[Milsurplus] Intercom amp (AM-26/AIC)

[Kludge]

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
> If an owner wants to convert a pristine RAV CBY-46107 to a 30m
> transceiver, have a ball.  It's the owner's right.

It's a sparkly new RAT CBY-46083 and for 20 & 17m.  I never could warm up to
30m.  It goes with a 46106 (RAV not ARA) to handle the IF.  And then there's
the NIB T-17/ARC-5 destined to become an all-band VFO.  Get it right, darn
it!

> When does it take more power to drive one speaker than ten headphones?
Never,
> in my experience.  I've never found the AF output of a BC-348, 433, 453,
etc.
> to be lacking, unless I was doing something wrong.

How's your hearing?  Mine's never been great (although the old TV 15.75 KCs
IF used to drive me bananas, not that this takes much doing) and has been in
decline since the service.  It's part of my 100%, by the way.  I also will
leave receivers running with the sweet sound of CW in the background while
doing other things elsewhere so I can ear copy at the same time.  

> I don't see any reason to operate vintage equipment in any configuration
> other than original today, when orders of magnitude better performance may
be
> had for very little using modern solid-state gear.  

You mean the rice boxes with too many gadgets ... er, "features" that I
can't come anywhere near affording even used?  If I want digital, I'll build
digital without many of the "absolutely must have" bells and whistles.  I'll
probably leave in RIT since it's a path to AFSK.  

Getting back, though, the ARA/ATA will be 100% stock once finished, allowing
for converted pieces that have been restored to original condition.  The
RU/GF will be the same.  I have a B-grade SCR-274-N that's not entirely
original (but can easily be restored to such although it'll still be
B-grade) and some receivers & transmitters that are "pervert or parts"
units.  When I'm using it for me (and probably the ARA/ATA), the Rx B+ will
be vastly reduced but when it's for show and tell everything will be as it
should be.  

With them are a BC-312 that's pure and a BC-348 that's almost pure since it
lacks a dynamotor and I refuse to pay more for that than I did for the Rx or
even a sizeable fraction.  Due to the new space restrictions, I decided
*not* to get a BC-191 or BC-223 to go with the BC-312 and T-47A to go with
the BC-348.  Since the BC-348 has been converted by the Navy already so it
has a UHF connector in place of the antenna post, I'm not sure what it went
with anyway.  Anyway, it will get a 24v to 200-something vdc power supply
until I can find a far less expensive dynamotor, however *neither* will get
[otherwise] converted in any way shape or form.

In place of the original transmitters, both of those receivers will be put
into postwar ham stations without the usual conversions but with homebrew
transmitters.  I even hope to find drawings which will allow me to fabricate
a mate to the BC-312's antenna connector.  This comes down on both sides of
the "original" wire; the receivers will be 100% original (allowing for the
substitute for the BC-348's dynamotor) while the installation won't be due
to circumstances.  

> Post-war hams (and a few today) seem to have been convinced that they were
much
> more intelligent than the original designers of the surplus equipment.  

A counter argument is that the application is different so the original
design has to be adjusted to compensate for that difference.  What I'm
thinking about at the moment is the DSB conversion of the command
transmitters.  This allowed a lot of folks to get on sideband who couldn't
have otherwise afforded to.  One of my "pervert or parts" units will get
just such a conversion which should be amusing.

> We are about a half-century beyond the time when use of surplus military
gear was
> a justifiable way to get a ham station on the air.  

Unless, as stated above, it's used in original configuration ... or has
already been converted beyond restoration.  Then it's anything goes.

> My philosophy, developed since
> I modified my first command set in 1964, is simply:  How the military
operator used
> the gear is of great interest, and how hams later used that gear for their
hobby
> is completely without technical or historical significance unless that
history is
> of ham radio and not the equipment.

I started a half decade earlier and would have hacked my unfair share of
units except a couple of WW II radiomen came down on me hard and showed me
how they were intended to be used plus how to load a longer antenna (my 50'
random wire) without altering the equipment itself.  A few got hacked before
they got to me but the rest got put into hacked racks *suggested by those
selfsame radiomen* that accepted one each Rx & Tx with the power supply
built into a separate stripped Tx chassis.  They also gave me hints how to
take advantage of my rubber crystals by hanging them out the side instead of
burying them inside like most Novice conversions and pointed me at some
400vct @ 200ma power transformers that could handle the Rx and Tx with some
cleverness, selenium rectifiers and selective squeezing.  Not at full
voltage with choke input filters but enough to do the job.  

I don't agree that how the equipment was used by hams isn't part of its
history.  It's not part of the original intent but it is how it was
repurposed after the military was done with it so is a continuation rather
than a branch.  I hope to find other places the equipment (specifically
Model D or Type K-inspired command equipment) continued in non-military
service.  These also would not be as originally intended yet are part of its
history.  Should they be ignored as well?  Can't have one without the other.


Best regards,
 
Michael, WH7HG BL01xh
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx 
http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/ 
http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com 
Hiki Nô!