[Boatanchors] ARC 5 stuff - LIST

[jeremy-ca]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Forster" <jfor at quik.com>
To: "jeremy-ca" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
Cc: "Jim Brannigan" <jbrannig at optonline.net>; <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>; 
"Meir WF2U" <wf2u at starband.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] ARC 5 stuff - LIST


> jeremy-ca wrote:
>
>> What you are looking at in 2007 has absolutely no bearing on what was
>> available to the ham in 1947. These days it is all available as reprints,
>> CD's or downloads.
>
> You claimed classified. I disproved your point



You proved nothing in the original context of the thread.


>
> [snip]
>
>> > resonate a series LC.
>>
>> You make my point very well. In those days hams had to actually know
>> circuitry to get a General and a lot more for the Advanced. These days 
>> you
>> get the license at Wal Mart.
>
> Your point was the data was not available to use the units as designed. I
> pointed out that the required data is minimal.


Again you pointed out nothing of interest. One needed to trace out the 
circuit first in order to apply power.


>>
>> If the design spec is 500V and the tube is rated at 750V and a ham uses 
>> that
>> voltage along with other correct parameters then what is your problem?
>> Components in the amplifier stage of an ARC-5 TX can easily handle the
>> voltage and operating that way doesnt generate any more clicks than in 
>> stock
>> form. Hams have had to improve the circuitry of many old military rigs in
>> order to make their poor signals acceptable on the ham bands. Ive 
>> listened
>> to several unmodified ones that sound like a CBer designed them.
>>
>> 1941 high end ham equipment was designed in 1940-41. However 1941 
>> military
>> equipment was usually of a mid 30's or earlier design, no high level
>> engineering skills required to be the lowest bidder.
>
> Funny...  I don't remember many metal tubes in 1930's radios.


It is becoming very apparent that you know very little about anything. Metal 
tubes were very common from 1935 and on but not often found in low end 
consumer products.


>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Im even less impressed with the hams of today and since you dont use a 
>> call
>> sign I have to assume that your comments are more from some personal bias
>> than actual experience.
>
> I collect WW II radios and other things, because of their design elegance.


Simplistic design is more like it in most cases for WW2 items. Obsolete TRF 
and regenative receivers were still in wide use then. Low level grid 
modulation for AM transmitters to save weight. Easy to deploy, fix and scrap 
when done. Of no particular interest today except for a very small minority.

Design elegance was most prevalent in home radios up thru around 1950. I own 
several 1920's and 30's examples.

Collins took design elegance and sophistication to new levels with the 
R-390/390-A and related receivers. Their performance is still a benchmark 
for today.


 On
> air chatter totally bores me. I really don't give a damn about which band 
> is
> open or what new antenna someone has. If I want to talk to someone, I pick 
> up
> the 'phone or email them.


As I suspected, a couch potato "collector" with an anti ham bias.


>
>> OH? I can think of many military items that are probably way too much for
>> the SWL and many hams. There is a BIG difference between mission specific
>> items for combat aircraft vs capital ships of the Navy, shore 
>> installations,
>> NSA, and many other goverment organizations.
>
> I collect both airborn and ELINT gear.


There is a forum for military collectors, you would probably feel more at 
home over there.


>
>> With all the secrecy involved plus the complexity of todays military
>> electronics almost nothing is reaching the public. The best items Ive 
>> found
>> are high power VHF & UHF amps that can be put on ham frequencies with a 
>> bit
>> of work. It helps to have a VNA on my work bench.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>