# 500kc/s Recordings



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

I think we have to be eternally grateful for any recording of 500 kc/s that comes along.
What a difference between the speed and slickness of the fifties!!!
The poor quality of the morse and quietness I actually thought this was a wind-up

http://www.archive.org/details/WilliamB.GouldIiiWirelessRadioPioneer.His500KhzRecordingsOfMarch


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Good to hear some of those old call signs WCC, WSL, etc. For a minute I thought I heard an old one of mine but it turned out to be 5LHB instead of 5 LHL - pity, but I wouldn't have wanted to put my name on some of that poor quality morse!

John T


----------



## Tony Selman (Mar 8, 2006)

I haven't listened to all of that yet but in the first one (top line) I can hardly believe that was WCC. The morse was terrible. WCC like all American coast stations was fast and slick. I must listen to the whole tape because I was a Cunard cargo ship in March 1966 and might just be on there somewhere.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Might have been better without the AGC on the receiver.


----------



## Tai Pan (Mar 24, 2006)

had to give up, that morse was yuk. good job those guys were not working UK coast in the 50,s


----------



## R719220 (Oct 5, 2011)

For a bit of genuine nostalgia visit:-

http://www.seefunker.de/

click though until you get to:-

http://www.seefunker.de/homepage/seefunk.htm and click on i_nternational._

If you want a little weep click on the map of UK and you can get genuine recordings of all the UK and European stations calling on 500.

I'm sure most of you know this site, but if not enjoy!


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

I think those tapes are fakes - never heard such rubbish morse


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Gareth Jones said:


> I think those tapes are fakes - never heard such rubbish morse


 Do pse give us the benefits of your expertise on professional morse? 
The proximity of the recorder to the American coast stations and the embedded ships call signs within to me make the recordings genuine.


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

R651400 said:


> Do pse give us the benefits of your expertise on professional morse?
> The proximity of the recorder to the American coast stations and the embedded ships call signs within to me make the recordings genuine.


 Before using the sarcasm you should have taken a look at my profile ? like you I was also a professional - qualified at 28 wpm by the then GPO - spent 4 years at GNF listening to 500 - I spent a year sailing repeatedly from Newyork - Aruba on a tanker and had plenty to do with the American coast stations and as previous posters already state they were inevitably slick and sent good fast morse.

I never heard 500 sound like those recordings - all that background hissing and morse of a quality to shame any self respecting operator.


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

So you've proved your point on professionalism. 
One small parameter that you may have missed.
Who the hell wants to spend their time falsifying a recording that is completely meaningless to anyone other than a mere handful of interested parties.


----------



## ChasD (Mar 27, 2008)

Ah Nostalgia Ain't Wot It Used To Be ! But those tapes are genuine I'd swear. Admitedly I was far east, not western ocean in those days but there were some highly variable 'fists' in all areas. A lot of QLF ( Are you sending with your left foot?) could be heard any time anywhere. But thanks for the memories I was between a laugh and a tear!


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Have to agree with R65..., it would be totally pointless making up a false tape like that, although there are amongst us "Walter Mitties" who do that sort of thing for their own peculiar reasons. I don't think it was that unusual to hear rubbishy morse all over the place and one thing that does lend the tape an authenticity is the number of selfish ars*holes tuning up and drowning out other operators' transmissions.

John T.


----------



## Tony Selman (Mar 8, 2006)

I don't think there can be much doubt that the tape is genuine and there is the occasional burst of decent morse to be heard. Who on earth would want to falsify a tape like that. I think Ron is correct and it would sound better with no AGC on the receiver.
I spent a fair bit of time crossing the Atlantic on the Cunard cargo ships, unfortunately, so have considerable experience of the stations operating in this area. I still find it almost beyond belief that WCC and WSL amongst others are using such appalling morse. I don't think I can ever recall a U.S. operator sending anything other than perfect morse and usually very quickly. The US Coastguard stations could be a bit more variable and there was always iffy morse from some ships but it is the coast stations that mystify me. I think it is on SN but there is a recording of KPH and KFS somewhere and that is exactly what you expect from a top US coast station, those blokes weren't hanging around.


