Telephone ringer question
 

I am wanting to connect the front of the master telephone socket (the one
that generatate the ring) to the back of a general socket. I have connected
the red and white to terminals 2 and 5 which works, however I have lost the
ring. How do I connect it to work normally?

I am wanting to connect the front of the master telephone socket (the one
that generatate the ring) to the back of a general socket. I have
connected
the red and white to terminals 2 and 5 which works, however I have lost
the
ring. How do I connect it to work normally?

You need to connect terminals 3 and 4, also.

Or buy a new phone. Many will ring on 2+5 only, and it provides better sound
quality to disconnect the ring line, which is unbalanced.

Christian.

In article ,
Christian McArdle wrote:
I am wanting to connect the front of the master telephone socket (the
one that generatate the ring) to the back of a general socket. I have
connected the red and white to terminals 2 and 5 which works, however
I have lost the ring. How do I connect it to work normally?

You need to connect terminals 3 and 4, also.

Only 3 is actually required as this is the shunt wire (bell). 4 is a local
earth not used much - if at all - these days. Think it was for party
lines.

Or buy a new phone. Many will ring on 2+5 only, and it provides better
sound quality to disconnect the ring line, which is unbalanced.

I'm not sure about the quality issue? It's possible the bell wire might
make a difference on an ADSL setup, but I'd say probably not in a normal
domestic setup.

However, most cordless phones don't use the ring circuit anymore.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote
| Only 3 is actually required as this is the shunt wire (bell).
| 4 is a local earth not used much - if at all - these days.
| Think it was for party lines.

It depends on whether you follow the BS or BT numbering whether the ring is
on 3 or 4.

The earth was used for earth recall on PABX. Line jack units were never
fitted on party lines.

Owain

In article ,
Owain wrote:
| Only 3 is actually required as this is the shunt wire (bell).
| 4 is a local earth not used much - if at all - these days.
| Think it was for party lines.

It depends on whether you follow the BS or BT numbering whether the ring
is on 3 or 4.

Interesting. What's the BS numbering? And did it apply to domestic
installations?

The earth was used for earth recall on PABX. Line jack units were never
fitted on party lines.

Ok.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:19:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Interesting. What's the BS numbering? And did it apply to domestic
installations?

By a masterpiece of technical superiority, between them the BSI and
BT managed to number the 431A plug in the British Standard as a
mirror image of the socket, so when inserted pin 1 on the plug goes
to pin 6 on the socket, pin 2 to pin 5 and so on.

The pin numbering isn't shown on the plug but many packets of plugs
in the DIY sheds come with a little diagram on the back which often
follows the BS numbering.

If you do the logical thing and put a plug on assuming the numbers
are as on the socket the phone may not ring. Just to confuse the
issue further some imported sockets also invert the numbering so if
you wire pin 1 on an NTE5 master socket to pin 1 on a Chinese (insert
shed name here) socket it may well be going to 6 :-).

A simple way of remembering the correct orientation for the BT plugs
if you like mnemonics is Ring on the Right. When you are holding the
plug with the latch on the right the ring terminal (4 on the plug, 3
on the socket) is always just right of centre.


--
Peter Parry WPP Ltd http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Interesting. What's the BS numbering? And did it apply to domestic
installations?

I think this is a reference to the fact that the numbering of the LJU
IDC (or screw) terminals runs the other way round to the pin numbering
of the connector itself - see table below. Why they did it like that
has always been a mystery to me. Maybe it was just a cock-up on the
part of whoever laid out the first PCB and we're stuck with it.

LJU IDC connector
terminal pin no. function
-------- --------- --------
2 5 B-wire
3 4 ringer (B-wire via 1.8uF cap in master)
4 3 earth (when used)
5 2 A-wire

Pin 6 of the connector is the one nearest the release lever.
A quiescent line has its A-wire at approx. earth potential and its
B-wire at -50V.

--
Andy

Peter Parry wrote:

By a masterpiece of technical superiority, between them the BSI and
BT managed to number the 431A plug in the British Standard as a
mirror image of the socket, so when inserted pin 1 on the plug goes
to pin 6 on the socket, pin 2 to pin 5 and so on.

