OK

) writes:
And of course, people want the boatanchors because they are old
Collectors rather than operators, right?

they are the rig they had when they were first in the hobby
Yes, but also because they found later, purportedly more modern
equipment,
to be harder to operate or repair, or easier to break, with replacement
parts
and labor costing more than the rig itself?

they lusted after the rig decades ago but couldn't afford it.
And still can't, in the case of Collins for example.

I suspect that is the major reason, rather than because they are tube-based.
Really? I think it takes a different mentality to operate a tube rig
than a semiconductor or digital rig. I really think the casual tube
rigs were easier for children and adolescents to operate on HF. I had
the worst time trying to understand an ICOM during my 20's, for
example.

Take away that familiarity, and the interested number will also drop.
But what if I kept the familiarity of operation rather than the
familiarity of brand name? Would it drop drastically?

Thirty to forty years ago, hams abandoned those old boatanchors.
They wanted the solid state, they wanted the features. The rigs
could barely be given away. Circa 1972 a lot of boatanchor equipment
went through my hands, because people were giving it away, or they
would sell at the radio club auction for five or ten dollars. I let
it go just as easily, because I could trade it for something more
interesting or just to sample what were new things to me.

It's only in recent years that people became really interested
in that old gear. Nostalgia. And the demand raises the prices
of those once useless rigs.

If simplicity is the issue as you think, then through the decades
there would always be basic rigs being manufactured, because
there'd be demand. If people wanted basic, they'd not be
waiting decades for it. And of course, basic does not have
to mean tubes. The bells and whistles were added because ICs
and the like made it easier to add them, but there was no need
to actually add them. There could have been basic solid state
rigs, and of course Ten Tec did offer them, as did some of
the other manufacturers (though Ten Tec lasted longer than
the rest). If you think there's a market for a bare tube
rig because of ease of repair, then it's just as easy to use
discrete transistors (or discretes with some common ICs) to build
a basic solid state rig that is just as easy to repair as that
old HW-100. The only difference is that with a solid state
rig, there's no tubes that can easily be pulled out to take
to the drugstore to test in the tester, which does't matter
because the tube tester isn't there anymore, and neither does
the drugstore sell the common tubes that was the purpose of
the tester being there in the first place.

I can't say I'd spend the money, but I want a Clegg Interceptor
from the early sixties. There is nothing about that receiver that
is better than a more recent and decent receiver. It lacks features,
and of course suffers from a relatively high noise figure that came
with the tubes. I suspect its selectivity is broad compared to more
recent receivers. I don't want it for what it can do, I
want it because I remember reading about it, a decade after it was being
sold, and simply thinking it was a neat receiver.

A copy of the receiver wouldn't be the same, and is pretty inconceivable
given that there will be little demand.

I am conveying what I think about boatanchors, which may be wrong. But
I suspect you are trying to judge a market for such a rig based on your
own desires. If you think there is a market, you need to find those
people who would actually buy it, who actually do share your thinking
on the issue, to prove that there would be a market for such a project.

I still think that most people who pursue boatanchors are doing it
for nostalgia. A case can even be made that they long for simpler
days. But that doesn't mean that they want to give up bells and whistles
and modern designs on a permanent basis. I doubt newcomers to the
hobby are going off to buy that Drake 2B, they'd pursue it later as
another facet of the hobby if they do so at all (though of course
there was a time when they might have started with it, because it
was seen as a "novice" receiver or because it was available used
for cheap). I think most who go after boatanchors have more recent
rigs, and they use the old rigs in tandem, for variety.

Michael VE2BVW

On 23 Nov 2005 22:32:37 -0800, wrote:

Maybe not a Galaxy 5 itself, you could be right. Besides, it was a
hybrid rig, not an all- tube rig anyway.

But, what about this lineup for receiver:

1) 3 sets of switchable preselector filter with ganged variable
capacitor with a single dual triode amp, half of which are placed
between each filter.
2) Single dual triode as cascode IF converter, rather than a pentagrid
converter which are hardly made anymore.
3) Single dual triode as differential VFO, glass equivalent of recent
QEX circuit, with oscillator variable capacitor ganged to the
preselector capacitor as part of same set.
4) Single dual triode as pre and post amps to lattice crystal IF
filter.
5) Single dual triode as cascode baseband converter.
6) Single dual triode as differential BFO, similar design to VFO.
7) Push-pull audio power amp... reuse this in transmitter.

Transmitter lineup:

1) Single sweep tube operated class E for CW, modified to class H with
aid of receiver's push pull power amp.
2) Share the preselector for use in postfiltering of the power amp.
3) Use the same differential VFO as the input to the class E amp.

This isn't really SSB: it is more quick and dirty DSB/CW transmitter
with SSB receiver. (If anyone can modify a class E amp for SSB service
I would love to hear about it).

So, this lineup uses a single sweep tube, 6 dual trodes, and a pair of
6L6 equivalents.

Shuguang 807 as sweep tube: $16 retail
Shuguang 6SN7 (VFO) $11 retail
Shuguang 6SN7 (BFO) $11 retail
2 Shuguang 6L6 (Amp/Mod) $25 retail
4 CH-12AX7A $48 retail
-----------------
$111 retail ==
$55 wholesale if I can establish a dealer relationship with supplier.

