[Elecraft] Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building Demo, ...

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/24/06 1:49:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rondec at easystreet.com writes:


> What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little
> rectangular boxes.

One reason: The Collins KWM-2.
> 
> 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.

Before the late 1950s, most ham rigs/receivers had relatively large front 
panels but were not very deep. Look at the Hallicrafters S-40/SX-99, the National 
HRO-5, the Hammarlund HQ-100/HQ-110, the Johnson Ranger and Viking 2, and 
many other rigs. They had human-sized controls and readouts, which demanded big 
(high and wide) front panels. But the sets were only as deep as they needed to 
be. More complex sets were deeper to hold all the parts needed in a more 
complex set. Often there was a lot of empty space inside the cabinet.

Of course almost all ham gear built to that idea was way too big for mobile 
use, even in the big cars of that era. Mobile rigs were built to completely 
different criteria.

Then Collins came out with the KWM-2. Though it seems big today, it was a 
tiny rig for its time, yet it was a complete 100W SSB rig. It had a minimum of 
controls, and a form factor that yielded a low front panel but a deep chassis. 
The idea was that it could be used in both the home shack and mobile, 
eliminating the need for separate home and mobile rigs.(1)

The KWM-2 shared a lot of parts and engineering with the matched-pair S line 
receivers and transmitters.

The KWM-2 was so successful, despite its enormous price tag, that other 
rigmakers soon followed suit. Controls and displays were made smaller and knobs 
made concentric. 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.

The ironic part of all this is that, in the shacks I've seen, the 
most-lacking dimension on the desk is depth. If you put a 15" deep rig on a 30" deep 
desk, there's not much room left.
> 
> 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.

What you're describing is an updated version of the form factors of those old 
receivers mentioned above. Wide and tall but not deep.

Of course with modern SS design, one of the problems with any other form 
factor is keeping the rig from falling over. An SX-99 has a steel chassis and 
cabinet, with power transformer and other parts that keep it from going anywhere. 
A modern rig without a lot of iron won't have that stability.

But those problems can be licked.

There's an old "How's DX" column in QST from the early 1960s that addresses 
this very issue. Madame Mu, the shack cat, does not like the new small 
transceiver because there's no room for her to comfortably lie atop it. The issue of 
'why so small' is well discussed. 

73 de Jim, N2EY

1) The earlier KWM-1 was similar, but lacked 80 and 40, and wasn't nearly so 
popular. 

2) I am reminded of the 'cut the end off the brisket' story, which originated 
with AC7AC.