RE: Can Elecraft take over the global HF ham radio business ?

[Paul Bruneau]

On May 1, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Nigel KC8NHF/G8IFF wrote:

> Sokay Paul, you're entitled to voice an opinion.
> It must also be remembered that most amateurs are not on this
> reflector.
> Most of those here will be keen constructors.

Yes, but you weren't talking about "most amateurs". You were talking
about most who build. To match you, I was also talking about most who
build.

Here is your quote:

> Most people, I would imagine, build primarily as a means of saving
> money.

No fair changing the people we are talking about ;)

_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/1/05 8:47:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> Most people, I would imagine, build primarily as a means of saving money.
> There's no point in building something if I can buy something similar
> for less money.
>

Maybe not for you. But having built a lot of rigs from scratch and from kits,
I'm simply ruined for manufactured ham gear.

But it's a moot point anyway. There's nothing on the market that directly
competes with the Elecraft rigs. Sure, there are other QRP rigs, some of them
very good - but they're all different enough from the KX1, K1 or K2 that direct
comparison is somewhat difficult.

Are there any "mainstream" ham rigs with the K2's capabilities, where the mfr
uses no "house parts", gives complete service and alignment info, and will
sell you any part in any quantity, no questions asked?

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
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

[g4ilo-2]

There's a generalization I strongly disagree with. It is almost always more
expensive to build than to buy something of the same specification.
Heathkits, if I recall correctly, were never particularly cheap.

Ham radio, for me, is not just about operating. If I want to make contact
with people around the world, I can use the Internet.

I build for the enjoyment of it, and because to make radio contacts using
something I have built myself feels like more of an achievement than making
contacts using a shop-bought radio. The fact that I have got bored with
every commercial radio I have ever owned, while my K2 is still here, is the
proof of it.

73,

Julian, G4ILO (K2 #392)
G4ILO's Shack: http://www.tech-pro.net/g4ilo


Nigel KC8NHF/G8IFF <[hidden email]> wrote:

Most people, I would imagine, build primarily as a means of saving money.
There's no point in building something if I can buy something similar for
less money.


_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/2/05 1:14:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> It is almost always more
> expensive to build than to buy something of the same specification.

Yes and no. Building from scratch with new parts bought in small quantities
from "regular" sources rarely saves any money. Kits are a different story
because the kit company can get volume discounts.

If you scratchbuild with parts from irregular sources, it becomes a different
game entirely. Two of my Southgate projects use variable capacitors from WW2
freqmeters. Those caps must have cost a fortune in their day - but they cost
me only a dollar or two in surplus.

> Heathkits, if I recall correctly, were never particularly cheap.
>
Here in the USA, from the mid 1950s to about the early 1970s, they were the
least expensive way for a ham to get on the air with new gear. In most cases
you couldn't buy the parts new for what the kit cost. When the HW-101 appeared,
about 1968, it cost about $300 with AC power supply. What other new rig could
compare with the '101s features in its time?

> Ham radio, for me, is not just about operating. If I want to make contact
> with people around the world, I can use the Internet.
>

Yep - which is one reason we don't see the rapid growth in amateur radio that
we saw years and decades ago, when ham radio was about the only way the
average person could do long-distance electronic communications.


> I build for the enjoyment of it, and because to make radio contacts using
> something I have built myself feels like more of an achievement than making
> contacts using a shop-bought radio. The fact that I have got bored with
> every commercial radio I have ever owned, while my K2 is still here, is the
> proof of it.

There should be a warning sticker on every Elecraft box that it will ruin you
for appliances....

But even if you bought one already built - what rig can compete with the K2?

73 de Jim, N2EY



>
>

_______________________________________________
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

[Bill Coleman-2]

On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Marinos Markomanolakis, M.D. wrote:

> On the other hand, as mentioned in my original post, you can hardly  
> justify keeping the K2 as the only rig for HF, and making those  
> "bare bones" time proven RF design improvements as well as some  
> more subjective ones that appeal to many of us: (general coverage,  
> notch, pbt,adding a preselector, analog meter, AM receive  
> capability, optimization of the NB, cleaning the spurs from the RX  
> etc) can make the package just too good to be ignored by the  
> majority of the hams.