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

R651400 said:


> So you've proved your point on professionalism.
> One small parameter that you may have missed.
> Who the hell wants to spend their time falsifying a recording that is completely meaningless to anyone other than a mere handful of interested parties.


 This is a fair question with no easy answer - the only thing I can guess at is some amateur trying to show, his cleverness in fooling everyone, or, that he could have been a professional operator ? 
Perhaps an oscillator/s being keyed into the AF stages of a receiver might account for the horrible tones ?
Vague I admit.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

trotterdotpom said:


> ... the number of selfish ars*holes tuning up and drowning out other operators' transmissions.
> 
> John T.


John, when changing frequency how did you tune your transmitter without causing interference to others nearby? If there was a way, I never found it. In a high-traffic area, having waited for a gap in nearby signals, it was a pound to a penny that as you pressed the key to tune the final stage and antenna, someone else launched into a call.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Well, I did listen first before tuning up and I tried to keep the transmitter tuned to 500 kcs so it didn't need re-tuning. Nobody's perfect, but you can try.

Are you collecting ammo for your award, Ron?

John T


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

To avoid excessive QRM all the MF transmitters I sailed with had the ability to reduce power for tuning and close-by work. 
I recall the Marconi Oceanspan from full to quarter and there were of course the tuning preset click stops which you could set to avoid unnecessary tuning. Did anyone ever use them?


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

For info this is the gentleman who made the recordings.

WILLIAM B GOULD III, Radio Pioneer - amateur radio call signs 1NP, W1NP, K2NP 

Born on March 14, 1902. Radio Engineer, Radio Officer, USA Flag, US Army until retirement. He made a series of tape recordings of 500 kc/s in 1966 during March. He was very much a pioneer not only for his being the first ***** which is now called black, radio engineer of a radio station and radio officer at sea, but for his visionary work with communications and electronics with United States Army. He retired in 1969 after twenty-nine years in the service of the USA Army as a section chief in the Electronic Warfare Laboratory where he directed a research and development section.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

trotterdotpom said:


> Well, I did listen first before tuning up and I tried to keep the transmitter tuned to 500 kcs so it didn't need re-tuning. Nobody's perfect, but you can try.
> 
> Are you collecting ammo for your award, Ron?
> 
> John T


Always John, and in support of that I would point out that the guys were not tuning the transmitter (the frequency did not change) but matching and loading the output circuits to the antenna. 

I never found the click-stop settings of much help and the end results tended to be more accurate when also done on full power rather than solely on medium or low power settings. With the Oceanspan you had so little power to start with, every little helped as they say.

Other than on all-aft ships (which I never sailed on but worked on often after I left the MN), the long-wire antennas never seemed to stay the same two days running, affected by the movement of the ship and the amount of rain/spray. The presets were about as helpful as the frequency markings on the dial of the CR300 receiver (thank heavens for the receiver logging scale).

So, each time I changed frequency on the transmitter I first adjusted it on a lower power setting and then on full power to finish off. If the new frequency happened to be 500 kHz, so be it and I may have caused brief interference to another station. But I was smug enough not to care; they were trained and able to deal with it as was I when they were changing frequency.

I never sailed as an operator when the new self-tuning transmitters came along and can't remember how much QRM they caused when starting up on a new frequency. I think it was but milliseconds although I can't recall the figure. Information that I don't need of course, so it has been dismissed from my smug mind.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Ron: "I would point out that the guys were not tuning the transmitter (the frequency did not change) but matching and loading the output circuits to the antenna."

OK Ron, but I don't think that rates highly in the "smugness" stakes, that's more like "nit-picking".

"So, each time I changed frequency on the transmitter I first adjusted it on a lower power setting and then on full power to finish off. If the new frequency happened to be 500 kHz, so be it and I may have caused brief interference to another station. But I was smug enough not to care; they were trained and able to deal with it as was I when they were changing frequency."

OK - 10 Smugness points, but knock off 1 point for not using your Emergency Transmitter which should have been tuned to 500 kcs already.

