Author Topic: WECo 5302 - F1 vs G1 Handset  (Read 10864 times)

Offline tjmack99

  • *
  • Posts: 99
WECo 5302 - F1 vs G1 Handset
« on: February 02, 2011, 09:09:45 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:07:06 AM by AE_Collector »

Offline Wallphone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2011, 09:22:48 PM »
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.

Offline Jim S.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3088
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2011, 09:38:27 PM »
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
You live, You learn,
You die, you forget it all.

Offline tjmack99

  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2011, 10:23:37 PM »
So, the G1 was the ideal choice for the4 5302

Offline Phonesrfun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • "Number Please"
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2011, 12:25:47 PM »
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.
-Bill G

Offline AE_Collector

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6511
  • AE 2 - AECo's 1st Self Contained Desk Phone 1925
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2011, 10:36:20 PM »
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

Offline Phonesrfun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • "Number Please"
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2011, 01:20:27 AM »
Yes, they were frugal to a fault, that is for sure.
-Bill G

Offline rp2813

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • 10/50
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2011, 12:47:37 AM »
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?

Ralph

Offline Jester

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 776
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2011, 01:00:19 AM »
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.
Stephen

Offline Phonesrfun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • "Number Please"
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2011, 01:42:36 AM »
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
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 01:49:29 AM by Phonesrfun »
-Bill G

Offline Dennis Markham

  • VintageRotaryPhones.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5583
    • VintageRotaryPhones.com
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2011, 11:10:00 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.

Offline Phonesrfun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • "Number Please"
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2011, 04:13:04 PM »
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:
Quote
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.

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
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 04:16:30 PM by Phonesrfun »
-Bill G

Offline rp2813

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • 10/50
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #12 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

Offline Phonesrfun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • "Number Please"
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2011, 01:10:33 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.

-Bill G

Offline deedubya3800

  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • My 1942 Ivory 302
Re: F1 vs G1
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2011, 12:09:01 PM »
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.