[Milsurplus] Doubting the Foxhole Radio, conclusions

[C.Whitaker]

de Clete Agn,
Hence the TRF series of Navy receivers.
I've worked with a room full of BC-779's, SP-600's,
and RPB-2, and never had a QRM problem.
73  Clete
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 8/3/2012 11:01 AM, Nick England wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>> ============
>>>
>>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>