# Receiver query



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

This rx is years after my time. Anyone any idea its country of origin and manufacturer.


----------



## sparks69 (Dec 18, 2005)

Kelvin Hughes ??
Just a guess.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Certainly bears the hallmarks of K.H.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Could also be ITT. I seem to recall a synthesiser with those switches which I thought were preferable to that crap Marconi nixi tube display. On the other hand, it does have that "tinny" KH look about it. ITT receivers were made in Sweden by their subsidiary SRT and KH were made in Denmark by a company with a name like Elektronika (or something) .... I think ...!

John T


----------



## Steven Lamb (Apr 18, 2009)

Debeg - German ?

Rgds / 73's
Lamby


----------



## Moulder (Aug 19, 2006)

Think I've sailed with this one on Jebsens "S" boats - I'm going for Kelvin Hughes although Nera UK is niggling at the back of my mind.

Steve. (Thumb)


----------



## andysk (Jun 16, 2005)

trotterdotpom said:


> Could also be ITT. I seem to recall a synthesiser with those switches which I thought were preferable to that crap Marconi nixi tube display. On the other hand, it does have that "tinny" KH look about it. ITT receivers were made in Sweden by their subsidiary SRT and KH were made in Denmark by a company with a name like Elektronika (or something) .... I think ...!
> 
> John T


Not ITT I think, at least not as supplied by IMRC in the time I was with them (1978-84). They had the ITT 3020 then, either the A or B, can't remember the difference, which was preceded by the IMR5000 earlier in the 1970's


----------



## freddythefrog (Dec 15, 2007)

Trotterdotpom
Hi, think you may be thinking of ELECTROMERKANO name??
Thought KH radio stuff also made by DANSKRADIO---maybe the 2 are combined, not sure. cheers ftf


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Deffo K.H. in my view.

Always reminded me of the front cover of "Practical Wireless".


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

freddythefrog said:


> Trotterdotpom
> Hi, think you may be thinking of ELECTROMERKANO name??
> Thought KH radio stuff also made by DANSKRADIO---maybe the 2 are combined, not sure. cheers ftf


Dansk for that, Freddie, Elektromerkano sounds familiar. Looking at the picture again, it appears that they two units don't fit all that well together in the rack ... another KH clue?

Trying to figure out what the "Distress" and "Test" lamps are for. Did it have some sort of Auto-Alarm or Automatic Keying Device function as well?

John T


----------



## Moulder (Aug 19, 2006)

I'm inclined to settle on KH now and I did sail with this equipment on Jebbies S boats and Borgnes.

I also seem to remember that the synthesiser unit incorporated in the KH main transmitter looked very much like the lower of the two units in your thumbnail. Is it possible that they do not actually belong together? One being part of the front panel of a receiver and the other being the synthesiser unit from a main tx?

With regard to the synthesiser unit - when 500 kHz or 2182 kHz was selected the 'distress' lamp would light as an indication.

Steve.
(Thumb)


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

"500 kHz or 2182 kHz was selected the 'distress' lamp would light as an indication"

Kinda wierd.


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

The synth could have been shared or used with a transmitter giving the operator an indication he/she was operating on either of the two distress frequencies which does make sense though a bit overkill...


----------



## Moulder (Aug 19, 2006)

Have just rooted out this image from the gallery and the gear is certainly KH and you can see the synthesiser is indeed similar in both the Rx rack and in the Tx unit.

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/133332/title/lampas-guim/cat/530


I remember having a fault on the Tx synthesiser once which was found by substituting boards from the Rx unit.

Again, if I remember correctly - the 'test' light used to light when the unit was 'settling' on the dialed frequency. When the phase lock loop operated and the synthesiser locked onto the frequency - the light would extinguish.



Steve.
(Thumb)


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

The equipment type number is SYN30R, which suggests that it was a synthesiser intended for use as part of a receiver.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ahh, ha!

Yes, the Zeeland tx - I sailed with one of them on the Iron Kestrel/GUBX

Free frequency selection all over HF....great for the ham bands, and for talking to my mate on his aeroplane...


