And now for something totally different!
 

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 -

And now for something totally different!
 

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.)

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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 -

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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 -

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

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.

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.

I have the castoff oak veneered desk from W8YX, the University of
Cincinnati ARC station. It is shown in a photo of the station which
appeared in a 1937 QST article about the Ohio River flood.

If I want a "thirties feel", I can fire up W4JBP's homebrew xtal
controlled 6L6 rig and pair it up with an HRO, SW-3, FB-7, an RME 69 or
a Hallicrafter Sky Challenger. If I want to move to the fifties, my
Johnson Valiant or Central 20-A might be paired with an HQ-70 or a
Collins 75A-3.

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

Dave K8MN

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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 -

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

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

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

On Mar 6, 12:56Â am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:23pm, Dave Heil wrote:

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

I noted them when I saw the ads in Electric Radio. Â
The price was very dear.

$125 IIRC.

How did it provide PBT?

I'm going to have to dig out the paperwork
on the Universal Service unit
(which I got copies of just a year or two back) and let you know.

Will be good to know.

The CW filter I have is the 800 Hz unit. Â One of these days I may
replace it with an Inrad unit. Â I'll have to juggle things a bit to
match the modern Collins mechanical filter to the radio.

I think the same company that made the reduction knob made exact plug-
in filters. Dunno if they made a CW one.

At the University ham shack we had two 75S-3s. One had the
200 Hz filter, aka "the ringmaster". But boy could they hear!

IIRC the 1-A predated the S-line and KWM-2.

I think you'll find that all of them hit the market in '57.

The KWM-2 came after the original S-line (75S-1/32S-1) Check your old
QSTs, you'll see the 1-A advertised well before the 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.

Unfortunately it was built as an SSB-only receiver. Â There
were no provisions for a narrow filter for CW or a wider one for
AM. Â In
fact, the BFO could not be turned off at all. Â I sold a number of rig
s
after coming back stateside and the Drake 1-A was one of them.

1-A was Drake's entry into the ham receiver market; previously
they had only made things like lowpass filters. Their idea was to
cut the cost of SSB to the bone by making a receiver specific to
the mode and leaving out anything not needed for SSB. Hence no
diode detector, no BFO-off, no narrow filter, etc. But it had PBT,
which also gave sideband selection, an S-meter and AGC that
worked on SSB, and was very stable.

That mode-specific thing inspired many of the Southgate receivers.

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.

In the time when they were introduced, many folks were still using
separates. Â I've kept my 2-B because it really is a classic and
performs
well today. Â The matching 2-BQ adds a lot to the receiver.

About 15 years ago I walked away from a hamfest table that
had a 2-B/2-BQ combo for $75. "To think about it". Oh fer dumb.....

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

Well, they made it popular for those with lots of money.

Not just those folks. The idea got wide publicity and led to lots
more rigs at a lot lower prices.

If I recall correctly, there were identical-looking models with two
different power output levels.

Cosmophone 35 and Cosmophone 1000.

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.

You've aroused my curiosity. Â
I'll have to dig through the back issues
and check it out. Â There's a '453 lying about here somewhere.

IIRC the author's last name was Deane. I do not know of any earlier
HF amateur transceiver being described in QST or any other
publication.

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.

I have to disagree with the reduction of cost. Â
When the KWM-2 was
introduced, my dad made a little less than
$6,000 per year gross pay as
a Miami Herald reporter. Â That transceiver would have cost about a
quarter of a year's pay.

And $6000/yr gross income was solid middle class. A family of four
could live very well on $6K, 50 years ago.

What I meant was that a KWM-2 and power supply/speaker cost less than
top-of-the-line separates like a 75A-4 and HT-32B.

Or compare the price of an S-line and a KWM-2.

To get an idea of the influence of the KWM-2, google "LWM-3"...


 Fast forward a bit.  When I bought a Ten-Tec
Omni VI, the new cost was a small fraction of a year's pay
and that rig
offered features only dreamed about at the time of the
introduction of
the Collins rig. Â The KWM-2 was smaller and lighter but an HT-
32B and an
HQ-170 would have been cheaper by hundreds of dollars.

Agreed. But the KWM-2 put the idea of the one-box station out
there in a big way. A lot of less-expensive transceivers with
minimal controls followed. People saw the success of the KWM-2
and designed less-expensive alternatives based on the idea.

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.

There are a couple of "duh" factors buried in there for us to mull
over.
It would have been possible for radio amateurs to have built and
used
grounded-grid linear amps for use with AM rigs much earlier. Â A
rig such
as the Johnson Ranger would have driven one to a KW AM input
with ease.

Some hams did that but the big problem was the low efficiency of AM
linear without the use of special circuits like the Doherty, which
isn't the fastest QSY circuit.

With AM linear you only get 30-35% carrier efficiency. Which
means 300-350 watts carrier at the old 1 kW legal limit. Plus
your final tubes have to be able to dissipate 650-700 watts!
The same results could be had from a 450-watt class plate-modulated AM
rig - say, a pair of 812As modulated by a pair of 811As.

AM also required power supplies that could stand the 100% duty cycle
of the mode. The low duty cycle of early unprocessed SSB rigs meant a
lot of liberty could be taken in PSU design.

The end result was rigs like the NCX-3 and the SB-100, which cost as
much as a good receiver but were complete 100-watt SSB stations that
you could indeed set up on a card table.

When Heath introduced the SB-200 in 1954, it cost $200. Legal limit on
CW, 1200 watts PEP on SSB (input). That was a lot cheaper than the
equivalent AM, and would fit on the card table.

