[Milsurplus] How I Use an LM - Final Comment

[Mike Morrow]

> John, you, Mike M, Meir and a few others have such a myopic view of the
> world it's surprising you're not considered legally blind.

Thank you.  But I haven't been part of this conversation since it transmogrified.  

With respect to vision problems, read my posting again.  My posting made several
days ago discussed ONLY the HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE of HAM USE of military gear,
versus that of the MILITARY'S USE.  Let me clarify that point: 

(1) If one is assembling a history of ham radio in the post-WWII era, then certainly
the ham use is most important.  Previous development and military use are irrelevant
except only to the extent that it could reveal characteristics that the ham may
encounter.

(2) If one is assembling a history of military radio in the WWII era, then certainly
the development and military use are most important.  Subsequent ham use is irrelevant
because that had not been part of the original equipment design basis.

Item (1) and (2) are two VERY different topics.  Many who are greatly interested in
one will be much less so in the other.  So, does one write one book or two?  If one
pretends these subjects are the same or related, then ham use is being equated with
military use by association.  I suggest that assumes a little too much heroism and
achievement for ham use.  Am I unreasonable?

I appreciate those who have assembled and operated vintage equipment in accurate
configuration, as it was employed in the military environment.  IMHO, that is the only
good reason for operating this gear *today*...any cheap used solid-state ham rig
made in the last 35 years outperforms by orders of magnitude.  I haven't operated my
WWII gear since the last time I fired up one of my AN/ARC-2 sets (33 years ago),
because I haven't had access to exact replacements save by cannibalization for parts
that frequently fail.  I do operate, for example, a 13-tube 55-year-old AN/PRC-6, and
I am working on a BC-611-F, because I can get exact replacements for anything *likely*
to fail.  That's what makes ALL the difference to me, but I do not expect others to
share that outlook.

I appreciate even more those including yourself and the several other well-recognized
names who have researched and published by book, magazine, web, or list posting their
technical and historical findings to the great benefit of myself in particular.  That
sort of information has always been much more costly in terms of expense, effort,
difficulty, and technical expertise than is often required of usuage of the equipment
itself. 

Owners of any equipment have the right to do whatever is desired, even if that involves
putting a SO-239 on a T-17/ARC-5, gutting a T1154/R1155 for a fake aircraft "restoration",
or installing a 5763 transmitter on the dynamotor skirt of a RAV/CBY-46107 so it can be
a 30m transceiver.  I have the right only to an opinion. :-)

Mike / KK5F