John T


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

John,

Whichever transmitter you used, it had to be tuned "on-air" in those days. So-called silent tuning was the province of various military/squirrel equipments and did not spread to the MN in my time. So whenever you prepared any ship's transmitter for transmission on 500 kHz, you radiated a signal that was not a call and could interfere with normal calls.

The battery-powered Emergency transmitter (operating from the radio installation's emergency source of energy) was provided for use in emergencies - the clue is in the name. Apart from statutory test transmissions, the battery-powered transmitter was only used for such purposes on ships where I was the R/O in charge.

To nit pick further, I never sailed with an Emergency Transmitter but my ships all carried a Reserve Transmitter instead. That is, in addition to being equipped to transmit in an emergency on 500 kHz (the requirement for an Emergency Transmitter), it could also transmit on other frequencies in the maritime MF W/T band (405-525 kHz). Examples of Reserve Transmitters produced by Marconi were the Reliance, several iterations of the Salvor, a version of the Oceanspan VII and the Oceanlink EMX. To the best of my knowledge (extensive don't y'know?) Marconi did not design any Emergency transmitter post-WW2.

Superior knowledge is a wonderful thing and facilitates a wonderful smugness.


----------



## mikeg (Aug 24, 2006)

Ron Stringer said:


> The presets were about as helpful as the frequency markings on the dial of the CR300 receiver (thank heavens for the receiver logging scale).


Thanks for refreshing my memory Ron, I now recall the essential booklet that I used to write the logging scale against a stations frequency. I'd forgotten all about that!


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Ron Stringer said:


> John,
> 
> Whichever transmitter you used, it had to be tuned "on-air" in those days. So-called silent tuning was the province of various military/squirrel equipments and did not spread to the MN in my time. So whenever you prepared any ship's transmitter for transmission on 500 kHz, you radiated a signal that was not a call and could interfere with normal calls.
> 
> ...


Ron, 
I don't recall any statutory requirements for testing "emergency" equipment apart from auto-alarms and AKDs at regular intervals. However, it is a long time ago and I only did 25 years. I often used the "Reserve Tx" for calling if range was not a problem on the premise that if you didn't use it, it would conk out when you needed it - like those Old Men who would only use radar when they got to the fog!

Please consider your Smugness point re-instated and good luck with the award.

John T


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

trotterdotpom said:


> Ron,
> I don't recall any statutory requirements for testing "emergency" equipment apart from auto-alarms and AKDs


Memory is a funny thing. Mine, of course, is immaculate (but only for the things that are favourable to me or my arguments). 

We were also supposed to test the emergency transmitter (or reserve transmitter if that was carried as the alternative) and the lifeboat transmitter weekly and to record the test in the radio log. I usually did all the stuff except the lifeboat transmitter on a Sunday. The L/B transmitter I did at the weekly BOT sports.

Thank you for the point - nothing less than I deserve, of course.


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Ron Stringer said:


> The presets were about as helpful as the frequency markings on the dial of the CR300 receiver (thank heavens for the receiver logging scale).


The frequency markings on the CR300 were only a rough indication but just exactly how did you use the logging scale? Tune in with luck and write down the settings?


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

R651400 said:


> The frequency markings on the CR300 were only a rough indication but just exactly how did you use the logging scale? Tune in with luck and write down the settings?


Yes, exactly so. On HF if you were looking for some little station that only opened part time and didn't run a callsign wheel, you looked up which major stations were near the frequency of the one that you wanted. Then you tuned to the frequency dial indication corresponding to that of the wanted station. Now you tuned along until you heard one of the major stations and noted down the reading from the logging scale. With that as your datum you could 

a) use the difference on the logging scale between the major station's location on the tuning dial and the position where you had just found it, adjust your tuning to give the same logging scale offset against the dial frequency of the wanted station, or 

b) tune from the datum station towards the wanted station until you heard another major station and note its reading on the logging scale. With those two logging scale points it was possible to interpolate between them to arrive at the logging scale setting of the wanted station.

