Re: Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/24/06 1:49:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] 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: [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

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2]

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: [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

[Don Wilhelm-3]

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: [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

[Able2fly]

 
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: [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 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, [hidden email] 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-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

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

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: [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

[Rick Dettinger-2]

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 Dettinger    K7MW

_______________________________________________
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]

> 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: [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 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-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

[Bill Coleman-2]

On May 29, 2006, at 7:45 AM, [hidden email] 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-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

[Don Wilhelm-3]

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: [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 5/29/06 8:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> On May 29, 2006, at 7:45 AM, [hidden email] 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: [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 5/29/06 9:39:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] 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: [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 5/29/06 8:33:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
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: [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 5/28/06 10:03:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:

> On May 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, [hidden email] 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: [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

[Phil Kane-2]

On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:31:14 EDT, [hidden email] 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: [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

[Curt-17]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:31:14 EDT, [hidden email] 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: [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

[roncasa]

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: [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

[Alexandra Carter]

>

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-$100000 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, [hidden email] 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: [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

[n6wg]

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: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:47 PM
To: [hidden email]
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: [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