Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood.

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"?

That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item
of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de
rigeur - again
pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB.

In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to
experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon"
soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're
currently dealing with.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, 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?

Give me a steel chassis - 3' wide and 2' deep, with a 20 lb power
transformer, a 15 lb modulation transformer, a 5 lb audo output
transformer, and a dozen or so octal based tubes.

----- or, a BC-610 and an HRO-50.

HI!HI!
Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK

and just where do you intend to buy all those components from
after youve searched and found that there are only a few places and the
all charge the earch for a resistor or a transistor the cost of building a
Tranciver is prohibitive
its far cheaper to modifie existing stuff to the bands you want to use ie
11mt to 10mt to 6 mt
just my opinion
but then again in true amateur status i never buy anything i just loan it
from work or rescue it carefully from the skip where it was carefully
placed
sonow you know where all those LED's came from

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood.

Er why not. It's doable as a homebrewer. My favorite chassis is old
cb rigs. outercase subcase and front pannel are often useful. Even
put a 6m sideband rig in one.

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

Most appliance ops dont understand perfomance.

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?

Boat anchor. Good radio and small for that time. They still do not
go cheap.

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

That is a bit big. The usual footprint I shoot for is 2" tall by 6"
wide and maybe 8"deep. That's 96 cubic inches, plenty of room.

Allison

But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation
with the circuitry?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:
How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of
about
3"?
That is a bit big. The usual footprint I shoot for is 2" tall by 6"
wide and maybe 8"deep. That's 96 cubic inches, plenty of room.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:18:47 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation
with the circuitry?


Hate top posting, you always loose the question.

Since I do experiment and modify I allow for it. I enjoy building
small. Since many of my designs are elaborate I've gotten used to
working in small spaces and laying out circuits for accessability and
considerations for possible future changes.

Sometimes I will work around an existing package. I have a number of
of old computer serial A/B switches. They are aluminum with a rounded
side top and bottom shell. The front and rear plate form a simple
frame to screw the case into one unit. It's a trivial task to make
replacement front and rear as the original have too many holes. I got
these for free when a local merchant decided they were of
insufficient value to store for sale.

My latest project is a 5Wpep SSB tranceiver for 6M band in a package
thats only 2x5x7 inches with PLL tuning and digital display. The pll
module is only 1.5"x1.5"x1" constructed dead bug on pcb material
which also forms the case/shield. It could be made smaller but,
that was adaquately small for this project. The power amp is three
transistors of VHF types and fits in a strip of 1.25"Wx 2.5"L x1.5H
excluding heatsink(case is aluminum). For 10mW in I get 5W pep
with good IMD. The front end (rf amp, mixer and mixer amp ) is
complete [1x1x1..25"] and is both compact and very low noise.
The bandpass filter assembly and the crystal filter IF amp sections
are done too. The rest will easily fit in that box obviously.

When doing this I have to consider mechanical things like connectors,
controls and other parts that may be physically large compared to the
circuits they control. For example the froont pannel has to to have
a volume control, RF gain, tuning , microphone jack, headphone jack,
frequency display and meter for RX signal and tx power all in 2x5
inches. The RF gain and volume will have to be a dual (coaxial)
control to fit it all. As you can see getting all the knobs in place
can be more difficult than the electronics behind it.

The only components that will not be in the box will be microphone
dattery and antenna. I exclude the antenna (portable 3 element beam)
and battery power as this is an excusion radio. A 10AH battery of the
gell electrolyte type will be adaquate for a 24 hour field use.

Small is not hard and doesn't contradict high perfomance.

Allison
KB1GMX

Top-posting is the preferred method because you get to see
new material without having to page down through oft-repeated
and over-familiar historical reprints.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:18:47 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:
But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation
with the circuitry?


Hate top posting, you always loose the question.

Karnac the Magnificent would be proud of you (and I)

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?



"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
Top-posting is the preferred method because you get to see
new material without having to page down through oft-repeated
and over-familiar historical reprints.


Hate top posting, you always loose the question.

In article , says...
Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood.

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"?

That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item
of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de
rigeur - again
pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB.

In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to
experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon"
soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're
currently dealing with.





I'm currently building Pic-a-star, and haven't given the final casing a
thought yet. Rather than trying to build to a pre-determined size, I'll
design the case around whatever size the radio ends up, allowing for
'poke-about-a-bility' when it's done.

I don't find the SMT devices a problem. G3XJP has come up with some
excellent ideas for repeatable, reliable methods of using them. By making
the code open-source, it is also encouraging to have a dabble, and see
what changes when certain parts are altered. A true homebrewer's delight!

"Gary Cavie" wrote in message
t...

I'm currently building Pic-a-star, and haven't given the final casing a
thought yet. Rather than trying to build to a pre-determined size, I'll
design the case around whatever size the radio ends up, allowing for
'poke-about-a-bility' when it's done.

There is a chap locally (G8SUY I think) who has developed some ATV SMT
designs- they seem to work well and be popular. If you can hold the parts
while soldering then SMT isn't too bad- an illuminated bench magnifier
helps.

I don't find the SMT devices a problem. G3XJP has come up with some
excellent ideas for repeatable, reliable methods of using them. By making
the code open-source, it is also encouraging to have a dabble, and see
what changes when certain parts are altered. A true homebrewer's delight!

Sadly, I'm sure someone will come along and falsely claim G3XJP's code was
hacked and needs rewriting- totally ignoring his efforts to encourage
homebrew and failing to produce anything to replace it.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898