Auction 70 - WE 1500 1960 Field Trial Set (?)

[rdelius]

 I have a M209 converter with case.I am missing the tools, paper, and oiler?
also have some teletype gear
Robby

[Dave F]

I'll go looking for that relay next time I see the WE set.  There isn't one in the ITT version.  The WE version also has an odd ringer in it.

The relay is on a small vertically-mounted circuit board which also contains a polarity guard for the TT dial.  That ringer, a type T1A if I remember correctly, is a puny little thing, but the inside of the 3568 is pretty well packed, and they certainly couldn't fit a C ringer in there.

Sounds like the ITT set needs to be manually reconfigured to switch between 2/4 wire operation.  If all your sets are NOS, and if they all work out-of-box on standard Tip and Ring, then it would appear that 2-wire was the default setting.

[GG]

Robby - Holy cow, you have one of those (Hagelin M-209)!  It almost figures that someone around here would, given the range & depth of interests, but crypto machines are pretty obscure (heh).   I can't imagine that one is for sale, but if it is, drop me a line...

Dave - Yeah, 2-wire out of the box, I wouldn't know how to convert them to 4-wire, nor would I want to try because I have no application for that configuration.  I assume those were for use on 4-wire transmission circuits so they could just connect directly without some kind of special line card with a hybrid coil.   Or ...?  Do you know why the 4-wire arrangement in the phones?

[Dave F]

Dave - Yeah, 2-wire out of the box, I wouldn't know how to convert them to 4-wire, nor would I want to try because I have no application for that configuration.  I assume those were for use on 4-wire transmission circuits so they could just connect directly without some kind of special line card with a hybrid coil.   Or ...?  Do you know why the 4-wire arrangement in the phones?

Four-wire configuration improved the audio quality, particularly by reducing echo on long-lines circuits.  I guess they figured that good audio would be an asset to folks who might be called upon to launch nuclear weapons.  After all, "FIRE ONE!" could relate to an unruly subordinate just as well as to a Minuteman II, and you sure wouldn't want to make a mistake about that!  For an interesting look at this concept in action, watch the 1965 Richard Widmark movie, "The Bedford Incident".

[GG]

Good points.  Reduce sidetone, reduce echo, improve fidelity.  Also probably improve security slightly as a side-effect: an eavesdropper could only get one side of a conversation (even unclassified conversations contain valuable intel tidbits). 

"Fire one!", nice example at least as a rhetorical device to demonstrate the need for unambiguous communication.  One thing I've heard that people in the military often do (perhaps it's a rule) is to repeat back orders to be certain they were heard correctly:

"You are to go to location B and fire upon target 2."

"Go to location B and fire upon target 2, roger."

"Check."

"Wilco."

*Booom!* scratch one more Al Qaeda off the Wanted list.

So I've taken to doing something similar with clients, particularly where their instructions are ambiguous.

"Alice >> Bob >> ex Charlie."

"Move Alice Alvarez extn. 123 to desk presently occupied by Bob Bishop extn. 125, and move Bob Bishop extn. 125 to desk presently marked "zz-vacant 654" that was Charlie Carlson last week?"

"Yes."

"Will do."