KØHB wrote:
"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...


As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed
the progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than

the military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not
military engineers.


Better in what way?

I don't know of any amateur equipment, including the latest $10K stuff
from the JA engineers, which is as capable or durable as the most basic

military communications equipment.


Better in that it's more advanced.. Several years ago (about 30) I was
chatting with a ham who had just finished his hitch in the military, He
commented on being ask to check out some equeptment since he was a
certified electronics tech both in civilian life and military life.

As he unzipped his jump suit so he could squat down easier the MP's with
him noticed his HT-220.. At the time they were still using HT-200's (I
do admit the 200 is more solid (durable) than the 220)

I watched his dad bounce a 200 off the pavement. (He had the radio at
his ear when he tripped and threw the radio down to help regain his
balance.. The radio continued to work.. he is one of the very few people
taller than 6'3"me)

And you said you did not knwo any ham gear as GOOD as military
hardware. True story:

Some years ago a Ham "90 day wonder" LT was put in charge of a
communications unit.. The SGT's figured they would have to teach him all
about the stuff.

Well. he noticed an order for a new piece of gear (Linier amp as I
recall or Transmitter) and ask the Sgt if it had come in yet "Yes, but
we did not get the manual" so.. he said "Let's take a look at it"

He then demonstrated that he knew how to work the hardware, Even w/o the
manual.. The Sgt though wanted the manual.

So he called back to the states.... Direct to the President and founder
of Henry Radio.. yes, the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham
unit with a new paint job and military style knobs.

Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more, came in civilian
and military versions. The only difference was the olive drab paint and
the military style knobs and an "A" for Army (or some other designator
to indicate the cosmetic differences)

As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military.
Good Solid KWM-2's in fact.

On 5/1/2010 1:43 PM, John from Detroit wrote:

As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military.
Good Solid KWM-2's in fact.

I used a KWM-2A and 30L-1 when I ran the Navy MARS station at Danang.

We had a log-periodic at 40 feet, and I was able to reach the states
nine nights out of ten.

The KWM-2A wasn't a perfect radio: at the Air Force MARS station in
Saigon, they had to pair each KWM-2A with a 51S-1 receiver, since the
receiver in the KWM-2A couldn't handle the intermod from adjacent
positions. However, it did combine rugged construction with relative
ease-of-use, and the audio quality helped a lot with noisy phone lines.

73,

Bill W1AC

(Filter QRM for direct replies)

On May 1, 1:43�pm, John from Detroit wrote:
K�HB wrote:

Better in what way?

Better in that it's more advanced..

At the risk of echoing K0HB: More advanced in what way?

Several years ago (about 30) I was
chatting with a ham who had just finished his hitch in the military, He
commented on being ask to check out some equeptment
since he was a
certified electronics tech both in civilian life and military life.

At the time they were still using HT-200's (I
do admit the 200 is more solid (durable) than the 220)

Is an HT-220 really that much more advanced than an HT-200?

I watched his dad bounce a 200 off the pavement.
.....
The radio continued to work.

In a lot of situations - and not just military ones - that it
continued to work is a lot more important than how advanced the radio
is.

I think the main point is that how "good" or "advanced" a rig is
depends in large part on the application, and judging military radio
stuff by amateur standards - or the reverse - is an apples-and-oranges
thing.

For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early
1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout. A
lot of mechanical complexity went into producing a system where you
could just look at one set of numbers and know exactly (well, within a
couple of hundred Hz) where the receiver was tuned. No interpretation
needed. Such a feature would not appear in manufactured ham rigs until
the 1960s (National NCX-5) and wouldn't become common in ham rigs
until the 1980s.

Or consider the R-1051 receivers, which used a row of knobs to set
each digit of the frequency, rather than a single large knob. That
kind of frequency control became common in military HF sets but not in
ham gear, because the operating environments are so different.

The T2FD resistively-loaded antenna is another example.

the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham
unit with a new paint job and military style knobs.

Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more,
came in civilian and military versions. The only difference
was the olive drab paint and the military style knobs and
an "A" for Army (or some other designator
to indicate the cosmetic differences)

As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear
in the Military. Good Solid KWM-2's in fact

In some roles, yes. But not in all roles. I suspect that the use
of ham gear in military applications came about only when nothing else
was available at the time.

