Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
NT NT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote:
*With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.

*That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must
have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require
alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a
scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen).

*It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as
it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I
would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils
from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as
desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would
use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a
meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if
you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be
used if really needed too.

*I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons.

*I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600
ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery
and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off
this tube.

*The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a
product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common
mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also
be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector.

Any other comments?



The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any
potential market.

As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to
heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although
a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has
angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set
giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex
modern dx set couldnt stabilise.


NT
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 25, 6:44*pm, NT wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote:









*With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


*That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must
have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require
alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a
scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen).


*It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as
it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I
would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils
from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as
desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would
use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a
meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if
you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be
used if really needed too.


*I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons.


*I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600
ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery
and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off
this tube.


*The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a
product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common
mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also
be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector.


Any other comments?


The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any
potential market.

As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to
heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although
a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has
angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set
giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex
modern dx set couldnt stabilise.

NT


One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is
"No Alignment".

You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's
a feature, not a bug.

Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar
bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar
amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the
dumpster often as not.

In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM
will work.
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 21, 10:07*am, "Steve" wrote:
Hate to say this but you are doomed to fail from the start.
Why? There are PILES of tube type SW receivers available
now FAR cheaper than you could build one.

Hey, I get it. It'd be a fun project. I've thought about doing
something like this myself but seriously consider the cost.
Not just of the parts but the time involved in the design,
marketing, and *liability insurance*. Bet you didn't think
about that one!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Steve


Liability insurance is tattooing "SUE ME" on your butt cheeks.

The general aviation industry nearly put ITSELF out of business by
answering every lawsuit with....you guessed it...more liability
insurance. The scuba diving industry instituted a certification
program and convinced all the attorneys that if a noncertified diver
killed himself by the traditional methods (embolisms or drowning)
juries would just laugh at them. Sport diving equipment companies do
not carry PL coverage except for tank explosions out of the water. No
one sues them for diving accidents. If they did they'd get the keys to
an empty warehouse. The sport diving companies are all turnips,
judgementproof. The COMMERCIAL diving companies are very funny as to
whom they will sell. The few eccentric hobby hard hat guys will attest
to this.

You can buy scuba equipment for a lot less today than thirty years
ago, in adjusted dollars. Airplanes have gone up by a factor of three
or four or five.

Buy legal insurance, and incorporate yourself so that you can not be
construed to have a personal holding corporation. But never buy PL
insurance or if you do have it strictly limited to a circumstance
which is incidental.

As to the piles of existing sets, yeah, there are-most are in bad
need of restoration. And most of them weren't worth a **** new. The
few good ones are carefully husbanded. The surplus Collinses and
Hammarlunds are about gone.
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 25, 6:28*pm, NT wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:23*pm, Michael Black wrote:









On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, dave wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:01:11 -0600, D. Peter Maus wrote:


On 11/15/11 19:05 , flipper wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:45:09 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
*wrote:


On 11/11/11 08:42 , Lord Valve wrote:
If the **** hits the fan, most hi-mu triodes will work well enough to
build a regen set. Where to get the B+ is the problem.


That simple, since there's only a few tubes.


9v "transistor" batteries in series. *It doesn't take that many to get
reasonable B+ and since tubes are low current, it's reasonable.


Of course, towards the end of the life of tubes, one could get some that
ran off 12v, intended for use in car radios. *Not so useful now since they
were produced in a limited time span as transistors were taking over, so
quantity is relatively limited.


The R392 ran off 24 or 28 volts, using those low plate voltage tubes. *Of
course, it had a lot of tubes so the filament drain was large.


Of course, some people experimented with low voltage on regular tubes. *A
loss of gain, but sometimes that was a good thing.


* * Michael


In the 19-teens it was common to run triodes with no negative bias,
and very low V_anode, like 20-30v. It worked, and cuts HT battery
cost, but of course distorts the grid signal.

NT


Sounded like ****, IOW.

Common tubes usually start working okay at 45 to 90 volts. The R-392
used selected tubes at 24-28 volts, and works okay, but not as well as
if they had had more. Collins S/Line used 150 volt B+ for what that is
worth.
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
Kevin Alfred Strom Kevin Alfred Strom is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 11/19/2011 1:40 AM, wrote:
[...]
Wow.

I remember listening to YOU-and Dr. Pierce-on the first regen I ever
built when I lived in Texas, about ten miles from the Louisiana line
on that shortwave station the NA bought time on. I did not always
agree with what you said but I damn sure backed your right to say it.
Pierce was really an intelligent person. I read the biography on him
by Robert Griffin, great read.



Yes, Dr. Pierce was and -- Dr. Griffin is -- a person of exemplary
quality. A privilege to know them, indeed.


Louisiana is a seriously warped state. Texas was screwed up in some
ways but Louisiana with its nightmarish hodgepodge of laws built on
four different legal systems and general laissez-les-bon-temps-rouler
attitude is Third World.

Regens are a pain in the ass. The best regen ever built was probably
the National SW-3, or for low frequency work the old Mackay Marine
set. Lindsay is full of **** when he says the homebrewer can better it
with moderate effort.And even so any mediocre superhet will outperform
it in some ways. My late forties Zenith console will separate stations
the SW-3 won't. But they are interesting to build-once-like the
crystal set, which can be run into a hi fi amp and give good local
station performance. My regen was the two tube set in the Romney book
which Lindsay also published. The SW-3 was far better-it would copy
ham CW on 80 and 40 consistently and even SSB with a good signal. The
homebrew was good for WWV and Radio Havana and that was it.




Even with more than four decades of radio under my belt, I still
haven't owned a regen -- though I've played with a few.

My next receiver will be an SDR. Eliminating all but one conversion
stage (since the SDR goes straight from RF to I/Q baseband) and
doing all the filtering and demodulation with perfect mathematical
accuracy in software not only gives you tremendous dynamic range and
filtering capability, but it makes the recovered audio almost
supernaturally clean-sounding.

