[Milsurplus] Doubting the Foxhole Radio, conclusions

[Nick England]

And oh yes, the other reason I have seen for reducing LO radiation is to
prevent interference with other receivers aboard ship. This sounds quite
plausible for Navy gear where there might be multiple rcvrs on the same
band operating in close proximity shipboard or at intercept sites
(sometimes sharing a common antenna with just a 600 ohm isolating
resistor). The RAO-2, for example, evidently had an extra RF stage added
for this reason. But it doesn't seem as likely a reason for modifying
Merchant Marine morale radios.
http://www.radioblvd.com/WWII-PostWar%20Hamgear.htm

Nick K4NYW

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Nick England <navy.radio at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's still not clear to me how much of a danger DF'ing the LO actually
> was, but it is certainly true that receivers were modified to reduce LO
> radiation. Evidently these modified rcvrs were given production and
> procurement priority and widely used, so the purpose couldn't have been to
> prevent anyone from getting information via other than official
> channels.They were called morale receivers for a reason.
> http://www.imradioha.org/images/Gear/Scott_SLR-12-A_1942_Ad.gif
>
> Another "cover-up" explanation I have heard is that the reduced radiation
> was a way of explaining the reduction of U-boat success rates when the real
> reason was Bletchley Park's reading the Enigma traffic. But the timing on
> that doesn't see all that good either.
>
> The true story can be found in that giant warehouse seen in the Indiana
> Jones movies...
>
> Nick K4NYW
> www.navy-radio.com
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM, J. Forster <jfor at quikus.com> wrote:
>
>> The issue of DFing LOs was, IMO, a canard. A crystal set could not be
>>
>> detected by any means, of course.
>>
>> While it is theoretically possible that LO leakage could be detected at
>> short range, it is very doubtful that it would be of any real use to the
>> enemy.
>>
>> After 70 years, the original purpose of such things is highly suspect.
>>
>> IMO, it was much more likely a cover story to prevent the troops getting
>> information via other than official channels.
>>
>> Disinformation was an integral part of war. Just look at the efforts to
>> spoof the D-Day location.
>>
>> Politicians are trying to do exactly the same thing today, thankfully with
>> only limited success.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> -John
>>
>> ============
>>
>>