[TMC] Why GPR-90s Look So Good

[Woody Demitz]

Thanks, John.  I viewed the jpg of the GPR-90's front panel and tried various measurements.  As my research model, I chose "Vern" the snaggle-toothed muffler repair guy in the Aamco TV commercial of years ago, who grins compellingly at the potential customer and says, "We don't have your exact muffler, but we''ll make it fit." Methodology: hold metal tape measure up to IPad screen and try to avoid scratching screen, while taking rough reading of various potential golden rectangles on panel. Result: Utter failure, until I decided to work the problem. Instead of using L=width of the inset holding the freq dials and H=distance from bottom of the two tuning knobs to top of inset, which yielded a disappointing 1.4:1 ratio, I redefined "H" to begin not from the bottom of the freq tuning knobs, but--and this is brilliant--from the CENTER of those knobs. My theory being that the human eye is drawn not to the outside rim of those knobs, but to their center. This yielded a much more satisfying ratio of 1.68.  Not quite the perfect 1.618, but hey..

73,
Woody KO3S


Sent from my iPad

On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:09 AM, John Poulton <jp at cs.unc.edu> wrote:

> You can measure the proportions yourself, without needing an actual
> GPR-90 in front of you.  There are some 'hidden' parts of the
> TMCHistory website that you can easily get to that have beautiful b/w
> photos of many of TMC's products.  See, for example,
> 
> http://tmchistory.org/tmc_tables/rig_pix_db/gpr-90/
> 
> I'll get them all linked eventually.. :)  The front panel of the
> GPR-90 is much wider than the Golden Ratio, about 2.15:1, and the
> tuning dials and central controls are a bit less at about 1.4:1.
> 
> It's not really possible to get a rack-mountable item's front panel to
> conform to the Golden Ratio exactly, since its width is always 19" and
> height is some multiple of "U" (1.75").  A 'perfect" front panel would
> be somewhere between 6U and 7U, I suppose...
> 
> The GPR-90 is particularly handsome, but the reasons are
> subtle--something about the symmetric layout of controls and the
> proportions.  Maybe the Golden Rectangle is hiding in there somewhere,
> but it's not obvious where.
> 
> That said, most of TMC's products were elegantly designed and pleasing
> to the eye.  The internals were built to extremely high standards, and
> the equipment worked very well and was extremely reliable, thanks to
> conservative design.  All of these aspects are, I think, what
> attracted us collectors to TMC rigs, and the reason so many of these
> beautiful machines are still on the air.
> 
> There's just something about TMC's 'look' that can shout to you all
> the way across a crowded hamfest.. :)
> 
> 73, John K4OZY
> 
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Woody Demitz <wdemitz at verizon.net> wrote:
>> Some proportions are inherently pleasing to the eye. The Greeks and Romans knew this, and that is why at least some of their buildings remain beautiful to the eye, even in ruins. The principle the ancient architects followed has many names--the Golden Ratio, Golden Section or Divine Proportion--but it had to do with the ratio of the length of the rectangle formed by the building to its height.  The ratio is 1.6180339887.. (Thank you, Wikipedia). The ratio can be applied to pictures as well , and that suggests that perhaps the agreed-to-by-all beauty of a GPR-90 front panel may benefit from the same design principle. I suspect that the perceived pleasing rectangle need not be the full panel, but the rectangles formed by its component parts as well--for example, the frequency dials plus tuning knobs.
>> 
>> Or maybe I've had too much coffee this morning. Perhaps someone who owns a GPR-90 can test the theory.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Woody KO3S
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 2:18 AM, "Richard Knoppow" <1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "w1nzr via TMC" <tmc at mailman.qth.net>
>>> To: "Francesco Ledda" <frledda at att.net>; "Nick England" <navy.radio at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "Mike Durff" <mike at oldaudio.net>; "tmc collector's group" <TMC at mailman.qth.net>
>>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [TMC] Why ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> A lively, erudite and enjoyable discussion.....as long as you are a radio
>>>> geek...thanks all...
>>>> 
>>>> Brown Beezer
>>>  This is an unusual list because we have a couple of real historians on it who have done a lot of digging of the sort not often found John Polton is perhaps the main contributor since he has befriended the family who owned TMC.  There is also something peculiarly attractive about TMC products, hard to say what. For instance, the GPR-90, which is, frankly, only a medium-good receiver, is one of the best looking and feeling ever.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Richard Knoppow
>>> Los Angeles
>>> WB6KBL
>>> dickburk at ix.netcom.com
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> TMC mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/tmc
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:TMC at mailman.qth.net
>>> 
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> TMC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/tmc
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:TMC at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html