IOW, high power AM cost a lot of dough and a lot of space/weight. The
SSB transceiver/GG linear paradigm drastically reduced those
requirements.

Fun fact: AFAIK only two 1 kW-input-legal-limit plate-modulated AM
rigs were ever made for the amateur market: the Collins KW-1 and the
Johnson Desk Kilowatt. Total production was very limited - maybe 2000
units combined.

I can't begin to recall the number of models of legal-limit GG
amplifiers made. EFJ Thunderbolt, SB-220, Heath KL-1...

More to come...

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now for something totally different!
 

Dave Heil wrote:

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

I shouldn't post late at night when I'm tired. What I meant to say was
that I plan to use the old computer tower for the power supply, not the
entire amp.

Dave K8MN

And now for something totally different!
 

On Mar 5, 3:20Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

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

Gotcha, Jug!

Marcellus? Is that you?

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.

Not only that, but make a dent in the enormous waste stream.

I'm going to use an old computer tower for a chassis/cabinet for

[the power supply of]

a pair
of 4-400's I plan to build.

You want a Southgate type number for it?

If you're building something small, try hobby shops. Â 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.

Yes, but they want you to *buy* the stuff! My adapters were made from
scraps.

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

BTDT, except used old litho plates turned print-side-in.

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. Â The front panel of W4JBP's 1941
homebrew transmitter is of that stuff, painted black.

Exactly. Wood prices have changed, though; today a tabletop might be
AC plywood.
Depends what's on the cull cart.

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. Â 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.

The ones I helped build in the 1960s are still in service.

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. Â There
are
those things which can only be viewed and those things which can be
used. Â 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 former belongs in a museum, the latter in a home.

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. Â I believe that 2x4's, 4x4's, plywood or hollow core
doors will never go out of style.

I rip 2x4s in half lengthwise; they're all you need for most shack
furniture. Also do an offset cut that gives one piece 1-1/2" square
and another that's 2x1-1/2" from a single 2x4. Table saw makes it
easy.

I did one table with a hollow core door many years ago (it was free)
but they are too flimsy and too expensive for TSS approval now.

The shack table in the website picture was designed for Field Day use,
25 years ago. The top was the maximum size that would fit in the back
of a VW Rabbit with the rear seat taken out. All the legs and braces
are bolted on in such a way that the whole thing breaks down into one
package. Does the job for now but a replacement is in the works.
Maybe.

 There's no "Captain Nemo walking into
his cabin on the Nautilus" look here, but the place is attractive and
utilitarian.

IMHO the true art of a hamshack is having things set up in such a way
that you just want to sit down and start operating as soon as you see
the place.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

Dave Heil wrote in
:



Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

some snippage

Sorry for the late reply on this, esp since the thread has taken a
different direction, but I though it deserved a reply....


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.

Using wires does not work. The reason is that buildings do not shake in
the way most people think. The building may shake in one axis, and not
another, and may shake in multiple directions, but not the same amount in
all axes, or at the same time.

This will have the effect of pulling the entire assembly in one direction
or another, depending on "whats a-shakin'", and which wire is pulling
more at the moment.

However, on a good sturdy ceiling mount, that has a resonance frequency
as high as practical, building movement is not much of a problem, unless
the building is on the verge of shaking itself apart. The reason is that
rapid pendulum damping with little movement gets rid of pendulum moment,
and that most floors tend to shake closely with the ceiling on any given
level, so the people are moving along with the image and screen.

I've never seen a professional design with wires, although I've
seen a few designed by others, and they all have damping problems, all
related to the multifilar pendulums they create. Oddly, the wire systems
I've seen were "designed" and built by engineers who thought they could
remove all the filar pendulum movement by going multifilar. That
inherently creates more complexity in movement. The answer is in that the
projector on the end of that pendulum becomes very similar to a mirror
galvanometer, greatly amplifying the movement by the time the light hits
the wall.


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.

There is room in this world for a lot of different tastes. Some I
like, some I do not. I am always careful to not call any of them
ridiculous so that I don't indadvertantly insult someone. 8^)

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.

I have a hard time agreeing that *that* Strat was defaced. I have a white
on white Strat myself, and am happy to keep it that way, but there are a
lot of places who do custom guitar work or design:

http://www.sparrowguitars.com/
http://www.terrapinguitars.com/
http://www.warmoth.com/

Even Fender:

http://www.fender.com/customshop/home/index.php

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

It isn't evident here.

I disagree, respectfully, more below.

snippage

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.

Precious metal plating is not there because it is practical, all
those keys are quite embellished, and can we tell the difference between
a gold plated and a painted one in operation? They also have unneeded
shapes, and Mister Begali calls them art. I find them to be quite
beautiful, and a magnificent tour de force in mechanical design in the
prosaic function of a telegraph key, but would not try to argue that they
are somehow based on practicality.

That's pretty much my input on the subject until I have the operating are
designed and built. My shack may not be to everyone's tastes, but
hopefully I'll like it! 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

And now for something totally different!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in
:



Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

some snippage

Sorry for the late reply on this, esp since the thread has taken a
different direction, but I though it deserved a reply....


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.

Using wires does not work. The reason is that buildings do not shake in
the way most people think. The building may shake in one axis, and not
another, and may shake in multiple directions, but not the same amount in
all axes, or at the same time.

Okay, so what you earlier described as the motor fan causing a pendulum
motion wasn't exactly correct then. What you've described could be
described as random orbital in nature or, at times, even multiple pendula.

