the 101A induction coil with a handset that had the T1/U1 combination.

To my knowledge, they have never come up with a handset that mixed elements.  That is to say, I don't believe they ever had a handset, either an F or G style that had a T1/HA1 or an F1/U1 combination.

I, too have an Imperial that has a specially made F style handset that has a T1 and U1 element combination,  It has a special spacer that allows the smaller T1 element to fit in the larger transmitter cavity in the handle, and the receiver cavity has been routed out to accept the thicker U1 element.  The "F" designation has been painted over in such a way that I cannot tell what "F" model the handset is.

I suspect that since the Imperial came out in the late 1950's, well after the design of the 500 became the standard that this imperial with its T1/U1 combination, would have needed to be matched up with a 685 subset, which has the 425B network, and not the 101A induction coil.  This would have required a 6-conductor cord between the subset and the Imperial base to make it function electrically as a 500.  I have tried my Imperial on a 684 subset that has a 101A induction coil, and I find the loudness of the signal annoying in that configuration.

To my knowledge, this F handset with G innards was never used on a 5302.

I have one 5302 that is  equipped with such a modified G1 handset that has the F1 and HA1 elements.  As mentioned, I have an Imperial with an F style handset that has the "G" innards.

Once the 500's came out, with their better gains in voice transmissions as a result of the combination of the 425B network; the T1 transmitter; the U1 receiver, and the acoustically better G1 handset, the Bell System issued a document that said that the 302 and the 5302 were only to be used on short loops because they just did not have the oomph on longer rural loops.

It follows that a 5302 could have been used on long loops with a stock G1 handset using the T1/U1 elements to overcome the loop distance losses which the 500 solved.

On long loops the 101A induction coil is just as efficient as the induction coil in the 425B network.  The advantage that the 425B network has over the plain old 101A induction coil is that the 425B network has self compensating varistors included inside to take the gains back down to a reasonable level on short loops with the lower losses.

Confusing, I know.

These days, most every loop is shorter than they were in the 1950's and 1960's.  Even in rural areas, there are multiplexed carrier lines that take the signals out to the remote areas where there are cabinets along side the road that demultiplex these signals down to individual lines and provide DC battery to the subscribers.  It's like moving the central office out to areas to shorten the DC loops.

As to the specific evolution of the F and G handset, and their elements, and the use of them during transitional periods in the 1950's, Paul F's website can provide some insights.

If I am wrong on my observations and my conclusions, I would welcome a discussion.  On this board, I think we are pretty free to discuss these things without the fear of being made to feel foolish.

Cheers,

Bill

Quote from: Phonesrfun on February 06, 2011, 01:42:36 AM
I personally do not think they would have equipped any phone that has the 101A induction coil with a handset that had the T1/U1 combination.

Bill, first of all thank you for this very detailed, excellent and informative post.  I have "stickied" the topic so that it doesn't disappear.

I highlighted your quote only to point out the colored 5302's.  For obvious reasons they never had an F1 handset.  I have one 5302 in color.  It has a standard G3 handset with the U1/T1 combination connected to the 101A induction coil.  It is exactly as you described.  While speaking on the phone my own voice is amplified in the ear to the point of being annoying.  The dated parts of this 5302 with regard to the plastic are similar which leads me to believe it came from the refurb shop as it appears now.  The housing is 9/59.  The handset, caps, and coiled cord are from 1960.  The elements are marked 5-24-60 and 5-25-60.  The set is marked 5302G on the bottom.

If I had to use this phone as an every day phone it would be very difficult because of the increased volume in only my voice transmission.  The voice of the person on the other end is normal.

That is interesting, so I can add one more wrinkle to the brain.  I wonder if the refurb shop that did the 5302 was a Bell System refurbisher or a contract refurbisher, and I wonder if the phone you have came into them as a used 5302 or as a 302 to begin with.

Who knows.

I went back and re-read the article I was thinking about when I said:

QuoteUsing a T1/U1 combination in a telephone that had the 101A induction coil would have been problematic, because the gain would have been uncomfortably too loud to the user.  I personally do not think they would have equipped any phone that has the 101A induction coil with a handset that had the T1/U1 combination.