Remember too that a lot of ham gear and components (such as the PTOs
developed by Collins) were originally developed for military
applications and then used for ham stuff.

Plus US military involvement in Viet Nam ended at least 35 years
ago. A lot has changed since then.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In a lot of situations - and not just military ones - that it
continued to work is a lot more important than how advanced the radio
is.

I think the main point is that how "good" or "advanced" a rig is
depends in large part on the application, and judging military radio
stuff by amateur standards - or the reverse - is an apples-and-oranges
thing.

I think, here, we are starting to reach the same page, we may be viewing
it differently but we are, at least, viewing the same page.

I agree, Ruggedness (Continuing to work under adverse conditions) beats
"Advanced" in many cases and generally in most all military cases.

Fiction story: IN a Star Trek book some rick kid is putting down the
comm gear on the Enterprise till Uhura explains why the older clunkier
and easier to fix hardware beats the heck out of his little one chip
hyper-intergrated circuit radio. (Of course she's fixing it at the time)

Fact.. That is very true. something that can be "Field fixed" is better
than a "Toss it in the trash and break out a new one" epically if you
have a parts store but no complete new box




For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early
1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout. A
lot of mechanical complexity went into producing a system where you
could just look at one set of numbers and know exactly (well, within a
couple of hundred Hz) where the receiver was tuned. No interpretation
needed. Such a feature would not appear in manufactured ham rigs until
the 1960s (National NCX-5) and wouldn't become common in ham rigs
until the 1980s.

I recall some digital readout hardware much earlier.. But then,,, When
you think about it. after WWII many hams used government surplus
hardware. So the Military stuff, BECAME the ham stuff.. Alas, modern
military rules kind of make that hard to do since they "De-militarize"
so much stuff.

Or consider the R-1051 receivers, which used a row of knobs to set
each digit of the frequency, rather than a single large knob. That
kind of frequency control became common in military HF sets but not in
ham gear, because the operating environments are so different.

Gee... I have a 2-meter rig in my motor home (Currently set to 146.52)
that is 30 years old and which you set the frequency by a row of dials
(Knobs turned sideways) just like you describe. It's 100% ham. The
Wilson WE-800 Revision 3 (3rd production run) and I might add, it had
operated from -40 to well over 120 degrees. F

On May 3, 9:00�am, John from Detroit wrote:
N2EY wrote:
I think the main point is that how "good" or "advanced" a rig is
depends in large part on the application, and judging military
radio stuff by amateur standards - or the reverse - is
an apples-and-oranges thing.

I think, here, we are starting to reach the same page,
we may be viewing
it differently but we are, at least, viewing the same page.

I agree, Ruggedness (Continuing to work
under adverse conditions) beats
"Advanced" in many cases and generally in most
all military cases.

And not just military cases.

Fiction story: IN a Star Trek book some rick kid is
putting down the
comm gear on the Enterprise till Uhura explains
why the older clunkier
and easier to fix hardware beats the heck out of
his little one chip
hyper-intergrated circuit radio. �(Of course she's
fixing it at the time)

As Scotty used to say, the more complicated you make the plumbing, the
easier it is to stop up the drain.

Fact.. That is very true. something that can
be "Field fixed" is better
than a "Toss it in the trash and break out a new one"
epically if you
have a parts store but no complete new box

Yes and no. In some situations the time and resources it takes to fix
something is more than the resource-cost to have a spare new box.

Again, it all depends on the situation. And on what we consider
"fixable" and "a component".

For example, for about 10 years I've been assembling my own PCs from
pieces of old ones. (The machine this was written on was built just
that way). I've also fixed many PCs with hardware problems using parts
from the boneyard.

But in practically all repair and assembly situations involving PCs,
the "components" are drives, motherboards, memory sticks, video cards,
etc. Such components aren't usually repaired if they fail, they are
simply replaced, because the replacements are available and
inexpensive (often free).

For example, the R-390 and R-390A were
designed way back in the early
1950s, and one of the requirements
was a digital frequency readout. A
lot of mechanical complexity went into
producing a system where you
could just look at one set of numbers
and know exactly (well, within a
couple of hundred Hz) where the receiver was
tuned. No interpretation
needed. Such a feature would not appear
in manufactured ham rigs until
the 1960s (National NCX-5) and wouldn't
become common in ham rigs
until the 1980s.