This will have the effect of pulling the entire assembly in one direction
or another, depending on "whats a-shakin'", and which wire is pulling
more at the moment.

I'm thinking that if you've got a building doing *that much shaking*,
you've got more problems than a projector moving a bit.

However, on a good sturdy ceiling mount, that has a resonance frequency
as high as practical, building movement is not much of a problem, unless
the building is on the verge of shaking itself apart. The reason is that
rapid pendulum damping with little movement gets rid of pendulum moment,
and that most floors tend to shake closely with the ceiling on any given
level, so the people are moving along with the image and screen.

I'm getting dizzy already, Mike.

I've never seen a professional design with wires, although I've
seen a few designed by others, and they all have damping problems, all
related to the multifilar pendulums they create. Oddly, the wire systems
I've seen were "designed" and built by engineers who thought they could
remove all the filar pendulum movement by going multifilar. That
inherently creates more complexity in movement. The answer is in that the
projector on the end of that pendulum becomes very similar to a mirror
galvanometer, greatly amplifying the movement by the time the light hits
the wall.

This is getting really close to becoming a Cecil moment. :-)

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.

There is room in this world for a lot of different tastes. Some I
like, some I do not. I am always careful to not call any of them
ridiculous so that I don't indadvertantly insult someone. 8^)

You must never be so sensitive about what people might think of your
opinion that you become afraid to express it. If you think that a
certain style is kitschy or silly, you're permitted to say so. So am I.

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.

I have a hard time agreeing that *that* Strat was defaced. I have a white
on white Strat myself, and am happy to keep it that way, but there are a
lot of places who do custom guitar work or design:

http://www.sparrowguitars.com/
http://www.terrapinguitars.com/
http://www.warmoth.com/

Even Fender:

http://www.fender.com/customshop/home/index.php

Sure. Places which will do nearly anything for a buck abound. Some of
the work is skillfully done, but still ends up looking tacky.

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

It isn't evident here.

I disagree, respectfully, more below.

snippage

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.

Precious metal plating is not there because it is practical, all
those keys are quite embellished, and can we tell the difference between
a gold plated and a painted one in operation?

No, we can't. That doesn't stop the gold plated one from looking better
to most of us. Gold doesn't oxidize the same as most other metals. It
doesn't need to be polished often. Gold in contacts is used where low
conact resistance is desired. In the old days, keys usually had
appreciable current running through them. With low current, solid state
circuits, a little oxidation on contacts can result in a keying circuit
malfunctioning.

No keys which are currently produced are made to look as if they're
steam powered.

They also have unneeded
shapes, and Mister Begali calls them art.

Some folks think an abstract painting done by a Chimpanzee is art. I
don't agree with them. Begali keys are well made. They're attractive
to some.

I find them to be quite
beautiful, and a magnificent tour de force in mechanical design in the
prosaic function of a telegraph key, but would not try to argue that they
are somehow based on practicality.

Keys got prosaic function? The Begalis, like all other keyer paddles
are designed to do a certain job. They can be as attractive as one can
make them, but if they cannot do the job reasonably well, they fail.

That's pretty much my input on the subject until I have the operating are
designed and built. My shack may not be to everyone's tastes, but
hopefully I'll like it! 8^)

You're the only guy who needs approve.

Dave K8MN

And now for something totally different!
 

On Mar 9, 5:00Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:56� am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:09�pm, Dave Heil wrote:

Remember too that in the 1970s US ham radio was growing fast. This was
right after the 1968-1969 "incentive licensing" changes which some
said were going to destroy amateur radio. The numbers tell a different
story.

They surely do. Â About the time I first became licensed, I think ther
e
were about 300k radio amateurs in the U.S. and only about 100k in the
entire rest of the world.

I'm not sure of the exact year you were licensed but if it was in the
1960s the number of US hams was about 250K not 300K. As for the rest
of the world, 100K back then was pretty accurate *except* for Japan's
4th class licenses.

In that time period, a number of the
classic US ham radio manufacturers were losing their founders, either
through sale of the company or retirements, etc.

Right. Â The Drake firm stayed in the family and Swan stayed with the
original owner until he sold it to Cubic, circa 1980.

And we see what happened...

All Southgate Radio receivers from the Type 3 onward have had slow
tuning rates - typically 5 to 7 kHz per turn. That's about 1969 to the
present.

...and that's a good tuning rate.

I used to wonder why most older equipment tuned so fast. One reason
was cost; a simple string or pinch drive cost a lot less than gears.
But even expensive stuff like the HROs had fast tuning by Southgate
standards.

I think the way hams operated in the past was a big reason. Split
operation was pretty standard even before crystal control was common
in ham rigs, so if you called CQ, an answer might be anywhere in the
band.

Around 1964, National introduced the solid state, synthesized
HRO-500. Â They were expensive problem children. Â There have been

numerous problems with the PLL circuitry. Â I bought one in 1997 and i
t
had (Surprise!) PLL problems. I sold it.

Even with a working PLL, the '500 had bad intermod and dynamic range
problems for such an expensive rx.

About the only company besides Collins that was able to come into the
ham radio market at the top was Signal One - which didn't last.

Kachina tried it and that didn't last very long.

Kachina had an entirely new concept: the computer-controlled rig
without a front panel. That still hasn't really caught on.

Well, that leaves us discussing what was built vs. what might have been

built.

Point is, the Japanese rigs put those features in from the get-go,
while the
American rigmakers didn't.

