Radio broadcast .. (1922-30)

What Our Readers Write Us Wanted: "A Small and Pretty Works" OEVERAL months before the earthquake <3 took place in Japan, an incipient radio fan in Tokio sent the following letter to the Atlantic-Pacific Sales Company. Mr. Raymond Travers of that company wrote us: "Not only because he mentions RADIO BROADCAST, but believing this will perhaps give you a smile in a busy day, I am sending it on to you." SIR: According to RADIO BROADCAST magazine I have known that wireless telephony have been sold by your store, because I have written to ask about wireless telephony at once. Send radio catalogue and wireless telephony to me as soon as possible if you please. It is usefull works, is it not? I want about $8 to 20$, & I should like to know next, " How miles can we hear, speech with it, Is there a small & pretty works. How $ will it use to send it from your place to here. Does it sensitive by every a little waves." Send catalogue to as soon as possible if you please. Then good-bye. So Say We All of Us PROBABLY most of the broadcast fans 1 who read the following letter will agree with Mr. Barteau's colorful protest against the spark interference that makes many a listener-in sit back from his receiver and think ungentle thoughts. We have long felt the injustice done by the operation of commercial stations on wavelengths near those used for broadcasting, and have published our own protests from time to time, in the hope that the commercial companies would see the advisability of changing the particular length (and breadth) of the waves used by their stations. MR. ARTHUR H. LYNCH Editor, RADIO BROADCAST, Garden City, L. I. MY DEAR MR. LYNCH: Can you tell me if there is likely to be any relief from this code, now or ever? I can't understand why such a hullabaloo was made about broadcasting interference when it was of the utmost insignificance compared to the inferno and pandemonium that is caused by the wireless telegraph! There are dozens of 'em hammering away every evening all the time — anything you don't want, from the peep of a sick chicken to the wind whistling through a handful of seaweed; screeching, rasping, gurgling and roaring all combined. Oh, it's wonderful! Then the fellow that holds the key down indefinitely— he should be murdered in cold blood. A lad did this the other day for 32 minutes. How much longer I don't know, for I gave up to him then. About 90 per cent, of this ship-shore stuff is nothing but "gush" — "Wish you was here, lovely" and such stuff — that could just as well be held up till the morning. It seems a shame that radio reception must be almost utterly spoiled in this manner, when there is really no need of it. The Army and Navy could move up and make room for these fellows above the broadcasting wavelengths, or the ship-shore stations could keep off for an hour or two in the evening. I am an old commercial tel. opr., but I didn't make a noise like sandpapering a brick, causing good church-going Christians to spend hours cussing me. Yours very sincerely, E. M. BARTEAU Brookhaven, N. Y. An Appreciation of Mr. Seager's Article MR. SEAGER, mentioned in the following letter from a Cuban enthusiast who built a set according to his description in the March, 1923, issue, won second place in our "How Far Have You Heard on One Tube?" contest. When you think of it, it is not easy to tell a non-technical reader all that is necessary to enable him to build a comparatively complicated and delicate piece of apparatus, and we are glad to receive letters like this one — as we have on many occasions — indicating plainly the practical benefit of the articles that appear between these covers. (And let us add here, while on the subject, that we wish everyone who has had either success or failure with apparatus made according to instructions published in RADIO BROADCAST,