Has Anybody ever Heard of Rescue on CW Bands?
Charles C.
CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
the HAM CW HF bands?
I've never heard of a single account of this.
W6RCecilA
Oh oh, now you've done it. You can expect the PCTA folk to
stage such an incident any day now. Larry, at this very
moment, is looking for someone willing to crash a plane
250 miles from the nearest 2m repeater.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Brian
> There is a thread here talking about how handy
> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> the HAM CW HF bands?
>
> I've never heard of a single account of this.
From Guam there were a few power failures and leaking boats passed on to
the Coast Guard. But all the comms were SSB.
Kim W5TIT
>
> There is a thread here talking about how handy
> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> the HAM CW HF bands?
>
> I've never heard of a single account of this.
It's a good question...I don't recall hearing of one, except here on the
NG recently with a gent who had a heart attack...not sure if he used CW
or just had a carrier...
Kim W5TIT
D. Stussy
> There is a thread here talking about how handy
> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> the HAM CW HF bands?
>
> I've never heard of a single account of this.
On the ham bands, no. About the only time I could think of it would be if a
plane crashed on a tropical island somewhere and the transmitter itself was
malfunctioning, thus preventing voice communication, or such similar situation.
In such a case, the radio at hand would be aircraft or marine (if a shipwreck),
not amateur.
In our modern era, morse, as compared to voice, is simply inefficient in an
emergency where time is critical, except perhaps transmissions in excess of
50wpm (or maybe 75wpm; something awfully fast). The problem then becomes
finding someone or something fast enough to decode it and keep up. I seriously
doubt that an emergency morse signal would be generated by means other than by
hand.
[I don't call it "CW," but refer to it as morse, for one simple reason: Chances
are, it won't be an actual continuous wave with a tone switched on and off but
a keying and unkeying of the transmitter itself. Since the transmitter isn't
continuously on, it's not CW.]
Keith Wood
"Charles C." wrote:
>
> There is a thread here talking about how handy
> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> the HAM CW HF bands?
>
> I've never heard of a single account of this.
Oh, sure, it was in one of the Hardy Boys books.
Keith Wood
One of the OLD Hardy Boys books.
Larry W4CSC
<charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There is a thread here talking about how handy
>CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
>ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
>the HAM CW HF bands?
>
>I've never heard of a single account of this.
>
A ham named David Sarnoff passed emergency traffic on CW when the
Titanic sank in 1912. I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
information about survivors.
But, since then, it's been a while.....(c;
We passed emergency traffic during Hurricane Hugo in code. But, alas,
the code was ASCII and the mode was Packet!
Larry W4CSC.....shouldn't we replace the Morse test with a TYPING test
so I can talk to someone who TYPES faster than 5wpm??
J1aguiar
>From: Keith Wood k...@bctv.com
>Date: 2/23/00 10:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38B4A3E3...@bctv.com>
>
>
>
>Keith Wood wrote:
>>
>> "Charles C." wrote:
>> >
>> > There is a thread here talking about how handy
>> > CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
>> > ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
>> > the HAM CW HF bands?
>> >
>> > I've never heard of a single account of this.
>>
>
>One of the OLD Hardy Boys books.
>
>
to where ever first. Lets face it, CW is more of a pleasure thing. Like
sailing, why would anyone depend on a sailing ship to transport cargo. Sailing
is a fun thing just like CW, other than that its as useless as a tit on a bull
.J1
J1aguiar
>Date: 2/23/00 11:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38B40C73...@IEEE.org>
>
>Charles C. wrote:
>>
>> There is a thread here talking about how handy
>> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
>> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
>> the HAM CW HF bands?
>>
>> I've never heard of a single account of this.
>
>stage such an incident any day now. Larry, at this very
>moment, is looking for someone willing to crash a plane
>250 miles from the nearest 2m repeater.
>--
>73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
>
now, when one thinks about it long enough it starts to sound really stupid. We
must realize that those who do them things are having more fun than the
messages are worth. I suppose there may have been a time when a relaying of a
message was a handy thing, but not often. J1
James Rosenthal
: "Charles C." wrote:
: >
: > There is a thread here talking about how handy
: > CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
: > ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
: > the HAM CW HF bands?
: >
: > I've never heard of a single account of this.
: It's a good question...I don't recall hearing of one, except here on the
: NG recently with a gent who had a heart attack...not sure if he used CW
: or just had a carrier...
: Kim W5TIT
Point of information;
He was already using CW when the attack started. So he just continued on
CW. He didn't -start- using CW because of the emergency. I'm quite sure
if he had been on voice he would have continued to use that mode instead.
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Kim W5TIT
> >
> >
> One of the other things that never sat right with me is CW traffic nets. Really
> now, when one thinks about it long enough it starts to sound really stupid. We
> must realize that those who do them things are having more fun than the
> messages are worth. I suppose there may have been a time when a relaying of a
> message was a handy thing, but not often. J1
>
Most "stuff" people do in ham radio is because it's fun. Anyone who
would do volunteer "work" to make themselves miserable is a little nuts
in my book. Now, this isn't to discredit or give the appearance that
volunteers who deal with miserable "stuff" are having fun. The fun that
is had during training and preparation, then the feeling of helping
(fun?) while we can, all leads to self-worth/reward/fun. Who would
volunteer their services for a continual exposure to something they
really didn't enjoy doing--and what would that say for their intrinsic
value to the effort they are serving?
Kim W5TIT
WB3KUM/9
MANY years ago. Even the Navy's antenna farm was down. A lot of
emergency traffic was passed on CW, but also a lot on Phone (SSB). The
most recent "oddball" use of CW I have heard in the past 10 years or so
was a Ham who had a stroke. While in the hospital and before he could
speak, he communicated with his daughter in CW since he only had limited
arm/hand movement.
Kim W5TIT
Ah, OK...thanks for the, *ahem* clarification.... ;)
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:37:53 GMT, "Charles C."
>
> >There is a thread here talking about how handy
> >CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> >ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> >the HAM CW HF bands?
> >
> >I've never heard of a single account of this.
> >
> Titanic sank in 1912. I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
> and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
> information about survivors.
>
> But, since then, it's been a while.....(c;
>
> We passed emergency traffic during Hurricane Hugo in code. But, alas,
> the code was ASCII and the mode was Packet!
>
> Larry W4CSC.....shouldn't we replace the Morse test with a TYPING test
> so I can talk to someone who TYPES faster than 5wpm??
OH, you are just going to really piss K3LittleTyke, or whatever, off
now....
LOL Kim W5TIT
James Rosenthal
: Larry W4CSC wrote:
: > <charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip to]
: >
: > Titanic sank in 1912. I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
: > and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
: > information about survivors.
CW was the only mode they had available.
: > But, since then, it's been a while.....(c;
: >
: > We passed emergency traffic during Hurricane Hugo in code. But, alas,
: > the code was ASCII and the mode was Packet!
Close, but no sea-gar.
: > Larry W4CSC.....shouldn't we replace the Morse test with a TYPING test
: > so I can talk to someone who TYPES faster than 5wpm??
: OH, you are just going to really piss K3LittleTyke, or whatever, off
: now....
: LOL Kim W5TIT
Would you people p l e a s e t y p e s l o w e r ...... :)
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Darryl Wagoner
"Charles C." wrote:
>
> There is a thread here talking about how handy
> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> the HAM CW HF bands?
>
> I've never heard of a single account of this.
I had mixed emotions about Morse until you ask this question and
I read the responses. It is now clear to me that the FCC was
correct in lower the code requirement to 5 WPM and should drop
it as soon as the treaty permits. I will admin that Morse can
be fun for some people. It seems that now there is only one
valid reason for Morse on ham radio: Fun!
There is lots of lame reasons:
1. Keep the scum off the bands. No-code techs proves this isn't a
issue. Sure there is a few examples where this isn't true, but
it is also not totally true of HF. The worst words I have
heard on the radio is "Hell, Damn and pissed"
2. That some how know code makes us better. I really don't get this.
Anyone can learn code if they work at it long enough. Except for the
fun of doing
it and contesting I don't think it is worth it. I think code is going
to die out
over the next 20-30 years. I will be sad when it does. I was sad when
the 8 track
died as well.
This isn't going to be your fathers ham radio service. Good luck all.
73
--
Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON
x929
Steve - KF2TI
<B5DDFD948982BA32.46EEFB0D...@lp.airnews.net>,
kw5...@hotmail.com says...
> "Charles C." wrote:
> >
> > There is a thread here talking about how handy
> > CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> > ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> > the HAM CW HF bands?
> >
> > I've never heard of a single account of this.
>
> NG recently with a gent who had a heart attack...not sure if he used CW
> or just had a carrier...
>
> Kim W5TIT
>
Nimitz class??
--
Carpe Diem!!!!
D. Stussy
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:37:53 GMT, "Charles C."
> >There is a thread here talking about how handy
> >CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> >ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> >the HAM CW HF bands?
> >
> >I've never heard of a single account of this.
> >
> and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
> information about survivors.
Wasn't he [one of] the founder of RCA?
> But, since then, it's been a while.....(c;
>
> We passed emergency traffic during Hurricane Hugo in code. But, alas,
> the code was ASCII and the mode was Packet!
>
Fred Stuart
he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi company
could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain in
the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints and
boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice guy
that Sarnoff character!
73 de Fred KE1BB
"Larry W4CSC" <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote in message
news:38b4a42a....@eastcorp.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:37:53 GMT, "Charles C."
> <charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >There is a thread here talking about how handy
> >CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> >ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> >the HAM CW HF bands?
> >
> >I've never heard of a single account of this.
> >
> A ham named David Sarnoff passed emergency traffic on CW when the
> Titanic sank in 1912. I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
> and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
> information about survivors.
>
Fred Stuart
Don't you just like to listen to all that traffic on the traffic nets of
Rotarians sending Rotary B.S. to one another. Too cheap to drop a dime and
call! I agree with you message traffic is fun for the handlers, it is not a
good means of getting a message from point A to point B fast.
73 de Fred KE1BB
"J1aguiar" <j1ag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000223231459...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Has Anybody ever Heard of Rescue on CW Bands?
> >From: W6RCecilA Cecil....@IEEE.org
> >Date: 2/23/00 11:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <38B40C73...@IEEE.org>
> >
> >Charles C. wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a thread here talking about how handy
> >> CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> >> ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> >> the HAM CW HF bands?
> >>
> >> I've never heard of a single account of this.
> >
> >Oh oh, now you've done it. You can expect the PCTA folk to
> >stage such an incident any day now. Larry, at this very
> >moment, is looking for someone willing to crash a plane
> >250 miles from the nearest 2m repeater.
> >--
> >73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
> >
> >
Kim W5TIT
>
> Yeah,
> Don't you just like to listen to all that traffic on the traffic nets of
> Rotarians sending Rotary B.S. to one another. Too cheap to drop a dime and
> call! I agree with you message traffic is fun for the handlers, it is not a
> good means of getting a message from point A to point B fast.
> 73 de Fred KE1BB
>
Traffic nets are nothing more than constant practice at net procedures,
protocols, tests of conditions and operating practices within those
conditions/restrictions, testing the limitations of equipment and making
necessary adjustments, learning who the participants are, and training
for the time when a traffic net may be the only way a message gets from
point A to point B, let alone whether it gets there fast or slow.
Kim W5TIT
(And I can't stand traffic nets...but I do them because I recognize
their extreme value).
Larry Roll K3LT
Kim W5TIT <kw5...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Point of information;
>> He was already using CW when the attack started. So he just continued on
>> CW. He didn't -start- using CW because of the emergency. I'm quite sure
>> if he had been on voice he would have continued to use that mode instead.
>> --
>> Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Jim:
The fact that he was already engaged in a CW QSO doesn't change the
fact that this is an incident of CW being utilized in an emergency. Also,
what if the victim, in the process of having a heart attack, couldn't speak?
It's very likely that knowing Morse code saved his life!
>Ah, OK...thanks for the, *ahem* clarification.... ;)
>
>Kim W5TIT
Kim, quit interrupting while the adults are having a conversation.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008; CC nr. 703
k3lt@ka3bdr.#cde.de.usa.noam | http://www.qrz.com/wrad/directory.cgi?K3LT
(302) 678-4841 | ARRL OBS - DE
Robert Casey
Fred Stuart <fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and also
>he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi company
>could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain in
>the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints and
>boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice guy
>that Sarnoff character!
>73 de Fred KE1BB
>
80s. When RCA was a real company and not just a meaningless tradename.
(Don't get me started on teh rape and pillage GE did to RCA....), anyway
I had heard stories at RCA Labs about how Sarnoff was a real dick!
James Rosenthal
: In article <D8CFD0F290E5D897.3C9AAD6D...@lp.airnews.net>,
: Kim W5TIT <kw5...@hotmail.com> writes:
: >> Point of information;
: >> He was already using CW when the attack started. So he just continued on
: >> CW. He didn't -start- using CW because of the emergency. I'm quite sure
: >> if he had been on voice he would have continued to use that mode instead.
: Jim:
: The fact that he was already engaged in a CW QSO doesn't change the
: fact that this is an incident of CW being utilized in an emergency.
The original question seemed to ask if CW was choosen -specifically- to be
used *after* the emergency had started when the station -wasn't- on the
air -before- the emergency started.
: Also,
: what if the victim, in the process of having a heart attack, couldn't speak?
What happens if the emergency consisted of the victims HANDS being cut
OFF?!? He could -continue- to use the VOX of his SSB rig to yell
** O U C H **!!!
: It's very likely that knowing Morse code saved his life!
Not really, It's more likely that BEING ON THE AIR AT THE TIME saved his
life. The mode that he -continued- to use was immaterial.
: >Ah, OK...thanks for the, *ahem* clarification.... ;)
: >
: >Kim W5TIT
: Kim, quit interrupting while the adults are having a conversation.
Now - now Larry, go to "timeout". :)
: 73 de Larry, K3LT
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
>
> Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and also
> he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi company
> could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain in
> the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints and
> boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice guy
> that Sarnoff character!
> 73 de Fred KE1BB
He also "stole" the television patents from Philo
Farnsworth....harrassed him legally for over 10 years, broke him
financially so that PHilo couldn't capitalize on his patents by making a
credible television company (he tried though, and my mother was one of
the first people ever to appear on a live television broadcast of the
Farnsworth Television company). Sarnoff finally got the patents a few
years later when the patents expired. The rest is history. Not a very
nice guy.
Rick Tannehill
W7RT
>
> "Larry W4CSC" <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote in message
> news:38b4a42a....@eastcorp.supernews.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:37:53 GMT, "Charles C."
> > <charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There is a thread here talking about how handy
> > >CW can be for emergencies. Has anybody here
> > >ever heard (or heard of) a rescue initiated on
> > >the HAM CW HF bands?
> > >
> > >I've never heard of a single account of this.
> > >
Lenof21
>Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and also
>he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi company
>could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain in
>the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints and
>boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice guy
>that Sarnoff character!
>73 de Fred KE1BB
A young David Sarnoff was indeed working as a professional radio-
telegrapher at the time of the Titanic sinking. That qualified him as
a professional. He would later form the Radio Corporation of
America which evolved into RCA Corporation. I worked for David
Sarnoff's son Robert at the Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems
Division in Van Nuys, CA, for 8 years during the 60s and 70s.
As to "they" wanting to "shut down amateur radio," that is only
speculation. The chaotic radio (essentially non-regulation) of
the 1920s led governments (plural, nearly worldwide) to re-allocate
amateur radio bands to those above 1.5 MHz ("200 meter"
wavelengths or shorter, commonly called "shortwave"). Such
re-allocation paved the way for AM broadcasting at MF so that
it could serve millions of citizens...which it did. Amateurs were
a tiny part of the world's citizenry at the time, still are.
As to "driving (Edwin) Armstrong to suicide," that is also just
speculation. Armstrong was brilliant and an innovator, however
he was similar to other innovators in a lack of "selling" his
ideas in his time. The Marconi Company tried to monopolize
world patents on radio, a smart move on their part at the time
but a monopoly nonetheless. Early RCA (as well as other
companies) tried to counter this by forming their own
monopolies (Farnsworth, Bell Labs, etc.) and one of the
targets was Lee de Forrest, the "father" of the controllable
vacuum tube. The patent wars of the 20s and 30s were many
and mighty, only the strong surviving. It's a fascinating part
of the business-government side of the evolving technology
of radio. Unfortunately, the amateur community seems only
focussed on amateurs and much of the ham community
knows little about the "other" radio world.
In amateur radio lore, the "banishment" of hams to "200
meters and down" is taken to them being "pioneers" of
the shortwave band. Not quite. While ionospheric radio
propagation was just getting discovered in the 1920s, the
commercial and military radio world dived into that
environment, explored it, and capitalized on it. While the
first radio SSB was on LFs in the early 1930s, it was only
a couple of years later that commercial SSB was being
installed worldwide for commercial and military
communications on HF. The same for RTTY...which did
not need the extensive "carrier" equipment (AF FDM,)
adapted from long-lines wired telephony) to feed the
commercial SSB audio input. By 1940, the reliable HF
long-haul radio circuits were using RTTY and SSB.
Radio amateurs in the main were beeping along with OOK
CW, only a few trying for AM and still fewer experimenting
with single sideband.
Armstrong was not a father of FM but rather a champion
of FM BROADCASTING. While he did show that it did
indeed provide greater benefits to broadcast listeners, he
did not do well in trying to promote it. Others and other
companies had taken to the FM mode and were doing
their own trials and innovations...the first vehicular FM for
voice was tried just prior to WW2...and those techniques
were adapted for the US land military in WW2 in the form
of "channelized" tank radios.
Beating dead horses (such as the purchased RCA empire)
and its founders serves no purpose. Much of the stories
thrown about are exaggerations or just false...and many of
the real innovators and pioneers are not even mentioned.
Neither David Sarnoff nor the RCA Corporation can really be
faulted insofar as radio technology or even as "bad business
people." RCA and other corporations that survived the
radio "shakeout" period were simply aggressive in business.
Large corporate structures do not get built through non-
aggressive activity.
As to "rescues" on "CW bands," those abound in the same
form, almost always exaggerated to suit the long-time
beeper listeners/readers. The most notable "rescue" of the
1940s was the delivered-but-ignored telegram sent and
received by RCA World Communications for the old War
Department. It advised the Pearl Harbor commanders to be
on alert for a possible attack...carried on commercial HF
circuits because the US military did not have a good radio
network in 1941. That would change quickly. :-)
LA
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
However, I do believe that unmasking our former assumed "Captains of
Industry" if they were really "robber barons" and opportunists by
stepping over the bodies of those true pioneers they wiped out, is a
good thing. It puts history in a much truer perspective. Looking at
Sarnoff's history, at the Armstrong affair, the Farnsworth affair, and
the many other stories, it would certainly appear that there was a
pattern there of unethical behavior. He also certainly was not one of
"us" as far as a strong support of ham radio.
Rick Tannehill
Fred Stuart
I am certain that Sarnoff was a Marconi employee at the time the Titanic
sunk. He was not a amateur at that time.