I recall some digital readout hardware much earlier..

Can you give some examples in radio equipment?

But then,,, When
you think about it. after WWII many hams used
government surplus
hardware. �So the Military stuff, �BECAME the ham stuff..
Alas, modern
military rules kind of make that hard to do since they
"De-militarize"
so much stuff.

I still have working WW2 surplus radio stuff. Like my $2
BC-342-N, built by Farnsworth Radio and Television...

The reason hams used surplus stuff was that it was inexpensive.
The reason it was inexpensive was the sudden end to WW2 in
late summer 1945.

Military hardware of all kinds was being manufactured and
stockpiled in great quantities for the invasion of Japan. When
the war ended suddenly, those stockpiles became surplus.

Note that much of that surplus required modification to be useful
to hams. Some of it was only really useful if torn down for the parts.

Those mods don't mean the original design was faulty. They
simply mean the application was different. For example, my
BC-342-N had its sensitivity improved by changing the values
of the cathode and screen resistors of the RF and IF stages. The
original design used different values because they were more
concerned with dynamic range than sensitivity.

Or consider the R-1051 receivers, which used a
row of knobs to set
each digit of the frequency, rather than a single
large knob. That
kind of frequency control became common in military
HF sets but not in
ham gear, because the operating environments are so different.

Gee... I have a 2-meter rig in my
motor home (Currently set to 146.52)
that is 30 years old and which you set
the frequency by a row of dials
(Knobs turned sideways) just like you describe.
�It's 100% ham.

And I have a 1977 vintage HW-2036 2 meter rig that is similar.

But they are not HF rigs; they're 2 meter FM rigs. The R-1051 family
are HF receivers, and date from the early 1960s.

The point is that the military application required a receiver that
could be set to a known frequency with great accuracy, not the
ability to smoothly tune through the spectrum looking for signals.

The
Wilson WE-800 Revision 3 (3rd production run) and I might add, it had o
perated from -40 to well over 120 degrees. F

You've got me beat there!

The coldest I've ever personally experienced was -36 degrees F. (Yes I
was outside working in it).

The hottest was about 110 degrees F

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
WA8YXM said:
The
Wilson WE-800 Revision 3 (3rd production run) and I might add, it had o
perated from -40 to well over 120 degrees. F

You've got me beat there!

The coldest I've ever personally experienced was -36 degrees F. (Yes I
was outside working in it).

The hottest was about 110 degrees F

73 de Jim, N2EY


Well, I clipped a lot: You ask for examples of earlier digital readout
(pre-1980) stiff, and then agreed that many hams used Surplus Military
hardware.. Likely the digital stuff I saw was ex-military. It has been
like 40 years since I saw it so I can't recall much.

Now,, the -40.. I had parking lot detail at a swap fest
The 120+ was the temp recorded inside a car. facing NORTH, in Michigan,
IN JANUARY of all months. Imagine what it hit in August?

The only time the radio did not work properly was when the battery
voltage went low. Then it would would not receive properly till the
voltage came up a bit.

On May 4, 9:35�am, John from Detroit wrote:
You ask for examples of earlier digital readout
(pre-1980) stiff, and then agreed that many hams
used Surplus Military
hardware..

The discussion was about amateur gear being "more advanced" than
military radios. I gave the example of the mechanical digital
dial on the R-390 and R-390A receivers, which were designed in the
very early 1950s. (IIRC, the ARR-2 receiver was even older). Similar
mechanical-digital dials didn't appear in manufactured amateur gear
until the 1960s (the NCX-5) and didn't become common in amateur
equipment until the late 1970s.

The bigger point is that those who set the requirements decided, way
back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, that the complexity and
expense of a frequency readout such as used on the R-390 was justified
for a military HF receiver.

Likely the digital stuff I saw was ex-military.

Of course - which proves what I was saying: that the applications are
very different.