Tubes: (presumed wholeale) $55
Resistors (NOS wholesale): $10
Caps (NOS wholesale): $10
Power transformer: $5 sheet metal stack
made in LDC
4-gang variable $25 (Soviet make
from EBAY)
Chassis: $20 sheet metal
Planetary gear drive: $15 (cast iron gears
from LDC)
Crystals (NOS wholesale) $5
Rotary Band Switch (NOS EBAY) $10
---------
$140
Labor (20 hours at $1/hour in an LDC) $ 20
---------
$160
Murphy Factor (20%) $ 32
----------
COGS w/labor $192

======================

OK, you are likely right that the wholesale cost is high. But I only
worked this out in 20 minutes using recent surfing, reading, and other
communication. Perhaps with further refinement I can get the cost
down. I added a murphy factor for amortized taxes, freight, and
customs.

BUT: I think I made it with $7 to spare, including labor, so long as I
do not rely on the US for a lot of things.

Maybe $250 would be a more realistic retail price... Not much profit
margin, though, but not much needed for mail order sales if I am only
intending to supplement income rather than support myself.

Thoughts?

What sort of volume will be needed to get the figures mentioned above?
At those numbers a run of a thousand kits will cost $192,000,
probably all up front.

In any case your margins will be quite thin and your hourly rate will
be thin as well.

73 de n4jvp
Fritz

Where's the chassis

$20 of Korean sheet metal shaped and drilled by a firm in Africa, see
recent post

knobs

Digikey

tuning caps

4-gang soviet surplus from EBay, see recent post

IF cans

toroids

Tube sockets

PC mount sockets, 50 cents each.

Xtal filter

$1 each, $5 total, see recent post

cabinet

more sheet metal

dial

stenciled plastic, negl cost

power xfrmr

$5 stack of carbon steel made in Africa, see recent post

Using your figure of 20 hours I calculate that you'll clear an
income of $40 per week on 2 rigs, $60 if you work nites, if you do it
all yourself.

No, I'll be using Mexican labor for final assembly

If I could build a Galaxy 5 equivalent in 20 hours...never mind...

No, this is not a Galaxy 5. This is a 21rst century transciever
topology
in glass that may deliver multiband audio/cw contacts at less cost.

Okay. Paying shipping for one single returned rig in this scenario will
have you WISHING you hadn't eaten last week's can of cat food for dinner.

Clearly I would have to reduce mass where I can. I interpret a
boatanchor
as meaning tubes as active units and mechanical tuning with a planetary
drive... I don't intepret that as meaning I have to use 50's-70's era
parts for
anything else or even point to poiint wiring. Maybe I can get the
weight
down to 15 pounds if I use aluminum for chassis and fiberglass or
carbon
composite for case.

You couldn't do this for less than $500 per rig (sans
labour and profit)....

Only I use parts from US and attempt to exactly duplicate a mid-60's
rig. If instead I can outsource nearly everything and never buy
retail,
and if I simply make a FET rig in glass, this might be less.

and thats why there isn't the market that you imagine.

What I have to find out is determine how much someone is willing
to buy a glass rig for that delivers similar functionality as a 60's
rig,
and then determine how many people would buy for that price. At
that point, I have to work backwards to see if I can make parts,
labor, intermediate freight, and customs fees work inside the
interpolated wholesale figure.

So let me ask you... if you had the ability to buy a rig, in glass,
capable of 4 band operation where you could manually tune
and dip the amplifier, that gave you an operating range of 2000
miles on a reference dipole, AND it was built new, HOW MUCH
would you pay for that?

The Eternal Squire

wrote:

Where's the chassis


$20 of Korean sheet metal shaped and drilled by a firm in Africa, see
recent post

You've never done business with Africa and seen the quality of work and
the production delays when the "mail isn't working right".


knobs


Digikey


tuning caps


4-gang soviet surplus from EBay, see recent post


IF cans


toroids


Tube sockets


PC mount sockets, 50 cents each.


Xtal filter


$1 each, $5 total, see recent post

Ask for 400 of all of the above and see how quick those 'surplus'
sources go dark.



Using your figure of 20 hours I calculate that you'll clear an
income of $40 per week on 2 rigs, $60 if you work nites, if you do it
all yourself.


No, I'll be using Mexican labor for final assembly

Not for a buck an hour. Figure 4/hr for Mexican assembly labour but
you'll wind up doing this type of job on unit pricing. Add on about
15-30/hr on the stateside end to QC and align the works.



What I have to find out is determine how much someone is willing
to buy a glass rig for that delivers similar functionality as a 60's
rig,
and then determine how many people would buy for that price. At
that point, I have to work backwards to see if I can make parts,
labor, intermediate freight, and customs fees work inside the
interpolated wholesale figure.

So let me ask you... if you had the ability to buy a rig, in glass,
capable of 4 band operation where you could manually tune
and dip the amplifier, that gave you an operating range of 2000
miles on a reference dipole, AND it was built new, HOW MUCH
would you pay for that?