I have a K2/100 and an older Kenwood TS-430S. I could easily get by  
using the K2/100 only. In fact, it is usually the only radio I deal  
with.

As to the other features: General coverage is way overrated. In the  
nearly 20 years I've owned the TS-430S, I have rarely, if ever, used  
the general coverage feature.

I find the KDSP2 autonotch is more than sufficient. A preselector is  
unnecessary -- the rig has more than enough gain and dynamic range.

While an analog meter is nice, I've found I have no trouble reading  
the 10-segment LEDs.

PBT would be great -- especially considering that it could nearly be  
done with a firmware change.

AM receive is mildly interesting, but it would be more important if  
there were general coverage receive. I'd be more interested in FM  
(for 10m FM or transverter use) support before AM.

The NB could use something. It works OK on certain types of noise,  
but on others it is wholly ineffective. While the NB on my TS-430S  
does a little bit to all noise -- I leave it turned on all the time.  
I can't do that on the K2, since the NB will weird out during crowded  
band conditions.

I don't mind the few spurious responses in the receiver. The few  
things I'd like to see in the K2/100 are a short list: better SSB  
filters, better VOX, 100% duty cycle amp, dedicated buttons for the  
DSP, filter mode indicators, Tracking of XFIL and AFIL (another  
firmware change).

As to the title of this thread -- I don't think that Elecraft can  
"take over". Consider: in their heyday, Heathkit didn't "take over"  
the ham radio market. Certainly they were wildly popular -- but there  
were plenty of companies that sold built equipment. And that was in  
an age when completely homebrew stations were the norm.

Today, things are different. Appliance operators rule, and the kit-
built rig is an exception. It would be difficult to overcome that  
bias in order to "take over".


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________
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

[N8LP]

I totally agree with your last statement. I sell a couple of small kits,
and also offer them assembled. Even though the hardest one takes less
than 8 hours to build, a third of all orders are for assembled.

Larry N8LP



Bill Coleman wrote:

>
> As to the title of this thread -- I don't think that Elecraft can  
> "take over". Consider: in their heyday, Heathkit didn't "take over"  
> the ham radio market. Certainly they were wildly popular -- but there  
> were plenty of companies that sold built equipment. And that was in  
> an age when completely homebrew stations were the norm.
>
> Today, things are different. Appliance operators rule, and the kit-
> built rig is an exception. It would be difficult to overcome that  
> bias in order to "take over".
>
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/19/05 9:13:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> in their heyday, Heathkit didn't "take over"  
> the ham radio market. Certainly they were wildly popular -- but there  
> were plenty of companies that sold built equipment.

There were also other companies selling serious kits, like EF Johnson.

Heath's line of ham gear, particularly receivers, at any given time was very
limited compared to other companies. Heathkits were pretty good but not in the
same class
as, say, Collins or Drake.


And that was in  
>
> an age when completely homebrew stations were the norm.
>

I've been a ham since 1967 and completely homebrew stations were rare even
then. Of course today a few still homebrew:

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/index.html


> Today, things are different. Appliance operators rule, and the kit-
> built rig is an exception. It would be difficult to overcome that  
> bias in order to "take over".
>

I'd say that "appliance" stations have been most numerous since at least the
mid-60s if not longer.

Elecraft's success shows that not everyone wants to go that way, though.
That's a good thing.

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
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

[S55M]

For me, it is not question about competition and taking of global market. It
is a question of RIG specs.
K2 (UFB like kit) has some great characteristics but there is plenty room
for improovments, wich are almost impossible to do on XXXX-$$$ RIG's.

The only way to have the superb rig nowadays is to build it! Funny but true.
There is no kit and no RIG on the market, wich would have superb
characteristics, which are quiet easy to obtain with current available
parts.But there are plenty of functions wich You will never use.
JA's have built monsters with TFT's thousands of buttons and a lot of
excessive and unneeded weight (some of them with 100's of buttons with third
function and 10 hidden menus ecc) to sell to average operators, wich are
only worried by the look and number of memories.
But after 20 or even 30 years of development they almost forgot the main: RX
and TX. LO's in modern moderate cost rigs are not so good like they where
two decades ago.
At that time, there were few stations with LL power (Legal Limit) now every
3rd stn is running at least 1KW.
And with dirty transmission , there we have a problem, if we do not not talk
about wide range front ends ecc.
But we are endangered part of HAM's.The part wich still has a lot of will to
explore and solder.
The part which will not run to buy 10000 USD RIG regardles of having monney
or not.
But this is like p....ing directly to the wind. The ratio i suppose is
1:1000, but not in our advantage :(


73's and CU

S55M-Adi


----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RE: Can Elecraft take over the global HF ham
radiobusiness ?