73 de Fred Ke1BB
"Larry W4CSC" <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote in message
news:D9A1E4CDB4EC2259.A05C92BC...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:35:00 -0500, "Fred Stuart"
> <fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and
also
> >he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi
company
> >could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain
in
> >the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints
and
> >boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice
guy
> >that Sarnoff character!
> >73 de Fred KE1BB
> >
> >
> David Sarnoff was a young man in 1912 with a homebrew ham rig. He
> became president and CEO of a little upstart electronics company and
> broadcasting company called Radio Corporation of America. I've never
> heard he was associated with Marconi. I doubt it in 1912 when he was
> a kid.
>
> I did a little AltaVista search, and, in spite of Thomson trying to
> rewrite RCA/Marconi America history, Sarnoff was born in 1891. So,
> that would make him only 21 years old in 1912. The war caused Marconi
> America to be nationalized by GE and RCA was born to produce radios
> for war.
>
> Larry W4CSC.....always interested in Tesla, myself.
>
>
Brian
> However, I do believe that unmasking our former assumed "Captains of
> Industry" if they were really "robber barons" and opportunists by
> stepping over the bodies of those true pioneers they wiped out, is a
> good thing. It puts history in a much truer perspective. Looking at
> Sarnoff's history, at the Armstrong affair, the Farnsworth affair, and
> the many other stories, it would certainly appear that there was a
> pattern there of unethical behavior. He also certainly was not one of
> "us" as far as a strong support of ham radio.
>
> Rick Tannehill
I was just told that ethics has no place in amateur radio.
W6RCecilA
> No, Armstrong was THE father of FM just as he was the inventor of the
> superheterodyne receiver.
For people who don't know what they are talking about, I suggest
viewing, "Empire of the Airways", (or some such title). It was
a special on TV a couple of years ago. It had a segment on how
Armstrong demonstrated FM+noise VS AM+noise for the first time.
If I remember right, he demonstrated it for his boss, Sarnoff.
James Rosenthal
: Lenof21 wrote:
: > <fstu...@maine.rr.com> writes:
[snip]
: However, I do believe that unmasking our former assumed "Captains of
: Industry" if they were really "robber barons" and opportunists by
: stepping over the bodies of those true pioneers they wiped out, is a
: good thing. It puts history in a much truer perspective.
But we do have to remember that what they did was quite normal for their day.
: Looking at
: Sarnoff's history, at the Armstrong affair, the Farnsworth affair, and
: the many other stories, it would certainly appear that there was a
: pattern there of unethical behavior.
By -todays- standards. But "back then", it was -normal- behavior.
; He also certainly was not one of "us" as far as a strong support of ham radio.
Have you read some of the stuff that Edision pulled when he was in the
government purchasing dept? He certainly wasn't pure as snow either.
: Rick Tannehill
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Larry W4CSC
<fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>Yeah,
>Don't you just like to listen to all that traffic on the traffic nets of
>Rotarians sending Rotary B.S. to one another. Too cheap to drop a dime and
>call! I agree with you message traffic is fun for the handlers, it is not a
>good means of getting a message from point A to point B fast.
>73 de Fred KE1BB
>
Guy comes up to me at a ham radio demo in a mall and says, "Can you
send a message to my mother in Florida?"
"Sure", I reply smugly. "What's her phone number?" He gives it to me
and I write it on an official ARRL message blank. Then I whip my
digital cellphone out of my back pocket, dial this nice old lady's
number and tell her to wait a second, her son wants to send her a
message....(c;
Nobody had a camera ready. It happened too fast. The look on his
face belonged in Life Magazine...hee hee.
"Hello, Mom?!"
Larry W4CSC.
Larry W4CSC
<kd6...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>> >
>> A ham named David Sarnoff passed emergency traffic on CW when the
>> Titanic sank in 1912. I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
>> and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
>> information about survivors.
>
>Wasn't he [one of] the founder of RCA?
Yes, he was. Not all hams are broke, like most of us...(c;
Larry W4CSC
Larry W4CSC
Larry W4CSC
>A young David Sarnoff was indeed working as a professional radio-
>telegrapher at the time of the Titanic sinking. That qualified him as
>a professional. He would later form the Radio Corporation of
>America which evolved into RCA Corporation. I worked for David
>Sarnoff's son Robert at the Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems
>Division in Van Nuys, CA, for 8 years during the 60s and 70s.
>
>
>LA
Thanks, LA, for the excellent information! There wasn't much
difference between "professional telegrapher" and amateur radio
operators in those days, was there? One of them got paid, well, for
the time he passed traffic....
My ex-wife's father worked for RCA in Cherry Hill, NJ, during WW2 on
some new-fangled VHF equipment you could point with a big bedspring
antenna. They pulsed it and could see the reflection off the
"target". I believe they ended up calling it RADAR. His name was
Demko, just one of the long line of RCA engineers. Unfortunately, he
drank himself to death when my wife was only a teenager in the 1950's.
Larry W4CSC
Larry W4CSC
<rick...@mail.firstinter.net> wrote:
>However, I do believe that unmasking our former assumed "Captains of
>Industry" if they were really "robber barons" and opportunists by
>stepping over the bodies of those true pioneers they wiped out, is a
>good thing. It puts history in a much truer perspective. Looking at
>Sarnoff's history, at the Armstrong affair, the Farnsworth affair, and
>the many other stories, it would certainly appear that there was a
>pattern there of unethical behavior. He also certainly was not one of
>"us" as far as a strong support of ham radio.
>
>Rick Tannehill
Sort of sounds like a page out of the exploitation Mr Edison did of Mr
Tesla's inventions, doesn't it?
Larry W4CSC
NY Times and you are correct, Fred. The Times used Marconi Wireless
stations, exclusively, to receive dispatches (in Morse- Yea!) from
Europe every day. They had their OWN Marconi wireless system, it
seems from the texts. At 21, Sarnoff must have been a Marconi
operator.
They also mention lots of dispatches from a Captain Haddock on
Olympic. Lots of the messages were either received wrong or were
false. In another part of the paper, Times mentions that White Star,
owner of the Titanic back in Liverpool, didn't receive any of the news
directly because their wireless station was so poor they couldn't hear
any signals from the ships at the disaster site, but relied on signals
they could hear from Canada and New York Marconi stations.
Just for reference, there's an ad from Knabe Warerooms on 5th Ave and
39th Street. A brand new Ebony Steinway Grand piano has been marked
down from the princely sum of $900 to $575. Ebony Steinways run from
$40,000 to around $95,000, today. I used to deliver them to mansions
all over Charleston (SC).
Larry W4CSC
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:04:10 -0500, "Fred Stuart"
<fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>Sir,
>I am certain that Sarnoff was a Marconi employee at the time the Titanic
>sunk. He was not a amateur at that time.
>73 de Fred Ke1BB
>
>"Larry W4CSC" <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote in message
>news:D9A1E4CDB4EC2259.A05C92BC...@lp.airnews.net...
James Rosenthal
: Larry W4CSC.....always interested in Tesla, myself.
Yeah, he "be the man"! :)
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Dave Heil
>
> Armstrong was not a father of FM but rather a champion
> of FM BROADCASTING. While he did show that it did
> indeed provide greater benefits to broadcast listeners, he
> did not do well in trying to promote it. Others and other
> companies had taken to the FM mode and were doing
> their own trials and innovations...the first vehicular FM for
> voice was tried just prior to WW2...and those techniques
> were adapted for the US land military in WW2 in the form
> of "channelized" tank radios.
No, Armstrong was THE father of FM just as he was the inventor of the
superheterodyne receiver.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Keith Wood
Larry W4CSC wrote:
> I did a little AltaVista search, and, in spite of Thomson trying to
> rewrite RCA/Marconi America history, Sarnoff was born in 1891. So,
> that would make him only 21 years old in 1912.
"Only"?
Keith Wood
Larry W4CSC wrote:
> Just for reference, there's an ad from Knabe Warerooms on 5th Ave and
> 39th Street. A brand new Ebony Steinway Grand piano has been marked
> down from the princely sum of $900 to $575. Ebony Steinways run from
> $40,000 to around $95,000, today. I used to deliver them to mansions
> all over Charleston (SC).
"What's a Steinway?"
"Full or empty?"
Fred Stuart
Sarnoff and Edison where the heros in electric generation and radio. But,
after reading of the persons that where defamed and literally slaughtered on
the technology frontier by these two I wonder how we as humans can morally
keep telling our children what wonderful men they where. Long live the
memory of Armstrong, Tesla, and the others that had the guts to try
something new that their bosses said was crap! Ans if yor ever in the
Smithsonian in the Edison exhibit check out the patent tag on the AC
generator (it has Teslas patents.) The Edison foundation today still goes to
great lenghts to supress the Tesla name and to eradicate any mention
anywhere of his inventions or patents. As far as I know there is only one or
two books on Tesla one being the Prodigal Genius.
73 de Frednews:A1DE00A3BA4E7DF1.8F8F3F0D...@lp.airnews.net...
> Ok, I concede.....I got out my Tuesday, April 16th, 1912 issue of the
> NY Times and you are correct, Fred. The Times used Marconi Wireless
> stations, exclusively, to receive dispatches (in Morse- Yea!) from
> Europe every day. They had their OWN Marconi wireless system, it
> seems from the texts. At 21, Sarnoff must have been a Marconi
> operator.
>
> They also mention lots of dispatches from a Captain Haddock on
> Olympic. Lots of the messages were either received wrong or were
> false. In another part of the paper, Times mentions that White Star,
> owner of the Titanic back in Liverpool, didn't receive any of the news
> directly because their wireless station was so poor they couldn't hear
> any signals from the ships at the disaster site, but relied on signals
> they could hear from Canada and New York Marconi stations.
>
> 39th Street. A brand new Ebony Steinway Grand piano has been marked
> down from the princely sum of $900 to $575. Ebony Steinways run from
> $40,000 to around $95,000, today. I used to deliver them to mansions
> all over Charleston (SC).
>
> >> rewrite RCA/Marconi America history, Sarnoff was born in 1891. So,
> >> America to be nationalized by GE and RCA was born to produce radios
> >> for war.
> >>
Kim W5TIT
>
> When I was a young lad the texbooks and the media had me convinced that
> Sarnoff and Edison where the heros in electric generation and radio. But,
> after reading of the persons that where defamed and literally slaughtered on
> the technology frontier by these two I wonder how we as humans can morally
> keep telling our children what wonderful men they where.
Was Pres. Washington an amateur <snicker> (I am trying to find a way to
relate this to "policy" but I can't)? I will never forget the day when
I was a senior in high school and a whole bunch of us friends were
yakking. The subject was the differences we learn between high school
and college. I'll never forget one of the college students saying, "Why
do you think they called George Washington the "Father" of our country?"
(relating that George Washington had several women concubines). Now, I
still don't know exactly "what" is taught (or learned) in the college
environment...never went...but that thought has always stuck in my
mind...
Kim W5TIT
Lenof21
writes:
Good old Dave trolling for an Argument on some part or phrase
or paragraph of a previous post...so that he can redirect things
to things where He can "prove" another communicator is
"wrong." Gotta love the guy for persistence in trying to salve
old newsgroup wounds! :-)
The original claim was that RCA/Sarnoff "drove Armstrong to
suicide" through some kind of nefarious unstated means. In
actual historical fact, Edwin Howard Armstrong was a brilliant
man, an innovator and inventor who DID invent the super-
heterodyne receiver in 1918 (while on US Army duty in
France, patent granted in 1920). Armstrong had already
invented the regenerative receiver and would, in four years,
invent a superregenerative receiver. He DID demonstrate FM
broadcast as early as 1935 to show the inherent superiority
of higher modulation index FM over conventional AM in noisy
receiving environments. By 1939 Armstrong had invested
at least a million dollars of his own fortune into fledgling FM
broadcast, including special studio equipment for same.
The reluctance of the broadcast industry to realize the FM
broadcast potential might be due to A.T.&T.
John R. Carson of A.T.&T. had invented "carrier" telephony
in 1915, essentially SSB AM at audio frequencies so as to
frequency-multiplex several voice circuits over one landline.
Carson's work was based on an analysis of the modulation
characterists of various modulations of carriers. A paper by
Carson in 1922 "proved" that FM was "useless for
conserving bandwidth." A later 1928 paper tried to disprove
FM's inherent (in the receiving end) noise-reduction
capability. Carson's mathematics were correct but he
did not account for the wider modulation index possibility
of FM. In retrospect, Carson may have been influenced in
his conclusions by the technology he had invented and the
successful application of same (12 KHz bandwidth, four-
voice-channel SSB in commercial and military HF radio
would later use that "carrier" equipment as part of a SSB
terminal). Armstrong saw through the Carson conclusion,
used a higher modulation index for his FM broadcast
tests. Nonetheless, industry "experts" were already
biased against FM in any form and some of that bias
still exists today. All in all, Edwin Armstrong's work on
FM was almost entirely devoted to broadcasting
applications and in THAT he can be called a "father of
FM."
Can he be the "father of VHF/UHF FM?" Not really.
Others were already working on FM mobile applications
in 1939 and would be accelerated by WW2 efforts. In
an era of vacuum tubes as the only active devices, FM
mobile would be an obvious power drain saver - no
ungainly power-hungry audio modulator necessary for
AM and the final RF amplifier could still run "efficiently"
as a Class C stage. A small company known as
Galvin Manufacturing introduced the first mobile BC
receiver in 1930 and would introduce two-way radios
for public safety mobile use in the later 30s. They
would also change the company name to Motorola.
Oddly enough, John R. Carson's old employer would
aid the WW2 effort by helping design of those FM
tank radios and FM radio relay sets that appeared in
the last years of WW2...and to add FM on their long-
distance landline and microwave link technology.
Of course, all of the above will be "disproven" or
termed "silly" or taken as somehow irrelevant
because Dave Heil only wants a newsgroup argument
to "prove" something (probably only to himself).
Nothing new there. :-)
LA
Lenof21
W4...@lostonthe.net (Larry W4CSC) writes:
>On 25 Feb 2000 21:21:44 GMT, len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>
>>A young David Sarnoff was indeed working as a professional radio-
>>telegrapher at the time of the Titanic sinking. That qualified him as
>>a professional. He would later form the Radio Corporation of
>>America which evolved into RCA Corporation. I worked for David
>>Sarnoff's son Robert at the Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems
>>Division in Van Nuys, CA, for 8 years during the 60s and 70s.
>>
>>LA
>
>Thanks, LA, for the excellent information! There wasn't much
>difference between "professional telegrapher" and amateur radio
>operators in those days, was there? One of them got paid, well, for
>the time he passed traffic....
I have no idea of the salary scales for old-time professional
telegraphers so I can't comment on that. I DO know that the
majority of "traffic" (messages as in communications) was
carried on by teleprinter even as far back as 1912. Manual
telegraphy using OOK codings has been relegated to a mythos
of a sort due mainly to the emotional attachment to it by old-
time morseodists...and publicized by journalists emphasizing
the "mystery" of morse and the emotional "life saving"
capabilities (as compared to times where there was NO over-
the-horizon communications possible for ships).
>My ex-wife's father worked for RCA in Cherry Hill, NJ, during WW2 on
>some new-fangled VHF equipment you could point with a big bedspring
>antenna. They pulsed it and could see the reflection off the
>"target". I believe they ended up calling it RADAR.
RAdio Direction And Ranging was conceived independently by
several nations, the first of which was France. While the
history is fascinating to some, it has little application to amateur
radio. During the 1930s RCA had built up HF communications
to a fairly reliable international network for "passing (mostly
teleprinter) traffic." That was an adjunct to RCA's main efforts
that concentrated on broadcasting technology...including
patents on same.
For some reason, some in here regard inventors and patent
grantees and, especially, patent assignees as some kind of
capitalistic ogres who somehow forbid the "free" application
of technology for everyone. They cite the "bad" activities of
patent holders as "monopolizing" technology for thier own
use and somehow "destroying the lives" of others who
try to infringe on patents or try to make them "free" for others.
I relegate that mostly to jealous blatherings due to inability to
come up with anything on their own.
I'm still waiting for the "proof" of "rescues via CW" in the last
three to four decades...other than New Year's Eve wireservice
fabrications by filler writers or the ham media puffing up the
importance of amateur radiotelegraphy out of all proportion.
Leonard H. Anderson
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote:
> > No, Armstrong was THE father of FM just as he was the inventor of the
> > superheterodyne receiver.
>
> viewing, "Empire of the Airways", (or some such title). It was
> a special on TV a couple of years ago. It had a segment on how
> Armstrong demonstrated FM+noise VS AM+noise for the first time.
> If I remember right, he demonstrated it for his boss, Sarnoff.
It is "Empire of the Air" and it is also a book. Maybe Len can find it.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Lenof21
writes:
>W6RCecilA wrote:
No doubt an excellent book...and probably Heil's only clue
on broadcasting...a world outside amateur radio and State
Department rooms. :-)
The only "official" books are "200 Meters And Down" plus
the first chapter in the ARRL Amateur Handbooks. For all
the "official" hams.
For my part, as a semi-retired professional, I like to access
a rather wider field of historical documents such as those
of every other radio service or even the cable TV channels,
one of which did a biography on Edwin Howard Armstrong.
For just ordinary newsgroup references outside of the
"official" sources, I rather like Vince Biancomano's old
employer, McGraw-Hill, and their Special Commemorative
Issue of ELECTRONICS of April 17, 1980. One huge issue
and factually correct according to other sources. A quick
and easy reference to all radio between 1930 and 1980
plus technology, development, and people involved on up
to 1930.
The one nice thing about references in print is that it can't
be changed once printed...and it can be referred to by
others who take the time to look it up.
Of course, anyone who wants the "real" story can just
listen to the snarly arrogant newsgroupies who usually
respond with absolutes and "you don't know what you are
talking about" niceties. Good ol Dave seems to indicate
He has been in every other radio service and knows
exactly what He is talking about all the time. He is from
the government and is here to help us... :-)
LA
N2EY
Stussy" <kd6...@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
>> A ham named David Sarnoff passed emergency traffic on CW when the
>> Titanic sank in 1912. I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
>> and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
>> information about survivors.
>
>Wasn't he [one of] the founder of RCA?
The story is a bit complex. Sarnoff was an employee of the Marconi Company in
1912. He rose through the ranks (due in large part to aggressive
self-promotion) and eventually assumed control of the American division of the
Marconi Company. This grew into the Radio Corporation of America - RCA.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
(Larry W4CSC) writes:
>A ham named David Sarnoff passed emergency traffic on CW when the
>Titanic sank in 1912.
Sarnoff was a shore radio operator for the Marconi Company in New York at the
time. His participation was professional - and on 600 meters. There were many
other operators involved, both at the New York station and elsewhere, but
Sarnoff used the opportunity to boost his reputation. Considering where he went
from there, he was not a shy or humble sort of person.
I have seen no evidence that he ever held an amateur license.
