On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

You're just several pieces of brass and leather
away from steampunkin' it, Jim!

But I don't wanna be a steampunk!

Of course you can arrange your station to your own aesthetic 8^)

Actually, Steampunk is only a few pieces of brass and leather away
from my aesthetic...

But see above about "form follows function" and "aesthetically
pleasing without any added ornamentation". Would adding
brass and
leather make any difference in rig performance?
Or are they only for
looks?

�Well, now you open a interesting subsubject!

Actually I think it's the whole subject....

The addition of brass to a
station is one of those choices that does not necessarily defeat
function.

Agreed - but in the Triple-F aesthetic (hereafter referred to as
"The Southgate School" or TSS), not defeating function isn't enough.
All choices must enhance or support functionality.

TSS also involves the use of available materials and techniques,
usually from non-traditional sources. The rig pictured on my website
(known as the Southgate Type 7) was built almost entirely from reused/
recycled/recovered parts found at hamfests and in junkpiles. A few
crystals were bought new, as was the solder, but that's about it. The
main tuning capacitor is from a junked BC-221 frequency meter; the
dial drum is cut from a piece of Perspex tubing 6" in diameter that
came from a piece of industrial equipment, the VFO box was made (by
hand - hacksaw & flat file) from scraps of 3/32" thick aluminum plate,
etc., etc.

IOW, "found objects".

There needs to be a chassis to place components on or in. Is
aluminum or steel or plastic more functional than brass?

Depends on the application.

For things like power supplies, steel is preferred due to greater
strength and some level of magnetic shielding. But steel must be
painted, plated or otherwise finished to prevent rust, particularly in
a basement shack where humidity may be high.

For things like transmitters and receivers (TSS does not normally use
built-in power supplies because they usually decrease functionality),
aluminum is preferred because of its light weight, corrosion
resistance, higher conductivity and ease of working.

Brass has good conductivity and is easy to work, but it is heavy,
expensive, and rarer than aluminum or steel. There is some use of
brass in TSS, mostly for specialized applications where aluminum is
too soft and plating or painting steel is not practical. For example
in the Southgate Type 7, there is a shaft extender from the tuning
capacitor which I made from brass. You don't see it but it's there.

there might be
some technical reasons fort one over the other, but in the end,
they are a support structure.

Agreed. I have used wood as well, in applications where shielding
wasn't important, or could be obtained in other ways.

An example is the copper plated chassis found in
some radios. Pretty cool. But I wonder how much "worse" they
would
perform if they weren't plated?

Copper plating of steel chassis (Drake is a prime example) was done
for a couple of reasons. One was corrosion protection; since the steel
had to be coated with something to prevent rust. Unlike most paints,
copper plating is conductive, so shields and components mounted to the
copper-plated chassis would make a good chassis connection. Another
plus is the ability to solder directly to the chassis.

But copper plating has disadvantages too. One is that the copper
tarnishes over time. Another is that any break in the plating can set
up electrolytic corrosion. There's also the cost and relative
impracticality of copper-plating at home.

What Drake and others did was to plate the chassis after all the holes
were punched. That's fine for production-line manufactured rigs, but
if there's a possibility of future changes that require new holes, the
plating would be broken. So I stick with aluminum, steel, and
sometimes plastic and wood.

Keeping in mind that fff could be used to not allow any
embellishment,
such as staining, finishing, we have to make sure we don't
minimalize
things out of existence.

TSS is about simplicity and functionality, not minimalism. If staining
or finishing improves the functionality, it is done. For example, the
shack tabletop consists of a layer of oriented strandboard (for
strength) topped by a layer of masonite (for a smooth hard surface).
This combination (actually a composite) was chosen because it was the
least expensive at the time. The masonite was given a couple of coats
of varnish because doing so improved the functionality.

I once went to a classroom where a true minimalist had hung a
data projector from the ceiling from wires. Problem was, the fan
would
push the projector, only as far as the wires would allow, and it
made a
pendulum. People were getting seasick!

There's a textbook example of form *not* following function! The
purpose of the data projector support is to hold the projector at the
proper place so it can do its job, and if the image isn't rock-steady
the appearance doesn't matter.

� Same for leather - would the speaker sound better?

�well, possibly could make for some vibration damping.

Possibly. I've had some experience building speaker cabinets (clones
of the Altec A-7 "Voice of the Theater", JBL folded horns, for
example) and the trick is to build solid from the beginning.

My thoughts are to make a setup that incorporates the
aesthetic in a
fashion that is applicable to the situation.

Which is the basis of Triple-F. You're not far from joining TSS!

The equipment has to sit on
something, so it will be made in a fashion that involves natural
materials, and brass will be used where needed.

There's the key: "where needed".

I'm not going to remove
my radios from their cases and build wooden boxes around them.

OTOH, wood can be a good cabinet for a rig that doesn't have one.

I don't
plan on overly embellishing the station, my goals are
a warm feeling with an antique look where practical.

I've always wondered what the fascination with "antiques" is. I can
understand the fascination with craftsmanship, design, practicality
and materials, though.

The term I would use is "classic" or "timeless". Look at some Mission
or Shaker furniture - it does not appear "antique" or dated. That's
what TSS is all about, applied to Amateur Radio (and a limited
budget!)

For another example, look at the classic Hitchcock film "Rear Window".
Even though it is more than 50 years old, the overall look of James
Stewart's New York apartment, the clothes, the cameras, and all the
other details are so classic that you'd want to live there today.
(Having Grace Kelly stopping by doesn't hurt either!)

Yet "Vertigo", made just a few years later by mostly the same people
(Hitchcock, Stewart), looks very kitschy and dated by comparison.

