Mark, "Five out of four students" is the same as saying "125% of the students"...lol... I was reading another Victor patent that had to do with the last [production] version of the No.2 reproducer. If I look it up again I will get the number for everyone to take a look. In that particular patent, Eldridge Johnson set forth several concepts, not all of which were ever implemented in production. One of the ideas featured a needle bar balance system that used both a spring to establish neutral balance of the needle bar as well as bearings to keep the bar in parallel [with the record plane]. But it is obvious why Victor never implemented the system - there is no doubt that the springs could not be so precisely made or installed or bearings so accurately set as to not conflict (in some degree) with the forces that the bearings would otherwise try to uniformly establish about the circumference of the bar ends. The bottom line is that the springs would always have a tendency to move the bar away from center (probably along both axes) and work against what the bearings were trying to do. It's just a bad idea... So what was Eldridge Johnson's motive for such a bizarre design? I think the man's engineering skills were such that he certainly knew that the idea, although patented and easy enough to build, could not work as well as those already in use. I often wonder that Victor patented so many ideas just to be able to elbow-out the competition, whether it was a bad design, or a good one... Interestingly, I have never seen a balance spring used by any company that looked like Eldridge's last No.2 design. On the other hand, the bearing setup he proposed is remarkably similar to the later 6-bearing per side Columbia designs like you see in the No.9 and other later parts. But then, Columbia was one of those companies that not only had enough money to go to court against Victor, but could pay a lawyer to live in the courtroom if necessary...<hmmm....> It's not difficult to improve on Victor's old designs, especially considering the immense progress in materials engineering, but I, for one, would rather strive for originality if only to be original. About a year ago, I developed small inserts for the Orthophonic that are made of a composite that can be installed in place of the bearings. They work better than the bearings, can't rust, and probably have a friction coefficient that is 100 times less than the steel bearings...but after I proved I could do it, I threw them all away...cuz that just ain't no fun.... Just a glance at modern loudspeaker engineering hints at all sorts of Mylar and titanium films that would probably be superior diaphragms for most all reproducers, but that ain't no fun either... BTW, When you were here xmas eve with Doug you mentioned a Victor patent that had to do with an electroplating or electroforming process which was ultimately to be used for the production (I think) of diaphragms. Do you by chance have the reference to that, or remember any keywords for it? Walt --Original Message----- From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of mark lynch Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:24 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Bearings Thanks Walt, it is amazing how those fractions work...did you know that five out of four student at my High School had trouble with them? For all of us who have dealt with rebuilding Orthophonic soundboxes it looks like Victor had another idea rather than the 1/16" balls to support the stylus bar. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT1796149&id=XldNAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=vic tor+talking+machine+1931#PPP1,M1 Like many patented ideas it looks like this one was never put into production. Maybe with today's new elastic materials the idea would work better that loose-steel-balls (and Desi Arnaz) and be a welcome relief to today's repairman. Anyone want to tackle this one? Mark -----Original Message----- >From: Walt <waltsommers at comcast.net> >Sent: Jan 10, 2007 5:45 PM >To: 'Antique Phonograph List' <phono-l at oldcrank.org> >Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Bearings > >.0625" and 1/16" are the same measurement. If you only need a few sets of >them give Ron Sitko a call. > >-----Original Message----- >From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org] On >Behalf Of Douglas Houston >Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:13 PM >To: Antique Phonograph List >Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Bearings > >I believe that they were 1/16". I bought a box of them from Detroit Ball >Bearing once. Thyey can sell you ything you want in that line. They have so >much stuff, it seems that if they don't have something, it never was. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Loran Hughes <loranhughes at mac.com> >> To: Antique Phonograph List <phono-l at oldcrank.org> >> Date: 1/10/2007 12:48:26 AM >> Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Bearings >> >> I can't recall off the cuff... can anyone tell me the diameter of the >> bearings for an Orthophonic reproducer? >> >> Regards, >> Loran >> _______________________________________________ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 1/9/2007 > > >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007