[ARC5] interesting ?

[John Franke]

Just to add a bit to Mike's statements, the shipboard version of the APR-1 was labeled SPR-1 and looks identical to the APR-1 except the case is iron instead of aluminum. The audio output from the APR-1 and 4 is adequate for driving a speaker through a matching transformer. There was another shipboard receiver that used the APR-1 and APR-4 plugins. It was labeled RDO and the panadaptor was labeled RDP. There was a matching pulse analyzer labeled RDJ. 


John 

WA4WDL



> On February 23, 2018 at 10:51 PM Michael Hanz <aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org> wrote:
> 
>     On 2/23/2018 4:28 PM, Roy Morgan wrote:
> 
>         > >         Am I right in assuming that these things (the Ebay frequency converters) preceded the APR-4 and APR-4Y?
> > 
> >     >     Slightly (mid 1943 versus early 1944), but definitely not the APR-4 predecessors mentioned below, which were all derived from the General Radio P-540 microwave receiver.
> 
> 
>         > >         THE APR-4's were in use in the 50's into the 60's I would guess.
> >         I have where I am an APR-4Y (which runs on 400 - 800 cycles) but I think no plug-ins.
> >         Elsewhere I do have some plug-ins for this thing.  I may have to lash up a big audio amplifier to run it.
> > 
> >     >     If you have a hefty 28v power supply, you might look for 400~ aircraft inverters.  Occasionally you will find one for a reasonable price.  The APR-4 takes about 110 watts of 400~ power.  I have found them at hamfests for $5 to $10.
> 
> 
>         > >         These things are interesting to me because they originated from a General Radio device meant to be used with slotted lines and the like that produced an "IF" frequency of 30 mc.  It *may* have been an MIT Rad Lab project to upgrade the GR thing.
> > 
> >     >     Yes to both subjects you raised.  Dr. Alfred Price, for his Doctoral Thesis in 1985, documented an interview he had with Dr. Don Sinclair:
> 
>     "At about this time [circa late 1940] Dr. Don Sinclair, a Canadian working with
>     the General Radio Company at Cambridge, Massachusetts, began
>     work on the receiver portion cf a field strength measuring set
>     intended to cover the band 100 to 3,000 MHz. To achieve the required
>     broad tuning range, the receiver used the novel ' butterfly' tuning
>     device which Sinclair himself had invented. It soon became clear that
>     the unusual receiver might be suitable for a role quite different from
>     that for which it had originally been intended, however, and in July
>     1941 the Radiation Laboratory placed an order with General Radio
>     for prototypes of an intercept equipment based on Sinclair's
>     receiver. The device, which received the General Radio prototype
>     designation P-540, was to become the first purpose-built US radar
>     intercept receiver. During tests the P-540 continued to show promise
>     and the Army Signal Corps placed an order for a hundred receivers
>     of this type, now designated the SCR-587, with the Philco Corporation."
> 
>     The SCR-587 was also nomenclatured by the Navy as the "ARC" (think ARA, ARB, ARD...etc.), and then quickly, the "ARC-1", with some minor (Navy) improvements.  By then, we were into 1943 and it was obvious that the 587 and ARC-1 needed improvement, especially in the tuning area, which did not have single knob tuning.  It was like tuning an early superhet receiver, with separate oscillator and RF amplifier dials.  The APR-1 and APR-4 were the result of that need, but I would not call the APR-4 an upgrade from the APR-1 - full scale production came about the same time in early 1944 for both - the APR-1 driven by Navy requirements, and the APR-4 driven by USAAF specifications.  There were some IF step attenuation capabilities on the APR-4 that proved useful in the long run, so the APR-1 became another piece of flotsam in the sea of countermeasures receivers that became obsolete.  The APR-4 was re-nomenclatured again in the AN/ALR-5, this time with the CV-253/ALR tuning head, which covered 38-1000MHz in four bands and greatly improved sensitivity, and the 400Hz powered APR-4Y being the only changes,.  The other two APR-4 tuning units that covered up to 4GHz still worked in the mainframe.
> 
>     What is lost in all this summary was the fever of research and rapid improvements in the hardware, pretty much on a monthly basis.  Talk about a release version documentation nightmare!
> 
>               73,
>      - Mike  KC4TOS
> 
> 
> 
> 
 

> ______________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20180224/6ad7fadd/attachment.html>