Right. Â It was a new game. Â The JA manufacturers recognized that
bells
and whistles would lure buyers.

Not just bells and whistles but basic things like RIT, sharp filters,
decent dial drives and the ability to turn off the AGC.
Built in or as options, not as mods.

Varactor in the PTO?

Yep, with a relay switching scheme.

The Southgate Type 6 and Type 7 achieve RIT without a varactor diode.
In fact, there are no solid state devices at all in either rig except
for two 1N34As in the SWR bridge of the Transmatch.

Guys argued with Drake for ages about the inclusion of CW filters and
RIT in the transceivers. � The Drake folks couldn't understand
how any
one
would need such things. �

Interesting! I always thought the reason they were left out was so
that folks would buy the separates.

Not exactly. Â Drake figure that anyone who wanted to use CW *would* b
uy
the separates. Â They just didn't figure that there was a market for
transceivers among regular users of CW. Â The light finally dawned.
Of course that the meager CW features of the TR-4CW gave way to the
advanced features of the TR-5 and TR-7.

Which cost a bit more....

Sherwood has tested the Elecraft K3. Next issue of QST will carry a
Product Review of it too.

Yep. Â The numbers look very, very good. Â These days though, the
difference between very good and very, very good is just a smidgen.

Point is, you can get a very very good rig, American made, with direct
connection to the makers of the rig, for less than a lot of mid-range
rigs from Japan.

'Course not. But they weren't the target market, either. The SB-101/
HW-101 crowd were.

Uh-huh. Â It marked the end game for Heath. Â The company just did
n't
realize it right away.

Part of what changed too was the economy of kitbuilding. In the days
of point-to-point wiring, a lot of the cost of manufactured
electronics was the assembly labor. Kits eliminated that, but added
the cost of the assembly manual and the inevitable problems of
supporting the kitbuilders. Automated and semiautomated PCB-based
manufacturing drastically reduced the assembly-labor cost.

Another factor was alignment cost. Heath had to design their rigs so
they could be aligned with minimal test gear. That's one reason for
the preassembled LMO in the SB line and the preadjusted, sealed BPFs
in them. That limit on design flexibility doesn't exist for a
manufacturer who can spread the cost of test equipment over many
units.

I remember that towards the end of its run the HW-101 price reached
$449, which was almost double its introductory price less than a
decade earlier. That was without power supply, speaker, mike or sharp
filter. And you had to build it. FT-101/TS-520S took that market!

Right. Â Don't forget that the JA rigs not only had an inboard,
multi-voltage AC power supply; they included a DC supply for mobile use
as well.

Sort of. The TS-520S required the optional bolt-on DC-5 DC supply
adapter for DC operation of the transmitter section. It consisted
mostly of power transistors and a heat sink. It would not operate the
'520 at full power; you were limited to about half power. In the
TS-520SE, the last version, the DC option was eliminated and the rig
became AC-mains only.

 Neither of the two rigs mentioned actually came with a CW
filter. Â Those were optional accessories.

Yup - but not an expensive one.

I just look in the Southgate inventory.

I can do that with many items. Â There are some modern things which I
just have to buy.

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.

Okay. � Gone are the days when you reach into bins of transisto
r or IC
's
and expect to be able to repair much of anything. � Large scale

integrations and specialty chips took care of most of that.
Kenwood rigs in particular seem to suffer. � The 930's, 850's a
nd 940'
s
are examples of rigs where the displays and display drivers aren't
available any longer.

Agreed but there will be some rigs that have other problems but good
displays.

Oh yes, but those fluorescent displays, unlike the typical LED displays,
go bad with time and use.

I have enough #47 pilot lights for the foreseeable future...

I knew a guy who once had machinists make him a part for a Cadillac
power seat instead of paying what he considered to be an outrageous
price for the part from GM. Â I think he spent about four times what G
M
wanted.

bwaahaahaa

And consider: $125 for a reduction tuning knob for a receiver that
went out of production more than 45 years ago?

But those receivers are apt to be around for another few decades and are
highly prized. Â As I recall, there's still an outfit making highly
stable digital remote VFOs for the Collins KWM-2 series.

You can get almost anything you need for an S-line or the R-390/A.
Including high-quality videos on how to do the work.

There are folks still building HBRs today, from scratch.
I'd think that getting some of the parts could be really difficult.

You'd be surprised what folks have squirreled away....

Nooooooo, I don't think I would. Â W9ZR asked in the boatanchors
newsgroup if anyone had the bowl insulator from an ART-13. Â I sent hi
m one.

I bet it wasn't the only one you had.

In reality the only unobtanium parts are the coil forms and IF cans.
One trick is to use ARC-5 IFTs instead. But I prefer original
Southgate designs.

Those IF transformers are one of the things I was thinking about. Â I
have loads of large and miniature 455KC stuff, but nothing like the
higher frequency cans.

A BC-454 (tuning range 3-6 Mc.) has a 1415 kc. IF.

I'm looking at the Tokyo Hi Power 1.5 KW job, but it is expensive. Â I
f
the Starkville, Mississippi gang gets their act together, we may see an
affordable high power, solid state amp in the near future.

The K3 has put the Elecraft amps on the back burner for a while. I
suspect that will change once the slack runs in.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now for something totally different!
 

On Mar 9, 4:10Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:20� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Gotcha, Jug!

Marcellus? Is that you?

Complete with insignia!

Almost time to put the blue sweaters away.

