Edison O reproducer mod to Q

[phonojim]

I was just informed that it is STEVE Medved. Thanks Jerry B. and a sincere apology to Steve. Correction will be made.

Jim

[FloridaClay]

It would be neat if someone with both types of O reproducers would post pictures. I am now curious about which type I have.

Clay

[phonogfp]

My understanding is that the early production O Reproducers had round weights. Later production O Reproducers had trowel-shaped weights which were lighter.

The Q weights were those early round weights that had been returned to the factory for modification to the lighter trowel-shaped weights. There were marked "Q" to differentiate them from the later O weights that had been originally manufactured as trowel-shaped.

Thus, a trowel-shaped weight marked "O" was originally manufactured that way. Weights marked with a "Q" were factory-modified from the early round weights after being returned.

If I've been misinformed, I'd be grateful to learn more.

Best to all,

George P.

[rgordon939]

Here is a little explanation about the Model-O reproducer. The Model O reproducer was a combination reproducer whose basic design was a combination of the body of the Model N and the weight and stylus bar assembly of the Model M (round weight). Initially supplied with the Triumph Model E (and a few other high-end Edison phonographs), it required a carrier arm which had the larger eye mounted in a horizontal position. The same complaints were received about wearing of wax records as were being noted with the M reproducer. The weights of some of the O reproducers were also cut down, usually having the letter Q stamped on the weight. This however was not performed on all of the modified O's. Here is a picture of my Model-O with a trowel weight that Steve Medved just rebuilt. He said this the loudest Model-O he ever heard, both on the 2 & 4 positions. I also included a picture of one with the round weight.

Rich Gordon

[A Ford 1]

Hi again,
Can any or all of you that have O reproducers with trimmed or spade weights let me and others know what the stylus force is to support the lower weight O or Q reproducer. I would be interested to know this so that if I ever get a second O weight or if I have one made by a machinist I will know how much to reduce the weight. I might also say I am interested in a Q weight if one is available.
I also would be interested in the stylus force of any modified M reproducers.
Thank you all most kindly,
Allen

[52089]

Here is a little explanation about the Model-O reproducer. The Model O reproducer was a combination reproducer whose basic design was a combination of the body of the Model N and the weight and stylus bar assembly of the Model M (round weight). Initially supplied with the Triumph Model E (and a few other high-end Edison phonographs), it required a carrier arm which had the larger eye mounted in a horizontal position. The same complaints were received about wearing of wax records as were being noted with the M reproducer. The weights of some of the O reproducers were also cut down, usually having the letter Q stamped on the weight. This however was not performed on all of the modified O's. Here is a picture of my Model-O with a trowel weight that Steve Medved just rebuilt. He said this the loudest Model-O he ever heard, both on the 2 & 4 positions. I also included a picture of one with the round weight.

Rich Gordon

Just to clarify this a bit further, the M reproducer and O/Q reproducer are not interchangeable. The M only fits the Amberola 1A, 1B, III, and Opera. However, it is really only useful on the 1A because the other machines do not play 2 minute records.

[A Ford 1]

Hi all,
I also purchased, via auction, last month from Stanton's an A-I which has an M reproducer. I purchased it sight unseen and will not see it until some time after late June and do not at this time know if it has a heavy or light weight. I believe I did post some where on the TMF this fact but I did not note that I also purchased a Diamond Disc - 250.
Some time in the 1970s I purchased a long play conversion kit from the now deceased Al Abramowitz a collector I knew in my home city of Baltimore. Over the years I also purchased two 12in. and one 10 in. long play DD records but the DD machine that I had was so retched that I never considered installing the conversion kit. I had found the DD machine with flaking veneer missing grill no reproducer etc. in a true junk yard for $20.00. After buying a crank and reproducer from Al Abramowitz, it played well enough to satisfy me but looked god offal.
Allen

[A Ford 1]

Hi,
I thought I had sent a note that I had just purchased at auction an A-I and a DD-250 but I think my login had timed out before I pushed send.
When I was about 15 to 17 I traveled home from the Baltimore Polytechnic High School via Howard St. (Antique Row) and saw my first A-I. Mr. Asner Wanted the same amount for it as it's original bill $250.00. At the time I had less than $0.25 in my pocket and my Father was paying less than $100.00 a week to his only employee. I was in lust over the A-I but there was no way I could afford it.
A week or so ago I purchased sight unseen from Stanton Auctions for $2250.00 a very similar A-I and considering inflation it may have been a buy.
The fact that I purchased this machine is the reason I am interested I the info. on the M reproducer.
I purchased the DD-250 because the DD-250 I have owned since the 1960s is very poor missing some trim, veneer, grill and looks god offal. Additionally,I have a long play conversion kit I purchased in the 1970s from the long deceased phonograph collector Alvin Abramowitz that I did not want to install in my old retched DD.
Allen
edit:
ps. I just learned of page 2 sorry I am not only new to TMF but relatively new to personal computers.
Allen

[A Ford 1]

Hi all,
I now see that the note that was not sent had my thank you to Rich Gordon for being so kind as to post photos of the spade weight vs. the round weight. My O as I expected is the first type original issue O. The photos will allow me to design a new weight to minimize the variation in stylus pressure due to the bobbing of the weight styli assembly due to run out of the cylinder if indeed I have a new weight made by a machinist.
For those of you that are Engineers or Scientists please forgive me the following. The force on the stylus and the pressure the stylus imposes on the record is composed of two components. These components are (1) the static force of the stylus when the record is not spinning and (2) the dynamic force required to accelerate and decelerate the weight stylus assembly due to run out.
The dynamic force can be minimized by two methods (1) minimize the run out by inserting a paper shim between the record and the mandrel to better center it (2) reduce the moment of inertia of the weight stylus assembly about the hinge point.
Edison removed material nearest the hinge point this does reduce both the static and dynamic load but the dynamic load can be reduced more if one did not remove the weight nearest the hinge but instead from the extremities of the weight relative to the hinge.
Therefore the weight should be remove near the tail that contains the limit pin and most especally the 2-4 min. knob to the point of having the same static stylus force as the spade weight exerts. This will require much less material to be removed and will reduce the dynamic load much more because the static weight on the stylus is directly proportional to the amount of weight removed multiplied by it's distance from the hinge point whereas the dynamic load is directly proportional the weight removed multiplied by the square of the distance from the hinge point.
Now I know this would not be in keeping with originality but it would greatly reduce record ware and one could always keep the old weight which could be reinstalled at any time.
Also note that the tracking of the record depends on the static load and the possibility of not tracking is increased by a larger dynamic load.
Forgive my reinventing the wheel!
Thank You all kindly,
Allen