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

[Bill Coleman]

On May 26, 2006, at 9:30 PM, N2EY at aol.com 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. 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).

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?

Seems to me the reason that radios got smaller is because components  
got smaller.

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.

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?

So, this begs this question -- what's the "right" aspect ratios for a  
desktop rig?

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901