Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
I know this is old, but I don't think I replied to it. In a message dated 5/29/06 11:01:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On May 29, 2006, at 3:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/29/06 8:33:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >> Seems like the standard radios in my > >> youth all had 1/2" diameter knobs, and they were spaced at least 1 > >> 3/4" inches apart or more. So, the ones on the K2 are probably too > >> small, and too close together. > > > > I'd go even bigger, because I have big hands. Tuning knob should be > > in excess of 2". other knobs in excess of 1". Say 2-1/2" for the > > tuning and 1" for everything else. Yes, that's big! > > 2 1/2" tuning knobs are moderately small. 3" is more like it. > There should be lots of room around the knob, too. That means lots of panel space. > But 1" knobs are pretty big, actually. Perhaps 3/4" ? > > I find 1" to be small...;-) >> What other knobs would you have on a K2-like radio? > > > > Some form of dedicated bandswitch > > I disagree here. I don't rotary bandswitches are beneficial. (They > certainly are traditional) Pushbuttons work great, and if you don't > like the single band-up/band-down, we could always expand this to > have a dedicated button for each band. > The thing is the idea that you can just glance at the knob and know what band you are on. Note that the knob/pushbutton is just the interface; the actual switching would be done by relays. > > Some form of dedicated filter selector > > Same issue here -- I actually prefer the buttons to the rotary > switch. It would be REALLY nice to have a series of buttons for this > though -- that way we could directly access the filter setting we want. > Same issue. > > Some form of dedicated AGC selector > > Again, I'm not sold on the rotary switch. You just need more buttons. > > And again the same issue. Of course there may be button designs that tell you which option is selected. The problem, of course, is that all this stuff uses up panel space like mad and you wind up with a much larger rig. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On May 30, 2006, at 5:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Due to its relatively high value and relatively small size, radio and electronic surplus was very popular. The pile was so big it took decades to use up. And it was exactly this surplus that caused the Heath company to start producing electronic kits. (they had originally been a manufacturer of kit aircraft) They happened to buy a bunch of surplus electronic components, and they had to figure a way to get rid of them. The result was the O-1 scope, which sold in large quantities. Of course, Heathkits have left an indelible legacy on amateur radio even though they stopped producing kits in 1986. Elecraft has picked up and continued that legacy of quality electronic kits. (there, I brought it around to relevance for you) Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
In a message dated 5/29/06 10:02:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > The real reason is that the DoD has a side business of > supplying out-of-service military hardware - including > communications gear - to our less well endowed allies. > I agree with Phil's take on military surplus, and would add one more factor: the way WW2 ended. THe Manhattan Project was so secret that even VP Harry Truman did not know of its existence until FDR died. Even then, there was no guarantee of success. Allied military planning had long assumed that complete invasion and collapse of the Axis countries would be needed for victory. So enormous quantities of war materiel were produced. That turned out to be true in Europe, but with the sudden end of the war in September 1945, and the rapid demobilization that followed, there was a tremendous amount of equipment in the supply pipeline that suddenly became surplus. Due to its relatively high value and relatively small size, radio and electronic surplus was very popular. The pile was so big it took decades to use up. IMHO. A bit OT, but appropriate for (traditional) Memorial Day, I think. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On May 29, 2006, at 3:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/29/06 8:33:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems like the standard radios in my youth all had 1/2" diameter knobs, and they were spaced at least 1 3/4" inches apart or more. So, the ones on the K2 are probably too small, and too close together. I'd go even bigger, because I have big hands. Tuning knob should be in excess of 2". other knobs in excess of 1". Say 2-1/2" for the tuning and 1" for everything else. Yes, that's big! 2 1/2" tuning knobs are moderately small. 3" is more like it. But 1" knobs are pretty big, actually. Perhaps 3/4" ? What other knobs would you have on a K2-like radio? Some form of dedicated bandswitch I disagree here. I don't rotary bandswitches are beneficial. (They certainly are traditional) Pushbuttons work great, and if you don't like the single band-up/band-down, we could always expand this to have a dedicated button for each band. Some form of dedicated filter selector Same issue here -- I actually prefer the buttons to the rotary switch. It would be REALLY nice to have a series of buttons for this though -- that way we could directly access the filter setting we want. Some form of dedicated AGC selector Again, I'm not sold on the rotary switch. You just need more buttons. