| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
All,
I've occasionally seen homebrew tube transceivers on Ebay that range from really good to too gnarly looking to seem safe. I am thinking of creating a line of clean-looking, attractive, rugged tube equipment for casual or missionary use with a reasonable price/output performance that is easy to repair and adjust, based on schematics and design principles that have gone into the public domain. Would there be an audience? Comments? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
wrote in message Interesting concept... But, there doesn't appear to be a dearth of readily available decent boatachor gear. I'm not sure how much of a market there would be? How much would the gear cost, what would it do, etc? Sounds like a labor of love! Pete |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
"Lazy Senior" wrote in message news:SQ7hf.3355$Qs2.2305@trnddc03... wrote: I used to build my own computers until 6 years ago when I figured out I could get a Dell or HP much cheaper than what it would cost to build.I suspect building tube radios would be the same scenario. Lazy Senior Unfortunately cheap computers usually use properietary motherboards. Being lazy carries a price beyond the tag. |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:50:19 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote: "Lazy Senior" wrote in message news:SQ7hf.3355$Qs2.2305@trnddc03... wrote: I used to build my own computers until 6 years ago when I figured out I could get a Dell or HP much cheaper than what it would cost to build.I suspect building tube radios would be the same scenario. Lazy Senior Unfortunately cheap computers usually use properietary motherboards. Being lazy carries a price beyond the tag. hahaha....that's funny and it fits the poster really well. Building computers in really a misnomer. Anyone can thown a few pc cards together and flip a power switch. Maybe they should try building the cards from scratch. |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Uncle Peter wrote:
Unfortunately cheap computers usually use properietary motherboards. Being lazy carries a price beyond the tag. You know as much about computers as you do BA or hamradio. My HP, the one I am typing on right now has an off the shelf non- prop Asus motherboard. A ATI Radeon graphic card etc.Built by HP and bought at Best Buy. Since I maintained computers for a living for over 30 years, I suspect I know more than the average person about them and since you are stupider than average I know a WHOLE lot more than you when it comes to computers. Anyway there isnt anything wrong with propreitary motherboards. Laptops are outselling desktops right now and they are all properietary and they work just fine. Lazy Senior |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Beerbarrel wrote:
hahaha....that's funny and it fits the poster really well. Building computers in really a misnomer. Anyone can thown a few pc cards together and flip a power switch. Maybe they should try building the cards from scratch. Gosh I must really bug you Lazy Senior |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
"Lazy Senior" wrote in message news:Kh9hf.687$mJ2.149@trnddc02... Uncle Peter wrote: Unfortunately cheap computers usually use properietary motherboards. Being lazy carries a price beyond the tag. Since I maintained computers for a living for over 30 years, I suspect I know more than the average person about them and since you are stupider than average I know a WHOLE lot more than you when it comes to computers. Anyway there isnt anything wrong with propreitary motherboards. Laptops are outselling desktops right now and they are all properietary and they work just fine. Lazy Senior And, you're full of crap, too! Lazy, and full of crap.. A terrible way to go through life! Where did I say they "didn't work"? Learn how to read. You have no clue go play with your $389 wonder. Pete |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Uncle Peter wrote:
And, you're full of crap, too! Lazy, and full of crap.. A terrible way to go through life! Where did I say they "didn't work"? Learn how to read. You have no clue go play with your $389 wonder. Pete I guess I bug you too. Lazy Senior |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
How about offering these as kits? Maybe even offering them
with or without tubes? If you're able to keep the cost low I think you have a shot. Steve wrote in message oups.com... All, I've occasionally seen homebrew tube transceivers on Ebay that range from really good to too gnarly looking to seem safe. I am thinking of creating a line of clean-looking, attractive, rugged tube equipment for casual or missionary use with a reasonable price/output performance that is easy to repair and adjust, based on schematics and design principles that have gone into the public domain. Would there be an audience? Comments? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Steve wrote:
How about offering these as kits? Maybe even offering them with or without tubes? If you're able to keep the cost low I think you have a shot. Steve I dunno, a company called Heathkit tried that and went belly up. Lazy senior |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
