Apology

[K5UJ]

I wish to offer an apology for my insinuation that the ARRL willfully ignores AM in its publications.  I'm doing this because it appears I am mistaken.  I had been unable to recall anything at all about AM in any ARRL publication in decades, but this morning I vaguely remembered an article in QST a few years ago about a restoration of a DX100 in which the author went to great pains to turn it back to like-new quality.   Thinking he was probably a 100% CW op and avoided the topic of AM entirely, I searched the QST index on-line.  Turns out the article was in Jan. 2004, written by Brian Wood W0DZ (of DZ Kits).   Its title is "The Incredible Saga of a DX-100 Restoration Run Amok : how W0DZ learned to stop SSBing and love AM phone" on page 28.   PDF is here:
http://p1k.arrl.org/cgi-bin/topdf.cgi?id=331&pub=qst

Not only was it about the DX100 but it extolled the joys of AM, beautiful audio as opposed to low fidelity ssb, and he even covered non-Heathkit mods to make it something of a "hi-fi" AM rig.    A sidebar box listed common AM HF frequencies on 75, 40, 20 and 10 meters.

If this is anything to go on, the idea that ARRL will publish articles about AM if they can get them, has merit.

73

Rob
K5UJ

[K7NCR]

Hey!
Another interesting tidbit,,,
One of the photos from that article is on the cover of the ARRL publication "Vintage Radio". I love my copy, and have about worn it out. Some of the contributers to that volume populate this here forum! 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Over the last bunch of years, the January QST has been designated the Annual Vintage Issue. This past January issue had a great article on resurrecting some Command Sets and building a 1927 regenerative receiver.

[W2PFY]

It says you need to be a member to get the pdf

[W2XR]

It says you need to be a member to get the pdf

Hi Bruce,

I hope that all is well at your end!

If it is not an imposition, could you forward the pdf of this document to me as well? I'd like to read it.

My e-mail is triodes@optonline.net

Thanks very much in advance!

73,

Bruce

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

There is also a vintage column every month. It's not all strictly AM related, but some of it is.

Most of the new equipment reviews have the equipment tested in the AM mode, if appropriate. In one review, the author mentioned that he often checked into the Sunday AWA Net on AM, that he owned and usually used a Viking II, and that the new equipment under review sounded good on AM.

[W1UJR]

There is also a vintage column every month. It's not all strictly AM related, but some of it is.

I think we should petition the ARRL to make to it ALWAYS AM, EVERY Month or they are being unfair!  

[k4kyv]

I think the League relaxed their anti-AM stance after Docket 20777 and AM power fiasco.  I recall an ARRL convention in Boston back in the 70's where a young lady whose name and callsign I forget, was the main speaker at the forum.  The topic of Docket 20777 came up, and her response was that the League's policy regarding AM was one of "benign neglect".  That is, they were opposed to outlawing AM, but instead, preferred to just "let it die a natural death".

When the AM power issue came up, and more comments were submitted to the FCC in support of AM than the total number they received regarding the no-code Technican proposal which was a current proceeding at the time,  someone was quoted as saying that the FCC people were "in shock".  The ARRL proposed to "grandfather" the old AM power limit when the p.e.p. bullshit went into effect.  At an ARRL forum at a hamfest in Huntsville, AL, Dave Sumner said they were opposed to the AM power reduction on the grounds that they did not support any loss of amateur privileges. I suspect Incentive Licensing taught them a lesson in that regard.

[John K5PRO]

Could someone forward the ARRL/QST DX100 resto article to me? I haven't seen it. There is an email feedback link in "Rescues of BC Transmitters by K5PRO" webpage on the left bar here. Tnx.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The link in the initial post for the article was for ARRL members only. A reprint of the article for non members can be obtained from the ARRL.  The QST article is not in public domain and can not be distributed unless prior permission is obtained from the ARRL. Let's use some common sense here please.

[W2PFY]

The QST article is not in public domain and can not be distributed unless prior permission is obtained from the ARRL.

Who do we need to ask for the right to use it?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

.... prior permission is obtained from the ARRL.