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

#15 Obviously in this setup R is for receiver but having used Rohde & Schwarz, Marconi and Sayrosa synthesisers they could be used for either receive or transmit as is the case in today's modern transceivers.
The answer has came via another website.. Elektromekano Receiver M1250


----------



## G4UMW (May 30, 2007)

andysk said:


> They had the ITT 3020 then, either the A or B, can't remember the difference, which was preceded by the IMR5000 earlier in the 1970's


I remember the 3020 and the 3021. The 3020 was tuned by decade switches, the 3021 by a conventional rotary knob.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Mystery solved. If the synthesiser had been shown on top in the original photo maybe I'd have got it (or maybe not). 

Sailed with that gear few times. I've got an idea that the receiver and transmitter synthesisers were interchangeable, but I could be wrong (probably am). There was some sort of automatic fault finding system in the transmitter which was pretty good except it wasn't hooked up to any of the bits (power stages) which conked out.

John T


----------



## Naytikos (Oct 20, 2008)

It would be interesting if someone could explain exactly how that worked: using the same type of synthesiser for tuning a receiver and driving a transmitter.
Presumably the synthesiser does/did not emit a carrier at the actual radiated or received frequency. Perhaps the sythesiser runs at say +30MHz with respect to the radiated or received frequency, so that the Rx would have a first IF of 30MHz and the Tx would have a 30MHz oscillator whose output was modulated, if required, before mixing with the synthesiser signal to obtain the desired radiated frequency?
Or is it something completely different?


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

You're not far of the mark. 
My JRC JST135 transceiver, which has been around for many a moon now, gives three outputs from the synthesiser 70.545-100.45499 mhz, 70mhz and BFO.
The entire rig including mixing controlled by a cpu. 
"No need to take it any further" as my old Guru used to say..."Simply PFM!" 
Pure F****g Magic!!


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Even pre-digital frequency generation in a transmitter would be used in a receiver. Does anyone remember the Pennant? This received SSB R/T on the frequency paired with the (Crusader) transmitter as per ITU. Closest I have come to electrocution when trying to manhandle this beast out of the console.


----------



## Naytikos (Oct 20, 2008)

R651400: OK, that makes perfect sense!

Varley: While on the Crusader course at Maldon in 1969, the chap running the show pointed out a Pennant and told a story that the MIMCo engineer who thought up the idea was head-hunted to Redifon at an increased salary as he was solely responsible for Marconi's having to buy-in R408s in great numbers, the Pennant being such a useless bit of junk.


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Naytikos, further to above the JRC JST 135 though much maligned by QST on it's debut is a fantastic rig for it's time once you get used to the fact there is not one solitary wafer switch on the entire rig giving a rock solid coverage from 1.8 to 30mhz on both transmit and receive @150w. 
Ideal for amateur or maritime use if you can find a good one.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Naytikos said:


> R651400: OK, that makes perfect sense!
> 
> Varley: While on the Crusader course at Maldon in 1969, the chap running the show pointed out a Pennant and told a story that the MIMCo engineer who thought up the idea was head-hunted to Redifon at an increased salary as he was solely responsible for Marconi's having to buy-in R408s in great numbers, the Pennant being such a useless bit of junk.


Think someone was pulling your leg. Ray Cowhig was a great funster and practical joker, sadly missed when he died very young in a car accident while working as a college lecturer after he left Marconi.

The Pennant came about as a combination of a design engineer's idea of using a single oven-controlled frequency standard from which to synthesise the frequencies for both transmitter and receiver and the MIMCo Chief Engineer's belief that all future long-range SSB working would be restricted to the ITU's recently-established, paired-frequency maritime HF SSB channels. Removing the need to manually tune the SSB receiver (since it automatically went to the receive frequency of the channel selected on the transmitter) seemed to provide an answer to a (maiden) R/O's prayer. It opened up the possibility of skipper-operated SSB transceivers with channel selection as was then common for VHF radiotelephones. He did not entertain the possibility that radio stations would permit (let alone encourage) cross-band working and won the argument against those who suggested that the system was too inflexible for use at sea. 

For point-to-point communication between fixed stations, it might have had application but it had no place aboard ship where it came up against inadequate antenna arrangements and the lack of discipline then prevalent on HF, where it was common for the marine bands to be 'invaded' by broadcast stations and other non-maritime stations in countries that had not taken on board the concept of international regulation of the radio spectrum. Cross-band working was so common as to be almost the norm when working some stations.

