Automatic Electric 3C "step" candlestick with mercedes dial

[Alex G. Bell]

That's the dial terminal strip. The original terminal strip was more like a socket that the Sunburst dial plugged into. Later it became a terminal strip as you describe and finally it was dropped and the dial leads were taken directly to the main terminal block.

Don't lose the insulator on the end of the hook plunger. They have a habit of going AWOL.

Jack

My series ckt step base desk stand, which seems to be all original, has a #23 dial and yet has the separate dial terminal strip.  That seems to conflict with what you said above about earlier and later.

[Jack Ryan]

The thumbnail opens in the forum software just fine but trying to save the fill as a png give a near black image.

Something you are using doesn't work properly. Saving should not add a background - did you save it onto a black background.

I use images with no background all the time for publishing.

Strange.

Jack

[Jack Ryan]

My series ckt step base desk stand, which seems to be all original, has a #23 dial and yet has the separate dial terminal strip.  That seems to conflict with what you said above about earlier and later.

I don't have any manufacturing information - just samples.

The Sunburst type terminal strip is definitely early. There are relatively few later terminal strips and the ones I have seen were often of brass phones (ie, early).

It is pretty hard to say now what was original but without documentary evidence it is hard to be definitive.

Jack

[Alex G. Bell]

I don't have any manufacturing information - just samples.

The Sunburst type terminal strip is definitely early. There are relatively few later terminal strips and the ones I have seen were often of brass phones (ie, early).

It is pretty hard to say now what was original but without documentary evidence it is hard to be definitive.

Jack

Had not checked it before but this one has a steel tube and base, which is consistent with it having a No. 23 dial rather than suggesting that it was an early one with the dial having been replaced.

[TelePlay]

Something you are using doesn't work properly. Saving should not add a background - did you save it onto a black background.

I use images with no background all the time for publishing.

Strange.

Sort of strange, part my error of forgetting how I first tried to turn it into a jpg. I clicked on the diagram thumbnail to open it up full size in a new window. It opened fine with a bluish gray background. First image, screen capture, below.

I then did a right click copy and pasted it into MS Paint. That gave me the second, black, image below.

I then went back to the thumbnail and did a right click save as. It was saved as a PNG. Opened that up in my jpg viewer and got a light image (3rd image below). Adjusted the gamma and contrast on that image to "normal" and saved it as a jpg, what I posted above.

The problem I had is most likely due to the software used to open the PNG is 30 years old and does not handle meta data. That's the software I used to use to strip meta data before I found BatchPurifier LITE did the same thing but easier and faster. I still have that 30 year old software as my default image opening software. Works well for jpg's but not for png's.

So, yes, you are right. Something wrong on my end (my software) and I didn't report exactly what I did to get that black image of your circuit.

So, errors found, sorry.

The only intent was to post a jpg equivalent of you png circuit.

[Alex G. Bell]

Sort of strange, part my error of forgetting how I first tried to turn it into a jpg. I clicked on the diagram thumbnail to open it up full size in a new window. It opened fine with a bluish gray background. First image, screen capture, below.

I then did a right click copy and pasted it into MS Paint. That gave me the second, black, image below.

I then went back to the thumbnail and did a right click save as. It was saved as a PNG. Opened that up in my jpg viewer and got a light image (3rd image below). Adjusted the gamma and contrast on that image to "normal" and saved it as a jpg, what I posted above.

The problem I had is most likely due to the software used to open the PNG is 30 years old and does not handle meta data. That's the software I used to use to strip meta data before I found BatchPurifier LITE did the same thing but easier and faster. I still have that 30 year old software as my default image opening software. Works well for jpg's but not for png's.

So, yes, you are right. Something wrong on my end (my software) and I didn't report exactly what I did to get that black image of your circuit.

So, errors found, sorry.

The only intent was to post a jpg equivalent of you png circuit.

I had exactly the same problem opening it in the current version of Irfanview.   Its default background color is black.  I've been using versions of it since Win98se and have never had a problem with a PNG or any other file before.  I don't see that it serves any purpose to have a transparent background.  Apparently no one else who published a PNG or GIF I've opened in the last 19 years did either.

[Jack Ryan]

I had exactly the same problem opening it in the current version of Irfanview.   Its default background color is black.  I've been using versions of it since Win98se and have never had a problem with a PNG or any other file before.  I don't see that it serves any purpose to have a transparent background.  Apparently no one else who published a PNG or GIF I've opened in the last 19 years did either.

Whatever. I have no problem with any of the Adobe suite or even the default viewers on Windows or Linux.

Even Wikipedia is full of images with no background and I think the publishing industry would grind to a halt without such images.

Jack

[unbeldi]

The so-called "problem" with that image was that its background color was transparent, a feature only available in GIF and PNG image formats. So, it shows as background whatever the page background is on which it is displayed.  In image viewers it then depends whether a default background color is used to display such images. Some programs use a checkered background to indicate this.

