I think the subject of military surplus becoming ham gear and
influencing ham gear is worth its own thread, so here goes.
(I've reused enough surplus stuff in my time...)

Some examples of the influences:

Look at the quartz crystals used in post-WW2 ham gear, and you'll see
"FT-243" and "HC-6/U" units being used extensively, while the large
round prewar types disappeared quickly. Although they seem huge today,
the FT-243 and HC-6/U holders, and many others, were miniature types
developed for military use during the war to both save space and get
more out of the limited supply of radio-grade quartz available during
the war. There were so many FT-243 units made that well into the 1990s
the surplus supply was still being used up.

The move to flexible coax-cable feedlines in amateur radio and
elsewhere was a direct result of WW2 developments in the manufacture
of such cables. "RG-8/U" was originally a military designation

Semiconductor type numbers such as 1N5408 and 2N2222 are the result of
a parts numbering system developed during WW2. Ironically, the system
was developed for tubes - think of the 2E26, 2C39, 3E29, 6C21, etc.
It was short-lived as a way to name new tube types, but lives on today
for semiconductors.

There are many other examples. And it wasn't just hams who benefited.

Of course a lot of these developments were done by private industry,
not by military personnel. But the developments were a direct result
of military needs and funding.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On May 5, 6:27�pm, N2EY wrote:

Look at the quartz crystals used in post-WW2 ham gear, and you'll see
"FT-243" and "HC-6/U" units being used extensively, while the large
round prewar types disappeared quickly. Although they seem huge today,
the FT-243 and HC-6/U holders, and many others, were miniature types
developed for military use during the war to both save space and get
more out of the limited supply of radio-grade quartz available during
the war. There were so many FT-243 units made that well into the 1990s
the surplus supply was still being used up.

For a link to MOST of the quartz crystal holders go to this link:

http://s88932719.onlinehome.us/crystal_holders.htm

[save it off-line, it was made by Brian Carling AF4K]

During WWII the USA set priorities on who should get what for raw
material, test equipment, facilities. Priority #1 was the Manhattan
Project (to develop the atomic bomb). Priority #2 was to quartz crystal
unit production with the civilian overseer being Galvin Mfg (changed to
Motorola after the war). Main reference is Galvin's own biography book
and the oft-repeated Bottoms paper (Bottoms was a participant, now
deceased) found in frequency control special interest group at the IEEE
and on several crystal companies today. Based on the Bottoms paper, USA
production of quartz crystal units from about 60 different companies
(most of them small firms) was about one million units per month in the
last three years of WWII.

The major source of natural quartz was Brasil (a neutral in WWII) and
much research and trial began after WWII to grow quartz crystals from
seed material, slightly impeded by a similar method for producing
germanium and silicon ingots of astonishing purity. Both "man-made"
efforts succeeded to make the color TV industry possible (both NTSC and
PAL systems required a quartz crystal in each set to regenerate the
color sub-carrier signal).

The "HC-" prefix to quartz crystal HOLDERS is apparently a USA DoD
designator prefix and was not used during WWII. To use those required
more refined techniques in plating electrodes on quartz, "cold-welding"
(a new technology adapted from the exploding semiconductor industry) to
those electrodes and adaptation of "microwelding" developed for vacuum
tube manufacturing (sometimes called "spot-welding" by those who haven't
done it...an "eye-opener" and "eye-closer" if done through a stereo
microscope). The vast majority of quartz crystal units made since
around 1960 have the metal holder under various "HC-" prefixes.

Semiconductor type numbers such as 1N5408 and 2N2222 are the result of
a parts numbering system developed during WW2. Ironically, the system
was developed for tubes - �think of the 2E26, 2C39, 3E29, 6C21, etc.
It was short-lived as a way to name new tube types, but lives on today
for semiconductors.

Transistors were not available until 1947 and then not in production.
High voltage breakdown silicon diodes such as the 1N5408 (3 A, 1 KV,
plastic case) would not be available until around 1960. The "1Nxxxx"
and "2Nxxxx" and (rare but there) "3Nxxxx" designations were done by the
electronics industry, not by the military. During WWII the military had
its own variation on vacuum tubes with labels of "VT-nnn" while the
electronics industry used the civilian industry designations exsiting
before USA's entry into WWII. The USA military stopped using the
"VT-nnn" designator after WWII.

