"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Eddie Haskel wrote:

Yes Mrs. Cleaver... ....Eddie



[...snip...]

The same magazine has an article about the blind ham who built his own
equipment. Soldering by feel. There were giants in those days...
Tim Wescott


O U C H !!

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Eddie Haskel wrote:

Rumor has it that QST featured an article in a January/1930 or

January/1935

issue on the subject of homebrew transmitter crystals - how cut, lap,

and

mount them. If anyone has QST on CDROM for those years, I'd sure

appreciate

if you could take a look.


Ah yes..the good 'ol days of grinding FT-243 Xtals with toothpaste(or
comet)to go up, and writing on the blank with #2 pencil lead to take
them
down a few Kilocycles....Eddie



No, the good _really_ 'ol days of taking a chunk of quartz, whacking
pieces off of it with a mud saw, hand lapping the saw marks off and
mounting it in a home-made holder. That namby-pamby FT-243 wasn't
invented until just before WW-II.

The same magazine has an article about the blind ham who built his own
equipment. Soldering by feel. There were giants in those days...

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Eddie Haskel wrote:

Yes Mrs. Cleaver... ....Eddie



[...snip...]

The same magazine has an article about the blind ham who built his own
equipment. Soldering by feel. There were giants in those days...
Tim Wescott


O U C H !!

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Eddie Haskel wrote:

Rumor has it that QST featured an article in a January/1930 or

January/1935

issue on the subject of homebrew transmitter crystals - how cut, lap,

and

mount them. If anyone has QST on CDROM for those years, I'd sure

appreciate

if you could take a look.


Ah yes..the good 'ol days of grinding FT-243 Xtals with toothpaste(or
comet)to go up, and writing on the blank with #2 pencil lead to take
them
down a few Kilocycles....Eddie



No, the good _really_ 'ol days of taking a chunk of quartz, whacking
pieces off of it with a mud saw, hand lapping the saw marks off and
mounting it in a home-made holder. That namby-pamby FT-243 wasn't
invented until just before WW-II.

The same magazine has an article about the blind ham who built his own
equipment. Soldering by feel. There were giants in those days...

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

actually, it is a lot easier to simply etch or grind away some of the
xtal, then check it with a grid dip oscillator for sharp dip, no need to
remount and test ;-) An old Hints and Kinks IIRC. This could be really
handy if you wanted to make a xtal filter and needed to really match and
control the xtal freq offsets (what, 3.5179 Mhz xtals from TV color burst
sources?) ;-)

and how about drilling a small hold in the holder so you could tread a
small bolt to put pressure on the xtal holder plates, shifting the xtal
freq. around like a xtal controlled VFO - but only a handful of khz ;-)
Still, very solid (pun intended) freq. source that can be varied around
enough to avoid QRM at minimal cost and effort for QRPers and so on? ;-)

Wasn't there a recent historical article in QST on the role of the quartz
xtal industry in WWII, how they figured out overtone osc. issues and so
on?

Given that some sources ask $12 and up for scanner and ham crystals, these
costs add up rather fast if you need to replace a bunch of xtals in a
scanner. So the search for alternatives seems quite worthwhile ;-)

regards bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Bob Monaghan ) writes:

Wasn't there a recent historical article in QST on the role of the quartz
xtal industry in WWII, how they figured out overtone osc. issues and so
on?

Given that some sources ask $12 and up for scanner and ham crystals, these
costs add up rather fast if you need to replace a bunch of xtals in a
scanner. So the search for alternatives seems quite worthwhile ;-)

But they already figured out the solution, thirty years ago, and
it did not require going to the quarry for quartz and digging out
old QSTs. The need for a lot of crystals luckily coincided with
digital ICs, so before most people could get around to paying for
all the crystals to fill out a mult-channel unit, synthesizers came
along so you only needed one crystal. About as soon as it could be
done practically, hams built them and wrote up articles in the ham
magazines.

Anyone who decides to make their own crystals today, other than
for the sake of doing so (and I admit it would be an interesting
thing to try), will likely find they can't go for the subminiature
look, and probably will find that putting effort into building
a synthesizer still makes sense if you need more than a few
crystals.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:
Bob Monaghan ) writes:

Wasn't there a recent historical article in QST on the role of the quartz
xtal industry in WWII, how they figured out overtone osc. issues and so
on?

Given that some sources ask $12 and up for scanner and ham crystals, these
costs add up rather fast if you need to replace a bunch of xtals in a
scanner. So the search for alternatives seems quite worthwhile ;-)


But they already figured out the solution, thirty years ago, and
it did not require going to the quarry for quartz and digging out
old QSTs. The need for a lot of crystals luckily coincided with
digital ICs, so before most people could get around to paying for
all the crystals to fill out a mult-channel unit, synthesizers came
along so you only needed one crystal. About as soon as it could be
done practically, hams built them and wrote up articles in the ham
magazines.

