Author Topic: 102 versus 202  (Read 16948 times)

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2013, 01:43:37 AM »
Here is an overview table, 4 tables actually on one sheet, of all the station equipment that was used for the various types of service as of 1931.

I compiled this from the pages in BSP C41.101 into one reference sheet. It's a bit dense in terms of information, but still rather useful as a reference.

The tables are arranged by 1) sidetone stations, 2) anti-sidetone stations. Each of these sections is divided into common battery stations, and local battery talking/common battery signaling stations.

Included are the subset models used, and the types of hand telephone sets, or desk stands (candlesticks) for each class of service, including individual lines, and the various party lines configurations.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 04:59:55 PM by unbeldi »

Offline Bridie

  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2013, 10:11:56 AM »
Alot of very helpful information here - thanks everyone!  I haven't even gotten into subsets yet but will be needing one when I finish restoring my WE 202 or (102, not sure now  :-\) so this is a good source of info.
Bridget

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2013, 05:23:58 PM »
Thanks for the reply.  Starting to have a better understanding of the subsets and what they do.  Didn't know about multiple phones on one subset or that 634s were modified from 534s.
It is certain that many 534 subsets got converted to 634 sets when the stations were upgraded to anti-sidetone instruments.

However, the catalogs do contain the 634 and its various configurations, so they most certainly were also made new, as independents could order from these catalogs. They would not get refurbished equipment.

As for the model numbers, the 1935 WeCo catalog (#9) explains the method:
"It should be noted that the code numbers of these sets correspond with those of the old sidetone type for various classes of service, except that 100 has been added; i.e., No. 584C Subscriber Set (Sidetone) is No. 684C Subscriber Set (Anti-sidetone)."



Catalog #9 (1935) does show some *new* 634s. However, the 634-A is not shown. AFAIK, the only reason for *new* 634s--other than the 634A-- as late as 1935  was that harmonic ringers (41A, 41T, 41U, 41R), relays (85N), and retardation coils (54S) were features never offered in the newer 584/684 format.

Still, I have yet to find a 634-A, 5302G or 151-AL that was not a conversion. Always looking, though.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 05:30:24 PM by poplar1 »
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline Larry

  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2015, 09:31:39 AM »

Recently I decided that I would like to have another rotary phone and I found Classic Rotary Phones Forum.  I'm reading a lot and searching for the phone I would like to own.  In this process, I discovered that early phones had subsets.  I never knew that.  So, I started looking on ebay at phones and subsets.  I decided that I like the wooden subsets with the bells mounted outside.  So, I bought a 295A subset in a walnut box.  This is where I think I went wrong.  Now I have to find a phone that matches up with the subset I have. 

I've learned that candlestick phones would be the historically correct phone for the 295A subset.  But, I can also use a desk set with 102 wiring configuration.  Here's where I get a bit confused.  I want a round base because I want to set the phone on top of the subset and a round base fits better than the oval base.  I also like the E1 handset.  You see a lot of these on ebay described as "Western Electric 102 B1 E1" If I've comprehended correctly all I've read, then the 102 and 202 configuration can be found in either the B1 or D1 mountings.  Is that correct? 

So, what happens if I buy a B1 mounting and discover that it has the 202 configuration?  Is connecting this B1/202 to my 295A subset as simple as not using the black lead?

Larry


« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 09:33:38 AM by Larry »

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2015, 10:07:14 AM »

Recently I decided that I would like to have another rotary phone and I found Classic Rotary Phones Forum.  I'm reading a lot and searching for the phone I would like to own.  In this process, I discovered that early phones had subsets.  I never knew that.  So, I started looking on ebay at phones and subsets.  I decided that I like the wooden subsets with the bells mounted outside.  So, I bought a 295A subset in a walnut box.  This is where I think I went wrong.  Now I have to find a phone that matches up with the subset I have. 

I've learned that candlestick phones would be the historically correct phone for the 295A subset.  But, I can also use a desk set with 102 wiring configuration.  Here's where I get a bit confused.  I want a round base because I want to set the phone on top of the subset and a round base fits better than the oval base.  I also like the E1 handset.  You see a lot of these on ebay described as "Western Electric 102 B1 E1" If I've comprehended correctly all I've read, then the 102 and 202 configuration can be found in either the B1 or D1 mountings.  Is that correct? 

So, what happens if I buy a B1 mounting and discover that it has the 202 configuration?  Is connecting this B1/202 to my 295A subset as simple as not using the black lead?

Larry

As you are finding out, it does take some research to match the right kind of equipment when constructing old telephone systems. That is probably true in any field, actually.  Despite the simplicity of telephony a hundred years ago, there existed still a fairly high degree of sophistication in what was designed for the various types of service arrangements.  In a way it was more intricate, as specific services required different types of sets. For example, a local battery telephone could not be operated properly on a common battery telephony line, and today those distinctions are gone. The traditional service types have virtually disappeared and service distinction is implemented by the digital features implemented in the software of the central offices.

so...
Yes, your impression is correct.
A 102 and a 202 desk set is physically almost identical, the only difference being that the 202 has a four-conductor cord to the subset (red, green, yellow, and black wires), while the 102 only has a three-conductor cord (red, green, yellow).  The extra black wire of the 202 is attached to an already existing terminal in the desk set, so that there is no physical difference between the two, if you neglect the cords.

In the 1930s, 102 sets, whether they had a B1 or a D1 base, were very frequently converted to anti-sidetone operation, and received a four-conductor cord.  That is the only difference you can tell them apart by, when you look at sale ads today, as in the vast majority they do not come with the requisite subscriber set.  When telephones got de-installed, either officially or by a home owner, often the cords where cut or the spade tips properly removed from the screws, and over time the instrument got separated from its other half.

