[Heathkit] heathkit manual sacrilege

[Peter Markavage]

Pretty much between the Parts List, the Part Pictorial drawing, parts
envelope identification, and the step-by-step instructions, the assembler
could easily identify the part or parts they were  told to install. The
manuals weren't designed as a, 30 year down the road, or 4 generation
owner, trouble shooting type document. However, I will agree that having
a 4th column on the Parts List labeled "ID" (C1, C2, C54 T1, etc.) would
save a lot of time in trouble shooting and locating a part. Seems to me,
and I don't have any Heathkit manuals at arms reach at the moment to
confirm, that later on in some of their kits, they did use a schematic
notation "ID" on their parts lists.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:25:37 -0400 "Greg" <bluebirdtele at embarqmail.com>
writes:
> Hearhkit manuals are written for the assembly process mostly.  Stuff 
> like 
> this happens if you  are troubleshooting or restoring. Here and 
> there are 
> the "mystery components". Easy to identify if you are building the 
> circuit 
> due to the numeric id and the written id on the paper package.  
> Heathkit did 
> miss a few here and there.
> If you want to see a real mistake look at the capacitor list in the 
> Collins 
> 75A4 manual.  Oops!
> 73's
> Greg
> WA7LYO
> Kinston NC
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Edward B Richards" <zuu6k at juno.com>
> To: <eugene at hertzmail.com>
> Cc: <k4zrd at hotmail.com>; <heathkit at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Heathkit] heathkit manual sacrilege
> 
> 
> > Hi Gene;
> >
> > I pulled my SB-610 manual and found it quite clear. I have worked 
> on many
> > heathkits and never found this a problem. The pictorials show the 
> value
> > of the part and the schematic shows both the component designation 
> and
> > the value of the part. The parts list shows the part number, the 
> quantity
> > and the reference number in the parts pictorial. I don't see why 
> you
> > would require more information than this. It would just clutter up 
> the
> > drawings. Can you describe what you are trying to do that lacks 
> the info
> > you want?
> >
> > 73 from Ed Richards K6UUZ
> > Simi Valley, CA. Home of Air
> > Force 1 pavilion
> > scribe what you are trying to do that lacks the info you want?
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:42:00 -0400 <eugene at hertzmail.com> writes:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I know that the Heathkit manuals are often held up as an example 
> of
> >> excellence in manual writing. With that in mind, I may be about 
> to
> >> blaspheme here...
> >>
> >> I am working to recap a SB-610 monitor scope (with the help of
> >> K4ZRD).
> >> It is one of my first attempts to work on a heathkit.  There is 
> one
> >> thing that is making parts identification more difficult than
> >> necessary
> >> by many hours. There is no correlation anywhere that I can see
> >> between
> >> heathkit part number (ie 23-11), schematic designation (c311)
> >> and/or
> >> pictorial!
> >>
> >> I think the manual could have been much better by any one or all 
> of
> >> the
> >> following changes
> >> 1. Add schematic designations to the parts list (ie 23-63
> >> C301,C304)
> >> 2. Add part numbers onto the circuit diagram (ie show both C301 
> and
> >> 23-63) if possible
> >> 3. Add part numbers or schematic designations to the pictorials.
> >> Right
> >> now, the pictorials for a cap say something like ".1 600V" if it
> >> only
> >> said ".1 600V C311" or ".1 600v 23-11"
> >>
> >> If only one of more of the above were done in the manual, this
> >> would
> >> have been soooo much better.  I know that the pictorials are 
> often
> >> tight
> >> on space. And also schematics are often tight on space. So at a
> >> minimum,
> >> it would have been much more helpful if the parts list showed 
> the
> >> schematic part.
> >>
> >> Am I missing something? Am I the only one who feels this way? Is
> >> this
> >> how all heathkit manuals are?
> >>
> >> No disrespect intended!
> >> Eugene W2HX