If you look at the bottom of page 77 and the top of page 78, of the attached pdf file, you will see that the designers of the 500 and its components did not think putting the T1 and U1 elements in a non-equalized phone (I.E. a 302) was a good idea.  In fact, W.C Jones' word was "intolerable" on very short loops, such as within an office PBX.

But, having said that, they could always do it on a long loop and it would be just fine.

-Bill

Bill, thanks for that excellent and detailed explanation.

I know that an adapter can be used to outfit an F1 handset with a T1 transmitter.  Would those adapters have been used only if the companion U1 receiver was also being used in the F1, as in the Continental you described?

I'm leaning towards thinking that the T1 can be retrofitted into an F1 handset that still employs the HA1 receiver element, the same way F1 transmitters replaced the 395 "bullet" type in the E1 handsets, while the receiver element remained the original 557(?) designed for the E1.  Is it the same principle in both cases?

I suppose if one looked long enough, an example of every imaginable and workable combination of handsets and elements could be found on 5302's one came across.

Quote from: rp2813 on February 08, 2011, 12:17:35 AM
Bill, thanks for that excellent and detailed explanation.

I know that an adapter can be used to outfit an F1 handset with a T1 transmitter.  Would those adapters have been used only if the companion U1 receiver was also being used in the F1, as in the Continental you described?

I'm leaning towards thinking that the T1 can be retrofitted into an F1 handset that still employs the HA1 receiver element, the same way F1 transmitters replaced the 395 "bullet" type in the E1 handsets, while the receiver element remained the original 557(?) designed for the E1.  Is it the same principle in both cases?

I suppose if one looked long enough, an example of every imaginable and workable combination of handsets and elements could be found on 5302's one came across.

Ralph:

The T1 spacers can certainly be used in a standard F1 handset, since they don't require any physical modifications to the inside dimensions of the handle at all, whereas replacing the HA1 with the U1 does require a midification.  There would be more bang for the buck, so to speak, by replacing the T1 element than by replacing the U1 anyway based on what I have read about the increased gain in the transmitter alone.  Still, the added gain might make it loud compared to using the straingt F1 if used in the 302 circuit with the 101A inductor.

Quote from: Dennis Markham on February 06, 2011, 11:10:00 AM

Quote from: Phonesrfun on February 06, 2011, 01:42:36 AM
I personally do not think they would have equipped any phone that has the 101A induction coil with a handset that had the T1/U1 combination.

Bill, first of all thank you for this very detailed, excellent and informative post.  I have "stickied" the topic so that it doesn't disappear.

I highlighted your quote only to point out the colored 5302's.  For obvious reasons they never had an F1 handset.  I have one 5302 in color.  It has a standard G3 handset with the U1/T1 combination connected to the 101A induction coil.  It is exactly as you described.  While speaking on the phone my own voice is amplified in the ear to the point of being annoying.  The dated parts of this 5302 with regard to the plastic are similar which leads me to believe it came from the refurb shop as it appears now.  The housing is 9/59.  The handset, caps, and coiled cord are from 1960.  The elements are marked 5-24-60 and 5-25-60.  The set is marked 5302G on the bottom.

If I had to use this phone as an every day phone it would be very difficult because of the increased volume in only my voice transmission.  The voice of the person on the other end is normal.

Fascinating discussion! My 5302, which I believe to be "all-original" (at least as far as its 1960 refurb goes), has a Bakelite G1 handset with T1 (12 14 59) and U1 (12 15 59) elements. The shell has a date of 1 5 60 and the underlying original 302 dates from 1946, as attested by matching baseplate and coil dates.

So regardless of the T1/U1's unsuitability for the 302's electrics, that's how they equipped this particular unit. The sidetone is noticeably louder than on any of my other telephones, and the "sh" sound can be deafening. But it generally doesn't bother me. Of particular note, though, is that my loop is probably very short as I can see the phone company from my front yard. It's not but a block and a half away.

For more details and source info pointers, check out:
  http://www.paul-f.com/we300typ.htm#Fhandsets

Some care is required when identifying the handsets.  GF handsets were refurbed from either G1 or G3 handles, so are NOT marked GF.  They can be identified by the spacers visible just below the handset caps and the specially marked handset caps -- with a F or H in the center.  If it has these parts, it's a GF.

