Chris.
That is fantastic news on so many levels! At the very least, it reaffirms my reputation as an Eccentric, Detail Mad Goof!
Very early on in this Project, I could not wrap my head around the data related to the hardware Canadian Marconi Company used to mount the 52-Set components into either the Carriers No. 4, or the Remote Receiver Case. All good, available photos from its time in service indicated hex head fasteners were in place. When the actual components started to arrive, sure enough, ¼-inch, 20 hex nuts and bolts were in place in all the expected locations, in different lengths.
The problem was, none of these hard facts lined up with the information in the Operators Manual, or in fact, the Tool Kit issued for the 52-Set. There is no 7/16-inch spanner or wrench provided to deal with hex bolts quickly and easily, and no complaints in this regard ever surfaced from the British during their trials of the set. Odd.
Second, in the Operators Manual, CMC points out in several locations that the set is reliable enough the Operator will never likely ever have to pull individual components for servicing, and all routine maintenance can be performed via the various removable panels and doors. The British Trials confirmed this. Where the Operator might run into conditions requiring removal of more than one component from the Carriers No. 4, CMC does warn the Operator it will be necessary to pull all three components and remove the Connector Assembly across the back of the Carriers to reinstall all components. This is a highly unusual circumstance, and yet, still no warning from CMC about any lack of proper tools for the Operator to do the job. Odd again.
Recently, I discovered that the upper hardware on my Remote Receiver was installed backwards according to a number of photos I had seen. Photos showed bolt heads to the outside, mine were reversed. When I flipped them around, I could not remove the upper receiver panel. The hex nuts and split washers stuck too far out on the inside of the case. One more thing that did not add up.
Now, two years after receiving Richards photo of his original Remote Receiver, I finally see the hardware used was a thin head, slotted hex bolt. That fits perfectly into the puzzle. In the 1930’s and 1940’s the slotted screwdriver was supreme in the average toolbox, spanners and wrenches were typically for working on things more robust than a wireless set.
A similar concept applies to the hardware used in wireless sets. Split washers seem very rare to none existent in British wireless equipment. They nearly always use a much thinner, internal toothed Shakeproof washer to lock things down. They take up less space.
The final interesting thing I have noticed with the larger hex hardware used on wartime wireless equipment is that the hex nuts are a lot thinner than their modern equivalents today.
My thought on all this latter stuff is that post war, spanners, wrenches and drive sets of various sizes became very popular tools everywhere, very rapidly, for two big reasons: speed of use and the massive increase in torque one can apply to the hardware. That probably spelled the end to the wartime, thinner hex nuts and bolts. It would become extremely easy to over torque this older hardware, rounding off the corners on the nuts and bolts and probably even shearing off a lot of bolt heads.
Consequently, here in Canada at least, whenever the 52-Sets went in for servicing, or maintenance of any kind, it probably became standard practise to simply remove and toss the factory original hardware and replace it with the more robust, modern stuff designed for use with modern, high torque tools.
Nice that Richards Remote Receiver survived in England all these years with little change.
Not so nice I now have to find a bolt shop somewhere that still stocks old style, thin head slotted hex bolts and old style thin hex nuts.
David
|