[Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 234, Issue 57

Mon Oct 23 14:27:52 EDT 2023

Ken's comments about "single signal" performance with the RAL reminded me
of an article that explained how very precise control of regeneration can
create that effect.  IIRC, the theory goes that one sideband was just
barely in the oscillating mode (maximum selectivity) and the other sideband
was not in oscillation, attenuating it.  Regeneration control is frequency
sensitive, maybe this is an optimization of that ? .  I'll dig up the
article and reference it to you all.

Does this make any sense ?

Alan, N3BJ

On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 12:43 AM <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:

> Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
>         milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [MMRCG] Refurbed (?) U.S. Navy RAS Receiver (Konrad Werzner)
>    2. RAL Receiver (David Stinson)
>    3. Re: RAK-RAL - the use of... (Kenneth G. Gordon)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 16:35:58 -0500
> From: Konrad Werzner <usstexasradio at gmail.com>
> To: Jim Whartenby <old_radio at aol.com>
> Cc: "milsurplus at mailman" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [MMRCG] Refurbed (?) U.S. Navy RAS Receiver
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA++10jSz1211eka-g6g9Ob5J93vtUbCnoT-G9FupqyiEHUh7ng at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Digging through the DTIC database, I found one of the benchmarking
> documents for the RAS. It's labeled "XRAS" since it was still experimental
> at the time and appears to fail in a lot of Navy benchmarking requirements.
> It's interesting to note that this is what caused the eventually approved
> RAS to use of the 6V6G and 6F8G tubes compared to other HROs. Enjoy
> reading:
>
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1158726.pdf
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:47?PM Jim Whartenby via Milsurplus <
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>
> > I believe coaxial cable was invented some 50 years earlier (1880) by
> > Oliver Heaviside who also held the original patent.  His biography is
> worth
> > a look, talk about being ahead of your time!
> > Jim
> >
> > Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.
> > Murphy
> >
> >
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 03:38:17 PM CDT, howard holden <
> > holden7471 at msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Very specifically, submarines used coax cables. Don?t recall other ships
> > using, but I can?t imagine why not. Coax was invented in 1929 I think.
> >
> >
> >
> > Howie WB2AWQ
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> > Windows
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com>
> > *Sent: *Monday, October 16, 2023 1:27 PM
> > *To: *milsurplus at mailman <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> > *Subject: *Re: [Milsurplus] [MMRCG] Refurbed (?) U.S. Navy RAS Receiver
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think any WWII era ship used coax for HF.
> > Or, what am i missing?
> > So is there a coax - single wire conversion needed?
> > -Hue Miller
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Milsurplus mailing list
> > Home:
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.qth.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmilsurplus&data=05%7C01%7C%7C4f01c1eb57204d5b2ad408dbce865543%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638330848582038273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ecrmXguAEl94rluR5gWbOTNnAN5R7X%2B6k1wmJRgm%2F0k%3D&reserved=0
> > <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus>
> > Help:
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.qth.net%2Fmmfaq.htm&data=05%7C01%7C%7C4f01c1eb57204d5b2ad408dbce865543%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638330848582038273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kPxBp7lvP8urT2XCmgZvXd1sfq%2BzYHuPMv%2BhVsZ63vg%3D&reserved=0
> > <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> > Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> >
> > This list hosted by:
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qsl.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C4f01c1eb57204d5b2ad408dbce865543%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638330848582194486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tfalquT35DkHP0K0Z0FDw0UtjSY49v0IjMvziPTsQ0E%3D&reserved=0
> > <http://www.qsl.net/>
> >
> > Please help support this email list:
> >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qsl.net%2Fdonate.html&data=05%7C01%7C%7C4f01c1eb57204d5b2ad408dbce865543%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638330848582194486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZeS%2FhytILcg3mUNgn6%2BaKIJfOHZJhi6%2FYi2FNZnCZhA%3D&reserved=0
> > <http://www.qsl.net/donate.html>
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20231021/69b905d8/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 16:57:09 -0500
> From: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> To: "milsurplus at mailman" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>, MMRCG
>         <MMRCG at groups.io>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] RAL Receiver
> Message-ID: <7f94ed70-dfde-46c9-a291-9c900c1d034e at ix.netcom.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> I'm looking for a specific RAL receiver owner.
> One who is either using his RAL, or has it on
> his bench and regularly works to put it in
> operation.
>
> That person's RAL is missing its case.
>
> I do NOT want to know about those who have an
> RAL in a lost corner of the barn since 1968,
> down in the often-flooding basement, or
> down near the bottom of the "get around to it"
> pile in the garage since that hamfest 17 years ago.
>
> I'm looking for the person who actually wants to
> use his RAL and is actually taking steps to accomplish it.
>
> TNX OM DE Dave AB5S
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:42:57 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> To: Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] RAK-RAL - the use of...
> Message-ID: <6534A851.25581.3162C63B at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I have made somewhat extensive use of both the RAL and the RAK receivers
> and would like
> to share some of my experiences with both.
>
> Both of my receivers were being operated from the original power supplies,
> which are really
> too big and too power hungry for ham radio use. They aren't needed where
> you don't have
> big turrets being swung around drawing the line voltage down each time.
>
> In a normal ham station, a very simple supply, providing 180 VDC at a few
> miliamps is
> usually all that is required. A regulated 90 VDC is nice, but not
> absolutely necessary.
>
> In fact, according to the manuals on these receivers, they work just fine
> with ONLY the 90
> VDC source.
>
> Anyway, with regard to the RAK, I used mine to copy 5 letter code grounps
> from the U.S.
> Navy VLF stations while they were still using CW, and before they switched
> to RATT. I was
> intending to work my way up to 30 wpm of steady error-free copy as I
> wanted to go to sea to
> be a ship-board radio operator.
>
> I eventually got my 2nd Class Radio Telegraph license toward that end, but
> many things
> intervened and I never was able to complete that project.
>
> The Navy station at Jim Creek in Washington state always came in to my
> station in Missoula,
> Montana like gang-busters 24/7/365. I think I could have used a wet-string
> as an antenna.
>
> The first thing I noticed about my RAK was its amazing stability. It was
> rock steady. Once
> tuned to a signal, it remained there. One could literally hammer on the
> radio with a hammer
> and it never moved frequency.
>
> The second, most amazing thing, to find was its "single-signal"
> selectivity. The "other side" of
> zero beat simply wasn't there....at all. Not even a hint of it.
>
> I am still somewhat in the dark as to how this was done. I believe it was
> due to the "Q" of the
> tuned circuits in the radio. I understand that that value was around 1500,
> which is very
> unusual for such coils.
>
> Maybe someone here can enlighten me how this was done.
>
> With regard to my RAL, I traded a BC-348 with BC band ARC-5 "Q-5er" for it
> while I was a
> new General (actualy Conditional) class ham so that I could work 15 meters.
>
> I used my RAL for some 12 years as my only station receiver, and never
> turned it off.
>
> My ONLY complaint with it was the total lack of a real frequency readout.
> Using the tuning
> chart in the manual was difficult, but I got used to it.
>
> Again, like the RAK, it was unconditionally stable.
>
> I really liked its "quietness" and sensitivity.
>
> I used it for every common mode at the time, CW, AM, SSB, RTTY. I could
> have used it for
> digital modes (other than CW and RTTY) if they had existed at the time.
>
> Ken W7EKB
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20231021/8f1d9a64/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 234, Issue 57
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20231023/fdb4269b/attachment-0001.html>