Elecraft Kit suggestion

[Trevor Day]

It may also be worth looking at this from the other end.  Presumably
Elecraft's bags are 'hand filled' rather than by machine, so there is
the possibility of error there.  Changing a long established method of
grouping all of these components, possibly for something more complex,
may introduce errors that would otherwise not have happened.

73,
Trev, G3ZYY


In message <[hidden email]>, W3FPR -
Don Wilhelm <[hidden email]> writes

>Mike,
>
>I agree -- well almost.
>
>The K2 is packaged into several bags - the front panel, the control board,
>the RF Board (2 packages) and a hardware bag.
>
>While there is some mixing from the hardware bag items, the electronic
>assembly moves smoothly from the Control Board (1 bag) to the Front Panel
>(one bag until the mechanical assembly part of the steps require the
>hardware pack), and then on to the RF Board.
>
>I have assembled many K2s and perhaps I have become familiar with the
>process, but it makes sense to me.  To do as you have suggested would
>require separating the hardware packs and putting some relevant parts into
>the Front Panel pack.  I fail to see that there would be a great advantage
>in doing so.  Perhaps a better solution would be to identify in the assembly
>manual which pack the parts can be found, thus allowing inventory of each
>pack separately.  Splitting the RF board packs between the alignment steps I
>and II might be worthwhile, but that seems like 'overkill' to me.
>
>I do agree that packaging the thermal pads in the serial number envelope has
>been confusing to some folks.  For now, that is the way of things, and the
>real problem is that what you suggest would require coordination of a change
>in the manual as well as a change in the packaging process.  The manual
>changes are harder to accomplish correctly than the packaging process
>(requires reviews for correctness and such), so while the Elecraft folks may
>take your comments seriously, it may be a while before anyone sees a change
>due to the coordination required (instuctions to the vendor: "pack Rev G
>manual starting with serial no xxxx", and change the way parts packs are
>assembled at the same time).  The parts packaging is vended to outside
>firms, so there is a bit more to making a change than just the desires of
>the folks at the Elecraft office.  I don't know whether the changes would be
>worth the costs of implementation.  In any case, Elecraft gladly supplies
>any 'suspected' missing parts promptly and with a smile, so every builder
>who performs an inventory can build a K2 without unnecessary delays.
>
>73,
>Don W3FPR
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Mike Markowski
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:52 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft Kit suggestion
>>
>>
>> I think we've gotten away from the original suggestion, which was not I
>> believe, aimed to avoiding inventories but a way to streamline the build
>> and reduce errors by packaging components based on assembly stages.  I
>> think it's a great idea!
>>
>> Instead of one big box-o-stuff for the K2, it would have been great if
>> there were, for example, three packages; one each for assembly Phases I,
>> II, and III corresponding to the manual chapters (I'm saying that off
>> the top of my head & don't know if that breakdown makes sense).  Then
>> for each package an inventory would done.  As far as the inventory goes,
>> sure, you're doing the same amount of work in the end.  But during
>> assembly you have roughly one third of the parts taking up space on the
>> work bench and probably less likelihood of bumping a component onto the
>> floor, dripping solder on one, dropping something on one, mixing up
>> parts, etc., if only because there are fewer things going on to confuse
>> the ol' bean.  Less distraction/confusion => fewer errors (maybe?).
>>
>> My K2 went together without a hitch thanks to an absolutely fantastic
>> manual so maybe it isn't necessary after all, but I have to think that
>> the divide-and-conquer approach makes each phase of the assembly a
>> little easier and less error prone.  Taken over a large number of kit
>> builders, that probably means fewer build errors.  Of course, I admit
>> there are a lot of "probablys", "mights", and guesswork.  But the
>> original poster's suggestion sounds worthwhile as apparently Heathkit
>> also thought.
>>
>> 73,
>> Mike AB3AP
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Post to: [hidden email]
>> 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
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.2/29 - Release Date: 6/27/2005
>>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.2/29 - Release Date: 6/27/2005
>
>_______________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Post to: [hidden email]
>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
>

--
Trevor Day
UKSMG #217
www.uksmg.org

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
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