Listening to a good SDR into a high-fidelity sound system for the
first time is like discovering that pillows had been strapped to
your speakers, and gravel had been stuck to your voice coil, for all
these years -- and finally removing them.


With best regards,


Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
NT NT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 26, 5:54*am, wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:44*pm, NT wrote:



On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote:


*With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


*That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must
have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require
alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a
scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen).


*It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as
it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I
would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils
from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as
desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would
use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a
meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if
you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be
used if really needed too.


*I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons.


*I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600
ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery
and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off
this tube.


*The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a
product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common
mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also
be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector.


Any other comments?


The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any
potential market.


As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to
heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although
a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has
angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set
giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex
modern dx set couldnt stabilise.


NT


*One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is
"No Alignment".

*You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's
a feature, not a bug.

*Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar
bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar
amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the
dumpster often as not.

*In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM
will work.



If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.

Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.


NT
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
NT NT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 27, 4:08*pm, NT wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:54*am, wrote:



On Nov 25, 6:44*pm, NT wrote:


On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote:


*With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


*That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must
have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require
alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a
scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen).


*It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as
it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I
would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils
from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as
desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would
use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a
meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if
you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be
used if really needed too.


*I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons.


*I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600
ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery
and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off
this tube.


*The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a
product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common
mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also
be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector.


Any other comments?


The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any
potential market.


As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to
heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although
a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has
angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set
giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex
modern dx set couldnt stabilise.


NT


*One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is
"No Alignment".


*You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's
a feature, not a bug.


*Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar
bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar
amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the
dumpster often as not.


*In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM
will work.


If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.

Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.

NT


Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance
per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve
radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make
them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors.


NT
  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
D. Peter Maus D. Peter Maus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 11/27/11 10:18 , NT wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:54 am, wrote:



On Nov 25, 6:44 pm, wrote:


On Nov 11, 5:52 am, wrote:


With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must
have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require
alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a
scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen).


It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as
it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I
would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils
from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as
desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would
use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a
meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if
you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be
used if really needed too.


I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons.


I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600
ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery
and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off
this tube.


The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a
product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common
mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also
be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector.


Any other comments?


The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any
potential market.


As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to
heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although
a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has
angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set
giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex
modern dx set couldnt stabilise.


NT


One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is
"No Alignment".


You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's
a feature, not a bug.


Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar
bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar
amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the
dumpster often as not.


In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM
will work.


If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.

Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.

NT


Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance
per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve
radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make
them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors.


NT



Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then,
audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily
managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of
use. Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve
construction, and significantly different valve types for given
applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to
100000X audio frequencies.

What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general
sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely
understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested,
and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under
conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers,
self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much
lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological
experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this
receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and
technical support is nonexistent.

I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible
receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal
levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally
useful rig for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice
thought.

But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in
a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally
believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage,
power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is
dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a
fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be
just as short as SS components.

All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for
use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it
would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit,
costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant
performance across the spectrum from LF through HF.

In a package that's available now.




  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
Michael Black[_2_] Michael Black[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, NT wrote:


If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.

Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.


And Heathkit is the model for that. They'd prealign tuned circuits,
they'd have certain stages as preassembled modules, they'd build some
relevant test equipment into the equipment (like those tv sets with some
sort of metering in the back). One I always liked was a scanner, they
included some parts to make up a 10.7MHz oscillator and mixer. The
oscillator would provide the signal to align the IF strip, and then you'd
mix the local oscillator with this outboard oscillator/mixer to get a
signal on the signal frequency, to align the front end.

Heathkit of course did design for the beginner, I gather once they had the
instructions together they found people who had never put a kit together
to follow the instructions so they could make sure they made sense (and if
followed properly, would result in a working piece of equipment).
Despite the fuss about Heathkit being for the hobbyist, they always had
taht color tv set, that musical organ, that boonie bike, that were
aimed at people who just wanted something cheaper, and were willing to
put some time into it. But that's why Heathkit shut down the kits, with
time the sorts of things their was interest in got so complicated (and
parts so small) that it was no longer cheap to come up with the
instructions, pack the kit compared to just building it at the factory.

As for ceramic resonators, I think that is a key point. Design is the
overall results. When companies put in ceramic resonators in everyday
radios, they did away with a large part of the alignment, so even if the
resonators were more expensive than IF transformers (I don't know) the
reduction in alignment time was still significant.

As I pointed out, move to a higher IF, you may pay more for an IF filter,
but you can do away with the need to gang the front end tuning with the
local oscillator, which simplifies things mechanically but also gets rid
fo a lot of troublesome alignment. It's relatively easy to get two stages
of front end tuning to align together, just go for a peak, but ganging it
with a local oscillator is more complicated.

The superhet alone is a concept that complicates something to make other
things easier. Make things more complicated, the mixer and oscillator,
and you dont' have to fuss with multiple stages on the RF frequency.

Sometimes the "simplest" solution ends up with more work than the more
complicated one.

Michael


  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_5_] John Smith[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:
With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.

...


Any other comments?


As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.

First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.

Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.
could be done this way.

You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.

It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.

Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.

I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!

Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)

We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ...

Regards,
JS


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio



NT
View profile
More options Nov 27, 10:08 am
On Nov 26, 5:54 am, wrote:

- Show quoted text -

If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.

Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.

NT

Reply Reply to author Forward
Report spam



NT
View profile
More options Nov 27, 10:18 am
On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, NT wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance
per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve
radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make
them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors.



I intend to set the expectation that you must have a bench with a
certain amount of basic test equipment and a proper soldering station
to do this. If you will or can not do this a different hobby is for
you.

Large numbers of Heathkits were built by people with NO skills, but
larger numbers got half finished and thrown in the dumpster or taken
to a shop and a large sum was paid to have them pro built to save
face. I knew a TV shop owner who had a policy: He'd fix ANY Heathkit
but he charged a one time fee equal to the kit price. Otherwise he
would not even look at them. Heathkits did a poor job of teaching
technicianship precisely because they were secretaryworthy.

