In a message dated 5/24/06 1:49:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little > rectangular boxes. One reason: The Collins KWM-2. > > We need a human sized panel for human sized knobs and buttons but that > doesn't mean we need a BIG rig! Indeed, it can be very small and friendly on > modern desks. Before the late 1950s, most ham rigs/receivers had relatively large front panels but were not very deep. Look at the Hallicrafters S-40/SX-99, the National HRO-5, the Hammarlund HQ-100/HQ-110, the Johnson Ranger and Viking 2, and many other rigs. They had human-sized controls and readouts, which demanded big (high and wide) front panels. But the sets were only as deep as they needed to be. More complex sets were deeper to hold all the parts needed in a more complex set. Often there was a lot of empty space inside the cabinet. Of course almost all ham gear built to that idea was way too big for mobile use, even in the big cars of that era. Mobile rigs were built to completely different criteria. Then Collins came out with the KWM-2. Though it seems big today, it was a tiny rig for its time, yet it was a complete 100W SSB rig. It had a minimum of controls, and a form factor that yielded a low front panel but a deep chassis. The idea was that it could be used in both the home shack and mobile, eliminating the need for separate home and mobile rigs.(1) The KWM-2 shared a lot of parts and engineering with the matched-pair S line receivers and transmitters. The KWM-2 was so successful, despite its enormous price tag, that other rigmakers soon followed suit. Controls and displays were made smaller and knobs made concentric. Whether the rig was simple or complex, the small panel/deep chassis idea became the most common, even for rigs that would obviously never be used mobile. It became electro-politically incorrect to build a ham rig any other way, even though the original reason for the form factor was gone (2). That influence continues to the present day. The ironic part of all this is that, in the shacks I've seen, the most-lacking dimension on the desk is depth. If you put a 15" deep rig on a 30" deep desk, there's not much room left. > > Look at a modern "flat panel" computer or TV display. Why not a desk-top rig > that is built like a thick version of one of those? Big and relatively thin? > Stand it on a "foot" like the displays. Heatsink on the back, if needed, > along with necessary connectors, and lots of space for controls on the > front. What you're describing is an updated version of the form factors of those old receivers mentioned above. Wide and tall but not deep. Of course with modern SS design, one of the problems with any other form factor is keeping the rig from falling over. An SX-99 has a steel chassis and cabinet, with power transformer and other parts that keep it from going anywhere. A modern rig without a lot of iron won't have that stability. But those problems can be licked. There's an old "How's DX" column in QST from the early 1960s that addresses this very issue. Madame Mu, the shack cat, does not like the new small transceiver because there's no room for her to comfortably lie atop it. The issue of 'why so small' is well discussed. 73 de Jim, N2EY 1) The earlier KWM-1 was similar, but lacked 80 and 40, and wasn't nearly so popular. 2) I am reminded of the 'cut the end off the brisket' story, which originated with AC7AC. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [email protected] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