---

Perhaps the biggest challenge is that our hamshacks are usually works
in progress, rather than fully complete, so flexibility has to be
designed in too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

AF6AY wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

... The idea is to take some
modern technology and make it look as if it was manufactured in another
time and place. So while a person might take an Ipod and etch an old
fashioned picture in it, or a guitar and modify it, they wouldn't likely
make an instrument like a tuning fork.

Yeah, you're right on what Steampunks advertise themselves as, but
that is also a small niche activity in home workshopping, not just
electronics. There's much more to be found in home wood-working
catalogs in regards to 'retro' design and home workshop construction.

I had a little trouble following this in that the attributions appear to
be wrong. I don't think you were really replying to yourself.

Take Hallicrafters for radios. A Biggie among amateurs before WWII
and in the immediate post-WWII period. The pre-war 'style' peak
might have been the SX-28 HF receiver just from appearance.

It might have been, but there were other contenders with big, German
Silver engraved dials.

Their
post-war 'style' peak might have been the SX-62 Big Dial AM-FM and
'shortwave' band receiver.

Except that wasn't a number produced or sold in large numbers.
Hallicrafters had a number of contenders in the post war period. Some
of these include the SX-100, the SX-115, the SX-88 and the SX-42. Even
the Raymond Loewy-desgined, inexpensive S-40B would have been on the list.

They, like National Radio, came out
with a consumer product TV receiver and (like National) failed to
penetrate the market with their 7" electro-static deflection design.
Hallicrafters had a better exterior 'style' than National's wooden
cabinet model but was doomed in not going towards bigger screens.

Hallicrafters did not do anything special in designing the cabinet. The
very same cabinet style was used in the SX-101, HT-32/32A/32B, HT-33 and
perhaps one additional linear amp.

Collins Radio beat both out in commercial and military equipment
after WWII. Collins Radio established its own 'style' which
dominated lots of aesthetic sensibilities back then.

Collins had two-and-a-half styles during the fifties: There was the big
and clunky series of transmitters and receivers all painted in a very
dark St. James gray wrinkle finish. These included the 51J series of
receivers, the 75A series, a series of high power and low power AM/CW
transmitters and the KWS-1 SSB high power transmitter. Then came the
intermediate styling of the tiny KWM-1 SSB transceiver. That was
followed by the light gray, low profile styling of the KWM-2/2A and
S-Line in the late fifties.

RACAL in the
UK was a strong rival in that.

RACAL, jointly owned by those in the UK and in South Africa was never a
contender in the amateur radio market at all. Eldico did make some
Chinese copies of early fifties Collins gear which was sold to the
amateur market. Many USAF MARS stations were also equipped with the
Eldico stuff.

Hallicrafters just couldn't get with
the program after around 1960 and just drooped, eventually
dropping out.

I don't believe that Hallicrafters was ever a big player in the military
market, post WW II.

Market rivalry in the USA began to be taken over more and more
by off-shore designer-makers around 1960.

Japanese manufacturers did not gain more than a toe hold in the U.S.
amateur radio market until about 1969 or 1970 so you're about a decade
off there. Only in low-end, inexpensive stuff sold by the likes of
Lafayette Radio, did the JA stuff do well. Most of their
"communications receivers" weren't really that.

WWII was over a long
time by then and off-shore production in electronics was ramping
up on all markets of electronics, including amateur radio. The
Big 3 (Icom-Yaesu-Kenwood) began their domination, establishing
their own exterior AND interior 'styles'. Lower labor costs (and
smarts) made the Japanese the leading Asian off-shore producer
first, quickly followed by Taiwan and China. Their 'style' of
electronics became THE style to copy, engraved in visual centers
of many minds for a quarter century.

WW II was only over for fifteen years by 1960. Icom was not a big
player in the U.S. in other than the 2m FM game until the late
seventies. Yaesu had a head start on Kenwood in SSB transceivers sold
in the U.S. Kenwood (actually still Trio at the time) made some
inexpensive gear sold by Lafayette and others. Kenwood HF gear didn't
really start selling much until the early/mid-1970's.

I don't see "smarts" entering into the mix as much as low price. One
could save hundreds of dollars on an HF transceiver made in Japan
compared to the price of one made in the U.S. Early Japanese suffered
from awful receiver performance. That made it possible for outfits like
R.L. Drake to stay in the market until the mid-1980's. It also made it
possible for companies like Ten-Tec to grow from what was essentially
the producer of inexpensive QRP rigs to a maker of full featured HF rigs.

To my knowledge, no amateur radio receivers, transceivers or linear amps
made in Taiwan have ever been marketed in the U.S. I believe the
first HF transceiver to be built in China is the Yaesu FT-2000.

But to return to topic, The concept of making a station conform to an
aesthetic is not all that unusual.

I'm NOT saying that nor ever implied it. But, let's take it in
context. Who or what determines a 'retro' look? And what is its
appeal to certain folks?

There are those now marketing (Thomas) what look like cathedral or
tombstone radios which incorporate AM-FM tuners and CD players. Those
who buy them must like them--and I'll even go so far as to say they
deserve them. They are retro in style. They just aren't authentic.
I'm much rather own the real thing than some modern contrivance.

A half-century ago ought to qualify as 'retro' to most. But how
many were alive or experienced in such period radios?

I'm not certain how that matters.

I was in my
twenties in the 1950s but nowhere would I consider 'going retro' to a
stark utilitarian environment kind of radio communications that I
got started in over a half century ago.

When I became a radio amateur 44 years back, I used junk. That didn't
mean that everyone used junk. Much of the high end stuff of that era is
quite capable of doing a good job today. My Hallicrafter HT-32B uses
the crystal filter method of sideband generation. It puts out nearly
100 watts and it features 1 KC readout. The Collins 75A-3 it is paired
up with uses selectable mechanical filters and it too has 1 KC readout.
Neither can be considered "stark utilitarian".

Neither does the 'style'
of electronic things done in a period before 50 years ago appeal
to very many.