However the Chief Engineer had nailed his colours to the mast and the project went ahead and into production. I can't remember how many were made - only a few hundred I believe but, leaving the operational matters aside, the biggest criticism I had to make about it was that it diverted essential effort and resources away from the receiver development group that was working on the "Apollo" - which was a far more desirable receiver, both operationally and commercially. It was the resultant delay to the Apollo that caused MIMCo to go to the market for a type-approved marine main/SSB communications receiver. At the time, there was only one available - Redifon's just-introduced R408, the first receiver approved to the GPO's spec. Had the "Pennant" not got in the way, that distinction would have gone to the "Apollo".

Not for the first (or the last) time at MIMCo, the engineering views were allowed to hold sway against the marketing requirements.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Naytikos, I hope I didn't suggest the Pennant was useful (perhaps some would reckon my electrocution an exception)! Having done ticket on the Commander I suppose a course for the Crusader wasn't considered necessary. The only course I got was the Autospec/Spector.

Ron, Unusual for engineers to be allowed their rein in Lord Weinstock's finance house (very unfair in light of his incompetent successors) but I agree not the only instance. You will remember that when everyone else had an S band radar in production 'we' only had one test unit (fitted on Eurofreighter).


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Varley, if you get "electrocuted", you don't live to tell the tale. Sorry to be picky, but an "electric shock", like sea sickness is just a right of passage.

Glad you mentioned the Spector, because I was thinking the Pennant was tied up with Telex. Ask me about the Motomachi and I'm as smart as a whip aerial!

I hated it when coast stations suggested cross-band working, re-tuning the transmitter was a pain in the @rse. In latter years, Skanti produced a brilliant pre-set transceiver which used the allocated frequencies, but, if my memory serves me right, you couldn't use it on Duplex. Personally, I always discouraged the punters from using D uplex as it was almost always crap and Simplex gave them the Hollywood seagoing experience. Over.

John T


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Sait did a W/T console with 2 Skantis - a 750 and a 250w.

The best W/T station I have ever seen. Brilliant to use.

Edit - The Aussie Antartic supply ship _Aurora Australis_ had one.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

John (T),

I agree my usage of electocution implies 'end of passage' and was incorrect. In my defence, it is reported as being in common usage for less terminal electric shocks.

We should coin a one word description, being correct is too long winded.

I don't think I ever heard of a CS instigating cross band working I think the only times I have been cross band is on W/T instigated by me with 'unwholehearted' concurence of CS.

Paired frequencies did allow one to jump in more easily at the end of another's call to set one up with the R/T desk instead of via W/T. 

R/T was probably a bit expensive for every sailor to get used to pressing the key to speak but certainly I never used it for myself even on VHF.

Go on then I'll bite, I don't think I have heard of Motomachi. Web implies shopping street in Japan perhaps street known for another commodity in your day?

David (V)


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Varley said:


> Ron, Unusual for engineers to be allowed their rein in Lord Weinstock's finance house (very unfair in light of his incompetent successors) but I agree not the only instance. You will remember that when everyone else had an S band radar in production 'we' only had one test unit (fitted on Eurofreighter).


Development of Crusader/Pennant predated Arnold Weinstock's acquisition of English Electric/Marconi. 

MIMCo seemed to work on the basis that, because Marconi had discovered/developed radio, their engineers always knew what was needed. Consultation with customers about their operational requirements and researching what the market might need was considered unnecessary. In a way they were right because in those days (and for some decades afterwards) most shipowners fitted only what the regulations mandated -and we knew what the regulations required.

Radar was just such a case - X-Band radar was compulsory fit, S-Band was optional. So Marconi made only X-Band. In my opinion they should not have bothered with radars and saved the millions spent on their development and support. A marketing deal (or even an acquisition/merger) with any of the specialist radar companies would have been better all round.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ron,

The Raymarc wasn't popular with anyone but the Radiolocator seemed to be. If anything came after this then I have fogotten. I do know there was some huge double barrelled display between the Raymarc and Radiolocator but only saw this at Eastham depot (Argus/something?).

Certainly I only had MIMCO radars on my junior trip and the GTVs and none that I recallin my shoreside career - has to be a reason.

The story was that one could almost have described the Raymarc as a badged in, and from a small not-mainstream team at that. Is this true or just 'gallyesat'?

