Although I have a technical background, my post secondary "eddycaytion"
is actually in the art field, and In my job and life I cross between the
two.

I stumbled upon this site, and was pleasantly introduced to "Steampunks"

(Hang with me here, this is actually on topic-despite what it sounds
like so far)

These folks take a whimsical view of modern life, and like to take
modern throwaway technology and modify it to turn it into something that
you wouldn't throw away. Typically they alter items to look as if they
were built in the late 1800's, toward the end of Victorian times (hence
the word "Steam" as a retro power source. Hand crafting is mandatory.

Now to the Ham radio apps.

In a unique (and a little bizarre) melding of technologies, one
practitioner has built and implemented a Telegraph sounder that reads
RSS feeds.

http://steampunkworkshop.com/telegraph.shtml

I was hooked.

Although the Amateur radio world does not have many examples of art -
though some folks come pretty close with some old time stations, I found
the method I'm going to use for my next shack redo. I'll have to share
the pictures of the same. Now to start scrounging brass....

Certainly some will find this odd, but I like a little aesthetics in my
hobbies along with the technical.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
[snip]

In a unique (and a little bizarre) melding of technologies, one
practitioner has built and implemented a Telegraph sounder that reads
RSS feeds.

[snip]

Mike,

If you have an email address for Mr. von Slatt, please send it to me:
his description of the sounder he built says that it draws 3.5 amps at
12 volts, which sounds very high compared to the sounders I'm familiar with.

FWIW: there is a lot of information available about using sounders and
connecting them, via phone lines, computers, and direct wire. Civil War
reenactors and other telegraph buffs sometimes use a "Dial-up Morse"
set, which allows for "compatible" operation between two key/sounder
pairs over regular dial-up modems. The circuit can be easily modified
(as mine has been) to hook up to a computer for sounder practice.

Those interested will find lots of good information at
http://www.w1tp.com/ and linked sites.

73,

Bill, W1AC

(Filter QRM for direct replies.)

Michael Coslo wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:05 EST:

Although I have a technical background, my post secondary "eddycaytion"
is actually in the art field, and In my job and life I cross between the
two.

So is mine...as an illustrator (an artist who draws/paints things as
they really are). I went for engineering after my Army service.

I stumbled upon this site, and was pleasantly introduced to "Steampunks"

I admire the heck out of the excellence of that website and its
gorgeous
photos. Really well-done craftsmanship on web page design. However,
it
begins to look a lot like 'eye candy' for those who love to do things
the old-fashioned way.

In a unique (and a little bizarre) melding of technologies, one
practitioner has built and implemented a Telegraph sounder that reads
RSS feeds.

NO WAY can that sounder 'copy' digital data from any Internet.

Sorry, but there's just TOO MUCH MASS in that sounder to move
anything that fast...not even at 60 WPM speeds of old Teletypes.
Those who get all upset about my absolute statements should
open up and study any OLD Model 15 to 19 TTY from Teletype.
That Chicago firm KNEW how to make machinery work fast and long.

Although the Amateur radio world does not have many examples of art -

Our 'art training' must have come from very different schools.

I would consider the Hallicrafters SX-28 to be of very aesthetic
appeal to many. Never owned one, just used one a few times. As
a 'communications' receiver it worked fine technically. It both
sounded great (with big speakers) and had a cool look to it.

As to transceivers, I would consider the Collins KWM-2 to be of
finer aesthetic value from the looks and proportions and general
useability of its outside. Never had one of those but I've used
one and tested several older ones. Neat and compact (for tubes)
it also had a 'with it' cool look with nicely-matched colors
with sleek proportions (even if the front was a bit off symmetry).

Some time ago I found a website that showed the evolution of the
Hallicrafters S-38 external appearance. Final versions of that
model were redesigned by a professional design firm. Technically,
that one was just a glorified All-American 5 with added 'SW' bands
and thus had (actual, by comparison with its contemporaries)
lots of deficiencies. Mythos of so much shared use among old-
timers made it some kind of icon. shrug

though some folks come pretty close with some old time stations, I found
the method I'm going to use for my next shack redo. I'll have to share
the pictures of the same. Now to start scrounging brass....

Try not to forget that brass will oxidize from exposure to air.
Stock up on Glass Wax too, it works well on a continuing need
to make brass shiny again. And again. And again.

PLATE the brass with something to avoid all that dog-work
shine-up that you will need. Find a good electrochemical shop
and make some deals there. It will save appearances a lot
longer than all that necessary polishing later.

Certainly some will find this odd, but I like a little aesthetics in my
hobbies along with the technical.