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:16:56 -0700, Robert Tellefsen wrote: >My take is that we are amateur radio OPERATORS, that is, we >operate radios, not necessarily computers. Personally I >enjoy hands-on control of my K2, although I admit to using >TR LOG for some functions while contesting. The line between >hands-on control and computer control is starting to gray here. >Keep the ideas coming. I'm enjoying reading them. I felt the same as above until I started using programs to control both my Uniden WS780XL Trunking Scanner and my Ten-Tec RS320D "black box" HF all-band computer-controlled receiver. I no longer have to squint at the dial and knob legends and use a magifing glass to read them. If the control program is a good one - as the ones for the above are - they wioll have a "front panel" graphic that fills the whole screen -- 19" (rack panel size) in my case. I can control from the keyboard or the trackball. I wish that I could find a similar full-screen-layout-graphic control program for the K2. Suggestion? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 5402 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:03:12 -0700, Alexandra Carter wrote: >Since a lot of ham gear was actually ex-military gear following WWII, Memories of my T-23/ARC-5 first Novice transmitter.. >and since the US's warlike nature has supplied hams >with a constant supply of military surplus stuff since, (this has >only recently dried up, due to the classified/controlled nature of >the modern mil gear) Not quite...how much post-Korean War (1950) "militaty surplus" have you seen around? The reason is not "classified/controlled nature of the modern mil gear" -- Rockwell or Zeta or any of the suppliers will be very happy to sell you the same stuff if you put their obscene price on the table - cash, check, or money order. Heck, Motorola has been selling the STU-3 secure phone to private businesses for almost 20 years!! The real reason is that the DoD has a side business of supplying out-of-service military hardware - including communications gear - to our less well endowed allies. Sometimes such gear is better than the hand-me-downs that our own National Guard gets from them! I for one am happy with the K2 and the small form-factor "rice boxes" and peripherals that make up my comm station. I gave away my last full-height relay rack 40+ years ago. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
In a message dated 5/29/06 5:05:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I think the influence may have been military. Pre-WWII radios are the > long shallow model, some early 1930s mil rigs were, but as WWII got > more serious, the rigs seemed to settle on the small panel-deep > chassis form factor. It makes sense when you're cramming a lot of > > gear into an airplane, making a radio to fit in a backpack or Jeep, > in a tank, etc. Since a lot of ham gear was actually ex-military gear > following WWII, and since the US's warlike nature has supplied hams > with a constant supply of military surplus stuff since, (this has > only recently dried up, due to the classified/controlled nature of > the modern mil gear) we seem to have radios these days that are about > the same shape as military ones. > I disagree! For one thing, the small-panel deep-chassis form factor was common in military radios long before WW2 *if* the radio was remote controlled or was not meant to be routinely operated manually. Look at the ARC-5 series and similar sets. But WW2 radios that were meant to sit in front of an operator had wide, high front panels and were relatively shallow. BC-348, BC-342, BC-191/375, ART-13, SCR-306 and many others. Even sets like the APX-6 transponder were wide and high but relatively shallow. Except for the ARC-5 series, most of the military sets that wound up in amateur hands had that form factor. > Frankly, if you're putting a radio in your car or RV or boat, taking > one along in a backpack, etc. the military type of shape makes sense. To a certain extent. The KX-1 form makes the most sense for backpacking and similar use. > I notice these days there are radios with the old prewar form factor, > such as the FT-1000 series and the new $5000-$10 rigs the makers > have just come out with. Those are not meant to go into anyone's car > or boat... or tank. And they are relatively wide and shallow. Perhaps the KWM-2 influence is finally wearing off. They're catching up to what Southgate Radio was doing 32 years ago.;-} The > > megabuck rigs even allow for a computer screen to be added, making > the total thing even wider and shallower overall. But how shallow are they? 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
I'm getting a chuckle out of this thread. There have been some really good ideas surfaced that deserve serious consideration. My take is that we are amateur radio OPERATORS, that is, we operate radios, not necessarily computers. Personally I enjoy hands-on control of my K2, although I admit to using TR LOG for some functions while contesting. The line between hands-on control and computer control is starting to gray here. Keep the ideas coming. I'm enjoying reading them. 73, Bob N6WG The Little Station with Attitude -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:47 PM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts,Building Demo, ... Bill wrote: So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a desktop rig? -- And that brings us full-circle to where I started this thread long ago (I notice that all one has to do to make a thread live forever is to misspell a word in the subject). "Form follows function". I was talking about a radio with real controls sized for a human being with normal hands. A secondary issue for me