Line art image often are converted to transparent backgrounds, perhaps sometimes inadvertently from unset or old parameters from other work projects. Usually those are rather easy to detect, because little isolated background areas in letters, such as "a" remain to have a solid background.

The transparent background can simply be turned in many applications, by removing the "alpha" setting when saving the file.

[TelePlay]

Even Wikipedia is full of images with no background and I think the publishing industry would grind to a halt without such images.

Yes, there are many good and useful reasons for using a GIF or PNG image with no background, especially with web design. As two examples, the imogees available on the forum for use in replies or topics are gif's without a background and if copied and pasted into MS Paint come up with a black background. These is a different image viewer show the gray hash lined background indication no background so the "image" ends up on the web page with the current background color, an overlay, and as an example, eBay's main page is full of them and can view the background if you can figure out a way to see it, to defeat the purpose of the GIF or PNG.

No need to get deep into this other than to help members (who don't get deep into this stuff and understand it the uses, options, etc) "see" or save ckt images posted for their use. PNG has been suggested as an option to get around the "security error" issue rather than downloading and installing BatchPurifier LITE to strip away the offending meta data, and that does work but it does present "some" an issue with a "black" background when trying to view or save a PNG. Just saying. Not saying one is better than another. If one runs into an issue with a PNG or GIF and they know the work around to save or print a "clean" image, no problem. Just trying to help those who aren't into the weeds of computer code to understand and hopefully learn to work around any image issue.

Not getting off topic here, just explaining or providing an understanding of a question raised first in Reply #11.

[Nessie]

Alex,
I will go with the 5 conductor cord.  There is a soldered connection between  no 5& 6 & the rest look the same. I attached a picture.

Sam

[Nessie]

Alex,
I found a 634A subset & just ordered a 5 conductor subset cord. Just have to wait until all this stuff is delivered

Thanks,

Sam

[Alex G. Bell]

Alex,
I will go with the 5 conductor cord.  There is a soldered connection between no 5& 6 & the rest look the same. I attached a picture.

Sam

I guess in addition to the 5-6 connection you are agreeing that there are soldered connections from the 3 hookswitch contacts to terminals 1, 3 and 7 as shown in Jack's diagram: 1 = common, 3 = closed to 1 when on hook, 7 closed to 1 when off hook.

Alex,
I found a 634A subset & just ordered a 5 conductor subset cord. Just have to wait until all this stuff is delivered

Thanks,

Sam

OK, good.  I'll prepare a diagram of sufficient quality for publication and post it to this thread.

[TelePlay]

Alex,
I will go with the 5 conductor cord.  There is a soldered connection between  no 5& 6 & the rest look the same. I attached a picture.

Sam

It's obvious be make sure to double check the soldered connections against the circuit you are going to use (and subset). The early regular stick I rebuilt has a soldered connection on the terminal board that was not correct, it had to be removed for proper operation. Yours may be fine as is but best to know if anything has to be changed before the stick is assembled.

[unbeldi]

....
Jack's diagram is somewhat misleading in that it appears to show just 2 conductors to the line and what appears to be a separate 2-cond. cord to the ringer.  In actually practice, a single 3-conductor cord was used and the line itself physically terminated in the ringer box whether or not it was equipped with an induction coil.  So in this respect the diagram is more of a schematic than a wiring diagram.

I have to disagree with that.   The diagram appears a proper and accurate wiring diagram, because it shows the exact physical arrangement of a wooden desk set box of the time.  The ringer and capacitor were mounted on the rear of the door which is clearly indicated in that diagram, and that four-terminal connecting strip is a separate little plate used in wiring optional extension sets. It was not located in or near the desk stand, but either in the subscriber set or on the wall.

BTW, the diagram (Jack's) appears to be either from the 1914 or the 1921 editions of A. B. Smith & W.L. Campbell, Automatic Telephony, p.82 or p.152.  In either case it shows the Type 11 dial, whereas the dial found on Nessie's instrument is a Type 18, I believe.  The difference, I think, was the arrangement of the off-normal switch. In the later dials it was separated into a second set of springs, as shown in Jeff's diagram.  Was there another variety between the Type 11 and 18 dials ?

Does the switch hook have the "A" logo still or does it end in simple, open round loops?  I would guess the latter, and date this instrument between 1918 and 1922.

[unbeldi]

Quite frankly, I would not turn this desk stand into some semi-modern hybrid of parts, but be patient and look for proper receiver and transmitter and operate it as a series circuit to show that stage of telephony evolution. An original wooden desk set box is probably not terribly difficult to find.

That said, next best choice to my taste would be to use an AE mini-network and place it directly into the base. This saves the original appearance the most, requires only a cheaper cord, and enables the use of best possible receiver and transmitter elements, when the set is actually for daily use.   A 634 subset seems a very undesirable solution.