[Milsurplus] U.S. Army TRF LF receiver 1934

[Ian Wilson]

Hi Ken,

The RU is worth a look. Of note is the BFO - since there is no IF, the BFO
has
to track the signal frequency (+/- the CW tone). Compare to the RAK/RAL
where
the regen detector serves as the BFO.

I seem to recall reading that the RU has some regeneration (the amplifier
stages
aren't neutralized).

I don't know if it was well-regarded - possibly temperamental and a bit
deaf :)

73, ian K3IMW


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Kenneth G. Gordon <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
wrote:

> Speaking of TRF receivers, I would guess that by the time of the ramp-up to
> WWII, the TRF receiver-technology would have been pretty advanced by
> then.
>
> In my very limited experience, I found the TRF RAL receiver to be very,
> very
> effective on HF up to 23 MHz. Other than the typical, and to my mind, poor
> frequency readout, it was fully the equal of any fairly good superhet of
> the
> period and even later.
>
> Were there other HF TRF receivers which were well-regarded at the time?
>
> I understand that the Germans used a lot of TRF gear during WWII, but did
> the Allied side follow suit?
>
> Ken W7EKB
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>