[Milsurplus] Big/Heavy is Over

[Jim Whartenby]

Dave said "I've included an occasional "easter egg:" an obvious error included just to see if anyone is actually paying attention.  One of them is so in-your-face, I included it just to make the point."
I don't don't think it is helpful to purposely include errors in a technical article.  It just propagates errors that become accepted fact, especially if it comes form a respected member of this community.  
Boylestad, of circuit analysis fame, had several gross errors in the answers to problems in the back of his text.  When contacted by electronics instructors about the errors, he admitted that there were there, on purpose, just to gauge how many books were sold with the idea he would know how much of a royalty check to expect!
I myself have a soft spot for the ARC-21.  Everyone knows that it is a poor design that is highly unreliable.  Yet no-one can find any data to back up the assertion.  When data is found to back up claims, it is found to be either an error or an opinion that is accepted as fact.  Yes, there were problems when it was first rolled out but they were corrected early on.  I am not aware of any new electronics system that did not have initial problems.  Then there was the change over to SSB and the conversion of the ARC-21 to the ARC-65 but the early rumors of poor reliability followed on.
The only document I have found about the poor reliability of the ARC-21 is found in an official Air Force history on "Post-World War II Bombers 1945-1973" by Marcelle Size Knaack.  It is interesting that the ARC-21 is the only avionics equipment called out in this text.  It is easy to find on DTIC reliability data on various aircraft avionics with MTBF much worse then the ARC-21/ARC-65.  When one uses reliability data from the AGREE testing format, which removes the influences of the aircraft on reliability, the ARC-21/ARC-65 reliability is improved greatly.  The equipment used to compare to the ARC-21 fare often fare much, much worse in AGREE reliability testing.
I am well aware that I am deep in the weeds on this topic and that few (perhaps five members of this wonderful list) have any interest in this particular radio.  That is part of the issue.  Military radio is a pretty vast topic and most of the posts on this list seem to be centered on WW2 equipment which still covers a lot of radios.
So Dave, keep on publishing articles on your exploits and don't bother testing to see if it is of interest.  Sooner or later someone will use what you have written and thank you for your efforts.
BTW, I've met and talked with you at a Texas hamfest when you were displaying your Mil-Radios.  Your daughters were with you and quite young at the time.  There was a lot to see at the 'fest and you seemed to have your hands full at the time, so I moved on.Jim I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and ignore the 90% they agree on?

      From: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
 To: ARC-5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net 
 Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:44 AM
 Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Big/Heavy is Over
   
(Warm-up your "I'm Offended!"; you're about to need it.)

One of the reasons I stopped doing displays of mil-radio equipment at major hamfests is lack of any meaningful interest.  It's a lot of work getting a display together to go the whole 'fest with two or three questions, if you're lucky, and no one spending more then 30 seconds looking.  That, more than anything else, tells me "the bells are tolling."  I now work on my "goodies" for my own enjoyment and accept that "all good things..."  I also shelved a book which would have been titled: "The Voice of Eagles."  Creating a book is a massive effort and hardly worth it when maybe 10 people are going to read it.  

I feel confident that estimate is correct, because over the years, in several things I have written (and been told were useful; thank you kindly to those who said so), I've included an occasional "easter egg:" an obvious error included just to see if anyone is actually paying attention.  One of them is so in-your-face, I included it just to make the point.  Twenty years ago, a dozen people would have noted the error.  To this day, not ONE of these "easter eggs" has been commented upon; not even once.  That tells me all I need to know about the actual level of interest in the general community.  

Lots of people talk about what they're going to do "when they get around to it."  Few ever do anything significant at all.  And if those of us who claim a passion for these historic items won't take the time to heat a soldering iron, isn't it arrogant to assume we can convince a young person to do so?

Think I will still write about the work- writers are a bit egoist and compulsive about their vice ;-).  
But our community is deep in its twilight.  "Gather ye rose buds while ye may."

______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20180917/f9e59713/attachment-0001.html>