Bauer built radio broadcasting gear the same way. A secretary could
build them and at NAB one year one did.

I am not looking at a BIG market.
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio



* Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then,
audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily
managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of
use. *Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve
construction, and significantly different valve types for given
applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to
100000X audio frequencies.

* What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general
sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely
understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested,
and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under
conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers,
self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much
lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological
experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this
receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and
technical support is nonexistent.

* I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible
receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal
levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally
useful rig for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice
thought.

* But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in
a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally
believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage,
power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is
dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a
fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be
just as short as SS components.

* All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for
use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it
would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit,
costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant
performance across the spectrum from LF through HF.

* In a package that's available now.


No regen offers simplicity of use and selectivity, nor is the demod
audio very good in most cases.

A real SW-3 with a transformer in place of the watchcase headset was
tested by a friend in a screen room with HP test gear for SINAD and
audio quality. The rig consisted of HP, 8640B and 339A as I recall and
minimum AM distortion was six or seven percent, but that was only at
something like -20 dBm input and 60% modulation. I can't remember what
SINAD was.....it was dismal.

Passive TRF sets, i.e., "crystal radios" were capable of very good
fidelity OTOH. The old Millen was capable of equaling the test set's
own performance. Again you had to drive the hell out of it though.
  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 27, 11:16*am, Michael Black wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, NT wrote:
If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.


Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.


And Heathkit is the model for that. *They'd prealign tuned circuits,
they'd have certain stages as preassembled modules, they'd build some
relevant test equipment into the equipment (like those tv sets with some
sort of metering in the back). One I always liked was a scanner, they
included some parts to make up a 10.7MHz oscillator and mixer. *The
oscillator would provide the signal to align the IF strip, and then you'd
mix the local oscillator with this outboard oscillator/mixer to get a
signal on the signal frequency, to align the front end.

Heathkit of course did design for the beginner, I gather once they had the
instructions together they found people who had never put a kit together
to follow the instructions so they could make sure they made sense (and if
followed properly, would result in a working piece of equipment).
Despite the fuss about Heathkit being for the hobbyist, they always had
taht color tv set, that musical organ, that boonie bike, that were
aimed at people who just wanted something cheaper, and were willing to
put some time into it. *But that's why Heathkit shut down the kits, with
time the sorts of things their was interest in got so complicated (and
parts so small) that it was no longer cheap to come up with the
instructions, pack the kit compared to just building it at the factory.


Heathkit offered factory wired as well as kit equipment in many
cases. But even the kits were more expensive than good used
competitive equipment and sometimes more than respectable factory
built.

The Japanese were part of the problem because they made it their
business to acquire market share at the expense of profit. The
Japanese in their salad days were content to take losses no American
competitor would for market share, because they thought long term.
American companies quit thinking long term in the mid-70s because MBA
thinking and stock market valuation was everything to the CEO. The
Japanese were racially conscious, nationalistic, and group future
driven and have always had a "co-opetitive" rather than dog-eat-dog
mentality. What has sidelined Japan is the acceptance of American
business theory.

In Amateur Radio products, Japanese companies sold equipment at cost
or lower until there was no more American competition. In fact, they
still sell them at prices amazingly low for their feature sets and
costs of development. That is because they figure the American ham who
is appliance operating instead of building is not learning and being
the competitive future.

Conspiracy theory? No, experience. My father worked for a Motorola
plant in the Midwest for decades. When a certain board member died,
Mother M sold the plant and product line to Matsu****a _for less than
the real estate was worth_. I don't blame Matsu****a for buying it and
shutting it down, even though they swore they would not do so. It was
a competitor they didn't need. But the people of the town, although
many are very stupid, still needed those jobs. I don't blame them:
they were acting rationally. It is we who acted irrationally in
allowing such a deal to go through. Ford or GM would have been happy
to buy up Japanese car plants in the 70s and do likewise, but the
Japanese would not allow it. No sane nation would.

Sorry to get into politics.

Another fault with Heathkit equipment was often that mechanically
they weren't very good. Their audio amps in the tube era were fine,
because no mechanicals are needed there. In ham equipment they needed
that and didn't have it. Collins and Drake were much much better. Yes,
they cost more, but by the time I was in high school there were good
buys in older Collins and Drake equipment because the first S/Line and
4 line buyers were going /SK already.

Another reason American companies abandoned ham and shortwave radio
was that government defense contracts spoiled most companies that got
them. Once spoiled they were like fat lazy schoolkids, and discipline
was not forthcoming. Collins was always an avionics company, and into
commercial broadcast as well. Art Collins kept them in the ham
business but when he died they ditched it as fast as possible.
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio


My next receiver will be an SDR. Eliminating all but one conversion
stage (since the SDR goes straight from RF to I/Q baseband) and
doing all the filtering and demodulation with perfect mathematical
accuracy in software not only gives you tremendous dynamic range and
filtering capability, but it makes the recovered audio almost
supernaturally clean-sounding.

Listening to a good SDR into a high-fidelity sound system for the
first time is like discovering that pillows had been strapped to
your speakers, and gravel had been stuck to your voice coil, for all
these years -- and finally removing them.


The SDRs I have seen have been mickey mouse affairs that used sound
cards for demod. But when a good standalone unit is offered at a
reasonable price I will give it a try.
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
D. Peter Maus D. Peter Maus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 11/27/11 21:15 , wrote:


Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then,
audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily
managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of
use. Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve
construction, and significantly different valve types for given
applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to
100000X audio frequencies.

What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general
sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely
understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested,
and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under
conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers,
self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much
lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological
experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this
receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and
technical support is nonexistent.

I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible
receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal
levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally
useful rig for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice
thought.