David V


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

David V

The original "Radiolocator" series of radars (I, II, III and IV/IVB) of the late 1940s and early 1950s were supplemented in the late 50s by a small-ship or secondary radar, the "Quo Vadis" and an even simpler device, the "Consort" that was intended for small craft such as pilot vessels and tugs. None of those later radars were a great commercial success. By the early 1960s a pair of roughly similar designs of radar had been developed, the "Hermes" and "Argus" radars to which you refer. These were much more sophisticated but still made us of thermionic valves/tubes, albeit on printed circuit boards.

The "Raymarc"radars were solid state (but still with CRT displays) and were designed and manufactured by a Sydney Bird company (Google him, he was quite a character) in Poole, Dorset called Astaron-Bird. By some strange coincidence the then MD of MIMCo was a keen yachtsman and spent most summer weekends in Poole on his yacht. There was a whole series of "Raymarc" radars (8, 12, !2HD, 16) produced over a period of a decade or so. Cheap and cheerful was the term used by some to describe them; those that had to maintain them in the field did not find the experience so cheerful. Under-developed was a more accurate description.

Radar development came back in-house with the new series of "Radiolocator" solid-state radars of the 1970s, together with the associated "Predictor" automatic plotting radar, an early form of ARPA. Finally there was a true ARPA before MIMCo made the decision to get out of radar development entirely. Not a lot of glory anywhere in that story.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ron,

Thanks for the history. As I am an early fifties built the first Radiolocator series was long gone by 71. Some stories lingered on 'though was it the Radiolocator with the carbon pile voltage regulator? (I don't expect you to remember it just to know the history!).

Every proper marine company sooner or later picks up a yachty or two. Many make the mistake that the two worlds can be managed in the same way. A yacht is as demanding to manage as a VLCC or more so. The owner of a VLCC is not normally on to the manager by 'phone and in person every day as are many yachtowners and often the management does not reflect this.

Mr. Bird sounds interesting I will Google him as you suggest.

David


----------



## R651400 (Jun 18, 2005)

Not exactly sure what posting directly above is trying to say. 
Yachts, small craft in terms of radar. depth sounders, fish finders?
Nothing equates to Furuno..


----------



## Naytikos (Oct 20, 2008)

On HF R/T I used to work cross-band whenever possible; PCH invariably ran transmitters on two bands simultaneously, so one could transmit on, say 16, and receive on, say 12, and get a nice clear full-duplex call. HEB would happily fire up a transmitter on a different band on request, and even radiate LSB if necessary to get a clear circuit. Of course, one needed a receiver capable of switching sidebands, which some couldn't.
Thanks to Ron for the MIMCo background details, fascinating as ever. I sailed with the original Radiolocater Mk4 a couple of times, the Hermes once, and the Raymarc in a couple of guises. One Niarchos tanker had two Raymarcs, 12 and 16, with an interswitching unit; although this gave a level of (needed) redundancy, there didn't seem to be much point otherwise.
Wasn't the Quo Vadis originally developed by AWA?


----------



## pippin (May 13, 2008)

*Crossband R/T*

Not once in my time at sea between '65 & '71 did I ever ask a CRS to work cross band R/T and to my certain knowledge did a CRS ever ask me to either.

I never sailed with a PENNANT Rx but I did cover it on the CRUSADER course. 
It was in fact a brilliant concept as it was designed in line with the forthcoming paired channels band-plan regulations.
However, as stated, because so few administrations adhered to the new regulations it was never able to fulfil its intended rôle.

Of course a general coverage Rx was always going to be required in addition to the PENNANT. 
I am not convinced that the development of the APOLLO was seriously hindered by resources being diverted to the PENNANT. 
The latter was in fact very simple as most of the hard work was already in place in the CRUSADER.
Remember that Marconi Marine was a subsidiary of MWT which had enormous technical resources and similar kit was being produced for military purposes.

The brilliant Redifon R408 - my favourite Rx of all time - was totally analogue technology based - technology which was well established and understood.

The APOLLO was new territory - digital (interfaced with analogue) and that was where MIMCo came unstuck.
It took too long to get it right and in the process it was perhaps obsolete when it came into use.

Anyway, it is all history now, except that my R408 is in daily use here in my shack!