It must be remembered that the resouirces available are very different
as well. For example, cost isn't usually as big a factor in military
radio equipment as it is in amateur radio equipment. A receiver like
the R-390A, when new in the 1950s, cost the taxpayers a couple of
thousand dollars (it varied with the contract). The most expensive
amateur receiver of the time, the Collins 75A-4, cost about 20-25% of
that. Not many hams could afford a new 75A-4 in its day; even fewer
could afford an R-390.

Was the 75A-4 "more advanced"? In some ways, yes - it has passband
tuning, a product detector and notch filter, all of which the R-390
family lack. The mechanical filters in the 75A-4 are more suited to
amateur operation as well. OTOH the 75A4 has an "analog" dial despite
using a PTO, and is not general-coverage.

Different job, different resources, different tool.

Of course the radio amateurs of most countries have the option of
homebrewing their own rigs, which can be a real cost-saver. (See my
QRZ.com bio for a current example, and the K5BCQ HBR website for an
earlier example.)

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: N2EY
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 12:32:32 EDT
On May 1, 1:43 pm, John from Detroit wrote:

K0HB wrote:
Better in what way?
Better in that it's more advanced..

For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early
1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout.

Not quite. The "digital frequency readout" was done for several
reasons. Collins Radio was heavy into a LINEAR FREQUENCY tuning
scheme using permeability tuning rather than variable capacitors.
This is witnessed in the predecessors which used a combination of
LF to HF receivers having straight-line scales in addition to
the rotary dial around the main tuning knob.

Linear frequency tuning was also adopted by the consumer radio
manufacturers, particularly for auto radios having automatic seek
systems that appeared in the very late 1940s and early 1950s. It
was advantageous to the cheap servo systems used there. Such
"signal seeking" tuning would disappear for quite a while until
solid-state tuning systems (much cheaper) would appear in 30 years.

The (LF) R-389 and (HF) R-390 series were required to tune a
wider band of frequencies with relatively the SAME sensitivities
across the whole span of tuning. That was unlike the older
systems which had a large disparity of sensitivity due to ganged
variable capacitor tuning in previous multi-band HF designs. The
TUNING RATE was linear on all bands of the 390 series, advantageous
to the R-391 "Autotune" version of the basic 390 series (Collins
was big on "Autotuning" everything they could back in the 1950s
and 1960s). Using the common mechanical turns-counter of machinery
('Veeder-Root'as an example of type) offered a great physical
advantage in the 390 series since it did away with the space
needed for a straight-line indicator. The gear-cam-geneva-wheel
mechanical coupling could be fitted in easier than that long
(sometimes rotating on axis) scale. All of the permeability-tuning
L-C circuits could be adapted to track straight-line tuning easier
than using (bulkier) variable capacitors. There was physical
space to incorporate the "Autotune" servo system (R-391) without
undue change of the R-390 physical structure. That the 390 series
was "digital" is like saying a whole lot of metal-working equipment
was "digital" in the 1930s because they used Veeder-Root counters
having decimal digit indication.

Main Source: Collins Radio "Final Engineering Report" 15 Sep 53,
submitted to U.S.Army Signal Corps, contract W36-039-SC-44552,
scanned by Al Turevold, WA0HQQ on 18 Apr 99.

I suspect that the use
of ham gear in military applications came about only when nothing else
was available at the time.

In the historical sense, the word "ham gear" should be replaced by
"commercial users" especially in the period 1910 to 1970. Before
the commsats, before the transcontinental microwave relay network,
before the self-pumped fiber-optic-laser lines, the ONLY long-
distance comm paths for commercial use was HF. SSB on HF was
pioneered commercially from the early 1930s onward (Netherlands
being the first to introduce voice and TTY service 24/7 to
Netherlands Antilles). MARS was never an integral part of the
worldwide military tactical communications of the USA.
The AN/FRC-93 is a KWM-2 by virtue of its label, nothing else,
was used by MARS stations for morale purposes...much like a Zenith
"Trans-Oceanic" portable receiver procured for troops during WWII.
A difference was that this Trans-Oceanic was actually painted
olive drab. :-)

Remember too that a lot of ham gear and components (such as the PTOs
developed by Collins) were originally developed for military
applications and then used for ham stuff.

