[Milsurplus] 19 set thread

[Hue Miller]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Feher" <n4fs@monmouth.com>
To: "Ben Nock" <G4BXD@compuserve.com

>I clearly remember a conversion article in CQ or
> 73 that shows a modification for a 19. It shows it on the back of a small
> row boat with two guys ready to dump it in the water for a boat anchor.

I quite remember this "article" also, and never understood it: the 19 Set is
clearly a wonderful piece of equipment, and for the postwar user, a splendid
toy. I wonder if the bad reputation in the surplus literature, at least in
the USA,
arises  from the ham users' limited technical ability, limited ability to
understand
the switching and relay system, and to operate the set without the control
boxes?
Doesn't one of Kneitel's smart guy semi-educated comments in some surplus
compilation refer deprecatingly to this "complexity" ?


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Nock" <G4BXD@compuserve.com>

> > There's a lot of talk about the 19, in particular on the yahoo site,
> > but it seems in the main to be "I had one in 1647..." or "I get
> > 500w out of mine..." etc etc.

Ben, maybe it's time for an eye exam for you.

BTW, i found the anecdotes from the Italian campaign user fascinating.

> > The thread on tests makes me laugh. What a lot of effort for such a
simple
> > system. The one who had complex numbers in his calc's of o/p imp etc..

> > more effort than even the original design team expended.

Ben, possibly you are old enuff to have used (only) a sliderule.

> > its a simple set, used for short range comms, with a 12 ft whip. All the
> > other things
> > it does are a bonus... just enjoy it.

Actually, there was a longwire antenna accessory. That  was clearly not for
just short range
work. Your know-nothing attitude, for a leading military collector,
surprises me.
Hue Miller