So do I. Our difference is that I do an innate merging of
technical functionality with outward design and color. Icom
'basic black' (with white accents and sparse color in legends)
does it for me...who also is on intimate acquaintence what the
functions are. The fine-grain, DISTINCT black on white screen
appearance does the final choosing for me. Sorry, but orange
and gray or green and gray displays of other makers don't sit
well with my taste. One is always looking at the front panel
of a receiver even if we don't 'see' it.

A SOUNDER for amateur RADIO use? The ubiquitous BFO is what I
consider the first 'DSP' for morse cognition. That's why it
became so popular in radios way back before my time on earth.
Okay, so von Statt doesn't know much about electromagnets and
didn't put finer wire with more turns on his replica.

If we get too retro on 1890s 'aesthetics,' perhaps he could
make a lovely, shiny, brassy Tuning Fork as a frequency
standard? Musicians still use those. An HC-6 holder of a
quartz crystal can never look aesthetic by itself. But it
will be a thousand or more times more accurate in frequency
than an all-mechanical vibrating Tuning Fork. But, what the
Fork? A Tuning Fork can LOOK so interesting...and it can
make a noise! :-)

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:05 EST:

Although I have a technical background, my post secondary "eddycaytion"
is actually in the art field, and In my job and life I cross between the
two.

So is mine...as an illustrator (an artist who draws/paints things as
they really are). I went for engineering after my Army service.

I work with Illustrators in my day job.


I stumbled upon this site, and was pleasantly introduced to "Steampunks"

I admire the heck out of the excellence of that website and its
gorgeous
photos. Really well-done craftsmanship on web page design. However,
it
begins to look a lot like 'eye candy' for those who love to do things
the old-fashioned way.

It is an aesthetic. The Steampunk aesthetic is coupling the throwaway
ideals of modern times, with the hand crafted "preciousness" of another
time. It is quite purposeful anachronism, and a large part of its charm
is that it isn't nihilistic, but it has a whimsical base to it. The
projects they work on are specifically on new or present technology.
Modifying Ipods, LCD panels, Fender Strats. It isn't even nostalgic,
much of the banter appears tongue in cheek.

In a unique (and a little bizarre) melding of technologies, one
practitioner has built and implemented a Telegraph sounder that reads
RSS feeds.

NO WAY can that sounder 'copy' digital data from any Internet.

Sorry, but there's just TOO MUCH MASS in that sounder to move
anything that fast...not even at 60 WPM speeds of old Teletypes.
Those who get all upset about my absolute statements should
open up and study any OLD Model 15 to 19 TTY from Teletype.
That Chicago firm KNEW how to make machinery work fast and long.

I do not know the exact mass of the the sounder arm, but the device
does not have to sound out at the RSS feed speed if it is too fast for
the mechanics. The software driving it can send out the Morse at a
comfortable speed.


Although the Amateur radio world does not have many examples of art -

Our 'art training' must have come from very different schools.

I believe that is true.

some snippage

though some folks come pretty close with some old time stations, I found
the method I'm going to use for my next shack redo. I'll have to share
the pictures of the same. Now to start scrounging brass....

Try not to forget that brass will oxidize from exposure to air.
Stock up on Glass Wax too, it works well on a continuing need
to make brass shiny again. And again. And again.

PLATE the brass with something to avoid all that dog-work
shine-up that you will need. Find a good electrochemical shop
and make some deals there. It will save appearances a lot
longer than all that necessary polishing later.

It is an aesthetic that is difficult for some to grasp, for sure, but
the brass is a big part of it. If future polishing is to be delayed,
there are coatings that can be added. Sometimes the weatherd look is
even desired in itself.


Certainly some will find this odd, but I like a little aesthetics in my
hobbies along with the technical.

So do I. Our difference is that I do an innate merging of
technical functionality with outward design and color. Icom
'basic black' (with white accents and sparse color in legends)
does it for me...who also is on intimate acquaintence what the
functions are.

snip

Sure, that is very nice. But it is also a style of the moment. 50 years
from now it will be old stuff, just as the Victorian aesthetic is for us
now.


A SOUNDER for amateur RADIO use? The ubiquitous BFO is what I
consider the first 'DSP' for morse cognition. That's why it
became so popular in radios way back before my time on earth.
Okay, so von Statt doesn't know much about electromagnets and
didn't put finer wire with more turns on his replica.

I don't recall a sounder for amateur radio use. The whole project was
just a fun thing to do with an rss feed, not a vindication of something.
Strictly speaking, it wasn't Victorian technology, it was from an even
earlier time. The guy was just having a little retro fun.


