Nice 390 on Ebay
 

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:29:26 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Sat 27 Aug 2005 10:23:24p, Beerbarrel wrote in message
:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...52&rd=1&sspage
name=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1


Dang! Check out a few of his winning bids. He must have quite an interesting
shack. I do wonder why he didn't choose a bit more anonymity, if only just to
mitigate the risk of unrequested emails.

-=jd=-


It does make you wonder. He sure spends the money anyway.

Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:29:26 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Sat 27 Aug 2005 10:23:24p, Beerbarrel wrote in message
:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...52&rd=1&sspage
name=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1


Dang! Check out a few of his winning bids. He must have quite an interesting
shack.

I seem to recall him having about 6 operating positions in his home. There may
have been an article in QST a while back, I'll see if I still have that issue.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A

You have to watch out! for them Irish,they will get the drop on you
every time.Teeeeee!,I wish I was a rich old Irish man like Joe Walsh
is.How manyyy timessss haveeee you heard someone sayyyyyyy,,,, if I had
his moneyyyyyy,,,, I could do things my wayyyyyy,,,,,,,, not one chance
innn a millionnnnnnn,,,, does a poor man haveeee,,,,,, I'd raather be
happyyyyyy with a good hearrrted galllllll,,,,,,
cuhulin

-=jd=- wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.

Dang! Check out a few of his winning bids. He must have quite an
interesting shack. I do wonder why he didn't choose a bit more
anonymity, if only just to mitigate the risk of unrequested emails.

I sold a Central Electronics MM-2 monitor scope to Joe Walsh about a
year ago. As it turns out (and not too surprisingly), the correspondence
and check signing is done by his agent or secretary, who also no doubt
shields him from the unrequested emails and autograph seekers.

Evidently,Joe Walsh (whomever that "bastid" is,is a rich auld Irish
bastid.Sayyy ahhh,, cuzz Joe,, can I borrow a couple million dollars?
cuhulin

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:07:04 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.


No **** sherlock.....just trying to point out the auction. Bothe
radios are in the same class don't ya think?

Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:07:04 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.

No **** sherlock.....just trying to point out the auction. Bothe
radios are in the same class don't ya think?

He doesn't think... that's the problem.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.

There's a reason we call you 'tard...

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:07:04 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.


No **** sherlock.....just trying to point out the auction. Bothe
radios are in the same class don't ya think?
I think both radios have earned the right to be called by their proper
name. And there's a large group of us who think the R-390 is a
superior radio to the R-390A.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:21:33 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:07:04 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.


No **** sherlock.....just trying to point out the auction. Bothe
radios are in the same class don't ya think?
I think both radios have earned the right to be called by their proper
name. And there's a large group of us who think the R-390 is a
superior radio to the R-390A.



OK then....how about R-390A/UUR

"-=jd=-" wrote in message

I do wonder why he didn't choose a bit more anonymity, if only just to
mitigate the risk of unrequested emails.

-=jd=-


I've meet Joe a couple times and have had business dealings with him and he
is very open and one hell of a guy. Not your typical celeb. He frequents ham
gatherings and swaps as well. The man likes people and I doubt anonymity is
his top priority.

B.H.

Jackson,Mississippi's Sea Level.I dont know what it t'is.I can look it
up though,if I want to.I live 180 miles due North (South is always best)
of N'Awlins.At the moment,it is a bright Sunshiney day here in
Jackson,MeeSeeSeePeePeeEye,there is not a breeze stirring (of course I
live here and according to your left wing twisted "mind",I wouldn't
know,would I?) (you O!) in the Trees in my yard.
cuhulin

I ain't goin nowhar.
cuhulin

I dont even know what a tree nienty is.
cuhulin

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:54:26 -0500, wrote:

I ain't goin nowhar.
cuhulin

Do you have batteries and bottled water?

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:27:07 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:21:33 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:07:04 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.


