[Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question

[Carl]

The Army desert training takes into consideration the different 
enviroments. The same voltages can be generated in the USA, the dust 
intesity is far less but still capable of generating voltages that can 
fry electronics.

Electronics equipment acceptance tests include static survival.

Its easily discharged in mobile enviroments using the same method used 
in WW2 in North Africa, a trailing ground lead from the vehicle. Back 
then it was a chain stolen from the motor pool/repair depot; Im sure the 
Army has developed a more expensive method by now.

Carl
KM1H



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James M. Walker" <chejmw at buffalo.edu>
To: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; <WA5CAB at cs.com>; <jfor at quik.com>
Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question


> Ah,
> Terminology, there friend. First the deserts in the US don't have
> sand storms like in North Africa, (what you are calling desert). Not
> even close. Second forward deployment usually entails short range
> comms, all of which does not matter, when in a true sand storm.
>
> Sand storms generally (over there) last for hours at a time, and even 
> with
> all the technology at the disposal of the US military, they could not
> accurately predict when one would turn up. Lots of folks started 
> passing
> along the rumour that the equipment did not operate there, that was 
> not
> the case. Most of the equipment worked, if it was ground based. Most
> of the sat-comms did NOT.
>
> Static buildup in sand storms can run as much asa few hundred 
> kilovolts,
> problem was most of the mobile electronics was NOT properly grounded
> for the systems in use. However by its very nature, mobile combat does
> not readily lend itself to grounding equipment.
>
> Need to get the real story, and not the rumors, and hearsay of folks 
> that
> put one and one together and came up with three.
>
> There is a reason it's called a communications system, and also for 
> the
> big stop read your manual sheet in the equipment list.
>
> Jim
> WB2FCN
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
> To: <WA5CAB at cs.com>; <jfor at quik.com>
> Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question
>
>
>> Actually, what a good part of the problem was when they used several 
>> hundred Kenwood TS-830's and T2FD B&W antennas for both phone patches 
>> and some forward deployment.
>>
>> It was a communications foul up as the Army has plenty of desert 
>> training right in the USA plus Israel for information sources.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <WA5CAB at cs.com>
>> To: <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; <jfor at quik.com>
>> Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question
>>
>>
>>> Actually, part of what happened in '91 was that they returned a 
>>> bunch of
>>> RT-524's to service, temporarily.  So they were using tubes in '91.
>>>
>>> In a message dated 3/1/2009 8:12:55 PM Central Standard Time,
>>> km1h at jeremy.mv.com writes:
>>>> They found that out decades before Desert Storm. However a neon has 
>>>> a
>>>> rather long delay before it fires if it isnt biased to a more 
>>>> useful
>>>> voltage. SS front ends would be fried otherwise and I dont thing 
>>>> they
>>>> were using tubes in 1991. For SS there are better choices.
>>>>
>>>> Carl
>>>>
>>>
>>> Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
>>> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
>>> MVPA 9480
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Boatanchors mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>