> In a message dated 5/19/05 9:13:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email]

> writes:
>
>
> > in their heyday, Heathkit didn't "take over"
> > the ham radio market. Certainly they were wildly popular -- but there
> > were plenty of companies that sold built equipment.
>
> There were also other companies selling serious kits, like EF Johnson.
>
> Heath's line of ham gear, particularly receivers, at any given time was

very
> limited compared to other companies. Heathkits were pretty good but not in
the

> same class
> as, say, Collins or Drake.
>
>
> And that was in
> >
> > an age when completely homebrew stations were the norm.
> >
>
> I've been a ham since 1967 and completely homebrew stations were rare even
> then. Of course today a few still homebrew:
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/index.html
>
>
> > Today, things are different. Appliance operators rule, and the kit-
> > built rig is an exception. It would be difficult to overcome that
> > bias in order to "take over".
> >
>
> I'd say that "appliance" stations have been most numerous since at least

the

> mid-60s if not longer.
>
> Elecraft's success shows that not everyone wants to go that way, though.
> That's a good thing.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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

[Mike Markowski]

Hi Bill & all,

Bill Coleman wrote:
>
> Today, things are different. Appliance operators rule, and the kit-
> built rig is an exception.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  I agree with the
thrust of your statement, Bill, in the sense that people seem to be less
concerned with the how & why, and more interested in appearance,
compactness, features, etc.  But then maybe things haven't changed much
after all!  Why?  You might remember a note I posted last week asking
for help finding a kit my 11 year old son could have fun building.  A
local friend responded by sending me a copy of an article about how to
build a cake pan tube transmitter.  It's from Electronics Illustrated,
Sept. 1964, "The Scrounger" by Herb Friedman W2ZLF, and starts with this:

"Real challenge used to be ham radio's keynote.  No one in the early
days ever thought of flipping through a catalog, ordering gear galore
and then going on the air the same day the stuff arrived.  Most everyone
rolled his own in those days.  Today, this kind of fun is pretty much
gone with the wind."

Now where have I heard that before?  :-)

73,
Mike  AB3AP
Avondale, PA
_______________________________________________
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

[Bill Coleman-2]

On May 20, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Mike Markowski wrote:

> It's from Electronics Illustrated,
> Sept. 1964, "The Scrounger" by Herb Friedman W2ZLF, and starts with  
> this:
>
> "Real challenge used to be ham radio's keynote.  No one in the early
> days ever thought of flipping through a catalog, ordering gear galore
> and then going on the air the same day the stuff arrived.  Most  
> everyone
> rolled his own in those days.  Today, this kind of fun is pretty much
> gone with the wind."

Herb is correct to a point, but he misses some historical issues.  
First, in the 20s and 30s, any gear that could be ordered through a  
catalog was outrageously expensive for the day. Only the extreme  
wealthiest of hams could possibly consider it.

In the 40's and 50's, it was common for a ham to buy a receiver, but  
build his own transmitter. Again, cost was a major consideration.  
Even then, though, it was possibly for a well-to-do ham to order a  
stack of Collins gear, install a Big Bertha and a christmas tree and  
solder together virtually nothing but PL-259s.

In the 50's and 60's (and even into the 70's) the reason that  
Heathkits were so popular is that the assembly costs were a major  
portion of any electronic equipment. Heath could sell gear at a  
fraction of the cost of assembled gear, since the buyer provided all  
the labor to assemble the gear. In the 80s, however, advances in  
electronics and manufacturing finally turned the tide. Assembly costs  
dived.

Today, most electronics is assembled on a line with robotic  
equipment. That's why parts have become so vanishingly small.

We no longer build kits because it is a cheaper way to get access to  
great equipment. We build for other reasons.