Once digital-display, synthesised receivers came in, life must have been so boring at sea! (Jester)


----------



## R719220 (Oct 5, 2011)

And then came the Wadley Loop and the Racal 17. What a revelation. Oh what I'd have given for one of those when I was at sea!! Spot on tuning, great stability, etcetera etcetera. What pleasure to use! Wonder if they were ever used at sea? Not that I ever heard of.


----------



## david.hopcroft (Jun 29, 2005)

mikeg said:


> Thanks for refreshing my memory Ron, I now recall the essential booklet that I used to write the logging scale against a stations frequency. I'd forgotten all about that!


I sailed with an AEI G2 - I think - supposed to be the latest thing. It drifted so much that the only way I figured out how best to cope was to note down each station from the beginning of the band upwards, look up it's freq, and write it down. I could then use the 'scale' to go 'up-a-bit' or down-a'bit' until I found who I was trying to work. 
David
+


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Ron Stringer said:


> Yes, exactly so. On HF if you were looking for some little station that only opened part time and didn't run a callsign wheel, you looked up which major stations were near the frequency of the one that you wanted.


I never sailed deep sea with the CR300 but am sure it had a crystal calibrator that could be used in conjunction with the two logging scales to pinpoint any station easily instead of the laborious method you describe?
The CR100's at GKA I recall had 100 khz markers which along with the same type logging as the CR300 were as accurate as you could get for their time.
The Redifon R50M had the worst logging of any receiver I know and there one definitely had to resort to looking for an exact frequency mark on another band and write down that as the logging point.


----------



## gwzm (Nov 7, 2005)

All the Brocklebank ships that I sailed on had a BC221 frequency meter that was, amongst other things, used to make up a list of all the HF stations that would be worked on voyage and their logging scale readings noted. It was usually quite straightforward then to find the required station without too much difficulty. That system worked well with the Marconi receivers. The Redifon R50M was a different ball game since they tended to drift badly. I don't recall ever having difficulty with the IMR 54(?), the huge one built by Eddystone, I believe.

Happy days,

GWZM


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Ron Stringer said:


> Then you tuned to the frequency dial indication corresponding to that of the wanted station. Now you tuned along until you heard one of the major stations and noted down the reading from the logging scale. With that as your datum you could ..... etc etc


With little or no experience of the CR300 I did a little bit of research and discovered it did indeed have a crystal calibrator . 
The CR300/1 had a 500 kc/s calibrator when switched in giving harmonic frequency markers through the receiver's entire HF coverage. 
The CR300/2 had a 690 kc/s oscillator which gave harmonics directly within the marine receiving bands 4 thru 22 mc/s. 
This was a precursor to the Marconi Electra with it's ingenious marine bandspread facility working of an exact same 690 kc/s calibrator. 
I had the Mercury/Electra combo on my list British ship and I'm almost sure this calibrator technology carried over into the Atalanta.


----------



## Tony Selman (Mar 8, 2006)

GWZM, I had completely forgotten about the BC221. I can remember using it on a couple of the more venerable ships in the fleet. You are quite right about the R50M, that sure as hell did drift. From memory I think it had a large coarse tuning knob and a smaller fine tuning knob. Even when you had found the station you then permanently had your hand on the fine tuning knob to hang on to it.


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

In defence of the Redifon R50M receiver which GTZB fitted to many of their ships, I never had much of an issue with drift after all to maintain stability it did have a stand-by switch for non-watch periods. 
It was a beautfiully engineered receiver ranging from 13.5 kc/s to 32 mc/s with variable IF filtering two settings of which were crystal filters.
For servicing each individual valve stage was separately metered. 
It's achilles heel in my opinion was the logging.
When the large tuning knob was moved too quickly the small logging scale at the top whirred round at such a rate of knots it jumped it's gearing and lost the logging point.
Even for its time a receiver of this calibre and construction without a crystal calibrator was a very unusual design omission..


----------



## holland25 (Nov 21, 2007)

I went from a CR300 toan R50M, which I thought was the greatest, I dont remember any of the problems mentioned. I was working for Marconi at the time and the rest of the installation was Marconi. My ship after that was back to a CR300. I managed to do my job OK with both of them.