As Bill noted, occasionally (but not always) the bottom stamping on the 5302 included GF in the model number to indicate that it was supplied with the set when refurbed.

The only BSP documents I've seen mentioning the GF are the two New York Telephone BSPs referenced on the site.

Dennis' posting is a perfect description of what "high sidetone" is like.

BTW, when I was in high school we found numerous 5302s with apparent G-type handsets having an odd screw-in adaptor thingie that took F1 transmitters.  I vaguely recall a drop-in adaptor for U1 receivers on these but not well enough for that recollection to be considered reliable. 

The simple way I remember the details of how these were used is:

a) 5302 = electrically a 302, with an updated housing for subscriber acceptance when 500s were starting to become common. 

b) F1 handsets wherever possible, to avoid the waste of junking them.  Used for short loops to the CO, where the volume and sidetone characteristics would be normal.

c) G1 handsets with T1 and U3 components on long loops where the combination of F1 and HA1 would have produced low transmission & reception volume.

d) Occasional odd combinations of components for expedience during spot shortages, used where the components matched the loop length. 

e)  Mostly 5H dials; I have not personally seen a 5302 with a #6 dial, though I'm sure they existed, though I've seen plenty of 302s with #6 dials. 

I have a couple of 5302's with #5 dials but they are marked 5M.  I was told that the M indicates Modified, for use in a 5302.  I don't know how they differ from a 5H dial.

The number plate is certainly different -- black with white dots.

It strikes me that a 5302 with a modified G handset and #6 dial would offer the best chance to fool the average subscriber into thinking they had a 500.  Only if they flipped the phone over and had a 500 handy to compare with would they notice a difference.

Out of all the phones I own, from D1 with 4H to 500 with #9, I like the smooth operation of the #6 on my 5302 the best.  I think the sound and feel of a #5 in a 5302 would seem strange to me.  On the other hand, it would be fun to have an all-1937 chassis under a 5302 case paired with G handset containing 1937 F1 and HA1 elements, providing the sacrificing of the metal 302 housing was already done by WECo back in the 50's.

If memory serves, my 5302 has a 6C dial. Has anyone ever seen a black 5302 with a clear fingerwheel?

Quote from: deedubya3800 on March 13, 2011, 03:53:55 AM
If memory serves, my 5302 has a 6C dial. Has anyone ever seen a black 5302 with a clear fingerwheel?

My pink has a clear one and a #6 dial, but I have never seen a black one.

Quote from: deedubya3800 on March 13, 2011, 03:53:55 AM
If memory serves, my 5302 has a 6C dial. Has anyone ever seen a black 5302 with a clear fingerwheel?

It should be a 6D, with a clear finger wheel and white paint. These replaced the 5J and are a tad smaller across, perfect for the schrinking thermoplastic....Doug

I'm really confused by all of this.  I've read somewhere that one reason for the introduction of the 5302, other than using available parts, was that the new 500 as introduced gave a poor performance on long loops, and the 5302 enabled subscribers on such long loops to have a modern looking telephone while using the older components, which were more suitable for the long loops.  Here, and in other places, I read that the older F1 transmitter was best suited to short loops, while the new T1 model would be better for long ones.  This seems to contradict the previous statement.

There has been talk of using 'old' elements in modified 'G' type handsets, but I don't see how this could be done; the F1 transmitter is too large to fit in a G type handset.  You couldn't just  bore it out; there isn't enough material to be able to do this.  I'm not sure about the receivers; I don't have the older type here at the moment.  Going the other way it's easy to physically put a T1 transmitter into a F1 handset of course, or even into a E1 with the 625A transmitter holder in addition to the F1-T1 adapter ring.

What, other than size, is the difference between the F1 and T1 transmitters?  I've tested my 302 with three transmitter types, F1, T1 and an electret T1 drop-in replacement.  I can hear no difference between the F1 and the T1, either in sidetone, or when listening at the other end of the line.  Of course, both the F1 and the T1 will be quite old by now, as are my ears, and all are likely to have some fall-off in performance with age.  I have to say that I think the F1 was a better than average transmitter for it's age.  The modern electret drop-in replacement does sound quite different, both louder and better quality speech, but that is not surprising.