There's no one who can reduce a waste stream
like West Africans. Â The
seams in Coke cans are opened after the tops
and bottoms are removed and
the cans are rolled flat. Â The become roofing material
or house siding.
Black trash bags are washed and recycled. Â Pop bottles
become water
bottles and used 55-gallon drums (previous contents
unknown) are used
for making palm or cashew wine.

Except for the reuse of possibly-contaminated 55-gal drums it all
sounds good.

The dial drum of the Southgate Type 7 was made from a piece of 6"
diameter plexiglass pipe. It was thoroughly cleaned and about a 2"
long section cut off. A disk 6" in diameter was then cut and the pipe
solvent-welded to the disk using Duco.

The neutralizing-adjustment disk from a BC-375 tuning unit was then
bolted to the bottom so that the dial drum could be mounted on an
extension of the tuning capacitor shaft.

The dial drum is viewed through a Plexiglas window. A piece of paper
wrapped around the drum was calibrated using an LM frequency meter,
then a good copy drawn using a CAD program. The good copy was printed
on translucent Mylar and put on the drum.

A lampholder/reflector assembly is mounted inside the dial drum, with
two pilot lights so the whole thing is illuminated.

You want a Southgate type number for it?

I think that'd be appropriate.

Indeed! I will speak with Engineering Documentation about it.

The upright case has a full metal cover, space for a cooling fan and a
shelf which can hold the rectifier board and electrolytic caps. Â The
bottles aren't U.S. types, they're Phillips equivalents with graphite
plates. Â They should hold up for a long time. Â I'll use Chinese
Coleman-type lantern chimneys.

There's a good discussion over on eham about high power tubes,
gettering and other issues. Unlike receiving tubes with their shiny
flashed getters, high power tubes often use the anode or a coating as
the getter, and need to operate at high temperature to work.

Lots of good info out there free for the download. W5JGV's site has
info from Eimac, RCA, Taylor and other tube makers. Not just the usual
number and data but application notes, recommended practices, etc.

Yes, but they want you to *buy* the stuff! My adapters
were made from
scraps.

Some of us would have to buy stuff in order to have scraps.

Bwaahaahaa

 I've found
that the hobby shop stuff is not terribly expensive. Â They also have
round, square and sheet plastic stock. Â Some is clear and some is
translucent--ideal for making dial scales.

See description, above. I gotta take more pics...

Exactly. Wood prices have changed, though; today
a tabletop might be
AC plywood.
Depends what's on the cull cart.

I don't have a place with a cull cart. Â I've sometimes bought
ugly-looking plywood and topped a desk with vinyl floor tile. Â If you

want to fancy one up, hardwood veneer isn't too pricey.

Don't want fancy. Want functional.

Thursday there was the remains of a packing box for some new furniture
by a dumpster near here. The box was corrugated but the base was nice
2x4 and 1x6, nailed together. Cut off the corrugated and saved the
wood.

The former belongs in a museum, the latter in a home.

Not everyone lives like us, Jim. Â Some folks have houses
large enough to
be homes *and* museums and the wherewithal to populate
the place with
both types of antiques.

Yep, you're right. Particularly around here!

 I can appreciate antiques as art but we don't
have enough room for antiques we can't put to use unless
they happen to
be art for the wall or items which can sit on a table for
the most part.

Same here. All about multiple uses.

You're a lightweight! Â My main operating position is representative
of
overkill. Â The frame is 2x4's; the legs are 4x4's and the top is a
hollow core door. Â There's a two shelf console with two angled
wings,
with enough roof under the first shelf for solid-state brick
VHF/UHF
amps, keyers, paddles, DVK and the like.

For me that frame is overkill but the hollow-core door is underkill -
not strong enough.

Did I mention the six foot rack to my right?

I've had table racks but always wanted a six or seven foot floor rack.
My old Handbook has plans for a wooden one...

I did one table with a hollow core door many years ago (it was
free)
but they are too flimsy and too expensive for TSS approval now.

They hold up well with the 2x4 frame and 2x4 bracing.

Yes but that's not the issue. You can punch right through the surface
with something sharp and heavy enough.

The shack table in the website picture was designed for Field
Day use,
25 years ago. The top was the maximum size that would fit in
the back
of a VW Rabbit with the rear seat taken out. All the legs and
braces
are bolted on in such a way that the whole thing breaks down
into one
package. Does the job for now but a replacement is in the
works.

Mine will break down too, but I don't think it'll fit in a Rabbit. :-)

Less than 10 minutes to set up or take down, no tools needed. It's all
about multiple uses. No card-tables on FD for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

On Mar 16, 3:50Â am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:10� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:20� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:40�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Except for the reuse of possibly-contaminated 55-gal drums it all
sounds good.

Yeah, I've thought about it a great deal. Â I once bought a loaf of
French bread on the street which
came wrapped in a letter I'd discarded in the trash. Â It didn't bothe
r
me too much since I'd already gotten used to picking the baked
weevils out of the bread.

You owe me a new keyboard for that story.

The dial drum of the Southgate Type 7.... The
good copy was printed
on translucent Mylar and put on the drum.

That's a pretty inventive way to handle a homebrew dial.

TNX. Not a single new part was used. It's done a good job these past
dozen years.

It sounds remarkably like the way Hammarlund handled the
dial/illumination in the HQ-215.

That's what inspired the design, except there's no dial cord in the
Type 7. IIRC, the HQ-215 lamps aren't *inside* the dial drum, are
they?

I received the data from Engineering.