But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in
a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally
believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage,
power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is
dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a
fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be
just as short as SS components.

All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for
use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it
would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit,
costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant
performance across the spectrum from LF through HF.

In a package that's available now.


No regen offers simplicity of use and selectivity, nor is the demod
audio very good in most cases.



Ten-Tec 1254 is a superhet.


A real SW-3 with a transformer in place of the watchcase headset was
tested by a friend in a screen room with HP test gear for SINAD and
audio quality. The rig consisted of HP, 8640B and 339A as I recall and
minimum AM distortion was six or seven percent, but that was only at
something like -20 dBm input and 60% modulation. I can't remember what
SINAD was.....it was dismal.

Passive TRF sets, i.e., "crystal radios" were capable of very good
fidelity OTOH. The old Millen was capable of equaling the test set's
own performance. Again you had to drive the hell out of it though.




  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] arthrnyork@webtv.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 27, 10:39*pm, wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:16*am, Michael Black wrote:





On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, NT wrote:
If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.


Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.


And Heathkit is the model for that. *They'd prealign tuned circuits,
they'd have certain stages as preassembled modules, they'd build some
relevant test equipment into the equipment (like those tv sets with some
sort of metering in the back). One I always liked was a scanner, they
included some parts to make up a 10.7MHz oscillator and mixer. *The
oscillator would provide the signal to align the IF strip, and then you'd
mix the local oscillator with this outboard oscillator/mixer to get a
signal on the signal frequency, to align the front end.


Heathkit of course did design for the beginner, I gather once they had the
instructions together they found people who had never put a kit together
to follow the instructions so they could make sure they made sense (and if
followed properly, would result in a working piece of equipment).
Despite the fuss about Heathkit being for the hobbyist, they always had
taht color tv set, that musical organ, that boonie bike, that were
aimed at people who just wanted something cheaper, and were willing to
put some time into it. *But that's why Heathkit shut down the kits, with
time the sorts of things their was interest in got so complicated (and
parts so small) that it was no longer cheap to come up with the
instructions, pack the kit compared to just building it at the factory.


*Heathkit offered factory wired as well as kit equipment in many
cases. But even the kits were more expensive than good used
competitive equipment and sometimes more than respectable factory
built.

*The Japanese were part of the problem because they made it their
business to acquire market share at the expense of profit. The
Japanese in their salad days were content to take losses no American
competitor would for market share, because they thought long term.
American companies quit thinking long term in the mid-70s because MBA
thinking and stock market valuation was everything to the CEO. The
Japanese were racially conscious, nationalistic, and group future
driven and have always had a "co-opetitive" rather than dog-eat-dog
mentality. What has sidelined Japan is the acceptance of American
business theory.

*In Amateur Radio products, Japanese companies sold equipment at cost
or lower until there was no more American competition. In fact, they
still sell them at prices amazingly low for their feature sets and
costs of development. That is because they figure the American ham who
is appliance operating instead of building is not learning and being
the competitive future.

*Conspiracy theory? No, experience. My father worked for a Motorola
plant in the Midwest for decades. When a certain board member died,
Mother M sold the plant and product line to Matsu****a _for less than
the real estate was worth_. I don't blame Matsu****a for buying it and
shutting it down, even though they swore they would not do so. It was
a competitor they didn't need. But the people of the town, although
many are very stupid, still needed those jobs. I don't blame them:
they were acting rationally. It is we who acted irrationally in
allowing such a deal to go through. Ford or GM would have been happy
to buy up Japanese car plants in the 70s and do likewise, but the
Japanese would not allow it. No sane nation would.

*Sorry to get into politics.

*Another fault with Heathkit equipment was often that mechanically
they weren't very good. Their audio amps in the tube era were fine,
because no mechanicals are needed there. In ham equipment they needed
that and didn't have it. Collins and Drake were much much better. Yes,
they cost more, but by the time I was in high school there were good
buys in older Collins and Drake equipment because the first S/Line and
4 line buyers were going /SK already.

*Another reason American companies abandoned ham and shortwave radio
was that government defense contracts spoiled most companies that got
them. Once spoiled they were like fat lazy schoolkids, and discipline
was not forthcoming. Collins was always an avionics company, and into
commercial broadcast as well. Art Collins kept them in the ham
business but when he died they ditched it as fast as possible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Japan barely manufactures any electronics today . ROK seems to be the
new leader lately.
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
D. Peter Maus D. Peter Maus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 11/27/11 10:45 , D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 11/27/11 10:18 , NT wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:54 am, wrote:



On Nov 25, 6:44 pm, wrote:

On Nov 11, 5:52 am, wrote:

With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would
build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube
shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.

That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It
must
have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require
alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF
generator and a
scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen).

It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are
bare, as
it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I
would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch
and coils
from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as
desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I
would
use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed
to a
meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is
possible if
you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that
could be
used if really needed too.

I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several
reasons.

I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put
out 600
ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car
battery
and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be
supplied off
this tube.

The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a
product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to
use common
mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There
should also
be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector.

Any other comments?

The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any
potential market.

As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took
that to
heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration,
although
a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot,
and has
angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set
giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex
modern dx set couldnt stabilise.

NT

One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct
conversions is
"No Alignment".

You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope.
That's
a feature, not a bug.

Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar
bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The
guitar
amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the
dumpster often as not.

In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to
a DMM
will work.

If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to
avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple
reason: it
wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide.

Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like
the
interstation garbage of agced reaction.

NT


Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with,
performance
per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve
radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make
them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors.


NT



Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then,
audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily
managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of
use. Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve
construction, and significantly different valve types for given
applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to
100000X audio frequencies.

What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general
sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely
understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested,
and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under
conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers,
self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much
lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological
experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this
receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and
technical support is nonexistent.

I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible receiver
that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal levels,
voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally useful rig
for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice thought.

But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in a
proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally
believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage,
power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is
dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a
fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be
just as short as SS components.

