[R-390] A modest proposal (was Y2K Addendum)

[Barry Hauser]

Hi Cecil & gang

At first -- about 3-4 years ago -- I felt that it would be good to 
incorporate the whole R-390A section of TM-11-4000, but in retrospect don't 
think so.

I'll have to go take another look at it, but I suspect it would be 
cumbersome -- it has it's own page and figure numbering, and some of it is 
redundant with the maintenance manual stuff, so just dropping the whole 
thing in would create a hodge-podge.  It would be a piece of work to re-do 
and coordinate all the numbering and cross references.  It is also a bit 
oddball in that it never mentions the R-390A by name and takes a different 
tack.

Better approach:  Someone should digitize the R-390A section of the 4000 
manual, including OCRed text and just pick up the figures as they are in 
place for now.  As I mentioned before, OCRing the 4000 might be tough and 
call for a lot of editing and/or restroking.

Some of the figures may coincide with those that have already been recreated 
in the Y2K and can be subbed into the digitized 4000 book.

Once it is in computer form, we could lift some pieces and include within 
the Y2K if/where it makes sense.  At that point -- with the 4000 online 
somewhere, it could have the benefit of a number of list members reviewing 
and recommending improvements and exerpting.

Make sense?

Also, the digitized 4000 could be expanded on its own to form "The R-390A 
Training & Tips Manual" or whatever, with a section derived from the Pearls 
of Wisdom and other things.  Alternatively, it could be called the 
"Supplement" as someone else suggested, or maybe we go with Y2K Vol I, Vol 
II, etc. as if building an encyclopedia.  (As with the Brittannica and 
others, after we get to 24 vols., then issue annual supplements ;-)

