looking for a heathkit hw-101 assembly manual and schematic,copy or pdf
thanks jack

"jwb" ha scritto nel messaggio news:lkP7f.516423$xm3.45526@attbi_s21...
looking for a heathkit hw-101 assembly manual and schematic,copy or pdf
thanks jack

I downloaded it from http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/heath/hw101/ but ..... the schematic diagram quality is poor. Components values can be read but with difficulty.

Hard to understand why volunteers do not generally pay enough care to reproduction quality. Look at how bad that DJVU- compressed diagram has come out.

Best results are obtained with GIF and PNG. JPG is unsuitable for schematic diagrams.

73

Tony I0JX

On 10/26/05 10:49 AM, in article lkP7f.516423$xm3.45526@attbi_s21, "jwb"
wrote:

looking for a heathkit hw-101 assembly manual and schematic,copy or pdf
thanks jack




The hw-101 files are available in the djvu format at

http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/heath/hw101/

I grabbed them and tried to convert them to PDF, but couldn't do it.... Yet.

Hope this link helps;

Don

Don Bowey wrote:



The hw-101 files are available in the djvu format at

http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/heath/hw101/

I grabbed them and tried to convert them to PDF, but couldn't do it.... Yet.

There's lots of freeware out nowadays that will let you convert
*anything* to pdf (and vice versa) by setting up the program to behave
as a printer. You hit print and select the program instead of your
normal printer and bingo, you have pdf.

In the case mentioned there's no point in doing that since the scanned
resolution is bad it will remain bad in any other format.

-Bill

On 10/26/05 11:31 AM, in article ,
"Bill" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:



The hw-101 files are available in the djvu format at

http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/heath/hw101/

I grabbed them and tried to convert them to PDF, but couldn't do it.... Yet.

There's lots of freeware out nowadays that will let you convert
*anything* to pdf (and vice versa) by setting up the program to behave
as a printer. You hit print and select the program instead of your
normal printer and bingo, you have pdf.

In the case mentioned there's no point in doing that since the scanned
resolution is bad it will remain bad in any other format.

-Bill

My "universal" converter is one planet short of a full universe.

There are times when a poor quality schematic is better than none at all.

The hw-101 files are not unusable.

There are times when a poor quality schematic is better than none at all.

The hw-101 files are not unusable.

Very true. But why doing things worse when they can be easily done better.

73

Tony, I0JX

On 10/26/05 1:28 PM, in article
, "Antonio Vernucci"
wrote:

There are times when a poor quality schematic is better than none at all.

The hw-101 files are not unusable.

Very true. But why doing things worse when they can be easily done better.

73

Tony, I0JX

Well......... Most people do what they do, as well as they can. This is
true in business and especially true in hobby pursuits. Only a few
disgruntled people start their day looking for a way to screw-up something.

The people who donated their time and other resources to copy documents and
transfer them to the BAMA sites, did as good as they could given what they
had to work with, including their individual knowledge of "what is the best
format."

I think the BAMA sites are still a great work in progress, and everyone who
has a schematic and/or a manual that is better than the one filed on the
BAMA site, should upload theirs.

Don

In article ,
Antonio Vernucci wrote:

Very true. But why doing things worse when they can be easily done better.

The technology to produce high quality scans has been around
for almost 15 years. in early 1992, I produced for a client a CD ROM
with a hypertext database of article abstracts about their product and
it included 300 dpi scanned images of the articles.

To put it in context, I had to write a display and print program that
ran under DOS!!! because most people did not have Windows. In fact
we only made 500 of them because there were so few people with CD-ROM
drives. :-)

My CD-ROM drive cost me over $700, about half of a 386 computer without
one.

Now that everyone has a computer with a bitmaped display and many people
have scanners, you would think that there would be no problem getting
a good high resoultion scan of the manual.

However, most hams are computer users and not computer experts. They scan
images with whatever program that came with the scanner and use whatever
settings it defaults to. Unfortunately that's usually 200 DPI and 75%
quality JPEGS. Fine for scanning a copy of your photos for a web page,
or if you go directly to an inkjet printer or fax machine, but not
an archive copy of a drawing printed with a printing press.

File size grows geometricaly with the number of pixels you scan, a
letter size page at 300 dpi is 1,000,000 pixels. Lucklily the standard
for fax machines, uses a special compression method that works well for
black and white images and you can use it to compress a page of text
to about 50k. Line drawings tend not to be much more as it is designed
to work best with linear objects.

JPEG is not, it's designed to work with clumps of pixels that look alike,
and many colors. It is designed to make the copy look like the original
to the human eye, not be lossless compression.

So the bottom line is if you have any material in your library that
you would want the next generation to see, scan it in at at least 300dpi
and save it as "G3" encoded TIFF files.

If you have anything that you think people would want, but can't
do it yourself, ask around, there may be a local ham that could and
would do it for you.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported
BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication.

On 10/26/05 2:26 PM, in article ,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

In article ,
Antonio Vernucci wrote:

Very true. But why doing things worse when they can be easily done better.

The technology to produce high quality scans has been around
for almost 15 years. in early 1992, I produced for a client a CD ROM
with a hypertext database of article abstracts about their product and
it included 300 dpi scanned images of the articles.

To put it in context, I had to write a display and print program that
ran under DOS!!! because most people did not have Windows. In fact
we only made 500 of them because there were so few people with CD-ROM
drives. :-)

My CD-ROM drive cost me over $700, about half of a 386 computer without
one.

Now that everyone has a computer with a bitmaped display and many people
have scanners, you would think that there would be no problem getting
a good high resoultion scan of the manual.

However, most hams are computer users and not computer experts. They scan
images with whatever program that came with the scanner and use whatever
settings it defaults to. Unfortunately that's usually 200 DPI and 75%
quality JPEGS. Fine for scanning a copy of your photos for a web page,
or if you go directly to an inkjet printer or fax machine, but not
an archive copy of a drawing printed with a printing press.

File size grows geometricaly with the number of pixels you scan, a
letter size page at 300 dpi is 1,000,000 pixels. Lucklily the standard
for fax machines, uses a special compression method that works well for
black and white images and you can use it to compress a page of text
to about 50k. Line drawings tend not to be much more as it is designed
to work best with linear objects.

JPEG is not, it's designed to work with clumps of pixels that look alike,
and many colors. It is designed to make the copy look like the original
to the human eye, not be lossless compression.

So the bottom line is if you have any material in your library that
you would want the next generation to see, scan it in at at least 300dpi
and save it as "G3" encoded TIFF files.

If you have anything that you think people would want, but can't
do it yourself, ask around, there may be a local ham that could and
would do it for you.

Geoff.

I will add only one thing to the advice....

Many image problems are due to not having good brightness/contrast because
the scanner sees mostly white. Do a few sample scans while adjusting the
brightness and contrast for best result.

Don

Did you download just the manual file or did you also download the
"improved schematic" djvu file? It is realy better than the schematics
in the manual page.

When uploading scanned manuals if you have a dial up line sending scans
takes a long time so trading of scanned resolution for upload time is
something that also enters into the equation.

When I didn't have broadband I wound up sending CD's to Ken since the
upload time was prohibitive! I have some gifs of the schematic that I
can send you if the improved version is not clear enough.

73

Jim K0JKJ