So the answer to the question that has been a mystery to me for so long
(see my other post) is that the connector pin numbering came from a BSI
committee whilst the LJU terminal numbering was determined by BT, and
the two didn't talk to each other. (I.e. it was a cock-up.) Is that right?

The pin numbering isn't shown on the plug but many packets of plugs
in the DIY sheds come with a little diagram on the back which often
follows the BS numbering.

If you do the logical thing and put a plug on assuming the numbers
are as on the socket the phone may not ring. Just to confuse the
issue further some imported sockets also invert the numbering so if
you wire pin 1 on an NTE5 master socket to pin 1 on a Chinese (insert
shed name here) socket it may well be going to 6 :-).

A simple way of remembering the correct orientation for the BT plugs
if you like mnemonics is Ring on the Right. When you are holding the
plug with the latch on the right the ring terminal (4 on the plug, 3
on the socket) is always just right of centre.

All useful info, saved for reference, thanks. Of course none of this
would have happened if the numbering had been got right in the first
place. Plus ca change...

--
Andy

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:46:01 +0000, Andy Wade
wrote:


So the answer to the question that has been a mystery to me for so long
(see my other post) is that the connector pin numbering came from a BSI
committee whilst the LJU terminal numbering was determined by BT, and
the two didn't talk to each other.

Whether they didn't communicate or (as I suspect) someone omitted to
check the draft specifications in detail I have no idea. Apparently
it wasn't noticed for some time.

(I.e. it was a cock-up.)

It was certainly that.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:14:30 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:46:01 +0000, Andy Wade
wrote:


So the answer to the question that has been a mystery to me for so long
(see my other post) is that the connector pin numbering came from a BSI
committee whilst the LJU terminal numbering was determined by BT, and
the two didn't talk to each other.

Whether they didn't communicate or (as I suspect) someone omitted to
check the draft specifications in detail I have no idea. Apparently
it wasn't noticed for some time.

(I.e. it was a cock-up.)

It was certainly that.

I thought BT (or was it the PO?) designed the connector in the first
place, and it was later "adopted" by the BSI.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

[...] or (as I suspect) someone omitted to
check the draft specifications in detail [...]

Now that I can believe.

Apparently it wasn't noticed for some time.

That too - and by then it was too late...

I thought BT (or was it the PO?) designed the connector in the first
place, and it was later "adopted" by the BSI.

Pass - although ISTR Vero Electronics being involved in the design of
the connector.

--
Andy

In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
Apparently it wasn't noticed for some time.

That too - and by then it was too late...

I thought BT (or was it the PO?) designed the connector in the first
place, and it was later "adopted" by the BSI.

I'm pretty certain it came in GPO times - as did System X etc.
Privatization was so successful because of those publicly funded
development costs, which must have been large.

Pass - although ISTR Vero Electronics being involved in the design of
the connector.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I'm not sure about the quality issue? It's possible the bell wire might
make a difference on an ADSL setup, but I'd say probably not in a normal
domestic setup.

The problem is that when you run extensions with quality twisted pair cable,
the signal (2+5) is pretty good, with good interference rejection etc. When
you add the bell line, this signal is unipolar and very subject to crosstalk
and interference, which then gets injected back into the signal, causing
problems.

Obviously, with small extensions and a quiet electro-magnetic environment,
this is often not detectable, but it can become quite troublesome if neither
applies.

Christian.

In article ,
"Christian McArdle" writes:
I'm not sure about the quality issue? It's possible the bell wire might
make a difference on an ADSL setup, but I'd say probably not in a normal
domestic setup.

The problem is that when you run extensions with quality twisted pair cable,
the signal (2+5) is pretty good, with good interference rejection etc. When
you add the bell line, this signal is unipolar and very subject to crosstalk
and interference, which then gets injected back into the signal, causing
problems.

Obviously, with small extensions and a quiet electro-magnetic environment,
this is often not detectable, but it can become quite troublesome if neither
applies.

This is avoided by connecting only 2 and 5, and using master sockets
for all extensions too. If you have multiple phone lines in the same
cable bundle, this is pretty essential or the ring signal on one line
will be quite audiable on other lines. This would only cause problems
with any lines using multiple old phones with real bells and pulse
dialling, where dialing on one phone can cause bells in the other
phones to 'tinkle'.

--
Andrew Gabriel