I dunno. One of the first things visitors to my home notice is a 1942
Philco console AM/SW radio in the living room. They ooh and ahh over it
and want to know if it works. When I turn it on and let them hear KDKA
rolling forth from the big speaker, they're impressed. I know of a
number of businesses who'll obtain and "remanufacture" such radios on
order for those who want one in their homes.

There are SOME exceptions: The Zenith Transoceanic
line of portable receivers spans the pre-WWII and post-WII times
with its own unique 'style' that is unmistakable. It IS attractive
to so many that it has a large fan base on the Internet, several
URLs, all for one model line. It has a distinct STYLE to its design.

Well, at least *two* distinct styles. The solid state Transoceanics are
quite different looking than the earlier models.

I'm not against 'having fun' with radios.

That pleases me, Len.

With receivers (or
transceivers) one spends a LOT of time looking at front panels
whether or not a user realizes that. Subliminally, at least, the
appearance of a front panel, its control arrangement, colors,
indications, etc., enter the visual cortex and become memory.
Will added brass geegaws enter into the mind as adornement for
the memory just because they look pretty at first glance?.

If I want extra brass, I'll add a diving helmet or a ships lantern. The
manufactured radio equipment of the past is what it is. It doesn't need
the extras.

Our stations can be an expression of
ourselves, and we can either place the items on the desk and be done
with it, or we can embellish the room as we see fit. It is just another
way to have some fun.

I don't agree with that entirely. First of all, an amateur radio
is a communications device, not an article of 'interior design.'

I don't think that was claimed. I have a neighbor who makes kitchen
cabinets with raised panel doors. He has made many a hutch or computer
center with similar raised panels, all out of solid wood. I'm giving
serious thought to having him make me a new operating position. The
choice is mine to make. If someone else wants to set his gear up on a
card table, that is his choice to make.

Secondly, today's ready-built amateur radios can stand on their
own as far as appearance and 'style' is concerned. That includes
most peripheral equipment. OTHER people did the styling of all
those, contemporaries, not some long-gone folks of another era a
century ago.

I'm not one who believes that things have to match. I go for function
first in my primary station. Everything else is secondary. The long
ago stuff is of interest to me and I enjoy having it surround me.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

side note: I once went to a classroom where a true minimalist had hung
a data projector from the ceiling from wires. Problem was, the fan
would push the projector, only as far as the wires would allow, and it
made a pendulum. People were getting seasick!

All that for the lack of one, properly placed additional wire, heh.

Even with that, most buildings shake a little due to machinery, HVAC,
etc, and in the end, a projector mounted that way would be a problem.

My thoughts are to make a setup that incorporates the aesthetic in a
fashion that is applicable to the situation. The equipment has to sit
on something, so it will be made in a fashion that involves natural
materials, and brass will be used where needed. I'm not going to
remove my radios from their cases and build wooden boxes around them.
I don't plan on overly embellishing the station, my goals are a warm
feeling with an antique look where practical

That's easily and authentically achieved by obtaining an old wooden desk
and some genuine vintage equipment.

Oh yeah. I enjoy the look, and even went for it in a small way with some
tube equipment I bought a few years ago.

some snippage

Dressing up modern technology to look as if it is powered by steam,
strikes me as more than a tad silly.


Absolutely! This aesthetic is in no way saying "look at me! I'm serious
art!" I would go a little further to state that some examples of the
genre are downright ridiculous - by design. Interviews with the creators
usually show them to have a great sense of humor, and that they enjoy
pulling our legs at times. But they want everyone in on the joke.

That being said, there are examples of great beauty in there, on the
workshop page, the telegraph sounder was gorgeous, and the pick guard on
the Stratocaster is beautiful.

There is actually some of this aesthetic running about in Amateur
radio, even if we don't notice it.

Like keys for instance

Just look at say Begali keys. What workmanship and quality! These things
are true art. Other keys are gorgeous too. Even my modest Bencher has an
attractive look to it.

But most of that stuff isn't really needed. Certainly the Begali keys
are playfully experimental in nature, and the gold plating isn't really
needed, it's there for aesthetics.

And yet, I could go out to the garage, and make a serviceable paddle
with a piece of 2 by 4 and some springy metal.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

side note: I once went to a classroom where a true minimalist had
hung a data projector from the ceiling from wires. Problem was, the
fan would push the projector, only as far as the wires would allow,
and it made a pendulum. People were getting seasick!

All that for the lack of one, properly placed additional wire, heh.

Even with that, most buildings shake a little due to machinery,
HVAC, etc, and in the end, a projector mounted that way would be a problem.

Maybe. Another wire, mounted diagonally from the rear would have done
away with most of the pendulum action. If you're worried about
buildings shaking, even a steel mounted would have such vibrations
transfered to the projector. The wires might have even damped those
types of motion.

My thoughts are to make a setup that incorporates the aesthetic in a
fashion that is applicable to the situation. The equipment has to sit
on something, so it will be made in a fashion that involves natural
materials, and brass will be used where needed. I'm not going to
remove my radios from their cases and build wooden boxes around them.
I don't plan on overly embellishing the station, my goals are a warm
feeling with an antique look where practical

That's easily and authentically achieved by obtaining an old wooden
desk and some genuine vintage equipment.

Oh yeah. I enjoy the look, and even went for it in a small way with some
tube equipment I bought a few years ago.

In my Cincinnati basement shack, there was one desk on which everything
was all mid-1930's, all the time.

some snippage

Dressing up modern technology to look as if it is powered by steam,
strikes me as more than a tad silly.


Absolutely! This aesthetic is in no way saying "look at me! I'm
serious art!" I would go a little further to state that some examples of
the genre are downright ridiculous - by design.

....and I'd go even further in saying that most of it is downright
ridiculous by design or otherwise.

Interviews with the
creators usually show them to have a great sense of humor, and that they
enjoy pulling our legs at times. But they want everyone in on the joke.