No **** sherlock.....just trying to point out the auction. Bothe
radios are in the same class don't ya think?
I think both radios have earned the right to be called by their proper
name. And there's a large group of us who think the R-390 is a
superior radio to the R-390A.



OK then....how about R-390A/UUR
URR

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:58:07 -0500, wrote:

I dont even know what a tree nienty is.
cuhulin

Start by looking up ''Permeability tuned oscillator''

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:26:56 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:27:07 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:21:33 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:07:04 GMT, David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:52:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, David wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:23:24 -0400, Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Thats an R-390A


No **** sherlock.....
You called it ''390'' Holmes.


No **** sherlock.....just trying to point out the auction. Bothe
radios are in the same class don't ya think?
I think both radios have earned the right to be called by their proper
name. And there's a large group of us who think the R-390 is a
superior radio to the R-390A.



OK then....how about R-390A/UUR
URR


Now that was a typo......but you get the gist of it.

I have buku kilo Everyready reghargable every kinds of batteries here
and a few inverters and five battery powerd flourescent portable lamps.I
can recharge them batteries from the 12 vlolt batteries in my 1986 Ford
car pimpmobile and my 1978 Dodge van if I want to.Nothing is wrong with
the water here that flows through my house's water taps.
cuhulin

Beerbarrel wrote:
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!

"John S." wrote:

Beerbarrel wrote:
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!

If I know Chuck Rippel he did an excellent restoration job on it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:20:23 -0500, wrote:

I have buku kilo Everyready reghargable every kinds of batteries here
and a few inverters and five battery powerd flourescent portable lamps.I
can recharge them batteries from the 12 vlolt batteries in my 1986 Ford
car pimpmobile and my 1978 Dodge van if I want to.Nothing is wrong with
the water here that flows through my house's water taps.
cuhulin

Is your water supply dependent on electric pumps?

On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!

It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.
You'll save a lot of money.

dxAce wrote:
"John S." wrote:

Beerbarrel wrote:
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!

If I know Chuck Rippel he did an excellent restoration job on it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

I'm sure he did a good job. It is still a massive radio that is really
outdated. Hope he includes the optional R390 band scanning tool - a
3/8" reversible drill mounted to the tuning knob!

David wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:28:54 -0500, wrote:

You have to watch out! for them Irish,they will get the drop on you
every time.Teeeeee!,I wish I was a rich old Irish man like Joe Walsh
is.How manyyy timessss haveeee you heard someone sayyyyyyy,,,, if I had
his moneyyyyyy,,,, I could do things my wayyyyyy,,,,,,,, not one chance
innn a millionnnnnnn,,,, does a poor man haveeee,,,,,, I'd raather be
happyyyyyy with a good hearrrted galllllll,,,,,,
cuhulin


Get the **** out of town while you still can.

What is your elevation above sea level?

Any chance you were asking about his mental elevation? ;-)

JB

Joe lost by $25.00
"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

David wrote:
On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!

It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.

It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

Henry Kolesnik wrote:

Joe lost by $25.00

Any idea what the Buy it Now price was?

dxAce
Michigan
USA


"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

On 28 Aug 2005 11:34:46 -0700, "John S." wrote:


David wrote:
On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:
But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!

It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.

It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

It's the best bang for the buck out there. Incredibly sensitive,
especially competent in difficult RF environments (e.g. a big city).

KA6UUP wrote:
John S. wrote:
David wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!


It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.


It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

Not true. having owned and operated both the R390 and R390A for years,
they are very simple to align and operate. All you need is a a manual
and a signal generator. Try that with a R75 or AOR flavor of the week.
As far as performance is concerned check out:

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

pretty heady company for an old boatanchor

It's a long listing of receivers sorted by narrow dynamic range and the
R390A is beaten out on that measure by several smaller, much lighter
and more versatile receivers. I would think that if the R390A were
still a receiver that could perform it's intended task it would not
have been put out for surplus by the numerous government agencies that
once used it and Collins would still be manufacturing it.