is that it doesn't have a lot of multi-purpose controls (buttons that have to be pressed quickly or slowly, knobs that do two or three different things depending upon something else, etc.) So in a rig with what most operators consider the basic necessities, that's a number of controls. Probably at least as many as the K2 now has, and maybe half again more. So we start with a panel big enough for knobs sized for comfortable operation spaced adequately. We end up with something perhaps 10 X 18 inches. Now we build the radio behind it. A transceiver like the K2/100 probably wouldn't require more than an inch or two deep covering an area that large. Put everything on one huge PC board so all the parts are easily accessible for service and general "poking around". Now to put in in a good position for human operation. Hold it up at about a 50 to 80 degree angle to the desk. Use a "foot" at the bottom not unlike flat panel displays. Put the power/antenna/key/mic/computer/etc connectors in the foot so the cables run directly off the desk. Others brought up the idea of an SDR. That's a new game. Now it's just like the power supply, a box under the table. That wasn't what I had in mind though since I have no interest in computer control. Indeed, I'd rather avoid the whole complexity of too much digital to analog conversion and vice versa. I'd rather have knobs that moved wipers on pots and capacitors as needed for most things, Hi! Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
I think the influence may have been military. Pre-WWII radios are the long shallow model, some early 1930s mil rigs were, but as WWII got more serious, the rigs seemed to settle on the small panel-deep chassis form factor. It makes sense when you're cramming a lot of gear into an airplane, making a radio to fit in a backpack or Jeep, in a tank, etc. Since a lot of ham gear was actually ex-military gear following WWII, and since the US's warlike nature has supplied hams with a constant supply of military surplus stuff since, (this has only recently dried up, due to the classified/controlled nature of the modern mil gear) we seem to have radios these days that are about the same shape as military ones. Frankly, if you're putting a radio in your car or RV or boat, taking one along in a backpack, etc. the military type of shape makes sense. I notice these days there are radios with the old prewar form factor, such as the FT-1000 series and the new $5000-$10 rigs the makers have just come out with. Those are not meant to go into anyone's car or boat... or tank. And they are relatively wide and shallow. The megabuck rigs even allow for a computer screen to be added, making the total thing even wider and shallower overall. Just some thoughts, 73 de Alex NS6Y. On May 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
what amuses me about this thread is no one noticed the misspelling in subject! (heh heh) Ron, wb1hga Oh, I only wish for K2, not much, just a K2 (smile) ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
I think I'll build a fake shell 6 times bigger than the K2 with big huge knobs and dials on this shell of a radio connected in such a way it's hidden from view but fully controls the K2 hidden within. And to hell with 2 1/4 inch VFO knob. I am going with a mans knob fashioned out of solid lead and about 5 3/4 inches OD with miniature lights all around it that light up in sequence as I turn the VFO matching the stations I hear with the light show it produces. Now back to sanity on the list: k3ey with a SMALL real samll K2/100 loving it just as it is least I would have never put almost two grand into it. Phil Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:31:14 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I'd go even bigger, because I have big hands. Tuning knob should >be in excess of 2". other knobs in excess of 1". Say 2-1/2" for >the tuning and 1" for everything else. Yes, that's big! That's about the size that I would wish. For those familiar with the National HRO-500, it was all solid-state but the size of the "conventional" tabletop/rackmount receivers of its time. Somewhere in my junk...err, parts collection, I have a spare tuning knob for the ICOM R-7000 reveiver - properly weighted and 2-1/4" diameter. If I can find it and if it fits, I'll put it on the K2. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 5402 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:31:14 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I'd go even bigger, because I have big hands. Tuning knob should >be in excess of 2". other knobs in excess of 1". Say 2-1/2" for >the tuning and 1" for everything else. Yes, that's big! That's about the size that I would wish. For those familiar with the National HRO-500, it was all solid-state but the size of the "conventional" tabletop/rackmount receivers of its time. Somewhere in my junk...err, parts collection, I have a spare tuning knob for the ICOM R-7000 reveiver - properly weighted and 2-1/4" diameter. If I can find it and if it fits, I'll put it on the K2. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 5402 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