If we get too retro on 1890s 'aesthetics,' perhaps he could
make a lovely, shiny, brassy Tuning Fork as a frequency
standard? Musicians still use those. An HC-6 holder of a
quartz crystal can never look aesthetic by itself. But it
will be a thousand or more times more accurate in frequency
than an all-mechanical vibrating Tuning Fork. But, what the
Fork? A Tuning Fork can LOOK so interesting...and it can
make a noise! :-)

The tuning fork was invented in 1711. They are usually made of steel.
Most steampunks would not make a tuning fork. 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.

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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Feb 29, 10:29 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

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

Well said, Mike!

I'm a member of the function-determines-form school of thought on
this. That sounder is an excellent example of that school - its form
is exactly what it needs to be to do the job it was intended to do.
Yet it is aesthetically pleasing without any added ornamentation.

I've tried to follow that aesthetic in my amateur radio activities. My
homebrew rig (google my call for the website) is built almost entirely
out of reused parts. Rather than trying to hide this, I decided to
celebrate it in the design. The shack furniture, while made mostly
from new wood, is designed to be as strong and functional as possible
while being constructed using simple woodworking tools and keeping the
cost as low as possible. The result is a shack that is comfortable and
functional, yet inexpensive and flexible for changes. When I worked
the CW SS this year, I was able to incorporate a logging computer
setup (homebrew-from-reused-components computer, too) in a short time,
because of the flexibility of the shelving system.

--

Part of the attraction to some of the products of certain eras is that
they were made of quality materials, and were intended to last a very
long time. I've tried to follow that rule in my homebrew designs as
well, and the result has been a very low parts failure rate. (I also
have a large stock of spare parts so that if something does fail, it
can be easily and quickly replaced).

--

Perhaps we hams are missing out on something by using words like
"shack", "shop", and "hobby". People who do art for its own sake,
without pecuniary interest, do not use those terms. Be it painting in
oil or watercolor, sculpture (in a variety of media), woodworking,
music, poetry, performing arts, etc., they use terms like "studio",
"gallery", "performance space", etc. There's a certain approach the
creative and performing artist have towards what they do, and I think
we could learn from it. We should not be apologetic for our activities
any more than an artist apologizes for his/hers. In amateur radio we
can be both creative (building equipment and stations) and performing
(operating our stations) artists!

There's also the factor of craftsmanship, which is evident in the
steampunk objects. Craftsmanship can't be bought or learned entirely
from a book; it's a matter of practice, too. Steampunk clearly has
lots of it!

I think we hams may have been selling ourselves short in some ways. We
have aesthetics that IMHO are just as valid as any other. For example,
antennas are not "ugly" in that aesthetic - they are a beautiful
expression of form-following-function if done right. To me, a house
does not become "home" unless there is a properly-designed-and-
installed amateur radio antenna present.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:40:11 -0500, N2EY wrote:

On Feb 29, 10:29 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

The concept of making a station conform to an aesthetic is not all tha
t
unusual. 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.

Well said, Mike!

I'm a member of the function-determines-form school of thought on this.
That sounder is an excellent example of that school - its form is
exactly what it needs to be to do the job it was intended to do. Yet it
is aesthetically pleasing without any added ornamentation.

I've tried to follow that aesthetic in my amateur radio activities. My
homebrew rig (google my call for the website) is built almost entirely
out of reused parts. Rather than trying to hide this, I decided to
celebrate it in the design. The shack furniture, while made mostly from
new wood, is designed to be as strong and functional as possible while
being constructed using simple woodworking tools and keeping the cost a
s
low as possible. The result is a shack that is comfortable and
functional, yet inexpensive and flexible for changes. When I worked the
CW SS this year, I was able to incorporate a logging computer setup
(homebrew-from-reused-components computer, too) in a short time, becaus
e
of the flexibility of the shelving system.

You're just several pieces of brass and leather away from steampunkin'
it, Jim! The knobs and meters are already there. maybe brass up the
chassis (technical question: will the brass have an untoward effect on
inductors, ala diddle sticks?)

The speaker (red cone is a plus) can be covered with leather real
or faux. The shelves look a lot like the ones I made. Tubes glow, so they

are already there......


Part of the attraction to some of the products of certain eras is that
they were made of quality materials, and were intended to last a very
long time.

snip


Perhaps we hams are missing out on something by using words like
"shack", "shop", and "hobby". People who do art for its own sake,
without pecuniary interest, do not use those terms. Be it painting in
oil or watercolor, sculpture (in a variety of media), woodworking,
music, poetry, performing arts, etc., they use terms like "studio",
"gallery", "performance space", etc. There's a certain approach the
creative and performing artist have towards what they do, and I think w
e
could learn from it. We should not be apologetic for our activities any
more than an artist apologizes for his/hers. In amateur radio we can be
both creative (building equipment and stations) and performing
(operating our stations) artists!

