[ARC5] On Hacking

[Geoff]

BRAVO Ken, well done.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
To: <Arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] On Hacking


> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5336 - Release Date: 10/16/12
>