[ARC5] Now I'm completely OT - re "rushing design into production"

Mon Nov 16 20:17:48 EST 2015

I got my Novice license in 1953 and my first receiver was a S-38C. I got 
my General 3 months after getting my Novice and worked the world on all 
bands including 10 meters.  I used to play checkers with a guy in 
Rhodesia every weekend using my S-38C.  Raymond Loewy designed the 
"look" which is wonderful and a piece of art.  For as few parts as it 
had within it, it was a marvel.  I consider it one of the best designs 
when you consider how few parts it had within it.  Today,  I must own 
thirty S-38s of one type or another.  Never been shocked by one yet.  
Too many OSHA Liberals out there spreading discontent.
Lee, w0vt

On 11/16/2015 7:08 PM, Michael Bittner wrote:
> Is there anyone over 50 who did not own some model of the S-38 at some 
> time or another?
> Mike, W6MAB
> -
> -
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie Smith" <vk2bcu at operamail.com>
> To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:50 PM
> Subject: [ARC5] Now I'm completely OT - re "rushing design into 
> production"
>
>
>> Richard (and others)
>> You made the point that Mr. "Halli-craft" changed the design of sets
>> rapidly, and perhaps without sufficient thought.
>>
>> Recently I listened to a historian contrast the manufacturing strategies
>> used by Nazi Germany and the USSR as it applied to tanks/panzers.  His
>> point:  the Russians thought through the full life-cycle of their T-34
>> (and subsequent models).  The life of a T-34 was about 8 to 12 months,
>> and everything was built according to that time frame.  The paint was
>> rough, the castings were rough, everything was rough.
>>
>> The Russians stuck to their basic design - including a gear box that was
>> so "stiff" a hammer lay on the floor between the driver's feet. In
>> contrast, the Germans constantly modified/improved their design -
>> according to the demand of the Wehrmacht.  The result was that the
>> Russian produced a huge number of their basic T-34, while the Germans
>> produced small numbers of superb panzers.  The historian made the
>> observation that the two contrasting strategies may have influenced the
>> final result of the war - an interesting conclusion.
>>
>> My comment (above) came from Richard's comment - that he suspected
>> "Hallicrafters rushed new designs into production too quickly to refine
>> them probably."   In the context of the "command" sets, it's interesting
>> (to me at least) to read about the delay between the presentation of the
>> 'command' sets - some years before the first "decent" contract was let.
>> It seems the "command/ARC-5" sets were subject to a LOT of preliminary
>> assessment (as I would expect from any military organization).
>>
>> There are some interesting side-effects of this.  A communication system
>> that provided a set or 3 radios in a rack, rather than one set with a
>> band-switch.  A communication system that lasted for many years
>> (although that may result from the pressure to not "rock the boat"
>> during a war, rather than excellent design).
>>
>> As for me and the Hallicrafters "bottom of the line" S-38 sets - I
>> deliberately chose the early model (with B.F.O.) because a B.F.O. is a
>> distinct advantage (I think) over a regenerative I.F.   I want to
>> compare the performance of the S-38 with the performance of the
>> "command" series or receivers.  History (and technology) IS interesting!
>>
>> Thanks for your comment Richard!
>>
>> 73 de Les Smith
>>  vk2bcu at operamail.com
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015, at 06:12, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>>     My first receiver was an S-38B, I may still have it but can't find
>>> it. It was surprizing on a decent antenna.  When we moved out to Los
>>> Angeles, about 1950, 10 meters was a an unprecedented peak. The S-38
>>> could hear signals from all over on a 40 meter folded dipole. I could
>>> read SSB with care but the lack of an RF gain control made more
>>> difference than lack of selectivity or stability.
>>>      The odd Hallicrafters arrangement for the BFO in this receiver is
>>> to make the IF stage regenerative just at the point of oscillation. 
>>> That
>>> also makes it more selective. A resistor is switched in to reduce 
>>> the IF
>>> gain when the switch is set to CW, which helps because the regeneration
>>> also increases the gain of the IF stage. A clever idea that sort of
>>> works. The original S-38 had a real BFO and the extera tube also had a
>>> diode in it so there was also a noise limiter.  The design change saved
>>> a tube and some components but lost the noise limiter and ability to
>>> shift the BFO frequency, the latter of not much value considering the
>>> broad response.
>>>      I have a suspicion BTW that Hallicrafters rushed new designs into
>>> production too quickly to refine them properly.   If I am right it 
>>> would
>>> explain the plethora of variations of models as ideas for either
>>> reducing production cost or improving performance came up. 
>>> Hallicrafters
>>> was not the only company to make changes during production but perhaps
>>> made more than usual.
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2015 10:26 AM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
>>> > On 16 Nov 2015 at 10:16, D C _Mac_ Macdonald wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> My first receiver (and transmitter) was the Walter Ashe $49.50 
>>> Novice
>>> >> Station with 6SN7GT regen receiver.  Worked a lot better than the 
>>> S-38 >> I
>>> >> borrowed when the 6SN7GT went dead and I couldn't afford a 
>>> replacement
>>> >> tube.
>>> > My first "good" receiver was a Hallicrafters S-41G which a plumber
>>> > sub-contractor for my step-father's construction company found in his
>>> > basement after he moved into the house. At least the BFO in that 
>>> thing
>>> > worked....
>>> >
>>> > I bought an S-41G somewhat recently, mainly just to see how it 
>>> worked > when
>>> > compared with my more modern rigs. I almost can't figure out how 
>>> we > ever
>>> > used those things to make as many contacts as we did. Yet I even 
>>> worked
>>> > DX
>>> > on 20 meters using the S-41G back then. The entire 20 meter band 
>>> is not
>>> > quite 3/16" wide on the dial. Calibration was literally non-existent.
>>> >
>>> > I suppose the extremely poor selectivity of those sorts of 
>>> receivers is
>>> > the primary reason I preferred to operate CW, and still do. The AM
>>> > portions of the bands were simply one huge collection of 
>>> heterodynes. I
>>> > couldn't stand to listen to that crap for more than a few minutes.
>>> >
>>> >> My ears aren't as good as they once were, but newbies still can't 
>>> >> figure
>>> >> out how I can pick signals out during Field Day!
>>> > Yes. I have had the same experience. My "wet filter" has a 
>>> bandwidth of > 50
>>> > Hz. It works just fine, thank you, even after all these years. I find
>>> > narrow bandwidths in modern receivers disconcerting: I can't tell 
>>> what
>>> > else is going on on the band, and it bothers me. Besides, I also 
>>> don't
>>> > like the sound of a restricted bandwidth. There are times, of 
>>> course, > when
>>> > very narrow (400Hz or so) bandwidths are useful...
>>> >
>>> >> There's still nothing that compares with trying to copy either 
>>> ICW or
>>> >> voice signals under crowded conditions to improve operator skill.
>>> > Indeed, yes.
>>> >
>>> > I think Glen's idea of requiring new hams to spend at least 2 
>>> years > using
>>> > wide bandwidth and unstable receivers is excellent, although 
>>> impossible > to
>>> > implement. Sadly.
>>> >
>>> > Ken W7EKB
>>> >
>>> > ______________________________________________________________
>>> > ARC5 mailing list
>>> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>>> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> > Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>> >
>>> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> >
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Richard Knoppow
>>> 1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com
>>> WB6KBL
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> ARC5 mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>> -- 
>> http://www.fastmail.com - Email service worth paying for. Try it for 
>> free
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html 
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html