Wireless Set No. 52 Canadian - Project

[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

[David Dunlop]

Finally got back to some thinking about the potential short in my Main Set Receiver Connector Socket this past week. In particular, the fact that I had noticed when connecting the Remote Supply Connector Plug to the socket, the retaining screw did not seem to run home as far as it did when I connected this cable to my backup receiver. That in turn got me wondering it this screw might be jamming on some loose bits inside and perhaps be part of the short problem.

Add to that, I was curious if it might be possible to isolate if the short was in the 12 Volt LT circuit, or the 150 Volt HT circuit. So I dug out my trusty old 2 Amp 12 Volt DC Trickle Battery Charger to jumper onto the 12 Volt circuit and see what happens.

I first tested the charger output. It was producing 11.78 Volts DC, along with 6.69 Volts of AC. I first jumpered it to the +12Volt terminal on the backup receiver socket and negative to chassis ground. The panel indicator lamp on the backup receiver lit straight away and I got a reading on the meter of 8 Volts DC LT. Turned on the calibrater and its indicator lamp lit and the meter reading dropped to 7 Volts and held. I waited a minute, switched off the calibrator and the meter went back up to 8 Volts and held.

I then switched the charger over to the Remote Receiver and jumpered it up in the same manner. The results were virtually identical to the backup receiver.

I am pleased with those results. Next, I am basically going to repeat this test with the Remote Supply, using jumper cables for both the 12 Volt LT and 150 Volt HT circuits. Basically bypassing the physical connection of the Remote Supply Connector Cable to the receivers. Hopefully that will provide some further useful information.

And while I was mucking about with the Connector Socket on the back of the backup receiver, I noticed the long paper label that runs across the middle of it with the Terminal IDs printed on it was missing. A closer look in that area revealed a cast oval mark with 'CMC' in the middle of it, about one third of the way in from one end. Photo attached. Pleased to finally find one of these marks and hope to find more as the project progresses.

David