[Milsurplus] Doubting the Foxhole Radio, conclusions

[C.Whitaker]

One quick comment,
This is WB2CPN
Whereas most radios in US were Superhets, with
a LO for the IF,  many of the other receivers in the
world were Regens, or Super regens.  Just after
WWII in Germany most brands were.  The Radio
Stores even sold kits.  I built a couple.
When one of these radios broke into oscillation,
which means the regen control had to be backed
down a bit, they did radiate a very strong signal on
what the dial frequency was.  Whether they could
be detected very far away depended mainly on
the antenna system, most of which were long wires.
You may have heard this before, but ham radio was
banned in Germany during WWII, the equipment was
illegal to have, so a few German hams connected a
hand key into a Lorenz or Blau Punkt receiver, and
turned the Regen control all the way up, but not on
a station's frequency.   Very Interesting, Hans.
73  Clete
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 8/3/2012 10:49 AM, Nick England 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
>>
>> ============
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>