Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

Ron wrote:

Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

Have you contacted ARRL? It was probably designed by a staffer. I
prefer it when they credit the designs or reference the original article.

I have the '64 handbook and have eyed that design myself.

--

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

(Ron) wrote in message . com...
Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

That rx is one of a long series of 80/40 "band imaging" sets to come
out of ARRL Hq. They were all designed and built by staffers.

Some ARRL Handbook projects were QST articles first, while others were
"built for the Handbook" and never appeared in QST or any other League
publication. Most were built by HQ staffers, but a few were "from
outside".

IIRC the 2X4+1 was built "for the Handbook" and its
designer/builder(s) is/are unknown.

W1DX was the Handbook editor in those times but he's SK now, as are
almost all Hq staff of that generation except for W1NJM. It "looks
like" a W1DX project to me, though that's just a guess. He was very
interested in getting the most performance out of relatively simple
receivers. His 1957 QST article "What's Wrong With Our Present
Receivers" is a must-read even today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY ) writes:
(Ron) wrote in message . com...
Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

That rx is one of a long series of 80/40 "band imaging" sets to come
out of ARRL Hq. They were all designed and built by staffers.

Some ARRL Handbook projects were QST articles first, while others were
"built for the Handbook" and never appeared in QST or any other League
publication. Most were built by HQ staffers, but a few were "from
outside".

IIRC the 2X4+1 was built "for the Handbook" and its
designer/builder(s) is/are unknown.

W1DX was the Handbook editor in those times but he's SK now, as are
almost all Hq staff of that generation except for W1NJM. It "looks
like" a W1DX project to me, though that's just a guess. He was very
interested in getting the most performance out of relatively simple
receivers. His 1957 QST article "What's Wrong With Our Present
Receivers" is a must-read even today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think you're right about it being from W1DX, and that it's one of many
using the same basic scheme. I have the 1961 Handbook, and it has the
same receiver. Plus, right before it a simpler receiver that shows
a strong similariy to the 2X4+1, the "SimpleX Super".

But I can almost picture the latter in a QST. It has a distinctive home made
dial, and I think I've seen it elsewhere.

And then I started poking around, and it doesn't look like they specify
the dates of the QSTs where the articles originally appeared. This seems
to be a policy that varied over time. I know a few years later, they would
tend to specify the date of the original article, but I'm not even sure if
it was completely common.

So I wouldn't completely rule out that the article did run in an earlier
QST. It surely would not have been more than a few years earlier, since
as you say this sort of receiver tended to appear regularly, and after a few
years they'd have a more recent construction article to put in the Handbook.

If someone had the annual indexes from around that time handy, it would
be real easy to check whether this was a Handbook-only article or not.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:

N2EY ) writes:
(Ron) wrote in message . com...
Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

That rx is one of a long series of 80/40 "band imaging" sets to come
out of ARRL Hq. They were all designed and built by staffers.

Some ARRL Handbook projects were QST articles first, while others were
"built for the Handbook" and never appeared in QST or any other League
publication. Most were built by HQ staffers, but a few were "from
outside".

IIRC the 2X4+1 was built "for the Handbook" and its
designer/builder(s) is/are unknown.

W1DX was the Handbook editor in those times but he's SK now, as are
almost all Hq staff of that generation except for W1NJM. It "looks
like" a W1DX project to me, though that's just a guess. He was very
interested in getting the most performance out of relatively simple
receivers. His 1957 QST article "What's Wrong With Our Present
Receivers" is a must-read even today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think you're right about it being from W1DX, and that it's one of many
using the same basic scheme. I have the 1961 Handbook, and it has the
same receiver. Plus, right before it a simpler receiver that shows
a strong similariy to the 2X4+1, the "SimpleX Super".

But I can almost picture the latter in a QST. It has a distinctive home made
dial, and I think I've seen it elsewhere.

And then I started poking around, and it doesn't look like they specify
the dates of the QSTs where the articles originally appeared. This seems
to be a policy that varied over time. I know a few years later, they would
tend to specify the date of the original article, but I'm not even sure if
it was completely common.