In a message dated 5/28/06 10:03:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On May 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. > > Very intriguing idea. It's just IMHO. I think methods of construction may have had > > some influence as well. If you consider miniature receiving tubes and > a chassis about 1 1/2" to 2" tall, you end up with a rig about 6-8" > high. Going taller doesn't help unless you rotate the tubes to the > front panel (in which case they would be horizontal, which may not be > good). > I don't know any of the common receiving/small xmtg tubes used in the ham rigs of those days that couldn't be operated in any position. In some rigs, like the Gonset G-76, some tubes were mounted horizontally to keep the panel height down. In the Heath SB/HW transceivers, the 6146s are submounted to keep the panel height down. > This is pretty much true of any AM table-top radio from the 40s or 50s. > > If we made these old radios 10 or 12" tall, how do we effectively use > all the space in the box more than 5" above the chassis? > > Why does it have to be used at all? In a rig designed for home use, is space that precious? > > Seems to me the reason that radios got smaller is because components > got smaller. > Partly. But the point I was making is that they specifically went to low front panels and very deep cabinets, due to the mobile form factor. Another factor is that as rigs got lighter, the different form factor kept them from tipping over or scooting away. > Today, we're not so restricted by components, they are small and can > be placed in any orientation. In fact, there's no reason the rig has > to be rectangular. > > I think you are on to something with the form factor, though. The > aspect ratios of the K2 are about the same as a Collins or old > Heathkit SB series rigs. Something like the old Drake series is much > narrower and deeper. > That's the point. Note that in those rigs it was common to control things like the final amplifier through long shafts, belts, etc, so that the PA could be way in the back and not take up panel space. > There's also some variations on this theme. Think of portable > receivers -- how many radios follow the same form factor of of the > Zenith Trans-Oceanic? None I know of, when it comes to ham rigs. We're still following the KWM-2 paradigm, not the Cosmophone 35 paradigm. > > So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a > desktop rig? > The receiver I referred to had a front panel 8-3/4 x 19. My current homebrew rig (see homepage) has a front panel 7 x 19. For me, anything less than 7 inches high is too short and less than 14 inches wide is too narrow. IMHO. --- The flat-panel display idea discussed elsewhere has one problem: Fudd's First Law of Opposition (1). Displays are meant to be looked at but they don't have controls on them. 73 de Jim, N2EY (1) "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over" ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
In a message dated 5/29/06 8:33:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Seems like the standard radios in my > youth all had 1/2" diameter knobs, and they were spaced at least 1 > 3/4" inches apart or more. So, the ones on the K2 are probably too > small, and too close together. I'd go even bigger, because I have big hands. Tuning knob should be in excess of 2". other knobs in excess of 1". Say 2-1/2" for the tuning and 1" for everything else. Yes, that's big! > > How many knobs do we need? If we use the K2 as an example we have: > main tuning, RIT/XIT offset, AF Gain, Keyer speed, RF Gain, Power. I > would argue that I don't need power in a knob. It could easily be, > for me, a menu setting. (Or maybe something where I hold down one > button down and rotate the big knob to set) I don't change my power > level that often. It's usually set to 100 watts or 25-60 watts (if > I'm running RTTY or powering the amp). Good ideas. Or there could be a switch or button with, say, 4 programmable power levels that you'd cycle through. On the K2 I run 5 W for contests and full blast for most other stuff. > > What other knobs would you have on a K2-like radio? (I would have the > RIT/XIT offset by an encoder, instead of a pot, but I can't think of > anything else I need as a knob) > Some form of dedicated bandswitch Some form of dedicated filter selector Some form of dedicated AGC selector > What are the parameters for the buttons? Seems like the K2 buttons > are plenty big enough to me, and they are spaced appropriately, > although it might be easier if they were a few mm further apart. They seem small to me, but that's because I have I > > certainly agree that the dual-function nature of the K2 buttons is > pretty hard to get used to at first. I found it easy to get used to. It's not as convenient as dedicated controls but it's the best way I've seen of getting the most from the limited number of buttons. One problem I continue to have > > is trying to press a secondary function repeatedly in order to step > through the options. For example, if I press AFIL several times to > select the DSP filter I want, sometimes I change XFIL. I think the > rule should be no secondary functions that have a sequence -- that > eliminates the repeated key-presses. > > Probably the biggest killer for a K2-like radio is display size. The > K2 doesn't have quite enough indicators for my tastes. It's missing > indicators for AGC state, filter state, dsp state (filter, notch, > NR). And some of the indicators it has are too subtle - split state, > NB threshold. It also might be nice to show the second VFO frequency, > the RANT selection, the selected power level (especially if we > eliminated the knob above). > The K2 display is a stock item, not custom. The display was designed around the available indicators. Perhaps a 'K2BIG' could use two of them - one for each VFO? > Even if we do all that, it seems that a K2-like radio would have a > front panel 3-4x the current size. I don't think that's as big as > 18x10 inches. > The existing K2 front panel and ergonomics are a masterpiece for putting the most in the given space, IMHO. Going bigger would require a lot of thought and development. If we're gping to go bigger, might as well go all the way. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