----------



## Tai Pan (Mar 24, 2006)

R651400 said:


> The frequency markings on the CR300 were only a rough indication but just exactly how did you use the logging scale? Tune in with luck and write down the settings?


Correct, that logging scale and its notes was invaluable. (Scribe)


----------



## sparks69 (Dec 18, 2005)

Happy Days,
I used to leave my R50M tuned to the area station on all night to try to get it stable for the traffic list in the morning only to find the 12 to 4 and 4 to 8 bridge watch had been in overnight to find some music to pipe through to the time signal speaker.
My log book of "adjacent stations" was a godsend on HF.
When "phase lock loop" technology arrived it was a blessing.
As I said Happy days.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Presumably you made a full report in the radio log and also made a copy of the complaint you made to the ships master and attached it to the log.


----------



## sparks69 (Dec 18, 2005)

Not bloody likely - I liked my tea and toast too much.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

I did.


----------



## Baulkham Hills (Jul 11, 2008)

Hi,
I was on a former dutch ship with an ancient Phillips H/F receiver, there was a note book with all the logs noted down since the ship was new. To find a new station was a bit time consuming comparing log setting to frequency etc.
But it worked very well during my 13 months onboard. The only time I switched it off was when I replaced the brushes on its rotary converter. 
I was relieved by an elderly gentleman who had sailed on the wartime convoys. I had a ten day handover to him and during that time all the old equipment starting failing one after the other including the Phillips rx which he was in the habit of switching off, all my remaining time onboard was spent repairing the breakdowns and I will never forget the look on his face of disbelief when I said it all worked perfectly for the previous 13 months. So much for long handovers.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Imagine taking one of these up the gangway 40 years ago.....


http://www.flexradio.com/Products.aspx?topic=PowerSDRv2


----------



## david.hopcroft (Jun 29, 2005)

After much complaining to AEI about the G2, an R50M appeared. I thought it was wonderful. Tune in the area broadcast at the end of a watch, put it on standby, and hey presto, there it was next watch. 

That was in 1966. More recently, but still a few years ago, I saved a Lowe HF235 from the skip at a former workplace. What wouldn't we all have given for one of those all those years ago !

David
+


----------



## Baulkham Hills (Jul 11, 2008)

Back in the early eighties I bought a Sony icf 2010D synthesized receiver covering 150 khz to 30 mhz. I intended it for listening to the Beeb etc but I found it was a better receiver than most of the radio room receivers I sailed with for morse, it had a variable bfo and narrow bandwith and could receive ssb and it was very easy to listen in to traffic lists outside normal work hours if an important message was expected from the "comfort" of my cabin.
It weighed about 2 kilos and was connected to the communal antenna.
When I ceased to sail as sparky, an ex R/O friend pestered me to give him the radio which I eventually did. I then bought a Sony ICF 7600D which was ok for me but I considered the 2010D a better receiver. It was quite adequate for broadcasts and I still have it and use it daily for normal radio listening.
A post script to this was my friend was moving house and I went over to see him and there was a skip for rubbish outside of his house and sitting on top of the rubbish was my former 2010D in a sorry condition. I suppose it comes under the heading of "easy come easy go".


----------



## mikeg (Aug 24, 2006)

I had a Sony CRF-5100 with BFO etc. for tfc lists in my cabin if I was expecting an important message like orders etc. Still got that radio in my loft at home, doubt if it works now though...


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

The Racal RA17 using Barlow Wadley pll technology must be one of the classic British receivers of all time.
Introduced in 1955 I cannot understand why marine radio manufacturers didn't follow suit.
Until I sailed with the Siemens/Debeg E666 I never came across anything that could tune a station with pinpoint accuracy like the RA17.


----------



## hawkey01 (Mar 15, 2006)

Malcolm,

I had the pleasure of sailing with one of these on a nice new Greek tanker back in 68. The station was SAIT and there were no identifying plaques on the rx. I for what ever reason thought it was a German rx.
The whole set up was very good and even then I had a 600w tx with the full range of RT. This was on an NJ Goulandris tanker called Argolis/6ZDC.

