"Frank" ) writes:
Steve Reinhardt wrote in message
news
Frank wrote:
Steve Reinhardt wrote in message
...

I just repaired my TR-3, and put it on the air. I'd forgotten what a
nice rig it is. Now, I've started to think about how much better it
could be. What if one was to rip out the entire frequency control
section (VFO, xtal osc, mixer, etc) and replace it with a DDS
synthesizer. It turns out that the display would fit in the opening of
the tuning dial. There would be excellent frequency stability, no
backwards tuning on 20M, 2-3 less tubes to save heat and power. It just
wouldn't be a Drake anymore...

And don't get me started on a lightweight switching supply to replace
the AC-3. I might do that anyway, since I wouldn't be destroying any
hardware.


ARC-5 Command Set receiver modification instructions for conversion to a
single band SSB transceiver.

Step 1. Remove all components except the variable capacitor...


Been there, done that. Well, not SSB, but my first rig (1969) was an
ARC-5 conversion. I actually got to keep quite a bit of the guts and
still make a few QSOs. It was paired with a Hammarlund HQ-120X...

Steve
AB1EN

They were fun... About twenty years ago I started a collection of ARC-5
stuff with the intentions of writing an ariticle for, perhaps, QST. I
actually have a copy (in pristine condition) of a publication (first
edition, first printing, April 1961) by Western Radio Amateur Magazine for
conversion of a BC-453 to a complete 40 meter transceiver. It was a design
by Ed Marriner, W6BLZ and Ernie Mason, W6IQY. Too bad not many Command Sets
are left---few remain after all the conversions and parting out. I had a
trailer full of the equipments that I eventually donated to a War Bird
restoration outfit. Perhaps your TR-3 (my first real SSB rig) would be
better off restored to like-new condition---there were considerably less
TR-3's manufactured than Command Sets.

But once again, equipment is meant to be used, not kept in a museum.

People converted all that old surplus stuff because it was cheap, plentiful,
and often didn't do what they wanted. Same reason people added things to
their commercial rigs; the additions made them better to the owner.

It's only years later that people are grumbling, because they want
pristine equipment for the sake of collections. Of course, one irony is
that some of the impact of the equipment today wouldn't mean anything
if there hadn't been culling from routine use over the past decades.
If I could still go into a local surplus store and buy a Command Set
transmitter for $9.95, as I did about 1972, then there'd be plenty of
them and little interest. It's only because of the culling that they have
become valuable.

Look at comic books. 35 years ago, I bought them to read. I didn't buy
them to collect them, I didn't buy them for the art. And when I was finished
with them, I got rid of them. They are valuable now because they were
used back then, and so they are now relatively rare. And of course,
some of those who want them so badly are the people who made the mistake
of getting rid of them decades ago. I include myself, though I don't
desire them enough to pay money for them. But in recent years, comic
books have become more about "collecting". Buy them, try to figure out
titles that will be valuable, and keep them "mint" in plastic bags from
the start. If you want to read them, then buy two copies. That will
ensure there will be a big supply decades from now, but it also means
there will be no appeal to them.

People could have decided decades ago to buy equipment for the future,
ie buy them keep them in the box and never use them. That would be the
best situation for the future collector. But then the equipment would
have never been used for its intended use, and not only would there be
an ample suply now, but if nobody had used the stuff back then, the appeal
of reliving the past would be less.

Michael VE2BVW