> I have a reprint of the NY Times of the event
>and it mentions both Sarnoff and ham radio as the main source of their
>information about survivors.
The communications mentioned were between the Carpathia, which rescued the
survivors of the Titanic sinking, and shore stations. Hams could, of course,
listen in and copy the traffic.
The Titanic disaster was the beginning of comprehensive radio regulations.
Because of it, amateurs were limited by law to the "useless" waves below 200
meters. Power limitations, licensing and many other regulations come from
legislation and treaties that came in the wake of the Titanic sinking.
73 de Jim, N2EY
>
Larry W4CSC
>
>
>Larry W4CSC wrote:
>
>
>> Just for reference, there's an ad from Knabe Warerooms on 5th Ave and
>> 39th Street. A brand new Ebony Steinway Grand piano has been marked
>> down from the princely sum of $900 to $575. Ebony Steinways run from
>> $40,000 to around $95,000, today. I used to deliver them to mansions
>> all over Charleston (SC).
>
>"What's a Steinway?"
>
>"Full or empty?"
Steinway is a brand of PIANO! It's a big mechanical box with string
hit with little hammers.....but that's not important now.
Larry W4CSC......Airport 2000?
N2EY
<rick...@mail.firstinter.net> writes:
>Fred Stuart wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and also
>> he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi company
>> could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain in
>> the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints and
>> boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice guy
>> that Sarnoff character!
>> 73 de Fred KE1BB
>
>He also "stole" the television patents from Philo
>Farnsworth....harrassed him legally for over 10 years, broke him
>financially so that PHilo couldn't capitalize on his patents by making a
>credible television company (he tried though, and my mother was one of
>the first people ever to appear on a live television broadcast of the
>Farnsworth Television company).
Yup. Farnsworth demonstrated practical live TV in 1934, here in Philadelphia.
Five years before RCA's demo at the NY World's Fair.
Farnsworth worked out the concepts of electronic television in 1922. Without
him, who knows when TV would have been developed?
>Sarnoff finally got the patents a few
>years later when the patents expired. The rest is history. Not a very
>nice guy.
>
You are a master of understatement, Rick.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
(Lenof21) writes:
>In article <hWlt4.735$Ak2....@newsr1.maine.rr.com>, "Fred Stuart"
><fstu...@maine.rr.com> writes:
>
>>Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and also
>>he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi company
>>could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a pain in
>>the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching joints and
>>boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue. Nice guy
>>that Sarnoff character!
>>73 de Fred KE1BB
>
>A young David Sarnoff was indeed working as a professional radio-
>telegrapher at the time of the Titanic sinking. That qualified him as
>a professional. He would later form the Radio Corporation of
>America which evolved into RCA Corporation.
He worked for the Marconi Company. In those days, the Marconi Company and its
competitors like Telefunken usually owned the stations and employed the
operators, and worked as contractors to outfits like White Star and Cunard. The
radio operators on the Titanic, Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, were actually
employees of the Marconi Company, not the White Star Line. Of course they
answered to Captain E.J. Smith while on board.
>
>As to "they" wanting to "shut down amateur radio," that is only
>speculation.
No, it was a simple fact. There were several attmpts to eliminate amateur radio
in the '20s. All failed.
> The chaotic radio (essentially non-regulation) of
>the 1920s led governments (plural, nearly worldwide) to re-allocate
>amateur radio bands to those above 1.5 MHz ("200 meter"
>wavelengths or shorter, commonly called "shortwave").
That is not entirely correct. Further explanation is needed.
After the Titanic sinking, it was obvious that the radio regulations and
procedures of the time were inadequate. New treaties and regulations were
developed, and among them was the limitation of amateur stations to the
wavelengths of "200 meters and down" meaning frequencies of 1.5 MHz and above,
and a power limit of 1 kilowatt input. The phrase "200 meters and down" has led
some to think that amateurs had unlimited use of all of the HF spectrum. In
fact, the wavelength of every station was specified on the license - most hams
operated on or near 200 meters because it was thought at the time that the
longer the wavelength, the better suited the wave was to long distance
communication. Hams - and others - could use the shorter waves by requesting a
license to do so. But almost nobody did - at first.
Note that hams were limited to the spectrum above 1.5 MHz in 1912, long before
broadcasting began.
After WW1, the first broadcast stations appeared. Often they were amateur
stations, or amateurs turned professional. Finding spectrum for them was
somewhat of a problem, of course, but amateurs only lost a small slice of
spectrum (100 kHz) to broadcasting. And it really didn't matter, because in
1921 amateurs demonstrated one-way transatlantic communciation on 200 meters,
and in 1923 two way communication between France and the US on 110 meters was
accomplished by amateurs. By 1925 all continents had been worked by hams using
relatively low power and short waves.
Of course others soon followed, and again new regulations were needed. Hams got
defined bands in the '20s, which were quite generous by today's standards (3.5
- 4 MHz, 7-8 MHz, 14-16 MHz). These were narrowed drastically at the 1927
international radio conference.
> Such
>re-allocation paved the way for AM broadcasting at MF so that
>it could serve millions of citizens...which it did.
Hams moved off of the AM BC band long before broadcasting was begun. 1912, not
the 1920s.
> Amateurs were
>a tiny part of the world's citizenry at the time, still are.
So?
>
>As to "driving (Edwin) Armstrong to suicide," that is also just
>speculation.
Sarnoff had been Armstrong's friend for many years. RCA was built on the
strength of Armstrong developments and Armstrong patents. Of course these
patents made Armstrong rich, but that was not enough. He did not want to see
his invention shelved just because it did not fit into Sarnoff's business plan.
He did not think that his friend Sarnoff would turn into his enemy. He was
wrong about that.
>Armstrong was brilliant and an innovator, however
>he was similar to other innovators in a lack of "selling" his
>ideas in his time.
He invested much of his fortune in building the Yankee network.
>The Marconi Company tried to monopolize
>world patents on radio, a smart move on their part at the time
>but a monopoly nonetheless. Early RCA (as well as other
>companies) tried to counter this by forming their own
>monopolies (Farnsworth, Bell Labs, etc.) and one of the
>targets was Lee de Forrest, the "father" of the controllable
>vacuum tube.
De Forest invented the triode, but in patent hearings could not explain how it
worked. He was also involved in a long succession of companies that were
essentially bunko schemes and fakes.
Philo T. Farnsworth invented electronic television, and demonstrated it as
early as 1934 - five years before RCA's demo at the New York World's Fair. But
Sarnoff stole many of Farnsworth's ideas, and Farnsworth did not have the
resources to fight RCA.
> The patent wars of the 20s and 30s were many
>and mighty, only the strong surviving.
Only those with the ruthlessness and resources.
>It's a fascinating part
>of the business-government side of the evolving technology
>of radio.
It shows how the legal system of the time was completely inadequate to deal
with the new technologies that were appearing almost daily.
> Unfortunately, the amateur community seems only
>focussed on amateurs and much of the ham community
>knows little about the "other" radio world.
Why is it "unfortunate" that hams are primarily concerned with amateur radio?
If one is interested in the history of broadcasting, or maritime radio, one
doesn't need to be a ham.
And the events discussed in this post occurred 50, 60, 70 and more years ago.
>
>In amateur radio lore, the "banishment" of hams to "200
>meters and down" is taken to them being "pioneers" of
>the shortwave band.
Of course they were.
>Not quite. While ionospheric radio
>propagation was just getting discovered in the 1920s, the
>commercial and military radio world dived into that
>environment, explored it, and capitalized on it.
But only after amateurs demonstrated the possibilities. Hams demonstrated
transatlantic two-way communication using 110 meters (which was certainly
"short wave" at the time) in late 1923 - what commercial or military operation
can claim such results at that time?
> While the
>first radio SSB was on LFs in the early 1930s, it was only
>a couple of years later that commercial SSB was being
>installed worldwide for commercial and military
>communications on HF.
And amateurs were using SSB on the ham bands as early as 1931.
>The same for RTTY...which did
>not need the extensive "carrier" equipment (AF FDM,)
>adapted from long-lines wired telephony) to feed the
>commercial SSB audio input. By 1940, the reliable HF
>long-haul radio circuits were using RTTY and SSB.
Many of the point-to-point circuits that could justify the investment, yes. But
manual radiotelegraphy was widely used by the commercial maritime and aircraft
services, and by the military, until long after WW2.
>Radio amateurs in the main were beeping along with OOK
>CW, only a few trying for AM and still fewer experimenting
>with single sideband.
Partly because of cost, partly because of complexity, and partly because of the
results obtained.
>
>Armstrong was not a father of FM but rather a champion
>of FM BROADCASTING.
He developed an entire practical system of both transmission and reception.
> While he did show that it did
>indeed provide greater benefits to broadcast listeners, he
>did not do well in trying to promote it.
He was opposed at every turn by Sarnoff, who did not want FM broadcasting at
all.
> Others and other
>companies had taken to the FM mode and were doing
>their own trials and innovations...the first vehicular FM for
>voice was tried just prior to WW2...and those techniques
>were adapted for the US land military in WW2 in the form
>of "channelized" tank radios.
But only AFTER Armstrong had shown the way. Armstrong, by the way, allowed FREE
use of his patents for the war effort in both world wars.
>
>Beating dead horses (such as the purchased RCA empire)
>and its founders serves no purpose.
It is important to get the facts right. Sarnoff, for example, expanded his role
in the Titanic sinking far beyond reality to promote himself.
>Much of the stories
>thrown about are exaggerations or just false..
Yup.
>.and many of
>the real innovators and pioneers are not even mentioned.
Farnsworth - Fessenden - Lamb - Alexanderson - Tesla. To name just a few.
>Neither David Sarnoff nor the RCA Corporation can really be
>faulted insofar as radio technology or even as "bad business
>people."
Sure they can. Sarnoff was far worse than Bill Gates.
>RCA and other corporations that survived the
>radio "shakeout" period were simply aggressive in business.
Aggressive to the point of stealing others' ideas.
>Large corporate structures do not get built through non-
>aggressive activity.
Ends justify the means, huh?
> The most notable "rescue" of the
>1940s was the delivered-but-ignored telegram sent and
>received by RCA World Communications for the old War
>Department.
Sent by commercial radioteletype, I believe.
> It advised the Pearl Harbor commanders to be
>on alert for a possible attack...carried on commercial HF
>circuits because the US military did not have a good radio
>network in 1941.
And sent ordinary priority. It was delivered after the attack was in progress.
The incoming Japanese attack aircraft were detected by an Army radar station
and duly reported, but the duty officers ignored the reports, thinking they
were mistakes. They weren't.
N2EY
N2EY
writes:
>Dave Heil wrote:
>> No, Armstrong was THE father of FM just as he was the inventor of the
>> superheterodyne receiver.
>
>For people who don't know what they are talking about, I suggest
>viewing, "Empire of the Airways", (or some such title).
"Empire of the Air", based on the book of the same title by Tom Lewis. It
details the lives of Armstrong, Sarnoff and DeForest.
>It was
>a special on TV a couple of years ago.
It was made by Ken Burns for PBS. Your local video store may have a copy.
>It had a segment on how
>Armstrong demonstrated FM+noise VS AM+noise for the first time.
>If I remember right, he demonstrated it for his boss, Sarnoff.
Sarnoff had told Armstrong (about 1930) that he rarely listened to the radio
anymore because of the "static". There were all sorts of "static eliminators"
on the market at the time, but none of them worked against noises like those
produced by electric motors with brushes and commutators. What Sarnoff really
wanted was some sort of gizmo that could be added to a conventional AM receiver
to eliminate that sort of noise.
US broadcasting at the time was all AM in the 550 - 1600 kHz band. FM was known
in principle, but not used much. Armstrong developed a whole new system of FM,
using VHF frequencies and a high modulation index. He demonstrated the noise
immunity of his new system in the early 1930s - for Sarnoff. It was not only
wonderfully noise-immune, it was also higher-fidelity than the AM of the time.
The disadvantage was that a single station could only cover a relatively
limited area reliably (essentially line of sight) while a powerful conventional
AM BC station could be heard hundreds or even thousands of miles away at night.
The answer, of course, was lots of stations networked together. Of course the
AM stations were already networked.
But Sarnoff wasn't interested. The new system, if adopted, would have meant
that huge amounts of conventional AM BC equipment would become obsolete.
Sarnoff just wanted a gadget, not a whole new system. Sarnoff's focus was on
developing television, and he did not want FM broadcasting as a diverting
force. He shut down Armstrong's development of the new system.
Armstrong believed in the new system so much that he set up an FM broadcasting
network in New England, eastern New York and norhtern New Jersey dubbed "The
Yankee Network". He also had receivers manufactured, and for a time in the '30s
it looked like Armstrong might just beat Sarnoff at the game. Armstrong had a
head start in the FM broadcasting game.
What Armstrong had done was to reinvent broadcasting as it was then known. But
after WW2, Sarnoff used his influence in Washington to get the allocation for
FM broadcasting moved from around 40 MHz to the present 88-108 MHz band. All of
a sudden, much of Armstrong's network and the pre-war receivers were obsolete.
His head start advantage was almost completely destroyed.
In addition to all this, Armstrong and Sarnoff were locked in a battle over
patents. Sarnoff won all the early court cases. Legal opinion was that it would
take years and millions to defeat Sarnoff and RCA. Armstrong was a man of
principle, and would not back down. Despondent, Armstrong committed suicide in
1953. Yet after his death, his widow continued the legal battle and eventually
won reversals on every patent suit.
Armstrong was truly the father of modern radio, just as Philo T. Farnsworth was
the father of television. Both were the victims of the ruthless businessman
Sarnoff.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Larry W4CSC
electrocuting cats in Central Park to show New Yorkers how DANGEROUS
AC electricity from Tesla and Westinghouse are to your health! He and
GE took a big hit when Tesla sent power to Rochester without losing
99% of the power like Edison's DC systems did.
I know someone on Tradd St in historic Charleston who lives in the old
Edison DC power plant! You can feel around the carpet in his living
room, on top of a concrete floor about 8 ft thick, and feel the huge
bolts that were embedded in the concrete to hold down the DC
generators, powered by steam and a gas boiler.
Larry W4CSC
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:28:02 -0500, "Fred Stuart"
<fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>When I was a young lad the texbooks and the media had me convinced that
>Sarnoff and Edison where the heros in electric generation and radio. But,
>after reading of the persons that where defamed and literally slaughtered on
>the technology frontier by these two I wonder how we as humans can morally
>keep telling our children what wonderful men they where. Long live the
>memory of Armstrong, Tesla, and the others that had the guts to try
>something new that their bosses said was crap! Ans if yor ever in the
>Smithsonian in the Edison exhibit check out the patent tag on the AC
>generator (it has Teslas patents.) The Edison foundation today still goes to
>great lenghts to supress the Tesla name and to eradicate any mention
>anywhere of his inventions or patents. As far as I know there is only one or
>two books on Tesla one being the Prodigal Genius.
>73 de Fred
>"Larry W4CSC" <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote in message
>news:A1DE00A3BA4E7DF1.8F8F3F0D...@lp.airnews.net...
>> Ok, I concede.....I got out my Tuesday, April 16th, 1912 issue of the
>> NY Times and you are correct, Fred. The Times used Marconi Wireless
>> stations, exclusively, to receive dispatches (in Morse- Yea!) from
>> Europe every day. They had their OWN Marconi wireless system, it
>> seems from the texts. At 21, Sarnoff must have been a Marconi
>> operator.
>>
>> They also mention lots of dispatches from a Captain Haddock on
>> Olympic. Lots of the messages were either received wrong or were
>> false. In another part of the paper, Times mentions that White Star,
>> owner of the Titanic back in Liverpool, didn't receive any of the news
>> directly because their wireless station was so poor they couldn't hear
>> any signals from the ships at the disaster site, but relied on signals
>> they could hear from Canada and New York Marconi stations.
>>
>> Just for reference, there's an ad from Knabe Warerooms on 5th Ave and
>> 39th Street. A brand new Ebony Steinway Grand piano has been marked
>> down from the princely sum of $900 to $575. Ebony Steinways run from
>> $40,000 to around $95,000, today. I used to deliver them to mansions
>> all over Charleston (SC).
>>
>> Larry W4CSC
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:04:10 -0500, "Fred Stuart"
>> <fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sir,
>> >I am certain that Sarnoff was a Marconi employee at the time the Titanic
>> >sunk. He was not a amateur at that time.
>> >73 de Fred Ke1BB
>> >
>> >"Larry W4CSC" <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote in message
>> >news:D9A1E4CDB4EC2259.A05C92BC...@lp.airnews.net...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:35:00 -0500, "Fred Stuart"
>> >> <fstu...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Wasn't David Sarnoff an employee of the Marconi company NOT a ham and
>> >also
>> >> >he and Marconi wanted to shut down amateurs on radio so the Marconi
>> >company
>> >> >could get have a monopoly on the airwaves. They thought hams were a
>pain
>> >in
>> >> >the ass and cluttered up the airwaves talking about thier aching
>joints
>> >and
>> >> >boils.. Sarnoff also drove Armstrong to suicide over the FM issue.
>Nice
>> >guy
>> >> >that Sarnoff character!
>> >> >73 de Fred KE1BB
>> >> >
>> >> >
Larry W4CSC
>
>The Titanic disaster was the beginning of comprehensive radio regulations.
>Because of it, amateurs were limited by law to the "useless" waves below 200
>meters. Power limitations, licensing and many other regulations come from
>legislation and treaties that came in the wake of the Titanic sinking.
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>
DAMMIT! I WANT OUR BANDS BACK!! DAMN INDIAN GIVERS!!
Larry W4CSC
Brian Kelly
wrote:
>
>for the time when a traffic net may be the only way a message gets from
>point A to point B, let alone whether it gets there fast or slow.
>
>Kim W5TIT
>
>(And I can't stand traffic nets...but I do them because I recognize
>their extreme value).
>
. . . damn TITs, maybe you really do have at least half a brain after
all.
Dave Heil
>
> In article <38B74D3D...@cats-net.com>, Dave Heil <K8...@cats-net.com>
> writes:
>
> >Lenof21 wrote:
> >>
> >> Armstrong was not a father of FM but rather a champion
> >> indeed provide greater benefits to broadcast listeners, he
> >> companies had taken to the FM mode and were doing
> >> their own trials and innovations...the first vehicular FM for
> >> voice was tried just prior to WW2...and those techniques
> >> were adapted for the US land military in WW2 in the form
> >> of "channelized" tank radios.
> >
> >superheterodyne receiver.
>
> Good old Dave trolling for an Argument on some part or phrase
> or paragraph of a previous post...so that he can redirect things
> to things where He can "prove" another communicator is
> "wrong." Gotta love the guy for persistence in trying to salve
> old newsgroup wounds! :-)
Your material was not entirely factual. Good old Len--like an old gored
bull: bellowing, snorting and running into fences.