All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for
use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it
would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit,
costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant
performance across the spectrum from LF through HF.

In a package that's available now.


From Ten-Tec:

"Model 1254 combines the satisfaction of the kit building experience
with the performance features expected in a modern HF receiver.
Building one’s own receiver from a kit has launched countless
thousands of people into communications careers or the hobbies of
amateur radio and shortwave listening (“SWLing”). You will build a
true dual-conversion superhet with a microprocessor-controlled
frequency synthesizer. Digital LED readout. Alignment is easy and
does not require complicated equipment. You only need a volt-ohm
meter and your ear; the kit provides its own 45 MHz test signal."


So there is some user alignment. But nothing that can't be
accomplished with what's in the kit, and by following instructions.

It doesn't get any simpler than this.

Ten-Tec has a video channel on YouTube, where you can see the
kit, watch it being constructed, adjusted and operated.

I've thought about putting one up at the cabin. But I've already
got an HF-150, there, sitting next to an S-53, and an RF-3100.

  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
D. Peter Maus D. Peter Maus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 11/27/11 21:15 , wrote:


Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But
then, audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are
easily managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer
periods of use. Whereas radio applications require more
sophisticated valve construction, and significantly different
valve types for given applications, to accomodate frequencies
that stretch from 10X to 100000X audio frequencies.

What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the
general sense that the technology itself is accessible. And
widely understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be
removed, tested, and replaced by the techologically limited,
and operated under conditions that would destroy solid state.
Whereas, SS receivers, self service requires a much higher
level of skill, with a much lower threshold of abuse. For those
with limited technological experience, this can be daunting.
Especially, as in the case of this receiver, during an
emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and technical
support is nonexistent.

I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible
receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal
levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a
generally useful rig for the general population in an
emergency. It's a nice thought.

But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology
in a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than
generally believed, operating voltages are easier to generate,
and manage, power requirements are lower, and performace of the
technology is dramatically improved since the days of valve
receivers. All at a fraction of the cost. And in an emergency,
valve supplies will be just as short as SS components.

All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio
for use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254,
than it would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec
1254 is a kit, costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but
offers significant performance across the spectrum from LF
through HF.

In a package that's available now.


No regen offers simplicity of use and selectivity, nor is the
demod audio very good in most cases.



Audio quality in an emergency doesn't have to be good. Only
intelligible. And a regen can be quite simple to operate. Any tricks
to learn will be learned as a matter of necessity. But for an
inexpensive, and accessible kit form radio, a regen is not a
particularly poor choice.

For instance, from Ten-Tec:


Model 1054 4 band regenerative shortwave receiver kit. Here it is:
PROOF that the classic “first receiver” project need not be more
expensive today than our favorite 1950’s kits. In fact, this great
little receiver beats the pants off those 3-tube radios with the big
plug-in coils. Excellent for clubs, classes and family activities.
Band coverage: 49 meter SWL band, 40 meter ham band, 31 meter SWL
band, plus 12-15 MHz tuning for daytime shortwave listening, 20
meter ham band and all those other shortwave sounds. You can enjoy
the basic kit just by hooking up 9 to 12 volts DC, setting up a
modest wire antenna (10 feet or more of hookup wire) and plugging in
your own stereo headphones (1/8” plug). Features convenient push-
button bandswitching, on-off switch, “on” LED, tuning, volume, and
regeneration control. Case, knobs, and speaker not included. We
recommend case (undrilled, no holes) TPx-43 for this receiver,
available in unpainted aluminum, black or charcoal. Order TP-43 for
aluminum, TPB-43 black, TPC-43 charcoal. Building skill level:
Beginner. No previous kit building experience needed. Must be able
to solder, read instructions, and use small hand tools. $39


So, again, getting back to the OP's original premise: A kit form
radio, useful in emergencies, that is simple to build...such animals
are already available. Building one with tube tech, is simply a
matter of bringing it to the party too late. More reliable, less
expensive, more accessible, lower power, higher performance
technology, has existed for decades. And is currently available in
kit form at low cost.


  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
NT NT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:

* With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


...


Any other comments?


As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.

First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.

Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc..
could be done this way.

You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.

It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.

Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.

I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!

Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)

We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ...

Regards,
JS



But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want,
and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most
cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom
become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us
that wish to.

Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology
really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come
the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still
changing fast. End users didn't vote for it.

A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots
of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever
failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for
later repairability.

Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?


NT


  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
flipper flipper is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,366
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:

* With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


...


Any other comments?


As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.

First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.

Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.
could be done this way.

You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.

It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.

Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.

I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!

Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)

We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ...

Regards,
JS



But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want,
and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most
cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom
become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us
that wish to.

Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology
really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come
the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still
changing fast. End users didn't vote for it.

A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots
of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever
failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for
later repairability.


I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just
one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me
doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service
man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good
deal on 'repairability'.

It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have
much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A
quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone
with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor.

I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and
replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state
stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't
work.

Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?


I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer
peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent
on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or
pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card.
It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even
then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the
'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two
'expansion slot(s)', if any.

A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with
signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no
longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's
little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure
out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the
whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface
break.

Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
Michael Black[_2_] Michael Black[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, NT wrote:



Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?

Not as portrayed, and certainly not as a general radio.

There have been articles about building in modular form and even some kits
that were modular, and of course it's a great form for experimenting, why
remake the whole radio if you want to try a new IF strip or add a new
detector? Or buy the modules you want to build up something, rather than
be stuck with what the complete radio the company sells.

But there can't be a general bus, one module takes its input from the
antenna or a previous module, and its output goes to the next module,
those have to be well isolated. The power supply is standard to each
module, the whole point of three terminal regulators was to make
regulation specific to boards rather than one big power supply feeding
everything. But control lines will be different depending on the function
of the module, some requiring lots of lines, others requiring few or none
at all.

And there's no way it would be for everyone. The average radio user
doesn't care, they just want AM/FM radio, nowadays not even AM and a radio
is a radio, once you have one for average use there's no need for
improvement.