Kitsch is kitsch no matter who tosses the pillows with a flair.

That being said, there are examples of great beauty in there, on the
workshop page, the telegraph sounder was gorgeous, and the pick guard on
the Stratocaster is beautiful.

I own a perfectly good '73 Strat. I'm defacing it for no one.

There is actually some of this aesthetic running about in Amateur
radio, even if we don't notice it.

It isn't evident here.

Like keys for instance

Just look at say Begali keys. What workmanship and quality! These things
are true art. Other keys are gorgeous too. Even my modest Bencher has an
attractive look to it.

Some guys like Picasso. Some like Wyeth. If you liked the Bencher,
you'd love the FYO keyer it is based on. Either a metal like brass or
nickel is needed or some sort of plating is necessary to keep the metal
from corroding/rusting.

But most of that stuff isn't really needed. Certainly the Begali keys
are playfully experimental in nature, and the gold plating isn't really
needed, it's there for aesthetics.

Some kind of plating or paint is needed and it isn't practical to paint
things like the threads of screws. Key's aren't designed to look as if
they're steam powered.

And yet, I could go out to the garage, and make a serviceable paddle
with a piece of 2 by 4 and some springy metal.

I think we could all agree that such a contraption would be ugly in the
eyes of most. Additionally, it wouldn't be likely to work very well.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 3, 8:23�pm, Dave Heil wrote:

Hallicrafters had a number of contenders in the post war
period. �Some of these include the SX-100, the SX-115,
the SX-88 and the SX-42. �Even
the Raymond Loewy-desgined, inexpensive S-40B would have
been on the list.

Agreed. Also the rare PRO-310.

I find it impressive that Hallicrafters made so many different
receiver models in so few years (say, 1945-1960).

Collins had two-and-a-half styles during the fifties: �
There was the big
and clunky series of transmitters and receivers all painted
in a very
dark St. James gray wrinkle finish. �These included the 51J
series of
receivers, the 75A series, a series of high power and
low power AM/CW
transmitters and the KWS-1 SSB high power transmitter.

I would not describe them as "clunky". They were big and heavy because
that's what the job required at the time.

Included in that list is the 75A-4, a pioneering receiver that
is still a good performer, and which can be modified to be
an excellent performer. (The mods involve using a better
tube for the RF amplifier upgrading the 6BA7 mixers).

The 75A-4 is the first receiver I know of that included passband
tuning as a standard feature.

�Then came the
intermediate styling of the tiny KWM-1 SSB transceiver. �

Yep. I don't think Collins ever repeated that!

That was
followed by the light gray, low profile styling of the KWM-2/2A and
S-Line in the late fifties.

Which changed the game completely.

Japanese manufacturers did not gain more than a
toe hold in the U.S.
amateur radio market until about 1969 or 1970

That's true.

Only in low-end, inexpensive stuff sold by the likes of
Lafayette Radio, did the JA stuff do well. �Most of their
"communications receivers" weren't really that.

Lafayette HA-350, anyone? Henry Radio Tempo One?

There were also Japanese parts sold through Lafayette and others, such
as vernier dials, knobs, panel meters and other parts. Allied
also got into that game.

WW II was only over for fifteen years by 1960. �
Icom was not a big
player in the U.S. in other than the 2m FM game until the late
seventies. �Yaesu had a head start on Kenwood in
SSB transceivers sold
in the U.S. �Kenwood (actually still Trio at the time) made some
inexpensive gear sold by Lafayette and others.
�Kenwood HF gear didn't
really start selling much until the early/mid-1970's.

IMHO what turned the tide were two now-classic HF rigs: the Yaesu
FT-101 and the Kenwood TS-520.

Actually these were families of rigs, and the early ones weren't any
great shakes, particularly the FT-101. But the companies learned and
improved, and by the time of the FT-101E and the TS-520S they were
pretty decent. Not Drake or Collins quality, of course, but not Heath
either. And they offered things American rigs did not.

Consider the TS-520S, for example. It did the usual 80-10 meter SSB
job pretty well. But it also gave a choice of AGC fast/slow/off, an
optional narrow CW filter that was pretty good, RIT/XIT, 160 meters
and WWV/JJY, fan-cooled finals, plus a built-in AC power supply.

I don't see "smarts" entering into the mix as much as low
price. One
could save hundreds of dollars on an HF transceiver made
in Japan
compared to the price of one made in the U.S.

Not just price but price/performance/features combo. For example, try
to think of a US-made HF amateur transceiver that had the following:

- 100 watt output class
- 6146 finals, not sweep tubes
- Sharp CW filter
- RIT/XIT
- AGC off/slow/fast

Early Japanese suffered
from awful receiver performance. �

Particularly IMD in their SS products. They could not compete with
tube designs. They got better, though.

That made it possible for outfits like
R.L. Drake to stay in the market until the mid-1980's.
�It also made it
possible for companies like Ten-Tec to grow from what was
essentially
the producer of inexpensive QRP rigs to a maker of full featured
HF rigs.

40 years of Ten Tec ham rigs. Incredible.

Digi-Key got its start about the same time as Ten Tec - 1968 or so.
Their name comes from the fact that the company got started by selling
digital ICs (RTL!) in small quantities to hams so they could build
solid-state Morse Code keyers. Then they just kept growing, but the
name stayed.

When I became a radio amateur 44 years back,
I used junk. �That didn't mean that everyone used junk.
Much of the high end stuff of that era is
quite capable of doing a good job today. �My Hallicrafter
HT-32B uses
the crystal filter method of sideband generation. �It puts out nea
rly
100 watts and it features 1 KC readout.
�The Collins 75A-3 it is paired
up with uses selectable mechanical filters and it too has 1 KC
readout.
Neither can be considered "stark utilitarian".

Exactly. Nor are they overly ornate. They are functional and
attractive just as they are.