That seems anecdotal and subjective. Resistors, capacitors,
inductors, fastening devices, blank chassis and cabinets, et al
were all developed by INDUSTRY standards, not just military. Rack
cabinets came from the telephone infrastructure. Teleprinter code
format came from the computer industry. Collins "mechanical" (
magnetostrictive) filters were done first for the microwave radio
relay frequency multiplexer market. Modern USA amateur radio
design owes almost everything new to innovative Japanese
communications equipment designers. The US Army went to VHF
voice for short-range communications IN WWII and kept doing that
until now. Long-haul communications of the US military and
government is over the DSN (Digital Switched Network) which can
use any comm path or relay method plus is compatible with the
standard telephone infrastructure. USA submarines use ELF for
Alerts and nuke subs don't have any OOK CW capabilities.

Cellular telephony developed all by itself, by the telephone
industry, owing nothing technological to the military. Roughly
100 million cell phones are now in the USA alone. Digital
television owes nothing to any military yet the USA switched over
entirely in TV broadcasting to DTV (the first and second NTSC
systems did not come from military requirements). CB on 11m
(roughly 5 million users) owes nothing to the military. FM
stereo broadcasting owes nothing to the military. Medical
electronics communications owes very, very little to the
military in technology. All of those are RADIO applications.

73, Len K6LHA

On May 1, 10:43�am, John from Detroit wrote:
K�HB wrote:
"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...

So he called back to the states.... �Direct to the President and
founder
of Henry Radio.. yes, the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham
unit with a new paint job and military style knobs.

Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more, came in civilian
and military versions. The only difference was the olive drab paint and
the military style knobs and an "A" for Army (or some other designator
to indicate the cosmetic differences)

As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military.
� Good Solid KWM-2's in fact

The Collins KWM-2 (all-frequency-band maritime version) was used for
MARS under the AN/FRC-93 designation through the Vietnam War. No
change in color or knobs or much of anything else. For reference, see
TM 11-5820-554-12 for the "set-up-and-operate" TM. This is essentially
the Collins document under DoD wrapper. Date of TM is June 1976.

There have been a great number of civilian fixed station equipments that
have been designated as "military" (by the addition of a sticker/label)
as far back as 1953 without any special tests, physical or
electronic, without any changes or additions in appearance. None of
these were intended for field use up to about 1980 or so, therefore they
would not have undergone full environmental testing. Consider them
"COTS" (Commercial Off-The- Shelf) equipments as described by Hans.

Those of us who have served in the USA military usually
define "military" as those equipments which have gone through full
environmental testing and are used in the field or afloat. MARS is not
normally part of the standard tactical communications used by the
military even though such equipment may have military or NSN (National
Stock Number) designations for procurement purposes.

73, Len K6LHA

K6LHA wrote:

There have been a great number of civilian fixed station equipments that
have been designated as "military" (by the addition of a sticker/label)
as far back as 1953 without any special tests, physical or
electronic, without any changes or additions in appearance. None of
these were intended for field use up to about 1980 or so, therefore they
would not have undergone full environmental testing. Consider them
"COTS" (Commercial Off-The- Shelf) equipments as described by Hans.

Let me put it this way.

If you are going to design a product for the military, (And you must
admit military contracts are the "800 pound gorillas" in the business).
And by simply tweaking a tuning slug it will work as well on the ham
bands.. and the device is not "Classified" in and of itself.

Why not market to hams as well?

Now, I do admit that the military has some classified stuff that I'll
likely never set eyes on.. But then one of the reasons I know they were
using KWM-2a's in Viet Nam is a ham who returned from there, tears in
his eyes, telling of how a fairly large number of said radios were
"De-Militarized" (Trust me folks, you don't want to know) Perfectly
good ham radios were being totaly reduced to their atoms because they
were part,, Mind you just part, of a classified communications system.

Never mind that they were a part you could buy over the counter at Ham
Radio Outlet.. they were still part of a classified system so they were
blown up, drilled, shot, flamed, run over with tanks and otherwise
redced to powder.

A total waste of thousands of dollars worth of hardware that could have
been sold, without danger of compromising the classified system at all
since this was just a part.

I mean.. I'm sure that somewhere in that system was a 5 amp AGC-3 size
fuse... How would re-selling that part comprimise the entire system (it
was, at the time, a common car part)