In a message dated 5/29/06 9:39:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > That looks about right Jim. Thanks! I especially like the implementation with the > > tuning capacitor from the Command receiver. Actually if's from a Command transmitter. If you found the other pictures, look carefully at the dial drum. It had another use before it was installed in that receiver. I have built several similar > > ones in my time, some are still in the garage attic, but most have been > stripped for parts for another project. > That particular receiver cost me less than $10 to build, most of which went for the FT-241A xtals and sockets, and the 44 mHy toroids in the audio filter. Nothing else was bought new. The chassis and brackets are all homebrew. The terminal strip and the board with the resistors are to permit the use of odd-heater-voltage tubes like 5U8s and 3BZ6s found in old TVs. It has since been dismantled for the parts. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
In a message dated 5/29/06 8:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On May 29, 2006, at 7:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Something like this, maybe? Only with a bigger dial window. > > > > http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg > > Well, that's interesting -- a real mystery radio. No mystery to me...;-) Of course that rx was built about 32 years ago. It has a bunch of > > knobs, but no legend. I guess you have to twist each and see what > happens > By the time I was done building it, I knew what all the knobs did so there was no point in labeling them. Some models of pre-WW2 RME receivers had no labels on the controls. The idea was that you were supposed to read the manual until you didn't need them. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
That looks about right Jim. I especially like the implementation with the tuning capacitor from the Command receiver. I have built several similar ones in my time, some are still in the garage attic, but most have been stripped for parts for another project. 73, Don W3FPR -Original Message- > Bill wrote: > > So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a > desktop rig? > Something like this, maybe? Only with a bigger dial window. http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg 73 de Jim "Big Hands" N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On May 29, 2006, at 7:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Something like this, maybe? Only with a bigger dial window. http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg Well, that's interesting -- a real mystery radio. It has a bunch of knobs, but no legend. I guess you have to twist each and see what happens Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On May 28, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: We end up with something perhaps 10 X 18 inches. Now we build the radio behind it. A transceiver like the K2/100 probably wouldn't require more than an inch or two deep covering an area that large. Put everything on one huge PC board so all the parts are easily accessible for service and general "poking around". Now to put in in a good position for human operation. Hold it up at about a 50 to 80 degree angle to the desk. Use a "foot" at the bottom not unlike flat panel displays. Put the power/antenna/key/mic/computer/etc connectors in the foot so the cables run directly off the desk. This sounds a lot like the most recent iMac design, which basically looks like a 5 cm thick flat panel display. (look ma, where's the computer?) 10 x 18 inches seems huge. Let's see if we can define a few parameters. How small can knobs get and still be comfortably manipulated by normal hands? Seems like the standard radios in my youth all had 1/2" diameter knobs, and they were spaced at least 1 3/4" inches apart or more. So, the ones on the K2 are probably too small, and too close together. How many knobs do we need? If we use the K2 as an example we have: main tuning, RIT/XIT offset, AF Gain, Keyer speed, RF Gain, Power. I would argue that I don't need power in a knob. It could easily be, for me, a menu setting. (Or maybe something where I hold down one button down and rotate the big knob to set) I don't change my power level that often. It's usually set to 100 watts or 25-60 watts (if I'm running RTTY or powering the amp). What other knobs would you have on a K2-like radio? (I would have the RIT/XIT offset by an encoder, instead of a pot, but I can't think of anything else I need as a knob) What are the parameters for the buttons? Seems like the K2 buttons are plenty big enough to me, and they are spaced appropriately, although it might be easier if they were a few mm further apart. I certainly agree that the dual-function nature of the K2 buttons is pretty hard to get used to at first. One problem I continue to have is trying to press a secondary function repeatedly in order to step through the options. For example, if I press AFIL several times to select the DSP filter I want, sometimes I change XFIL. I think the rule should be no secondary functions that have a sequence -- that eliminates the repeated key-presses. Probably the biggest killer for a K2-like radio is display size. The K2 doesn't have quite enough indicators for my tastes. It's missing indicators for AGC state, filter state, dsp state (filter, notch, NR). And some of the indicators it has are too subtle - split state, NB threshold. It also might be nice to show the second VFO frequency, the RANT selection, the selected power level (especially if we eliminated the knob above). Even if we do all that, it seems that a K2-like radio would have a front panel 3-4x the current size. I don't think that's as big as 18x10 inches. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