Neville


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Neville
It was probably the same if not similar SAIT console I had on Euylochus/SWBF in 62 the transmitters were Swedish and the only thing in the set-up British I recall was the clockwork AKD by Redifon. 
Wish I had kept at least one or two of the SAIT mags received regularly on that ship.


----------



## jimg0nxx (Sep 1, 2005)

The Rx illustrated in #45 is not an RA17, it looks like a Siemens Rx to me. I used the RA17 and RA17L for many years in Government Service. It certainly was a vast improvement on any Marconi gear I had used previously. The Wadley Loop system was a revolution in Rx design.

Jim


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Attachment captioned E666.jpg!!

Jim have you read the thread correctly or is it my gallic syntax?


----------



## Moulder (Aug 19, 2006)

jimg0nxx said:


> The Rx illustrated in #45 is not an RA17, it looks like a Siemens Rx to me. I used the RA17 and RA17L for many years in Government Service. It certainly was a vast improvement on any Marconi gear I had used previously. The Wadley Loop system was a revolution in Rx design.
> 
> Jim


Ah but the 1792 was much better....?? (*))


----------



## jimg0nxx (Sep 1, 2005)

R651400,
Sorry, I must pay more attention. Makes more sense now I have read it correctly.

Moulder,
Yes 1792 also an excellent Rx, but of a much later period and now also redundant in most applications.

Jim


----------



## 5TT (May 3, 2008)

R651400 : RE: RA17

Wasn't the Marconi Nebula / Eddystone EC958 a Wadley Loop based design?

= Adrian +


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

I sat in front of an Apollo for the first time in about 15 years the other day.

Great rx in its day....rather ancient now...


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

5TT said:


> R651400 : RE: RA17..Wasn't the Marconi Nebula / Eddystone EC958 a Wadley Loop based design?


Though I've never seen the Nebula/EC958 I'm sure this is the receiver that took over from the CR100's at GKA and the Mercury in coast stations. It was frequency synthesised with the master oscillator freqs all derived from an oven-controlled high stability 1 mhz crystal oscillator. Fairly common practice in 1972.
The story goes that Trevor Wadley presented his phase lock loop idea to British manufacturers presumably Marconi who pooh-poohed the idea and he took it to Germany where it was snapped up by Rohde and Schwarz.


----------



## GBXZ (Nov 4, 2008)

RS

you may find that the Wadley loop (Wadley was South African) was developed in the UK by RACAL. Lots of interest from MOD and GCHQ, no local oscillator meant no detection of the receiver by the bad guys. Read Spycatcher by Peter Thingy ?


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

GBXZ.. I cannot vouch for the story where Trevor Wadley's phase lock loop was developed but I certainly was using a Rohde and Schwarz pll receiver well before the Racal RA17 which I've personally owned. 
As for no LO? The RA17 harmonically converts 1mhz from a crystal oscillator to 32 mhz which is mixed with a VFO running from 40.5 to 69.5 mhz plus a second VFO running from 2.1 to 3.1 Mhz.
As in most high quality receivers to prevent extraneous radiation/pickup the RA17 did have internal bandpass filters and it's innnards well screened.
I think UK govt agencies were obliged to buy British and the Racal RA17 was not only that but one of the world's finest. 
Wonder why Racal has folded and Rohde and Schwarz are still top of the league?


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

R and S make superb receivers - we used to use EK895s as work receivers in the Australian Coast Radio Network.


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Very wise choice. 
Thinking of a change from GTZB to either Union SS or AWA my one and only visit to AWA Sydney and looking at their equipment gave me the impression they were almost neanderthal...