In our other discussion thread, I already mentioned that you can simply ignore the black lead when connecting a 202 desk set with a "102-type" subscriber set.  Don't cut it off, but wrap it with electrical tape and store the spade where it doesn't interfere, with the ringer for example.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 11:10:01 AM by unbeldi »

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2015, 10:53:28 AM »
Here is a diagram from my circuit studies that shows the circuit additions in a 202 telephone over the 102 type telephone.


This uses the example of a 534A sidetone subset with a B1 or D1 desk telephone (handset mounting) as converted to a 634A/202 telephone.

You should already recognize the subset portion of the diagram, as the black part of the drawing on the left-hand side is identical in layout to the diagram I showed you for your 295A subset.  The 534A subset was a successor to the 295A. They only changed to new components, and a steel case, while the circuit was identical.

On the right-hand side is the desk set.  This can be either a B1 or a D1. The switches inside them are only indicated by icons on the traces.   A  cross (X) indicates a normally open switch, and bar (|) across a trace means that the switch is normally closed.  The diagram includes the hookswitch contacts (HS), and the switches on the dial (DP=dial pulse, ON=off-normal).

In red color are shown the extra induction coil winding, an extra condenser, and the extra black wire in the mounting cord that turn a 102-type telephone into a 202-type telephone.  You see that the extra mounting cord wire is simply attached to an existing terminal on the dial in the desk set.

This may be a little heavy for starters, but it should not be too hard, and the fun is in figuring it out.  There are very few resources available that explain these differences concisely in one place.

RX=receiver
TX=transmitter

PS: I should probably have indicated in the diagram that the point "C" in the 634A was located at position "K" in the 534A, and simply separated as a distinct terminal in the 634A. This required the addition of the new capacitor (C2) whose return lead is now the black mounting cord wire going to the desk set, and back to the same place (L2) after going through the series of switches.

Perhaps it is illustrative and useful to show the 534A subset/102 separately, see second diagram.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 04:59:41 PM by unbeldi »

Offline Larry

  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2015, 03:40:59 PM »
Thanks a lot.  This is all very helpful and your explanations understandable.

Larry

Offline luns

  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2015, 06:36:38 PM »
I wonder if it might be okay to use a three conductor mounting cord with a 634A subset by just tying the B and Y terminals together at the subset.

With the phone off hook, the hook switch and dial pulse contacts effectively tie these terminals together anyway, so for normal speech, it should be no different. With the phone on hook, it's harder to picture just what the induction coil would be doing, but I'd think it just looks like an additional ringer load. I suppose the only question would be whether the coil would be damaged by ringing voltage.

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2015, 08:11:05 PM »
I wonder if it might be okay to use a three conductor mounting cord with a 634A subset by just tying the B and Y terminals together at the subset.

With the phone off hook, the hook switch and dial pulse contacts effectively tie these terminals together anyway, so for normal speech, it should be no different. With the phone on hook, it's harder to picture just what the induction coil would be doing, but I'd think it just looks like an additional ringer load. I suppose the only question would be whether the coil would be damaged by ringing voltage.

You noted correctly that during a call (off-hook) the connections would be identical to the four-wire configuration.

The suggested modification is shown in the following diagram, in contrast to the earlier diagrams posted that showed the evolution from the 534A to the 634A/684A subset.  As one can see it bypassed the hookswitch in the desk set, and the connection is made already in the subset.

As noted, the problem is the extremely large load not only by the induction coil, but primarily the large 2 µF capacitor in line with the induction coil.  This presents probably a 2 to 3 REN additional load on the line.

Normally this is not "ok", but this is in fact exactly what a war-time Bell System Practice advised during time of material and manufacturing restrictions, as outlined in WR-C63.373 Issue 1, dated 1942-09-30.  As a consequence, the BSP restricts this use to lines with only one low-impedance ringing bridge on the line.

Of course my diagrams here are for D1 handset mountings which have a different switch configuration than a desk stand (candlestick), but the principle is nevertheless the same.

We had a discussion about this a couple years ago, or so, when Poplar1 introduced the method. The relevant BSP can be found in his nice collection of wartime BSPs.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 04:59:30 PM by unbeldi »

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2015, 09:22:40 PM »
I prefer the other diagram that was mentioned in WR-C63.373, since it does not have any limitation on the number of ringing bridges:
http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=8785.msg117918#msg117918
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2015, 10:39:46 PM »
I prefer the other diagram that was mentioned in WR-C63.373, since it does not have any limitation on the number of ringing bridges:
http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=8785.msg117918#msg117918

Well, the load is not desirable, true,  but the 'other' circuit is not an equivalent circuit and does not provide the sidetone compensation. It probably has other transmission deficiencies, and requires more extensive rewiring of the subset.

The 'sidetone reduction' mentioned on the diagram is only marginal, and not true anti-sidetone performance. Basically, it is a funky booster circuit.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 10:44:08 PM by unbeldi »

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: 102 versus 202
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2015, 12:03:34 AM »
My original post in 2013 was about using the Fig. 1 circuit (shown with blue background) for sidetone desk stands such as 51AL) with anti-sidetone subsets (such as 684A), when the only thing available was sidetone phones and AST subsets, and modifying the hookswitch was not practicable.

I also stated that with 102s, the easiest solution is to change the mounting cord from a D3 (3-conductor) to a D4- (4-conductor), thus converting the 102 hand telephone set to a 202. I still maintain that adding a 4th conductor from a B1 or D1 mounting to the 634 or 684A subset is the most logical solution, since it requires no rewiring of the subset and also maintains the intended AST circuit.
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.