K3 Speaker, Season finale

[Edward R Cole]

Ramon makes a point, of course, but not all of us strive for "shack
beautiful" appearance.

I see many gorgeous "shacks" and they probably are a joy to
operate.  I suspect many with such stations take pains to make it so
and then do not make any changes for months or years.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum (you know who you
are).  I figure I am somewhere in the middle with a messy station
that gets a periodic clean-up for visitors.  But my station is never
static in configuration; I am always building something and making
changes.  This never lends itself to "station beauty"...unless that
is your sense of what is beautiful.

I have added a couple photo links (1st is from 2011 with FT-847 and
FT-817 still in evidence; note the venerable National  Radio speaker
on the far left):
http://www.kl7uw.com/Shack2011_1.jpg

The next photo is last July showing all the new VHF gear and the new
KX3 in place of the Yaesu radios:
http://www.kl7uw.com/Shack2012.jpg

You may find interesting the evolution of the station shown here":
http://www.kl7uw.com/station%20layout.htm

73, Ed - KL7UW

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[k6dgw]

On 4/23/2013 11:48 AM, Edward R Cole wrote:
> Ramon makes a point, of course, but not all of us strive for "shack
> beautiful" appearance.

That would be me Ed.  My station is never "not in a state of flux."
Just sorting out the cables behind it gives new meaning to the term
"wireless."  With an SX-28 I inherited from a local ham's estate came
the bass reflex speaker cabinet with the "h" in the center.  It sounded
wonderful on the SX-28.  None of my more modern radios would drive it to
more than a whisper.  I've currently got an MFJ amplified 2"x2" speaker
on my K3 facing me, it works better than than the internal speaker which
is semi-blocked by the shelf above it, but really ... not a lot better.

Given enough market desire [don't know how to assess that], offering a
KPA500 form factor and blac box for a VERY elliptical speaker might be
profitable, not sure how it would sound but car radios in the 60's had
them and they weren't bad ... for the time.  I doubt a speaker small
enough for a P3 form factor would be any better than any other that size.

Bose does some amazing things in small spaces ... partnership? :-))

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2013 Cal QSO Party 5-6 Oct 2013
- www.cqp.org

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[David Christ]

I would disagree on the size.  I have a book Weyrhauser put out in the early 1950s for people to choose plans from to build a house.  The sizes ranged from 600 to 1100 square feet.  Try to find houses that small being built today.  Two to three thousand are common and four to five are not unusual.  I will admit that houses built in the 1900 to 1920 era may have been larger.  But they were built for large families and quite likely a hired girl.

In 1934 Sears offered material bundles for homes.  I just saw an advertisement for two.  Three bedrooms - 960 and 1050 square feet.

David K0LUM


On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> As home sizes have diminished steadily over the decades, and the size of the
> equipment has diminished, having a rig that was acceptable in the living
> room has become how many Hams have stayed on the air.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Joe Subich, W4TV-4]

 > I would disagree on the size.  I have a book Weyrhauser put out in
 > the early 1950s for people to choose plans from to build a house.
 > The sizes ranged from 600 to 1100 square feet.

I know for a fact that average homes of the late 40's through early
60's were considerably smaller than common today - typically 1500
square feet was considered large.  My father was a draftsman on the
design team for one of the largest "kit built" home manufacturers in
the mid-west right after WWII when they were cranking those homes out
by the hundreds of thousands to supply the needs of all the returning
GIs who were setting up households.

Not only were room sizes typically smaller than those today - the
average house of the 50's and 60's lacked a formal dinning room
or separate family room.  The two additional rooms plus a second
full bath in homes of the 80's and later represented a significant
increase in the average home size - even before considering the
larger room sizes and additional storage space in "modern" homes.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 4/23/2013 11:24 PM, David Christ wrote:

> I would disagree on the size.  I have a book Weyrhauser put out in
> the early 1950s for people to choose plans from to build a house.
> The sizes ranged from 600 to 1100 square feet.  Try to find houses
> that small being built today.  Two to three thousand are common and
> four to five are not unusual.  I will admit that houses built in the
> 1900 to 1920 era may have been larger.  But they were built for large
> families and quite likely a hired girl.
>
> In 1934 Sears offered material bundles for homes.  I just saw an
> advertisement for two.  Three bedrooms - 960 and 1050 square feet.
>
> David K0LUM
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
>> As home sizes have diminished steadily over the decades, and the
>> size of the equipment has diminished, having a rig that was
>> acceptable in the living room has become how many Hams have stayed
>> on the air.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post:
> mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this
> email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ]

Folks - We're drifting far afield. Let's end this thread at this time in
the interest of maintaining list signal to noise ratio.

73,

Eric
elecraft.com

On 4/23/2013 9:47 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> > I would disagree on the size.  I have a book Weyrhauser put out in
> > the early 1950s for people to choose plans from to build a house.
> > The sizes ranged from 600 to 1100 square feet.
>
> I know for a fact that average homes of the late 40's through early
> 60's were considerably smaller than common today -

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html