Tomorrow's Heathkit

[Don]

Ed Mosher wrote:
>
> Mitch, care to tell us what you base your opinion on?

HI, Ed. I listed a few of the things I have seen over the years that I
think he's getting at. You need to note that I am reffering to all of
the heath kits I have owned or had something to do with, not just ham
equipment.

Don

>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 21:09:41 -0500 Mitch Dickson <mitch at VOLSTATE.NET>
> writes:
> >George,  Are you getting enough ruffage in your diet?  Heath, by no
> >means
> >used the best components in these rigs.  At lot were sub-standard and
> >run
> >right at threshold!
Like 1 watt zener diodes operating at 1.2W ! Plain 1/2 W carbon
resistors (rated at 350V) operating hundreds of volts over the rating,
used in focus dividers, etc. (couldnt they at least have made a series
pair and raised the price $.02 )



 Shortcuts were employed all the time that have to
> >be
> >modified to get the circuits to act properly.
I had one expensive kit that I never got to work properly even though I
followed all the heath updates and modifications. I finally threw it in
the garbage. I never met anyone that did get that one to work. The
electronics were just half baked, period. But they did have many good
kits, so I never gave up on heathkit, in fact I'm here aint I?

 The manuals are OK but
> >the
> >documentation is pitiful.  Especially the schematics.  No theory of
> >operation to speak of, not a wave form, not a voltage, very poor
> >description
> >of parts and most of the voltage values missing, no peak to peak
> >voltages,
> >no truth tables,  no olmed pin outs on the IC's,  No voltage tables,
> >missing corrections and additions to the schematics, no cross or subs
> >on
> >transistors, and absolutely no trouble trees!

In fairness, it depends on the kit. Some were much better than other
ones. I have always thought the documentation to be adequate for most of
the kits I have seen.
> >
>
> Perhaps I'm a bit one-sided due to my 22 years with Heath, but I think
> you're overlooking a lot.
>
> First, you have to qualify the era of  Heath manuals you're talking
> about.  While I worked there (1971-93) Heath almost always had good
> schematics, many with either voltage charts or voltages on the
> schematics!  I know because I was one of the Tech Consultants and manual
> writers who MADE the measurements to put on them.  Case in point, ever
> looked at the HW-101 manual?  There are PAGES of voltage and resistance
> measurements in addition to the schematic. Most of the ham gear manuals
> had enough "Circuit Description" information to educate a lot of hams on
> IF, RF, AF, and power supply circuitry fundamentals. And you would
> usually find a full description in each manual so the owner could repair
> his/her own unit.

But there were also many "circuit descriptions" that would simply state
the function of a block of circuitry, but NO description. I am
absolutely convinced (because I've done it myself!) that the writer
didnt have the foggiest notion of how that particular function was
accomplished, so he did some hand waving and avoided the issue.
Generally speaking, the circuit descriptions were at least adequate, and
certainly better than none at all.


  As digital and IC circuitry because more popular,
> Heath did put truth tables in the manuals, as well as voltages on IC
> pins.  We felt it was a necessity to aid servicing and education.  Ever
> try to repair a  Yeasu or Kenwood from the information put in their
> manuals of the same period?

Yes, well, from a slightly later period, but Icom, and the repair
manuals were much better than heath's manuals which accompanied the
kits.
>
> Parts were never "sub-standard", nor were they run at threshold levels.

YES THEY WERE IN SOME CASES.


> Heath bought the same parts Drake, Collins and others did, from the same
> sources.  Parts were, if anything, over-sized where necessary, to insure
> that they would last. Heath didn't always provide cross references for
> parts because at the time there were none, or they were capitalizing on
> the same things other manufacturers were; namely making a bit on
> replacement parts to pay other bills not covered by the kit price.   What
> kept Heath's costs down was the lack of labor to assemble the product.
> Some of the savings went into producing the best equipment manuals
> printed.  And the performance matched or exceeded every specification.
>
> Sorry to take so much bandwidth.  I just feel that you have to look
> carefully before you jump off the blind cliff.
>
> Ed Mosher       Proud to be a former  "One of the Hams at Heath"
>
> MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD QSO!
>
> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
> To subscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
> and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname
> To unsubscribe:  listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
> and in body: signoff HEATH
> Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives
> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
To subscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname
To unsubscribe:  listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
and in body: signoff HEATH
Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --