[R-390] Re: R390/Squalid State

[Joe Foley]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, I only have a two-year
engineering degree.

But isn't the first step in ANY engineering project to
determine just what the "givens" are?  Wouldn't it be
most efficient to learn what the previous engineers
went through when they invented the wheel so you don't
trod the same path and burn that time all over again?

Didn't we lament the Navy doing just that when they
threw out the engineering reports of the last 60
years?

It just seems wrong to dive into a piece of equipment
full of arrogant self-confidence thinking of improving
it without learning about it first.

But Mike didn't do that, did he?  He asked us first,
and we told him, now the details and reasons why are
coming out.

Everyone got their NOS dead horse beating sticks
ready?

I think you put it into perspective, Todd.

Joe






--- Todd Bigelow - PS <tbigelow@pop.state.vt.us>
wrote:
> The gov't made tens of thousands of WWII aircraft
> too, as well as other
> equipment. Granted, they did a better job of
> destroying them sooner, but
> they were still working on destroying the R-390
> family not too long ago
> too.
> 
> Not being one who likes to tell others what to do
> with their property,
> I'd like to suggest that Mike try building his solid
> state replacement
> technology into a 7-9 pin tube- base arrangement or
> other such
> 'plug-and-play' things so that the modifications
> would be easily
> reversed when the day comes that Mike no longer owns
> this radio. It
> would likely be more challenging than just tearing
> into a chassis and
> hacking it up, and as well he may solve a future
> need for tubes as they
> become more scarce. Maybe he'd become the Bill Gates
> of tube
> replacements?? Well, that really wasn't a nice thing
> to say. I
> apologize.
> 
> Honestly, none of this gear is really "ours" for
> long. Everything I have
> of tube vintage belonged to at least one other
> person before, who
> considered it 'theirs'. I'm sure glad they took as
> good a care of these
> rigs as they did, too. The fellow who sold me my
> first R-390A passed
> away a couple years back, but the radio lives on in
> the same like-new
> condition he sold it to me in.
> 
> Mike, we're really not a bad bunch of guys. This
> list probably contains
> the biggest wealth of R-390*(and other) knowledge
> that you'll find
> anywhere. We are focused on preserving and
> fine-tuning an outstanding 50
> year old design that still manages to whoop the hell
> out of much (most?)
> of the newer SS gear. Wouldn't it be more
> challenging to take some of
> the older 'new' techonolgy Yaecomwood receivers and
> see if you could
> eliminate all the phase noise, chuffing, and bring
> the noise floor down
> to something approaching the R-390? I'm certainly
> not against
> experimenting and making new discoveries, but it's
> going to be difficult
> making most of the list members believe that
> solid-stating an R-390 will
> make it 'better'.
> 
> de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ
> 
> David Wise wrote:
> 
> > > From: Terry O'Laughlin
> [mailto:terryo@wort-fm.terracom.net]
> > >
> > > The government made well upwards of 50,000 of
> these radios.
> >
> > Nope.  They made that many R390As but far fewer
> R-390s.
> > What was it guys, around 15000?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> R-390@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com