I'm not saying that the R390A doesn't offer good receiving performance,
because it clearly does. The old rigs like the R390A and National
HRO500 are electro-mechanical wonders that I get pleasure from by just
watching everything mesh together. But their shortcomings are
substantial when compared to more modern gear.

On 30 Aug 2005 05:37:31 -0700, "John S." wrote:


KA6UUP wrote:
John S. wrote:
David wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!


It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.


It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

Not true. having owned and operated both the R390 and R390A for years,
they are very simple to align and operate. All you need is a a manual
and a signal generator. Try that with a R75 or AOR flavor of the week.
As far as performance is concerned check out:

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

pretty heady company for an old boatanchor

It's a long listing of receivers sorted by narrow dynamic range and the
R390A is beaten out on that measure by several smaller, much lighter
and more versatile receivers. I would think that if the R390A were
still a receiver that could perform it's intended task it would not
have been put out for surplus by the numerous government agencies that
once used it and Collins would still be manufacturing it.

I'm not saying that the R390A doesn't offer good receiving performance,
because it clearly does. The old rigs like the R390A and National
HRO500 are electro-mechanical wonders that I get pleasure from by just
watching everything mesh together. But their shortcomings are
substantial when compared to more modern gear.



I would not use the word substantial. You clearly have never had the
pleasure of operating one of these receivers that was at its peak
performance level. The r390 series offers outstanding performance and
maintenance potential. Go out and buy one of these high priced modern
receivers. When it breaks toss it in the trash because they were never
meant to be serviced.

Beerbarrel wrote:
On 30 Aug 2005 05:37:31 -0700, "John S." wrote:


KA6UUP wrote:
John S. wrote:
David wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!


It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.


It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

Not true. having owned and operated both the R390 and R390A for years,
they are very simple to align and operate. All you need is a a manual
and a signal generator. Try that with a R75 or AOR flavor of the week.
As far as performance is concerned check out:

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

pretty heady company for an old boatanchor

It's a long listing of receivers sorted by narrow dynamic range and the
R390A is beaten out on that measure by several smaller, much lighter
and more versatile receivers. I would think that if the R390A were
still a receiver that could perform it's intended task it would not
have been put out for surplus by the numerous government agencies that
once used it and Collins would still be manufacturing it.

I'm not saying that the R390A doesn't offer good receiving performance,
because it clearly does. The old rigs like the R390A and National
HRO500 are electro-mechanical wonders that I get pleasure from by just
watching everything mesh together. But their shortcomings are
substantial when compared to more modern gear.



I would not use the word substantial.

There are I'm sure several reasons that caused the government agencies
to surplus and part out those large monitoring receivers. Those same
agencies are still very much in the business of listening and
communicating, but with more versatile equipment. A military
communications engineer I'm acquainted tells chuckles a bit when
telling stories about the older comm guys and MARS operators who are
fascinated with the R390A.

You clearly have never had the
pleasure of operating one of these receivers that was at its peak
performance level. The r390 series offers outstanding performance and
maintenance potential.

I agree, there certainly is a potential for a lot of maintenance on
that old tube radio. And there is the problem...keeping those old
boatanchors at a steady state of performance. I'm not sayng it isn't a
radio capable of high performance - clearly it is. But there are
several less cumbersome and more versatile receivers that will also do
what the R390A does, which is catch signals under difficult
circumstances.

Go out and buy one of these high priced modern
receivers. When it breaks toss it in the trash because they were never
meant to be serviced.

There must be at least one good reason all of those 90 pound monitoring
receivers were sold off at auction by their original governmental
owners. What do you suppose that reason could be.

On 30 Aug 2005 06:04:28 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:
On 30 Aug 2005 05:37:31 -0700, "John S." wrote:


KA6UUP wrote:
John S. wrote:
David wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:

But I see that Joe Walsh is the high bidder.......Good luck if you
decide to bid against him.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1


Wow...that's a lot of money for an old boatanchor!!