> Bill wrote: > > So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a > desktop rig? > Something like this, maybe? Only with a bigger dial window. http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg 73 de Jim "Big Hands" N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
Bill said: If we made these old radios 10 or 12" tall, how do we effectively use all the space in the box more than 5" above the chassis? - --- It makes a nice warm place to raise the bread dough (: Rick DettingerK7MW ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
Bill wrote: So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a desktop rig? -- And that brings us full-circle to where I started this thread long ago (I notice that all one has to do to make a thread live forever is to misspell a word in the subject). "Form follows function". I was talking about a radio with real controls sized for a human being with normal hands. A secondary issue for me is that it doesn't have a lot of multi-purpose controls (buttons that have to be pressed quickly or slowly, knobs that do two or three different things depending upon something else, etc.) So in a rig with what most operators consider the basic necessities, that's a number of controls. Probably at least as many as the K2 now has, and maybe half again more. So we start with a panel big enough for knobs sized for comfortable operation spaced adequately. We end up with something perhaps 10 X 18 inches. Now we build the radio behind it. A transceiver like the K2/100 probably wouldn't require more than an inch or two deep covering an area that large. Put everything on one huge PC board so all the parts are easily accessible for service and general "poking around". Now to put in in a good position for human operation. Hold it up at about a 50 to 80 degree angle to the desk. Use a "foot" at the bottom not unlike flat panel displays. Put the power/antenna/key/mic/computer/etc connectors in the foot so the cables run directly off the desk. Others brought up the idea of an SDR. That's a new game. Now it's just like the power supply, a box under the table. That wasn't what I had in mind though since I have no interest in computer control. Indeed, I'd rather avoid the whole complexity of too much digital to analog conversion and vice versa. I'd rather have knobs that moved wipers on pots and capacitors as needed for most things, Hi! Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
On May 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Very intriguing idea. I think methods of construction may have had some influence as well. If you consider miniature receiving tubes and a chassis about 1 1/2" to 2" tall, you end up with a rig about 6-8" high. Going taller doesn't help unless you rotate the tubes to the front panel (in which case they would be horizontal, which may not be good). This is pretty much true of any AM table-top radio from the 40s or 50s. If we made these old radios 10 or 12" tall, how do we effectively use all the space in the box more than 5" above the chassis? Seems to me the reason that radios got smaller is because components got smaller. Today, we're not so restricted by components, they are small and can be placed in any orientation. In fact, there's no reason the rig has to be rectangular. I think you are on to something with the form factor, though. The aspect ratios of the K2 are about the same as a Collins or old Heathkit SB series rigs. Something like the old Drake series is much narrower and deeper. There's also some variations on this theme. Think of portable receivers -- how many radios follow the same form factor of of the Zenith Trans-Oceanic? So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a desktop rig? Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
Ron, care to retell that "Cut the end off"story for those of us who might have missed it the first time? K3UJ === 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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
It has always been interesting to me that the really 'top performance' receivers are not only homebrew, but include very few 'bells and whistles' and enjoy a simplistic set of front panel controls. Of course, each builder has a choice of his favorite controls to bring out to the front panel. There are several buttons on my K2 that are rarely (if ever) used - for instance, I never use RIT and XIT since split operation is available. Each of us does have our own operating preferences and will use that 'set of buttons' particular to our own style - some will be happy with the set available, others may want their faorite functions available, 'you can't please everyone all the time'. Such compromise decisions is what good design is all about - I for one am quite pleased with Wayne's design decisions for the K2, although it would have been nice to have the Gain Controls available for change via program control so I could create my favorite set of buttons and controls on a computer screen. 73, Don W3FPR -Original Message- ... and whose front panel resembled the flight deck of the Space Shuttle. Its price is astronomical. After playing and looking at the circuit diagrams I believe that many of its front panel controls are 'window dressing'. Perhaps in some cases the development budget had been spent and the circuits could not be refined, so it was easier to have the user do the tweaking. ... -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/348 - Release Date: 5/25/2006 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
