The rubber washers were mentioned. These isolate vibration and should be as soft as possible. Natural rubber or sorbothane is a good replacement. Replacements can be made with a set of gasket punches and McMaster Carr sells sheet Sorbothane. You can have a motor that sounds like it was crushing rocks but the sorbothane will damp all of the vibration and noise amplification. The commonly available commercial replacements are a bit hard.... I have rebuilt numerous Home A, Triumph A, and Standard A machines and they are a bit louder than some of the later machines but not noticeably so. Rich On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:16:29 -0800, Michael F. Khanchalian wrote: >Dear George, Walt, Rich, Loran and Ron, >This input is so appreciated. I am going to take the gear train fully >apart, clean everything and make a close check of all issues brought out >here. >Please add any and all other thoughts, you experts out there. >I have been told by several that noisy is just the Model A Homes have to be, >and that they don't significantly quiet down with most applied heroics. I >have a hard time believing they could have been so commercially successful >in that were the case. >I surely appreciate you Loran and all out there in Phono-L land. >Happy New Year to you all, >Dr. K. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Walt" <waltsommers at comcast.net> >To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:25 AM >Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Re: Noisy Home >Rich is correct...It is simple Mechanical Engineering 101. >The primary reason that a low viscosity lubricant is applied to a gear train >in which one of the dissimilar metals is steel/iron (like in a phonograph) >is to reduce corrosion. Surfaces that corrode lose smoothness and that will >increase friction. Also, the corrosion itself is accelerated by the abrasive >action of the oxides in steel (or iron) combining with lubricants. Brass >does not readily oxidize like steel or iron. So, by making the mating gears >out of dissimilar metals, the coefficient of friction is reduced. Decreased >friction is related to the molecular [lattice] structure of metal atoms. >When the structures are different, the mating surfaces cannot fit together >perfectly (at the molecular level, that is), the result of which is that >there is less surface contact between the two mating/rubbing surfaces which >correlates to reduced friction. Brass with iron/steel designs have much >lower coefficients of friction than steel on steel or brass on brass (or >iron on iron for that matter). >Correct me if I am wrong, but in order for there to be something you might >call self-lubrication, the brass would have to have been formulated with a >something like lead in the alloy to reduce friction; that is, the lead >molecules actually transfer from the alloy and act as a lubricant to some >degree? I didn't think that Victor or Edison used lead in their brass gears? >I might be off on that point but I think it is correct. I am not sure that >self-lubrication is a true term or not, but I studied electrical engineering >not mechanical engineering. Brass (and I mean the mating surfaces of the >gear, not the sides or bushings) is highly resistant to corrosion because >during use the surface forms a fairly pure layer of copper along with zinc >oxide which also helps to protect the metal. (That is also one of the >reasons that metal parts for outdoor use are zinc coated-plated.) Iron >oxides associated with steel/iron do not protect metals like the zinc oxide >does on brass, so any corrosion will just get worse, especially if the >humidity is high. >Lubricants, especially high viscosity lubricants like grease, collect the >iron oxide and far from the lubricant serving to protect the surfaces like >you think it should, it actually works as a medium to suspend and distribute >the iron oxide in a degenerative manner during operation of the motor. >Theoretically, no lubrication should be necessary between brass and steel >gears, but the problem with "theory" is a thing called "reality", and what >plagues it the most are the iron oxides which spring forth their miserably >destructive traits because of humidity. >So, by applying a thin film of lubricant (I am a fan of synthetics myself) >the hope is that you will eliminate or reduce potential oxidation of the >steel/iron and thereby reduce friction/wear. >Most manufacturers of motors even going way back before Edison and Eldridge >Johnson, etc. to the first clocks, understood the inherent advantage of >using dissimilar metals in a gear train, and because it was already a >long-ago proven design by the year 1900, they simply practiced it as any >good engineering firm would. It wasn't a cost issue at all; it was just good >engineering practice. >Walt >-----Original Message----- >From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org] On >Behalf Of Rich >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:00 PM >To: Antique Phonograph List >Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Re: Noisy Home >Brass gears meshed with steel gears should never be greased or heavily >lubricated. They are self >lubricating. Any extra lube will hold dirt which will imbed into the brass >which will result in excessive >wear on the harder (steel) gear. If you van see of feel the lubricant then >there is way too much. >Rich >On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:46:15 -0500, Ron L wrote: >>How are the rubber mounts between bedplate and motor, and between upper >>works and bedplate? Are the gears lightly greased or just oiled? Have >the >>conical bearings on the mandrel shaft ever been disturbed, especially >turned >>and/or moved in or out? >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org