[ARC5] On Hacking

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

On 17 Oct 2012 at 12:01, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote:

> >  On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM, J. Forster <jfor at quikus.com>
> >  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  All right, you proponents of 'ham improvements' to ARC-5 gear
> >>>>
> >>> I don't recall anyone ever making that argument.
> >>
> >> The claim has been made, repeatedly.

By whom? In what context? When? I have never, ever seen such a claim.

> And, IMO, is basically
> >> nonsense.

If you are stuck on the word "improvement", I guess what you say above 
would depend solely on what you, or anyone else means, by "improvement".

> > Geoff wrote:
> > But by nobody credible that I'm aware of.

Me either.

> Todd, KA1KAQ wrote:
> I've never seen it either, beyond reading the ham articles that claim
> 'improved performance' related to whatever the modification addressed
> in amateur useability as Wayne mentioned.

Yes.

> You could paint one in camouflage to use in your tree stand during
> hunting season and say that you improved its performance as a result.
> Technically you'd be right, for your given circumstance.

Again, yes. As I said, it depends completely on what the person in the given 
circumstance means by "improvement".
 
> The only improvement I ever took away from any of the mods/hacks was
> making it more user-friendly for amateur use.

Yet again, yes.

> Whether for AC
> operation, Q5er, VFO, or anything else, nothing improved these sets
> over their original design for their intended use.

Gee...same here....again.

> Neither does collecting them without a period-correct aircraft
> to install and operate them in - not that this stops people from
> collecting them.

Well said.

> As I said, having something on the air would be a big improvement over
> having nothing.

And THAT is the bottom line for most of us who used the stuff when we were 
kids...or older. 

The ORIGINAL purpose for which the equipment in question was designed 
and used never, ever concerned us: what concerned us was how we could 
make use of it to "improve" our own stations or operation. 

We viewed it as a source of the very highest quality parts, design, and 
construction we could never afford from any other source. Such high-quality 
would have never been available from any "normal" source, anyway. 

Only Uncle Sam could have ever afforded it, and especially in such huge 
quantities.

I don't know anyone who viewed their use and modification of that equipment 
as an "improvement" of the ORIGINAL design or purpose, period.

Ken W7EKB