�The
manufactured radio equipment of the past is what it is.
�It doesn't need
the extras.

The same is true of a lot of homebrew gear. Look up the stuff made by
one of my Elmers, master homebrewer W2LYH. (several QST articles).
Great stuff, high performance, no ornamentation, Sounded great on the
air, too.

I'm not one who believes that things have to match. �
I go for function
first in my primary station. �Everything else is secondary.

Same here!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:23�pm, Dave Heil wrote:

I find it impressive that Hallicrafters made so many different
receiver models in so few years (say, 1945-1960).

Loads and loads. Most were variations on a common theme with styling
changes though octal tubes might have been replaced by loctals or
miniature 7 or 9 pin types.

Collins had two-and-a-half styles during the fifties: �
There was the big
and clunky series of transmitters and receivers all painted
in a very
dark St. James gray wrinkle finish. �These included the 51J
series of
receivers, the 75A series, a series of high power and
low power AM/CW
transmitters and the KWS-1 SSB high power transmitter.

I would not describe them as "clunky". They were big and heavy because
that's what the job required at the time.

Well, I meant in contrast with the smaller, much lighter S-Line stuff.

Included in that list is the 75A-4, a pioneering receiver that
is still a good performer, and which can be modified to be
an excellent performer. (The mods involve using a better
tube for the RF amplifier upgrading the 6BA7 mixers).

The 'A-4 was the best of the period. The models with the Collins
vernier tuning knob were the best of the best.

The 75A-4 is the first receiver I know of that included passband
tuning as a standard feature.

I think you're right. My 75A-3 came with a Universal Service
(predecessor to today's Universal Radio) PTO mod which plugs into the
NBFM socket. The Collins winged emblem was removed, a hole drilled in
the spot and a long 1/4" shaft from the PBT box ran through the hole.
An engraved plate was mounted on the panel and the shaft was fitted with
a miniature knob. A mod for the AGC time constant was also added. The
thing is nearly the equal to a 75A-4.

�Then came the
intermediate styling of the tiny KWM-1 SSB transceiver. �

Yep. I don't think Collins ever repeated that!

It was a funny duck. It had almost a military look to it.

That was
followed by the light gray, low profile styling of the KWM-2/2A and
S-Line in the late fifties.

Which changed the game completely.

Everybody began jumping on that band wagon. Heathkit came up with the
"poor man's S-Line"; Drake introduced the 1-A, 2-A and 2-B and TR-3;
Swan introduced monoband and multiband transceivers; Hallicrafters and
National also began producing smaller, lighter separates and transceivers.

Japanese manufacturers did not gain more than a
toe hold in the U.S.
amateur radio market until about 1969 or 1970

That's true.

Only in low-end, inexpensive stuff sold by the likes of
Lafayette Radio, did the JA stuff do well. �Most of their
"communications receivers" weren't really that.

Lafayette HA-350, anyone? Henry Radio Tempo One?

The Lafayette HE-10, HE-30, HE-80 were Trio rigs. The Tempo One was a
Yaesu FT-100. The FT-50 and FR-50 were sold by another firm.

There were also Japanese parts sold through Lafayette and others, such
as vernier dials, knobs, panel meters and other parts. Allied
also got into that game.

Sure thing--and don't leave out Olson and Radshack.

WW II was only over for fifteen years by 1960. �
Icom was not a big
player in the U.S. in other than the 2m FM game until the late
seventies. �Yaesu had a head start on Kenwood in
SSB transceivers sold
in the U.S. �Kenwood (actually still Trio at the time) made some
inexpensive gear sold by Lafayette and others.
�Kenwood HF gear didn't
really start selling much until the early/mid-1970's.

IMHO what turned the tide were two now-classic HF rigs: the Yaesu
FT-101 and the Kenwood TS-520.

I'd toss in the Yaesu tube-type rigs such as the FTDX-560 and 570.

Actually these were families of rigs, and the early ones weren't any
great shakes, particularly the FT-101. But the companies learned and
improved, and by the time of the FT-101E and the TS-520S they were
pretty decent. Not Drake or Collins quality, of course, but not Heath
either. And they offered things American rigs did not.

They did offer extras but you should look at the TS-520's receiver
specs. They're dismal. The FT-101 series would have been pretty good
had it not been for a flaw in leaving the noise blanker connected even
when it was turned off. That's a flaw Yaesu continues to make. It is
one of the problems with the FT-1000 series.

Consider the TS-520S, for example. It did the usual 80-10 meter SSB
job pretty well. But it also gave a choice of AGC fast/slow/off, an
optional narrow CW filter that was pretty good, RIT/XIT, 160 meters
and WWV/JJY, fan-cooled finals, plus a built-in AC power supply.

Yep. It served pretty well as an everyman's rig and would have been
much better if the receiver section had been better design. The
Japanese were not the only ones with this problem. Heath's early solid
state receiver, the HW-303 was an absolute clunker in this regard.

Hammarlund made one valiant effort to stave off the JA's with the
introduction of the solid state HQ-215. I have one of those and it is a
pretty darned good receiver. It has an edgewise drum dial with 1 KC
readout, has fixed, selectable USB/LSB and a variable BFO for CW. It
has a preselector in the front end, offers AUX band positions and places
for three Collins mechanical filters. The mixing scheme is the same as
the S-Line and it has the same 200 KC band segments. There are
input/output ports on the rear panel so that the receiver can be slaved
to a 32S-whatever transmitter for transceive use. I think it was first
offered about 1967.

I don't see "smarts" entering into the mix as much as low
price. One
could save hundreds of dollars on an HF transceiver made
in Japan
compared to the price of one made in the U.S.