> The original claim was that RCA/Sarnoff "drove Armstrong to
> suicide" through some kind of nefarious unstated means. In
> actual historical fact, Edwin Howard Armstrong was a brilliant
> man, an innovator and inventor who DID invent the super-
> heterodyne receiver in 1918 (while on US Army duty in
> France, patent granted in 1920). Armstrong had already
> invented the regenerative receiver and would, in four years,
> invent a superregenerative receiver. He DID demonstrate FM
> broadcast as early as 1935 to show the inherent superiority
> of higher modulation index FM over conventional AM in noisy
> receiving environments. By 1939 Armstrong had invested
> at least a million dollars of his own fortune into fledgling FM
> broadcast, including special studio equipment for same.
> The reluctance of the broadcast industry to realize the FM
> broadcast potential might be due to A.T.&T.
(windy, pontificating portion which we all knew was coming snipped)
> Of course, all of the above will be "disproven" or
> termed "silly" or taken as somehow irrelevant
> because Dave Heil only wants a newsgroup argument
> to "prove" something (probably only to himself).
> Nothing new there. :-)
> LA
Some of your stuff was inaccurate. Folks who want to know more about
Armstrong can look in any number of books which feature material about
his life. A great deal of good material is available on the Web.
Len, I can play a game of cut and paste as well as you can but I'll even
provide attribution on the material I present. That which appears below
was originally published in Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement
Five, pp. 21 - 23; Charles Scribner Sons, New York. Further information
on Armstrong's life and work appears at:
http://users.erols.com/oldradio/
It is a link featured on the Radio Club of America web page.
"As the 1920's wore on, Armstrong found himself enmeshed in a corporate
war to control radio patents. His basic feedback patent had
been issued on Oct. 6, 1914. Nearly a year later deForest filed for a
patent on the same invention, which he sold with all audion rights to
the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT & T). As radio began to
boom, AT & T mounted a broad attack to overturn Armstrong's patent in
favor of deForest's. The battle went through a dozen courts between 1922
and 1934. Armstrong, backed by Westinghouse and RCA, won the first
round, lost a second, was stalemated in a third, and finally, in a
last-ditch stand before the Supreme Court, lost again through a judicial
misunderstanding of the technical facts."
"The technical fraternity refused to accept the final verdict. The
Institute of Radio Engineers, which in 1918 had awarded Armstrong its
first Medal of Honor for the invention, refused in a dramatic meeting to
take back the medal. And the action was reaffirmed in 1941
when the Franklin Institute, weighing all the evidence, gave Armstrong
the highest honor in U.S. science, the Franklin Medal."
"Throughout this ordeal Armstrong doggedly continued to pursue his
research. He had early set out to eliminate the last big problems
of radio -- static. Radio then carried the sound patterns by varying, or
modulating, the amplitude (power) of its carrier wave at a fixed
frequency (wavelength) -- a system easily and noisily broken into by
such amplitude phenomena as electrical storms. By the late 1920's
Armstrong had decided that the only solution was to design an entirely
new system, in which the carrier-wave frequency would be
modulated, while its amplitude was held constant. Undeterred by current
opinion -- which held that this method was useless for
communications -- Armstrong in 1933 brought forth a wide-band frequency
modulation (FM) system that in field tests gave clear
reception through the most violent storms and, as a dividend, offered
the highest fidelity sound yet heard in radio."
"But in the depressed 1930's the major radio industry was in no mood to
take on a new system requiring basic changes in both
transmitters and receivers. Armstrong found himself blocked on almost
every side. It took him until 1940 to get a permit for the first FM
station, erected at his own expense, on the Hudson River Palisades at
Alpine, N.J. It would be another two years before the Federal
Communications Commission granted him a few frequency allocations."
"When, after a hiatus caused by World War II, FM broadcasting began to
expand. Armstrong again found himself impeded by the FCC,
which ordered FM into a new frequency band at limited power, and
challenged by a coterie of corporations on the basic rights to his
invention. Facing another long legal battle, ill and nearly drained of
his resources, Armstrong committed suicide on the night of Jan. 31,
1954, by jumping from his apartment window high in New York's River
House. Ultimately his widow, pressing twenty-one infringement
suits against as many companies, won some $10 million in damages. By the
late 1960's, FM was clearly established as the superior
system. Nearly 2,000 FM stations spread across the country, a majority
of all radio sets sold are FM, all microwave relay links are FM,
and FM is the accepted system in all space communications."
Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
Dave Heil
>
> In article <38B84C02...@cats-net.com>, Dave Heil <K8...@cats-net.com>
> writes:
>
> >W6RCecilA wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Heil wrote:
> >> > superheterodyne receiver.
> >>
> >> a special on TV a couple of years ago. It had a segment on how
> >> Armstrong demonstrated FM+noise VS AM+noise for the first time.
> >> If I remember right, he demonstrated it for his boss, Sarnoff.
> >
> >
> >Dave 5H3US, K8MN
>
> No doubt an excellent book...and probably Heil's only clue
> on broadcasting...a world outside amateur radio and State
> Department rooms. :-)
State Department rooms? The embassy staff sleeps in bunks in an alcove
above the chancery offices. They give us a footlocker and a small oil
lamp. We all look forward to having State Department rooms.
Heil was an announcer at stations in Miami Beach and Cincinnati in the
late 1960s. He attended Broadcast Training Center of Greater Miami in
1967. Anderson continues to underestimate Heil.
> The only "official" books are "200 Meters And Down" plus
> the first chapter in the ARRL Amateur Handbooks. For all
> the "official" hams.
And this comment is supposed to be another shot at hams and/or at the
ARRL.
> For my part, as a semi-retired professional, I like to access
> a rather wider field of historical documents such as those
> of every other radio service or even the cable TV channels,
> one of which did a biography on Edwin Howard Armstrong.
I like to think of you as a retired semi-professional. No one of you
would think of access a wider field of historical documents. I can hear
the comic opening with, "There are OTHER historical documents? WHO
KNEW? followed by a classic snare rimshot.
(snip)
> The one nice thing about references in print is that it can't
> be changed once printed...and it can be referred to by
> others who take the time to look it up.
A simply masterful statement of the obvious. Do you mean that once
things are printed on paper that the words can't be changed? WHO KNEW?
> Of course, anyone who wants the "real" story can just
> listen to the snarly arrogant newsgroupies who usually
> respond with absolutes and "you don't know what you are
> talking about" niceties. Good ol Dave seems to indicate
> He has been in every other radio service and knows
> exactly what He is talking about all the time. He is from
> the government and is here to help us... :-)
My postings here are not done for nor are they censored by my employer.
I haven't "been in" every other radio service but have worked in
several. Since this is an amateur radio newsgroup, I don't often feel
called upon to trumpet my experiences in other radio services.
I'm not here to help you, Windy. You've done pretty well for yourself
except for obtaining that coveted and elusive amateur radio license.
I do feel that we should do more to acknowledge your ties to radio
history since you were chums with most of the pioneers and have been
around for most of the time radio has existed.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Steve Robeson
>I worked for David Sarnoff's son Robert at the Electromagnetic and Aviation
Systems Division in Van Nuys, CA, for 8 years during the 60s and 70s.<
Then if the old addage "Like Father Like Son" is really true, this would
explain much of why you are the antithesis of Amateur Radio today.
> As to "they" wanting to "shut down amateur radio," that is only speculation.
The chaotic radio (essentially non-regulation) of the 1920s led governments
(plural, nearly worldwide) to re-allocate amateur radio bands to those above
1.5 MHz ("200 meter" wavelengths or shorter, commonly called "shortwave"). Such
re-allocation paved the way for AM broadcasting at MF so that it could serve
millions of citizens...which it did.<
There was no speculation to it at all, Len. They DID try to "shut down"
Amatuer Radio, and in the mindset of the professional opinion of "engineers"
of the time, they thought they HAD shut down Amateur Radio by making wavelength
assignments as they did.
Luckily Mother Nature threw them a curve, huh...?!?!
AND.....further testiment to the trepidation and determination of early
Amateurs to persevere...not that YOU would know................
>While ionospheric radio propagation was just getting discovered in the 1920s,
the commercial and military radio world dived into that environment, explored
it, and capitalized on it.<
Again, Len rewrites history to fit HIS agenda. HAD the "engineers" of the
day been DOING thier jobs, Hams may have very well have been assigned those
long wavelength instead. Again, since "THEY" were the enigineers and KNEW
better, we got those "useless" shortwave bands....what a deal, huh?
Unknowing engineers making unfounded, uniformed decisions that affected
others lives so drastically....glad THAT doesn't happen any more.....by the
way, anyone here know where I can buy some FenPhen?
There is not ONE paragraph in ANY text ANYWHERE that would indicate that
ANYONE except Hams took the time to try the shorter wavelengths, and that was
because it was sink or swim time for them. The Mother of Invention once again
driven to get off her butt by Necessity.
The "engineers" of the day were perfectly content to focus thier energies
on other technologies to improve longwave communications.
>By 1940, the reliable HF long-haul radio circuits were using RTTY and SSB.
Radio amateurs in the main were beeping along with OOK CW, only a few trying
for AM and still fewer experimenting with single sideband.<
Gee...THAT'S funny, Len.....Armed Forces making widespead use of SSB BEFORE
WW2...?!?! Gee....I guess GEN Curtis LeMay was fighting windmills when he did
his round-the-world mission with SSB gear developed by HAMS to prove to the Air
Force in >>48-49<< that SSB was the technology they sould be spending thier
money on....NOT AM...?!?!
More Amateur Radio urban legend, Lennie, or is all of the archives of the
US Air Force in error too? Perhaps another ARRL conspiracy to hide the truth
by altering the USAF's records?
>Beating dead horses (such as the purchased RCA empire) and its founders serves
no purpose.<
Well, here we have a prime example of Lennie H trying to divert the
conversation from a path which will (AGAIN) prove that his deviant,
anti-Amateur rhetoric is just that....deviant and rhetorical.
>Neither David Sarnoff nor the RCA Corporation can really be faulted insofar as
radio technology or even as "bad business people." RCA and other corporations
that survived the radio "shakeout" period were simply aggressive in business.<
THIS is funny!....To suggest that the Big Business folks of early
commercial radio were "simply agressive in business" is like saying the Ku Klux
Klan is "simply aggressive in urban redevelopment".
>It advised the Pearl Harbor commanders to be on alert for a possible
attack...carried on commercial HF circuits because the US military did not have
a good radio
network in 1941. That would change quickly. :-)<
Wait a minute Len! In this VERY POST you tell us of how great an RTTY and
SSB nets the Armed Forces had in >1940<....So which way is it?
Rick Tannehill then said:
>However, I do believe that unmasking our former assumed "Captains of Industry"
if they were really "robber barons" and opportunists by stepping over the
bodies of those true pioneers they wiped out, is a good thing.<
Yep. Make 'em play by the rules. Unfortunately, almost every
convienience we enjoy today, and even the early economical development of the
United States was carried on the backs of those very downtrodden.
It's a bitter double-edged sword. On the one case, we have a
technological and economic giant of a country today because of pre-union
corporate giants that literally bled the workers (and the slaves before them)
to death, yet I have a hard time finding anyone will to divest themselves of
any present day convienience that was either a product of that abuse.
Even today, we have hundred dollar tennis shoes made in 3rd world
countries where the "workers" are nothing more than indentured servants. But
there are a LOT of multimillionare sports figures out there making even MORE
money from endorsing those products for retailers who make huge profits from
those servants.
>Looking at Sarnoff's history, at the Armstrong affair, the Farnsworth affair,
and the many other stories, it would certainly appear that there was a pattern
there of unethical behavior. He also certainly was not one of "us" as far as a
strong support of ham radio.<
I don't think there was a "pattern" to it, myself. It was as blatant as
could be. But that's what Lennie calls "aggressive".
73 de K4YZ
Steve Robeson
>From: Kim W5TIT kw5...@hotmail.com
>Date: 02/26/2000 8:44 AM Central Standard Time
>Was Pres. Washington an amateur <snicker>
Ironically, Kim, "President Washington" is a popular brand of CB radio
these days!
73 de K4YZ
Steve Robeson
>Date: 02/26/2000 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
>It is "Empire of the Air" and it is also a book. Maybe Len can find it.<
I don't know, Dave...probably cost too much to get a proctologist to get
Len's head to where he can use it long enough to look up the Library of
Congress card.
73 de K4YZ
W6RCecilA
> Luckily Mother Nature threw them a curve, huh...?!?!
Yep, early hams indeed did make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. :-)
I, for one, am eternally grateful (at least I hope it's eternal).
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Brian Kelly
wrote:
>
>most recent "oddball" use of CW I have heard in the past 10 years or so
>was a Ham who had a stroke. While in the hospital and before he could
>speak, he communicated with his daughter in CW since he only had limited
>arm/hand movement.
>
That's been done many times by the Occupational Therapists, my
youngest daughter is one of those. They're now using Palm Pilot
computers for the job, etc. Fascinating field of development, the OTs
and the Air Force are working on developing virtual keyboards which
respond to eye motions.
>
w3rv
Brian
Is that what I'm reading about referred to as "heads-up display?"
Lenof21
Robeson) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Has Anybody ever Heard of Rescue on CW Bands?
>>From: ke...@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
>>Date: 02/27/2000 5:26 AM Central Standard Time
>
>>Hogwash, it's documented fact. Go back and read "200 Meters and Down" again
>without putting your usual spin on it, Lenny.<
>
> Brian, Lennie the Limp can't do that. You see, "200 Meters and Down" was
>written by his arch-nemisis, "The League". Simply because it WAS written by
>them, it is of course suspect and it's content refuteable...at least by HIS
>marginal standards. That it contains independently verifiable information is
>irrelevent to him.
The fact that it errs in OMISSION are indisputeable...unless one is
a Faithful Follower. :-)
>>The U.S. Navy diligently tried to completely kill Amateur Radio immediately
>following WW1 and made no bones about it and would have pulled it off except
>for some skilled politicking on the part of a few "plugged in" individual
>hams who went to Washington and twisted some arms.
St. Hiram Went To Washington. Too bad the League can't get it
into script form and make a Production out of it. :-)
> This is also a part of USN and Congressional Record files, but I am sure
>the West Coast Wimp has SOME plausible answer as to why THAT'S unreliable
>sourcing. Of course as soon as the data fit's HIS arguments, then that very
>same data is IRrefuteable.
[I kinda liked the "olive branch" as a peace offering in the above...]
Try The Federal Register. The radio regulating agency of that old
time doesn't exist today. Try other radio history sources such as
electronic industry trade magazines or the National Association
of Broadcasters.
>> The "Command"/ARC series of mobile radios were everywhere in tanks, Jeeps,
>trucks and aircraft by all the services and they were AM/CW radios with VFOs.
>Plenty of Navy recon pilots used those "Command" radios to ship encrypted cw
>back to the boat whence cometh the famed "knee key". CW was also used
>extensively at all levels right down to field units until well after the end
>of WW2.<
Apparently the 44 year old First Lieutenant "Communications
Officer" in the Tennessee National Guard is a WW2 radio historian?
The "ARC" or Aircraft Radio Communications "Command" sets were
used only in aircraft during WW2. Very, very few jeeps or trucks were
radio-equipped then. The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled. Transmitters
could be VFO QSYed but only by the radio operator at his crew
position. Pilots used voice, not morse keying...the radio operator
crewman was the only one using morse keying and aircraft radio
operators were more gunner than radio operator. From 1944
onwards, single-seat aircraft were equipped with VHF AM voice
sets, principally the famous SCR-522.
The principle field unit radio was the first "handy-talky" HT
using voice AM on HF, carried at squad and platoon levels.
By the start of the Korean War, those were replaced by the
PRC-6 VHF voice HTs (1 miniature tube, 12 subminiature).
There were several different company-and-above echelon
field radios on land, the one surviving through 1950 was the
AN/GRC-9, a three-man-pack set featuring an arm-cranked
generator, about 30 W output on CW, 20 W on AM voice,
HF range. The old SCR-299 panel truck with two-behind
generator wagon was the "high-powered" HF "station" for
battalion-and-higher echelon use, CW and AM, featured
the legendary Hallicarfters-designed BC-610. By 1951
that was replaced with the better AN/GRC-26 (using one of
the last of the BC-610 revisions) that added FSK RTTY
(combination FSK RTTY and AM voice, reduced
modulation commonly used) and a TTY set for handling
better encryption (paper tapes prepped by a field
intelligence unit). Manual encryption in the field was done
by the one-man, one-man-pack non-electric M-209 which
produced printed paper tape.
> Oh jeez, Brian...there you go confusing Lennie the Liar with FACTS
>again...heaven forbid you should jade his opinions with real facts or
>documented history (in OTHER than ARRL media).
Those interested in radio facts of the US land military in WW2 can
go to the Fort Gordon website and see their collection of stories
taken from SIGNAL, the magazine of the US Army Signal Corps.
However, WW2 ended 55 years ago and it would be another decade
before K4YZ was born (18 September 1955 according to the AOL
Member Homepages, accessible by non-AOL Internet users). To
say that radio use did not change in any radio service except
amateur radio is ludicrous.
> Life goes on. The truth is archived for all to see. One need not take my
>(or anyone else's, for that matter) word for it since the data can be
>recalled independently and viewd.
...or read. There exist texts about the period, almost all
authored by the military services using the radio equipment.
The U.S. Government Printing Office has a number of titles
as do civilian publishing companies. Industry trade press
also has a number of texts on the pre- and post-WW2
period in radio, notably the NAB and like industry associations.
> Lennie lies. Period. He does it only for his own profit, and no one
>can have ANY understanding of what drives him.
Faithful Followers, the Devout, always seek to discredit a
Heretic's person if they feel they are speaking heresy. :-)
> It IS pitiful to see. Why ANYONE would prostrate themselves so
>evidently in a public forum is unfathomable, save an acceptance that he is
>Masochistic in nature.
My prostrate is just fine, thankyew. However, I will not prostate
myself before Stevies' Mighty Presence... :-)
>>>LA<<
>
> "Loser Again"?
>
>73 de K4YZ
Those who wish to see what the modern land military of the US
uses TODAY for mobile, transportable, fixed communications
can go search for a source of FM 24-24...it is linked from at
least three sites which all lead back to the Army Training
Command Digital Library. It is not classified and approved for
public distribution...and it DOES include the encryption keyers
(non-morse) for secure communications. The modern SINCGARS
field sets include encryption for both voice and data...they've
been operational for 11 years now.
Everyone can put that in their KY-95 and scramble it...
LA
Lenof21
writes:
>Lenof21 wrote:
>>
>> In article <38B84C02...@cats-net.com>, Dave Heil <K8...@cats-net.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >W6RCecilA wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dave Heil wrote:
>> >> > No, Armstrong was THE father of FM just as he was the inventor of the
>> >> > superheterodyne receiver.
>> >>
>> >> For people who don't know what they are talking about, I suggest
>> >> viewing, "Empire of the Airways", (or some such title). It was
>> >> a special on TV a couple of years ago. It had a segment on how
>> >> Armstrong demonstrated FM+noise VS AM+noise for the first time.
>> >> If I remember right, he demonstrated it for his boss, Sarnoff.
