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?

Good evening, Jeep.

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

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. :-)

The main reason I want old and all tubes and etc. is something I hesitate
to mention, because every time I do, I get ridiculed as a Chicken Little
and a paranoid (though, as we all know, it ain't paranoia if the
sonsabitches really are out to get you!).

I firmly believe, in my heart of hearts, that sooner rather than later the
United States (which, to answer your other question, is the side of the
pond I'm on) will receive one or more nuclear attacks.

It could be a 10-kiloton device that gets smuggled into downtown
Washington in the back of an SUV, or it could be a Jericho-style
widespread attack, or anything in between.

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.

Assuming I'm still around after the attack, and since I'm within
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.

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.

Anyway, I really do like the old gear, and though I'll almost certainly
never be a serious collector, I wouldn't mind having, up and running, a
few quality pieces from back in the day.

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 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 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 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

Nomad wrote:
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.


I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles

Richard Knoppow wrote:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?

Selectivity. The crystal filter really stinks, compared with the Collins
mechanical filters.

I had a 51J for a few years and traded it up for an R-390. Ergonomically
I liked the sliderule tuning on the 51J more, and the audio quality was
better, but the mechanical filters on the R-390 were a lifesaver.
--scott

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

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

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles

I had the 51J-3/R388 so I can't speak to the J-4 which has the
mechanical filters.

I always wanted one of these as a mate to my 32V2. I always thought
that they looked like the quintessential boatanchor receiver.

The max bandwidth on mine (6KC) wasn't really wide enough for great
audio on AM
& with no product detector, it was not good for SSB. Compared to my
Super Pro (SP210), HRO's & even the Drake it had the worst audio.

Selectivity choices were limited.

Stability was excellent & that was really the radio's strong point.
Band cruising was a PITA. Lots & lots of knob turning required to get
from the low end of 160 to the high end of 10 meters.

My Drake R4A was much better for SSB, had better selectivity, was
equally stable & had better audio.
My Super Pro has far superior AM audio, a wide bandwidth choice for
HiFi AM & is a better SW bandcruiser. Same for the HRO's + the HRO's
are now my choice as the best looking boatanchor receiver with that big
round dial.

Bottom line the 51J couldn't do AM or SSB as well as my other radios, &
wasn't much fun for SW either. So out it went.

Now the R390A, that's another story entirely. Finally got one of these
recently & i find it to be a great radio. It can hear better than any
radio I've used (noise floor is lowest ever measured I believe -
143db), has 6 levels of selectivity (up to 16kc), mechanical filters,
great stability, & does great audio through the outboard HiFi.
Mechanical digital dial accuracy
& with an add on product detector it does SSB.


Terry
W8EJO