Airy R.Bean wrote:

But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in
technical
performance?

I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when
you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and
when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have
been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks?

How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about
3"?


I understand your sentiments. The trend of making rigs very small can also make them more
difficult to use. As an example of a rig that is more compact than most commercial off-the-shelf
ones, look at the Elecraft range. I love the performance of my K2. However, the front panel size
means that each key is often performing at least 2 different functions, sometimes 3. Many on the
Elecraft reflector have expressed a desire for a larger FP when more functions could be available
by dedicated buttons. So I think that ergonomics comes into play. For even higher component
density, again mostly with discrete components, look at the KX1. A fun cw qrp tcvr to build. So
it's not always the case that HB rigs have to be very much larger than commercial rigs.

I think much depends on your intended usage. For a base station, as you point out, size doesn't
matter that much. I don't think anyone would claim that the IC7800 or FT1000MP was a small rig.
Your suggested size would be fine with me for a base station. For portable, field-day or for
mobile or even pedestrian mobile operation, size and current consumption are important attributes,
and often some performance and ergonomics are sacrificed in the trade-off for smaller size. Your
proposed size would probably be too large for such usage - perhaps, something in the region of a
quarter of that volume would be more appropriate.

Another factor is the extent to which you want to remodel the rig after experimentation. I think a
lot of HB tends to end up larger because it was prototyped using construction techniques (such as
ugly bug) that are good for prototyping and changes, but then when the design has iterated to
something near optimal, it is never rebuilt using denser construction such as double-sided PCB.
Perhaps it's a case that the constructor has got their satisfaction with design and are less
motivated by better engineering its construction. I know that some are and like to aim for more
production quality, often taking as much time in that area than the original design and
prototyping. However, I suspect that they are in the minority.


73, David M0DHO