Many high-power vacuum tubes used manufacturer's own part designations
which the electronics industry accepted so as to ease their own burden
in the fantastic explosion of electronics parts that began with TV set
production once the civilian 'radio' industry restarted after WWII.

Of course a lot of these developments were done by private industry,
not by military personnel. But the developments were a direct result
of military needs and funding.

Almost ALL developments in electronics began as industry projects, even
the IC. There is some controversy in the industry whether Intel or TI
made the "first IC." Intel's first IC was for an Asian customer to use
in a four-function calculator. Nearly all digital IC part numbers have
number suffixes which follow the original TI line of "54" and "74"
prefixes. Intel went on to gain a virtual monopoly on CPUs for PCs
while there is just no stopping TI to date.

While RCA Corporation developed the first CMOS junctions (and ICs), the
semiconductor industry here and in Europe developed the Advanced CMOS
juntions having idle current nearly down to leakage current yet with
clock speeds so high that power drain is specified by operating speed.
TTL logic structures have specified idle time current drain; Advanced
CMOS logic does not.

Major semiconductor corporations have their own part numbers for ICs,
such as the one-"chip" PLL frequency source made by Analog Devices and
favored by many QRP afficionados in amateur radio. Analog Devices grew
out of the George Philbrick company which began with vacuum tube
operational amplifier plug-ins (two tubes in a special holder which
contained the circuitry).

Addenda: I've never seen any FT-243 holder quartz crystals in USA-made
CB transceivers. There might be some among roughly a million CBs made
in the USA (millions more born off-shore). This post was done on 6 May
2010.

73, Len K6LHA

"K6LHA" Len Anderson wrote...
Almost ALL developments in electronics began as industry projects, even
the IC. There is some controversy in the industry whether Intel or TI
made the "first IC." Intel's first IC was for an Asian customer to use
in a four-function calculator.

Intel's first commercial IC products were static (volatile) RAM chips (like
the
3101) which replaced the magnetic cores used even in solid-state computers
of the era (1960s). It wasn't until 1971 that Intel marketed the first
monolithic
microprocessor product, the 4004. Originally designed, as Mr. Anderson said,
for the (now defunct) Japanese customer Busicom for a desk calculator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busicom

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"K6LHA" Len Anderson wrote...
Almost ALL developments in electronics began as industry projects, even
the IC. There is some controversy in the industry whether Intel or TI
made the "first IC." Intel's first IC was for an Asian customer to use
in a four-function calculator.

Intel's first commercial IC products were static (volatile) RAM chips (like
the
3101) which replaced the magnetic cores used even in solid-state computers
of the era (1960s). It wasn't until 1971 that Intel marketed the first
monolithic
microprocessor product, the 4004. Originally designed, as Mr. Anderson said,
for the (now defunct) Japanese customer Busicom for a desk calculator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busicom

Richard-

I have no documentation to cite. I once read that the first commercial
product that used a microprocessor, was the HP-35 Calculator.

According to http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp35.htm, the HP-35 was produced
from 1972 to 1975.

Fred
K4DII

On 6/4/2010 11:44 AM, Richard Crowley wrote:
"K6LHA" Len Anderson wrote...
Almost ALL developments in electronics began as industry projects, even
the IC. There is some controversy in the industry whether Intel or TI
made the "first IC." Intel's first IC was for an Asian customer to use
in a four-function calculator.

Intel's first commercial IC products were static (volatile) RAM chips
(like the
3101) which replaced the magnetic cores used even in solid-state computers
of the era (1960s). It wasn't until 1971 that Intel marketed the first
monolithic
microprocessor product, the 4004. Originally designed, as Mr. Anderson
said,
for the (now defunct) Japanese customer Busicom for a desk calculator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busicom

Though I might agree with you in part, There have been major advances
in Electroincs due to non industry projects too.

Of course that was then.. This is now.

Back in the old days several major advances in electroincs were brought
about by some tinker, tinkering around with stuff and learning (I am
fond of saying Marconi had to have been an amateur radio operator cause
before him there were no professionals in the field and thus no industry)

However... With today's VLSI circuits... You do need an "Infrastructure"
to "Tinker" and short of folks like Mr. Gates and partners... Not many
people have that kind of resource on their own.