So I wouldn't completely rule out that the article did run in an earlier
QST. It surely would not have been more than a few years earlier, since
as you say this sort of receiver tended to appear regularly, and after a few
years they'd have a more recent construction article to put in the Handbook.

If someone had the annual indexes from around that time handy, it would
be real easy to check whether this was a Handbook-only article or not.

Michael VE2BVW

Why don't you email the ARRL and ask them?

Henry

Hi, Thanks for all the emails and QST searches, it seems from all the
mail I've received its very probable that W1DX was the author of the
receiver project, I must admit I'm very impressed with its
performance, I'd like to get a copy of the article that W1DX penned in
QST "Whats wrong with our receivers" I gather it was a one page
article, if anyone has it I'd be grateful of a copy, I have on
previous occasions asked ARRL for various bits of info but never
received any useful replies, perhaps I didn't get to the right person,
thanks from Ron g3yuh.......




(Ron) wrote in message . com...
Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

No, unless you're a member, they aren't very polite. I've been down that
road too. I used to be a member, but their attitude chased me away.
At a hamfest one year, I went to talk to the area rep and he blew me off
like trash. SCREW THAT. I dropped the subscription and I told them why. He
was there TO talk to members about issues. He was too busy with his buds -
sitting there with him. How he got to be a rep, I'll never know. He sure
wasn't interested in people's views or concerns. It's things like that -
which help kill a good thing. He to me, is what I call - a "title"
collector. Loves the title, screw the job that goes with it.

Lou


"Ron" wrote in message
om...
Hi, Thanks for all the emails and QST searches, it seems from all the
mail I've received its very probable that W1DX was the author of the
receiver project, I must admit I'm very impressed with its
performance, I'd like to get a copy of the article that W1DX penned in
QST "Whats wrong with our receivers" I gather it was a one page
article, if anyone has it I'd be grateful of a copy, I have on
previous occasions asked ARRL for various bits of info but never
received any useful replies, perhaps I didn't get to the right person,
thanks from Ron g3yuh.......




(Ron) wrote in message
. com...
Hi, at the moment I'm refurbishing an old radio that was originally
built from a project in the 1960 ARRL Handbook Page 119 The 2*4+1
Superhet, it is a superb design and works really well for such a
simple receiver, is it possible to find out who designed it? I can't
find any reference to that in the project, I'm writing up the
refurbishment and would like any info on the original design..

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:13:34 GMT, "Lou"
wrote:

No, unless you're a member, they aren't very polite. I've been down that
road too. I used to be a member, but their attitude chased me away.
At a hamfest one year, I went to talk to the area rep and he blew me off
like trash. SCREW THAT. I dropped the subscription and I told them why. He
was there TO talk to members about issues. He was too busy with his buds -
sitting there with him. How he got to be a rep, I'll never know. He sure
wasn't interested in people's views or concerns. It's things like that -
which help kill a good thing. He to me, is what I call - a "title"
collector. Loves the title, screw the job that goes with it.

Lou


Do you think that you might have handled it wrong? Don't take this the
wrong way, but, why not stay in and attempt to change things? It seems
that quitting is no more than giving up. If it made you that made then
you go for the throat.

lefty

hamaddict wrote:
Do you think that you might have handled it wrong? Don't take this the
wrong way, but, why not stay in and attempt to change things? It seems
that quitting is no more than giving up. If it made you that made then
you go for the throat.

Back in 1965 when I first got my ticket, people were saying that I should
join and help change the organization rather than refuse to join. It's
been 39 years, and all those people who stayed to change the organization
haven't changed the organization.

--
Spammers are people who are too lazy and cowardly to rob liquor stores, but
still want to make money by stealing instead of working.
-- Morely Dotes, The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

clifto wrote:
hamaddict wrote:
Do you think that you might have handled it wrong? Don't take this the
wrong way, but, why not stay in and attempt to change things? It seems
that quitting is no more than giving up. If it made you that made then
you go for the throat.

Back in 1965 when I first got my ticket, people were saying that I should
join and help change the organization rather than refuse to join. It's
been 39 years, and all those people who stayed to change the organization
haven't changed the organization.

Game, set, and match to Clifto.

--
If someone else can run arbitrary code on your computer
without your permission, it's not YOUR computer any more.
-- author unknown