adding a diode and small capacitor to each stage would guarantee that the activated stage would stay set after the common reset signal had returned high.

That's a good idea.
It's also called a radio push-button circuit, and that modification should make it reliable (I didn't realize that was what the TS wanted).

Here's the LTspice simulation:
I added a resistor and a capacitor.
I selected the opposite latch output for the signal, since a high output for the selected PB is more commonly wanted.
Of course the circuit can be expanded indefinitely with added stages.

 

It seems that I got more luck than scioto because the circuit on the breadboard works without any problems except for the random behavior at startup. I use CD4011B for Ti and HCF4093 from St. In both cases the circuit works.

switch bail, a mechanical bar that releases any buttons not pressed (think old mechanical car radio station buttons).

It's also called a radio push-button circuit

Thank for the name in English. And can you post the LTspice file?

And again thanks for the Help.

 

After some more though on the problem I decided that the capacitors could be eliminated, with the input capacitance being used for that purpose.
To that end, I increased the value of the resistor to get a few microseconds delay with the small input capacitance, which should be sufficient to insure the latch stays in the desired state.
I also added a power-on reset transistor, M1, so that all outputs are zero at power up.
LTspice .asc file attached.
Edit: I reduced the value of R2 to help insure that the reset signal goes high before the set signal.

 

It seems that I got more luck than scioto because the circuit on the breadboard works without any problems except for the random behavior at startup.

Respectfully disagree. Are we talking about the circuit in post #25? If so, I doubled checked my wiring and stand behind my results in post #31.
SG

 

Respectfully disagree. Are we talking about the circuit in post #25? If so, I doubled checked my wiring and stand behind my results in post #31.

The only difference is in that I have two pull-up resistors for pin 6 and pin 13.

And I do not guarantee that the circuit in question will work with every single NAND gate IC in the world.

 

The only difference is in that I have two pull-up resistors for pin 6 and pin 13.

That would help the reset signal to go high faster than the set signal, improving the circuit operation.
But aren't those two resistors in parallel?

 

But aren't those two resistors in parallel?

Yes, they are in parallel.

 

The only difference is in that I have two pull-up resistors for pin 6 and pin 13.

That and you used 10K pull-ups. OK, I changed the pull-ups to 10K and added the additional 10K ( that was not on the schematic ) and now it works. Go figure.
SG
EDIT: Of course replacing the two 10Ks with a 4.7K works as well.

 

That and you used 10K pull-ups. OK, I changed the pull-ups to 10K and added the additional 10K ( that was not on the schematic ) and now it works. Go figure.

Guess what happened when I increase the pull-ups resistors to 100kΩ? The circuit stops working LOL.
What is more funny is that I used 10kΩ originally by accident because I got a bunch of them laying around on the bench. So, I've got lucky after all.

 

Guess what happened when I increase the pull-ups resistors to 100kΩ? The circuit stops working LOL.

OK, thanks for that. I did notice if you use 100Ks on pins 1 and 8 but a 10K on 6 it works.
SG

 

and now it works. Go figure.

As I previously noted, the circuit only works properly if the reset line goes high before the set signal, and lowering the value of the reset pullup resistor reduces that pullup time.

 

As I previously noted

Yeah I saw that. "Go figure" was a reference to Jony130.
SG

 

Yeah I saw that. "Go figure" was a reference to Jony130.
SG

Okay.
Sorry, didn't mean to get in the middle of your conversation.