It is interesting to note that other kit industries, like the kit  
aircraft industry, are thriving because the economies of self-built  
equipment still exist.

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________
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

[rrennard]

I think the main reasons homebrew has become so challenging are access to
small quantities of parts (thanks to Mouser for ovecoming this to some
degree), and the challenges of assembly for small lead sizes and spacing.
The steady hands of pick and place machines and solder reflow allow this
affordably on commercial equipment.  Moore's law drives this, too.  I doubt
that hand soldering itty bitty parts is going to be successful.

The real challenge to prices for ham gear is the production volumes.  There
are not yet 5000 K2s.  Rarely does any iCom, Yaesu, or Kenwood specific
radio model achieve much larger volumes than the K2 has.  If you want the
prices to come down, get the number of consumers up to where the design cost
does not have to be amortized over such a small production run.  I think we
should be impressed that the K2 design is so well thought out that it did
not get discarded every 2 years, instead, it just got upgraded with the help
of the "community".

I rolled my own until the late 70s.  In the 60s, I built tube transmitters.
In the 70s I did not roll any thing challenging, just solid state VHF
amplifiers.  Fortunately, the K6AA ARC worked with Carson High School, CA to
allow us into their vocational electronics labs so we could try our hand at
board layout, board etching and drilling, and the trials of actually making
it work.  I doubt that this capability is available to many hams.  Yet, I
continue to be impressed by and envious of some of the great homebrew
projects that are still produced today.

I also think the ARRL could do a better job of making QEX a little more
challenging, and to foster the notion of ready to use boards for projects.

I am one of the old timers whose age is pulling the mean age of hams upward.
We need more to pull the mean age down, and to revitalize the hobby.  Our
challenge as individuals is to lure more hams who want to build and operate
into the hobby.

My 2c

N7WY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Coleman" <[hidden email]>
To: "Mike Markowski" <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Appliances vs. kits [was: RE: Can Elecraft
takeover...]

>
> On May 20, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Mike Markowski wrote:
>
> > It's from Electronics Illustrated,
> > Sept. 1964, "The Scrounger" by Herb Friedman W2ZLF, and starts with
> > this:
> >
> > "Real challenge used to be ham radio's keynote.  No one in the early
> > days ever thought of flipping through a catalog, ordering gear galore
> > and then going on the air the same day the stuff arrived.  Most
> > everyone
> > rolled his own in those days.  Today, this kind of fun is pretty much
> > gone with the wind."
>
> Herb is correct to a point, but he misses some historical issues.
> First, in the 20s and 30s, any gear that could be ordered through a
> catalog was outrageously expensive for the day. Only the extreme
> wealthiest of hams could possibly consider it.
>
> In the 40's and 50's, it was common for a ham to buy a receiver, but
> build his own transmitter. Again, cost was a major consideration.
> Even then, though, it was possibly for a well-to-do ham to order a
> stack of Collins gear, install a Big Bertha and a christmas tree and
> solder together virtually nothing but PL-259s.
>
> In the 50's and 60's (and even into the 70's) the reason that
> Heathkits were so popular is that the assembly costs were a major
> portion of any electronic equipment. Heath could sell gear at a
> fraction of the cost of assembled gear, since the buyer provided all
> the labor to assemble the gear. In the 80s, however, advances in
> electronics and manufacturing finally turned the tide. Assembly costs
> dived.
>
> Today, most electronics is assembled on a line with robotic
> equipment. That's why parts have become so vanishingly small.
>
> We no longer build kits because it is a cheaper way to get access to
> great equipment. We build for other reasons.
>
> It is interesting to note that other kit industries, like the kit
> aircraft industry, are thriving because the economies of self-built
> equipment still exist.
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>              -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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

[EricJ-2]

Good summary, Bill.

I was going to respond to the poster who said completely homebrew stations
were the norm in the 50's, but I didn't. I was licensed in 1957 and didn't
know anyone who built their own receiver except some of us built a regen
receiver for the fun of it. Some built their own transmitter, but, at least
in my circle (teenagers mostly), all of us bought a kit or bought used for
our main transmitter. Heathkit was the leader, but there was probably a
DOZEN kit manufacturers out there including such ham luminaries as E.F.
Johnson. The difference between factory assembled and kit could be
significant because assembly was so labor intensive in those days. Now look
at the difference between an Elecraft T1 assembled vs. kit.

