Re: How about an ultra-portable "QCX mini" version? #qcx


Steven Dick
 

I recently ordered the QCX+, which fits my needs well. I also own the original QCX.  With regard to possibly continuing the QCX mini version, I vote for an SMD version with the chips pre-assembled.  Here is my thought process:

1. The SMD components are, in general, lower cost than their through hole parts
2. The SMD components might allow more options for resistor package sized for an even smaller footprint.  Small but not too small to minimize possible damage from builders. No smaller than 0603 packages.
3. Pre-assembly of the SMDs would vastly reduce build time and minimize the chance for builder errors by swapped parts, etc
4. Possibly a slightly different but still low cost processor with more memory to get out from the "fighting for every byte" problem. It could still use existing software but provide some breathing room.
5. I realize the assembly cost is substantial, but I think builders would be willing to pay extra for the added reduced size for portable use as well as the quick kit build time and fewer issues with debugging problems.

-Steve K1RF

------ Original Message ------
From: "Torbjorn Skauli" <tskauli@...>
Sent: 6/4/2020 5:36:52 AM
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] How about an ultra-portable "QCX mini" version? #qcx

Thanks for responding, Hans. I just wanted to add that my suggestion should not be read as disapproval.  I actually like the QCX+ for being easier to build, and thereby accessible to more people. And I am awed by your accomplishments in design, logistics and keeping the business running.

I can mention that I have been involved in bringing the joys of coding out to kids in Norway through clubs and schools, and I am preparing to promote ham radio through the same channels. The QCX will be a great tool in that work, consistent with its origins.

Thanks again for all the fun,

Torbjorn

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Join QRPLabs@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.