Barry






Cecil wrote

>I agree....the Y2K manual should be revised as needed to improve accuracy 
>where identified and to add usable information such as the gear train info 
>and the parts of the 4000 manual that makes sense.
>
> The manual is a reference and cannot be expected to be an all encompassing 
> R-390A training manual.  There are some pre-requisites to this course that 
> one should possess from experiences elsewhere in life!
>
> Cecil....
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Barry Hauser" <barry at hausernet.com>
> To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 10:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] A modest proposal (was Y2K Addendum)
>
>
>> Hi Tim & List
>>
>> I agree mostly, but must disagree on corrections.  The whole effort on 
>> the
>> Y2K manual initiated from the idea to correct errors and inconsistencies, 
>> so
>> it makes sense that if any remain, they should be corrected in place --  
>> so
>> the manual stands on its own.
>>
>> There were a number of other significant enhancements vs. the military
>> manuals that are generally available - -improved clarity of drawings, 
>> fresh
>> color photos to make it easier to spot the components, etc.  Some photos
>> were never replaced and should be to make the work complete and 
>> consistent.
>> Part of the idea was to have a manual on line that was at least 
>> edit-able --
>> not a pdf consisting of all grainy, un-modifyable gray scale images of 
>> old
>> manual pages.
>>
>> So -- Y2K should get a second revision to complete it and correct any
>> remaining typos.  (Are those typo's in the revision or original version?)
>>
>> It would also be nice to incorporate Scott's gear train rebuild -- with 
>> his
>> permission.  That would add about 3 megs to the 14 or so of the current
>> version.  I would only suggest adding some labeling/callouts here and 
>> there.
>>
>> Other stuff can be developed separately to avoid overburdening the Y2K
>> manual.  As I recall Wei Li offered to further develop his "Pearls", so
>> maybe they can be reorganized and indexed.  I'm sure someone can assist 
>> if
>> he needs it.
>>
>> Between those two things, and perhaps one other work, practically 
>> everything
>> imaginable would be covered -- leaving some room for further activity on 
>> the
>> reflector. like beating dead horses and deja vu all over again stuff.
>> (Would be nice to have a digitized version (true text) of the TM-11-4000
>> receiver section.)
>>
>> So, basically, I agree, primarily with the exception of the corrections.
>> The Y2K is not carved in stone.  At the same time, I would not recommend
>> using it as the foundation of a new pyramid at Giza.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> Tim wrote:
>>> OK, my mind is oversimplistic this Christmas. But let me try to
>>> categorize the things running around in my mind:
>>>
>>> 1. The Y2K Manual is a nice electronic edition of what's in
>>>   TM 11-5820-358-35 (Field and Depot Maintenance Manual), PLUS
>>>   it includes many of the military-approved mods, PLUS it is
>>>   cross-indexed in a few interesting ways (broken out schematics,
>>>   etc.)
>>>
>>>   The scope of the Y2K manual, in other words, is almost the same
>>>   as the scope of the military maintenance manual.
>>>
>>> 2. There are some misprints/typos/incorrect statements in the Y2K
>>>   manual, most of which have been discussed here in the past or
>>>   are self-evident on comparison with reality.
>>>
>>> 3. There are lots of other resources out there on the 'net and
>>>   elsewhere which are very useful. BUT... if we tried to put them
>>>   into a form like the Y2K manual it blows it out of the water
>>>   in terms of size/weight/editing effort.
>>>
>>> 4. Some of the "other" resources consist of opinions and factoids which
>>>   have been the subject of much discussion, and occasional vitriol,
>>>   on this mailing list and in other places. Incorporating these might
>>>   prove difficult (unless we've got a single editor with an iron fist,
>>>   in which case we may all end up disagreeing with the result in at 
>>> least
>>>   one and maybe multiple major ways!)
>>>
>>> So, MY opinions:
>>>
>>> A. Limit the Y2K addendum to corrections to the current document and
>>>   things that "should have been" in the field/depot maintenance manual.
>>>   The one thing I can think of that "should have been" is the teardown/
>>>   rebuild of the RF deck mechanisms, ala Scott Seickel's very fine
>>>   writeup and photos. And seeing as how Scott's writeup is so fine
>>>   already, I don't feel that it should have to go through an editing
>>>   process - just link to it.
>>>
>>> B. For the things that are not clearly in the scope of the original
>>>   field/depot maintenance manual, we already have this mailing list,
>>>   it's archives, and Wu Li's selected and categorized extracts from
>>>   the list. The wonderful things about these forms is that we don't
>>>   have to all agree as to what goes in - skip the editorial process
>>>   and give access to the raw stuff.
>>>
>>> C. What would be useful is an electronic index to certain factoids to
>>>   make it easier to dig up previously posted facts. Sifting through
>>>   the mailing list archives can be difficult, as a month's worth of
>>>   postings often tops a megabyte, and even Wu Li's Pearls is less
>>>   straightforward to search than I'd like (popping open a dozen or
>>>   so PDF's and searching each by hand is cumbersome at best.) I'm
>>>   thinking that I should be able to type "C227" into a search engine
>>>   and have it come up with past posts to this list and maybe into the
>>>   Pearls that tell me more about C227, and even better (you know
>>>   I'm dreaming now!) show it to me in the schematic and in a photo
>>>   of the chassis.
>>>
>>>   Now Google does not serve as the electronic index: qth.net's mailing
>>>   lists are excluded by QTH's sysadmins from being crawled by Google.
>>>
>>>   BUT I can imagine a search engine that does know about, for example,
>>>   part numbers and common "noise" threads (e.g. ballast replacement!)
>>>   and gets to what I want.
>>>
>>> So am I too far off-base in my proposal? I happen to have some time
>>> coming up in mid-January, as I recover from a certain common elective
>>> surgery and will not be allowed to work on the house or haul around
>>> 80 pound radios, that maybe I could put something like my modest 
>>> proposal
>>> of a R-390A specific search engine together. Am I onto a good idea, or a 
>>> pipe
>>> dream, or worthless drivel?
>>>
>>> Tim KA0BTD.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> R-390 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>>
>
>
>