There was a time, back inthe 1920s and 1930s, that any active device
(valves in them thar days, tubes for the leftpondians) would cost nearly
a week's wages for the average working man, and so it was good economical
sense to try and use it as many ways as possible simultaneously.

Times have changes, and active devices with performance into the tens
of MegaHertz are now ten-a-penny, so what is achieved by competitions
such as the "Two Transistor Challenge" where it is the costs of switching
(manual, relays) which would be the major outlay?

Not carping, just curious.

-----ooooo-----

BUT BUT BUT, this one has no switching, apart from the Morse Key! ...


http://www.vk2zay.net/article/file/1138

In article ,
"gareth" wrote:

There was a time, back inthe 1920s and 1930s, that any active device
(valves in them thar days, tubes for the leftpondians) would cost nearly
a week's wages for the average working man, and so it was good economical
sense to try and use it as many ways as possible simultaneously.

Times have changes, and active devices with performance into the tens
of MegaHertz are now ten-a-penny, so what is achieved by competitions
such as the "Two Transistor Challenge" where it is the costs of switching
(manual, relays) which would be the major outlay?

Not carping, just curious.

-----ooooo-----

BUT BUT BUT, this one has no switching, apart from the Morse Key! ...


http://www.vk2zay.net/article/file/1138

And the diode + FET! But I agree, counting transistors when capacitors
and coils can cost much more in both money and space has been
meaningless for about fifty years. Remember really advanced seven
transistor radios?

--

Percy Picacity

"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gareth" wrote:

There was a time, back inthe 1920s and 1930s, that any active device
(valves in them thar days, tubes for the leftpondians) would cost nearly
a week's wages for the average working man, and so it was good economical
sense to try and use it as many ways as possible simultaneously.

Times have changes, and active devices with performance into the tens
of MegaHertz are now ten-a-penny, so what is achieved by competitions
such as the "Two Transistor Challenge" where it is the costs of switching
(manual, relays) which would be the major outlay?

Not carping, just curious.

-----ooooo-----

BUT BUT BUT, this one has no switching, apart from the Morse Key! ...


http://www.vk2zay.net/article/file/1138

And the diode + FET! But I agree, counting transistors when capacitors
and coils can cost much more in both money and space has been
meaningless for about fifty years. Remember really advanced seven
transistor radios?

I had a Sinclair Micro 6, that was how I discovered Top Band (160m)
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 18/02/14 11:38, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

I had a Sinclair Micro 6, that was how I discovered Top Band (160m)

I'm sure I still have mine. Sadly, the 250 ohm earpiece met with a
terminal end and I've never found a replacement.

Building radios etc. were the signs of being a geek or nerd in the days
before home computers.

Did you also build the Sinclair Calculator that came along in about
1973? Painfully slow to use, a quick slide rule user could probably beat
it in a calculation which had a few trig functions in it, but geek 'must
have' ;-)

Back to the title, Some clubs run competitions along the lines of:

Build an 80m tx with the fewest components.

OR

Build a 20m rx with with the fewest components.


There are rules as to whether the battery counts etc., use or not of
ICs. ....

While I follow the QRP scene, I don't pretend to be an ardent QRPer or
QRP builder so I'm not fully briefed on the rules. Those are simply an
outline I recall.

Whoever started the thread is, I assume, an ardent and active
constructor. Perhaps he/she will share some of their designs to inspire
others to follow their example.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...


Did you also build the Sinclair Calculator that came along in about 1973?
Painfully slow to use, a quick slide rule user could probably beat it in a
calculation which had a few trig functions in it, but geek 'must have' ;-)

I built the 'Wireless World' calculator about 72/73, it's still around
somewhere. I thinkthe kit cost about £40, a lot of money then (for me at
least) which was less that half the price of ready made one.

Whoever started the thread is, I assume, an ardent and active constructor.
Perhaps he/she will share some of their designs to inspire others to
follow their example.

I don't think the above para was needed, but perhaps you don't read all of
the theads.


--

On 18/02/14 13:12, I'm Old Gregg wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...


Did you also build the Sinclair Calculator that came along in about
1973? Painfully slow to use, a quick slide rule user could probably
beat it in a calculation which had a few trig functions in it, but
geek 'must have' ;-)

I built the 'Wireless World' calculator about 72/73, it's still around
somewhere. I thinkthe kit cost about £40, a lot of money then (for me at
least) which was less that half the price of ready made one.


Much less. A class mate was bought a Sinclair Scientific by his father
for £180. That was a staggering sum of money. A good 3 bed room semi
could be bought for about £3800 at that time in the area. When the
Sinclair kit came out, New Scientist did an offer for £14.95.


Whoever started the thread is, I assume, an ardent and active
constructor. Perhaps he/she will share some of their designs to
inspire others to follow their example.

I don't think the above para was needed, but perhaps you don't read all
of the theads.

I don't, even while laid up following a knee op. I've other things to do.

On 2/18/2014 5:58 AM, gareth wrote:
There was a time, back inthe 1920s and 1930s, that any active device
(valves in them thar days, tubes for the leftpondians) would cost nearly
a week's wages for the average working man, and so it was good economical
sense to try and use it as many ways as possible simultaneously.

Times have changes, and active devices with performance into the tens
of MegaHertz are now ten-a-penny, so what is achieved by competitions
such as the "Two Transistor Challenge" where it is the costs of switching
(manual, relays) which would be the major outlay?

Not carping, just curious.

-----ooooo-----

BUT BUT BUT, this one has no switching, apart from the Morse Key! ...


http://www.vk2zay.net/article/file/1138



I'm not familiar with this particular challenge - but similar ones I've
seen are more about the design than the cost.

Jerry, AI0K




--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 2/18/2014 5:58 AM, gareth wrote:
There was a time, back inthe 1920s and 1930s, that any active device
(valves in them thar days, tubes for the leftpondians) would cost nearly
a week's wages for the average working man, and so it was good economical
sense to try and use it as many ways as possible simultaneously.

Times have changes, and active devices with performance into the tens
of MegaHertz are now ten-a-penny, so what is achieved by competitions
such as the "Two Transistor Challenge" where it is the costs of switching
(manual, relays) which would be the major outlay?

Not carping, just curious.

-----ooooo-----

BUT BUT BUT, this one has no switching, apart from the Morse Key! ...


http://www.vk2zay.net/article/file/1138



I'm not familiar with this particular challenge - but similar ones I've
seen are more about the design than the cost.

Jerry, AI0K

True, but it is still a ridiculous constraint. It is about as sensible
as designing something where the first digit of every component value
had to be '4'.

--

Percy Picacity

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Whoever started the thread is, I assume, an ardent and active constructor.
Perhaps he/she will share some of their designs to inspire others to
follow their example.


Why is it that almost every post from you contains a snide or an
infantile interjection, OM?

Grow up, Brian!

"I'm Old Gregg" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Whoever started the thread is, I assume, an ardent and active
constructor. Perhaps he/she will share some of their designs to inspire
others to follow their example.

I don't think the above para was needed, but perhaps you don't read all of
the theads.


Thanks, Jon.