Talk:Wire spring relay

This article is incorrectly named. [....]

Oh. My account must be four days old for the "move" tab to appear. Day after tomorrow, then, I must correct this article and the ones that refer to it. Jim.henderson 05:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Later I must write a new "Reed relay" article to replace the one that incorrectly got that name. Jim.henderson 06:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Past tense

This article is partly in the present tense and partly in the past tense. I believe that it's awkward in the past tense. I prefer to put things in the present tense. It seems more encyclopedic, but it's not quite accurate to describe something that hasn't been manufactured in the past 20+ years using the present. Comments? The Slimey 04:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I ought to review my old articles in the light of experience. This is one of my earlier ones, and besides this little inconsistency of grammar, it also lacks sections, and links to using switching systems. Probably a bit of study will bring to light other deficiencies. Anyway to address the point, I'd rather treat the present tense as my error and convert to past tense. There must be a fraction of a million wire springers still in service, maybe something like one percent of those ever made, so essentially it's a past tense technology like steam locomotives or vaccuum tube radio receivers.

Oh! And thank you ever so much for the picture of a AK type split relay. Brings tears to an old spring bender's eyes. The description of how the card works, hmm, there's got to be a neater way to phrase that, but on the other hand I didn't say it at all, so again I have to thank you, Slimey. Jim.henderson 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just did a nearly complete rewrite and put it all in the present tense before reading your comment. If you wish, feel free to change it all to past again. (It just feels awkward to me.) I'd say that there's no better way to spend the last Friday afternoon of the school year than editing Wikipedia!

I'd like to add citations to this article, also. Do you know if there's an accepted practice for citing BSPs? (Hehe. I must have a fetish for odd citations. Once I cited a Usenet message for a school paper. While trying to find a decent citation format, I came across a delightful article about defining a standard citation scheme in Backus-Naur form. Sadly, I cannot locate the article right now.)

I just looked at steam locomotive, and it appears to be written largely in the present tense except where talking about true historical events. Same for vacuum tube. The Slimey 07:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All righty; the "historical present" seems appropriate in this case. Alas, Wikipedia seems to have barely heard of BSP; I guess it's a candidate for a new article. I can't help with the citation method, and starting any new articles will take me time. Been a little hectic in the past few days because I bought a new Brompton Bicycle and have been studying and equipping it. And because warm weather has made me lazy. Jim.henderson 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely, not wood? (etc)

The article says, "The moving contacts are held away from the fixed contacts by a wooden pattern called a "card"." Surely, that must be made of something different, perhaps paper-phenolic laminate?

As well, I think these were called "permissive-make" relays; force from the coil did not push contacts closed; the card "backed away" from the spring, permitting the contact to close.

IBM made highly-engineered wire-spring relays for logic; the design was quite different. Typical were 4, 6, and 12 Form C, as I recall.

Best regards, Nikevich (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Another detail is that the card could be configured to allow some contacts to make before others. --AJim (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that IBM made extensive use of their own design of relays with wire springs. I saw them in their accounting machines. The IBM relays were much smaller than the Bell relays. They mounted in a socket, which meant that they could be easily field replaced, unlike the telephone relays, which were wired in place. --AJim (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Self checking memory

One of the advantages of having multiple contacts on a relay is that error checking circuits can be incorporated into the design. I remember reading that 90% of the contacts that closed when a marker connected a call were involved in error checking.

When constructing a memory for a decimal digit, a 2 out of 5 code was often used, where a different pair of two relays in a group of 5 were energized to represent each digit. Since there were always two relays energized, a 2 out of 5 symmetric circuit (a generalization of the idea of parity checking) could be constructed, using additional contacts, to verify that a valid digit representation existed.--AJim (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should link to Two-out-of-five code. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. It would also be good if there were an article on symmetric circuits. The two textbooks referenced in Switching circuit theory have chapters on them. Relay circuits have some interesting properties that are not seen in electronic logic. It seems a shame to let all that be lost. --AJim (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So, I put in the 2/5 link, but come to think of it these are not really wirespring questions. They are a matter of Relay logic. Seems to me, that article ought to be reoriented so it isn't mostly about ladder logic which after all has an article of its own. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)