In a message dated 5/28/06 10:03:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On May 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Whether the rig was simple or complex, the small panel/deep > > chassis idea became the most common, even for rigs that would > > obviously never be > > used mobile. It became electro-politically incorrect to build a ham > > rig any > > other way, even though the original reason for the form factor was > > gone (2). That > > influence continues to the present day. > > Very intriguing idea. It's just IMHO. I think methods of construction may have had > > some influence as well. If you consider miniature receiving tubes and > a chassis about 1 1/2" to 2" tall, you end up with a rig about 6-8" > high. Going taller doesn't help unless you rotate the tubes to the > front panel (in which case they would be horizontal, which may not be > good). > I don't know any of the common receiving/small xmtg tubes used in the ham rigs of those days that couldn't be operated in any position. In some rigs, like the Gonset G-76, some tubes were mounted horizontally to keep the panel height down. In the Heath SB/HW transceivers, the 6146s are submounted to keep the panel height down. > This is pretty much true of any AM table-top radio from the 40s or 50s. > > If we made these old radios 10 or 12" tall, how do we effectively use > all the space in the box more than 5" above the chassis? > > Why does it have to be used at all? In a rig designed for home use, is space that precious? > > Seems to me the reason that radios got smaller is because components > got smaller. > Partly. But the point I was making is that they specifically went to low front panels and very deep cabinets, due to the mobile form factor. Another factor is that as rigs got lighter, the different form factor kept them from tipping over or scooting away. > Today, we're not so restricted by components, they are small and can > be placed in any orientation. In fact, there's no reason the rig has > to be rectangular. > > I think you are on to something with the form factor, though. The > aspect ratios of the K2 are about the same as a Collins or old > Heathkit SB series rigs. Something like the old Drake series is much > narrower and deeper. > That's the point. Note that in those rigs it was common to control things like the final amplifier through long shafts, belts, etc, so that the PA could be way in the back and not take up panel space. > There's also some variations on this theme. Think of portable > receivers -- how many radios follow the same form factor of of the > Zenith Trans-Oceanic? None I know of, when it comes to ham rigs. We're still following the KWM-2 paradigm, not the Cosmophone 35 paradigm. > > So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a > desktop rig? > The receiver I referred to had a front panel 8-3/4 x 19. My current homebrew rig (see homepage) has a front panel 7 x 19. For me, anything less than 7 inches high is too short and less than 14 inches wide is too narrow. IMHO. --- The flat-panel display idea discussed elsewhere has one problem: Fudd's First Law of Opposition (1). Displays are meant to be looked at but they don't have controls on them. 73 de Jim, N2EY (1) "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over" _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
