I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.

They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.

[Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
audible performance]

Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
all-or-nothing approach.

Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
alter the tuning?

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:59:39 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
>to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>
>They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
>so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
>and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.

Yes, designed for a 20 Hz ring signal.

>[Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
>as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
>audible performance]
>
>Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
>can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
>on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
>damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
>hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
>all-or-nothing approach.
>
>Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
>alter the tuning?

Not really.

For the morbidly curious, Western Electric published a full article on
the design of that ringer in the Bell System Technical Journal in the
1950s. I don't recall the precise issue, but there are indices
available.

Joe Gwinn

That brings back memories. As a kid, I had a kit to build an
electric bell. The armature connected the battery to the
electromagnet, which pulled the armature toward the bell
and away from the contact, which disconnected the electromagnet
which allowed the armature to return to the contact after hitting
the bell. There was a screw that adjusted the contact position.
Educational toys of the 1970's.

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

> I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
> to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>
> They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
> so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
> and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.
>
> [Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
> as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
> audible performance]
>
> Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
> can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
> on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
> damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
> hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
> all-or-nothing approach.
>
> Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
> alter the tuning?

Yes, the usual ones for altering mechanical resonance:

1) Increase frequency by reducing the mass of the clapper and increasing
the stiffness of the support wire (shorther or thicker).

2) Decrease frequency by increasing the mass of the clapper and
secreasing the stiffness of the support wire (use a longer wire and bend
it into a loop or a helix).

The overall amount of energy will be the same, but the frequency of
maximum efficiency will change.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 2/4/2024 2:24 AM, Wanderer wrote:
> That brings back memories. As a kid, I had a kit to build an
> electric bell. The armature connected the battery to the
> electromagnet, which pulled the armature toward the bell
> and away from the contact, which disconnected the electromagnet
> which allowed the armature to return to the contact after hitting
> the bell. There was a screw that adjusted the contact position.
> Educational toys of the 1970's.

I think that's more the likes of a buzzer's construction (DC).

A ringer is driven by AC. No contacts to make-break to
create the motion (and wear out, over time!)

Nowadays, kids don't (?) tinker with electrics/electronics;
they write code or buy premade *boards* -- so they don't
risk breaking a nail or having to use wirecutters...

<frown>

I had one of these as a kid:
<https://www.pinterest.com/pin/475200198162583592/>
(shitty photo as you can't easily see that the negative side of
the battery is electrically connected to the T junction feeding
the lamp; and, the metal plate to which the blocks magnetically
adhere -- which also forms a "shared connection/gnd" -- is missing).

It was considerably slicker than the "radio shack "spring kits"
with oodles of 1c passives wired to small springs wedged
into a piece of cardboard! But, considerably more expensive
and, at the same time, limited in terms of what you could make
with it.

But, it went the extra step of SHOWING you the schematic representation
of the circuit you were assembling so you could more readily see how
things were connected (instead of tracing a bunch of air-wired
connections to "springs")

I also had some neat batteries (collections of cells) from WE.
Something like 30 (D?) cells wired in series with spring-loaded taps
at the last few cells. Too high of a potential for most battery
powered things around the house but worked really good for the
electric "gong" (used as some sort of annunciator?) that came
with it! (an aluminum bar in a floating suspension below a
tuned cavity, struck by a large solenoid)

On 2/4/2024 9:16 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:59:39 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
>> to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>>
>> They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
>> so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
>> and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.
>
> Yes, designed for a 20 Hz ring signal.

... which makes sense given that's how it was nominally excited.

>> [Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
>> as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
>> audible performance]
>>
>> Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
>> can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
>> on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
>> damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
>> hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
>> all-or-nothing approach.
>>
>> Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
>> alter the tuning?
>
> Not really.

<frown> It seems the only easy mechanical adjustment
is to damp the vibration of the actual bell.

I think if I open up htat so the bell can ring longer/louder,
I might be able to tweek the drive to just get a "tinkle"
from it... not drive it hard enough to truly "ring".

And, use the mouthpiece in the handset to adjust the
drive to AUDIBLY get this response.

> For the morbidly curious, Western Electric published a full article on
> the design of that ringer in the Bell System Technical Journal in the
> 1950s. I don't recall the precise issue, but there are indices
> available.

Yes, that was for the more modern trimline (or maybe princess?)
models. The older/larger "desksets" (500 series) used a different
ringer as they weren't as constrained for space as the sleeker
models.

(I suspect the design was never revisited; "if it ain't broke...")