Not just price but price/performance/features combo. For example, try
to think of a US-made HF amateur transceiver that had the following:

- 100 watt output class
- 6146 finals, not sweep tubes
- Sharp CW filter
- RIT/XIT
- AGC off/slow/fast

That's quite a number of preconditions. I don't think there were any.
The Heath SB-102 comes close. The Drake TR-4CW comes close (6JB6's).

Early Japanese suffered
from awful receiver performance. �

Particularly IMD in their SS products. They could not compete with
tube designs. They got better, though.

They got a lot better over the years. I ran the FR-101 with the FT-101E
for a couple of years. It did pretty well.

That made it possible for outfits like
R.L. Drake to stay in the market until the mid-1980's.
�It also made it
possible for companies like Ten-Tec to grow from what was
essentially
the producer of inexpensive QRP rigs to a maker of full featured
HF rigs.

40 years of Ten Tec ham rigs. Incredible.

....and about thirty years of high performance gear.

Digi-Key got its start about the same time as Ten Tec - 1968 or so.
Their name comes from the fact that the company got started by selling
digital ICs (RTL!) in small quantities to hams so they could build
solid-state Morse Code keyers. Then they just kept growing, but the
name stayed.

They've done phenomenally well. Many of the old line distributors are
just plain gone.

When I became a radio amateur 44 years back,
I used junk. �That didn't mean that everyone used junk.
Much of the high end stuff of that era is
quite capable of doing a good job today. �My Hallicrafter
HT-32B uses
the crystal filter method of sideband generation. �It puts out nea
rly
100 watts and it features 1 KC readout.
�The Collins 75A-3 it is paired
up with uses selectable mechanical filters and it too has 1 KC
readout.
Neither can be considered "stark utilitarian".

Exactly. Nor are they overly ornate. They are functional and
attractive just as they are.

Agreed. I've often wondered if any of the modern gear will be
functional/repairable in forty or fifty years. My guess is that it will
not.

�The
manufactured radio equipment of the past is what it is.
�It doesn't need
the extras.

The same is true of a lot of homebrew gear. Look up the stuff made by
one of my Elmers, master homebrewer W2LYH. (several QST articles).

I know a few guys who still operate the W6TC HBR series of receivers
that they or others constructed. I also of quite a number of quality
homebrew linear amps which are still put on the air on a regular basis.

Great stuff, high performance, no ornamentation, Sounded great on the
air, too.

....and still sounds great on the air.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Agreed - but in the Triple-F aesthetic (hereafter referred to as
"The Southgate School" or TSS), not defeating function isn't enough.
All choices must enhance or support functionality.

Gotcha, Jug!

TSS also involves the use of available materials and techniques,
usually from non-traditional sources. The rig pictured on my website
(known as the Southgate Type 7) was built almost entirely from reused/
recycled/recovered parts found at hamfests and in junkpiles. A few
crystals were bought new, as was the solder, but that's about it. The
main tuning capacitor is from a junked BC-221 frequency meter; the
dial drum is cut from a piece of Perspex tubing 6" in diameter that
came from a piece of industrial equipment, the VFO box was made (by
hand - hacksaw & flat file) from scraps of 3/32" thick aluminum plate,
etc., etc.

IOW, "found objects".

If you're willing to get dirty and are patient, it is possible to save a
bundle by using other people's castoffs.

There needs to be a chassis to place components on or in. Is
aluminum or steel or plastic more functional than brass?

Depends on the application.

For things like power supplies, steel is preferred due to greater
strength and some level of magnetic shielding. But steel must be
painted, plated or otherwise finished to prevent rust, particularly in
a basement shack where humidity may be high.

I'm going to use an old computer tower for a chassis/cabinet for a pair
of 4-400's I plan to build.

Brass has good conductivity and is easy to work, but it is heavy,
expensive, and rarer than aluminum or steel. There is some use of
brass in TSS, mostly for specialized applications where aluminum is
too soft and plating or painting steel is not practical. For example
in the Southgate Type 7, there is a shaft extender from the tuning
capacitor which I made from brass. You don't see it but it's there.

If you're building something small, try hobby shops. They often have
bins of both brass, copper and aluminum sheet in various thicknesses
along with round and square tubing and rod of the same materials.

there might be
some technical reasons fort one over the other, but in the end,
they are a support structure.

Agreed. I have used wood as well, in applications where shielding
wasn't important, or could be obtained in other ways.

Wood with a thin sheet of flashing aluminum is one way to get the shielding.

But copper plating has disadvantages too. One is that the copper
tarnishes over time. Another is that any break in the plating can set
up electrolytic corrosion. There's also the cost and relative
impracticality of copper-plating at home.

You can find a number of Heath and Drake units with really good looking
plating. I suspect that the problem units were stored in areas of high
humidity.

What Drake and others did was to plate the chassis after all the holes
were punched. That's fine for production-line manufactured rigs, but
if there's a possibility of future changes that require new holes, the
plating would be broken. So I stick with aluminum, steel, and
sometimes plastic and wood.

I think home plating of a large chassis would be so very time consuming
that not many would bother. It is also much easier to work aluminum
than steel. I wouldn't hesitate to break the copper plating for
modifying/repairing such equipment. A touch of lacquer on the edges
would keep air and humidity from getting to the steel.

TSS is about simplicity and functionality, not minimalism. If staining
or finishing improves the functionality, it is done. For example, the
shack tabletop consists of a layer of oriented strandboard (for
strength) topped by a layer of masonite (for a smooth hard surface).
This combination (actually a composite) was chosen because it was the
least expensive at the time. The masonite was given a couple of coats
of varnish because doing so improved the functionality.

The tempered Masonite, no doubt. The front panel of W4JBP's 1941
homebrew transmitter is of that stuff, painted black.

Possibly. I've had some experience building speaker cabinets (clones
of the Altec A-7 "Voice of the Theater", JBL folded horns, for
example) and the trick is to build solid from the beginning.

