Radio broadcast .. (1922-30)

Shall We Specify Parts? 915 called Ambassador type, another person and I have used two antennas which are parallel and two feet apart for 40 feet, one being 40 feet long and the other 100. We tuned all over the scale and neither one of us heard a squeal from the other set. The other operator used a loud speaker and I phones and one a.f. stage. Coupled regenerative sets, like any other, can be operated without squeals. I ask consideration of this point: Any set, regardless of name, type, or price, which will produce a squeal in its own speaker or phones, also produces a squeal in near-by speakers and phones. Very truly yours, GUY M. CHASE, Elizabeth, New Jersey. Mr. Guy M. Chase, Elizabeth, N. J. DEAR SIR: Thank you very much for your interesting letter. We have not overlooked the very important matters that you discuss, but Rome was not made in a day and it is impossible for us to do much at one time. One of the principal reasons for our International Tests was to demonstrate conclusively to the radio listeners that squealing receivers should be abolished. It makes no difference to us whether they be single-circuit or improperly balanced neutrodynes or super-heterodynes hooked up to an antenna. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ARTHUR H. LYNCH EDITOR, RADIO BROADCAST Then, along with Mr. Chase's letter and several thousand of a similar nature we have one from an old-timer — a man who was for some time a radio inspector for the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America. We felt that editorial expression concerning this letter is a waste of time. No doubt ninety per cent, of you folks listened for Europe during our international tests and it is quite likely that most of you heard the racket to which Mr. Collison refers and no additional reference to the subject is necessary at this time. Editor, RADIO BROADCAST Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City, L. I. DEAR SIR: On Monday, Wednesday and Thursday nights of the International Test week, friend wife and I aided by a nine-tube super-heterodyne that has just been calibrated by Tyler, Rossiter, and MacDonald of New York City, deprived (and that's just what I mean to say), ourselves of sleep and almost ruined our sense of hearing not to mention our dispositions, in an attempt to pick up some of the European Stations. And what did we hear? Promptly at eleven o'clock, four million assorted squeals, whistles, whines, yowls, grunts, rattles, buzzes, ships working with spark sets with a decrement of something more than ten times what is allowed, chirping and twittering amateurs with little five-watt bottles (I dare any member of the A. R. R. L. to deny that his fellow members kept within bounds), and enough static to fill in the weak spots. It's an outrage — I don't mean the static, — that's sent to us either from Heaven as punishment for our sins, or from Hades to plague us and must be accepted along with Income Tax Publicity, Near Beer, and Subway Rush Hour Riots. But this oscillating receiver business is something that does not have to be endured. Newspaper publicity has not helped, because the average B.C. L. does not care a tinker's damn about the other fellow. Of what use is it for any person to invest several hundred dollars in a laboratory model super-heterodyne if some hi-jacking neighbor with a "onetube-marvel" is going to smear the ether with noise. Although the range of my super-heterodyne with a loop is considerably less than when used on an out-door antenna I would not think of putting it on an antenna because I know it would ruin reception for my immediate neighbors. I live in an apartment with several other B. C. L.'s and none of us annoy each other. That is because we have used our brains in a manner courteous to each other. There is no way of getting under the skin of those who persistently sell parts which when assembled will cause radiation. They are of the same moral fibre as a bootlegger. Every receiving set manufactured in the United States should be of a design approved by the U. S. Department of Commerce. All commercial radio apparatus must be so approved, so why not every other kind? This w.ould remedy one source of trouble. Every installation connected to an outdoor antenna should be licensed by the Radio Inspector of that District and subject to his restrictions and orders. A one dollar license fee would not be a hardship and would more than pay for the cost of the extra inspectors needed. Periodic inspections might be arranged to check up the installations. No doubt there will be many objections to this plan because it will curtail some "personal liberties." On the other hand I defy any person to defend the radiating receiver or the rights of any individual to use it. The other remedy would be "super-powered" transmitters that would make the construction of such delicate and highly efficient receiving sets unnecessary. No, 1 did not hear any European Stations. Cordially, PERCE B. COLLISON, Brooklyn, N. Y.