Good. Ms. Yardley sends greetings.

Unlike receiving tubes with their shiny
flashed getters, high power tubes often
use the anode or a coating as
the getter, and need to operate at high temperature to work.

I've read the eham thread and have even participated.

Excellent!

I'm forced to admit that I've got many of the original
transmitting and
receiving guides. Â When I sold industrial electronics for
Hughes-Peters,
I rescued an old Eimac three-ring binder from the trash.
 It contains
the specs for most early and late Eimac bottles along with
applications
notes and design info for amateur amplifiers. Â

Priceless stuff!

Quite a number of those
notes and articles were done by Bill Orr W6SAI (SK).
 I consider Bill's
articles to be excellent.

I agree. Those articles and notes often go far beyond mere
specifications and general data, too. They often explain *why*
something is done, not just what to do.

A lot of the info is rather subtle. For example, if one is used to
receiving and low-power transmitting tubes with their silvery flashed
getters, where overheating causes the getter to lose its silvery
appearance, it is counter-intuitive that the gettering action of high
power transmitting tubes can actually depend the plate reaching high
temperatures. Or that, in the case of high-gain glass tetrodes like
the 4-125A, running lightly loaded can cause the glass of the tube to
soften from electron bombardment.

I think that a lot of things were tossed in the 1970s-1990s because
folks thought they'd never be needed again. Can't tell you how many
tubes and tube-related parts I acquired in those years for little or
nothing, because the folks getting rid of it thought nobody would ever
need or want it in the future.

This sort of thing even happens in the aerospace industry. A lot of
documentation was simply dumped as programs ended. Rocket engine
designers are going to museums to see how it was done in the past, and
have the problem of seeing what was done but not why.

I can't tell you how many leftovers I have from buying material for a
project. Â When I lived in Cincy, I used to hit the scrap bins of a
plastics distributor so I have quite a bit of scrap teflon, nylon and
lucite rod, sheet and tube. Â Finding it when I want it is the hard
part.

Same here.

How's this for scrounging:

When this house got new siding back a few years, the antenna mast had
to come down so the siding could be put on. But when the mast was to
be reinstalled, I needed some spacers to make everything line up
correctly.

Machining metal to do the job would have been a big deal. Wood was
easy but would be a maintenance job, exposed to the weather. PVC was
too soft and not available in the right sizes anyway.

Then I remembered that relatives had redone their kitchen some years
earlier, and had gotten white Corian countertops installed. The
installers had left some Corian scraps behind. The relatives
had kept them, figuring there had to be some use for such wonderful
material.

Sure enough, the scraps were still available for the asking. I got
some and made the exact spacer blocks needed. Tough, weatherproof,
easy to machine, and even the right color.
Don't want fancy. Want functional.

Keeping the XYL happy, serves a function.

Agreed.

 Keeping visiting hams from
laughing, serves a function.

They don't laugh when they see the contest scores.

I'm not above that. Â My last crank up tower from
Tashjian/Tri-Ex had a
crate built from 22-foot-long California 2x4's and
some long, narrow
strips of plywood. Â I kept it all. Â I'd never even seen 22' piec
es of
2x4 stock prior to getting these. Â They're reddish in color
and are of
some sort of pine not often found here in the East.

The only places I've seen such long pieces of 2x4 were in old balloon-
framed houses. One reason balloon-framing ended was the availability
and cost of such wood.

Well, these 3,000 to 5000 square foot mega-homes
have been cropping up
everywhere in the past decade.

We call them "McMansions" in these parts. But that really applies more
to the 4,000-8.000+ sf houses we see.

It is not unusual around here to see a perfectly good house from the
1950s to 1970s bought and torn down by a developer so a McMansion can
be built. The value is in the land - often the price of the new place
is twice that of the old. The current housing bust has mostly put an
end to that, but not completely. More than a few locals are up in arms
because it means less "affordable" housing units.

The amateur radio connection to all of this is that often the house
which was torn down had mature trees good for antennas and no CC&Rs.
"Development" often removes at least some of the trees, or they don't
survive the construction process, and the new place is usually CC&R'd
to the max.

 They're much cheaper to heat and cool
than some of the earlier built homes.

That depends on two factors: scaling (as a house gets bigger, the
interior volume grows faster than the exterior wall/roof area) and how
houses are built.

When this house got the work done a couple summers ago, and some walls
were opened, it turned out that there was no insulation. Just a thin
layer of wallboard, 2x4s, 1x10 sheathing (not plywood yet the house is
from 1950) tar paper and mineral siding. Of course insulation and
Tyvek were installed, and then the new siding.

Same here. All about multiple uses.

...and the conservation of space.

More on that below.

The console is the key to strength.

That's why I mentioned the console. Â
Everything heavy sits on it. Â The
four supports for it distribute the weight so that nothing can break
through the door. Â There's one large HF rig, one HF/VHF/UHF rig,
four
rotor control boxes, an HF amp, three remote coaxial switches,
three
watt meters, two speakers, an antenna tune, a RTTY/digital
modem, spare
receiver and a monitor scope on the console. Â Assorted
accessory boxes
sit under the console and there's an LCD computer monitor
and a keyboard
on the desk too.

Beautiful, just beautiful..

One difference is that your console/desk is purpose-built for the
shack. Custom use, IOW. The op desk I use was designed to be multi-
purpose, and has been on several Field Days, as have the Southgate
rigs.

When a thing is built to do just one thing, it can often be made
simple and yet high-performance for that one thing. When it has to do
multiple things, there are always more compromises.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now for something totally different!
 