I've shared the experience and still remember all of the kerfing that
went into getting those curves right. Add a 15" Electrovoice SRO
speaker (which was about 3db better than anything else on the market at
the time), top is with some massive horn tweeters and you had something.

I've always wondered what the fascination with "antiques" is. I can
understand the fascination with craftsmanship, design, practicality
and materials, though.

I think there a couple of classes of antique furniture items. There are
those things which can only be viewed and those things which can be
used. A small, antique ladies chair might not be something you could
use, but an antique dining room suite or an antique sideboard can be
quite utilitarian.

The term I would use is "classic" or "timeless". Look at some Mission
or Shaker furniture - it does not appear "antique" or dated. That's
what TSS is all about, applied to Amateur Radio (and a limited
budget!)

I had to grin. I believe that 2x4's, 4x4's, plywood or hollow core
doors will never go out of style. There's no "Captain Nemo walking into
his cabin on the Nautilus" look here, but the place is attractive and
utilitarian.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:23pm, Dave Heil wrote:
I find it impressive that Hallicrafters made so many different
receiver models in so few years (say, 1945-1960).

Loads and loads. �Most were variations on a common theme
with styling
changes though octal tubes might have been replaced by loctals or miniat
ure 7 or 9 pin types.

Hallicrafters never went for loctals in a big way; they were used only
where there was no other choice at the time. Your variations-on-a-
theme idea is correct; notice how similar the SX-42 and SX-62 are on
the inside.


The 'A-4 was the best of the period. �The models with the Collins
vernier tuning knob were the best of the best.

IMHO Collins made a design mistake by putting such a fast tuning rate
(100 kc. per knob turn) on the 75A-4. The reduction knob fixed that.

A few years ago, a small company began manufacturing a reduction knob
for the 75A-4, machined out of solid brass. Functional and
attractive.

The 75A-4 is the first receiver I know of that included passband
tuning as a standard feature.

I think you're right. �My 75A-3 came with a Universal Service
(predecessor to today's Universal Radio) PTO mod which plugs
into the
NBFM socket. �The Collins winged emblem was removed, a hole
drilled in
the spot and a long 1/4" shaft from the PBT box ran through the
hole.
An engraved plate was mounted on the panel and the shaft was
fitted with a miniature knob.

How did it provide PBT? The 75A-4 PBT is entirely mechanical; it works
by rotating the PTO and the BFO controls simultaneously, but so that
their frequencies move in opposite directions. The linearity of both
oscillators is such that the received carrier frequency does not move.

�A mod for the AGC time constant was also added. �The
thing is nearly the equal to a 75A-4.

NICE!

That was
followed by the light gray, low profile styling of the KWM-2/2A and
S-Line in the late fifties.

Which changed the game completely.

Everybody began jumping on that band wagon. �
Heathkit came up with the
"poor man's S-Line"; Drake introduced the 1-A, 2-A and 2-B and
TR-3;
Swan introduced monoband and multiband transceivers;
Hallicrafters and
National also began producing smaller, lighter separates and
transceivers.

IIRC the 1-A predated the S-line and KWM-2. It was a revolutionary
design; small, light and compact at a time when even inexpensive
receivers were big and heavy. Note the tiny, taller-than-it-is-wide
front panel and the very deep chassis. The 1-A had passband tuning
too, but it was implemented by having a tunable LC filter at the last
IF. The 2-A and 2-B are excellent receivers for their price and
complexity, and are prized today. But they were a dead end in one way:
there was no matching transmitter that could transceive with them.

What the KWM-2 and S-line did was to make "transceiving" popular.

The KWM-1 and a few other rigs like the legendary Cosmophone (the
first true full-featured HF amateur transceiver) had been the first
manufactured amateur HF rigs to use the same tunable oscillator to
control both the transmitter and receiver, but they did not achieve
wide popularity.

Indeed, a homebrew 40 meter *CW* transceiver built around a surplus
BC-453 was described in a 1954 QST, probably the first published use
of the idea in amateur radio. It even had full QSK. But it was ahead
of its time.

The KWM-2 and S-line took transceiving to another level. Not only were
they smaller and lighter than their predecessors, they had relatively
few controls. They made SSB more popular with hams by reducing the
cost and size and eliminating the job of zerobeating the transmitter.
Tune an SSB station correctly and the transmitter was automatically on
the right frequency.

Add to this the grounded-grid linear amplifier and things really
changed. High power 'phone became not only less expensive but a lot
smaller and lighter. Transceivers and matched-pair separates became
the new paradigm in HF ham gear; AM wasn't part of that.

Compare the Heathkit line of 1964-65 with what they were selling just
5 years earlier for just one example.

IMHO what turned the tide were two now-classic HF rigs:
the Yaesu
FT-101 and the Kenwood TS-520.

I'd toss in the Yaesu tube-type rigs such as the
FTDX-560 and 570.

Well, sort of. They had QC problems and were really competition for
the likes of Swan, who did the same lots-of-watts-from-sweep-tubes
game.

They did offer extras but you should look at the TS-520's receiver
specs. �They're dismal. �

But you have to ask "compared to what?" Plus they were almost all
"solid state", which was a selling point even if performance suffered.


Consider the TS-520S, for example.
It did the usual 80-10 meter SSB
job pretty well. But it also gave a choice of AGC fast/slow/off, an
optional narrow CW filter that was pretty good, RIT/XIT,
160 meters
and WWV/JJY, fan-cooled finals, plus a built-in AC
power supply.

Yep. �It served pretty well as an everyman's rig and
would have been
much better if the receiver section had been better design.

Agreed, but for the time and price it was decent enough. Point is,
it opened the door.

�The
Japanese were not the only ones with this problem. �
Heath's early solid
state receiver, the HW-303 was an absolute clunker in this regard.

I think you mean the SB-303. And yes it was - very sensitive but at
the cost of dynamic range.

