Thoughts on Teaching A Dead Trade?

[Nowhere-Man]

Lately I've really started to question how vintage radio repair is taught or how you acquire the skills more quickly. I pretty much learned what I picked up so far through specially dedicated books. However good these books may be, they essentially teach "repair". It may even be considered as a given that repair is easier to pick up than construction.

Anyway, here is what I have to say on the matter so far:

For a start, anyone seeking to repair or even restore vintage radios is doing something even the old-time repairmen didn't do. They were working with sets that, at the time, were modern. We work with the same designs in mind but the stuff is now antique. So, there are hidden factors to take into account that relate to age and so on. So, it's necessary to learn the same skills but also update all of that to take into account the fact you're working on antiques or "near antiques."

I also think it's worth considering whether the best way to really understand wireless is to build one or two kit models first. Fortunately I have a really big sixties book that supplies no end of designs and schematics to make your own receiver so I found that to be of some use. It makes you think a lot more when you build your own  circuit stage.

[Murphyv310]

Hi.
When I came into the trade in 1970 the majority of repairs were actually quite old. People were still running late 40's radio right up to fairly new items. On the TV front there were many many sets from the late 50's and many customers wouldn't change to 625 line sets. Let's not forget that later on you actually may not see a new model till it had run a few years.
Where I agree with you is building sets, great learning curve and brilliant fun.

[Terry]

For a start, anyone seeking to repair or even restore vintage radios is doing something even the old-time repairmen didn't do. They were working with sets that, at the time, were modern ...

Two points here: the first is that anybody who did the job because they were interested in the subject would probably have encountered a wide range of vintage sets passed on by relatives and family friends while they were at school and the second is, that when I started work, not everything that passed through the workshop was by any stretch of the imagination 'modern'!  

in fact, I was kept well clear of anything modern to start with - the current Bush TV models were the TV95 range but I might get near a seven year old TV24...

When the first Bush TR82 with its new-fangled transistors appeared in the workshop soon afterwards, it was promptly surrounded by the Service Manager and both Field Engineers. (It took them all morning to track the source of the low frequency instability to a flat PP9, though, and after that they lost interest!)

When I was at school, I was lucky to have Practical Wireless available and access to a very well stocked Central Junior Library nearby. The only difficulty was that, in case of difficulty, the printed page didn't answer back! Oh for a forum like this to post all the queries to with prompt intelligible replies!

You talk of books that teach repair rather than construction as being the easier choice. I'm not so sure about that as all the constructional articles and books that I remember also told you how things work - and you can't repair something without knowing the theory! 

There is  an alternative to that - what were known as 'Valve Jockeys' in my younger day who learned by rote that changing valve X cures symptom A but hadn't a clue as to why the replacement had a short life because of a low value bias resistor or a leaky grid couper - however, I doubt that a forum like this would interest such a person today ...

[pwdrive]

I agree with Trevor and Terry, I started in the trade in 1964, back then TV ruled but most folks couldn't afford to buy one so they rented, a lot of rented stuff was "reconditioned" old stuff, they normally ended up with worn rotary tuners, weak tubes and mains droppers that looked like a bunch o'grapes.

For good efficient fault finding abilities down to component level you need to learn some basic theory, AC & DC voltage and current relationships with respect to R, C, L, Valves etc, and Transistors/IC's if your into them, what their function is in each stage and what to expect going into each stage and what to expect out of it, for domestic radios it should be reasonably straight forward, it's not complicated.

Lawrence.

[Mark Hennessy]

I'd make a similar point. Does a good repairer need to be a good electronics engineer?

The two don't necessarily go together. Some of the best repair engineers I've met were quite weak at electronics, and never did their own projects, and weren't really interested in the theory beyond the very basics. But they did have good memories, which helped when dealing with stock faults. And they had a good "nose" for a fault - both literally and metaphorically...

By contrast, some of the best design engineers I know can't fix the most basic of faults. They might have an extremely deep knowledge of their field, but the concept that real components can go wrong is alien to them. Some of these engineers produce very clever but unreliable products because they don't appreciate the failure modes that repair engineers see every day.

Of course, the best engineers are a blend of the two extremes. Good with theory, but good with electronics at an intuitive level. It's possible to teach the former; the latter is much harder, and requires a lot of painful experience.

So to anyone hoping to get better at fault-finding electronics - new or old - I'd say this: studying electronics is never a waste of time. Trying to build your own projects is extremely valuable experience - especially if they don't work at first and you have to do some fault-finding. If you restrict yourself to elementary fault-finding (looking for burnt components, changing components "on-spec" because they have a reputation, asking people which components should be changed), then this is not intellectually satisfying, and you will very quickly get bored. What keeps a life-long interest in this hobby is the "chase", the logical process of elimination and deduction, the thrill of a successful "conviction".

That's personal, of course. Some people find satisfaction in the other aspects of restoration, such as the cosmetics...

[tiv48]

When I was at school I got to know a lot of the local ham radio guys most of whom had built a lot of there own gear .
A few of these guys were great teachers and loved to impart that knowledge to us youngsters.
At the age of 14 I got a job helping at the local radio shop (my step father later bought it.)
my grand father used to build lots of complex crystal sets and my real father built a lot of hifi amps.
so maybe it was easier to learn in the 60's ?
Rob T

[Nowhere-Man]

I'd make a similar point. Does a good repairer need to be a good electronics engineer?

