[ARC5] the age old battle of modify or sanctify...the Meaning of Words

[MillerKE6F at aol.com]

<KE6F>

It troubles me a bit that I should be tempted to  enter into a discussion 
with a fellow ham who resorts to such obtuse and mostly  faulty arguments in 
their logic.  And once again I shall try to convey my  thoughts and opinions 
without resorting to such rhetorical B.S.
 
    Much can be said about the history of anything  without a single bit of 
tangible evidence in the form of hardware or even  documentation.  To argue 
citing the loss of esoteric war materiel such as  9-13.5 RAV receivers due 
to hams of yesteryear converting them to something  useful is not really 
part of the central point of the discussion.  
 
    That you admit to  having no interest in  ham's use of modified 
equipment says much about your unwillingness to even  consider the fact that if not 
for hams,  little of any of this gear would  be around today and that is 
the essence of my argument.  And THAT history  is as important to me and many 
hams as the history of the developments at ARC  and other military 
contractors.  But To discuss the historical context  of WWII junk in the ham arena 
would be quite difficult without the  tangible gear to illustrate the process. 
 I'm afraid that an a- priori  discussion on command set transmitters among 
the ham population would not draw  much interest without relating it to 
personal experience or the anecdotal  recollections of fellow hams who whacked 
the stuff into something useful.
 
    The military history of this equipment is well  documented by hams and 
other fellows who found this area of communications  technology interesting. 
 It is a topic unto itself and is not the question  here. 
 
<KK5F>
That has been construed by some as  expressing favoritism on one side or
the other in the eternal debate.   But all this juxtaposition of these two
statements implies is that, if the  one statement could possibly be true, so
could the other no matter how  bizarre.  In fact, neither statement can 
possibly
be true, physically or  logically, unless time travel backward were 
possible.
 
<KE6F>
     What a bunch of BS.  Two histories are  involved here.  One is the 
military equipment history both development and  application in the prosecution 
of war.  The other is the post war history  of how Ham Radio operators took 
this war materiel and put it to civilian use and  in that quest did much to 
improve the technical competence of the group as well  as recycle the junk 
into something useful to the individual who saw the results  of his dream 
come true no matter how well or poorly executed.  A large segment of our 
current ham population can't figure out how to  wire a microphone.  If these same 
folks had the magnificent   experience we old Command Set hackers had, they 
damn sure would be able to wire  a microphone cable not to mention 
acquiring other useful skills.
 
<KK5F>
The first statement literally implies that ham radio use  AFTER the war
influenced the development and utilization of the equipment  BEFORE and 
DURING
the war (which, after all, is part of the equipment's  history now claimed 
to be
essentially "Ham Radio history"). 
 
<KE6F> I never said that and you are grasping on this one.  BUT,  Shame On 
Me if I failed to make it clear that the Ham Radio History of  this 
equipment was surely Post War.  I've reread some of my earlier  postings and once 
again you seem to miss the zeitgeist of the ham radio movement  after the war. 
 But I stand on my conviction that in the grand scheme of  things if not 
for ham radio's use of the stuff, none would exist today to  contemplate or 
even save for posterity.  The Government sure as hell didn't  want the stuff 
around after WWII and research suggests, as I've said earlier"  most of it 
went into the ocean or European tips. 
 
 
 That violates laws of physical causality
unless one believes that  the designers and users of the equipment were
influenced by a vision of how  to make the equipment servicable to post-war
hams.  That strikes me as  improbable.
<ho hum>

The implication also been made that it is ONLY  because an equipment 
survives that
it even has a history.  That is  false.  The atomic bombs used against 
Japan don't
exist today but they  have more history than ANY equipment used by hams.  
The 
existence of a  HISTORY for an equipment has no dependence on the continued 
 physical
existence of that equipment.

<KE6F>
Oh for crying out loud.  Why not make a point that had it not been for  the 
Atomic Bomb dropped on Japan that an APS-13 radio altimeter would not have  
been vaporized at the precise moment the nuke popped.  

How many RAV liaison receiver sets still exist?  More simply, how  many 
CBY-46107
9 to 13.5 MC RAV receivers exist?  I'd like to think that  at least one of 
these
still exists somewhere, but I've never heard of  any.  If there are none, 
that doesn't
detract from discussion and  consideration of its development and use...its 
history.
Very likely the last  CBY-46107 wound up as a code practice oscillator 
because it
didn't cover any  ham bands.  :-)
 
<KE6F>
As you suggest in your closing that you have no dog in this fight, but also 
 have no interest in the history of ham radio's contribution to the art of 
the  hobby in connection with military surplus, then I'll just sign off 
saying that  I, "Frankly, Mike, I don't give a damn if a CBR-46107 was converted 
to a code  practice oscillator.  At least it served some useful function 
after the  war.

<KK5F
So...I've taken no sides this time on this debate...but I do  question 
whether the
language being used is really meant to convey that which  it actually 
means. 
 
<KE6F>
Well I hope I've clarified my misplaced words to your satisfaction.
 
Bob, KE6F, licensed for over 50 years, Army Commo SGT for many years, used  
a lot of the reveered army radio junk from GRC-9 to Tactical Satcom.  Most  
of the military radio stuff from the Korean war  on was overbuilt, poor  
performing, too damn heavy (Well the GRC-9 was ok) but from that point on 
mostly  over built, overpriced, overweight, and not that effective or reliable.  
 But I still loved the junk and now own most of the pieces I either 
operated, or  wrenched on.  

Mike / KK5F
Been "playing radio" for 50 years,  licensed for 43 years.  Ham use of 
modified
military gear holds not a  bit of interest.  (I just couldn't resist after 
all.)
 

______________________________________________________________
ARC5  mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
Help:  http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post:  mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by:  http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list:  http://www.qsl.net/donate.html