[NJARC] Infoage: Museum or Science Center?

[Jim Whartenby]

Ruth and I visited InfoAge last month for the first time.  We were both very impressed with the exhibits.  It is evident that a lot of hard work was done by the usual, but all too few, dedicated NJARC members.

Well done!

Working exhibits are a joy.  Perhaps I am in the minority here but I feel that a working exhibit (read radio) is, in fact, a living thing.  Since I work at a thoroughbred race track, the analogy that first comes to mind is that of a life sized horse statue versus a live horse.  One is to be looked at, the other is to be ridden.  And no, I am not a jockey!

One can extend this idea to aircraft of a certain vintage; say WW2.  I much more appreciate a flyable example then a static display.  Perhaps it is the smell of the oil and gas or the realization that the airplane still performs the function for which it was developed.

Alex brings up some very good points on preservation, some of which I have a keen interest in.  A couple points he makes I agree with, others I do not.  The more I thought about his comments to Al, the more I realized that the question is really one of "museum" versus "science center".  Although a science center is a sub set of museums, it is really much more.  It is a "hands on" learning experience, not a "look-see" experience.

It is one thing to know the evolution of radio from spark to crystal to regeneration, super-regeneration, TRF and superhetrodyne and another to experience it by listening to each, one after the other.  This makes an impression on you, even if you are very familiar with radio history.

Reading the "charter" of InfoAge, it is obvious that the intent is to have a narrow focus on specialized technologies and present them in depth.  What better way to accomplish this then with working "hands on" exhibits?

This brings up the problem of getting the radios working.  We all know that the weak link component in vintage electronics is the paper capacitor.  Just about any made before the end of WW2 are now defective or are soon to be so.  If one could locate new old stock caps, they should not be trusted.  I have personally checked NOS capacitors (aka black beauties) and have found them to be as problematic as those that are found soldered into circuits.  Age is just as much a factor as temperature or voltage.

The exhibited technology is the radio, not the components.  It is the system that is highlighted not the parts that make it work.  As for going back to the item's "original condition", well, you most likely can't.  Paints and varnishes may not be made today as they were back 70 or 80 years ago.  Chassis then were routinely cadmium plated, lead solder will soon be unavailable and where in the world will you find an asbestos insulated line cord?

Then there are the simple modifications that I routinely do to preserve extend the operating life of a radio.  Another no no.

I have to chuckle with the comparisons of old radios with wooden battle ships and tattered old flags whose missing pieces are incidentally buried with American war dead.  Sure, a one of a kind item deserves special consideration.  A couple of the radios at InfoAge are rare but unless I am mistaken, none are one of a kind or national treasures.

So the issue is whether to display a non-working but pristine exhibit or a working but non-original example in a limited space with a limited budget.  I prefer the latter since it full fills the InfoAge charter and of course, it is alive.
Regards,
Jim




--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Alex Magoun <amagoun at davidsarnoff.org> wrote:
> Al,
>snip

> This follows the standard curatorial
> philosophy that items judged historic should be preserved
> in that state
> without any further changes.
> 
>  
> 
> This may raise the question of how to describe all those
> restored pieces of
> electronic equipment that have been recapped etc. since
> they acquired
> historic status.  In that case it is sound practice to
> document each phase
> of restoration, and if necessary go back to an item's
> original condition
> upon the point of accession.
> 
>  
> 
> You'll see the same practices, or lack thereof, with
> cars, houses, the
> U.S.S. Constitution (still registered in the U.S. Navy, and
> reportedly
> lacking any original timber, oakum tar, canvas, or hemp)
> and Stradivarius
> violins.  Dave Sica will remember that I argued strongly at
> the first Early
> TV Conference that the earliest RCA TV camera should not be
> restored because
> it, like the Fort McHenry stars and stripes and other items
> at the
> Smithsonian, are unique icons that are best left cleaned,
> preserved, and
> untouched.  All in favor of filling in all those holes in
> the star-spangled
> banner, raise your hands!  All those in favor of restoring
> an All-American 5
> without going to all that trouble, help yourself as long as
> somewhere
> there's an original or well-documented restored version
> somewhere else.
> 
>  
> 
> Alex 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NJARC mailing list
> NJARC at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/njarc