QuoteThere has been talk of using 'old' elements in modified 'G' type handsets, but I don't see how this could be done; the F1 transmitter is too large to fit in a G type handset.  You couldn't just  bore it out; there isn't enough material to be able to do this.  I'm not sure about the receivers; I don't have the older type here at the moment.  Going the other way it's easy to physically put a T1 transmitter into a F1 handset of course, or even into a E1 with the 625A transmitter holder in addition to the F1-T1 adapter ring.

WE did manage to put F1 transmitters into G handsets and called them GF handsets.  Check out his thread: http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=3412.msg45284 (http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=3412.msg45284).

Larry

Stephen,

Your memory probably reversed the situation.  The advantage of the 425A network in the 500 was better performance on long loops.  The equalizer was needed for sets that were installed close to the CO to limit the loop current.

As a cost reduction measure, WE provided 500s without the equalizer that were not to be installed near COs.  (500T, later renamed 500J or 500K).

300s and 5300s were installed in zones near the COs.

You'll find more background than you can digest in an evening in this thread:
  http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=2394.0

Also check out the reference list (and a summary of the early 500s) here:
  http://www.paul-f.com/we500_Early.html#References

I have a GF handset, and I can tell you that it took some serious modification to make an F1 element fit. The threads of the G1 are removed and replaced with an extra ring with a larger diameter and smaller threads and a different cap is used.

From my memory of the GF handsets (highschool & college), they didn't remove the threads from the G handset shell.  The adaptor ring was simply screwed in place over the existing threads, and the different transmitter cap was screwed on top of it. 

Occasionally if one of these got sticky in the wrong place, unscrewing the transmitter cap would reveal the F1 transmitter held inside the cap by the adaptor ring.  With a little effort the sticky ring could be unscrewed from the inside of the transmitter cap, allowing removal of the F1 in order to give the transmitter cap a good cleaning w/ soap & water. 

Does the F1 come out of that cap? Is the adapter ring just screwed on or is it glued on? I don't want to break something I don't have a replacement part for.  The handset is bakelite and has the cord holder on it rather on the back of the transmitter(as in a normal G1).
Howard

I have one at home, I can check tonight and see what the arrangement is. 

Wow.  I have a 5302 on the way and I'm very curious after reading this what combination of parts it's going to have!

Please remember that the T1 transmitter is only more efficient than the F1 when installed in the specially designed G-type handset.

This is pointed out in the following:

[/i]

This document was scanned by Steve Cichorsky and is available in the TCI Library.

In any case, a 5302 with a G-1 handset with  T1 and U1 elements did produce too much sidetone in Zone 2 (short loops). This is the phone we had when I was a kid and I still recall the high sidetone.

Our elementary school had three 5302s--two with G-1 in the office and one with F-1 in the cafeteria.

There is an article in a Southern Bell employee magazine c. 1952 showing the conversion from manual to dial in Gainesville, GA. The mayor is shown talking on a 302 not a 500. 302s and 5302s (starting in 1955) were often used in cities and the more expensive 500s in rural areas (Zone 5).

Quote from: G-Man on December 03, 2012, 06:07:18 AM
Please remember that the T1 transmitter is only more efficient than the F1 when installed in the specially designed G-type handset.

I lucked out with my 5302.  It was in great shape, and it came with a G1 handset with the plastic inserts, an F1 transmitter and HA1 receiver.

The model number stamped on mine seems to be 5302 GRX-3.

Would anybody happen to know what that signifies?

Quote from: George Knighton on December 02, 2012, 03:49:44 PM
Wow.  I have a 5302 on the way and I'm very curious after reading this what combination of parts it's going to have!

Yeah, and now I'm going to be pulling out my 5302s to see what they have.  I've forgotten how many I even have, just two ... I think(?)  This is like when someone mentioned cleaning crud out of the groove on grooved handsets, I had to go through and check all my E1s, F1s, and any other handset with a groove.  Then there's the sniff test for old plastic.

They had left over f1's, I think.
Ben

hi, can someone set me straight on something? when they started making the 5302,were they not just using up spare 302 parts and giving it a modern look of a 500? if so maybe they put the f 1 handset on the 5302 as a leftover part. thankyou

5302s were never made as new phones, just as remanufactured 302s with new-style housings. So they could have F-type handsets or G-type.