Unscientific Poll

[Jack Crenshaw]

Brian Wood wrote:

> I want to thank those of you who responded to my request for information on
> Heathkit's current status. It's a long, sad story, and apparently the
> current owners are happy with the way the educational business is going and
> aren't too interested in reviving the kit business.
>
> I'd love to hear from everyone on the list for answers to the questions
> below. It's decidedly unscientific, but I'm really curious!
>
> 1. Have you built a kit of any kind in the last year? (Even unbuilt
> Heathkits from EBay!)  How much did you spend?
>
> 2. If Heathkit-style electronic kits were revived, what would you most like
> to build?
>
> 3. Printed manuals are very expensive and many companies are offering them
> on on CD. If you could save 10% (or $50, whichever is lower) on the cost of
> the kit by getting just the user's manual, theory of operation, schematics
> and troubleshooting guide in printed form, but had to print the assembly
> portion of the manual yourself on your own computer from CD-ROM or even
> online via the web, would you order the kit this way?
>
> 4. If there were PC boards with surface mount components on them in the kit,
> how would you like to assemble them:
>    a: Using a provided magnifying glass and tweezers, I'd remove the tiny
> parts from the muffin tin, one by one, where I had sorted them, then I'd
> glue the parts on the board using provided glue, then I'd heat the parts
> using a provided (optional) heat gun and watch it reflow before my very
> eyes.
>    b. I'd glue the parts on, then I'd be happy to send it to you in a
> provided, pre-paid mailer, where it would be reflowed, tested and shipped
> back within one business day.
>    c. I'd glue the parts on, then I'd like to take it to a local store where
> they could reflow it and test it.
>    d. I wouldn't even try this.
>
> 5. Suppose new company were to spring up that offered kits in the same
> manner as good ol' Heathkit but had a different name and a Lucent or Agilent
> style tag line (my current favorite is "Moor Co. - Continuing the Heathkit
> Tradition", since a moor is another name for a heath in England) would you
> be OK with that? Or does it *have* to be Heathkit itself to have real
> meaning? Bear in mind that using a tag line like that would require a
> license from Heathkit Co.
>
> 6. Do you think today's kids can be torn away from the 'Net long enough to
> build a kit?
>

As someone who built some 33 Heathkits and also worked there, I miss Heath as few other
people in the world.  I'd _LOVE_ to see a revived Heathkit.  However, be advised, if it's
going to involve sticking little-bitty surface-mount resistors on a PC board, I don't
think it will fly.  There is simply no way you can build a modern-technology unit by
hand, and have it come out anywhere close in price to a factory-assembled unit.  Even if
you count your own build time at $0.00/hr, the kit will inevitably cost significantly
more than a factory unit assembled by robots.   That's the thing that put Heath out of
business in the first place.  A kit is fine if you're building retro, vacuum tube stuff.
That kind of construction is labor-intensive.  But a PC board is best stuffed and
flow-soldered by machine.

Your comment re kids struck a responsive chord.  When I was around 12, right after WWII,
there were all kinds of companies (Heath was one) who used the huge war surplus pool to
get cheap electronic parts, and use them for something.  One company came out with a
one-tube, regen receiver kit, which I bought.  This was my first kit of all, and I was,
literally, a kid with a new toy.  As someone who liked to tinker, I thought I'd died and
gone to heaven.

The kit cost, I believe, $9.95, and it came with a plywood mounting board (the ultimate
breadboard) and a printed layout.  You stuck the layout onto the board with glue, then
proceeded to mount all the parts according to the layout.  No soldering involved;  they
used Fahnstock clips for the connections.  The tube socket, tuning cap, and coil were
pre-soldered.  Batteries were used for B & C voltages.

I _LOVED_ that old radio.  Living in AL, I drew in AM stations as far away as Cuba,
Cincinnati, and Texas.

Later, the same company came out with an "extension" audio amplifier.  I believe it had
two tubes, but could have been only one again.  It had about 1 watt or so, easily enough
to drive the included speaker.

My only regret was that the company folded, and never came out with more stuff.  If they
had, I would have bought every one.  I can see it now:  A superhet AM/FM rec'vr, Short
wave, 10-watt audio amp, phono preamp, perhaps an optional 20-30-watt amp, and a speaker
system, all put together with Fahnstock clips!  Like the ultimate Barbie-doll toy.

Even before that radio, someone gave me one of those N-in-one electric experimenter
boards.  Again, solderless connectors.  This thing didn't have any electronics in it at
all; only a battery, some switches, lights, buzzers, things like that.  Even so, it's the
way I learned how circuits worked, and I while away many hours learning about series and
parallel connections, etc.

The reason I'm making the point is that, as you point out, today's kids don't have that
kind of opportunity.  In my day, you could take apart a radio, see what was inside.  Or
you could build your own, from plans.  Or build a Heathkit.

What can today's kids do?  If they take apart their Gameboy, what do they find inside?  A
LQ display, a keypad, and a chip.  Big deal.  Who's gonna do anything with that?

I was discussing this issue with an electronic engineer, who was decrying the fact that
today's kids have no way to learn electronics.  We _NEED_ kits that kids can build and
tinker with.

Jack

Listserver Subscription:listserv at listserv.tempe.gov - "subscribe heath 'name' 'call'"
Listserver Submissions: heath at listserv.tempe.gov
Listserver Unsubscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov - -"signoff heath"