10-11-2018, 06:47 PM
With respect, Trevor, I think you read a different version of that article to me.
He makes it perfectly clear that many other, more expensive, sets were available and sold well.
I'm also sure that there was just as much interest in making crystal sets, one valve TRFs, etc. as in this country - is it compulsory to include that in a history of the Civilian Wartime Receiver? Of course not, so why should it appear in the article under discussion?
You say: "no sets of this design could ever be said that they were (insensitive) no matter what country and by who designed them."
The article states that most sets of the design type - in any country - are really only local station receivers but that with a good aerial, they can receive quite distant stations, particularly at night just like any other set.
Different words, same meaning, surely? After all, I would expect these sets to be much more sensitive than the crystal sets you cite.
He makes it perfectly clear that many other, more expensive, sets were available and sold well.
I'm also sure that there was just as much interest in making crystal sets, one valve TRFs, etc. as in this country - is it compulsory to include that in a history of the Civilian Wartime Receiver? Of course not, so why should it appear in the article under discussion?
You say: "no sets of this design could ever be said that they were (insensitive) no matter what country and by who designed them."
The article states that most sets of the design type - in any country - are really only local station receivers but that with a good aerial, they can receive quite distant stations, particularly at night just like any other set.
Different words, same meaning, surely? After all, I would expect these sets to be much more sensitive than the crystal sets you cite.
