[ARC5] ARC-5/274N/A.R.C. question

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

On 14 Jan 2014 at 13:39, D. Platt wrote:

> All comments very good, indeed... and enlightening.  The thing is,
> perhaps we should always add to discussion the environment in which
> the various sets were /designed/ to be used. If one factors that in,
> as you point out, things become a bit more clear.  There is no
> question, whatever, that we amateurs look to this equipment to
> accomplish that which it was never originally intended.  As an
> unintended consequence, we (me, too) often criticize, second guess,
> and try and out-do the original designers.

I have suspected for many years that the biggest reason that many amateurs 
think they can out-design the original designers is simply because they do 
not take into account the REASONS for the choices the original designer had 
to take, and the conditions under which they had to work.

Before I make any changes to the design of any equipment, I think long and 
hard about WHY those OT did what they did, and only then what I hope to 
accomplish.

I have the greatest of respect for those folks. They were no dummies, that is 
for certain.

Of course, our modern conditions and purposes are different in some 
respects from those in their days. But, as far as I am concerned, the only real 
improvements we have made in receiver design are in the areas of 
frequency stability, AGC, and detectors.

>   No way that the GRC-9 was
> meant to work, coast-to-coast, even though it sometimes can. And, I'll
> tell you what.... this stuff still works as late as the hour is.  I
> doubt we'll see that phenomena for our contemporary technology.

IMHO, we will never, ever see such.

Ken W7EKB