>> >
>> >It is "Empire of the Air" and it is also a book. Maybe Len can find it.
>> >
>> >Dave 5H3US, K8MN
>>
>> No doubt an excellent book...and probably Heil's only clue
>> on broadcasting...a world outside amateur radio and State
>> Department rooms. :-)
>
>State Department rooms? The embassy staff sleeps in bunks in an alcove
>above the chancery offices. They give us a footlocker and a small oil
>lamp. We all look forward to having State Department rooms.
I'm glad you are thinking positive...it's a refreshing change of pace.
>Heil was an announcer at stations in Miami Beach and Cincinnati in the
>late 1960s. He attended Broadcast Training Center of Greater Miami in
>1967. Anderson continues to underestimate Heil.
Should I or should I not advise Tom Brokaw to be worried?
>> The only "official" books are "200 Meters And Down" plus
>> the first chapter in the ARRL Amateur Handbooks. For all
>> the "official" hams.
>
>And this comment is supposed to be another shot at hams and/or at the
>ARRL.
Only one at the self-centered hammus tanzanius species.
Must have hit it at a sensitive spot...right in the devout
believer's pleasure center.
> > For my part, as a semi-retired professional, I like to access
>> a rather wider field of historical documents such as those
>> of every other radio service or even the cable TV channels,
>> one of which did a biography on Edwin Howard Armstrong.
>
>I like to think of you as a retired semi-professional. No one of you
>would think of access a wider field of historical documents. I can hear
>the comic opening with, "There are OTHER historical documents? WHO
>KNEW? followed by a classic snare rimshot.
Okay, so you did NOT know. Glad to have opened at least one
bleary eye of yours.
>(snip)
>> The one nice thing about references in print is that it can't
>> be changed once printed...and it can be referred to by
>> others who take the time to look it up.
>
>A simply masterful statement of the obvious. Do you mean that once
>things are printed on paper that the words can't be changed? WHO KNEW?
I'm glad you finally realized it. I know it takes an effort to
look around but I'm glad you took the trouble.
<snip>
>My postings here are not done for nor are they censored by my employer.
That's patently obvious. State Department has NEVER been
that snarly or arrogant!
>I haven't "been in" every other radio service but have worked in
>several. Since this is an amateur radio newsgroup, I don't often feel
>called upon to trumpet my experiences in other radio services.
...like that famous "good idea" of using OOK CW as an order-
wire in a State RTTY circuit? :-)
>I'm not here to help you, Windy. You've done pretty well for yourself
>except for obtaining that coveted and elusive amateur radio license.
Heh heh heh. When ol Siggy runs out of responses he trots
out that old piece of snot. "Covet!!!" "Elusive!!!" :-)
Davey, try Try to imagine how you look to the rest of the world
instead of yourself. Amateur radio in the USA exists as an
AVOCATION, something to do for personal fun and games.
Being granted an amateur extra class license is NOT the
equivalent of a Nobel Prize, it is not a PhD, it is not winning
the Daytona 500, it is not winning a gold medal in the
Olympics. It is a hobby activity and exists at the pleasure of
the FCC, not You or the "amateur community" you think you
represent. No one, repeat NO ONE, has to aspire to, covet,
and certainly not Fight For a radio amateur license so as to
approach Your Greatness Of Accomplishment. (the tRoll
has already done that and surpassed you)
>I do feel that we should do more to acknowledge your ties to radio
>history since you were chums with most of the pioneers and have been
>around for most of the time radio has existed.
Now now, you should attribute that to N2EY. :-)
Siggy, I'm not trying to equate myself to ANY pioneering of
radio or electronics...just pointing out some of the rather
blatant self-aggrandizement that some amateurs think is
necessary to "further the service." One very large area of
that is the constant propagandizing of the ARRL that amateur
radio is somehow "responsible" for nearly all the advances in
the radio art since radio began...that amateurs "pioneered"
nearly everything with the blatant implication that they still
do. They don't despite the chorusing of Chapter and Verse
by the Faithful.
Back at the start of WW1, hams probably DID "pioneer"
things in radio...but then, radio being so new (less than
the legal age) ANYONE trying out something NEW back
then was a "pioneer." An eighty year span between Then
and Now has seen an enormous multiple quantum leap in
radio/electronics technology, modulations, modes...and
also a self-perpetuation, self-aggrandizement of
"accomplishment" that is little more than third- and
fourth-generation mythology. One such myth is that the
shiniest badge one can wear is the tested ability to do
morse cognition at 20 WPM...as if the extra merit badge
was labelled "Antique Radiotelegraphy Operator." Every
other radio service has DROPPED that code "necessity"
but those who have passed it keep insisting that everyone
else who gets interested in radio MUST aspire to Your
Greatness...MUST approach Your Expertise...MUST be
arrogant and spiteful at the "lowly, lazy, ignorant" no-
coders and, especially, treat the "unlicensed" with as
much contempt as possible. Your contempt is obvious.
I used to be interested in amateur radio...as a hobby
activity, something to do for fun. I've never "coveted" that
license. I've been licensed in other radio services, have
had to work in more of the EM spectrum than amateurs
are legally allowed to do, used more different modes and
modulations than amateurs are legally allowed to use.
In the last couple of years I've become less interested
since the attitude of so many of you extras, here and off
the newsgroup, is one of contemptuous arrogance at
those who cannot be as "good" as You. There is NO
fun in such an environment unless one is inclined to
self-aggrandizement, self-glorification and feelings of
superiority over "lesser" humans.
Do I "covet" Your license? Absolutely not. Is the
amateur radio license (to be) in the USA "elusive?"
Only if a bunch of egotistical, self-centered licensees
who think they are Gods of Radio try to Rule it out of
Their "right" to have what they feel they "deserve" at
the expense of all those of the future who might be
interested. That changes "elusivity" to a null string, a
NOP, no activity interest...a non-hobby not worth
pursuing. The only worth of such an environment is if
one has an ego and arrogance as high as some and
wish to do battle in a clear non-radio situation. I'm
not interested in that nor was my ego ever as
demonstrably large as some, yourself included.
Siggy, I'm really sorry you have such an arrogant
attitude towards the loathsome unlicensed who
dare (horrors!) to talk back to you. It doesn't look
good to other unlicensed, radio-interested folk. It
does guarantee an exclusivity for your noble class
that is far above others of lowly status (in your
eyes). May your blood remain blue...
LA
Keith Wood
No. A HUD is an angled plate of glass, onto which is projected flight,
commo, stores and targeting information, so you don't have to go
head-down in the middle of a furball. By keeping your head outside the
cockpit while still having the information right there, you stand a lot
better chance of not getting that itching, burning feeling.
Brian
Ooooh, not THAT feeling? Are they using a qwerty keyboard or icons that respond
to eye motions?
Brian Kelly
>
>St. Hiram Went To Washington. Too bad the League can't get it
>into script form and make a Production out of it. :-)
>
>The "ARC" or Aircraft Radio Communications "Command" sets were
>used only in aircraft during WW2. Very, very few jeeps or trucks were
>radio-equipped then.
>
other vehicles. I first got on the air with a $10 80m ARC-5. An uncle
who was in the Quartermaster's Corps in Europe saw me using it and
said, "Hey, the Captain had a rack of those in his Jeep". They also
pased out captured German mobile radios like popcorn to anybody who
wanted one for his Jeep.
>The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
>allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
>control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled.
>
>
>could be VFO QSYed but only by the radio operator at his crew
>position. Pilots used voice, not morse keying...the radio operator
>crewman was the only one using morse keying and aircraft radio
>operators were more gunner than radio operator.
>
'ole cw. One of the locals, Dawson Ransom ran cw from his P-51D.
Before he bacame a ham.
>
w3rv
n2...@aol.com
<CD09AB97F6DD5EDA.BD9415ED...@lp.airnews.net>,
HAH! That's a good one, Larry!
Actually, though, I wouldn't want to trade any of the amateur
MF/HF/VHF/UHF spectrum for those longer-wave bands. Antennas are too
darn big.
73 de Jim, N2EY
--
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lenof21
writes:
>On 27 Feb 2000 21:31:47 GMT, len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>>
>>St. Hiram Went To Washington. Too bad the League can't get it
>>into script form and make a Production out of it. :-)
>>
>Sorry Lenny, it wasn't HPM.
Then WHOM were it, old man? Did the ARRL "lie" about
that legend or what? (as if I care...)
>>
>>The "ARC" or Aircraft Radio Communications "Command" sets were
>>used only in aircraft during WW2. Very, very few jeeps or trucks were
>>radio-equipped then.
>>
>Flat out wrong. Tanks and self-propelled guns had ARC radios as did
>other vehicles. I first got on the air with a $10 80m ARC-5. An uncle
>who was in the Quartermaster's Corps in Europe saw me using it and
>said, "Hey, the Captain had a rack of those in his Jeep". They also
>pased out captured German mobile radios like popcorn to anybody who
>wanted one for his Jeep.
Yes, of course, old-timer. A friend of your relative told you a story
and you base everything on that. :-)
The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
in present-day cars)
There were a number of different radios used by US land forces
in WW2. Your relative might have mistaken ANOTHER
military radio for the ARC-5 sets...other military radios weren't
always olive drab in color.
>>The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
>>allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
>>control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled.
>>
>There were no xtal sockets on any of those radios, none, zero.
Way in the back of the ARC-5 transmitters was a little door on
the top of the main cover. It was hinged and has slide-snaps
to keep it shut. Once opened, one had access to three tube
sockets in that little rear cubby. One socket was for the 1626
oscillator (12 V filament triode). One socket was for the 1629
"magic eye" tube (12 V filament) used as a sort-of tuning
indicator. The door had a tiny mirror so that the radio
operator can see the "eye" pattern from the front.
The third socket was for a metal-tube-enclosure crystal.
You want one? I have one in my workshop, left over from two
ARC-5 sets I converted a long, long time ago. Note: Some
of those old old radios for other applications had quartz
crystals mounted in all sorts of different enclosures having
more than two pins. The ones for the ARC-5 transmitters
had a little "knob" on top so that the fingers can grab it
through the small trap door.
The familiar (to old-timers) "FT-243" holder/enclosure was
devised for the WW2 10-channel FM tank radios and for the
AN/TRC-1 and AN/TRC-4 VHF FM radio relay sets. Those
had rectangular 2-pin plug-in enclosure/holders.
If you've ever examined the mechanical coupling methods
used in multi-engine WW2 aircraft, you would have seen
that only the receiver is remotely tuned. Transmitter tuning
was for the radio operator crewman.
>>could be VFO QSYed but only by the radio operator at his crew
>>position. Pilots used voice, not morse keying...the radio operator
>>crewman was the only one using morse keying and aircraft radio
>>operators were more gunner than radio operator.
>>
>No, Lenny. Many Navy pilots flew solo scouting missions and used good
>'ole cw. One of the locals, Dawson Ransom ran cw from his P-51D.
>Before he bacame a ham.
The USN using P-51Ds?!?!? I'm sure that will be a surprise to
those who KNOW WW2 aircraft. The fifty-one doggie was an
air superiority fighter, not a scout. While it had excellent range
and low fuel consumption for a high-speed fighter, it was not
suited for low-speed search loitering. Go check it out and report
back to the base chaplain...your TS card needs punching.
>>
>w3rv
Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
LA
n2...@aol.com
len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
> In article <20000227074936...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
k4...@aol.com (Steve
> Robeson) writes:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Has Anybody ever Heard of Rescue on CW Bands?
> >>From: ke...@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
> >>Date: 02/27/2000 5:26 AM Central Standard Time
> >
> >>Hogwash, it's documented fact. Go back and read "200 Meters and
Down" again
> >without putting your usual spin on it, Lenny.<
> >
> > Brian, Lennie the Limp can't do that. You see, "200 Meters and
Down" was
> >written by his arch-nemisis, "The League". Simply because it WAS
written by
> >them, it is of course suspect and it's content refuteable...at least
by HIS
> >marginal standards. That it contains independently verifiable
information is
> >irrelevent to him.
>
> The fact that it errs in OMISSION are indisputeable...
That's interesting.
It is noteworthy that no errors of fact in "200 Meters and Down" are
presented by Lenof21. So even its most ruthless and critical opponent
has not pointed to a single fact presented therein as being in error.
This only increases an objective observer's confidence in the veracity
of the tome.
All that Lenof21 can point to is unspecified "errors of omission". Yet
the book only claims to be a history of amateur radio, not a history of
all radio, and its publication date (1936) means it is simply an early
history of amateur radio, mostly in the United States.
> unless one is a Faithful Follower. :-)
Yet even the most "critical infidel" does not present any erros of
fact. :-)
>
> >>The U.S. Navy diligently tried to completely kill Amateur Radio
immediately
> >following WW1 and made no bones about it and would have pulled it
off except
> >for some skilled politicking on the part of a few "plugged in"
individual
> >hams who went to Washington and twisted some arms.
>
> St. Hiram Went To Washington.
Took a lot more than that, and a lot more people. Yet the fact remains
that the Navy Department tried to retain control of all US radio after
WW1 - and they had no plans to reopen amateur radio. They saw no need
for it. Fortunately, Congress was persuaded to see things differently.
In subsequent international radio conferences in the 1920s, there were
efforts to eliminate amateur radio spectrum allocations completely, or
so reduce the available spectrum and power level as to make amateur
radio essentially useless. These efforts were all defeated by the
arguments presented by delegates from the ARRL.
> Too bad the League can't get it
> into script form and make a Production out of it. :-)
Actually, Maxim was also an avid amateur movie maker, and many of his
films survive today. He had at least one screenplay purchased by a
movie studio and produced as a feature film in the silent era. And a
film very loosely based on his early experiences in the noise silencer
and automotive industries was made into a film with stars Don Ameche
and Myrna Loy.
>
> > This is also a part of USN and Congressional Record files, but
I am sure
> >the West Coast Wimp has SOME plausible answer as to why THAT'S
unreliable
> >sourcing. Of course as soon as the data fit's HIS arguments, then
that very
> >same data is IRrefuteable.
>
> [I kinda liked the "olive branch" as a peace offering in the above...]
>
> Try The Federal Register. The radio regulating agency of that old
> time doesn't exist today. Try other radio history sources such as
> electronic industry trade magazines or the National Association
> of Broadcasters.
Of course the "electronic industry" and the NAB are totally objective
and unerringly complete in their reporting of the history of the era.
No "errors of omission", either.
>
> >> The "Command"/ARC series of mobile radios were everywhere in
tanks, Jeeps,
> >trucks and aircraft by all the services and they were AM/CW radios
with VFOs.
> >Plenty of Navy recon pilots used those "Command" radios to ship
encrypted cw
> >back to the boat whence cometh the famed "knee key". CW was also
used
> >extensively at all levels right down to field units until well after
the end
> >of WW2.<
>
> Apparently the 44 year old First Lieutenant "Communications
> Officer" in the Tennessee National Guard is a WW2 radio historian?
Why not?
>
> The "ARC" or Aircraft Radio Communications "Command" sets were
> used only in aircraft during WW2.
They were designed for aircraft use, yes. But they saw use in all sorts
of applications. And some ARC-5s (usually receivers) were still in use
decades later.
The BC-191/375 is another example. Designed as an aircraft
rtransmitter, it found its way into a "portable" Army rado unit,
matched with the BC-342/BC-312 receivers.
> Very, very few jeeps or trucks were
> radio-equipped then.
Not acording to those who were there.
> The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
> allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
> control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled.
Not correct. All of the MF-HF versions of the "ARC-5" transmitters were
MOPA units with VFO tuning of the transmitter. They had a single
crystal and a 1629 magic-eye tube for checking the calibration. They
were normally tuned up on the ground and then not touched while in
flight. But they were NOT crystal controlled.
> Transmitters
> could be VFO QSYed but only by the radio operator at his crew
> position.
Depended upon the setup.
> Pilots used voice, not morse keying...
In large aircraft like bombers, yes. But in smaller planes, Morse was
commonly used, if for no other reason than its longer range.
> the radio operator
> crewman was the only one using morse keying and aircraft radio
> operators were more gunner than radio operator.
So? Most of the crew of a bomber had multiple roles.
> From 1944
> onwards, single-seat aircraft were equipped with VHF AM voice
> sets, principally the famous SCR-522.
But the US entered WW2 in December of 1941, three years earlier.
There were also the VHF series of the ARC-5/"command sets" which saw
similar duty.
For short range communication the VHF sets were ideal, but for long
range communication HF sets were still needed.
>
> The principle field unit radio was the first "handy-talky" HT
> using voice AM on HF, carried at squad and platoon levels.
BC-611, much prized by collectors today.
> By the start of the Korean War, those were replaced by the
> PRC-6 VHF voice HTs (1 miniature tube, 12 subminiature).
> There were several different company-and-above echelon
> field radios on land, the one surviving through 1950 was the
> AN/GRC-9, a three-man-pack set featuring an arm-cranked
> generator, about 30 W output on CW, 20 W on AM voice,
> HF range. The old SCR-299 panel truck with two-behind
> generator wagon was the "high-powered" HF "station" for
> battalion-and-higher echelon use, CW and AM, featured
> the legendary Hallicarfters-designed BC-610.
The BC-610 was based upon the Hallicrafters HT-4 - an amateur radio
transmitter.
> By 1951
> that was replaced with the better AN/GRC-26 (using one of
> the last of the BC-610 revisions) that added FSK RTTY
> (combination FSK RTTY and AM voice, reduced
> modulation commonly used) and a TTY set for handling
> better encryption (paper tapes prepped by a field
> intelligence unit). Manual encryption in the field was done
> by the one-man, one-man-pack non-electric M-209 which
> produced printed paper tape.
Yet Morse was still widely used through WW2 and after. Of course its
role diminished over time. And "the military" includes forces other
than the Army. The US Navy was heavily dependent on Morse during and
after WW2.
>
> Those who wish to see what the modern land military of the US
> uses TODAY for mobile, transportable, fixed communications
> can go search for a source of FM 24-24...it is linked from at
> least three sites which all lead back to the Army Training
> Command Digital Library. It is not classified and approved for
> public distribution...and it DOES include the encryption keyers
> (non-morse) for secure communications. The modern SINCGARS
> field sets include encryption for both voice and data...they've
> been operational for 11 years now.
The cost of these radio sets in taxpayer dollars, however, is usually
not given. The use of encryption by amateurs is not permitted except in
the case of earth station commands to a space radio station.
What other services do is of interest to radio amateurs only if there
is some reason to adopt the other services' methods and equipment. It
is doubtful that many hams could afford a SINCGARS set - and its
capabilities would be mostly unused, as encryption and avoidance of
intercept are not considerations in amateur communications.
Brian Kelly
>
>>>Sorry Lenny, it wasn't HPM.
>
>Then WHOM were it, old man? Did the ARRL "lie" about
>that legend or what? (as if I care...)
