[R-390] Hi

Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:25:22 -0700

Look what you did, you got Barry started. Don't forget my earlier post about
nomenclature:
The real 390 and
The cheap 390

In the back of my mind I am groping for a metaphor I can wrap around "the
good, the bad and the ugly" but I can't think of anything bad except perhaps
some hack job with lost of holes in the front panel and wires, lots of
wires, hanging out.

Bob
owner of a cheap 390

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Barry Hauser
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:00 PM
To: Jim Simmons; Gene Beckwith; Cecil Acuff
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi

Nope -- not BS -- that would be the R-390BS version -- very rare.

Neither is the use of "non", though awkward, it the established, defacto
descripto delicto.

Even with this add-on, helpful respondents sometimes jump in and suggest
cures that apply to the "A" model in a non-A situation, but mostly it is
helpful in preventing that kind of confusion.

Problem started a half century ago.  The R-390 non-A (not sorry), was just
the "R-390" as there was no plan to develop other models, that is, until the
gov't. got the bill.  Somebody must have said, or wrote "These are great
receivers -- we're gonna' need a whole lot more.  Is there a volume
discount?"  After the laughter subsided at Collins, the push was on to come
up with a cheaper version the would work as well overall and would not cause
3rd degree burns when curious pilgrims stuck their fingers through those
holes on the side and touched the pretty orange 6082's.  The rest is
history.

Had they anticipated a second model, they would have called the first one
the R-390A and the second one the R-390B.  Or maybe they would have given it
a whole new number, like the R-391, but that was taken and so was R-392.  I
don't know about R-393, but there's an R-394 which may have predated the
R-390A.

Meanwhile, in the emerging world of data processing, code development,
operations automation, and technology in general, the principle of the
"positive designator", "positive indicator" or words to that effect had
become well established.  Part of this was encouraged, if not mandated by
the prevalence of "fixed field" methodology in data processing (as on
punch-cards, flat files, etc.) -- which brought us great things like leading
zeros, and so on.  Each data item had to have the same number of positions.
The notion of a positive indicator -- a rule in many environments -- stems
from the known fact that it is downright dangerous to identify two different
things by the simple presence or absence of an element.  This is even true
of such diverse nomenclature and indexing schemes as military tech manuals
and the Dewey Decimal System.  The presumption is that the shortened form of
a designator applies to a whole family of items and the added "fields" or
suffix identifies the specific family member.  To some extent, that's true
of this reflector.  This is the "R-390" list which is so encompassing it
includes the R-389, R-390, R-390A, R-391, R-392, and sometimes even the
R-388.  So, this was a bit messed up at the start.

Now all of these have unique identifiers within the same length, except the
R-390A.  From a communications standpoint, it is undesirable to use simply
390 to refer to the original model.  As there is no letter which preceeds
"A" in our alphabet, the clarifier "non-A" has been customarily added.
Adding a "B" would be counter-intuitive and cause some of the uneducated to
assume that the "B" model is newer.  Just because something sounds a bit
silly, doesn't mean it's not "established".  Take the federal gov't. for
example -- please.

Also, there are many more "A's" around because once they got the cost down,
they made a whole lot more of them.  Then, at some point, the order was
given (fed. gov't. again) to destroy all "R-390A's".  As there are still a
fair number of "non-A's" (still not sorry) around, none are known to have
blue or yellow stripes painted on them and may have escaped that fate due to
the absenced of the "positive designator".  ("Heck, this one here sez just
"R-390", not "R-390A".  Guess we better leave it alone and bust up the other
ones."  In that case, the lack of a postitive designator was beneficial.)

However, as with the Sherman tank, overwhelming production numbers won the
war and most often, when a question or "issue" arises on the reflector,
someone is talking about the A-version.  When the subject is the original
model, it needs to be flagged to avoid confusion, and the "positive
indicator" has become "non-A" for lack of a better alternative.  I suppose
we could call it "R-390O" for original, but another rule is not to mix zeros
and the letter "O", so forget it.  "R-390blank" doesn't cut it.  We could do
what Zenith did with the 600 series of Transoceanics.  They ran it up to the
Y600 (I think), didn't want to use "Z" because, I guess that might be
confused with "Zenith", and so the last two versions were the A600 and B600.
By the same token, we could take some liberties and call the original one
the "R-390B" but that would confuse a lot of folks looking for the "B" on
the tag.  Also, once again, it violates the rules of designating stuff -- no
going backwards -- Zenith notwithstanding.  Other alternatives don't quite
cut it, like "Un-A", "Anti-A", "Pre-A", and so on.

Have I worn you down yet?  If not, you need to get indoctrinated.  Say
"non-A" over and over again until the B/S reaction subsides.  Make a point
of thinking and saying out loud "Hmmm, perhaps I will use the NON-A this
evening as I plan on listening to some music from afar and do not want those
pesky mechanical filters ringing and adding harshness.  Yes, indeed, I do
think the NON-A will be a better choice.  I can always switch over to the A
later on."

Nope -- the use of "non-A" is not B/S, though some of the foregoing may
qualify. ;-)

Barry
(The one with the Nomex suit and flak jacket.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>
To: "Gene Beckwith" <[email protected]>; "Cecil Acuff" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi

> New guy, I wish. Been a amateur radio operator for 30 yrs. Started out as
> WN4WYO, moved around, keep changing call signs, now kf4tun. Used my first
> 390 a bit over 40 years ago. Had a couple assignment where we did our own
> repairs.  Got to know the 390 and 390A fairly well.
> Own both a 390 and a 390A.
> The only real problem I have is BS, and thats what this "non" business is
.
> If you own a model T Ford, does that make all other Fords made non-A
fords.
> If you have a 390, just state it. I bet everyone on this list will know
what
> your are talking about and you won't sound kind of goofy. Are the non
> speaker using new-speak or just trying to be politically correct?  The
same
> is true of the 390A.
> If my comments and that making light of the "non-A" types offends them, it
> should be noted that I am not sorry. When you say something, say it, be
> proud of who you are and what you own, use, needs parts for, want to sell,
> need help adjusting, ect., ect....
>
> Jim Simmons
>
>
> . ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Beckwith" <[email protected]>
> To: "Cecil Acuff" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi
>
>
> > Cecil,
> >
> > Agreed...either too much time and no projects to work on, or a
"New-be"...
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Gene
> >
> > Cecil Acuff wrote:
> >
> > > Dead horse alert!
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>
> > > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi
> > >
> > > > I have been thinking about the use of the term "non-A", I have
changed
> my
> > > > mind, and now fully support the use of the term "non A". However to
> > > > accomplish this and to insure perfect clarity, we will have to refer
> to
> > > the
> > > > R390A as the non, non A and keep referring to the R390 as the non A.
> > > > It's clear, easy to understand and will stop the confusing caused by
> using
> > > > the correct terms of R390 or 390A.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <[email protected]>
> > > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:55 AM
> > > > Subject: [R-390] Hi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi...
> > > > >
> > > > > Still here..still read most..just have not posted for
> > > > > a while...(A long while..)
> > > > >
> > > > > Wish to publicly thank David Medley for discovering a
> > > > > hidden difficult problem that had stopped my R-390.
> > > > > (thats NOT R 390    >A<   !!!, thank you very much...)
> > > > > His good work is very much to be admired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards to the list,  John
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > > > > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > R-390 mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > R-390 mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > R-390 mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>

_______________________________________________
R-390 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390