----------



## pippin (May 13, 2008)

*Radar*

I trained on the Radiolocator MKIV and sailed with it on my first ship in 1965.
A monstrous bit of kit that had to be nursed carefully in its old age as it was ten years old by then.

My next ship was a tramp and the original RAYMARC had just been fitted. 
I did not realise then that it was designed (and built) by Astaron for Marconi Marine.
It was fairly obvious that it was not meant to be the main radar on a merchant ship but because of the low price cheap-skate shipowners couldn't resist it!
I have to say that it was fairly reliable throughout the 18 months that I was "Shanghied" on the PROSPERO/GMYW.
The main problem for me was that the PSU and Tx/Rx units were fitted in the W/T Office.
Being a DC ship the very loud and audible screaming of the inverters drove me bonkers! 

I suspect that the low price and success of the original RAYMARC spawned the disastrous up-scaling to the later marques of the same name.

I have a manual for the MIMCCo CONSORT small craft radar.
What a weird looking piece of kit!
It is definitely not of Marconi Marine origin.
Interestingly, the installation instructions dwell a lot on interfacing "British" parts of the waveguide with "American" fittings.
So, was it from the other side of the pond?


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

pippin said:


> I have a manual for the MIMCCo CONSORT small craft radar.... was it from the other side of the pond?


I believe that it was developed by CMC (Canadian Marconi Company) and had the antenna inside a radome (very early for civil marine radars) and remember it had a Bowden cable drive for the antenna.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

pippin said:


> I am not convinced that the development of the APOLLO was seriously hindered by resources being diverted to the PENNANT.


Don't you believe it. The receiver team was a 2-man effort with a couple of junior engineers just out of uni handling the digital bits. Occasional help came from the team developing the "Lodestar" Automatic Direction Finder which was in progress at the same time. 



pippin said:


> Remember that Marconi Marine was a subsidiary of MWT which had enormous technical resources and similar kit was being produced for military purposes.


The merchant ship equipment was designed and developed wholly at the expense of MIMCo and MWT made no contribution. The work was done by MWT's Marine Development Unit (which worked only on MIMCo's products, so there was little or no cross-fertilisation of ideas or expertise) on a cost-plus basis. Cost-plus seemed to be the only way that MWT worked in the 1950s/60s - whether the customer was MoD or MIMCo.

Once a design was finished and type approved around the world (at MIMCo's expense), MIMCo had to place its production orders on MWT's factories, at a price determined by MWT and not the market. Often that price was higher than the end-user price of competitors' products.

If there was any benefit to the cost and quality of build arising from the well-funded MoD work, it went to MWT and did not filter down to MIMCo.


----------



## andysk (Jun 16, 2005)

Ron Stringer said:


> ........ Ray Cowhig was a great funster and practical joker, sadly missed when he died very young in a car accident while working as a college lecturer after he left Marconi. .....


I seem to remember a Cowhig as a surveyor somewhere in the UK, was it this chap or did he have a brother in marine radio as well ?


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

andysk said:


> I seem to remember a Cowhig as a surveyor somewhere in the UK, was it this chap or did he have a brother in marine radio as well ?


Sorry I can't help. Ray married the sister of Robin Seaton (former R/O and Personnel Manager of MIMCo) and Robin was the source of many tales about Ray. However Robin died last year so I can't check your point with him.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Robin's nephew Declan was one of Denholm's first trainee ETOs in the early 80s but don't know if Ray was his father. I think he went to Shell when we wasted him. Hopefully he is not also suffer an 'early exit'.


----------



## pippin (May 13, 2008)

Thanks Ron for that very interesting insight into the workings of Marconi Marine. 
No wonder it eventually went to the wall.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

I sailed with the matching tx to that rx - the KH "Zeeland".

Free frequency selection all over HF.

Very useful!


----------



## 7woodlane (Apr 20, 2009)

You are right. Cowhig was one of two surveyors at the Liverpool SRIO. I met him at the Hull office in the early eighties. There was another Cowhig (but not related) at Southampton Tech when I was there in 1971. Someone will have more info of these two - - my memory is not that good these days. Hope this helps anyway.
David Whitehead.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

7woodlane said:


> There was another Cowhig (but not related) at Southampton Tech when I was there in 1971.


The Ray Cowhig that we are writing about was a lecturer at Southampton Tech.


----------