Interesting insight Jim. When I built my telescopes, each one was
designed to be functional, yet beautiful. I was especially fond of the
12.5 inch reflector, which was done in art deco style. The form followed
the function, yet the aesthetic enhanced the form. On the urging of some
friends I entered it in the home made telescope contest, and it won.


There's also the factor of craftsmanship, which is evident in the
steampunk objects. Craftsmanship can't be bought or learned entirely
from a book; it's a matter of practice, too. Steampunk clearly has lots
of it!

They love to create. I'm hoping to bring some of that to amateur
radio. I also expect a certain amount of ridicule.


I think we hams may have been selling ourselves short in some ways. We
have aesthetics that IMHO are just as valid as any other. For example,
antennas are not "ugly" in that aesthetic - they are a beautiful
expression of form-following-function if done right. To me, a house doe
s
not become "home" unless there is a properly-designed-and- installed
amateur radio antenna present.

I think that many people have been told that antennas are ugly,
and that some industries are happy to promote that. Most antennas are not

ugly
--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

On Feb 29, 9:16�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:40:11 -0500, N2EY wrote:
On Feb 29, 10:29 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

I'm a member of the function-determines-form
school of thought on this.
That sounder is an excellent example of that
school - its form is
exactly what it needs to be to do the job it was
intended to do. Yet it
is aesthetically pleasing without any added ornamentation.

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

But I don't wanna be a steampunk!

The knobs and meters are already there. maybe brass up the
chassis (technical question: will the brass have an untoward
effect on inductors, ala diddle sticks?)

Not any more than aluminum.

The speaker (red cone is a plus) can be covered
with leather real
or faux. The shelves look a lot like the ones I made.

The table is homemade, too. The clock was assembled from the pieces of
several, each of which had a different problem. The result has been
functioning perfectly for at least 15 years.

Tubes glow, so they are already there......

Mercury vapor rectifiers and several different kinds of VR tubes.

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?

IMHO, the form-follows-function aesthetic would brass- or nickle-plate
telegraph instruments to prevent corrosion. But it would not add brass
simply for a look. Same for leather - would the speaker sound better?

Perhaps we hams are missing out on something
by using words like
"shack", "shop", and "hobby". People who do
art for its own sake,
without pecuniary interest,

"Art for Art's sake"

Amateur radio is "Radio for it's own sake"

See the connection?

do not use those terms. Be it painting in
oil or watercolor, sculpture
(in a variety of media), woodworking,
music, poetry, performing arts, etc., they
use terms like "studio",
"gallery", "performance space", etc.
There's a certain approach the
creative and performing artist have towards
what they do, and I think we
could learn from it. We should not be apologetic
for our activities any
more than an artist apologizes for his/hers.
In amateur radio we can be
both creative (building equipment and stations)
and performing
(operating our stations) artists!

Interesting insight Jim.

TNX

When I built my telescopes, each one was
designed to be functional, yet beautiful.
I was especially fond of the
12.5 inch reflector, which was done in
art deco style. The form followed
the function, yet the aesthetic enhanced
the form. On the urging of some
friends I entered it in the home made
telescope contest, and it won.

EXCELLENT!

Now to homebrewing some rigs....

By sheer coincidence, last night I was at Eastern University's
telescope.

There's also the factor of craftsmanship,
which is evident in the
steampunk objects. Craftsmanship can't be
bought or learned entirely
from a book; it's a matter of practice, too.
Steampunk clearly has lots
of it!

They love to create.

Same here.

I'm hoping to bring some of that to amateur
radio. I also expect a certain amount of ridicule.

From whom?

I think we hams may have been selling
ourselves short in some ways. We
have aesthetics that IMHO are just as
valid as any other. For example,
antennas are not "ugly" in that aesthetic - they are a beautiful
expression of form-following-function if done right.
To me, a house does
not become "home" unless there is a
properly-designed-and- installed
amateur radio antenna present.

I think that many people have been told that antennas are ugly,
and that some industries are happy to promote that.

Agreed. In fact, some *amateurs* may even be happy to promote
it.

Most antennas are not ugly.