>
Congressional Record will show names like Stewart and Dennison who
were locals here, a 13 year old cw op by the name of Joe Heinrich plus
HPM and others who convinced the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee to kill H.R.13159 and S.5038 and put ham radio back on the
air which happened on 12 April 19. Despite fierce resistance from the
Navy (including FDR). Stick with your old military crap Lenny, you're
outta your League in ham radio.
>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
>in present-day cars)
>
their 6vdc cars. I have no clue and neither do you, neither of us were
hams then. I had no problem running my ARC-5 filaments on 12vac
>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!? I'm sure that will be a surprise to
>those who KNOW WW2 aircraft. The fifty-one doggie was an
>air superiority fighter, not a scout. While it had excellent range
>and low fuel consumption for a high-speed fighter, it was not
>suited for low-speed search loitering. Go check it out and report
>back to the base chaplain...your TS card needs punching.
>
Lenny. I said Navy pilots used cw. I did not say Dawson flew for the
Navy, he was an AAF P-51 instructor who also used cw.
>>w3rv
>
>Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
>Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
>have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
>
other archaic mil crap nobody today gives a bleep about.
>
>LA
Lenof21
writes:
>On 28 Feb 2000 05:32:45 GMT, len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry Lenny, it wasn't HPM.
>>
>>Then WHOM were it, old man? Did the ARRL "lie" about
>>that legend or what? (as if I care...)
>>
>Huh: You don't know "everything" after al, what a big surprise. The
>Congressional Record will show names like Stewart and Dennison who
>were locals here, a 13 year old cw op by the name of Joe Heinrich plus
>HPM and others who convinced the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
>Committee to kill H.R.13159 and S.5038 and put ham radio back on the
>air which happened on 12 April 19. Despite fierce resistance from the
>Navy (including FDR). Stick with your old military crap Lenny, you're
>outta your League in ham radio.
Yes, I'm sure I'm "out of my league on 1919 amateur radio."
Hello, that "rescue" of amateur radio will be 81 years ago
about the time of the new Restructuring. I'm sure the folks
you mentioned should be given some kind of a medal or
whatever for their gallant and noble fight in the midst of
"fierce resistance from the Navy."
Interesting isn't it...the 1919 "fight" to restore amateur radio
is noble and gallant and etc., but an ex-parte presentation
from two newsgroup communicators (spending their own
time and money) to lobby for the reduced code test rates
is taken as so much "crap." Especially so when the
Restructuring WILL have reduced code rates on the new
single-element license code test. A 1919 "fight" is implied
to be heroic while a much later private effort is painted with
as many pejoratives as the beepers can conjur up.
It will be interesting to see what the ARRL writes up later
on the history of the 2000 Restructuring. I'm sure that the
League history writers will put some spin on this time to
show that the League somehow championed the ham
Cause and actually instituted the new Restructuring. :-)
>>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
>>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
>>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
>>in present-day cars)
>>
>They ran those radios the same way hams ran them after the war in
>their 6vdc cars. I have no clue and neither do you, neither of us were
>hams then. I had no problem running my ARC-5 filaments on 12vac
One didn't need to be amateur-licensed to understand the
technology, old-timer...nor the military vehicle batteries
(which weren't all that "standard" back then...I introduced a
trick question "hint" which you didn't correct). As a point of
fact, I converted two 40 meter receiver-transmitter pairs
while in high school, sold them both at a teeny profit. Good
practical training ground.
Provided you REwired the filament lines. The ARC-5 series
always had a dual series connection to run the 12 V filaments
from 24 V, receivers, transmitters, and the combination
antenna coupler and AM modulator.
>>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!? I'm sure that will be a surprise to
>>those who KNOW WW2 aircraft. The fifty-one doggie was an
>>air superiority fighter, not a scout. While it had excellent range
>>and low fuel consumption for a high-speed fighter, it was not
>>suited for low-speed search loitering. Go check it out and report
>>back to the base chaplain...your TS card needs punching.
>>
>Zzzzz . . what an idiot. You wanna see my stick & pedal logs? No,
>Lenny. I said Navy pilots used cw. I did not say Dawson flew for the
>Navy, he was an AAF P-51 instructor who also used cw.
Here is what you wrote:
>No, Lenny. Many Navy pilots flew solo scouting missions and used good
>'ole cw. One of the locals, Dawson Ransom ran cw from his P-51D.
>Before he bacame a ham.
To run CW from a P-51D required some extensive modification
since the radio equipment on a 1945 model fifty-one doggie
consisted of the SCR-522 voice AM comm radio, an
AN/APS-13 IFF transponder, and a "Detrola" LF range
receiver (cute thing, used 28 VDC for filaments and the
plate supply, direct). There is room for a ham rig behind the
pilot but not much space inside the cockpit...ah, but this
Dawsom Ransom ran CW "before he bacame [sic] a ham."
He was bootlegging? [horrors!] If this Ransom was using
CW on civil airways, I'm curious as to who he was talking
to since even the old post-WW2 airways communications
was by voice.
No doubt you will challenge me as to my "pilot qualifications"
on mentioning aircraft (you will show me your "logs" also
written with a P 51...Parker 51 pen?). Avionics designers
need to know a number of things without being pilots, just
as A&P mechanics need to know the airframe and engines.
>>>w3rv
>>
>>Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
>>Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
>>have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
>>
>It wuz you who got into your SOP diatribes on SCR-522s and all that
>other archaic mil crap nobody today gives a bleep about.
The SCR-522 operated at VHF. That might be "crap" and
"bleep" to someone set in concrete on HF, but a number
of surplus units were converted for the ham bands way back
when. The importance of that and the follow-on AN/ARC-27
UHF comm sets were that there existed a viable technology
using vacuum tubes above 30 MHz. This was important to
know back in the 40s and 50s since that technology would
strongly influence ALL spectrum allocations then and in the
future, ALL radio services. Commercial, government, and
military radio services picked up on that...most radio
amateurs didn't give a "crap" about such "bleeping" new
fangled stuff back then.
LA
Steve Robeson
>Date: 02/28/2000 10:39 AM Central Standard Time
>It will be interesting to see what the ARRL writes up later on the history of
the 2000 Restructuring. I'm sure that the League history writers will put some
spin on this time to show that the League somehow championed the ham Cause and
actually instituted the new Restructuring.<
It's always fun to watch Lennie the Liar pontificating on the ARRL or any
one of the individuals of this NG "spinning" facts when it's HIS forte...his
reason for being.
By the way, Lennie....read the March 2000 QST? A VERY interesting piece
on a gent who was a lifetime EE, yet got is license just to do it. Admits he
never got on the air (legally, as he "bootlegged from China in the 30's), but
he did it.
And HIS CV is longer than YOURS.
Steve
>
Brian Kelly
>
>It's always fun to watch Lennie the Liar pontificating on the ARRL or any
>one of the individuals of this NG "spinning" facts when it's HIS forte...his
>reason for being.
>
Lenny's reason for being. Care to share those insights?
> And HIS CV is longer than YOURS.
>
coming June will have a more impressive/salable CV than Lenny can
dream about having. Like industry is really looking for ARC-5, Model
51 and SCR-522 bench techs. For my own part I just landed a gig at a
$400mm NASDAQ hero in the semiconductor biz and I'm 63 and a
MECHANICAL engineer. Flip-chip fab "stuff" I had on my CV . . . are
you with us Lenny?
>
. . . sorry Steve, had to do that . . .
>
rv
>
>Steve
James Rosenthal
: On 27 Feb 2000 21:31:47 GMT, len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
[snip]
: >The "ARC" or Aircraft Radio Communications "Command" sets were
: >used only in aircraft during WW2. Very, very few jeeps or trucks were
: >radio-equipped then.
: >
: Flat out wrong. Tanks and self-propelled guns had ARC radios as did
: other vehicles.
ARC-5s? What was the wingspan?
: I first got on the air with a $10 80m ARC-5. An uncle
: who was in the Quartermaster's Corps in Europe saw me using it and
: said, "Hey, the Captain had a rack of those in his Jeep".
Doesn't mean that someone didn't take an ARC and put it in a vechicle
without it being issued for a Jeep. Durring war all kinds of things were
done.
My 1948 "Surplus Radio conversion Manual" shows the ARC-5 HF radios as
being used on Navy AIRCRAFT. That's what the "A" in ARC designates.
; They also
: pased out captured German mobile radios like popcorn to anybody who
: wanted one for his Jeep.
Your Uncle was a German in the American army? :)
: >The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
: >allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
: >control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled.
: >
: There were no xtal sockets on any of those radios, none, zero.
Brrrrrraaaaackkkk!
The ARC-5 -VHF- radio used 4 xtals for operation on 4 different freqs. No VFO.
: >could be VFO QSYed but only by the radio operator at his crew
: >position. Pilots used voice, not morse keying...the radio operator
: >crewman was the only one using morse keying and aircraft radio
: >operators were more gunner than radio operator.
: >
: No, Lenny. Many Navy pilots flew solo scouting missions and used good
: 'ole cw. One of the locals, Dawson Ransom ran cw from his P-51D.
: Before he bacame a ham.
The Navy used P-51s?? I have never heard that before. You may be thinking
of PBYs. They were used for scouting and did have CW capability.
The P-51 generally used a SCR-522 which was a 4 channel xtal controlled
Tx/Rx operating in the range of 100-156 MHz. And yes it did have "MCW" (a
form of AM) and did NOT have a true CW capability except by using the PTT
button. Unfortunatly the RECEIVER does NOT have a BFO so the pilot could
receive true CW anyway.
I doubt that a "Navy P-51" on a scouting flight would use VHF since the
radio range wouldn't be enough.
: w3rv
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Arnie Macy
> Guy comes up to me at a ham radio demo in a mall and says, "Can you
> send a message to my mother in Florida?"
>
> "Sure", I reply smugly. "What's her phone number?" He gives it to me
> and I write it on an official ARRL message blank. Then I whip my
> digital cellphone out of my back pocket, dial this nice old lady's
> number and tell her to wait a second, her son wants to send her a
> message....(c;
>
When Hurricane Floyd was approaching our area, the local EOC was activated.
One of the very first things to overload was the area cell phone network.
HF radio (and traffic nets) passed important information to outlying areas
and was a stable means of communication for the duration. It always seems
to be there when needed.
Also, I can't tell you how many times I have received a hearty thank you
from recipients of traffic messages. They appreciate the thought that went
into sending a "telegram" as opposed to a phone call. Time is not always of
the "essence" Your guy at the mall may have been one of those who wanted to
send a message in a special way. But, I'll guess you'll never know.
--
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
Kim W5TIT
Nicely put, Arnie. I can't help but agree. Any time we have the
opportunity to demonstrate amateur radio's capabilities, we should
"seize the moment." Maybe the person who asked to send the message
would have been really impressed by it through the amateur bands...
Kim W5TIT
James Rosenthal
But first:
A quote from "Surplus Radio Conversion manual, Volume III", 1960 by Bill Orr.
"The Command sets are probably the most popular pieces of radio equipment
on the surplus market. Designed in 1938, they were produced in prodigious
quanties for over a decade for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force".
Please note that at the begining of WWII the "Air Force" was not a
separate service. It was part of the "Army" at that time ("Army Air
Force").
........................................................................
Designators used for the ARC-5 radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Army-Navy Signal Corps Navy
(JAN) T-xx/ARC-5 (BC) BC-xxx (ATA) CBY-52xxx
....................................................................
I'm not sure that JAN was used in the early part of the war. There was
quite a bit of cross mixing of equipment vs the designators, for
instance, the BC-348 was used in aircraft. The SCR-522 was used in P-51
aircraft even though it probably designated a (ta-da) Signal Corps Radio.
And now; for historical interest, here is a -1970- chart that I have for
"JAN" designators;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1st ltr. INSTALLATION 2nd ltr. EQUIPMENT 3rd ltr. PURPOSE
A - airborne A - infrared A - auxiliary
B - submarine B - pigeon B - bombing
C - air transportable C - carrier C - communications
D - pilotless carrier D - radiac D - dir. finding/recon
F - fixed E - nupac H - record-reproduce
G - ground F - photographic M - maintance/test
K - amphibious G - telegraph-teletype N - navigation aids
M - ground, mobile I - interphone Q - special purposes
P - pack or portable J - electro-mechanical R - receiving
S - surface craft K - telemetering S - detect/range/bearing
T - ground, transportable L - countermeasure T - transmitting
U - general utility M - meteorological W - control
V - ground, vehicular N - sound in air X - indent. & recognition
W - water, surface & P - radar
underwater Q - sonar
R - radio
S - special types
T - telephone (wire)
V - visible light
W - armament
X - facsimile or TV
Example: AN/ARC-5
AN/ = Standard Prefix
A = Airborne
R = Radio
C = Communications
5 = Design number
If an ARC-5 was used (standard issue) on a Jeep, then it was probably one
of those secret flying models (along with the tank!!). More likely, a
comm chief converted the radio to operate in the Jeep but it was NOT
standard issue.
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
James Rosenthal
: On 28 Feb 2000 17:11:36 GMT, k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
[the usual stuff]
: >
: > And HIS CV is longer than YOURS.
My CV-17 used to pick up RTTY real good. It wasn't -that- "long" either.
: The average 22 year old kid who picks up his EE at commencement this
: coming June will have a more impressive/salable CV than Lenny can
: dream about having.
And in 5 years he/she will be left behind as well if they don't do some
additional studying.
; Like industry is really looking for ARC-5, Model 51 and SCR-522 bench techs.
Want'a buy a Model 51?
Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't done what
they did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up the EE.
It's called history.
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
N2EY
(Lenof21) writes:
>>>
>>>The "ARC" or Aircraft Radio Communications "Command" sets were
>>>used only in aircraft during WW2. Very, very few jeeps or trucks were
>>>radio-equipped then.
>>>
>>Flat out wrong. Tanks and self-propelled guns had ARC radios as did
>>who was in the Quartermaster's Corps in Europe saw me using it and
>>pased out captured German mobile radios like popcorn to anybody who
>>wanted one for his Jeep.
>
>
>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
>in present-day cars)
Then how were SCR-506 sets powered when installed in jeeps, command cars,
halftracks, etc.?
>
>There were a number of different radios used by US land forces
>in WW2. Your relative might have mistaken ANOTHER
>military radio for the ARC-5 sets...other military radios weren't
>always olive drab in color.
Many were black or plain aluminum - like the familiar command sets.
>
>>>The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
>>>allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
>>>control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled.
>>>
>>There were no xtal sockets on any of those radios, none, zero.
>
>Way in the back of the ARC-5 transmitters was a little door on
>the top of the main cover. It was hinged and has slide-snaps
>to keep it shut. Once opened, one had access to three tube
>sockets in that little rear cubby. One socket was for the 1626
>oscillator (12 V filament triode). One socket was for the 1629
>"magic eye" tube (12 V filament) used as a sort-of tuning
>indicator. The door had a tiny mirror so that the radio
>operator can see the "eye" pattern from the front.
>
>The third socket was for a metal-tube-enclosure crystal.
>You want one? I have one in my workshop, left over from two
>ARC-5 sets I converted a long, long time ago.
Lenof21 recalls the construction of the MF/HF series ARC-5/SCR-274N
transmitters in great detail, but leaves out some important facts:
1) The crystal referred to (I've had many more than two) was plugged into an
octal TUBE socket between the 1626 master oscillator and the 1629 tuning
indicator. It had a small handle on the top and was heavier than a metal tube.
Whether an octal tube socket with an octal-based crystal plugged into it is a
tube socket or a crystal socket is a semantic argument I will leave to others.
2) Lenof21 made the claim that
"The standard "ARC/Command" set installations allowed only the receiver to be
tuned by pilots from their remote control boxes, transmitters were crystal
controlled." (direct quote, see above)
which started the whole discussion. He then describes the HF/MF series of ARC-5
transmitters, so there can be no confusion with the VHF series that came later.
Yet the transmitters Lenof21 described are NOT crystal controlled, and there
was no provision for such control. The crystal was for dial calibration
checking only. It could be removed with no effect on transmitter performance.
> Note: Some
>of those old old radios for other applications had quartz
>crystals mounted in all sorts of different enclosures having
>more than two pins. The ones for the ARC-5 transmitters
>had a little "knob" on top so that the fingers can grab it
>through the small trap door.
>
All true - but the important fact that the described crystal is used only for
calibration checking, and the transmitter itself is VFO controlled, is
completely ignored by Lenof21 - probably because it disproves his earlier
statemtn that the transmitters were crystal controlled.
What was that about "errors of omission"?
>
>If you've ever examined the mechanical coupling methods
>used in multi-engine WW2 aircraft, you would have seen
>that only the receiver is remotely tuned. Transmitter tuning
>was for the radio operator crewman.
>
>>>could be VFO QSYed but only by the radio operator at his crew
>>>position. Pilots used voice, not morse keying...the radio operator
>>>crewman was the only one using morse keying and aircraft radio
>>>operators were more gunner than radio operator.
>>>
>>No, Lenny. Many Navy pilots flew solo scouting missions and used good
>>'ole cw. One of the locals, Dawson Ransom ran cw from his P-51D.
>>Before he bacame a ham.
>
>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!?
That was not claimed.
> I'm sure that will be a surprise to
>those who KNOW WW2 aircraft.
It was also an early version, probably with the Allison engine rather than the
Rolls Royce designed Merlin. Which would explain the use of HF CW rather than
VHF voice.
>
>Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
>Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
>have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
It is interesting that the most famous "rescue" radio set of the day, the
"Gibson Girl" transmitter, has not been mentioned. Perhaps because it used ONLY
CW.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Brian Kelly
>In article <20000228003245...@nso-bh.aol.com>, len...@aol.com
>(Lenof21) writes:
>>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
>>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
>>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
>>in present-day cars)
>
>Then how were SCR-506 sets powered when installed in jeeps, command cars,
>halftracks, etc.?
>>
>>There were a number of different radios used by US land forces
>>in WW2. Your relative might have mistaken ANOTHER
>>military radio for the ARC-5 sets...other military radios weren't
>>always olive drab in color.
>
>Many were black or plain aluminum - like the familiar command sets.
>
The ARCs were black crinkle, I passed on that inanity.
>>
>>>>The standard "ARC/Command" set installations
>>>>allowed only the receiver to be tuned by pilots from their remote
>>>>control boxes, transmitters were crystal controlled.
>>>>
>>>There were no xtal sockets on any of those radios, none, zero.
>>
Clearly I should have been quick enough to add "for output frequency
control".
>
>>Way in the back of the ARC-5 transmitters was a little door on
>>the top of the main cover. It was hinged and has slide-snaps
>>to keep it shut. Once opened, one had access to three tube
>>sockets in that little rear cubby. One socket was for the 1626
>>oscillator (12 V filament triode). One socket was for the 1629
>>"magic eye" tube (12 V filament) used as a sort-of tuning
>>indicator. The door had a tiny mirror so that the radio
>>operator can see the "eye" pattern from the front.
>>
>>The third socket was for a metal-tube-enclosure crystal.
>>You want one? I have one in my workshop, left over from two
>>ARC-5 sets I converted a long, long time ago.
