[ARC5] Was something or other now Over 50 with a S-38*
Jay Coward
jcoward5452 at aol.com
Mon Nov 16 20:57:50 EST 2015
I'm over 50 (ageing gracefully); I had one I recapped and it was a "bedside" radio for years, a "C". Got it at a ham fest in CO back in '76 or 7 and it travelled with me in my first '71 VW Bus from CO to CA. When I stopped at rest stops I threw a wire up on what ever I could and took AC from the bathrooms with a long extension cord. No one ever bothered me for that. Now I'd probably be arrested for theft of service or something.Sold at a flea, now have another yet to be recapped. With a properly polarized power plug, there shouldn't be a problem.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bittner <mmab at cox.net>
To: Leslie Smith <vk2bcu at operamail.com>; arc5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ARC5] Now I'm completely OT - re "rushing design into production"
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
More information about the ARC5
mailing list