Wireless Set No. 52 Canadian - Project

[David Dunlop]

Hi Chris. I initially thought a short might have been in one of the AF Amp valves, so pulled them to see what happened. Nothing, so decided to pull all of them with no ultimate change. That had me leaning towards the absence of B+ creating the inactive valves, resulting in the HT electrons with nothing meaningful to do. Thanks for the confirmation I was on the right track.

After you mentioned it, I realized I had checked the 12 V terminal to chassis and got a very high value. My brain must have been in ‘volts mode’ and did not make the connection to the fact that particular test had been resistance related, and what the result actually meant.

I’m hoping that a disassembly of the connector socket will reveal loose hardware bits floating about inside, and solve the problem.

A previous owner of this Remote Receiver had drilled holes in the rear of the case to mount a modern Coax Aerial Socket. Have since discovered this was done with liberal application of cutting oil and with the receiver chassis still in place. The bottom back edge of the case was wet with oil and metal chips stuck in it. Spent a while cleaning it all up and also found the same crude sitting in the bottom lip of the rear chassis. Visually, the lower chassis floor looked OK but when I pulled the V1G and V1H valves, I found a sweat of oil between the sockets and valve bases. More cleaning done there as a result and another reinspection.

David

[David Dunlop]

Thought I would take a break here to poll the collective wisdom of the MLU Group.

I will start by referencing back to Page 2 of this thread, Post #46, Photo 3. This is an interior shot of the ZE-11 Remote Supply cover. Of interest here is the nature of the interior finish that is visible.

My first thought was this finish was just another metallic looking paint, although what stood out with it was the extremely fine metallic powder that must have been used to make it. it does not look at all like the typical aluminum finish paints available today. Curiosity got the better of me eventually and I tested the surface of the finish with a multimeter and was very surprised to see how conductive it was. A closer inspection of the Remote Supply revealed the entire cover assembly AND the base assembly had this coating under the paint.

A closer look at the Remote Receiver Case revealed it too had a complete coating of this finish on it, covering the entire finished assembly, with the exception of the Grounding Post Screw on the lower rear right side. The finish paint was then applied to the case, reaching into it only two inches from the leading edge of the case. I have yet to see one in person, but strongly suspect the entire basic, sheet metal case assembly of the Carrier No. 4 for the 52-Set is also finished in this coating. The heavier metal parts of the Carrier Assembly, possibly not.

I am pretty certain this is an electroplated finish and have narrowed the possibilities down to three metals: cadmium, satin nickel and zinc. I am presently leaning towards the satin nickel finish. From what I have seen of 75 year old cadmium and zinc plated items, somewhere, to some degree, one can find traces of humidity induced oxidation of the metal. The finish on these 52-Set items is pristine.

Once the dust settles with the new school term at the University of Manitoba, I would like to take the Remote Supply cover over to their Chemistry Department and see if they might have a none destructive means of testing this finish to determine what metal it is. I will need to know since several holes drilled into the back of my Remote Receiver case will need to be repaired and I would like to then have the case replated to completely restore the original look before painting.

I have run across a few references to satin nickel plating being used on wartime electronic items intended for navy use and shiny nickel pated finishes show up quite regularly on valve covers in army equipment. Has anyone encountered written references to the use of a satin nickel electroplating on components of wartime wireless gear?

David

[David Dunlop]

I’ve been looking at the Master Parts List for the 52-Set, with regards to the five large rectangular electrical Plug and Socket assemblies. All are listed as replacement items, as complete assemblies. In spite of the fact they can be disassembled for repair, the only individual part that is separately listed is the Leaf Type Connector contacts for the socket assemblies. The Blade Type Connectors for the plug assemblies, is oddly not listed separately.

Now I wonder if these Plug and Socket assemblies are covered in more detail in the Parts Lists for other wireless equipment manufactured by Canadian Marconi?

David

[David Dunlop]

Further to the quest for information on the large rectangular bakelite 8-Pin Connector Plugs and Sockets on the 52-Set (as per Posts 28 and 35), can anyone with an original British made Wireless Set No. 9 confirm if these same connectors were used in the manufacture of the British No. 9 Sets? This may help trace the origin of these connectors.

David

[Bruce MacMillan]

I don't have access to a Canadian WS9 anymore but the schematic shows a similar style of connector as the WS52.

CMC only built the receiver for the WS9, the xmtr being built by Northern Electric. That would suggest that there was a third party manufacturer or somebody shared the product. Both companies had the capability to produce them.

[David Dunlop]

That’s interesting news, Bruce. I was not aware of that production sharing for the Canadian Wireless Set No. 9.

There is an illustrated parts list on the British Royal Signals site for the Canadian No.9 Set I have requested a copy of, so will see what it shows for looks and nomenclature, compared to the 52-Set Cdn for these connectors. Then, with some luck we might be able to push the references back to what STC in England was doing.

David

[Chris Suslowicz]

Originally Posted by Bruce MacMillan

I don't have access to a Canadian WS9 anymore but the schematic shows a similar style of connector as the WS52.

CMC only built the receiver for the WS9, the xmtr being built by Northern Electric. That would suggest that there was a third party manufacturer or somebody shared the product. Both companies had the capability to produce them.

Given that the remote receiver was usable as a spare for the set receiver, and that the WS52 and WS9 remote receiver power cables are virtually interchangeable, I'd say the connectors are identical in construction, if possibly different in pin configuration. Whether they're an exact copy of the ones used in the STC-built WS9 is another matter, but I would not be surprised to find that they were.

Chris.

[Tim Bell]

Chris

You are welcome to inspect my Canadian Ws9 anytime.

Cheers

Tim