On Jun 5, 5:58�am, Misters Davis, McKenzie, and Crowley all wrote
about integrated circuits.

"K6LHA" Len Anderson wrote...
Almost ALL developments in electronics began as industry projects, eve
n
the IC. There is some controversy in the industry whether Intel or TI
made the "first IC." Intel's first IC was for an Asian customer to use
in a four-function calculator.

Ahem...the original subject was started in regards to WWII-era
"surplus" electronic hardware. Semiconductors - as we know them today
- don't quite qualify since Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley did their
transistor thing in 1947 at Bell Labs. :-)

As to the very first of the "scientific handheld calculators," a good
part of that story is written up in "Bill and Dave: How Hewlett and
Packard created the world's greatest company" by Michael Malone. In
itself, that book is representative of the entire electronics industry
from 1939 onwards (HP was formed in 1939) and the (usually) monthly
magazine put out free by HP, "Hewlett Packard Journal" shows that in
detail. ALL the issues of the HP Journal are on-line and are free
downloads.

As one of the early owners of an HP-35, I can add that there was no
ONE IC that was critical in it. Each one had a set of ICs that did
everything, contracted for from two vendors. A fault of HP somewhere
down the design line was not specifying things correctly and chips
from one IC vendor would not work with those from another vendor. One
of mine failed and I found out that story the hard way. HP just did
not expect nearly the onslaught of orders for the '35 (described in
Malone's book) and they had to set up for multiple shifts to handle
them and to revise their marketing practices. Eventually HP would
establish a division in Corvallis, OR, just for calculators and
special ICs for those and other HP divisions.

The first desktop calculator was the HP 9100 introduced in 1968. It
had NO ICs in it, not even RAM or ROM. Details of its design are in
the HP Journal of September 1968. It was also the first time HP
employed a "full-time" consultant named Tom Osborne who demonstrated a
working model he had built in his apartment. He used CORDIC
algorithms which HP long-timer David Cochrane crammed into the 9100's
ROM-equivalent. Both were involved in the later "box of numbers"
called the HP-35.

My HP-35 still works but the NiCad pack always gave trouble in
recharging (three of them did) and I got a programmable HP-25, gave
that to my Tech at Teledyne so that I could get an HP-67 which had
program storage via magnetic card. Long time after the little card
reader jammed and I got the CMOS HP-32S II which lasted ten years on
one battery set, now on its 2nd set. I bought an anniversary model,
the HP-35S as a memento and am waiting for the '32 to fail before
using that. :-)

However... With today's VLSI circuits... You do need an "Infrastructure"
to "Tinker" and short of folks like Mr. Gates and partners... Not many
people have that kind of resource on their own.

Slight correction. I'm playing with Microchip's PIC one-package
micros right now, using their free program editor-compiler. Got the
development hardware package because IC lead length spacings got too
small with modst SMDs. For many years AADE and Neil Heckt have been
making and selling their one-chip frequency counters up in the Puget
Sound area and many hams have installed those in older receivers and
transceivers. Neil has a great little workshop instrument in his L/C
meter also using a PIC chip.

As to "surplus," I can say I've operated a lot of that while in the US
Army 1952-1960 since so much was manufactured before or during
WWII...some of it by Lewyt Vacuum Cleaner Co. for big hulking 1 KW HF
transmitters (BC-339, BC-340). In another area, some of the
contracted-for communuications electronics designed after WWII showed
a different design scheme of systems, circuitry, even physical
mounting than the pre-WWII thinking. There has been a constant
evoltion of design, use, application of 'radio' for the last seven
decades.

73, Len K6LHA

On 6/5/2010 7:15 PM, K6LHA wrote:

Slight correction. I'm playing with Microchip's PIC one-package
micros right now, using their free program editor-compiler. Got the
development hardware package because IC lead length spacings got too
small with modst SMDs. For many years AADE and Neil Heckt have been
making and selling their one-chip frequency counters up in the Puget
Sound area and many hams have installed those in older receivers and
transceivers. Neil has a great little workshop instrument in his L/C
meter also using a PIC chip.

Not really a correction Len.. We are speaking of two different places on
the development train.. You are starting with ready made hardware and
developing applications or products from that hardware.

I'm talking aout making new hardware.

