W.E. 302 not Dialing Out, ( Resolved )

[caz3057]

Thanks, I will try that.

[caz3057]

Yeah, There we go. I used the "Modify" tab to change the title of the original post and that worked. Subsequent posts still have the original title shown but at least when someone is searching they can find a thread about the original problem that came to a very positive resolution. Seems to me like there should be a "Sticky" folder somewhere that contains dial troubleshooting tips, but what do I really know as a newbie to this website. Thanks Again

[poplar1]

An interesting aspect comes up again, and that is the question when was the No. 6 dial actually conceived. The dial was publicized in 1952, two years before this article, and at least four years after the No. 7 dials were field tested.  Why did they skip the number 6 for the development of the 500-set?  Or did they already have the successor of the No. 5 dial in mind at the time?

Curiously, this article strictly compares the No. 5 dial with the No. 7 dial, and not once hints at the existence of No. 6, despite quoting other interesting historical information.

Here is a 6A stamped 11-51.  The owner said he removed it from a  302 dated 10-51.

            This dial was removed from a 302 dated 10 of 1951. I would imagine that it was the same dial installed at the factory. 
            The 302 had a cracked housing.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Western-Electric-dial-6-A-Very-Early-Build-1951-/311562018140

[andre_janew]

I remember having a WE 5304 with a #5 dial that was made in 1952.  I sold that phone a while back.  I didn't think they made #6 dials during the last quarter of 1951.  I thought they started making them later than that.

[unbeldi]

I remember having a WE 5304 with a #5 dial that was made in 1952.  I sold that phone a while back.  I didn't think they made #6 dials during the last quarter of 1951.  I thought they started making them later than that.

They also didn't make 5304s yet. 5302 and 5304 sets were made starting in 1955, and the dials they used were refurbished separately and remarked as 5M, or if they used a No. 6 dial, it was a 6H.
What you observed as 1952 was the date of the original set from which the base was reused.

[unbeldi]

An interesting aspect comes up again, and that is the question when was the No. 6 dial actually conceived. The dial was publicized in 1952, two years before this article, and at least four years after the No. 7 dials were field tested.  Why did they skip the number 6 for the development of the 500-set?  Or did they already have the successor of the No. 5 dial in mind at the time?

Curiously, this article strictly compares the No. 5 dial with the No. 7 dial, and not once hints at the existence of No. 6, despite quoting other interesting historical information.

Here is a 6A stamped 11-51.  The owner said he removed it from a  302 dated 10-51.

            This dial was removed from a 302 dated 10 of 1951. I would imagine that it was the same dial installed at the factory. 
            The 302 had a cracked housing.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Western-Electric-dial-6-A-Very-Early-Build-1951-/311562018140

That's certainly noteworthy to be included in the timeline of WECo parts.  But it is not really surprising, I suppose. Let's see how far back other findings will take us.

An interesting aspect about this dial is that the type and date stamping style is different than the later one.

[caz3057]

As indicated in the original thread I believe the numbers on the 6A dial in my 1951 302 phone indicate it was made in 1962. So it most likely was a replacement part. After lubing with the "Jig-A-Loo" silicone it is still working fine and in fact it is now about a half a number faster on dial return speed compared to my 1950 302 5H dial that I was using as a benchmark for PPS speed. Bottom line is it is still working great and I am very pleased!!!

[unbeldi]

As indicated in the original thread I believe the numbers on the 6A dial in my 1951 302 phone indicate it was made in 1962. So it most likely was a replacement part. After lubing with the "Jig-A-Loo" silicone it is still working fine and in fact it is now about a half a number faster on dial return speed compared to my 1950 302 5H dial that I was using as a benchmark for PPS speed. Bottom line is it is still working great and I am very pleased!!!

Thanks for posting your results, it may encourage others to do similarly.  Slow dials are a frequent nuisance.

PS:  Oh, I looked up the product you used, Jig-A-Loo. It contains silicone, methylene chloride and tetrachloroethylene (TCE).  Turns out, TCE has a major use in dry-cleaning.  Actually, I am surprised that it hasn't been banned yet in consumer products.

[caz3057]

Well maybe I better stock up for repairs like this before it disappears.