[HomeBrew] Any builders?

[Ian Wilson]

On 4/27/08, DavidE Benedict <iam at pmug.org> wrote:
 >  I know!
 >
 >  There's not much a person can do any more. At least me.
 >  #1, It's all been done before, and


Not everything that has been done before has been done well.
 Something that I find fascinating is the use of more modern
 techniques for receiver design, etc, but using high-performance
 glowbug parts. For an example, see "The Retro" from Andy,
 G4OEP.


 >  #2, Electronics has gotten complex for the Amateur unless
 >  a) they have good eyes for working with miniature components,

This problem affects us all who are not getting any younger :).
 However, I have done OK so far with projects that contain a single
 critical chip by mounting it on a substrate that expands the pinout
 to something more tractable. Examples are SMT DG MOSFETs,
 PLL chips, etc. This works FB as long as you only need 1 or 2 such
 components in a project, which is typically the case.


 >  b) they have an ability to program computers or PIC chips, or

Working in assembler (or C for that matter) is not for everyone.
 There are some great examples of boards that remove most of the
 need for programmable logic (e.g. the NJQRP DDS boards).


 >  c) have $$ to invest in PIC programmers, PC board making, printed circuit
 >  board runs of 100+, and etc., etc., etc.

PIC programmers (and PICs) have always been remarkably cheap (have
 to admit that was a major attraction for me). There is lots of competition
 so you can shop around for reasonably-priced prototyping boards, etc.

 I have never done very well with home PCB making. And using a layout
 editor smacks too much of w*rk. So I build stuff ugly style, or more
 rarely, Manhattan. You don't need much in the way of tools or material
 to use these styles successfully. And dual-sided PCB is also pretty
 cheap if you buy offcuts (why is it cheaper than single-sided, anyway??).


 >  -- That leaves a lot of us out of our shops except occasionally when
 >  someone with all those assets writes an article in OST or the like, and
 >  provides the programmed PIC and the PC board w/ components in a kit.
 >
 >  Too, there's little available in kits like HeathKit etc. used to sell, but
 >  there's a fair number of kits for ORP-ers from within the Ham community.
 >
 >  At least there's a fair amount of antenna experimenting going on.
 >  Occasionally that's an active reflector.
 >
 >  Our hobby has changed a great deal since radio glowed in the dark. Since I
 >  was winding transformers from scratch and using a Greenlee chassis punch
 >  to mount the tube sockets for 6x4's, 12AU7's, 1625's, and 304TL's.


Transformers are becoming expensive and rare, so perhaps those winding
 skills will come in handy again :). How about using a Unibit to make those
 holes in a chassis and homebrewing an 80m CW rig with a couple of
 12AU7's and a 1625 in time for the long-awaited sunspots?


 >
 >  Let's face it, he says wistfully, "I was born 30 years to soon to be fully
 >  involved in today's technology."
 >  -- For me, 1971 would have been about the latest to be born into this era
 >  of Modern High Tech.


I missed out on much of the tube/valve era when I was in my teens and
 first had some interest in ham radio. For the past 5 years or so I have been
 rediscovering tube technology and the pleasure of bringing back to life
 some pieces of vintage gear. The combination of 'low' tech tube stuff
 with high tech web access to tube data sheets, schematics, tutorial
 information, etc, is intoxicating.

 >
 >  David B.
 >  W7DBH, Oregon
 >

 Hope this is at least a tiny bit stimulating, hi.

 73, ian K3IMW