[ARC5] Can yoiu say...

Tue Jun 13 13:30:17 EDT 2017

>From Bob M."To set the frequency on a Command Set transmitter you needed a frequency meter (BC-221 or LM). You could not do it from the dial."
I don't understand what you mean here.  I have my dials aligned to be fairly accurate. Within 1khz by "eyeballing it".
>From what I hear, that would be considered accurate back in the day!
There are two methods  i use. 
1) freq counter ( Ok not too many around in the 50's)
2) I added a spot switch by interrupting the receiver rack relay line, so that I can zero beat the tx to the receiver frequency.

    On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:17 PM, K5MYJ <macklinbob at gmail.com> wrote:

 To set the frequency on a Command Set transmitter you needed a frequency meter (BC-221 or LM). You could not do it from the dial. In most cases the first mod was the filament voltage. A lot of receiver were rewired for 6V and the tubes changed. The transmitters were more difficult since the 1625s and 807s did not use the same socket. You have to read the book on modifying Command Sets to understand the reasons for modifying them. AND THEY WERE GREAT TVI GENERATORS! Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa.
"Real Radios Glow In The Dark"
   ----- Original Message -----  From: J Mcvey via ARC5  To: Kenneth G. Gordon ; Arc5 at mailman.qth.net  Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [ARC5] Can yoiu say... 
  The thing is, the command set transmitters worked fine in their original state. So the question is WHY did they go so crazy on the thing. 
 I suspect it was a lack of information and those "converting surplus" books. 
 Did people know that they were designed for low Z capacitive loads back in the day? 
 Maybe they got frustrated trying to load into their 300 or 600 ohm ladder line, so they started hacking it up without really knowing what they were doing. However this guy went above and beyond the point of absurdity. 

    On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:23 AM, Kenneth G. Gordon <kgordon2006 at frontier.com> wrote:

  On 13 Jun 2017 at 7:22, DSP3 wrote:

> have to agree with Robert, in part.  If one does a value of money 
> comparison, the $79 BC-348 in 1950 could cost over $500 dollars in 
> today's environment.  Exceptions, of course... the new 50-cent J-38 
> would be about $10 today.  I wish.....  So, things weren't as cheap as 
> they appear.

Absolutely correct. When we "correct for inflation", the cost of everything works out to be far 
above what a 13 year old kid could afford.

I know I sure couldn't.

Thinking back on it, it amazes me that we did so much with what we had.

Like my first "good" receiver was a Hallicrafters S-41G which a sub-contractor for my 
step-father's construction company found abandoned in the basement of the home he moved 
into.

I worked the world with that thing,(after fixing it) and a DX-35 I bought after working all one 
summer as a water-boy on one of my step-father's jobs.

I have an S-41G now and cannot understand how I did it. The thing is unstable, insensitive, 
uncalibrated (the entire 20 meter band covers something like 1/8" on the dial) and essentially 
a real piece of junk.

I would have been in ham heaven if I had had a BC-454 or BC-455.

Finally, my Mother took pity on me and managed to buy a very lightly modified (added power 
supply) BC-348 very cheaply from one of my Elmers to which he had added a BC-946B 
"Q-5er". Then I really WAS in ham heaven.

I eventually traded that back to my Elmer for a brand-new RAL-7 because I wanted to be able 
to work 15 meters. I came to love that receiver.

I have at least 50 "ARC-5" receivers now, all of which have been "hacked" mostly to ribbons. 
Yet every one of those I have "attacked" can be made to work at least as well as they 
originally did, although none are, in my opinion, restorable to original condition.

The only transmitters I have, with one exception, have also been hacked to ribbons and I 
cannot see how even one ever was used on the air.

The single exception is one of those ARC-5 transmitters which cover 2.1 - 3.0 MHz. I have no 
idea where I got it. That one hasn't been touched, and it won't be touched by me.

Ken W7EKB

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus 

______________________________________________________________
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

   ______________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20170613/78fd5677/attachment-0001.html>