>
>Lenof21 recalls the construction of the MF/HF series ARC-5/SCR-274N
>transmitters in great detail, but leaves out some important facts:
>
>1) The crystal referred to (I've had many more than two) was plugged into an
>octal TUBE socket between the 1626 master oscillator and the 1629 tuning
>indicator. It had a small handle on the top and was heavier than a metal tube.
>Whether an octal tube socket with an octal-based crystal plugged into it is a
>tube socket or a crystal socket is a semantic argument I will leave to others.
>
>2) Lenof21 made the claim that
>
>"The standard "ARC/Command" set installations allowed only the receiver to be
>tuned by pilots from their remote control boxes, transmitters were crystal
>controlled." (direct quote, see above)
>
Why would the users bother qsying the rcvrs if they couldn't also qsy
the transmitters?? Maybe they worked "split"? Up 20! QRZ up 20! Hee!
>
>which started the whole discussion. He then describes the HF/MF series of ARC-5
>transmitters, so there can be no confusion with the VHF series that came later.
>
>
>Yet the transmitters Lenof21 described are NOT crystal controlled, and there
>was no provision for such control. The crystal was for dial calibration
>checking only. It could be removed with no effect on transmitter performance.
>
Another blooper on my part. I should have asked why if the ARC radios
were "crystal controlled" per lenny howcum they had VFOs at all?? Why
would they have bothered with the complexity of carefully tracked
VFO/PA tuning if the things were xtal controlled?
>
I sure beeped my way to heaps of 80m dx with an ARC-5 without a
crystal anywhere in sight and sure as hell there were none tucked into
the ass end of the radio.
There were more P-51D variants than can be counted, they changed here
and there by the week. Ever see a two-place P-51D Lenny? Dawson Ransom
(The originator of the concept of commuter airlines and airline hub
operations and founder/owner of Allegheny Commuter) flew a P-51D
equipped with ARC-5 radios which he used to operate straight-up cw.
Which he used on the extreme distance photorecon missions he flew over
Germany between Scotland and the Soviet Union toward the end of the
war. Lenny, you think maybe he could have yakked back to the U.K. from
Berlin with an SCR-522??
>>
>>Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
>>Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
>>have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
>
>It is interesting that the most famous "rescue" radio set of the day, the
>"Gibson Girl" transmitter, has not been mentioned. Perhaps because it used ONLY
>CW.
>
. . . and on 500Khz Gawd forbid . . .
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
>
Brian Kelly
wrote:
>Here's a little historical info for JAN electrical equipment desginators.
>
>But first:
>A quote from "Surplus Radio Conversion manual, Volume III", 1960 by Bill Orr.
>
>"The Command sets are probably the most popular pieces of radio equipment
>on the surplus market. Designed in 1938, they were produced in prodigious
>quanties for over a decade for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force".
>
>Please note that at the begining of WWII the "Air Force" was not a
>separate service. It was part of the "Army" at that time ("Army Air
>Force").
>
There is no END to your "revelations" . . . Mwaaahaha!
No shit, Jimmy? You think maybe we won WW2 because Patton and the rest
fought by the TMs and TO&Es??
>--
>Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
James Rosenthal
: On 29 Feb 2000 02:13:25 GMT, z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
: wrote:
[snip]
: >Please note that at the begining of WWII the "Air Force" was not a
: >separate service. It was part of the "Army" at that time ("Army Air
: >Force").
: >
: There is no END to your "revelations" . . . Mwaaahaha!
Certainly not as earth shaking as the Navy using P-51s (the two sentances
-were- in the same paragaph which would indicate a continuation of thought)!
Does anyone have information on where the hook was located on that model
(for aircraft landings). Oh, and how they kept the tail from getting
ripped off after each landing. =:0
: >If an ARC-5 was used (standard issue) on a Jeep, then it was probably one
: >of those secret flying models (along with the tank!!). More likely, a
: >comm chief converted the radio to operate in the Jeep but it was NOT
: >standard issue.
: >
: No shit, Jimmy?
YES! Briney. I'm excited as all git out that you agree that a Jeep did
NOT come standard with an ARC-5 installed. And let's not talk about the
flying version on internet.
: You think maybe we won WW2 because Patton and the rest fought by the TMs
: and TO&Es??
Well Patton did read a lot of old history stuff and knew the lay of the
land. Which theater of action was TM or TO located in at that time? :)
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
James Rosenthal
: On 29 Feb 2000 03:00:44 GMT, n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
: >In article <20000228003245...@nso-bh.aol.com>, len...@aol.com
: >(Lenof21) writes:
: >>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
: >>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
: >>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
: >>in present-day cars)
: >
: >Then how were SCR-506 sets powered when installed in jeeps, command cars,
: >halftracks, etc.?
By batteries and dynamotors (what else is new?)
The receiver portion of the SCR-506 (BC-652) was powered by either 14 or
28vdc at 5 or 2.5 amps. The B+ is supplied by the DM-40A or DM-41A
dynamotor giving 172 volts at 138 ms. I don't have the info on the TX at
this time but it most likely was powered by 14 or 28 vdc ALSO at higher
voltage and currents.
: I sure beeped my way to heaps of 80m dx with an ARC-5 without a
: crystal anywhere in sight and sure as hell there were none tucked into
: the ass end of the radio.
Then you were not "calibrated" (bad operator)! And you did this during
WWII? WOW!
: >>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!?
: >
: >That was not claimed.
Then why were the two sentances in the same paragraph next to each other?
: >It was also an early version, probably with the Allison engine rather than the
: >Rolls Royce designed Merlin. Which would explain the use of HF CW rather than
: >VHF voice.
Oh, did they have -mufflers- on the VHF voice model? ;-))))
: There were more P-51D variants than can be counted, they changed here
: and there by the week. Ever see a two-place P-51D Lenny?
Ever see the bombideers position on a P-38? YES, one model had two
people aboard and in combat!
: Dawson Ransom
: (The originator of the concept of commuter airlines and airline hub
: operations and founder/owner of Allegheny Commuter) flew a P-51D
: equipped with ARC-5 radios which he used to operate straight-up cw.
The ARC-5 receiver did NOT have a BFO in it to RECEIVE "straight-up CW" (or
sideways either)! The Tx has MCW capability. So how did he receive "real" CW?
: Which he used on the extreme distance photorecon missions he flew over
: Germany between Scotland and the Soviet Union toward the end of the war.
And how many of that specialized P-51 (which seems unlikely the Navy was
operating) did they actually build? Perhaps the 10 or 15 of them (by the
end of the war) did have ARC-5s in them along with the SCR-522. But the
conversation was centered about having an ARC-5 in a Jeep.
: Lenny, you think maybe he could have yakked back to the U.K. from
: Berlin with an SCR-522??
Why not? Didn't those nasty Berlineers like him?
1. The SCR-522 was operating on frequencies that were extreamly HIGH in those
days and was less likely to be intercepted.
2. Why would he be yacking back to the U.K. while on a mission that he would
prefer to NOT be intercepted since photo planes had most of the armament
striped out of them to increase the range (as you stated was a
requirement) with a radio that was not capable of giving an audio
response to the "straight-up CW" signals it was receiving?
: : >>Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
: : >>Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
: : >>have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
: : >
: : >It is interesting that the most famous "rescue" radio set of the day, the
: : >"Gibson Girl" transmitter, has not been mentioned. Perhaps because it used ONLY
: : >CW.
And when was the last time one was used? (not counting Ed's one that got
smashed by Kim in the ballon getting stuck on the end of the fire tower)
It wasn't mentioned more likely because;
1. it was used so long ago to do it
2. they aren't used on ham freqs
3. now days EPIRBs are used and they are NOT CW.
The gist of the original post was when was CW used (recently) for
initiating an emergency message.
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Dave Heil
> Interesting isn't it...the 1919 "fight" to restore amateur radio
> is noble and gallant and etc., but an ex-parte presentation
> from two newsgroup communicators (spending their own
> time and money) to lobby for the reduced code test rates
> is taken as so much "crap." Especially so when the
> Restructuring WILL have reduced code rates on the new
> single-element license code test. A 1919 "fight" is implied
> to be heroic while a much later private effort is painted with
> as many pejoratives as the beepers can conjur up.
And the term "beeper" as used by you is what? The 1919 effort was to
save amateur radio's very existence. The Stevenson/Sohl effort was to
eliminate morse code testing. One cannot seriously be compared with the
other.
> It will be interesting to see what the ARRL writes up later
> on the history of the 2000 Restructuring. I'm sure that the
> League history writers will put some spin on this time to
> show that the League somehow championed the ham
> Cause and actually instituted the new Restructuring. :-)
This must be your weekly pot shot at the League. Oh yeah--I forgot to
add the :-) to make it seem like I'm only kidding. I learned that from
you.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
N2EY
Rosenthal) writes:
>Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't done what
>they did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up the EE.
>It's called history.
I don't understand, Jim.
Lenof21's only experience with ARC-5s mentioned here is the conversion of two
of them during the 1950s. How that resulted in modern day EEs is beyond me.
According to his own accounts, he is in his mid-60s, which would make him 10-12
years old on VE Day. Also, he has never mentioned being in the AIr Force, and
he says the ARC-5 is an aircraft set from WW2.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
Rosenthal) writes:
> Brian Kelly (ke...@dvol.com) wrote:
> : On 29 Feb 2000 03:00:44 GMT, n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
>
> : >In article <20000228003245...@nso-bh.aol.com>,
>len...@aol.com
> : >(Lenof21) writes:
> : >>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
> : >>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
> : >>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
> : >>in present-day cars)
> : >
> : >Then how were SCR-506 sets powered when installed in jeeps, command cars,
> : >halftracks, etc.?
>
> By batteries and dynamotors (what else is new?)
>
> The receiver portion of the SCR-506 (BC-652) was powered by either 14 or
> 28vdc at 5 or 2.5 amps. The B+ is supplied by the DM-40A or DM-41A
> dynamotor giving 172 volts at 138 ms. I don't have the info on the TX at
> this time but it most likely was powered by 14 or 28 vdc ALSO at higher
> voltage and currents.
I understand all that, Jim. It's obvious that Lenof21 does not. The point is
simply that there was at least one radio set designed for use in jeeps and
other relatively small US military vehicles in WW2, and the set named runs on
either 12 or 24 VDC - not the 6 volts common in civilian vehicles of that time.
So mounting an ARC-5 in a jeep does not seem so far fetched.
>
> : I sure beeped my way to heaps of 80m dx with an ARC-5 without a
> : crystal anywhere in sight and sure as hell there were none tucked into
> : the ass end of the radio.
>
> Then you were not "calibrated" (bad operator)! And you did this during
>WWII? WOW!
And again - the main point is that the HF/MF command sets were VFO and used the
xtal for calibration checking only.
>
> : >>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!?
> : >
> : >That was not claimed.
>
> Then why were the two sentances in the same paragraph next to each other?
Ya gotta know Kelly's writing style. Extraneous blather is edited out. SOP.
>
> : >It was also an early version, probably with the Allison engine rather
>than the
> : >Rolls Royce designed Merlin. Which would explain the use of HF CW rather
>than
> : >VHF voice.
>
> Oh, did they have -mufflers- on the VHF voice model? ;-))))
Nope. Just that an early model plane would probably have early model radio,
too.
>
> : There were more P-51D variants than can be counted, they changed here
> : and there by the week. Ever see a two-place P-51D Lenny?
>
> Ever see the bombideers position on a P-38? YES, one model had two
>people aboard and in combat!
Also photorecon versions of the P-38
>
> : Dawson Ransom
> : (The originator of the concept of commuter airlines and airline hub
> : operations and founder/owner of Allegheny Commuter) flew a P-51D
> : equipped with ARC-5 radios which he used to operate straight-up cw.
>
>The ARC-5 receiver did NOT have a BFO in it to RECEIVE "straight-up CW" (or
>sideways either)! The Tx has MCW capability. So how did he receive "real" CW?
I'm afraid you are confused, James.
The ARC-5s referred to are the HF/MF version - a whole series covering from 190
kHz to 18 MHz (receive) and 550 to 18 MHZ (transmitters) - though the units
above 9 MHz and transmitters below 2.1 MHz are quite rare.
The transmitters are a 1626 VFO feeding a pair of 1625s in the PA, with a 1629
tuning eye.
The receivers used a 12SK7 RF, 12K8 mixer/oscillator, 12SK7 1st IF, 12SK7 or
12SF7 second IF (depending on model), 12SR7 detector/BFO, and 12A6 audio.
They are actually pretty good receivers for CW or SSB, except that the
selectivity of the HF ones is pretty awful.
>
> : Which he used on the extreme distance photorecon missions he flew over
> : Germany between Scotland and the Soviet Union toward the end of the war.
>
>And how many of that specialized P-51 (which seems unlikely the Navy was
>operating) did they actually build? Perhaps the 10 or 15 of them (by the
>end of the war) did have ARC-5s in them along with the SCR-522. But the
>conversation was centered about having an ARC-5 in a Jeep.
So? If it happened, it must be possible.
>
>: Lenny, you think maybe he could have yakked back to the U.K. from
>: Berlin with an SCR-522??
>
>Why not? Didn't those nasty Berlineers like him?
Right in der Fuhrer's face!
73 de Jim, N2EY
Brian Kelly
wrote:
>
>
>Well Patton did read a lot of old history stuff and knew the lay of the
>land. Which theater of action was TM or TO located in at that time? :)
>
and ARC-5s in same . . .
>--
>Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Steve Robeson
>Date: 02/28/2000 8:24 PM Central Standard Time
>Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't done what they
did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up the EE. It's
called history.<
C'mon, Jim....What >>LENNIE<< did with ARC-5's...?!?!?
You've GOT to be kidding!
Steve
James Rosenthal
: In article <89fale$p...@nntp.seflin.org>, z005...@bc.seflin.org (James
: Rosenthal) writes:
: >Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't done what
: >they did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up the EE.
: >It's called history.
: I don't understand, Jim.
History? :) Of course you understand.
Please note the, "a bunch of -other- people.....".
: Lenof21's only experience with ARC-5s mentioned here is the conversion of two
: of them during the 1950s. How that resulted in modern day EEs is beyond me.
I have an idea that if the USA hadn't entered into WWII with "a bunch of
other people...", that life as we know it would be quite different.
: According to his own accounts, he is in his mid-60s, which would make him 10-12
: years old on VE Day. Also, he has never mentioned being in the AIr Force, and
: he says the ARC-5 is an aircraft set from WW2.
The ARC-5 -is- an aircraft radio from WWII, and they were not normally
installed on Jeeps. (the original premise)
And "a bunch of other people...." made their contributions -after- WWII.
Just like a whole new "bunch of people" did (probably yourself and most of
the rest of us here).
: 73 de Jim, N2EY
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Steve Robeson
>From: z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
>Message-id: <89gr1b$a...@nntp.seflin.org>
>Please note the, "a bunch of -other- people.....".<
I noted it, Jim....I ALSO noted that you made significant reference to
Lennie the Lifeless having somehow been associated those "and others" that you
repeatedly try to divert the attention to.
Lennie's conversion of a couple of ARC-5's has no more relevence to the
development of post-war Amatuer Radio than my being a nurse makes me qualified
to do cardiac surgery.
You opened the can, Jim...YOU stuff the worms back in!
73 de K4YZ
James Rosenthal
; (James Rosenthal) wrote:
>
>Well Patton did read a lot of old history stuff and knew the lay of the
>land. Which theater of action was TM or TO located in at that time? :)
>
;Do you have a clue about what TMs and TO&Es are??
Do YOU have a clue what ":)" means?
If not, I'll continue pulling your leg;
Naw, by the time I was in the Army, as a communications chief of a recruit
and "other" people training company, everything was done on a one to one,
person to person fashion. TMs etc were not used and all of them were
destroyed since they weren't needed any more. So the ones *I* have are
very valuable and I will even sell you some if you're nice. Need one on
the proper method to -destroy- an ARC-5? ;-))))))))))))
[Note the ;-)))))))))))) this time.]
;Has to do with Jeeps and ARC-5s in same . . .
So you figure that a Jeep came with a 24Vdc ARC-5 mounted on it from the
factory (and have a picture of it and the TM as proof?).
Please post the TM number of that "Spiffy ARC-5 in a Jeep" manual.
(Man, you Shure(c) are getting edgey lately.)
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
n2...@aol.com
z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal) wrote:
> N2EY (n2...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <89fale$p...@nntp.seflin.org>, z005...@bc.seflin.org
(James
> : Rosenthal) writes:
>
> : >Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't
done what
> : >they did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up
the EE.
> : >It's called history.
>
> : I don't understand, Jim.
>
> History? :) Of course you understand.
I understand that the people who used ARC-5 series, as well as a lot of
other radio equipment, had a big effect on the outcome of the war. So
did the widespread use of Morse radiotelegraphy in that war.
>
> Please note the, "a bunch of -other- people.....".
Please note the exact phrase "Len and a bunch of other people". That
means you think his actions with the ARC-5 series made some difference
in world history. If converting two of them to civilian use years after
the war was ended puts him in the company of those who actually fought
with the dern things, then sign me up, because I've converted a lot
more than two of them. Swords into plowshares, as the Good Book tells
us.
>
> : Lenof21's only experience with ARC-5s mentioned here is the
conversion of two
> : of them during the 1950s. How that resulted in modern day EEs is
beyond me.
>
> I have an idea that if the USA hadn't entered into WWII with "a bunch
of
> other people...", that life as we know it would be quite different.
Of course. But Lenof21 was not one of those people who used ARC-5s and
fought WW2. Nor has he ever claimed to be that I know of.
>
> : According to his own accounts, he is in his mid-60s, which would
make him 10-12
> : years old on VE Day. Also, he has never mentioned being in the AIr
Force, and
> : he says the ARC-5 is an aircraft set from WW2.
>
> The ARC-5 -is- an aircraft radio from WWII, and they were not
normally
> installed on Jeeps. (the original premise)
But they can be, and obviously were, if an SCR-506 was not available.
(Really neat set, that SCR-506. All you needed to do to convert from
12VDC to 24VDC was replace the dynamotors and move some links inside
the set. Lots of power, AM and CW, and really rugged. Also completely
self contained in its case (except for primary power, antenna, and
key/mike/speaker).
>
> And "a bunch of other people...." made their contributions -after-
WWII.
Sure. Both civilians and uniformed military.
> Just like a whole new "bunch of people" did (probably yourself and
most of
> the rest of us here).
Well that pretty much covers all of us, doesn't it?
>
73 de Jim, N2EY
James Rosenthal
; (Jim Rosenthal) writes:
> Brian Kelly (ke...@dvol.com) wrote:
> : On 29 Feb 2000 03:00:44 GMT, n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
> : >(Lenof21) writes:
> : >>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
> : >>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
> : >>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
> : >>in present-day cars)
> : >
> : >Then how were SCR-506 sets powered when installed in jeeps, command
> : >cars, halftracks, etc.?
>
> By batteries and dynamotors (what else is new?)
;I understand all that, Jim. It's obvious that Lenof21 does not.
