Just read an article on the restoration of a 1946 Pye Technico model 651 in Feb 2020 Silicon Chip in which the author included a paragraph "What happened to Technico?"

The information in this par is incorrect. Example:

"...and were made from designs used internationally by Pye".

No. All Pye radios and TVs made here were local designs.

and again:

"The Pye company became over-committed to TV products in the 1960s and collapsed, leading to the closure of Pye-Technico as a radio manufacturer in 1967"

Completely untrue.

Pye made Australia's biggest selling TV for many years, the Pye Pedigree.
Pye designed and produced what was the world's first successful all solid state large screen B&W TV.
They continued to make radios in stereos (e.g. Pye Black Box) right up to the start of colour TV in 1974 when all production was shifted to TV production, again using completely local designs.
The last indigenous design Pye TV, the T34, continued in production until late 1979. After this time they boxed and badged Philips chassis sourced from Hendon in SA. until the mid 80's.

There may be one exception to this. I have seen a circuit of a W1000 chassis with 17" 70 degree mag focus CRT, live chassis and series heaters. It looks like a UK design and is very different to what we saw here.

I have NEVER seen one of these TVs or even a picture of one. Considering my time in the service industry that's saying something.
Has anyone else seen one of these?

So we can expect a letter to the Editor in the next issue.

Would have been sent already except my email password is remembered by my laptop which is out of commission waiting on a part.
From my office desktop tomorrow!

In truth I have actually shown my distain and feedback from others who refurbish & repair, on the accuracy and methodology used by him. Do also get in the editors ear. They have a responsibility to ensure things are right. It is also from the point of a scientific & technical background, a brave person that alters a document of a technical nature without understanding the subject. It only takes one wrong word to destroy it.

My principal beef is leaving "Waxed Paper" capacitors in sets. I and the vast majority of the fixers sticking our necks out on the American Forum (where putting misleading info without qualifying it, will be spotted & questioned) consider, leaving any Waxed Paper cap in a set a mortal sin and that tends to extend to old electrolytic caps as well: They are considered poison & no set should be powered with old ones in it.

I have even resorted (and it will be published) to sending HRSA a simple "Neon" Flash tester circuit using the same theory & principle as the one in a Paton "VCT" for NP Caps. You can avoid building a DC power supply for it as you can swat the 250VDC from a radio. 1mA, or less ain't going to stress it.

In nearly 50 years I have not seen a wax paper cap that does not leak. Modern ones don't. Leaking caps are a no no in test equipment and can wreak havoc in a radio as well.

Just think Lafayette tester says 50Meg or less is a dud on screens & 200Meg or less is a dud coupling. Rarely do you get into Meg ohms if you test at rated, or the voltage they will be exposed to.

The "Neon" is cheap and for a person like me that considers any leaking NP cap a dud, this is a pass fail device.

Marc

Marcc I can assure you that all feedback to silicon chip gets to the people in question. I had a rather polite and slightly humorous converstion with the gentleman in question at radiofest last year. He did note it was me that made the comment about old paper caps being left in circuit.
Just this last couple of months I did observe wax dripping out of a 1937 paper cap. This of cause had the dimbulb and variac in circuit.
One of the things I do now is power up everytime I replace a cap and its quite remarkable the difference in sound quality every time I put a new cap in.

I often wonder (and this is not intended as a targeted comment toward any publisher in particular) what level of verification is done by publishers in the modern age now that proof readers are more or less extinct. Most publications I read, whether they be a newspaper, magazine or whatever, often contain a litany of spelling and grammatical errors and also very clear errors in fact which cannot be disputed by any sane person.

When I was young, it was said by many that kids should read newspapers and magazines as part of the road to understanding the English language. This isn't possible these days because of the mistakes that get made. No-one is perfect and we all make mistakes. It comes down to how many get made I think, and also ensuring that deliberate and wanton laziness also doesn't take over, such as the deliberate use of US spelling in a publishing company's style manual because they can't be bothered setting their computer systems to the Queen's English.

Errors in fact, most often, cannot be justified. There should be some research done on claims made in articles to be published in order to ensure that readers are being fed the truth.

This is not the case at the moment but back then, Philips and its subsidiaries had huge R&D and manufacturing operations in this country and they were probably one of few companies that had the clout to go one-on-one with the might of AWA. We all know this. Why doesn't the person who wrote that article?

Philips and its subsidiaries had huge R&D and manufacturing operations in this country

True, but the article in question relates to Pye.

Even though sub-editors are now a dying breed, IMO journalists should have to get their copy proofread by another journo before submitting it for publication. That should catch the most egregious spelling and grammar errors, but I guess 'union rules' would forbid any such thing.

As for Silicon Chip, I wish they would have circuit schematics double-checked before publication. They should regard the need to publish errata as an embarrassment, especially when it's the readers who have to point out the errors and omissions to the authors.

"Notes and errata" goes back to the Electronics Australia Days. I don't recall such a column being in Radio and Hobbies though I admit never paying attention to it. I also don't recall it being in Wireless Weekly.

I never commenced any significant EA or SC project without watching the Notes & Errata column for a few months.

Well there is very little out there on the history of Pye TV design and production, which is a pity because for many years their designs were leading edge - unlike AWA and Philips.

What there is about on Philips is often wrong too, e.g that their locally made TVs still used valves in the 70s. The last Philips hybrid chassis was made in 1969. They replaced this with what was basically the very neat and cheap to produce Pye T27 design, completely solid state.

I have actually proof read a few of a contributors articles, before they were submitted. That enhanced the probability of them getting into the system error free. However, there were occasions where some space saving auditing was done, as previously intimated, by some goose with little understanding of the subject; nor an understanding of the precise requirements of a scientific & technical article.

By changing it without consultation, with the author: Certain parts became confused & meaningless, reflecting badly on the author. This should not happen, but does on a regular basis. As pointed out this also reflects badly on the publisher as people will consider that they are printing misinformation & cease buying it.

I really think the manufacturers & publishers who produce stuff that is on the wrong side of the line; Have to accept that the customer has a right to express their opinion of the product. But customers should be genuine & be able to qualify what they feel is the issue.

Customer service (unheard-of by several) is to endeavour to listen & resolve the issue rather than some who arrogantly try to defend the in-defensible. They need to realise, like ICI that customers, are not a disposable item. You cannot survive without them.

I had a read through the silicon chip website last night. Apparently if you download the vintage radio articles then you are entitled to download each month free of charge after that.

I have a subscription but have actually never tried, or had reason to download, nor copy articles. However I certainly would not download / copy any that I consider technically unworthy.

I spend a lot of my ffown time at work reading up about these sets so it would be great to have on my tablet.

Anyway....

All the industrial engineering history and firsts from the mid to late 20th century is being lost it seems.

For example, did you know Pye Australia designed and produced the world's first IR remote?