[Milsurplus] 19 set thread

[David Stinson]

Hue Miller wrote:
> I wonder if the bad reputation in the surplus literature, 
> at least in the USA,
> arises  from the ham users' limited technical ability, 
> limited ability to understand the switching and relay system, 
> and to operate the set without the control boxes?

This is demonstrably true.  Take a look at the majority of
the "technical" articles of the era.  You will find a lot
 of voodoo and witchcraft in the mix.  The old yarn
about surplus being "TVI machines" is utter nonsense.
I've done tests with professional level analyzers
and- when run as designed- the equipment is clean.
There are one or two exceptions, but the popular rigs
are not among them.

There is another reason which I can't prove- at least, not yet-
but on which I'd bet money: propaganda.
The new gear makers of the time believed they were threatened 
by the outflow of surplus.  Much of this was imagination
and excuse-making by manufacturers who had become complacent
and who's products where overpriced. 
They had the big advertising dollars to spend.
To believe they would not use this muscle to influence a 
few magazines and authors begs credulity.  
And we can prove that they did in fact influence at least
one magazine- witness the resistance of QST to print anything
relating to surplus.  They did it occasionally, but grudgingly.

73 Dave S.