On 2/4/2024 12:49 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
>> to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>>
>> They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
>> so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
>> and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.
>>
>> [Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
>> as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
>> audible performance]
>>
>> Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
>> can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
>> on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
>> damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
>> hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
>> all-or-nothing approach.
>>
>> Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
>> alter the tuning?
>
> Yes, the usual ones for altering mechanical resonance:
>
> 1) Increase frequency by reducing the mass of the clapper and increasing
> the stiffness of the support wire (shorther or thicker).
>
> 2) Decrease frequency by increasing the mass of the clapper and
> secreasing the stiffness of the support wire (use a longer wire and bend
> it into a loop or a helix).
>
> The overall amount of energy will be the same, but the frequency of
> maximum efficiency will change.

Either would be too much to ask a user to do.

I was thinking more along the lines of interposing some
damping material (masking/vinyl tape?) between the clapper
and the bell. Or, coating the bell with same -- just to
tone down it's response so that variations in the *drive*
could be more effectively varied.

On 2/3/2024 11:59 PM, Don Y wrote:
> I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
> to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>
> They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
> so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
> and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.
> Yeah y
> [Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
> as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
> audible performance]
>
> Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
> can do to alter the sound?  Reducing drive seems to have an effect
> on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
> damper.  I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
> hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
> all-or-nothing approach.
>
> Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
> alter the tuning?
>

Yeah you can cut holes in the bell, like one of those "vented cymbals":

<https://www.sweetwater.com/c1020--Crash_Cymbal?highlight=HCS16TRC>

On 2024-02-05, Don Y wrote:
> [...]
> Nowadays, kids don't (?) tinker with electrics/electronics;
> they write code or buy premade *boards* -- so they don't
> risk breaking a nail or having to use wirecutters...

On the flip side, a lot of the "fun (new) stuff" to play with *only* comes
as some spiffy no-lead micro-package that's impossible to work with
unless you have a few "advanced" level tools.

I'd sure like to see you dead-bug an AS621x temp sensor with naught but
a generic hobby-grade pencil iron. (For anyone keeping track; this chip
is approx 1500 x 1000μM package with a 3x2 BGA on 400μM center-to-center
spacing.)

It's not like when you were a kid, and the smallest component was a
12AX7, and you could just wire-wrap everything. :P

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

They still make them.

https://old.miniscience.com/projects/ElectricBell/index.html

With yours, you could try modulating the amplitude. Get it to skip beats.

Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> On 2024-02-05, Don Y wrote:
>> [...]
>> Nowadays, kids don't (?) tinker with electrics/electronics;
>> they write code or buy premade *boards* -- so they don't
>> risk breaking a nail or having to use wirecutters...
>
> On the flip side, a lot of the "fun (new) stuff" to play with *only* comes
> as some spiffy no-lead micro-package that's impossible to work with
> unless you have a few "advanced" level tools.
>
> I'd sure like to see you dead-bug an AS621x temp sensor with naught but
> a generic hobby-grade pencil iron. (For anyone keeping track; this chip
> is approx 1500 x 1000μM package with a 3x2 BGA on 400μM center-to-center
> spacing.)
>
> It's not like when you were a kid, and the smallest component was a
> 12AX7, and you could just wire-wrap everything. :P
>
>
>

Check out Schmartboards. They use extra thick solder mask to locate fine
pitch parts.

https://youtu.be/D3PTpaB4kro?feature=shared

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On 2024-02-05, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-05, Don Y wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Nowadays, kids don't (?) tinker with electrics/electronics;
>>> they write code or buy premade *boards* -- so they don't
>>> risk breaking a nail or having to use wirecutters...
>>
>> On the flip side, a lot of the "fun (new) stuff" to play with *only* comes
>> as some spiffy no-lead micro-package that's impossible to work with
>> unless you have a few "advanced" level tools.
>>
>> I'd sure like to see you dead-bug an AS621x temp sensor with naught but
>> a generic hobby-grade pencil iron. (For anyone keeping track; this chip
>> is approx 1500 x 1000μM package with a 3x2 BGA on 400μM center-to-center
>> spacing.)
>>
>> It's not like when you were a kid, and the smallest component was a
>> 12AX7, and you could just wire-wrap everything. :P
>>
>>
>>
>
> Check out Schmartboards. They use extra thick solder mask to locate fine
> pitch parts.

I've actually used their breakouts once or twice. They're okay enough;
although I prefer adafruits because I can get 3 or 4 for the same $5
(granted nowadays I've moved off to just sending a gerber to jlc, etc.)

