Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood.

But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in
technical
performance?

I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when
you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and
when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have
been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks?

How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about
3"?

That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item
of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de
rigeur - again
pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB.

In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to
experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon"
soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're
currently dealing with.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:

But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in
technical performance?

I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when
you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and
when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have
been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks?

Give me a steel chassis - 3' wide and 2' deep, with a 20 lb power
transformer, a 15 lb modulation transformer, a 5 lb audo output
transformer, and a dozen or so octal based tubes.

----- or, a BC-610 and an HRO-50.

HI!HI!
Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood.

Er why not. It's doable as a homebrewer. My favorite chassis is old
cb rigs. outercase subcase and front pannel are often useful. Even
put a 6m sideband rig in one.

But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in
technical performance?

Most appliance ops dont understand perfomance.

I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when
you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and
when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have
been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks?

Boat anchor. Good radio and small for that time. They still do not
go cheap.

How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about
3"?

That is a bit big. The usual footprint I shoot for is 2" tall by 6"
wide and maybe 8"deep. That's 96 cubic inches, plenty of room.

Allison

and just where do you intend to buy all those components from
after youve searched and found that there are only a few places and the
all charge the earch for a resistor or a transistor the cost of building a
Tranciver is prohibitive
its far cheaper to modifie existing stuff to the bands you want to use ie
11mt to 10mt to 6 mt
just my opinion
but then again in true amateur status i never buy anything i just loan it
from work or rescue it carefully from the skip where it was carefully
placed
sonow you know where all those LED's came from

In article , says...
Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood.

But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in
technical
performance?

I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when
you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and
when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have
been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks?

How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about
3"?

That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item
of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de
rigeur - again
pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB.

In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to
experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon"
soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're
currently dealing with.





I'm currently building Pic-a-star, and haven't given the final casing a
thought yet. Rather than trying to build to a pre-determined size, I'll
design the case around whatever size the radio ends up, allowing for
'poke-about-a-bility' when it's done.

I don't find the SMT devices a problem. G3XJP has come up with some
excellent ideas for repeatable, reliable methods of using them. By making
the code open-source, it is also encouraging to have a dabble, and see
what changes when certain parts are altered. A true homebrewer's delight!

"Gary Cavie" wrote in message
t...

I'm currently building Pic-a-star, and haven't given the final casing a
thought yet. Rather than trying to build to a pre-determined size, I'll
design the case around whatever size the radio ends up, allowing for
'poke-about-a-bility' when it's done.

There is a chap locally (G8SUY I think) who has developed some ATV SMT
designs- they seem to work well and be popular. If you can hold the parts
while soldering then SMT isn't too bad- an illuminated bench magnifier
helps.

I don't find the SMT devices a problem. G3XJP has come up with some
excellent ideas for repeatable, reliable methods of using them. By making
the code open-source, it is also encouraging to have a dabble, and see
what changes when certain parts are altered. A true homebrewer's delight!

Sadly, I'm sure someone will come along and falsely claim G3XJP's code was
hacked and needs rewriting- totally ignoring his efforts to encourage
homebrew and failing to produce anything to replace it.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one
to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX
equipment.

The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral
purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or
"radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction.

But you know the government..........

--
Gregg "t3h g33k"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
*Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*

In article gzgQd.58975$L_3.40931@clgrps13, says...
IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one
to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX
equipment.

The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral
purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or
"radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction.

But you know the government..........


Somehow, I doubt many of those 20 WPM Extras making equine posteriors
out of themselves on 75 fone are doing so on homebrew rigs.

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation
with the circuitry?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:
How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of
about
3"?
That is a bit big. The usual footprint I shoot for is 2" tall by 6"
wide and maybe 8"deep. That's 96 cubic inches, plenty of room.

Used to be the case here in Britland that the first year was
limited to CW with a max 10W output.

About time to re-introduce it, so that Ham experimenters are
thereby forced to gain an appreciation of elementary RF?

"Gregg" wrote in message
news:gzgQd.58975$L_3.40931@clgrps13...
IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one
to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX
equipment.