Agreed. And for those that are, the ugliness is usually
more a function of a lack of craftsmanship than it is
of the antenna itself.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

A year or so ago, another sent me some links to old electronics,
especially metrology, such as a couple of old reproductions of
General Radio Company instrument catalogs. Interesting for the
moment to reflect on 'style' insofar as instrumentation designed
in the period of about 1880 to 1930. [the 'Victorian Era' is in the
beginning part of that mentioned half-century period]

In that half-century, the high (relative) cost of instruments was
coupled with a certain 'style' of 'craftsmanship' that involved
very-nice, but really non-functional, wood bases and lovely
'engraved' scales and rules (more useful to the instrument) plus
less useful all-purpose connector posts. To justify the high
labor cost (reflected in the product cost) of working with new-
fangled electrical things, the designers opted for that particular
'style' based on what could be made then but really from the
(guessed) customer's preferrence for 'looks.' Usually those
customers had to justify those new instruments to their funding
entities (managers, academic grant givers, etc.). 'Style' is a
subliminal kind of influence but any market is governed by it
to sell product.

General Radio is interesting in instrument company evolution.
In their beginnings there was no real 'style' and they depended
on the newness of any sort of electrical standards to sell their
products. It seems that GR was the first to market a ready-built
oscilloscope. At least in the USA. It had a tiny screen and was
built in three sections. That was in the early 1930s. In the later
1930s DuMont came out with a one-piece 'scope and larger face CRT.
That became the 'style' setter for many years, was even copied by
that post-WWII upstart company of Howard Vollum's called Tektronix.
Vollum's designs not only improved the innards but also exterior,
that which the majority classify as 'style.' With their plug-in
vertical function modules Tektronix now set the 'style' and
DuMont just couldn't keep up. Even HP got into competition and
used the same 'style' of physical form on those...but took many
years of catch-up to the clear leader of oscillography, Tektronix.
GR was left way behind in oscilloscopes, giving up on that market
after the end of WWII.

But, GR, now under new leadership at the end of the 1950s, got its
exterior 'style' together with a 'new look.' Much more intrinsic
visual appeal of form-fit-color in an instrument. They were aided
by new methods of metal and plastic forming and some imagination
applied realistically to that 'style.' Alas, they didn't get with
the new technology intensively enough and eventually dropped out,
despite the high accuracy using old technology and 'craftsmanship.'
GR had also opted to try a 'luddite' form of PR on their
instrument constructions, featuring ONE technician 'doing every-
thing' of an instrument, 'no production line methods.' Bad PR and
the wrong kind of style of advertising to a customer base that
was largely involved IN production. 'Style' is lots of things, not
just in its outward physical appearance.

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. Their
post-war 'style' peak might have been the SX-62 Big Dial AM-FM and
'shortwave' band receiver. 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.
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. RACAL in the
UK was a strong rival in that. Hallicrafters just couldn't get with
the program after around 1960 and just drooped, eventually
dropping out.

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

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?

A half-century ago ought to qualify as 'retro' to most. But how
many were alive or experienced in such period radios? 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. Neither does the 'style'
of electronic things done in a period before 50 years ago appeal
to very many. 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.

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

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.'
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.

Thirdly, we have to be careful about 'style influencing.' No one
should dictate what or how we 'have fun' in radio other than technical
requirements of radio regulation. That includes 'style' matters
in my mind. Fashion styles exist to Sell More Clothes and Make
More Money for clothing makers...it was not really about aesthetic
appearance despite what the PR write-ups say (those write-ups are
crafted to help sell those clothes). Radio equipment isn't in such
a 'style' area. One either feels comfortable with a radio or not.
That covers its technical performance first, appearance a second.
The amateur operator will be looking at amateur radio equipment
the most at any home station. If other non-radio-interested members
of a household see it often, it should not (for their consideration)
appear too offensive to them.

All-mechanical things are fine fun for those who like to do that.
Old-time telegraphy equipment is one area well suited for such
reproduction. Many amateurs like to collect manual keys. Fewer
can make their own without ALSO having at least a small machine
shop at their disposal. The same holds true for electrochemical
treatment beyond simple PCB etching (which very few see once it
has been loaded, tested, and put into equipment). I've learned to
do simple tasks in all those areas but have found that working in
wood and plastic basic materials is easier for hobby construction.
It is simpler to do even if not flashy. I just don't have, or care to
have,
a small all-purpose factory on the premises for any sort of
manual construction hobby.

Now, MY likes or dislikes don't apply to others. I've been writing
(hopefully) in generalities. All of electronics is generally based
on FORWARD-LOOKING technologies and 'going retro' in any regard may
be of momentary aesthetic appeal. There ARE devotee of equipment
of a particular radio era. 'Mileage varies.'

73, Len AF6AY

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

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