A modular radio might be interesting to the hobbyist, which of course is
where the concept has travelled. It's there in all the VHF converters
described in the hobby magazines, getting extra coverage with a shortwave
radio at the cost of a "module", ie converter, rather than having to build
a whole new radio. It's the hobbyist that wants to try things, it's the
hobbyist that is interested in the radio in itself. They are the ones who
might want to do better on longwave, or listen to the police band (even
then, or a lot of that type of hobbyist, existing scanners are more than
enough).

For a small company aimed at the hobbyist, modules make sense. They dont'
ahve to offer multiple receivers, just enough modules for someone to put
together what they want. I long ago argued with a friend that if he was
going to go into a small electronic business, just selling boards made
sense, since then he's not involved in dealing with cabinetry. The
hobbyist can buy the modules and then take care of putting it in a case.

It's a fairly limited market, yet at one point was one that might do okay.
You can have a successful business without making loads of profit, and
indeed doing away with things like UL approval by using an existing AC
adapter or having the buyer come up with one keeps overhead down, as does
the lack of cabinetry. Find a market that really exists, and cater to it,
you may not be rich but the business may keep going.

I have no idea if the market is there anymore. I've been going through
old magazines lately, and it reminds me how much time and even money I
spent on magazines, the hobby electronic ones and the ham magazines, and I
feel detached to it as the magazines disappeared, virtually no hobby
electronic magazines in North America, and the ham magazines dwindling but
more important less available on newsstands than in the old days. The
magazines were pretty important, and I'm not sure they really have been
replaced with other things. If nothing else, they were way to keep track
of the companies that sold kits and parts.

A different way to look at it is to think about commercial shortwave
receivers. They have become really cheap, and fairly good. I paid
somewhere around $80 for a Hallicrafters S-120A (the transistorized one)
in the summer of 1971, the most I could afford, the cheapest receiver
I could find locally. It was junk, the only good thing about it was I had
no experience so I didn't know how bad it was for a bit. You can get a
Grundig Yacht Boy 400 (or whatever the same model in a different cabinet
is) for a hundred dollars, some of the other Etons for the same complete
with synchronous detector. For that matter, I am finding sw receivers
at rummage and garage sales now for pretty low amounts. That Grundig
Satellite 700 for 2.00 at the Rotary Club sale, that Sony ICF-SW1 at a
garage sale in September for 10.00 (and then about half an hour later an
Eton Mini 300 for 2.00 at another garage sale, though that is junk).

They are infinitely better than the old low end analog receivers.
People talk about buying all kinds of models, but nobody seems to think
that if a hundred dollars is seen as "disposable" then why not buy a radio
to modify extensively?

Buy one and put it into a bigger cabinet. Make it a desktop physically,
complete with a good tuning knob on the front panel. Even receivers with
up/down buttons can be tuned with a tuning knob. All those people who
judge a radio by "sound", they can put a nice big speaker in the cabinet,
though better to use an external speaker. Add better lighting to the LCD
display. Add that Q-multiplier. Add some filters if you can get some at
the proper IF frequency. The radio becomes the foundation to customize.
Add an FM IF strip and then feed the radio with converters to hear those
higher bands. Put some more front end selectivity in the box, yes
suddenly you'd have to tune it in addition to the tuning knob, but that's
the way it used to be on the good receivers anyway. It doesn't have
fine enough tuning? Then add a variable capacitor across the second
conversion oscillator (either directory or via a varicap), and you can get
a fine tuning knob that isn't linked to the BFO. For that matter, one
could splurge and add crystal controlled BFO, getting the frequencies to
be in the right place in relation to the IF filter.

What's wrong with current receivers that can be improved with a little bit
of work? Some things can't be fixed, but a lot of these new receivers
offer a pretty good foundation compared to what there was in the old days.

YOu start with a reasonably good receiver, you see the low cost so you
aren't afraid to hurt it, and you make it the receiver you want, just like
someone would want those modules for.

Michael

  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
NT NT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Dec 3, 3:06*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:



On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:


* With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


...


Any other comments?


As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.


First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.


Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.
could be done this way.


You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.


It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.


Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.


I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!


Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)


We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ....


Regards,
JS


But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want,
and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most
cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom
become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us
that wish to.


Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology
really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come
the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still
changing fast. End users didn't vote for it.


A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots
of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever
failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for
later repairability.


I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just
one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me
doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service
man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good
deal on 'repairability'.


Dead tvs with boards to take out are relatively cheap.

The last of those tvs i played with had dire soldering, and I
suspected the modularisation was necessary to make such bad soldering
produce a useful percentage of ok boards.


It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have
much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A
quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone
with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor.

I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and
replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state
stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't
work.


I suspect lack of joined up thinking. Designers think it makes the
sets repairable and reduce the pile of dead boards, so implement it.
Then later the parts dept realise they can chanrge a pretty penny for
these little boards, so do. It kills the original idea of course.

Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?


I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer
peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent
on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or
pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card.
It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even
then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the
'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two
'expansion slot(s)', if any.

A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with
signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no
longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's
little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure
out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the
whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface
break.

Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.



NT


The interface question is fairly easy, pick your interface standards
and award use of your system logo to any product that complies with
these standards. You can probably get away with only one standard, and
make match current practice of around 0.1-0.2v 10k at af.

Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of
modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios.
And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for
radios are mostly low.


NT
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT


Yeah, like computers. Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

Regards,
JS
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
NT NT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Dec 14, 8:21*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.


NT


Yeah, like computers. *Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, *a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

Regards,
JS


Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can
only buy from what's available.


NT


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/14/2011 1:38 PM, NT wrote:

...
Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can
only buy from what's available.


NT


Exactly, right up to and including the death of radio ... people still
buy a seperate TV, then a stereo, etc.

