Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>

 MIke wrote:
   >First, tube amplifiers hat "pi networks" to match them to the
   >antenna. Such a network could be designed to match a far wider
   >range of SWR than most transmitters and amplifiers can tolerate now
   >(they're now broad-banded and *expect* a narrow range of SWR).
   >Second, there were meter-reading devices for the blind which could
   >allow us to tune just as accurately (if not more so) than could a
   >sighted person.  These were based upon two designs.  One was a
<snipped excellent description>
   >In other words, things didn't *have* to talk and ingenuity was the
   >name of the game.  And there were crystal calibrators to determine
   >100 kHz points (or down to 10kHz for some calibrators) and one
   >could gestimate between these points.  For instance, on a Drake
   >TR-4, each revolution of the tuning knob (which had a raised dot on
   >the skirt) was 25kHz.  We actually got pretty good at finding
   >frequency.
   >Bottom line:  where there was a will, there was a way and, frankly,
   >I think rigs were easier to operate forty years ago than they are
   >now.

Agreed a hundred percent.  Nowadays it's guess at what you're doing in
the middle of the software driven menu from hell.

rEal radios glow in the dark.
73 de nf5b




Richard Webb

Electric Spider Productions

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--- Benjamin Franklin November 1755