On Jun 6, 4:08�am, John Davis wrote:
On 6/5/2010 7:15 PM, K6LHA wrote:

Slight correction. �I'm playing with Microchip's PIC one-packag
e
micros right now, using their free program editor-compiler. �Go
t the
development hardware package because IC lead length spacings got too
small with modst SMDs. �For many years AADE and Neil Heckt have
been
making and selling their one-chip frequency counters up in the Puget
Sound area and many hams have installed those in older receivers and
transceivers. �Neil has a great little workshop instrument in h
is L/C
meter also using a PIC chip.

Not really a correction Len.. We are speaking of two different places on
the development train.. You are starting with ready made hardware and
developing applications or products from that hardware.

I'm talking aout making new hardware.

A PIC microcontroller is just an IC. It is a "tabula rasa" that can
be programmed to do anything wanted (within certain limitations). A
vacuum tube is "ready made hardware" that is made using very
specialized machinery and test equipment. So is a transistor. So is
a resistor. So are most capacitors.

I don't see any dividing line there in buying/taking/scrounging
components to build a larger system of electronics for any specific
purpose. If the "hardware" needs software to make it work in a
specific way, then that does not make it somehow worse/better/not-
applicable. At least not to me.

I, for one, am not going out to mine copper ore to smelt and
eventually make into wire to hook up things. Or make alloys that are
resistive to make resistors or delaminate mica so that I can somehow
silver it to make silver-mica capacitors good for RF.

I had started out as an illustrator. That is an artist who draws/
paints/inks things as they really are. Much later I had formal
classes (Art Center School of Design, now in Pasadena, CA) which
taught that "old masters" how to make their own oil paint. Making
paint is not what I consider "art" but that's what all those old oil
painters had to do. If I want to do some painting now I can go into a
Michaels and buy already-to-go oil paint, or caesin or chalk or
several other items to make an image on my choice of surfaces. I am
an illustrator, not a paint maker.

At the same time I would browse the Allied catalog (Allied then
headquartered in Chicago, IL) for "radio parts" to make things
electronic. I don't disparage those (limited) components nor do I
separate the "hardware" from the (then) "software" that was really
just a schematic/wiring diagram. Today I could (if I had access to an
expensive program) make a mask for a PCB and its drill guide just from
a schematic diagram. I've done that for work...as well as making PCB
masks "the old fashioned way" using tracing paper (for two-sided
boards) and wetware.

Today's programmable microcontroller, whether from Microchip or
Altera, is a wonderful additional component to our modern cornucopia
of fascinating electronic components. WE can do all sorts of things
with those components in ways never thought of back in olden times.

Me, I'm going to keep my nice K&E Duplex Decitrig slide rule (from
high school) as a memento of when "design" meant to 3-decimal-places
tops or having to look in tables of logarithms (and do by-hand
interpolation) to get 5 decimal places. With my HP-35 I suddenly had
10 decimal place accuracy and I could do equations never before
possible without expensive mainframe computer time...all contained in
bulk space of that K&E slide rule.

I've built three frequency counters using old digital logic. With one
PIC the size of one DIP, I can make a single frequency counter that
operates up to 30 MHz and includes the circuit (but not the crystal)
for the reference frequency oscillator. It will drive a small LCD
panel directly and the power demand is so slight the PIC doesn't even
get warm. If worst came to worst, I could program that PIC by hand,
byte by byte, using toggle switches (one per bit). But, the worst is
not here so I use free software to do the programming.

73, Len K6LHA

On 6/7/2010 4:49 PM, K6LHA wrote:
Me, I'm going to keep my nice K&E Duplex Decitrig slide rule (from
high school) as a memento of when "design" meant to 3-decimal-places
tops or having to look in tables of logarithms (and do by-hand
interpolation) to get 5 decimal places.

Funny you should mention that Len, I still have mine too, albeit I
bought mine used.

Speaking of PICs, you see the nifty test equipment in the recent QST
magazines using one of those to do all the "ugly" stuff?

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

On Jun 7, 7:26�pm, Jeffrey Angus wrote:
On 6/7/2010 4:49 PM, K6LHA wrote:

Speaking of PICs, you see the nifty test equipment in the recent QST
magazines using one of those to do all the "ugly" stuff?

Please explain what "ugly stuff" is.

73, Len K6LHA