Question about winding up a Vic I 0000B

[jboger]

I have a Vic I 0000B. When I got the machine I replaced a broken mainspring. It seems a struggle to wind. I need to hold the machine down with one hand in order to fully wind the machine. It's hard to wind all the way. If I use a Vic III crank (bigger) I get more torque and it's easier to wind the machine. But the Vic III crank is too large to make a complete turn unless I have the crank hanging over the edge of the table.

I also have a parts machine, a Vic I 0000A. The motors are identical (the difference between an A and a B is the brake). It too is hard to crank, although a little easier. The issue seems to be either a stiff mainspring (wrong one?) or a poor design with a crank that's too short.

I 'm pretty sure I put the right mainspring in and greased it up. I think to order another mainspring. But both of these machines (A and B) are hard to crank. Is it possible Victor designed a small machine that's hard to crank? Or would another mainspring help?

I would like to know other people's experience with these machines.

[Django]

I don’t have a I, but I do have a II and a III. I am wondering if something is binding. There should be an adjustment on one of the bushings and there needs t be a little end play. I would look there first.

[JerryVan]

The Victor I motor has very little, (or no), gear reduction to aid in winding. In addition, the crank is short, as you noted. Also, the gears are way undersized, as is the ratchet. Both are prone to extreme wear. None of these things help...

I too installed a new spring in a Vic I many years ago. It's extremely difficult to crank as well. Upon checking, I was assured that I received the correct spring. I really wish the spring suppliers would supply a slightly thinner spring for this type of motor. With winding gears already somewhat worn, the new, stiff spring makes me afraid to even use it.... so I don't. You might go to whomever supplied the spring and explain you situation. Chances are, they already supply a similar spring, for some other model, that may be a few thousandths thinner. Even a slight reduction in thickness has a big effect on strength.

[jboger]

Django: When I read your post, I thought, "That's it!" I am familiar with the split pivot and thought perhaps I overtightened it. So I looked at the motor. But no, Victor reserved that design for it's more expensive machines. So no split pivot on the Vic I. Nor do I see any binding elsewhere. That leaves me with a stiff mainspring.

Jerry Van: Your experience is exactly mine. And what you write makes a lot of sense. I have a Vic III and a Columbia AH; they are a pleasure to wind. I can even do that with one hand. But not so with this Vic I 0000B. I need to hold it down quite firmly and crank very hard, especially towards the end of the wind. I don't like doing it. I like the machine and intend to keep it. Fortunately I have the other machines to play records.

Thanks to both of you for your responses.

John

[soundgen]

If you fitted a thinner spring it probably wouldn't play at all as the available torque would be significantly reduced , this is always a problem with these motor types , you are effectively winding the spring directly , whereas later machines give a reduction gearing , it's a bit like winding early Edison phonographs

[JerryVan]

If you fitted a thinner spring it probably wouldn't play at all as the available torque would be significantly reduced , this is always a problem with these motor types , you are effectively winding the spring directly , whereas later machines give a reduction gearing , it's a bit like winding early Edison phonographs

I have other machines, using essentially the same motor with original springs, that do not crank so hard and they play records just fine. I can't imagine this is how they were intended to operate when new.

[Django]

Jerry mentioned that the gear deduction ratio is quite small. I looked at an image of a Victor I motor and I can see what he means. Gears that are worn can have a high resistance because they don’t mesh properly. You should be able to tell if they are worn by a rough or notched feel as you crank. From the image that I saw, it looks like the second gear in the train can be reversed. If it can be turned around you might improve the efficiency of the train and remove some of the resistance. Of course good lubrication of all bearing surface and gears helps. Properly meshing gears should feel smooth and constant. If that is not the case, I would wind the motor fully and let is sit for a week or so. That might relax the spring a little.

It is unfortunate that Victor decided to run the spring in reverse and have to add an intermediate gear, leaving them little room for gear reduction. They must have tested it and found that with the proper spring and fresh gears it was acceptable. I doubt that they considered that the same machine would be asked to play more than 100 years later.

[Menophanes]

I once had a Gramophone Company (H.M.V.) 'Intermediate Monarch' horn machine of 1913 which presented the same difficulty. The motor layout was essentially (though not in detail) the same, with a ring-gear on the vertical barrel driving the turntable spindle direct through a worm cut on the latter. The crank had a throw of less than three inches, I think. If I had the machine now I probably would not be able to wind it at all, since my wrists have grown very feeble.

Another drawback of this motor design was that if the mainspring broke the shock would be communicated straight through to the turntable, which could easily be jerked right off its spindle, sending the record flying across the room. I suppose Victor and G. & T./H.M.V. persisted with this pattern so long because it required fewer moving parts than usual and was easy to assemble and dismantle; but I could not call it user-friendly.

Oliver Mundy.

[jboger]

Thanks to all who have responded.

The winding gears on my machine do not look worn. I note that on my Vic III and my Columbia AH (both two-spring motors) that the largest winding gear is in on the mainspring shaft. This makes sense to me in terms of gear ratios and ease of winding. All the gears on the Vic I 000A or B are roughly the same size, so I'm not seeing much of a mechanical advantage.

My early Vic I winds with ease. And Jerry Van comments he has other machines that pose no winding issues.

Here's what I speculate: Some mainsprings, even of the same length and thickness, are stiffer than others, even when supplied by the same maker. I'm speculating that there's a statistical variation in strength from one spring to the next. This variation probably doesn't matter when the talking machine has a winding apparatus with a good mechanical advantage, i.e. a large gear on the winding arbor; the motor can simply handle it. But maybe this variation in stiffness is important for those machines that don't have a good mechanical arrangement of the wheels. And for these, if one installs an overly stiff mainspring--even though it meets specs--then you get the problem some of us have had.

I could buy another mainspring, but if I'm right (and I'm not sure I am), then it's the luck of the draw and I may be no better off than I am right now.

John

[JerryVan]

Thanks to all who have responded.

The winding gears on my machine do not look worn. I note that on my Vic III and my Columbia AH (both two-spring motors) that the largest winding gear is in on the mainspring shaft. This makes sense to me in terms of gear ratios and ease of winding. All the gears on the Vic I 000A or B are roughly the same size, so I'm not seeing much of a mechanical advantage.

My early Vic I winds with ease. And Jerry Van comments he has other machines that pose no winding issues.

Here's what I speculate: Some mainsprings, even of the same length and thickness, are stiffer than others, even when supplied by the same maker. I'm speculating that there's a statistical variation in strength from one spring to the next. This variation probably doesn't matter when the talking machine has a winding apparatus with a good mechanical advantage, i.e. a large gear on the winding arbor; the motor can simply handle it. But maybe this variation in stiffness is important for those machines that don't have a good mechanical arrangement of the wheels. And for these, if one installs an overly stiff mainspring--even though it meets specs--then you get the problem some of us have had.

I could buy another mainspring, but if I'm right (and I'm not sure I am), then it's the luck of the draw and I may be no better off than I am right now.

John

If you bought another mainspring you would almost be guaranteed of being no better off. If you bought from the same supplier, they would most likely spool off another "X" feet of spring stock from the same big spool your last spring came from. A different supplier would most likely source their spring stock from the same vendor as your original supplier. In other words, doing nothing different will yield the same result. You need to discuss it with your current supplier. I bought my spring from Ron Sitko. When I contacted him about it, he offered to supply a thinner spring. I think this would have worked well, but I didn't bother, because I didn't see the Vic I as my "go to" anyway so I left well enough alone.

Our other machines, with similar/same motors and original springs, work well either due to those springs having weakened with age while still being adequate, or because those springs were originally tempered differently than the new offerings, or some of each.