How about offering these as kits? Maybe even offering them
with or without tubes? If you're able to keep the cost low I think you have a shot. A few years ago, somebody (Ghostmoon?) offered kits to make an "All American Five" five-tube AM radio. They were quite expensive, and the company did not last. Antique Electronic Supply (http://www.tubesandmore.com/ ) offers a few tube-based kits for various things. You could try phoning them and ask what sort of demand there is for that kind of thing in general. I suppose you would be competing with existing solid-state kits. If you Google around, you can find what's available and what it costs, etc. Regards, Phil Nelson |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Lazy Senior wrote:
Gosh I must really bug you Lazy Senior I know for sure that this continuous BS is bugging ME and probably a lot of other people too. Drop it and let's go back to talking about BAs. Ron |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Lazy Senior wrote:
Steve wrote: How about offering these as kits? Maybe even offering them with or without tubes? If you're able to keep the cost low I think you have a shot. Steve I dunno, a company called Heathkit tried that and went belly up. Heathkit didn't go belly up because kits were not profitable; Heathkit went out of business because their new owner had no interest in a kit company, but rather wanted the assets of the Zenith computer company. Heath continues to this day making security devices, lamp fixtures, and a number of other mundane products. -Chuck |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
I think that Heathkit had to be put to sleep because the world had
changed and Heathkit slowly became irrelevant for many different reasons, some of them permanent, some of them not. If one keeps those reasons in mind while creating the business plan, then the only thing left to do is to determine a competitive price/performance point based on market research. My thoughts: 1) Kits are not realistic except in upper end niche markets such as Elecraft due to issues of customer support and liability. 2) I'm not thinking of making rigs capable of world-burning performance for DX chasing or contesting. Most people are appliance operators, sad to say and want to just hook up the rigt to power, antenna, and antenna and go. What I have in mind are gear capable point to point shortwave links, essentially cross-country rag chew, SSB for Generals and above, with CW thrown in for the Tech+ and above. 3) What I can think I can offer in gear is stable operation in abuse-proof enclosures at slightly higher power levels. Part of the way I can do this is to use 21rst century materials and manufacturing methods to implement mid-20th century mechanical requirements. 4) There are also a few natural advantages that tube gear has that semiconductors do not: tube gear is less likely to break upon exposure to dirty power, EMP, and bad SWR. 5) New tubes are still being made by Russia and China and this will quite likely stay that way for the forseeable future. Purists might turn thier nose up at using these tubes, but something workable could be made out of them for a reasonable price. 7) Also, the price of US manufacturing, and labor are just too high for anything other than creating a prototype. Basically I am creating a very useful toy, but only a toy, and will most likely need to import the manufacturing and labor. 8) I should only offer 80, 40, 30, 20, and 18 meters. I want to stay as far away from 10 meters as I can, due to possible use of hacked gear on 11 meters. I don't believe the audience for 160 is very large. More thoughts? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Ron in Radio Heaven wrote:
Lazy Senior wrote: Gosh I must really bug you Lazy Senior I know for sure that this continuous BS is bugging ME and probably a lot of other people too. Drop it and let's go back to talking about BAs. Ron Beerbarrel, Uncle Pete, and Chuckee seem to have a grudge against me and wont stop. Every post I do they want to humilate me. And I never back from a fight.... If it bugs you - - ALL email clients have filters, use them and you wont have to read this crap. I use the filters all the time for FA and FS ads and also people I dont like to read. I havent filtered the above 3 jerks - yet. Lazy Senior |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Oh, I LOVED the Galaxy V mark II. It was the rig I grew up on! When