It seems to me that these days many of the manufacturers of receivers / transceivers for ham use are attempting to sell the idea that performance is related to the number of front panel controls i.e. bells and whistles. A while back I was allowed to play with the latest mind boggling offering from 'X' whose specs claimed a +40dbm IIP3 (at quite an offset mind you), and whose front panel resembled the flight deck of the Space Shuttle. Its price is astronomical. After playing and looking at the circuit diagrams I believe that many of its front panel controls are 'window dressing'. Perhaps in some cases the development budget had been spent and the circuits could not be refined, so it was easier to have the user do the tweaking. A slight digression, a colleague of mine believed that front end attenuators were 'an admission of defeat', possibly a little harsh if the design is constrained by a power budget. This receiver's front end and IF circuits gave me the impression that the designers had run out of new ideas, or were prevented by patents to use modern 'strong' receiver circuitry. So I suppose it was up to marketing / sales, once again, to give the old new names - and suggest a few more knobs. It would be interesting to see the results of a survey asking people which front panel controls / displays they would truly like to have in a receiver / transceiver, and whether the prime use was for ragchewing, DXing or contesting. 73, Geoff GM4ESD ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...
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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.)
On 5/24/06, Ron D'Eau Claire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little rectangular boxes. I agree. I hope my next QRP rig is the size of Apple's iPod nano *. :-) http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/ * 3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27 inches and 1.5 ounces or 89 x 41 x 7 mm and 42.5 grams ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.)
Ron, Interesting take on the flat pannel rigs. I've long wanted to mount my Kenwood TS-850S/AT to that the controls are flush with the desktop, but that put too much below the desk for knees, little hands, and pets to clobber. As an alternative, mounting the controls so they are at a 45 degree angle of greater for easy visibility. Again too much sticking below the desk and it would have to be too close to the front edge to accommodate for the depth of the rig. My IC-706MKIIG is about as close to this as I can get, but you are right, small controls, especially for aging eyes. The K2 front pannel is easily remoted and I've seen a few K2s mobile with the front remoted. Very slick. Now if I can only get my K2 transmitting again, I would be in business. Mark Saunders, KJ7BS Glendale, AZ Ron D'Eau Claire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: = What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little rectangular boxes. 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. 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. The large panel area would allow the layout of the circuits to follow a logical path, with controls closely associated with the circuits they're associated with. If there's a really heavy part, like a big heat sink for the finals, put it down at the bottom at the "foot". You want the antenna connectors down there anyway. And no multiple layers of tightly packed PC boards to wade through when troubleshooting either! That's nothing new. It's how radios were built in the 1920's, 30's and at least through the 50's. Remember seeing pictures of those huge, long 1920-vintage broadcast-band receivers with a whole row of knobs across the front? Those were tuned-radio-frequency sets with a whole row of tubes amplifying the signal before it was detected (turned into audio). Each knob adjusted the tuning of the amplifier behind it. Parts were big, so the cabinet had to be pretty deep, but the first step in the design was to lay out the controls so they were close to the associated circuits. As superhets took over, fewer controls were needed to tune R.F. amplifiers and more controls were needed for the I.F. and audio stages, but the same basic layout remained, progressing from the antenna to the audio output. The form factor was constrained by the front panel and the unit was only as deep as needed by the bulk of the parts used. Smaller sets were often built right on the back of the "front panel" with no "chassis" at all, just a box to hold the front panel vertical and keep inquisitive fingers from breaking tubes or getting into high voltages. The logical evolution would have been for those to get thinner and thinner until modern solid state radios were simply a thick "front panel". Instead we kept the old rectangular form factor and reduced the size of the front panel and the controls! Wayne took a big step in the direction I'm suggesting with the KX1, putting the controls on the top of the box instead of the "front". The original rig had one main PCB behind the panel with the controls laid out near the associated circuits. Picture a 100 watt KX1 tilted up at a 45 degree angle with a base and having the same thickness but a panel size of, say, 14x18 inches (35X45 cm) with suitable knobs and meters... Ah... Meters...but that's another story... Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.)