Whew!!


It's a nice radio. You should learn to maintain them yourself though.


It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

Not true. having owned and operated both the R390 and R390A for years,
they are very simple to align and operate. All you need is a a manual
and a signal generator. Try that with a R75 or AOR flavor of the week.
As far as performance is concerned check out:

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

pretty heady company for an old boatanchor

It's a long listing of receivers sorted by narrow dynamic range and the
R390A is beaten out on that measure by several smaller, much lighter
and more versatile receivers. I would think that if the R390A were
still a receiver that could perform it's intended task it would not
have been put out for surplus by the numerous government agencies that
once used it and Collins would still be manufacturing it.

I'm not saying that the R390A doesn't offer good receiving performance,
because it clearly does. The old rigs like the R390A and National
HRO500 are electro-mechanical wonders that I get pleasure from by just
watching everything mesh together. But their shortcomings are
substantial when compared to more modern gear.



I would not use the word substantial.

There are I'm sure several reasons that caused the government agencies
to surplus and part out those large monitoring receivers. Those same
agencies are still very much in the business of listening and
communicating, but with more versatile equipment. A military
communications engineer I'm acquainted tells chuckles a bit when
telling stories about the older comm guys and MARS operators who are
fascinated with the R390A.

You clearly have never had the
pleasure of operating one of these receivers that was at its peak
performance level. The r390 series offers outstanding performance and
maintenance potential.

I agree, there certainly is a potential for a lot of maintenance on
that old tube radio. And there is the problem...keeping those old
boatanchors at a steady state of performance. I'm not sayng it isn't a
radio capable of high performance - clearly it is. But there are
several less cumbersome and more versatile receivers that will also do
what the R390A does, which is catch signals under difficult
circumstances.

Go out and buy one of these high priced modern
receivers. When it breaks toss it in the trash because they were never
meant to be serviced.

There must be at least one good reason all of those 90 pound monitoring
receivers were sold off at auction by their original governmental
owners. What do you suppose that reason could be.


It's just like anything else. They get replaced by modern technology.
The problem with the new technology it that to get the same level of
performance you have to spend big bucks. You aren't going to get that
kind of performance from a tecson or degen. Also, you can't repair the
stuff yourself. Most folks aren't going to have the special test bench
that they need to create an effective repair. If they did, they won't
be able to get the proprietary components that they need. I have the
ability to fix just about anything that goes wrong with this radio.


Do you realize that the radio was still being used during the gulf
war?

On 30 Aug 2005 06:04:28 -0700, "John S." wrote:


There must be at least one good reason all of those 90 pound monitoring
receivers were sold off at auction by their original governmental
owners. What do you suppose that reason could be.

I quit using mine because it requires huge amounts of electricity.
That is the only reason.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:43:26 GMT, David wrote:

On 30 Aug 2005 06:04:28 -0700, "John S." wrote:


There must be at least one good reason all of those 90 pound monitoring
receivers were sold off at auction by their original governmental
owners. What do you suppose that reason could be.

I quit using mine because it requires huge amounts of electricity.
That is the only reason.



But it's dual purpose! You can turn off the heat in the house when
you turn on the radio. It saves you money in the long run.

It is a rather difficult to use and maintain receiver that is really
dated in comparison to modern tabletop receivers. A rack mount radio
of that size and weight seems a little silly today. But to each his
own I guess.

Not true. having owned and operated both the R390 and R390A for years,
they are very simple to align and operate. All you need is a a manual
and a signal generator. Try that with a R75 or AOR flavor of the week.
As far as performance is concerned check out:

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

pretty heady company for an old boatanchor

It's a long listing of receivers sorted by narrow dynamic range and the
R390A is beaten out on that measure by several smaller, much lighter
and more versatile receivers. I would think that if the R390A were
still a receiver that could perform it's intended task it would not
have been put out for surplus by the numerous government agencies that
once used it and Collins would still be manufacturing it.

