[ARC5] Clarification -T22 Request for Conversion Info

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Well said, Dave -

I understand and agree with pretty much all the viewpoints expressed, but I'm
with Dave - radios were made to be used, paintings were made to be hung on
the wall and admired. 'Restoration' per say is more a frame of mind or
perception, not unlike what 'mint condition' really means. If you can use it
without the need for power drill improvements, great. If you can't(or don't
want to), best to leave it for someone else and not ruin it.

Gordon is right about the old race cars - I know a fellow here in Vermont who
actually races vintage cars. I myself love the older european cars and have
driven a few over the years. That's what they were built for, afterall. Same
goes for warbirds - a group of people would like to see them all grounded
since "they're not making them anymore", while many of us understand the
value of a "working" piece of history. I've been down the runway at over 200
mph in the nose of a B-17G, maybe 50 feet off the ground. I'm here to tell
you, it beats the hell out of any static display you'll see.

I think the more important issue here is looking beyond our personal interest
in and affection for these rigs. If someone sees a WWII radio in action,
either tapping out CW or receiving the crackling, fading signals of a distant
station, they can relate to it. If it's just a black or gray box sitting on a
shelf, they probably won't have a clue what it is("Hey - where does the CD
go??"). People tend to value something that works on a much higher level than
something that just sits there. A painting works because it was made to be
static. I might admire a clean ART-13 sitting on a shelf in a room, but not
everyone out there has my view of beauty. Just look at antenna and tower
restrictions sometime.

I'm not at all in favor of hacking up a radio to "improve" it by
modification. OTOH, as John points out, this gear was maintained when it was
in use, often by techs with fewer skills than some of us. What of the old
gear with lead-acid solder? Should it be left in place until it destroys the
unit, for the sake of originality? Nah.

My guess is that the majority of interest in old radios today is the ability
to obtain and use a piece of history. That's not to say that no one picks
them up 'just for looks', but I'd have to guess that far more like to use
them. This would explain why a plastic radio with $25 worth of parts might
bring $100, or why a newer cathedral or beehive-style electric set would
bring as much or more than an earlier, and more scarce battery set.

I do believe we have a responsibility to preserve history for the future. I'm
just don't think it needs to be a 'hands off' sterile approach. How about
'use, but don't abuse'?

Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ

David Stinson wrote:

> Obviously, I don't completely agree.  I respect Mike's viewpoint,
> and I certainly think such examples have value.  But is the
> U.S.S. Constitution in Boston harbor "junk?"  How about the
> battleship U.S.S. Texas?  Both have some minimal changes that
> allow them to be seen and appreciated.  There's a middle ground here.
>
> IMHO, the value in an historic artifact is only partly
> in the artifact itself.  The larger value is in the
> story and spirit of the men and women who built and used
> the equipment.  For a story to have value, it must be told.
> It can only be told if it holds interest.
>
> A "dead" radio on the shelf is only interesting to a
> few dedicated historians.  A "live" radio making contacts
> is interesting to a range of people, who can then
> be told a story of dedication and heroism.
> The question is- how can we communicate the story
> without destroying the equipment?  The answer, IMHO,
> is minimal, reversible changes that allow the gear
> to be used.  The challenge is learning to make
> those changes with the least impact.  For example-
> I recently returned a BC-474 to the air.  A few years ago,
> I might have removed the old leaky caps, discarded them
> and replaced them with modern ones.  Now, I disconnect one
> end of the caps, fix them in place with a dab of hot glue
> and "tack" a modern cap into the circuit.  The rig works
> and all the original parts are still there.  The only
> things that are "unrestorable" are a few solder joints-
> a small price to pay, I think.
> Another is the "low B+" approach, on which I've written before.
> My unmolested RATs play very well this way, and no changes
> have been made, save contact cleaning.
> I haven't tried this on a transmitter, but Boatanchor Bob
> ran one on +24 volts and did get some power out of it, IIRC.
>
> I can't imagine how I could communicate the history of
> an artifact if I cannot even examine it (remove the bottom cover)
> or experience its operation.  Museums are full of artifacts that
> will never be really understood or appreciated because they
> are too sacrosanct to be examined.  That's a pity.
>
> 73 Dave S.
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5