[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 Hanz
> Most of the folks on this list, at least the old timers, have staked out 
> well-worn positions about modification or "original use", 

And yet, the subject continues to come up to get argued and generate even
more hard feelings.  

> Use in the ham shack is a bit different than it is in a WWII bomber, 

Mild to moderate understatement noted.  :-)

> and time has made some 
> unauthorized changes in what were once Dave's "Mona Lisas" that make it 
> necessary to accept some changes if we are to continue to operate them.

Well, da Vinci made a few changes to the original before it was completed.
Has anyone noticed the Mona Lisa has no eyebrows?  They were there
originally, as has been discovered in IR(?) examination of the painting, but
they got painted over.  Given this, the Mona Lisa ain't even the Mona Lisa.
:-)

> My "thing" has always been the systems integration viewpoint, so one of 
> my fascinations has been putting together a complete set that has *not 
> only* the piece parts of the series nomenclature, but also extensive 
> details 

If I had space, money and time, I'd do the same using real airframe
sections.  Of them, I have time which is pretty useless without the other
two.  

> The changes forced by Father Time are 
> progressive, forcing me (for example) to follow Dave Stinson's lead and 
> find dynamotors that are lower and lower in output voltage 

My path is slightly different since I'll be using DC-DC converters for day
to day operation of the receivers and original dynamotors for show and tell.
To be honest, I hadn't thought about mounting reduced output dynamotors on
original mounts but then I don't have any bare mounts on which I can mount
non-original dynamotors.  

> That in turn reduces the power output of the audio stage of the 
> set, but since there is an associated (and appropriate) interphone 
> amplifier that is switched into the set's output, it really doesn't 
> matter.  

I've got an AM-26/AIC hulk.  It will have to do since ... well, that's what
I have.  

> I may not be as intelligent as the original designers, but I 
> know a needed improvement for the operating environment when I see it, 
> and don't consider those sorts of excursions to be pointless.

Y'know, the original intelligence comment got me to thinking.  I wouldn't
doubt that at least a few of us are no less intelligent as the original
designers but we have a different goal set in mind.  We don't want radios
that fit the original requirements; we want radios that fit a whole new set
of requirements.  Your complete displays (which are ultimate kewl!) and my
ham/show and tell rigs and those who just want to put NOS/NIB units in
climate controlled bullet proof glass cases all are using them *outside the
original design parameters* ... i.e., in an impure state.  At the same time,
those who convert equipment for ham use are essentially reconfiguring it for
a new set of operating conditions *outside the original design parameters*.


Strictly speaking, then, no one here is using them as originally intended.
The B-29 mockup is probably the closest with yours a close (but far cooler)
second but NO one is operating them as originally intended.  With the
exception of the two mentioned, no one is even close.  Given that, everyone
here, including the most adamant about "purity", is operating converted
equipment even though that "conversion" consists of mounting it in a more
convenient form for use.  

> I am unrepentant in making small changes like these.  There are pieces 
> of this gear, like a BC-366 jack box, that will never become an 
> important piece of history with its own softly lit display case 

*quickly removing BC-1366 from IR-protected bullet proof case*

Seriously, between them, BC-347s, the assorted marker beacon receivers and a
few other bits I can think of, a bunch of equipment goes unloved.  

If it hadn't been for conversion articles in postwar ham magazines, how much
attention would be being paid to them today by the assembled masses?  It was
equipment-hungry but penny poor *hams* who continued their use, albeit in
different forms, and kept them alive for posterity.  Yes, the military used
some pieces into the 70s but that was incidental to the attention gained
within the ham community which now is leading a few - but not many - to
restore them to original condition and condemn anyone who "doesn't get with
the program."

> Oh...and no Mona Lisas were injured or inconvenienced in the making of 
> this e-mail. :-)

But it really irritated a whole bunch of photons.  :-D

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!