my folks got divorced when I was in college they stored it in a garage and it got rusted out completely. My second best choice is the Yaesu FT-101E or EE, I had the E rig in my first marriage but I lost it in the divorce and bankruptcy. I just got a Yaesu FT-101EE to reactivate the communications part of the hobby. I am a builder, primarly, and have been for decades. I beg to differ regarding tube gear being tempermental. Badly designed tube gear is certainly inferior to established solid state gear. But well designed tube gear (Collins class and some military) is better than most solid state gear. Success depends on a lot of factoris: electronic design, mechanical engineering, manufacturing methods and techniques, parts sources, pricing, and profit margin. The FT-101, Galaxy, Drake, and Swan are not $100 pieces of gear on EBay, they are more like $300 to $400 pretty consistencly. I think a fully loaded multiband fresh boatanchor should sell quite nicely for $199.95 it if offers compareable features. That would imply a wholesale price of about $100.00. That would imply that parts, labor, and other indirect costs should be somewhere between $50 to $80. I think I can get from Russia or China a single sweep tube plus a handful of smaller tubes for about $30. The rest would have to be chassis, discretes, power, labor, shipping, and customs. Now, if I market direct through the net rather than through a retailer, I think I could go self sustaining after a few build-sales cycles. If the people on this topic would be willing to be a focus group for the fresh boat-anchor of thier dreams, I would be quite grateful. The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Oh yes.. this I know. What a ham wants is the most miles to the
galleon, just like a car. But what is quality to a ham? Clear audio, no spurs, sharp passbands, and suppressed harmonics. Easy repair and replacement by self too, right? Plus ruggedness. Anything else? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Senior,
One can only be made to feel inferior by one's own consent. If you believe you are better than they are, then they can't hurt you no matter what they say. The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Bill ) writes:
You say FT-101, etc...aren't $100 pieces of gear on ebay. Thats too broad and maybe your perspective is different than mine. As found Galaxy V are lucky to get $100, as are HW-100. FT-101, Kwood TS-520, Swan 350-500, Drake TR-3/4 will garner twice that in "last time I fired it up it worked" condition. I've given away two Galaxy V in as found condition this year because they couldn't be sold at any price. And of course, people want the boatanchors because they are old, because they are the rig they had when they were first in the hobby or because they lusted after the rig decades ago but couldn't afford it. I suspect that is the major reason, rather than because they are tube-based. Take away that familiarity, and the interested number will also drop. People will pay more now the more expensive it was in the first place, but that may be as much because fewer bought them back then (hence fewer exist) than because they are better rigs. Michael VE2BVW |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
You say FT-101, etc...aren't $100 pieces of gear on ebay. Thats too
broad and maybe your perspective is different than mine. As found Galaxy V are lucky to get $100, as are HW-100. FT-101, Kwood TS-520, Swan 350-500, Drake TR-3/4 will garner twice that in "last time I fired it up it worked" condition. I've given away two Galaxy V in as found condition this year because they couldn't be sold at any price. Found condition is the key. I'm sorry, but I got into bidding wars at least 3 or more times trying to get a Yaesu in guaranteed working condition with recent maintenance. I'm not clear if you are suggesting building these things from scratch or taking older xcvrs and refurbing them. If you haven't walked this talk I suspect you'd find out very quickly that paying $35 for an old Galaxy and refurbing it at maybe a cost of a dozen hours of labour you might get $125 on resale on a good day when there are no other buyers that could do the same thing for their own purpose. Nope, I am indeed talking scratch. To do an equivalent Galaxy 5 from scratch for $199 commercial resale? No way. Why not? Well, you have my input. I'll never discourage rolling your own but trying to make a bizness out of it is a whole nuther can of worms. Oh, and I so much appreciate that. That is not sarcasm. The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Michael:
How about a thought experiment? Assuming we don't consider copyright, patent, trademark, or other issues. Say God gave me the gift of being able to create a Collins-class rig at 1/2 to 1/3 the usual price on Ebay? Would that be tempting? The Eternal Squikre |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
And of course, people want the boatanchors because they are old
Collectors rather than operators, right? they are the rig they had when they were first in the hobby Yes, but also because they found later, purportedly more modern equipment, to be harder to operate or repair, or easier to break, with replacement parts and labor costing more than the rig itself? they lusted after the rig decades ago but couldn't afford it. And still can't, in the case of Collins for example. I suspect that is the major reason, rather than because they are tube-based. Really? I think it takes a different mentality to operate a tube rig than a semiconductor or digital rig. I really think the casual tube rigs were easier for children and adolescents to operate on HF. I had the worst time trying to understand an ICOM during my 20's, for example. Take away that familiarity, and the interested number will also drop. But what if I kept the familiarity of operation rather than the familiarity of brand name? Would it drop drastically? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Maybe not a Galaxy 5 itself, you could be right. Besides, it was a