Anyone who decides to make their own crystals today, other than
for the sake of doing so (and I admit it would be an interesting
thing to try), will likely find they can't go for the subminiature
look, and probably will find that putting effort into building
a synthesizer still makes sense if you need more than a few
crystals.

Michael VE2BVW


Absolutely: You should only make your own crystals for the same reasons
you'd knap your own stone tools -- to understand how it was done back in
the day, and to have some thing to show off to friends. You could get
crystals much faster by cleaning toilets at McDonald's and buying them
at $12 a pop than you could making them from scratch.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Michael Black wrote:
Bob Monaghan ) writes:

Wasn't there a recent historical article in QST on the role of the quartz
xtal industry in WWII, how they figured out overtone osc. issues and so
on?

Given that some sources ask $12 and up for scanner and ham crystals, these
costs add up rather fast if you need to replace a bunch of xtals in a
scanner. So the search for alternatives seems quite worthwhile ;-)


But they already figured out the solution, thirty years ago, and
it did not require going to the quarry for quartz and digging out
old QSTs. The need for a lot of crystals luckily coincided with
digital ICs, so before most people could get around to paying for
all the crystals to fill out a mult-channel unit, synthesizers came
along so you only needed one crystal. About as soon as it could be
done practically, hams built them and wrote up articles in the ham
magazines.

Anyone who decides to make their own crystals today, other than
for the sake of doing so (and I admit it would be an interesting
thing to try), will likely find they can't go for the subminiature
look, and probably will find that putting effort into building
a synthesizer still makes sense if you need more than a few
crystals.

Michael VE2BVW


Absolutely: You should only make your own crystals for the same reasons
you'd knap your own stone tools -- to understand how it was done back in
the day, and to have some thing to show off to friends. You could get
crystals much faster by cleaning toilets at McDonald's and buying them
at $12 a pop than you could making them from scratch.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Michael,

I'm interested in "extreme" homebrew for its own sake. I simply like it.

http://www.mindspring.com/~pfriedr/b...ry/gallery.htm
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfriedr/b...ry/gallery.htm

Pete
AC7ZL

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Bob Monaghan ) writes:

Wasn't there a recent historical article in QST on the role of the
quartz
xtal industry in WWII, how they figured out overtone osc. issues and so
on?

Given that some sources ask $12 and up for scanner and ham crystals,
these
costs add up rather fast if you need to replace a bunch of xtals in a
scanner. So the search for alternatives seems quite worthwhile ;-)

But they already figured out the solution, thirty years ago, and
it did not require going to the quarry for quartz and digging out
old QSTs. The need for a lot of crystals luckily coincided with
digital ICs, so before most people could get around to paying for
all the crystals to fill out a mult-channel unit, synthesizers came
along so you only needed one crystal. About as soon as it could be
done practically, hams built them and wrote up articles in the ham
magazines.

Anyone who decides to make their own crystals today, other than
for the sake of doing so (and I admit it would be an interesting
thing to try), will likely find they can't go for the subminiature
look, and probably will find that putting effort into building
a synthesizer still makes sense if you need more than a few
crystals.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael,

I'm interested in "extreme" homebrew for its own sake. I simply like it.

http://www.mindspring.com/~pfriedr/b...ry/gallery.htm
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfriedr/b...ry/gallery.htm

Pete
AC7ZL

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Bob Monaghan ) writes:

Wasn't there a recent historical article in QST on the role of the
quartz
xtal industry in WWII, how they figured out overtone osc. issues and so
on?

Given that some sources ask $12 and up for scanner and ham crystals,
these
costs add up rather fast if you need to replace a bunch of xtals in a
scanner. So the search for alternatives seems quite worthwhile ;-)

But they already figured out the solution, thirty years ago, and
it did not require going to the quarry for quartz and digging out
old QSTs. The need for a lot of crystals luckily coincided with
digital ICs, so before most people could get around to paying for
all the crystals to fill out a mult-channel unit, synthesizers came
along so you only needed one crystal. About as soon as it could be
done practically, hams built them and wrote up articles in the ham
magazines.

Anyone who decides to make their own crystals today, other than
for the sake of doing so (and I admit it would be an interesting
thing to try), will likely find they can't go for the subminiature
look, and probably will find that putting effort into building
a synthesizer still makes sense if you need more than a few
crystals.

Michael VE2BVW