I'm still not entirely sure who the typical Elecraft customer is; I doubt
there is one. But they aren't buying for economy. I'm not sure there is a
single driving reason. I bought for performance and small package size
despite the disadvantage of being a kit. Others see kits as an advantage.
Overall, ham gear has NEVER been cheaper or more affordable by the average
ham.

Eric
KE6US

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces+eric_csuf=[hidden email]
[mailto:elecraft-bounces+eric_csuf=[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Bill Coleman
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:28 AM
To: Mike Markowski
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Appliances vs. kits [was: RE: Can Elecraft
takeover...]



Today, most electronics is assembled on a line with robotic equipment.
That's why parts have become so vanishingly small.

We no longer build kits because it is a cheaper way to get access to great
equipment. We build for other reasons.

It is interesting to note that other kit industries, like the kit aircraft
industry, are thriving because the economies of self-built equipment still
exist.

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

I was one of those ops who was building his own gear in the 1950's. Scratch
built my first transmitter. Built a Meissner kit receiver in the late 40's,
etc.

It's easy to look back to those days to understand the popularity of
building today, but I wonder if it has any real relevance beyond that purely
subjective enjoyment of putting something together and seeing it work?

Model airplane builders get the same enjoyment (just try to get more than a
minute aloft out of a tiny scale rubber-band powered free-flight model).
Shoot, the enjoyment even extends to "paint by numbers" fans.

Some things don't change and others do. What has changed is the whole
landscape of technology and options for the builder of kits or the designer
of new circuits. So many of the reasons for building have also changed.

I suggest that the only thing that hasn't changed is that vaguely-defined
but powerful feeling of pleasure some of us get out of making an
unlikely-looking pile of parts do something. Even if we didn't design it or
find the parts, there's still  pleasure in successfully putting them all in
the right places and seeing the results come to life.

That feeling is independent of the technological or economic advantages or
disadvantages of building.

That feeling just "is".

Ron AC7AC



_______________________________________________
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

[Dave G.]

>> Ron AC7AC wrote:--
> I suggest that the only thing that hasn't changed is that
> vaguely-defined but powerful feeling of pleasure some of us
> get out of making an unlikely-looking pile of parts do
> something.
> That feeling is independent of the technological or economic
> advantages or disadvantages of building.
> That feeling just "is".
Right on! Ron,

My first rigs (1964+) were homebrew 'tube' rigs for operating
"Top Band" thru 2 meters... I even built my first sideband
rig from scratch...
To have something you've put together yourself actually do
what it is supposed to do gives one an incredible feeling of
accomplishment...
I still get that feeling today -- even if it's only a 'mini-
kit'
SMT's have just made it more difficult for me, with my
deteriorating eyesight :-((

Dave KK7SS


_______________________________________________
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

[kc5wa]

If you really want to EXPAND on that feeling. Use a schematic and build
it Manhattan style or better
yet DEAD BUG as in 2N2-40. Now that is a gas!!
"rc" kc5wa

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

>I suggest that the only thing that hasn't changed is that vaguely-defined
>but powerful feeling of pleasure some of us get out of making an
>unlikely-looking pile of parts do something. Even if we didn't design it or
>find the parts, there's still  pleasure in successfully putting them all in
>the right places and seeing the results come to life.
>
>That feeling is independent of the technological or economic advantages or
>disadvantages of building.
>
>That feeling just "is".
>
>Ron AC7AC
>

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release Date: 5/20/2005

_______________________________________________
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

[N2TK]

Hi Eric,
Yeah, same here. Bought the K2 for its size and performance to be used as a
backup rig at home and to take along on DXpeditions. It just happened to be
a kit which had very little to do with the decision.
Dayton is wonderful as usual.
#3481
N2TK, Tony



I'm still not entirely sure who the typical Elecraft customer is; I doubt
there is one. But they aren't buying for economy. I'm not sure there is a
single driving reason. I bought for performance and small package size
despite the disadvantage of being a kit. Others see kits as an advantage.
Overall, ham gear has NEVER been cheaper or more affordable by the average
ham.

Eric
KE6US




_______________________________________________
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