From: W. Daniel, 9V1ZV (daniel@pandora.lugs.po.my)
Date: Wed May 17 1995 - 11:02:50 EDT

Hi Gang,

        As one of those who started the thread on the INET rig in the past, I
must say I concur wholly with Doug's comments and conclusions. One of the
problems I kept running into, and which probably contributed to the death of
the project, was that everyone wanted something different. Some wanted, this,
or that, and as the features ballooned (creeping featurism or freeping
creaturism), the project lost its tangible form and became smoke for the most
part. Much as we want to please everyone, I have arrived at the conclusion that
this is not possible. For example, some wanted rig control and a data mode rig,
others wanted something really simple to build! Some want plenty of features,
others want it to be affordable. Many of the parameters are not resolvable,
thus SOMEONE must decide on the final features.

        I suppose the role that the list will play can be to help argue upon
the best way to design an agreed module. For example, someone has a prototype
and everyone gives suggestions as to how that can be improved, add features,
but based on that design. Then the list will add on to what is already there.
I have many ideas of my own, and will probably design my own rig when I have
the time.

        Secondly, financing the project is a big issue. It goes hand in hand
with the commitment the rest of the project team puts into the project. If
there is a high degree of confidence and commitment in the project, I don't
mind investing money in it. But it is very hard to invest in a certain module
when you don't know if the other teams are working as hard. I was supposed to
do the frequency counter for the previous INET rig. I now have 4 prototypes of
frequency counters, all with PCB layout, fully populated, double sided PCB, and
working. I am sure I will find a place for them, but still, it would have been
so much more fun if the other teams had coordinated the results and finally
pull it together.

        Right now, I am thinking of building a PLL VFO, controlled by a PIC. I
have the VFO circuitry from somewhere else, and is a one chip affair. Looks
simple, and I hope it works well. The PIC interfacing part should be real easy
and so will the control part and programming of the PIC. If this works, I will
use this module on all my future rigs. This way I can easily have computer
control. BTW, me and another ham here have spent some $2000-$3000 in the span
of 2 to 3 months trying to build various designs of QRP homebrew rigs. I know
my wife must think I am crazy but she is really understanding. I sure hope you
guys have understanding wives too (one each of course), but Doug's advice on
that is right.

        In any case, I wish you all the best. And BTW, I have a whole bunch of
NE602's (some 50 or so) which I had to buy in bulk for some of the designs we
were testing out, cos they don't sell them discretely. If you finally decide on
a NE602 project, I don't mind donating a few tens for it. You will find out
soon that such a project demands heavy commitment in time, attention and
finace. But GL anyway to anyone who wants to try it. I learnt a lot from it in
any case, which was my original intention.

73 de 9V1ZV Daniel

| Daniel Wee  | daniel@pandora.lugs.po.my           |
| 9V1ZV       | daniel.wee@f516.n600.z6.fidonet.org |
| UUCP1.12j   | Packet: 9V1ZV @ 9V1VS.SGP.AS --     |

Search QRP-L Archives

[ QRP-L Archive | ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 ]


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:28:05 EDT