That being said, Sparkfun sells the already completed breakout board for
under 10 bucks (okay, it might be 9.99, I can't remember and don't wanna
double-check ;) ). There are a few extras I don't particularly care for
(those "Qwiic[1]" connectors, power LED, and passives), but I can
completely understand why they're on there.

Really though, I'm taking issue with the mentality of "look at the
stupid kid, needing a breakout board for this microchip that I can't
even see in the first place".

[1] They're just JST 'SH' series connectors, with a memorable name for
people.

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 2/5/2024 8:02 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2024-02-05, Don Y wrote:
>> [...]
>> Nowadays, kids don't (?) tinker with electrics/electronics;
>> they write code or buy premade *boards* -- so they don't
>> risk breaking a nail or having to use wirecutters...
>
> On the flip side, a lot of the "fun (new) stuff" to play with *only* comes
> as some spiffy no-lead micro-package that's impossible to work with
> unless you have a few "advanced" level tools.

There's still plenty of stuff that you can assemble with a "solder pencil"
WITHOUT the need for a magnifying glass.

> I'd sure like to see you dead-bug an AS621x temp sensor with naught but
> a generic hobby-grade pencil iron. (For anyone keeping track; this chip
> is approx 1500 x 1000μM package with a 3x2 BGA on 400μM center-to-center
> spacing.)

How is that different than using an electricians "soldering pencil" -- with
a pyramid-shaped copper tip that is 1/2" on a side -- to build from discretes
on perfboard?

> It's not like when you were a kid, and the smallest component was a
> 12AX7, and you could just wire-wrap everything. :P

I didn't use WW until I was in college. Prior to that, everything
was perfboard (often stacked to make 'skyscrapers") with point-to-point
wiring. I built a CDI for my first car that way.

I didn't get to make my own PCBs until a firm I worked at had its own
etch tank (one sided -- two, if you really wanted to gamble with
registering the films "by eye").

Nowadays, anyone can layout a complex board and have it shot for "lunch money"
and delivered in no time. Not weeks to hand tape two layers but *days* to
put 6 together and let someone else worry about the fab.

On 2/5/2024 11:24 AM, Wanderer wrote:
> They still make them.
>
> https://old.miniscience.com/projects/ElectricBell/index.html
>
> With yours, you could try modulating the amplitude. Get it to skip beats.

I've thought of trying to overdrive it at a different frequency
and "assemble" a bunch of "tinkles" into a different sound.
I can close the loop by having the driver "listen" to the sound
produced and adjust itself, accordingly.

The point of the question is to figure out what capabilities
I need in the drive circuit; it's previous use was just as
a standard ringer that I could gate on and off (I *wanted*
it to sound like a real phone).

On 2024-02-04, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
> to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>
> They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
> so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
> and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.
>
> [Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
> as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
> audible performance]
>
> Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
> can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
> on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
> damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
> hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
> all-or-nothing approach.
>
> Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
> alter the tuning?

change the mass or material of the hammer.
change the arm length or material.
move gongs closer or further
muffle the gongs
cut or drill the gongs
replace the gongs with cowbells etc.
run the setup underwater.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 3/1/2024 6:01 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2024-02-04, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>> I've been experimenting with mechanical (phone) ringers
>> to get an idea for how much I can tweek the sound.
>>
>> They (the armature, not the bell) seem to be mechanically tuned
>> so pulling them much off of their intended "frequency" is hard
>> and likely unreliable -- at least open-loop.
>>
>> [Most of my samples are from WE; different mechanical assemblies
>> as required by the different phones they inhabit but similar
>> audible performance]
>>
>> Aside from cadence/ring-pattern, is there anything else I
>> can do to alter the sound? Reducing drive seems to have an effect
>> on loudness -- but, is dependent on the setting of the mechanical
>> damper. I can close the loop (audibly) but only if the mechanism
>> hasn't been tightened up to the point where I'm forced into an
>> all-or-nothing approach.
>>
>> Alternatively, any simple hacks I can do to the mechanisms to
>> alter the tuning?
>
> change the mass or material of the hammer.
> change the arm length or material.
> move gongs closer or further
> muffle the gongs
> cut or drill the gongs
> replace the gongs with cowbells etc.
> run the setup underwater.

The only "easy" (i.e., user capable) change is to alter the
resonance of the ringers. A bit of tape makes a big difference
in the sound (higher harmonics go away).

There are changes you can make to the drive, as well, that
noticeably alter the sound (though I am not sure how
repeatable these will be).