[AMRadio] stock or mod


W5OMR/Geoff w5omr at satx.rr.com
Tue May 30 14:05:53 EDT 2006


VJB wrote:

>Funny it should come up on here about certain members of the Collins crowd and the horrible, sacriligious view they may take of making unintrusive mods that improve the enjoyment of a piece of equipment. 
>  
>

The one rig that -needs- the most modifications to better the enjoyment 
of this particular peice of equipment, is the 75A series of recievers.  
In particular, the 75A-4, and I'm not sure that enough can be done to 
that reciever to bring it to be nearly as good as a properly aligned 
phase-shift receiver.

>Most of those who would criticise changes in the audio of later serial number KW-1s fail to realize the changes actually may correct the transmitter back to an earlier set of factory values that sounded better than the value of components installed in later production examples.
>  
>


Another 'good' mod (at least one that's acceptable by the 'in' crowd, 
for a KW-1, would be to change out the 4-400's in the final, for 
4-250's.  The 810's would work better into those jugs, I think, as 
opposed to the 4-400's.

These, of course, are my personal opinions.


>It's also very true that a broadcast transmitter of any significant age is likely to have been 'changed' by the station's engineering staff to an extent ranging from functional modifications to repairs. These changes typically involve some interpetation with available components and how they're mounted. 
>
>We, as the Providers of Good Homes when these transmitters reach private hands then have to decide whether to "restore" an already modified transmitter back to original, or functionally bring it up to the application where it can best be used.
>  
>


I prefer the latter.  Just because it 'could' be a museum peice, doesn't 
mean it 'has' to.  It was designed to 'work', by golly, WORK IT!


>The useful life of a broadcast transmitter 
>


...or any other peice of equipment that's fixing to be 'tossed'...


>can be extended many many more years by making it useful on the ham bands.  Interpretation must take place among us, too. 
>

Are we, or are we not licensed Amatuer Radio Operators?  Aren't -we- the 
only group of people who are allowed to use Type Accepted equipment, *as 
well as* create our own, or modify any other peice of equipment to work 
on the frequencies allocated to us by the FCC?  Even the johnny-Novice 
is allowed to work on their own equipment.  You can't say that about the 
introductory level ham-license in either Canada or Australia (heard a 
guy from down there talking about it.  *I* wouldn't talk to him beacuse 
he signed his call as "VK3FELA"  Sounds bogus to me, but he explained 
that it, too, was an intrductory ticket.  Curious that QRZ doesn't list 
that call.

As hams, if we build it, and it meets "good engineering practice", we 
can operate it on the air.   

Who else can say that? 

the idea of 'buying' a show-peice of equipment, and then not using it 
because you don't want to damnage it is counter-productive to the 
activity of Ham Radio, in general, and not just the Boat-anchor crowd.

I'm agreeing with you, Paul :-)

--
73 = Best Regards,
-Geoff/W5OMR




More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 16 Dec 2017.