And now for something totally different!
 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:50:34 EDT, Dave Heil
wrote:

I'm forced to admit that I've got many of the original transmitting and
receiving guides. When I sold industrial electronics for Hughes-Peters,
I rescued an old Eimac three-ring binder from the trash. It contains
the specs for most early and late Eimac bottles along with applications
notes and design info for amateur amplifiers. Quite a number of those
notes and articles were done by Bill Orr W6SAI (SK). I consider Bill's
articles to be excellent.

Somewhere in my pile of stuff I have Eimac's "Care and Feeding of
Power Tetrodes". A classic.

Bill Eitel (SK), the "Ei" if Eimac, was a close buddy of my first FCC
boss, Ney Landry (W6UDU, ex-K6RI - but that "ex" is another story) and
I got to meet him several times in the office and at the hamfests that
eventually became Pacificon.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

And now for something totally different!
 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:04:13 EDT, wrote:

The only places I've seen such long pieces of 2x4 were in old balloon-
framed houses. One reason balloon-framing ended was the availability
and cost of such wood.

The glue-lam framing industry uses them quite a bit, with a production
line making all sorts of very long "timbers" from 2x4s and 2x6s held
together by glue that is RF heat-sealed (13.6 MHz ISM stuff) and a
flying-arm saw cutting them to length in a continuous process. I got
to visit such a plant once, and marveled that everything worked as
well as it did.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

And now for something totally different!
 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:04:13 EDT, wrote:

The current housing bust has mostly put an
end to that, but not completely. More than a few locals are up in arms
because it means less "affordable" housing units.

There are homes now being built near here advertised as "golf course
homes starting in the mid-700s". I understand that most of them are a
Mill or more, and were sold even before construction started. For
some people there is no recession.....

Small shacks they are not - and I'll bet that there are CC&Rs against
putting up ham antennas even by folks with that kind of dough.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

And now for something totally different!
 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:04:13 EDT, wrote:

That depends on two factors: scaling (as a house gets bigger, the
interior volume grows faster than the exterior wall/roof area) and how
houses are built.

A new mega-room mansion built near here by a developer for his own
family residence necessitated a much larger natural gas line to be put
into the neighborhood just to provide the heating of the place.

Every time I pass the place I envision where I could put up a 100 foot
tower with no real visual impact.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

And now for something totally different!
 

On Mar 16, 6:53 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:50� am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

What's funny is that after you've lived in one of those places for
a while, these things tend to seem perfectly rational. When the embassy
water pump broke, we lived for six weeks with a string of locals hiking
the five flights to our flat with a bucket full of water in each hand.
They'd dump the buck in a plastic garbage can, turn around and trot down
the stairs for another couple of buckets. We lived like that for six
weeks--taking bucket baths, doing hand wash and so forth. Keep in mind
that all water used for drinking/cooking had to be boiled and filtered
before use, whether the pumps were in operation or not.

Thank you for your service to our country, Dave. You did that sort of
thing
for how many years, on top of military service?

We had a pipe burst inside a wall of our laundry room once. There was
no pipe available in town. Worker dug into the concrete wall, found the
break and used rubber tubing and hose clamps to join the broken pieces.
With every surge of the water pump, the tubing expanded and contracted,
looking like it had a pulse. WAWA--West Africa Wins Again.

bwaahaahaa!

Around here, "WAWA" means something completely different: Popular
convenience stores.

TNX. Not a single new part was used. It's done a good job these past
dozen years.

That's the ultimate in junk box building and a good track record for the
finished project.

Yet some would look down on it as "junk" and "a kludge".

IIRC, the HQ-215 lamps aren't *inside* the dial drum, are
they?

Yes, it is. There's only one inside the drum and another for the
S-meter. To the left of the dial window is a calibration adjustment.
To the right is an identical knob which dims the dial lamps if desired.
I desire it a lot since dimming them a bit keeps from having to put in
new lamps very often.

Perhaps the Type 8 will have a dimmer pot.....

I received the data from Engineering.

Good. Ms. Yardley sends greetings.

Heh.

As Richard Thompson says:

"Red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme..."

It's all about the curls....

I've read the eham thread and have even participated.

Excellent!

I don't know if it is or not. There's been some anger exhibited over
some issues. Quite a bit of erroneous information has been passed.

No matter; the important thing is that knowledgeable folks have
presented valid data.

I agree. Those articles and notes often go far beyond mere
specifications and general data, too. They often explain *why*
something is done, not just what to do.

Exactly. I'd never realized until I got the binder that Eimac had even
published amateur linear amplifier "how to" articles. A linear amp
isn't a difficult thing to design yourself if you understand why a final
tank Q within a paricular range is desired and you can use tables
published by Orr for translating the plate load impedence of a
particular bottle (run at a particular plate voltage) to find the values
of C1, C2 and L needed for the tank circuit.

I found "The Care And Feeding of Power Tetrodes" free for the
download,
along with lots more Eimac stuff at the BAMA mirror site.

They also have quite a few of the GE Ham News periodicals scanned.

There is a great difference between a receiving-type
tube run at relatively low voltages and a high power transmitting tube
run at high voltages. Their construction is quite different.

Until relatively recently, oxide-coated cathodes could not withstand
high plate voltages,
so tubemakers continued to use thoriated-tungsten filaments for
transmitting tubes
beyond 100-200 W or so. Tube size is another factor; a 3-500Z can
handle more than
ten times the watts of a 6146 but is not ten times the size, so other
methods have
to be employed.

