[Hammarlund] Old Hammarlunds - modifications.

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

On 14 Apr 2011 at 12:53, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote:

> > ALL of these are rather extensive, and NONE of them seem to me to be
> > totally necessary.
 
> I think the time in which these articles appear indicate more about
> the mods than anything. Back then, not many hams had a choice of the
> plethora of gear we have today and instead had to make do with
> whatever would fit their budget.

Yes.

> Referring back to Henry Rogers' page on the Super Pros under
> 'Modification Mayhem', a number of these modifications seem to address
> problems that were related more to user issues than actual design
> deficiencies, or desires to somehow make a late 1930s radio into a
> newer set:

Again, yes, indeed.

> Geisler's mods are
> conservative,

...ummm....

> make sense, improve performance

not necessarily...

> and do no real harm to
> the receiver.

well, I would argue with Rogers' here statement too...

> Post-Geisler Modifications - The later modification articles
> modifications.

are a bit over the top in my estimation...

> I have only seen a couple of Super-Pros that attempted
> these modifications and they were wrecks.

Well, the one I have SEEMS to be well done. I have yet to find out how it 
works.

> But since there are already
> so many hacked up versions out there, we have plenty of opportunity to
> investigate that side, too.

Yes. I even have TWO examples of a very early mod, detailed in QST 
magazine, in which the author used three "ARC-5" receivers to build a triple-
conversion receiver for 80 and 40 meters. I am very curious about it, and will 
test it as soon as I can get to it.

> I sold one of these sets years ago that had every octal replaced with
> miniature tubes. It looked like an empty box. A fellow in MA has
> converted one to all solid state devices. It looks even worse!

Well, the BIG question for me is: "How well does it WORK?" In my 
experience, attempting to solid-state any tube-based equipment is an 
exercise in futility.

> Unfortunately, it's never easy to figure out someone else's ideas
> involved, especially when they never completed the mess!

Exactly! Especially, when simple documentation is the LAST thing they think 
of.

> it's just that some of them seem to make so little
> sense for the work involved.

Again, I think you are exactly correct.

Well....if I can get to this one in any reasonable length of time, I'll report on 
what I find.

Ken W7EKB