Hammarlund made one valiant effort to stave off the JA's with the
introduction of the solid state HQ-215. �I have one of those and
it is a
pretty darned good receiver. �It has an edgewise drum dial
with 1 KC
readout, has fixed, selectable USB/LSB and a variable BFO for
CW. �It
has a preselector in the front end, offers AUX band
positions and places
for three Collins mechanical filters. �The mixing scheme is the
same as
the S-Line and it has the same 200 KC band segments. �There are
input/output ports on the rear panel so that the receiver can be
slaved
to a 32S-whatever transmitter for transceive use. �I think it was
first
offered about 1967.

Correct on all counts. It was meant to be a solid-state 75S-3. But
never quite got there. Hallicrafters made the almost-all-solid-state
FPM-300 transceiver a few years later, too.

Its drum dial inspired the Southgate Type 4 (receiver) and Type 7
(transceiver) dials. But they use all-gear-drive.

It should be remembered that there were some colossal also-rans in
that period, too. B&W made their 6100 transmitter with its multiknob
mixing synthesizer, obviously inspired by commercial/military sets
like the R-1051. Stable but poorly adapted to amateur HF operation.

The legendary Squires Sanders SS-1R was poised to give Collins a good
run for the money, but without a matching transmitter, not many hams
were going to spend S-line-level dollars for it.

Some folks criticized amateurs for being "slow" to use solid-state HF
rigs, but there was a reason for caution. More than one early SS rig
had come to grief, like the Hallicrafters FPM-200 of the early 1960s
and the EF Johnson Avenger transceiver, of which only about a dozen
were made. Avenger was a decent rig but cost so much to make that EFJ
never produced more, knowing they wouldn't sell. EFJ never again made
an amateur HF transceiver, and was soon not making HF ham gear at all.

Central Electronics pioneered the no-tune transmitter (with all
tubes!) back in the late 1950s, and was poised to market a matching
receiver (the 100-R) which was reportedly as good or better than the
75S-3. But the company was bought for some patents and other contracts
and was soon out of the amateur market. The sole 100-R prototype
survives to this day.

OTOH, Southgate Radio is still building rigs after 40+ years...

Not just price but price/performance/features combo.
For example, try
to think of a US-made HF amateur transceiver that
had the following:

- 100 watt output class
- 6146 finals, not sweep tubes
- Sharp CW filter
- RIT/XIT
- AGC off/slow/fast

That's quite a number of preconditions.

Not really, IMHO, and they're pretty basic things, easily implemented
with 1960s technology.

�I don't think there were any.

Exactly.

The Heath SB-102 comes close. �

Not really. It doesn't have RIT/XIT, and you can't easily add it.
Can't turn off the AGC nor adjust its time constant either.

The Drake TR-4CW comes close (6JB6's).

Only if you get the model that had both RIT and the sharp filter,
which was only produced for a short time. Blink and you missed it.
Plus check the price of a TR4-CW with power supply and speaker. Ouch!

By comparison, the TS-520S had all of that and more, even if the rx
wasn't as good.

Digi-Key got its start about the same time as Ten Tec - 1968
or so.
Their name comes from the fact that the company got
started by selling
digital ICs (RTL!) in small quantities to hams so they could build
solid-state Morse Code keyers. Then they just kept
growing, 'but the
name stayed.

They've done phenomenally well. �Many of the old line distributors

are just plain gone.

Newark and Allied are still around.

Nor are they overly ornate. They are functional and
attractive just as they are.

Agreed. �I've often wondered if any of the modern gear will be
functional/repairable in forty or fifty years. �My guess is that i
t will
not.

I think it will be, but in different ways:

The first way will be the renovators, who make a few good rigs from a
pile of problem sets. This is already starting to happen; look on ebay
for "TS-940" and you will see lots of parts for sale.

The second way will be the rebuilders, who will make replacement PCBs
using parts available then. A much harder go at first, but given the
automation possibilities now, who knows what the future could do.

Look up the stuff made by
one of my Elmers, master homebrewer W2LYH.
(several QST articles).

I know a few guys who still operate the W6TC HBR series of
receivers that they or others constructed. �

There are folks still building HBRs today, from scratch.

But with all due respect to those designs, do check out W2LYH's
designs, such as the 23 tube receiver or the ultrastable Frankling
VFO. His construction is an art in itself; no ornamentation needed.

I often wonder what happened to his rig. I don't think I want to know.

I also of quite a number of quality
homebrew linear amps which are still put on the air on a regular
basis.

Yep. Also a number of SB-200s, SB-220s, L-4s and similar amps are
pounding out the watts today, often with upgrades and modernizations.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:02:41 EST, wrote:

Hallicrafters never went for loctals in a big way; they were used only
where there was no other choice at the time. Your variations-on-a-
theme idea is correct; notice how similar the SX-42 and SX-62 are on
the inside.

I had a Hallicrafters SX-101 for many years - the one with the big
slide rule dial and the capability of adding a 2-meter converter (we
all ran AM in those days on 2m). It weighed quite a bit and kept the
room warm in the winter, especially when paired it up with the HT-44B,
but worked very well.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:02:41 EST, wrote:

Hallicrafters never went for loctals in a big way; they were used only
where there was no other choice at the time. Your variations-on-a-
theme idea is correct; notice how similar the SX-42 and SX-62 are on
the inside.

I had a Hallicrafters SX-101 for many years - the one with the big
slide rule dial and the capability of adding a 2-meter converter (we
all ran AM in those days on 2m). It weighed quite a bit and kept the
room warm in the winter, especially when paired it up with the HT-44B,
but worked very well.

I like the early SX-101 as it covered 160m. The later variants didn't
but one thing they did have was the oscillator tube filaments on at all
times when the rig was plugged in. That helped stability quite a bit.
I'd still like to have a 101 to pair with the HT-32B.

Dave K8MN