# History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Topical/Publications/Australasian Radio World/Issues/1945 10
## P.03 - Contents Banner

THE AUSTRALASIAN RADIO WORLD
Devoted entirely to Technical Radio
and incorporating
ALL-WAVE ALL-WORLD DX NEWS
VOL. 10. - OCTOBER, 1945 - No. 5.

## P.03 - Publication Notes

PROPRIETOR — A. G. HULL
Manager - DUDLEY L. WALTER
Secretary - Miss E. M. VINCENT
Short-wave Editor — L. J. KEAST
For all Correspondence: City Office — 243 Elizabeth St., Sydney, Phone: MA2325
Office Hours — Weekdays: 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays: 10 a.m.-12 noon
Editorial Office — 117 Reservoir Street, Sydney
Victorian Advertising Representative — W. J. LEWIS, 20 Queen St., Melbourne, C1 'Phone MU5154
Subscription Rates: 6 issues - 5/3; 12 issues - 10/6; 24 issues - £1; Post free to any address.
Service Departments — Back Numbers, 1 /- ea. post free; Reply-by-mail Queries, 1/- each
Printed by Bridge Printery Pty. Ltd., 117 Reservoir Street, Sydney, N.S.W., for the proprietor of the "Australasian Radio World," Elizabeth St., Sydney (Footnote P.36)

## P.03 - Contents

CONTENTS
TECHNICAL —
Our Future Policy . . . . 5
Honour Roll . . . . 7
Amateur Radio . . . . 9
The Transitron Oscillator . . . . 11
Vibrating Power Supplies . . . . 17
Radar's Work With the Navy . . . . 21
The Theory Behind Proper Amplifier Design . . . . 24
SHORTWAVE SECTION —
Notes From My Diary . . . . 30
The Month's Loggings . . . . 32
New Stations . . . . 33
THE SERVICE PAGES —
The Service Pages . . . . 34

## P.03 - Editorial

EDITORIAL.
My editorial in the July issue has drawn sharp criticism from a reader who has just returned from four years service with the R.A.F. He says that he hates to see personal bias creeping into a fine magazine. The subject under discussion, to save you turning up the July issue, was that old one of morse code versus phone for ham licence qualification. I fail to appreciate the crack about personal bias, as I did not make any effort to disguise the fact that the opinions expressed were my own, carried my own signature at the bottom and were published for the sole purpose of letting readers know what I thought about the subject. I am not unreasonable enough to expect every reader to agree with everything I say, but surely I have just as much right to express my views as anybody else. To make quite sure that nobody can have cause to grouch I will hand over the editorial column this month to the morse code exponent, Con. A. Stiglish (ZL4DU) of New Zealand. Amongst many other things this is what he thinks about it: "My experience in the R.A.F. as a wireless operator has proved to me the value of c.w. To my knowledge, the R.A.F. had no overseas radio telephone links. Inter-comm and circuits were all c.w., some hand speed, some high speed. Spelling out words by phone is slower than sending letters by c.w. For copying through QRM or QRN and on a busy channel, give me c.w. every time. In cases of emergency it is easier to rig up a c.w. outfit and power drain is lower. Using a given power you will get further on c.w. I think that an amateur should be an all-rounder, equally efficient on phone or c.w., as each has its advantages and disadvantages." All of which is sound and logical, but doesn’t explain the reason why four words per minute greater speed in morse code should be the deciding factor as to whether a ham should be allowed 50 watts or 250 watts. — A. G. HULL.