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo ... a few years ago I had
an am/fm radio on a pci card in a computer, it was never "great" but
lead for me to await the development of better ... none has come.
Everyone I had shown it to wanted one, and many ordered and some are
still using them, in my family ...

So, I use my Flex for listening (www.flex-radio.com), and wait, and wait
.... I now think radio is going to have to die and "be rediscovered" ...
but we will see ...

But, the one device for every purpose is as dead as I can make it in my
house ...

Regards,
JS
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected] rrusston@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are
modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm
connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any
consumer radio.

The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed
frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about
thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray
and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one
it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket
'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs,
no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature
IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts.

By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on
is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by
the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure
development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out
in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7
MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board
probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei
notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has
eight to twelve layers.

The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another.

Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast
receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they
own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments
and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten.
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo


You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago
now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse
it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for
it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go
back there again.

d
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/14/2011 10:37 PM, wrote:
"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are
modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm
connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any
consumer radio.

The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed
frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about
thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray
and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one
it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket
'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs,
no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature
IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts.

By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on
is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by
the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure
development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out
in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7
MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board
probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei
notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has
eight to twelve layers.

The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another.

Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast
receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they
own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments
and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten.


Any mid to high range video card --NVIDIA/ATI/etc. are much more
powerful and would be much more expensive, if they were totally
proprietary and required all other components in their system to be
proprietary and manufactured/sold/marketed by the same corp/company.

As already stated, manufacturers will fight to maintain the systems as
they are, and they will damn well use any scare tactic or manufactured
"monster" to cause the status quo to remain untouched and undisturbed.
However, the SW hobby will continue to decline, the media available on
those declining platforms will continue to decline and be limited, etc.

Like I say, this will all have to fall, apparently, to a greater low
than our eyes are reporting at the present time, before someone will
finally stand against the downstream and cause improvements in design
and hardware and software ...

What is happening is obvious, it seems like the only debate is what is
responsible and causing it ... however, no matter what debate and
arguments are posed, it is quite obvious all the WRONG things are being
done at this present time ... but, all the hardware manufactures seem
insane, as they keep churning out the same old, same old antiquated crap
but expecting a different trend ... all we are seeing are the results of
those endeavors ...

TV has gotten a partial reprieve, and probably will be rather short
lived. The big screen TVs, plasma, then LED has kept the focus off the
important question of, "I already have a computer, why don't I just drop
in a card, or hook up an external USB dongle, and use my computer as my
TV -- the big screen HD monitor can then serve as my computer monitor
also?" If you visit a software engineers home, or hardware engineers
home, you are likely to see such systems in use -- it is only for the
general public to realize the benefits before they start doing the same ...

But, those ahead of the curve can, and are, already enjoying this ...
perhaps the rest are simply unwilling or unable ... but I'd suggest the
TV you buy have digital, HD, S-Video, etc. hookups ...

Regards,
JS
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/14/2011 11:47 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John
wrote:

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo


You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago
now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse
it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for
it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go
back there again.

d


Too high a pixel definition is just wasted with even HD TV, however, it
makes such a TV perfect for use as a computer monitor ... you are
correct, I'd never go back from there, again ...

Regards,
JS



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
flipper flipper is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,366
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:08:49 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

On Dec 3, 3:06*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:



On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:


* With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.


...


Any other comments?


As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.


First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.


Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.
could be done this way.


You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.


It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.


Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.


I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!


Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)


We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ...


Regards,
JS


But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want,
and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most
cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom
become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us
that wish to.


Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology
really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come
the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still
changing fast. End users didn't vote for it.


A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots
of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever
failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for
later repairability.


I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just
one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me
doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service
man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good
deal on 'repairability'.


Dead tvs with boards to take out are relatively cheap.


Not back then and even if there was one there wasn't an Internet,
Craigslist, and Ebay to find it. And even if you get past all that a
hurricane was on the way and even in this day and age things don't
instantaneously appear on your doorstep.


The last of those tvs i played with had dire soldering, and I
suspected the modularisation was necessary to make such bad soldering
produce a useful percentage of ok boards.


I was being a bit flippant but I think you've hit the target. It's a
lot more likely the reason for modularity was for in house test and
manufacture than a noble notion of home repairability. Someone might
have thrown it in as an additional 'feature' but I doubt it was the
primary factor.


It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have
much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A
quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone
with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor.

I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and
replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state
stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't
work.


I suspect lack of joined up thinking. Designers think it makes the
sets repairable and reduce the pile of dead boards, so implement it.
Then later the parts dept realise they can chanrge a pretty penny for
these little boards, so do. It kills the original idea of course.


No company I've been in has been that 'disjointed' and departments
don't get to charge whatever they think a good idea. It's usually a
well planned, from all angles, cost/profit margin analysis including
expected warranty and after sales service revenues.

That doesn't mean they necessarily get it 'right' but if that were
'the plan' they sure wouldn't let some yahoo in the parts department
arbitrarily screw it up.


Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?


I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer
peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent
on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or
pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card.
It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even
then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the
'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two
'expansion slot(s)', if any.

A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with
signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no
longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's
little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure
out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the
whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface
break.

Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.



NT


The interface question is fairly easy, pick your interface standards
and award use of your system logo to any product that complies with
these standards. You can probably get away with only one standard, and
make match current practice of around 0.1-0.2v 10k at af.

Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of
modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios.
And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for
radios are mostly low.


Yeah, I just don't see it but, hey, if someone has the guts and
capital then that's what free enterprise is all about.

NT

  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
flipper flipper is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,366
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT


Yeah, like computers.


Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.

Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.


So do I.

But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.


If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...


"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...


Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.


I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS

  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/16/2011 12:23 AM, flipper wrote:
Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of
modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios.
And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for
radios are mostly low.



Yeah, I just don't see it but, hey, if someone has the guts and
capital then that's what free enterprise is all about.

NT


Actually, I see a distinct possibility that, that may just happen.