hybrid rig, not an all- tube rig anyway. But, what about this lineup for receiver: 1) 3 sets of switchable preselector filter with ganged variable capacitor with a single dual triode amp, half of which are placed between each filter. 2) Single dual triode as cascode IF converter, rather than a pentagrid converter which are hardly made anymore. 3) Single dual triode as differential VFO, glass equivalent of recent QEX circuit, with oscillator variable capacitor ganged to the preselector capacitor as part of same set. 4) Single dual triode as pre and post amps to lattice crystal IF filter. 5) Single dual triode as cascode baseband converter. 6) Single dual triode as differential BFO, similar design to VFO. 7) Push-pull audio power amp... reuse this in transmitter. Transmitter lineup: 1) Single sweep tube operated class E for CW, modified to class H with aid of receiver's push pull power amp. 2) Share the preselector for use in postfiltering of the power amp. 3) Use the same differential VFO as the input to the class E amp. This isn't really SSB: it is more quick and dirty DSB/CW transmitter with SSB receiver. (If anyone can modify a class E amp for SSB service I would love to hear about it). So, this lineup uses a single sweep tube, 6 dual trodes, and a pair of 6L6 equivalents. Shuguang 807 as sweep tube: $16 retail Shuguang 6SN7 (VFO) $11 retail Shuguang 6SN7 (BFO) $11 retail 2 Shuguang 6L6 (Amp/Mod) $25 retail 4 CH-12AX7A $48 retail ----------------- $111 retail == $55 wholesale if I can establish a dealer relationship with supplier. Tubes: (presumed wholeale) $55 Resistors (NOS wholesale): $10 Caps (NOS wholesale): $10 Power transformer: $5 sheet metal stack made in LDC 4-gang variable $25 (Soviet make from EBAY) Chassis: $20 sheet metal Planetary gear drive: $15 (cast iron gears from LDC) Crystals (NOS wholesale) $5 Rotary Band Switch (NOS EBAY) $10 --------- $140 Labor (20 hours at $1/hour in an LDC) $ 20 --------- $160 Murphy Factor (20%) $ 32 ---------- COGS w/labor $192 ====================== OK, you are likely right that the wholesale cost is high. But I only worked this out in 20 minutes using recent surfing, reading, and other communication. Perhaps with further refinement I can get the cost down. I added a murphy factor for amortized taxes, freight, and customs. BUT: I think I made it with $7 to spare, including labor, so long as I do not rely on the US for a lot of things. Maybe $250 would be a more realistic retail price... Not much profit margin, though, but not much needed for mail order sales if I am only intending to supplement income rather than support myself. Thoughts? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
OK
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
) writes:
And of course, people want the boatanchors because they are old Collectors rather than operators, right? they are the rig they had when they were first in the hobby Yes, but also because they found later, purportedly more modern equipment, to be harder to operate or repair, or easier to break, with replacement parts and labor costing more than the rig itself? they lusted after the rig decades ago but couldn't afford it. And still can't, in the case of Collins for example. I suspect that is the major reason, rather than because they are tube-based. Really? I think it takes a different mentality to operate a tube rig than a semiconductor or digital rig. I really think the casual tube rigs were easier for children and adolescents to operate on HF. I had the worst time trying to understand an ICOM during my 20's, for example. Take away that familiarity, and the interested number will also drop. But what if I kept the familiarity of operation rather than the familiarity of brand name? Would it drop drastically? Thirty to forty years ago, hams abandoned those old boatanchors. They wanted the solid state, they wanted the features. The rigs could barely be given away. Circa 1972 a lot of boatanchor equipment went through my hands, because people were giving it away, or they would sell at the radio club auction for five or ten dollars. I let it go just as easily, because I could trade it for something more interesting or just to sample what were new things to me. It's only in recent years that people became really interested in that old gear. Nostalgia. And the demand raises the prices of those once useless rigs. If simplicity is the issue as you think, then through the decades there would always be basic rigs being manufactured, because there'd be demand. If people wanted basic, they'd not be waiting decades for it. And of course, basic does not have to mean tubes. The bells and whistles were added because ICs and the like made it easier to add them, but there was no need to actually add them. There could have