Or that, in the case of high-gain glass tetrodes like
the 4-125A, running lightly loaded can cause the glass of the tube to
soften from electron bombardment.

That sort of thing was also evident in TV horizontal output tubes. As I
pointed out in the e-ham forum, Nonex glass was used in some later sweep
tubes to help in preventing suck-in.

I think the horizontal output suck-in problem was simply caused by
excessive heat
from the plate, in a poorly-ventilated TV.

What is described by Eimac in "Care And Feeding" was the glass being
softened
by electron bombardment of the glass, caused by running the tube
lightly loaded (low
plate current).

Having the parts to keep something running isn't the
problem. Storage is.

I could tell ya stories about *storage*....

I've read articles stating that NASA is having real problem as those
with knowledge of the design of such engines are retiring or have
already retired.

Or are dead. Consider that someone who was, say, 40 years old in 1964
and working on the Apollo project would be 84 today.

What I might have considered is that
newer composite decking material which is designed to last for decades.

The composite deck material is great stuff but it's softer than
Corian, and
I didn't have any. Plus I don't think it comes in white. (Note to self
- raid
relative's basement for the rest of the Corian before they decide to
toss it.)

I'm not familiar with the term "balloon framing". I'm looking it up. I
don't think there's anything available from my local lumberyard in
lengths exceeding 16'.

We used to be able to get up to 20 foot 2x4s but you paid a premium
per
foot and the quality wasn't as good.

We call them "McMansions" in these parts.

There are some of 'em in Wheeling, but not many. I think those homes
were the product of a booming economy and easy credit. Those days are
over for at least the time being.

Yes, that's exactly what caused them. Some folks are left holding the
bag.

It is not unusual around here to see a perfectly good house from the
1950s to 1970s bought and torn down by a developer so a McMansion can
be built. The value is in the land - often the price of the new place
is twice that of the old. The current housing bust has mostly put an
end to that, but not completely. More than a few locals are up in arms
because it means less "affordable" housing units.

I can't really understand the "up in arms" part because we really having
a surplus of existing housing in the country.

What they're up in arms about is that houses in the $300,000 -
$500,000
range are being replaced by houses worth double that or more, on the
same lots. That drastically reduces the number of people who can
afford
to even think about buying them. During a downturn those houses become
unsellable.

On top of that, they tend to increase the impervious surface
percentage of
the lot, so there's more stormwater runoff when it rains. Which floods
the
folks downhill, who were never flooded before, and increases erosion
issues.

The amateur radio connection to all of this is that often the house
which was torn down had mature trees good for antennas and no CC&Rs.
"Development" often removes at least some of the trees, or they don't
survive the construction process, and the new place is usually CC&R'd
to the max.

That IS a problem for radio amateurs. Â I think a bigger problem is th
at
most of our newer housing is built in subdivisions. Â Those subdivisio
ns
are not radio friendly at all. Â I'm seeing more and more magazine
articles on stealth antennas. Â I won't consider living in one of thos
e
areas.

I hope and pray I will never have to consider living in one of those
places, but
as time goes on and more old houses are torn down and replaced by
radio-
unfriendly CC&R'd places, the options decrease.

We're sitting on an acre. Â If we re-locate, I'd be happier with 2 or
3
acres. Â I wouldn't object if half of that area happened to be in tree
s
or woods though.

I've seen the pix; I hope for such a location someday. Non-radio
factors
keep me on my little patch of Radnor Township.

The "how houses are built" part is what I meant to address. Â Things l
ike
a geothermal heating/cooling systems are another factor. Â W8RHM's new

place has one and it is a large house. Â His heating and cooling bills

are quite reasonable.

Because he's not really paying for heating or cooling; he's paying to
run pumps.
A few of the locals here have gone to geothermal; it works. The main
problem
is the first cost.

Beautiful, just beautiful..

If not beautiful, at least it isn't ugly. Â

Beauty in both form and function.

The console and the former
W8YX desk got hauled to each of my Foreign Service postings. Â The
console is approaching thirty years in age. Â It gets a new coat of pa
int
about once per decade.

What is this "paint" of which you speak?

One difference is that your console/desk is purpose-built for the
shack. Custom use, IOW. The op desk I use was designed to be multi-
purpose, and has been on several Field Days, as have the Southgate
rigs.

N8NN and I have been using those plastic-topped banquet tables with the
folding legs inside a screen room for FD use. Â That's because 1) they
're
easy to set up and take down and 2) Bert has some.

I have considered those. If they will fit flat in the current vehicle
they have
possibilities. And again they are multi-use; they won't just be for
FD.

It is really difficult to buy something which is really ideal for an
amateur radio operating position. Â Computer hutches/desks tend to be
a
little on the small side and aren't generally as stoutly built as
necessary. Â For some of us, what worked really well at one point migh
t
not be as handy years later, when the amount of gear expands to fill all
available space. Â I used to get by with the old W8YX desk with a 3x5'

top. Â The position I now use is 3x7'. If I relocate, I'll consider a
homebrew U-shaped operating position. Â The room I'm in at present doe
s
not lend itself to that.

I don't think anything off-the-shelf is really suited for more than a
very small
ham shack. One problem is depth; the equipment needs to sit pretty far
from the op
but the usual 24-30 inch table or computer desk isn't deep enough.

It really is time for new shack/shop furniture for me. The Southgate
Radio team is
on it....

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now for something totally different!