The two don't necessarily go together. Some of the best repair engineers I've met were quite weak at electronics, and never did their own projects, and weren't really interested in the theory beyond the very basics. But they did have good memories, which helped when dealing with stock faults. And they had a good "nose" for a fault - both literally and metaphorically...

By contrast, some of the best design engineers I know can't fix the most basic of faults. They might have an extremely deep knowledge of their field, but the concept that real components can go wrong is alien to them. Some of these engineers produce very clever but unreliable products because they don't appreciate the failure modes that repair engineers see every day.

Of course, the best engineers are a blend of the two extremes. Good with theory, but good with electronics at an intuitive level. It's possible to teach the former; the latter is much harder, and requires a lot of painful experience.

So to anyone hoping to get better at fault-finding electronics - new or old - I'd say this: studying electronics is never a waste of time. Trying to build your own projects is extremely valuable experience - especially if they don't work at first and you have to do some fault-finding. If you restrict yourself to elementary fault-finding (looking for burnt components, changing components "on-spec" because they have a reputation, asking people which components should be changed), then this is not intellectually satisfying, and you will very quickly get bored. What keeps a life-long interest in this hobby is the "chase", the logical process of elimination and deduction, the thrill of a successful "conviction".

That's personal, of course. Some people find satisfaction in the other aspects of restoration, such as the cosmetics...

Yes, all good points you make. Not too long ago I was getting curious about the difference between theory and practical engineering. I was especially curious over Einstein as I knew he basically failed his basic electrical engineering exam. On paper, Einstein was a system reject - someone who was considered unsuitable to be a professional engineer. What happened after was Einstein got a normal job as an office clerk but continued with his interest in physics and electrical science in his spare time. In personal interviews he stated he's never really wanted to be a repairman but viewed himself as "theoretical". The question I was asking myself was, how far did Einstein get so far as practical engineering is concerned? Did he mostly just do physics and maths and write papers?

Let's not forget the Wright Brothers too. These were bike mechanics who were determined to get a machine up into the air and fly.

Anyway, I think there's a big difference between the practical engineer and the academic theorist. The engineer needs a reasonable understanding of theory but also good diagnostic and design skills as well as manual skills and dexterity. The theorist will spend a lot more time doing maths and physics and maybe working things out academically.

My advice to anyone would be to try and acquire engineering skills first and more advanced theory later. I say that because after reading a few electronics books around level one and close to intermediate, I was totally clueless when I opened up my first actual radio.

I'm not sure how many people would be strong in physics and maths as well as being good at repairs at the same time. I suppose there must be extremes at both ends and a mix of the two.

[Nowhere-Man]

When I was at school I got to know a lot of the local ham radio guys most of whom had built a lot of there own gear .
A few of these guys were great teachers and loved to impart that knowledge to us youngsters.
At the age of 14 I got a job helping at the local radio shop (my step father later bought it.)
my grand father used to build lots of complex crystal sets and my real father built a lot of hifi amps.
so maybe it was easier  to learn in the 60's ?
    Rob T

I have this weird theory that shocks a lot of people. The theory is technology especially in the late sixties was more advanced than today. I remain convinced nobody today could put a man on the moon in 2015 and that includes NASA. Maybe in another 10 years we may see another lunar landing but probably done an easier way than how it was done with Saturn V.

It would appear the German engineers behind the Apollo project and the team as a whole simply died and took their expertise to the grave. Russia retained a good deal of their rocket technology but the closest they got to a manned lunar landing was the mid seventies (or was it eighties) shuttle. Those are now rusting away due to the collapse of the USSR which stalled the project.

As you say, HAM was very popular in the sixties and kids were making their own sets. A lot of kids had an interest in science back then.

Sure, I know today we have I.T. and it's easier to spread technology but I think the bulk of modern technology is consumer based and consumer driven and not driven directly by science at the same level as was taking place in the late sixties. I mean, Richard Branson has been keen to continue the Space Program but that is again on a commercial basis.

[ppppenguin]

It's remarkably easy to lose technological know how. For example it would now be hard to restart manufacture of colour crts.

If we want another manned moon landing alot of stuff will need to be rediscovered or invented from scratch. Some things like computing and communications will be much easier now. We also have good lunar mapping that the apollo programme would have loved to have.

[Nowhere-Man]

It's remarkably easy to lose technological know how.  For example it would now be hard to restart manufacture of colour crts.

If we want another manned moon landing alot of stuff will need to be rediscovered or invented from scratch. Some things like computing and communications will be much easier now. We also have good lunar mapping that the apollo programme would have loved to have.

Well, I seem to recall they had this amplified AVC in some radios that was stopped at some point. I can't recall much about how it worked except some vague recollection. At any rate, my understanding is people in the sixties didn't think the semiconductor would replace the tube. They seemed to embrace the semiconductor as useful but also imagined it would be used alongside with tubes. I have a German Radio that seems to reflect this partly as the small tubes are on a large PCB.

Of course, we all know tubes are more suited for space and are radiation resistant.