Not so, he was pointing out that the dynamotors didn't exist for the
voltage that the Jeep of the time had.
;The point is simply that there was at least one radio set designed for use
;in jeeps and other relatively small US military vehicles in WW2,
Yep, but it -wasn't- the ARC-5 (the original premise).
; and the set named runs on either 12 or 24 VDC -not the 6 volts common
; in civilian vehicles of that time.
The original Jeep was 6 Vdc. It was converted to 12 Vdc from 1942 to
1945. Before the conversion, -some- Jeeps had a 12V, 55Amp auxiliary
generator driven from the transmission PTO. Very few of my wartime
pictures of Jeeps show ANY radio equipment. And none of my pictures
of wartime radio equiped Jeeps have ARC-5s mounted in them.
The ARC-5 did not have 12 Vdc dynamotors available. That's one reason why
I imagine Len mentioned it and why -we- had to build our own AC power
supplies for them.
; So mounting an ARC-5 in a jeep does not seem so far fetched.
There's (almost) always the exception to the rule. But Jeeps did not have
ARC-5s as standard issue as implied in the origianl statement.
> : I sure beeped my way to heaps of 80m dx with an ARC-5 without a
> : crystal anywhere in sight and sure as hell there were none tucked into
> : the ass end of the radio.
>
> Then you were not "calibrated" (bad operator)! And you did this during
> WWII? WOW!
;And again - the main point is that the HF/MF command sets were VFO and used
;the xtal for calibration checking only.
Yep, and I never said it -wasn't-.
> : >>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!?
> : >
> : >That was not claimed.
>
> Then why were the two sentances in the same paragraph next to each other?
> Ya gotta know Kelly's writing style. Extraneous blather is edited out. SOP.
Do we get the same consideration by others? ;)
> : >It was also an early version, probably with the Allison engine rather
> : >than the
> : >Rolls Royce designed Merlin. Which would explain the use of HF CW rather
> : >than >VHF voice.
Now that I think about it, the early P-51 (not the D model under
consideration) at the U of Fla had an Allison engine and it had a SCR-522
radio mounted in it. They had a spare engine mounted on a stand and I was
always trying to figure out how to adapt one of them to go in my 1940
Ford!!! I figured that 1200 HP would be enough to get the job done. Can
you imagine the gas "milage" (hmmmm, at >~100 gallons per hour...... =:0
> Oh, did they have -mufflers- on the VHF voice model? ;-))))
;Nope. Just that an early model plane would probably have early model
;radio, too.
Maybe ours had an "early" SCR-522 in it ;-)
> : There were more P-51D variants than can be counted, they changed here
> : and there by the week. Ever see a two-place P-51D Lenny?
> Ever see the bombideers position on a P-38? YES, one model had two
> people aboard and in combat!
> Also photorecon versions of the P-38.
Single seater. My original question still stands. :) I would NOT want to be
that person (no way to get OUT in flight!)
> : Dawson Ransom
> : (The originator of the concept of commuter airlines and airline hub
> : operations and founder/owner of Allegheny Commuter) flew a P-51D
> : equipped with ARC-5 radios which he used to operate straight-up cw.
>
>The ARC-5 receiver did NOT have a BFO in it to RECEIVE "straight-up CW" (or
>sideways either)! The Tx has MCW capability. So how did he receive
"real" CW?
;I'm afraid you are confused, James.
You are quite right in this case! There are two schematics in my
conversion book. One is the stock (before) schematic and the other is the
after conversion one. I was looking at the "after" schematic and the guy
had removed the BFO wiring. (A 1948, "rarely or never" 10m ham no doubt ;-)
Sorry :(
I lay prostrate (holding conversion book up as "proof") for your
judgement :)
;The receivers used a 12SK7 RF, 12K8 mixer/oscillator, 12SK7 1st IF, 12SK7
;or 12SF7 second IF (depending on model), 12SR7 detector/BFO, and 12A6 audio.
My book does show the 12SR7 as the "Det-CW OSC" in the origianal radio. Did
you notice how they turn the BFO OFF? (They short out the B+ to the osc!)
> : Which he used on the extreme distance photorecon missions he flew over
> : Germany between Scotland and the Soviet Union toward the end of the war.
>And how many of that specialized P-51 (which seems unlikely the Navy was
>operating) did they actually build? Perhaps the 10 or 15 of them (by the
>end of the war) did have ARC-5s in them along with the SCR-522. But the
>conversation was centered about having an ARC-5 in a Jeep.
;So? If it happened, it must be possible.
No one said it wasn't "possible". Only that it wasn't standard issue FOR A
JEEP since the radio was designed and used in aircraft and had no standard
Jeep supply votage power supply.
>: Lenny, you think maybe he could have yakked back to the U.K. from
>: Berlin with an SCR-522??
Well let's see, at 40,000 feet and during ducting conditions......
(is that with or w/o the optional 11 element quad array and the 8025 amp? :)
;73 de Jim, N2EY
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Lenof21
> Brian Kelly (ke...@dvol.com) wrote:
> : On 29 Feb 2000 03:00:44 GMT, n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
>
> : >In article <20000228003245...@nso-bh.aol.com>,
>len...@aol.com
> : >(Lenof21) writes:
> : >>The ARC-5 Command Sets were designed for aircraft 24 VDC
> : >>supply (then the standard in military aircraft). Check out the
> : >>battery voltage on the WW2 jeep. (hint: it wasn't the 12 VDC
> : >>in present-day cars)
> : >
> : >Then how were SCR-506 sets powered when installed in jeeps, command cars,
> : >halftracks, etc.?
>
> By batteries and dynamotors (what else is new?)
>
> The receiver portion of the SCR-506 (BC-652) was powered by either 14 or
> 28vdc at 5 or 2.5 amps. The B+ is supplied by the DM-40A or DM-41A
> dynamotor giving 172 volts at 138 ms. I don't have the info on the TX at
> this time but it most likely was powered by 14 or 28 vdc ALSO at higher
> voltage and currents.
The "evidence that Command Sets were used in jeeps and trucks"
is rather fictitious. The originator of this fiction has nothing to back
him up so he is furiously trying to rationalize it all with bluster and
attempts to side-track the thread.
> : I sure beeped my way to heaps of 80m dx with an ARC-5 without a
> : crystal anywhere in sight and sure as hell there were none tucked into
> : the ass end of the radio.
>
> Then you were not "calibrated" (bad operator)! And you did this during
>WWII? WOW!
He was there...in spirit. :-)
In the standard B-17 or B-24 installation, the Command Sets were
used for in-air command liason...by pilots to pilots rather than
radio men to radio men. Those same bombers carried a radioman-
gunner who would use another radio set to contact base on those
rare occasions when CW was required.
> : >>The USN using P-51Ds?!?!?
> : >
> : >That was not claimed.
>
> Then why were the two sentances in the same paragraph next to each other?
There's a lesson to be learned there...never drink and newsgroup...
> : >It was also an early version, probably with the Allison engine rather
>than the
> : >Rolls Royce designed Merlin. Which would explain the use of HF CW rather
>than
> : >VHF voice.
>
> Oh, did they have -mufflers- on the VHF voice model? ;-))))
I've heard of much BS in regards to radio but, I have to admit that
Kelly's rationale stands out as just about supreme! :-)
> : There were more P-51D variants than can be counted, they changed here
> : and there by the week. Ever see a two-place P-51D Lenny?
Military versions had suffixes A through D, H, and K. The D model
was the last of WW2 according to history and North American
Aviation records. The RCAF and some other countries acquired
the Mustang and other surplus US warplanes after WW2. As they
were built, the P-51, all models, were single-seat.
There were conversions done on surplus P-51s, by private
companies for private owners...and some contract conversion
for a few military P-51s intended for COIN (COunter-INsurgency)
ops in the 1960s.
> Ever see the bombideers position on a P-38? YES, one model had two
>people aboard and in combat!
There were only a handful of two-place P-38 conversions to
add a bombardier. The 8th AF tried to copy the RAF bomber
command's use of Mosquitos as Pathfinder bombers. One
military history states that Gen. Eisenhower got a ride in one
of those prior to D-Day in Europe. The Pathfinder experiment
was not successful as-is and was discontinued.
> : Dawson Ransom
> : (The originator of the concept of commuter airlines and airline hub
> : operations and founder/owner of Allegheny Commuter) flew a P-51D
> : equipped with ARC-5 radios which he used to operate straight-up cw.
>
>The ARC-5 receiver did NOT have a BFO in it to RECEIVE "straight-up CW" (or
>sideways either)! The Tx has MCW capability. So how did he receive "real" CW?
Actually, all of the four versions of the WW2 ARC-5 receivers did
have a BFO...the triode portion of the duo-diode triode that was
conventionally used as an AF amplifier in other designs.
> : Which he used on the extreme distance photorecon missions he flew over
> : Germany between Scotland and the Soviet Union toward the end of the war.
>
>And how many of that specialized P-51 (which seems unlikely the Navy was
>operating) did they actually build? Perhaps the 10 or 15 of them (by the
>end of the war) did have ARC-5s in them along with the SCR-522. But the
>conversation was centered about having an ARC-5 in a Jeep.
>
>: Lenny, you think maybe he could have yakked back to the U.K. from
>: Berlin with an SCR-522??
>
>Why not? Didn't those nasty Berlineers like him?
The photo recon missions in Europe involved only two aircraft,
slightly modified single-seat P-38 Lightnings and high-mark
Spitfires. Both operated at maximum altitude and had pilots
who were excellent at dead-reckoning navigation. Doctrine
required radio silence throughout each mission. That's
recorded history rather than beer-hall BS tales.
<snip>
>: : >>Hey, old timer, World War 2 ended FIFTY FIVE YEARS ago.
>: : >>Whatinhell does a communications mode used 55 years ago
>: : >>have to do with "rescue" TODAY?
>: : >
>: : >It is interesting that the most famous "rescue" radio set of the day,
>: : >the "Gibson Girl" transmitter, has not been mentioned. Perhaps because it
>: : >used ONLY CW.
>
>And when was the last time one was used? (not counting Ed's one that got
>smashed by Kim in the ballon getting stuck on the end of the fire tower)
The "Gibson Girl" survival radio was over-glamorized in the press,
especially after the rescue of Eddie Rickenbacker in the Pacific.
The basic box had an "hour-glass" shape intended to be placed
between the legs (leg straps were included) so that an operator
could turn the hand-cranked generator. Operators had the choice
of using a standard "message" keyed by a notched wheel on the
cranking mechanism or pressing a keying button on the side
while simultaneously cranking the handle (difficult to master in a
raft bobbing on the sea). A morse alphabet legend was usually
stencilled on the outside of the case (but not always), thus
giving a basis for the more modern RS HT kid's radio having the
same thing.
>
>It wasn't mentioned more likely because;
> 1. it was used so long ago to do it
> 2. they aren't used on ham freqs
> 3. now days EPIRBs are used and they are NOT CW.
Those old-time Gibson Girl transmitters were intended for a
ship's lifeboats or liferafts. Only large aircraft could carry them
in that aircraft's raft compartment. The single-seater was out
of luck in WW2. By comparison, today's single-seat fighter
pilot has a special HT in his parachute pack (along with other
survival items) that is an encrypted-voice short-range two-
way radio and a military TACAN range transponder.
>The gist of the original post was when was CW used (recently) for
>initiating an emergency message.
That thread has evolved into a personal grudge match by those
who will never ever in their lifetime concede that OOK CW is on
the way OUT. If they heard some beer-hall BS tale about using
radio in the way they liked it in WW2, then that fictitious factoid
becomes engraved-in-granite TRVTH. Anyone disagreeing with
their fourth-hand embellished tales is insulted and the thread
becomes unravelled in yet-another-PCTA pejorative-filled
rationalization set.
>Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
LA
Lenof21
Rosenthal) writes:
>N2EY (n2...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <89fale$p...@nntp.seflin.org>, z005...@bc.seflin.org (James
>: Rosenthal) writes:
>
>: >Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't done what
>: >they did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up the EE.
>: >It's called history.
>
>: I don't understand, Jim.
>
>History? :) Of course you understand.
>
>Please note the, "a bunch of -other- people.....".
>
>: Lenof21's only experience with ARC-5s mentioned here is the conversion of
>: two of them during the 1950s. How that resulted in modern day EEs is beyond
>: me.
Of course it is beyond you since that wasn't even close to the gist
of the whole thread. Further, it is incorrect since my personal
ARC-5 conversions were more than two and took place in the late
1940s, not the 1950s. I *sold* two complete Tx-Rx sets, kept two
receivers to play with...much later I bought one to keep as a
"souvenir" as-is.
N2EY's life history does NOT encompass the "surplus era" of the
1940s and 1950s. Further, he has NO military life experience
and no quoted involvement with radio of any service other than
amateur activity. He apparently doesn't understand that one CAN
be interested in radio other than as an amateur.
>I have an idea that if the USA hadn't entered into WWII with "a bunch of
>other people...", that life as we know it would be quite different.
Non sequitur to the thread or much of anything else besides
pseudo philosophy.
>: According to his own accounts, he is in his mid-60s, which would make him
>: 10-12 years old on VE Day. Also, he has never mentioned being in the
>: AIr Force, and he says the ARC-5 is an aircraft set from WW2.
My before-posted birthdate is 11 Oct 32. My posted-before military
service time is Mar 52 to Apr 60. That SHOULD be irrelevant to the
discussion although N2EY (he has no name, only a callsign) thinks
that is "vital and important" to the discussion. ?
Fact: The USAF was NOT a separate military service branch during
WW2...it was known then as the Army Air Force or AAF. Fact: The
ARC-5 Command Sets were sold as military surplus from 1947
onwards and publicized in radio/electronics magazines since then.
Fact: Free history information on World War 2 exists on the Internet
from government sources, including use of radio in both routine and
extraordinary purposes. Fact: Later versions of the ARC-5 series
(principally VHF/UHF) did exist in AAF and USAF inventory at least
to 1960. Fact: Civilian engineers working for corporations having
DoD contracts could and did lay hands on and operate USAF, USA,
USN, and USMG aircraft radio equipment between 1958 and 1989
as I did.
>The ARC-5 -is- an aircraft radio from WWII, and they were not normally
>installed on Jeeps. (the original premise)
N2EY did not exist during WW2. How can he say the above is true?
:-)
Come to think of it, N2EY's famous "history" of amateur radio
carries considerable information on ham history before he came
into existance. According to N2EY's "necessity for having direct
experience" premise way above, how can he state such history
is "factual?" :-)
>And "a bunch of other people...." made their contributions -after- WWII.
>Just like a whole new "bunch of people" did (probably yourself and most of
>the rest of us here).
That's not possible under the PCTA banner. The ONLY ones who
can speak about radio are licensed radio amateurs. All the others
do not count, never contributed anything, don't know anything, and
are not recognized as human beings. [depending on the thread
direction, that also includes the FCC which does not require operator
licensing in order to MAKE radio regulations in US civil radio]
Lenof21
>In article <89gr1b$a...@nntp.seflin.org>,
> z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal) wrote:
>> N2EY (n2...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : In article <89fale$p...@nntp.seflin.org>, z005...@bc.seflin.org
>(James
>> : Rosenthal) writes:
>>
>> : >Think of it this way, if Len and a bunch of other people hadn't
>done what
>> : >they did with those ARC-5s, those kids wouldn't be free to pick up
>the EE.
>> : >It's called history.
>>
>> : I don't understand, Jim.
>>
>> History? :) Of course you understand.
>
>I understand that the people who used ARC-5 series, as well as a lot of
>other radio equipment, had a big effect on the outcome of the war. So
>did the widespread use of Morse radiotelegraphy in that war.
The Command Sets (ARC-5) used AM voice as their normal mode,
pilots to pilots in WW2. Their design and installation is so
oriented.
"Widespread" WW2 radio use on land was AM, later FM voice.
In this case it is in small-unit operations (squad to company
size, in numbers far more numerous than the field transportable
OOK CW capable radios).
Highest-classification communications in the USN during WW2
was encrypted RTTY...beginning in 1940.
>> Please note the, "a bunch of -other- people.....".
>
>Please note the exact phrase "Len and a bunch of other people". That
>means you think his actions with the ARC-5 series made some difference
>in world history.
That over-reach of the thread begins one of the most mean-spirited
responses other than outright insult...
>If converting two of them to civilian use years after
>the war was ended puts him in the company of those who actually fought
>with the dern things, then sign me up, because I've converted a lot
>more than two of them.
N2EY is invited to go *#$%^!!! himself. My dogtags had my ASN
of RA16408336 during the Korean War. In such REAL service
(military) we didn't use or need OOK CW since voice with the
AN/PRC-6 or the other two (of three) PRC-n backpack radios
which could and did liason with air support aircraft. The
AN/GRC-26 could do OOK CW as well as RTTY and AM voice
but nobody in battalion to division echelons used anything but
RTTY or AM. Fixed station modes were almost entirely RTTY
on HF across the Pacific, voice on 12 KHz four-voice-channel
SSB was the only other mode for the Far East Command Hq
communications. [the Korean War was Jun 50 to Jul 53 but
the Truce period has never been over]
> Swords into plowshares, as the Good Book tells us.
Good grief, what a lot of sanctimonius, self-righteous
posturing. [the ARRL Handbook doesn't have such a phrase]
No, "conversion of ARC-5s" did NOT do all those things you
claim Rosenthal "meant." Didn't even come close.
According to Your environmental necessity of Need To
Understand A Subject (and common to the PCTA creed),
you don't know #$%^!! squat about military radio, didn't
serve one microsecond in any military branch, don't know
how it feels to walk a patrol always on alert looking for
someone out to kill you, don't know what close-in
artillery feels like when it lands, and generally haven't
had one single #$%!!! hands-on experience with any
currently-in-use military radio equipment in the field in
any kind of weather, day or night. And then you self-
righteously presuppose You "know" all about Radio In
WW2 or even any other war...all on the basis of having
amateur radio as a hobby.
>Of course. But Lenof21 was not one of those people who used ARC-5s and
>fought WW2. Nor has he ever claimed to be that I know of.
Kiss my *(^#!!!!. I've NEVER claimed any such thing AND Jim
Rosenthal never ever claimed or even implied that.
Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experiences in WW2,
old-timer...or the Korean War...or the Southeast Asia Live Fire
Excercise (Vietnam War)...or part of the Sinai or Lebanon US
peacekeeping missions? Tell us all about how morse modes
did ALL the "important" communications and were "so vital"
to accomplishing it all. Tell us all about your experiences with
the US military during peacetime, how much morse modes were
"necessary" to win the Cold War.
Tell everyone again how morse code, as "the second most used
mode" (in amateur HF bands) makes it "so vital" so as to
warrant a code test for licensing. Tell us again how modern-
day radio use requires morse mode to be used for effective
public safety TODAY, how it is such a valuable asset to search
and rescue everywhere, land, sea, or air.
Tell us again so that we can point out that you are just
rationalizing your own personal preferences without thought
of newcomers...no thought except to force them to Do It As
You Did It (so you can claim exclusivity on basis of class).
LA