[Milsurplus] BC-640

[Ray Chase]

You've got to be kidding!  The various services and groups within a service 
did precious little coordination, some of it due to beaurocratic excesses in 
secrecy, others due to NIH syndrome but mainly due to the exigencies of 
getting a crash job done in little time.  Stuff was designed and 
manufactured in months and sent to the field to see if it worked or created 
a problem.  Then the results were addressed.  Often the operators would not 
know interference until it was pointed out to them.  A crazy time but we got 
an awful lot done quickly; we could have learned a lot from that period but 
we did not.
Ray Chase
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Antonio" <scr287 at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-640


>I have to wonder how deserved the TVI reputation of the BC-640 really
> was.  Was the transmitter really as dirty as claimed, or was TVI the
> result of running the unit without the proper shields and covers in place?
>
> My thinking is that what we call TV channels 7-13 today, were in WWII
> used a lot for IFF and radar, and if the BC-640 was such a dirty
> machine, are there reports of BC-640s bothering the receivers of
> radar and IFF systems?
>
> Did the military do compatibility studies during WWII of what systems
> could or could not be used near each other?
>
> Just curious
>
> Jack Antonio WA7DIA
> scr287 at sbcglobal.net
>
>
> Rod Hogg wrote:
>> Last BC-640 I was around ended up in local salvage yard, in many pieces. 
>> It
>> was used a couple times on 2M, but found it generated more TVI signal 
>> than
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html