BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jeff Kenyon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:42:04 -0400
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (106 lines)
Hi Collin, when I was in the class the person was talking aboutham gear
and had some old tube equiment and he mentioned they were hard to come by
and as a result the price is sometimes inflated.  Did they ever make tubes
in the states?  I heard it was mainly Russia.





On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Colin McDonald wrote:

> Jeff:
> as far as tubes go, if those old receivers have some really odd ball tube
> that was only availible from military surplus, then maybe...but in that, we
> are talking probably 1940 to 1950 erra when those kinds of tubes were
> readily availible.
> Generally speaking, you can get nearly any kind of tube needed from either
> new old stock or from companies that have remodeled the tubes or are
> reproducing the older types of tubes for a fraction of the going cost for
> the military surplus tubes that can still be found occasionally.
> Most of the military or industrial grade tubes are sought after because they
> tend to exhibit more stable characteristics, but in a receiver type
> application, it isn't as vital to have that maximum stability.
>
> So, my point to all this is that tubes are not necesarily an arm and a leg
> unless you just have to have the industrial/military versions or the
> original erra tubes.  Or, unless the receiver takes some crazy odd ball tube
> that was only made for 8 years in the philips factory in the UK.
>
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Kenyon" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:54 AM
> Subject: Re: off topic, question about older receiver
>
>
> > Hi, I have heard that just tubes for those older units can sometimes be an
> > arm and a leg.
> > I remember too those short-wave boomboxes that came out in the
> > early 80's.  The few units I have seen detachable speakers, and AM/FM and
> > tape, and a  a couple of short-wave bands.  Many people didn't know they
> > had the capability of short-wave until I pointed  it out.   My parents are
> > two of those people, and I still have an early Phisher unit from 1982!   I
> > don't know if you all are familiar with these, but the unit I have has the
> > flashing LED that flashes on and off in time to recordings or whatever you
> > are playing at the time.  The tape machine doesn't have the best design on
> > it with regard to mechanics, but it has one good recording quality.  What
> > were people hoping to market these units for?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Walt Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Expensive is right! I bought one new somewhere around (just a guess)
> 1964 or
> > > so and I think it was something close to $300. Mine was the solid state
> > > model, but didn't have the ability to copy SSB, as it didn't yet have
> the
> > > USB/LSB switch--I think that came along within a year or so of my having
> > > bought mine and I wasn't real happy. While not true general coverage
> (that
> > > is, 0-30 kHz), it had very wide coverage and as I recall now, an
> excellent
> > > AM and at least above average FM capabilities. The front of the radio
> folded
> > > down in two sections and inside the front was a small book (forget what
> was
> > > in it, but think it was time zones and maybe some maps) and a little
> metal
> > > wheel that allowed you to calculate the current time anywhere in the
> world
> > > based on your local time. The radio used standard D cells (either eight
> or
> > > nine of them, as I recall) and when loaded up with a full complement of
> > > batteries, weighed a lot more than you really wanted to carry on a
> picnic. I
> > > was one of the few I knew at the time with that radio who'd bought the
> > > optional plug-in AC power supply. The built-in telescoping antenna was
> part
> > > of the carrying handle and there were provisions inside the back of the
> > > radio for an external antenna with, as I recall now, RCA jacks. There
> was a
> > > separate ferrite rod for AM reception.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Butch Bussen" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: off topic, question about older receiver
> > >
> > >
> > > They made several models of the transoceanic.  I have a couple, one old
> > > tube one, and a solid state one, probably the kind you saw.  They are a
> > > very nic radio, although not general coverage.  They were also very
> > > expensive in their day.
> > > 73s
> > > Butch Bussen
> > > wa0vjr
> > >
> >
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2