Geez, Ron...that's actually brilliant! Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:49 AM To: 'Elecraft Reflector' Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts,Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.) What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little rectangular boxes. Picture a 100 watt KX1 tilted up at a 45 degree angle with a base and having the same thickness but a panel size of, say, 14x18 inches (35X45 cm) with suitable knobs and meters... Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
Re: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.)
That's an interesting thought, Ron. It would also give a lot more room for rear panel connectors. 73, Larry N8LP Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little rectangular boxes. 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. 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. The large panel area would allow the layout of the circuits to follow a logical path, with controls closely associated with the circuits they're associated with. If there's a really heavy part, like a big heat sink for the finals, put it down at the bottom at the "foot". You want the antenna connectors down there anyway. And no multiple layers of tightly packed PC boards to wade through when troubleshooting either! That's nothing new. It's how radios were built in the 1920's, 30's and at least through the 50's. Remember seeing pictures of those huge, long 1920-vintage broadcast-band receivers with a whole row of knobs across the front? Those were tuned-radio-frequency sets with a whole row of tubes amplifying the signal before it was detected (turned into audio). Each knob adjusted the tuning of the amplifier behind it. Parts were big, so the cabinet had to be pretty deep, but the first step in the design was to lay out the controls so they were close to the associated circuits. As superhets took over, fewer controls were needed to tune R.F. amplifiers and more controls were needed for the I.F. and audio stages, but the same basic layout remained, progressing from the antenna to the audio output. The form factor was constrained by the front panel and the unit was only as deep as needed by the bulk of the parts used. Smaller sets were often built right on the back of the "front panel" with no "chassis" at all, just a box to hold the front panel vertical and keep inquisitive fingers from breaking tubes or getting into high voltages. The logical evolution would have been for those to get thinner and thinner until modern solid state radios were simply a thick "front panel". Instead we kept the old rectangular form factor and reduced the size of the front panel and the controls! Wayne took a big step in the direction I'm suggesting with the KX1, putting the controls on the top of the box instead of the "front". The original rig had one main PCB behind the panel with the controls laid out near the associated circuits. Picture a 100 watt KX1 tilted up at a 45 degree angle with a base and having the same thickness but a panel size of, say, 14x18 inches (35X45 cm) with suitable knobs and meters... Ah... Meters...but that's another story... Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.)
What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little rectangular boxes. 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. 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. The large panel area would allow the layout of the circuits to follow a logical path, with controls closely associated with the circuits they're associated with. If there's a really heavy part, like a big heat sink for the finals, put it down at the bottom at the "foot". You want the antenna connectors down there anyway. And no multiple layers of tightly packed PC boards to wade through when troubleshooting either! That's nothing new. It's how radios were built in the 1920's, 30's and at least through the 50's. Remember seeing pictures of those huge, long 1920-vintage broadcast-band receivers with a whole row of knobs across the front? Those were tuned-radio-frequency sets with a whole row of tubes amplifying the signal before it was detected (turned into audio). Each knob adjusted the tuning of the amplifier behind it. Parts were big, so the cabinet had to be pretty deep, but the first step in the design was to lay out the controls so they were close to the associated circuits. As superhets took over, fewer controls were needed to tune R.F. amplifiers and more controls were needed for the I.F. and audio stages, but the same basic layout remained, progressing from the antenna to the audio output. The form factor was constrained by the front panel and the unit was only as deep as needed by the bulk of the parts used. Smaller sets were often built right on the back of the "front panel" with no "chassis" at all, just a box to hold the front panel vertical and keep inquisitive fingers from breaking tubes or getting into high voltages. The logical evolution would have been for those to get thinner and thinner until modern solid state radios were simply a thick "front panel". Instead we kept the old rectangular form factor and reduced the size of the front panel and the controls! Wayne took a big step in the direction I'm suggesting with the KX1, putting the controls on the top of the box instead of the "front". The original rig had one main PCB behind the panel with the controls laid out near the associated circuits. Picture a 100 watt KX1 tilted up at a 45 degree angle with a base and having the same thickness but a panel size of, say, 14x18 inches (35X45 cm) with suitable knobs and meters... Ah... Meters...but that's another story... Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