If you examine ebay closely, you will notice the chinese and HK are
direct marketing to the USA, using NO middle man here. Like any
developing industrial nation, the life blood is innovation and "going
where no man has gone before."

Once China realize it has no need to let corps profit, here, from their
sweat there, they will have the equip. and cheap labor in place to bring
communication receivers and xmitters up to the current age, and damn
cheaply ... plus, they wont have the overhead of the "politics" and
proprietary thinking which plagues our present lazy and monopolistic
companies here ... anyway, just a possibility.

Regards,
JS
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT


Yeah, like computers.


Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.
...


You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq
control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM & harddrive), etc., or are
simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a
card on the motherboard of computer ...

But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.


Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ...

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.


If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.


No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB
dongle --albeit might be a large one.

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.


I was talking HD screens on TVs ...

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...


"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...


Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.


I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS


Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ... what
I am pointing out needs changed ...

Regards,
JS
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
flipper flipper is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,366
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.


Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.
...


You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq
control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM & harddrive), etc., or are
simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a
card on the motherboard of computer ...


No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the
'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and
cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar.


But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.


Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ...


Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs,
manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand.

A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component'
because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics,
interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to
function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'.

On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular
components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days
and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even
integrates these into their APU processors.

Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board
assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by
the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real
estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the
on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less.

Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen
as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a
frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery
on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.


If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.


No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB
dongle --albeit might be a large one.


Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and
people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time
backpacking a PC.

Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big
is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it?

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.


I was talking HD screens on TVs ...


You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio
boards... right up to HD"

Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination
with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and
necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and
whether people would buy it.

It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following
features would you like? check box check box check box check
box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those.

Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite
different.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...


"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...


Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.


I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS


Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ...


No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another
post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes
little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics.

what
I am pointing out needs changed ...


Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what?
And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell,
yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio.

"Would you pay $??? for it?"

Well, that's another question.

Regards,
JS



  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/16/2011 5:17 PM, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.

Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.
...


You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq
control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM& harddrive), etc., or are
simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a
card on the motherboard of computer ...


No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the
'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and
cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar.


But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.


Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ...


Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs,
manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand.

A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component'
because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics,
interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to
function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'.

On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular
components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days
and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even
integrates these into their APU processors.

Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board
assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by
the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real
estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the
on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less.

Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen
as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a
frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery
on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.


No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB
dongle --albeit might be a large one.


Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and
people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time
backpacking a PC.

Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big
is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it?

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.


I was talking HD screens on TVs ...


You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio
boards... right up to HD"

Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination
with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and
necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and
whether people would buy it.

It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following
features would you like?check box check box check box check
box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those.

Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite
different.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...

"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS


Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ...


No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another
post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes
little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics.

what
I am pointing out needs changed ...


Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what?
And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell,
yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio.

"Would you pay $??? for it?"

Well, that's another question.

Regards,
JS


Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things"
shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say
impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ...

Regards,
JS

  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
flipper flipper is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,366
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:27:56 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 5:17 PM, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.

Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.
...

You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq
control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM& harddrive), etc., or are
simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a
card on the motherboard of computer ...


No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the
'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and
cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar.


But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.


Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ...


Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs,
manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand.

A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component'
because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics,
interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to
function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'.

On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular
components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days
and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even
integrates these into their APU processors.

Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board
assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by
the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real
estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the
on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less.

Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen
as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a
frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery
on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.


No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB
dongle --albeit might be a large one.


Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and
people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time
backpacking a PC.

Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big
is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it?

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.


I was talking HD screens on TVs ...


You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio
boards... right up to HD"

Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination
with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and
necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and
whether people would buy it.

It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following
features would you like?check box check box check box check
box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those.

Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite
different.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...

"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS

Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ...


No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another
post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes
little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics.

what
I am pointing out needs changed ...


Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what?
And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell,
yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio.

"Would you pay $??? for it?"

Well, that's another question.

Regards,
JS


Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things"
shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say
impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ...


No one said "impossible" and that's not the question. The question is
would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is.

Regards,
JS

  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/16/2011 7:34 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things"
shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say
impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ...


No one said "impossible" and that's not the question. The question is
would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is.

Regards,
JS


As the old saying, "The longest journey begins with the first step" --
paraphrased.

So is the "journey into it can't be done", one step at a time, the first
step beginning it, the journey ends with what we have now ...

Regards,
JS
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
flipper flipper is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,366
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:48:50 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 7:34 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things"
shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say
impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ...


No one said "impossible" and that's not the question. The question is
would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is.

Regards,
JS


As the old saying, "The longest journey begins with the first step" --
paraphrased.

So is the "journey into it can't be done", one step at a time, the first
step beginning it, the journey ends with what we have now ...

Regards,
JS


As the old saying goes, "truth hurts" and the question remains, would
enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is, no matter how
much the arm waving and platitudes.
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
John Smith[_6_] John Smith[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Building a new shortwave tube radio

On 12/17/2011 3:44 PM, flipper wrote:

...
As the old saying goes, "truth hurts" and the question remains, would
enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is, no matter how
much the arm waving and platitudes.


Actually, I have purchased my last SW radio ... unless new life comes
in, somewhere, some time ... others mileage may vary ... most worthwhile
content can now be found on the net -- without static and fading ...

So, actually, you are quite correct, it looks to be a moot point, until
something changes ...

Regards,
JS
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA:Realistic DX390 Shortwave Portable Radio Old79vette Marketplace 5 October 15th 05 02:40 PM
FA:Radio Shack DX390 Shortwave portable (No Reserve) Old79vette Marketplace 0 September 16th 05 01:20 AM
Zenith Trans-Oceanic Royal 3000-1 Shortwave Radio Rare Old Things Marketplace 0 October 4th 04 04:17 AM
FA: Zenith Trans-Oceanic Royal 3000-1 Shortwave Radio Stephen Marsh Marketplace 0 February 27th 04 10:11 PM
Tube Shortwave radio? Ron Beal Vacuum Tubes 11 January 19th 04 08:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"