----------



## Bob Murdoch (Dec 11, 2004)

Ray Brown and Cal ?(memory gone) worked for Plessey as design engineers. They presented their new ideas for a receiver to Plessey, who poopooed it so they set up RACAL.
Racal did not fold. It was bought outright by German mob, cant remember which one now, about ten years ago.
When I was Racal's marketing manager for data comms in Australia, AWA was one of the biggest competitors for military radio comms gear. They also got in big in data as well, being agents for Telex Corp supplying teleprinters to the airline industry and GDC modems etc
AWA were very closely tied to Marconi. When RAAF got new maritime surveilance aircraft in the late 70's early 80's, AWA got the job of kitting them out. Marconi hardware and Computer Sciences of Australia providing the software. My then wife was in the project team for that.
AWA was in Talavera Rd North Ryde, down the road from Racal Electronics at Nr 47.
Great days,
Cheers Bob


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Bob Murdoch said:


> Ray Brown and Cal ?(memory gone)...


George Calder Cunningham? 
Still doesn't explain why Rohde and Schwarz are still top of the Bundesliga and Racal are well past and long gone from the bottom of the Southern Counties.


----------



## Bob Murdoch (Dec 11, 2004)

R651400 said:


> George Calder Cunningham?
> Still doesn't explain why Rohde and Schwarz are still top of the Bundesliga and Racal are well past and long gone from the bottom of the Southern Counties.


Because when the Germans took it over the very name was wiped. They were absorbed into the Germans. The amusing thing is, the take over occurred months after the German government tried to stop Vodaphone, originally a Racal set up company, from taking over a German mobile phone company. There was no such attempted blockage from the UK government.
Racal as a name and entity was wiped. I assume all outstanding work and design etc was moved to Germany. But cant really comment on that.
Cheers Bob (Cloud)


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Thanks for the acknowlegement on your memory lapse... Raymond and Calder...
Racal.
Can't say Racal take over by R&S and Plessey by Siemens surprises me. 
Glad you and memsahib enjoyed the halcyon days...


----------



## Bob Murdoch (Dec 11, 2004)

(Thumb)


R651400 said:


> Thanks for the acknowlegement on your memory lapse... Raymond and Calder...
> Racal.
> Can't say Racal take over by R&S and Plessey by Siemens surprises me.
> Glad you and memsahib enjoyed the halcyon days...


Oops, sorry, I cant confirm one way or the other. I believe one of them was actually an accountant. Also one died very soon after the company was set up. Again, dont know which one. Time for my medicinal beer! (Thumb)

Cheers Bob


----------



## djringjr (Feb 11, 2008)

R651400 said:


> I think we have to be eternally grateful for any recording of 500 kc/s that comes along.
> What a difference between the speed and slickness of the fifties!!!
> The poor quality of the morse and quietness I actually thought this was a wind-up
> 
> http://www.archive.org/details/WilliamB.GouldIiiWirelessRadioPioneer.His500KhzRecordingsOfMarch


I assure you the recordings are genuine as I digitized them myself. I do suspect that there were a few problems with the quality of the recording. I believe the receiver used was probably a regenerative type or one of those horrific reserve receivers we had on USA ships. The reel-to-reel recordings were obtained from a relative of Bill Gould.

The receiver is overloading, this introduces distortion.

The other problem is that when I obtained the reel-to-reel magnetic tapes, they were recorded at both 1-7/8 inches per second and 3-3/4 inches per second (ips). Only one local radio station in Boston had a reel-to-reel recorder left, it was in their production studio, but it would not play those speeds, only 15 ips and 7.5 ips.

I finally found a very old consumer reel-to-reel that was owned by a retired R/O Arthur Bradford of Duxbury, MA and he lent me the recorder and I was able to transcribe the tapes.

I did the best I could, I am a retired audio engineer and former radio officer, so I know what they should sound like and I knew I was dealing a home recorder using consumer equipment.

The idea of making a joke is just too time consuming, who would ever research the call signs that were active during that time, the call signs of the ships, the correct working frequencies that WCC, WSF, and others used. But it is NOT a fake, it's just a poor quality recording, but it is genuine and that's why I preserved it.

Here is a link to ALL my archived recordings, others are better quality, but not all of 500 kHz as some are amateur radio recordings I thought were notable, some are of landline sounder in American Wire Morse.

http://www.tinyurl.com/djringjr

I hope some of these will at least amuse you.

73 to all,

David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
former Radio Officer US Merchant Marine.


----------

