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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Ron, care to retell that Cut the end offstory 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