As a ham, anybody who tried to sell me with a pitch that suggested that
I could talk 2000 miles anytime I wanted to would be met with a red flag
in front of my checkbook. As for pushing the product onto other venues
like missionaries...maybe. There's probably a couple dozen brand names
that have gone down that same pike in the past 20 years and they don't
seem to have survived.

Ok, enough of the nay-saying. Suffice it to say you have no clue about
the costs of production or the market. You're infatuated with making a
tube xcvr for the masses on principle. That, in itself isn't a bad
thing. The results found along your route can ultimately be more
tangible than my opinions and a great resource for the next guy.

I might be interested in a 'Beta' rig for $199, post back when you get
there.

-Bill

Lazy Senior wrote:
Ron in Radio Heaven wrote:

Lazy Senior wrote:

Gosh I must really bug you
Lazy Senior



I know for sure that this continuous BS is bugging ME
and probably a lot of other people too.

Drop it and let's go back to talking about BAs.

Ron


Beerbarrel, Uncle Pete, and Chuckee seem to have a grudge against me and
wont stop. Every post I do they want to humilate me. And I never back
from a fight....

I beg your pardon! You are the one that seems to have a grudge
against the world. You come storming into this group, asking for
opinions, and then get all huffed when the opinions you receive
disagree with your own.

You make political statements that are guaranteed to draw a heated
response, and then get all flustered when they do.

You complain about what a cesspool usenet is, and how this group has
no value, and then you start leaving your brown ducks in our pond.

I have been a contributing member of this group for 3-4 years,
but since your arrival, you have offered nothing of value to anyone....Nothing!

When I asked a simple question about a Swan 350 (knowing that there
were a few Swan 350 users on this group) you took that as an opportunity
to make derisive remarks about me owning a Swan.

Where are your posts with content?

-Chuck

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:20:24 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:

Lazy Senior wrote:
Ron in Radio Heaven wrote:

Lazy Senior wrote:

Gosh I must really bug you
Lazy Senior



I know for sure that this continuous BS is bugging ME
and probably a lot of other people too.

Drop it and let's go back to talking about BAs.

Ron


Beerbarrel, Uncle Pete, and Chuckee seem to have a grudge against me and
wont stop. Every post I do they want to humilate me. And I never back
from a fight....

I beg your pardon! You are the one that seems to have a grudge
against the world. You come storming into this group, asking for
opinions, and then get all huffed when the opinions you receive
disagree with your own.

You make political statements that are guaranteed to draw a heated
response, and then get all flustered when they do.

You complain about what a cesspool usenet is, and how this group has
no value, and then you start leaving your brown ducks in our pond.

I have been a contributing member of this group for 3-4 years,
but since your arrival, you have offered nothing of value to anyone....Nothing!

When I asked a simple question about a Swan 350 (knowing that there
were a few Swan 350 users on this group) you took that as an opportunity
to make derisive remarks about me owning a Swan.

Where are your posts with content?

-Chuck



Touche!

wrote in message
ups.com...
Where's the chassis



Squire..

So far this is all mental gymnastics.

Why not do a prototype to prove and
debug the design, run it for several weeks to work out glitches, and
do one or two more test prototypes to finalize the design? This
will give you some idea on labor and material costs, and how much
time is needed to acquire parts... assemble... align and test.. etc.

I think at that point you'd have a better feel for what you are proposing.
One thing to think about: why not also offer a kit version? If you do
a magazine construction article, say in Electric Radio, that would
give you a "free" ad for the kit of materials, and some exposure.

Pete

Bill ) writes:

Xtal filter


$1 each, $5 total, see recent post

Ask for 400 of all of the above and see how quick those 'surplus'
sources go dark.

And of course, it's all interrelated.

If one doesn't buy a lot of stock to begin with, then they have to scramble
later to get suitable parts, and in the case of the mechanical parts,
that may mean reworking the chassis. Which means if a large stock isn't
bought in advance, then the chassis work can't be done in bulk, because
that might mean the prepunched and drilled chassis have to be scrapped.

And if production has to stop while new sources are discovered, that
may cause significant problems. That's why there's all those second
sources for semiconductors; if a manufacturer can't count on being
able to get those ICs on a continuous basis, they won't use the part.

Michael VE2BVW

Things have changed since the 'old' days.
You could perhaps sell a 2NT-like transmitter for about 500 bucks and make
little
profit, but not sure how big the crowd at the check out line would be.
Sounds nice though...but I think those days are gone. Unless you come up
with a cake pan thing such as had been done.
Or, take a look at doc bottleheads site at...
http://www.bottlehead.com/
No reason you couldn't take some tips from him, and make something with a
wood box, and a sheet of metal. Hit 'products' , then scroll to the right.
Some pretty nice shots, eh??

.....Dave


wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I've occasionally seen homebrew tube transceivers on Ebay that range
from really good to too gnarly looking to seem safe. I am thinking of
creating a line of clean-looking, attractive, rugged tube equipment for
casual or missionary use with a reasonable price/output performance
that is easy to repair and adjust, based on schematics and design
principles that have gone into the public domain.

Would there be an audience? Comments?

The Eternal Squire