I'm not saying that the R390A doesn't offer good receiving performance,
because it clearly does. The old rigs like the R390A and National
HRO500 are electro-mechanical wonders that I get pleasure from by just
watching everything mesh together. But their shortcomings are
substantial when compared to more modern gear.



I would not use the word substantial.

There are I'm sure several reasons that caused the government agencies
to surplus and part out those large monitoring receivers. Those same
agencies are still very much in the business of listening and
communicating, but with more versatile equipment. A military
communications engineer I'm acquainted tells chuckles a bit when
telling stories about the older comm guys and MARS operators who are
fascinated with the R390A.

You clearly have never had the
pleasure of operating one of these receivers that was at its peak
performance level. The r390 series offers outstanding performance and
maintenance potential.

I agree, there certainly is a potential for a lot of maintenance on
that old tube radio. And there is the problem...keeping those old
boatanchors at a steady state of performance. I'm not sayng it isn't a
radio capable of high performance - clearly it is. But there are
several less cumbersome and more versatile receivers that will also do
what the R390A does, which is catch signals under difficult
circumstances.

Go out and buy one of these high priced modern
receivers. When it breaks toss it in the trash because they were never
meant to be serviced.

There must be at least one good reason all of those 90 pound monitoring
receivers were sold off at auction by their original governmental
owners. What do you suppose that reason could be.


It's just like anything else. They get replaced by modern technology.

As with solid beam axles, drum brakes and carburetors in automobiles
new technology in radios results in an improved product. It will be
different than the old, but generally better at doing the intended job.


The problem with the new technology it that to get the same level of
performance you have to spend big bucks.

But the military, CIA, DIA, NSA, Embassies were also spending big bucks
for the receivers and their maintenance.

You aren't going to get that
kind of performance from a tecson or degen.

The R390A was never targeted at recreational listerns who would use a
Tecsun or Degen receiver. I don't understand the comparison. For
casual listening a DE1103 will run circles around a R390A.

Also, you can't repair the
stuff yourself.

You could say the same thing about the R390A when in service since it's
operators as a group were not repair people either.

Most folks aren't going to have the special test bench
that they need to create an effective repair. If they did, they won't
be able to get the proprietary components that they need. I have the
ability to fix just about anything that goes wrong with this radio.

And that's fine - if you enjoy and want to spend hours repairing the
R390A that's ok. But most folks don't have the interest - they would
rather listen with something more reliable and flexible. It's kinda
like cars - there are guys who get immense pleasure from tinkering with
their set of wheels.



Do you realize that the radio was still being used during the gulf
war?

Not surprising, since phase outs don't happen all at once and it was
last produced in 1986 or so. And I'm sure there are MARS operators
somewhere still using it. It is clear the receiver does not have a
place in modern communications since the original owners of the R390A
series have abandoned it for more up to date equipment and modes of
communication.

Beerbarrel wrote:
On 30 Aug 2005 07:53:52 -0700, "John S." wrote:


Beerbarrel wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:43:26 GMT, David wrote:

On 30 Aug 2005 06:04:28 -0700, "John S." wrote:


There must be at least one good reason all of those 90 pound monitoring
receivers were sold off at auction by their original governmental
owners. What do you suppose that reason could be.

I quit using mine because it requires huge amounts of electricity.
That is the only reason.



But it's dual purpose! You can turn off the heat in the house when
you turn on the radio. It saves you money in the long run.

In winter you can heat a room and read by the light of those glowing
tubes!



But it does not help the AC keep the house any cooler does it? Oh
well you can't have everything can you?

I dunno...you could rig a fan driven generator on top of the R390A.
Should be enough lost energy from those glowing tubes to help run a
decent sized AC unit.