On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:12:51 -0500, "C. J. Clegg" wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:49:06 -0500, K3HVG wrote:

What's not been said is what you really want
to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious
collecting?

Technically, it's neither, but it's more the former than the latter.

snip

reasonable EMP distance of a few large cities, I would like to have set up
at least a basic communications capability that has a chance of surviving
that. A really good receiver is a first step that, as you all have noted,
shouldn't cost too much.

This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that
you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a
future in which everything glows in the dark for a while.

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

73's, but geez...

Dale
KJ7SL

Obviously he'll be talking to those parts of the country that have not
been hit & to others who are well prepared in his region. In such a
post disaster scenario, communications will be vital & could
potentially save many lives.

He's being courageous, practical & toughtful.

What's "disappointing" about that? Why would you give him with the
qualified 73? Both comments say more about you than him.

Terry
W8EJO



This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that
you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a
future in which everything glows in the dark for a while.

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

73's, but geez...

Dale
KJ7SL

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:29:32 -0800, Dale wrote:

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

Beats me. Not my job. All I can do is try to be prepared myself, in some
minor sort of a way.

On 8 Jan 2007 04:05:30 -0800, "Nomad" wrote:

Obviously he'll be talking to those parts of the country that have not
been hit & to others who are well prepared in his region. In such a
post disaster scenario, communications will be vital & could
potentially save many lives.

He's being courageous, practical & toughtful.

It struck me more as mere survivalism.

What's "disappointing" about that? Why would you give him with the
qualified 73? Both comments say more about you than him.

Probably true. And he will probably have the advantage of not needing
to bother with getting a license to transmit. I'll concede your points
and go back to living for the here and now, rather than for our
eventual doom. It just seems like some almost eagerly anticipate the
latter, which bothers me. I'm sure I'm way off base.

Unqualified 73's to you both.

Dale

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:23:35 -0500, "C. J. Clegg"
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:29:32 -0800, Dale wrote:

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

Beats me. Not my job. All I can do is try to be prepared myself, in some
minor sort of a way.

Sorry about the snotty remark re the corpses. I hope you found that
objectionable, despite your lack of comment

Nomad's points are well taken by me. But what would you hope to do
in such a situation? I have no idea where you live, but many natural
disasters occur short of a nuclear attack in which amateur radio
operators can be helpful. Are you a ham? Given your interest in radio
communications- if you aren't, I'd encourage you to become one. Part
of being prepared is practice. Getting licensed is part of that
process at the present. And you might enjoy they casual,
non-emergency QSOs in the meantime.

After all this, I have to vote for the R-388 / 51J. No product
detector, but a really nice radio With a real radio dial

Take care,
Dale

Actually the Collins designed R-388/51J series of receivers was a
predecessor design to the Collins designed R390A. See:

http://www.r-390a.net/


I had a 51J-3 & sold it because it was not in the same league as my
R390A. IMHO, my HRO's, Hammarlund Super Pro & Drakes all outperformed
the 51J by considerable margins.

The 51J is a good looking radio though. But IMO the performance doesn't
live up to the looks & the mistique.









After all this, I have to vote for the R-388 / 51J. No product
detector, but a really nice radio With a real radio dial

Take care,
Dale

On 7 Jan 2007 19:28:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Stan Barr wrote:

My RA-17 is racked up with a RA-1792, (synthesised solid-state, mine has
provision for remote control and modified eproms to allow tuning down to
0Hz!) the 1792 has better performance than the 17 but I still prefer
the older rx for general tuning around.

Try working one channel while an adjacent transmitter is operating a
few hundred KC away and you'll see why the RA-17 beats the RA-1792
for full-duplex radiotelephone service hands down.

Yeah, true. I regularly transmit on, say, 3.5MHz while one of the receivers
is tuned to Shanwick AT control on 5.599 without any problem, but then
that's a bigger separation and I'm only running a few watts normally.

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

C. J. Clegg wrote:
I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside
the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm
not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that
would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few
minutes of thought. :-)

Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good
as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard
State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier
to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use.

When that happens, much of the solid state gear (radios, computers, cell
phones, the Internet, packet BBSs, etc.) within a fairly large radius of
ground zero will be reduced to doorstops and paperweights.

Note that a lot of the newer solid-state military gear was designed with
EMP-hardening in mind. You can look for something like the Trans-World
sets (which replaced the KWM-2 at embassies) for example.

Of course, that begs the question of how I'm going to power the damn thing
if commercial power is down, but I guess I'll have to, as they say, jump
off of that bridge when I come to it.

I would worry more about long-term maintenance. The R-390A is a wonderful
rig and a great performer but I would not want to have to work on one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
C. J. Clegg wrote:
I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside
the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm
not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that
would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few
minutes of thought. :-)

Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good
as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard
State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier
to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use.

Yes, it is, but it has a point contact diode balanced modulator/demodulator.
EMP would kill one in a heartbeat.

-Chuck

Stan Barr wrote:

Yeah, true. I regularly transmit on, say, 3.5MHz while one of the receivers
is tuned to Shanwick AT control on 5.599 without any problem, but then
that's a bigger separation and I'm only running a few watts normally.

That brings to mind... I have been listening to Shanwick weather recently,
just below 80M. Do they welcome reception reports?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."