been basic solid state rigs, and of course Ten Tec did offer them, as did some of the other manufacturers (though Ten Tec lasted longer than the rest). If you think there's a market for a bare tube rig because of ease of repair, then it's just as easy to use discrete transistors (or discretes with some common ICs) to build a basic solid state rig that is just as easy to repair as that old HW-100. The only difference is that with a solid state rig, there's no tubes that can easily be pulled out to take to the drugstore to test in the tester, which does't matter because the tube tester isn't there anymore, and neither does the drugstore sell the common tubes that was the purpose of the tester being there in the first place. I can't say I'd spend the money, but I want a Clegg Interceptor from the early sixties. There is nothing about that receiver that is better than a more recent and decent receiver. It lacks features, and of course suffers from a relatively high noise figure that came with the tubes. I suspect its selectivity is broad compared to more recent receivers. I don't want it for what it can do, I want it because I remember reading about it, a decade after it was being sold, and simply thinking it was a neat receiver. A copy of the receiver wouldn't be the same, and is pretty inconceivable given that there will be little demand. I am conveying what I think about boatanchors, which may be wrong. But I suspect you are trying to judge a market for such a rig based on your own desires. If you think there is a market, you need to find those people who would actually buy it, who actually do share your thinking on the issue, to prove that there would be a market for such a project. I still think that most people who pursue boatanchors are doing it for nostalgia. A case can even be made that they long for simpler days. But that doesn't mean that they want to give up bells and whistles and modern designs on a permanent basis. I doubt newcomers to the hobby are going off to buy that Drake 2B, they'd pursue it later as another facet of the hobby if they do so at all (though of course there was a time when they might have started with it, because it was seen as a "novice" receiver or because it was available used for cheap). I think most who go after boatanchors have more recent rigs, and they use the old rigs in tandem, for variety. Michael VE2BVW |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Where's the chassis
$20 of Korean sheet metal shaped and drilled by a firm in Africa, see recent post knobs Digikey tuning caps 4-gang soviet surplus from EBay, see recent post IF cans toroids Tube sockets PC mount sockets, 50 cents each. Xtal filter $1 each, $5 total, see recent post cabinet more sheet metal dial stenciled plastic, negl cost power xfrmr $5 stack of carbon steel made in Africa, see recent post Using your figure of 20 hours I calculate that you'll clear an income of $40 per week on 2 rigs, $60 if you work nites, if you do it all yourself. No, I'll be using Mexican labor for final assembly If I could build a Galaxy 5 equivalent in 20 hours...never mind... No, this is not a Galaxy 5. This is a 21rst century transciever topology in glass that may deliver multiband audio/cw contacts at less cost. Okay. Paying shipping for one single returned rig in this scenario will have you WISHING you hadn't eaten last week's can of cat food for dinner. Clearly I would have to reduce mass where I can. I interpret a boatanchor as meaning tubes as active units and mechanical tuning with a planetary drive... I don't intepret that as meaning I have to use 50's-70's era parts for anything else or even point to poiint wiring. Maybe I can get the weight down to 15 pounds if I use aluminum for chassis and fiberglass or carbon composite for case. You couldn't do this for less than $500 per rig (sans labour and profit).... Only I use parts from US and attempt to exactly duplicate a mid-60's rig. If instead I can outsource nearly everything and never buy retail, and if I simply make a FET rig in glass, this might be less. and thats why there isn't the market that you imagine. What I have to find out is determine how much someone is willing to buy a glass rig for that delivers similar functionality as a 60's rig, and then determine how many people would buy for that price. At that point, I have to work backwards to see if I can make parts, labor, intermediate freight, and customs fees work inside the interpolated wholesale figure. So let me ask you... if you had the ability to buy a rig, in glass, capable of 4 band operation where you could manually tune and dip the amplifier, that gave you an operating range of 2000 miles on a reference dipole, AND it was built new, HOW MUCH would you pay for that? The Eternal Squire |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
|
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Lazy Senior wrote:
Ron in Radio Heaven wrote: Lazy Senior wrote: Gosh I must really bug you Lazy Senior I know for sure that this continuous BS is bugging ME and probably a lot of other people too. Drop it and let's go back to talking about BAs. Ron Beerbarrel, Uncle Pete, and Chuckee seem to have a grudge against me and wont stop. Every post I do they want to humilate me. And I never back from a fight.... I beg your pardon! You are the one that seems to have a grudge against the world. You come storming into this group, asking for opinions, and then get all huffed when the opinions you receive disagree with your own. You make political statements that are guaranteed to draw a heated response, and then get all flustered when they do. You complain about what a cesspool usenet is, and how this group has no value, and then you start leaving your brown ducks in our pond. I have been a contributing member of this group for 3-4 years, but since your arrival, you have offered nothing of value to anyone....Nothing! When I asked a simple question about a Swan 350 (knowing that there were a few Swan 350 users on this group) you took that as an opportunity to make derisive remarks about me owning a Swan. Where are your posts with content? -Chuck |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:20:24 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote: Lazy Senior wrote: Ron in Radio Heaven wrote: Lazy Senior wrote: Gosh I must really bug you Lazy Senior I know for sure that this continuous BS is bugging ME and probably a lot of other people too. Drop it and let's go back to talking about BAs. Ron Beerbarrel, Uncle Pete, and Chuckee seem to have a grudge against me and wont stop. Every post I do they want to humilate me. And I never back from a fight.... I beg your pardon! You are the one that seems to have a grudge against the world. You come storming into this group, asking for opinions, and then get all huffed when the opinions you receive disagree with your own. You make political statements that are guaranteed to draw a heated response, and then get all flustered when they do. You complain about what a cesspool usenet is, and how this group has no value, and then you start leaving your brown ducks in our pond. I have been a contributing member of this group for 3-4 years, but since your arrival, you have offered nothing of value to anyone....Nothing! When I asked a simple question about a Swan 350 (knowing that there were a few Swan 350 users on this group) you took that as an opportunity to make derisive remarks about me owning a Swan. Where are your posts with content? -Chuck Touche! |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
wrote in message ups.com... Where's the chassis Squire.. So far this is all mental gymnastics. Why not do a prototype to prove and debug the design, run it for several weeks to work out glitches, and do one or two more test prototypes to finalize the design? This will give you some idea on labor and material costs, and how much time is needed to acquire parts... assemble... align and test.. etc. I think at that point you'd have a better feel for what you are proposing. One thing to think about: why not also offer a kit version? If you do a magazine construction article, say in Electric Radio, that would give you a "free" ad for the kit of materials, and some exposure. Pete |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Bill ) writes:
Xtal filter $1 each, $5 total, see recent post Ask for 400 of all of the above and see how quick those 'surplus' sources go dark. And of course, it's all interrelated. If one doesn't buy a lot of stock to begin with, then they have to scramble later to get suitable parts, and in the case of the mechanical parts, that may mean reworking the chassis. Which means if a large stock isn't bought in advance, then the chassis work can't be done in bulk, because that might mean the prepunched and drilled chassis have to be scrapped. And if production has to stop while new sources are discovered, that may cause significant problems. That's why there's all those second sources for semiconductors; if a manufacturer can't count on being able to get those ICs on a continuous basis, they won't use the part. Michael VE2BVW |
fresh boatanchors, anyone?
Things have changed since the 'old' days.
You could perhaps sell a 2NT-like transmitter for about 500 bucks and make little profit, but not sure how big the crowd at the check out line would be. Sounds nice though...but I think those days are gone. Unless you come up with a cake pan thing such as had been done. Or, take a look at doc bottleheads site at... http://www.bottlehead.com/ No reason you couldn't take some tips from him, and make something with a wood box, and a sheet of metal. Hit 'products' , then scroll to the right. Some pretty nice shots, eh?? .....Dave wrote in message oups.com... All, I've occasionally seen homebrew tube transceivers on Ebay that range from really good to too gnarly looking to seem safe. I am thinking of creating a line of clean-looking, attractive, rugged tube equipment for casual or missionary use with a reasonable price/output performance that is easy to repair and adjust, based on schematics and design principles that have gone into the public domain. Would there be an audience? Comments? The Eternal Squire |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com