[Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, T-Shirts, Amp and More.)

[Larry Phipps]

That's an interesting thought, Ron. It would also give a lot more room 
for rear panel connectors.

73,
Larry N8LP



Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little
> rectangular boxes.
>
> We need a human sized panel for human sized knobs and buttons but that
> doesn't mean we need a BIG rig! Indeed, it can be very small and friendly on
> modern desks. 
>
> Look at a modern "flat panel" computer or TV display. Why not a desk-top rig
> that is built like a thick version of one of those? Big and relatively thin?
> Stand it on a "foot" like the displays.  Heatsink on the back, if needed,
> along with necessary connectors, and lots of space for controls on the
> front.
>
> The large panel area would allow the layout of the circuits to follow a
> logical path, with controls closely associated with the circuits they're
> associated with. If there's a really heavy part, like a big heat sink for
> the finals, put it down at the bottom at the "foot". You want the antenna
> connectors down there anyway. And no multiple layers of tightly packed PC
> boards to wade through when troubleshooting either! 
>
> That's nothing new. It's how radios were built in the 1920's, 30's and at
> least through the 50's. Remember seeing pictures of those huge, long
> 1920-vintage broadcast-band receivers with a whole row of knobs across the
> front? Those were tuned-radio-frequency sets with a whole row of tubes
> amplifying the signal before it was detected (turned into audio). Each knob
> adjusted the tuning of the amplifier behind it. Parts were big, so the
> cabinet had to be pretty deep, but the first step in the design was to lay
> out the controls so they were close to the associated circuits. As superhets
> took over, fewer controls were needed to tune R.F. amplifiers and more
> controls were needed for the I.F. and audio stages, but the same basic
> layout remained, progressing from the antenna to the audio output. The form
> factor was constrained by the front panel and the unit was only as deep as
> needed by the bulk of the parts used. 
>
> Smaller sets were often built right on the back of the "front panel" with no
> "chassis" at all, just a box to hold the front panel vertical and keep
> inquisitive fingers from breaking tubes or getting into high voltages. 
>
> The logical evolution would have been for those to get thinner and thinner
> until modern solid state radios were simply a thick "front panel". 
>
> Instead we kept the old rectangular form factor and reduced the size of the
> front panel and the controls! 
>
> Wayne took a big step in the direction I'm suggesting with the KX1, putting
> the controls on the top of the box instead of the "front". The original rig
> had one main PCB behind the panel with the controls laid out near the
> associated circuits. 
>
> Picture a 100 watt KX1 tilted up at a 45 degree angle with a base and having
> the same thickness but a panel size of, say, 14x18 inches (35X45 cm) with
> suitable knobs and meters...
>
> Ah... Meters...but that's another story...
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft at 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
>
>
>
>