[Hallicrafters] Opinions on the SX-110

Fri Aug 19 17:33:52 EDT 2005

My primary 40 Meter transmitter is a UX-210 High-C Hartley built by my 
Daddy 75 years ago.  I *need* 150 kc of CW bandwidth so I can go ten 
minutes without retuning.  OK, I'm exaggerating, but I actually do run 
the receiver in barndoor (+/- 6kc) mode so I don't have to retune 
through a QSO.

Meanwhile I have a pair of UX-852's and other assorted parts set aside 
for a 1931 "Handbook" Amplifier so I can let my neighbors in on the fun. 
  Especially the ones with the barking dogs.

73, Rich, KC9GQ

GBrown wrote:
> Back then, I didn't think there was a "bad" receiver. I like to call them
> "more challenging". This mite not be true in all cases but to me ham radio
> was fun or funner when you chased someone across the band and his signal
> report on cw was 468. Set back, close your eyes and now tell me that a
> chirpy cw signal was a nuisance. When I  heard a chirp, I couldn't wait to
> hear what his transmitter was. If you old timers remember, DSB was the
> annoying form of emission on the bands. I believe that some of the new
> timers half to have something to talk about and to show just how much they
> think they know, splatter, to wide, AM etc...etc...etc are things to
> complain about. As for me, I like to QSO about why I cant get 50 watts out
> of a 6CB6, hehehehehehe. Ham radio sure has changed in the last 50 years and
> we have to accept that change. This doesn't mean that we have to let go of
> the past. Remember when you COULD NOT get an extra class without being a
> general for 5 years and had to prove just how much air time you were on
> during a year.
> Today, no logs, and extra tickets are pretty much handed out. We all have
> are little beef. Mine is to much bandwidth for cw operation. I am not
> against cw, its my main mode (A1) of operation but just look at allllllllll
> the space allocated for cw. Wont be long before that's a "GOOD OLD DAY".
> Well, this is my 2 cents worth.
> Hope I didn't step to hard on a few toes.
> Regards,
> Gary...WZ1M
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Oliver J. Dragon" <spress at rcn.com>
> To: <hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] Opinions on the SX-110
> 
> 
> 
>>Glen,
>>
>>You are  right about those rx's. Yes, my 1960 Novice station SX-99
> 
> drifted,
> 
>>and care  had to be taken not to jar the operating table when listening on
>>the 21Mc Novice band.  But the thrill and enjoyment and frustration of
>>using that receiver to try to pull out the JA3 who answered my CQ at 7AM
>>local time could not be matched. His signal was at, then just above, then
>>faded into the noise several times and then he was gone. Do I wish I had a
>>modern day receiver to make that QSO? Sure, but the nostalgia when
>>remembering that moment 45 years ago and how he slowly faded into the
> 
> ether
> 
>>makes for a memory that can't be beat.
>>
>>Ollie
>>
>>At 12:31 PM 08/19/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>>The receivers drifted, were "broad as a barn"
>>>selectivity wise, were mechanically unstable (hit the
>>>desk with your fist and the receiver would jump at
>>>least 50 KHz in frequency), were basically deaf above
>>>14 MHz, and those were the "good" points!
>>>
>>>Frankly, whenever I hear someone complain because a CW
>>>signal is too close (and still over 500 Hz away) or an
>>>SSB signal is too close (at least 3 KHz away), or when
>>>they complain about distortion (actually front end
>>>overload), and so forth, I then think of what we were
>>>using in the "goode olde dayes".
>>>
>>>I really think that newcomers should have to use the
>>>equipment that most amateur radio operators had to use
>>>(not Collins or other "high end" stuff that cost
>>>several weeks salary back when it was new) like the
>>>low end Hallicrafters or National equipment for at
>>>least 6 months of regular operating.  Then give them
>>>the "new" stuff.  I believe that the number of
>>>complaints would drop to no more than 1% of what are
>>>now heard.
>>>
>>>Glen, K9STH
>>>
>>>--- carolew <carolew at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Glen, you are absolutely right about our "bad"
>>>receivers. In the mid-60s, I was a young kid and
>>>thought my S-19 Sky Buddy was a hot receiver.
>>>However, I wouldn't trade the fun I had with that set
>>>for anything.
>>>
>>>Glen, K9STH
>>>
>>>Web sites
>>>
>>>http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth
>>>http://home.comcast.net/~zcomco
>>>
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>Hallicrafters mailing list
>>>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
>>>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>>>Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
>>>----
>>>List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF **for assistance**
>>>dfischer at usol.com
>>>----
>>>Hallicrafters Collectors International: http://www.w9wze.org
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>>Hallicrafters mailing list
>>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
>>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>>Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
>>----
>>List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF **for assistance**
>>dfischer at usol.com
>>----
>>Hallicrafters Collectors International: http://www.w9wze.org
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Hallicrafters mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
> ----
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF **for assistance**
> dfischer at usol.com
> ----
> Hallicrafters Collectors International: http://www.w9wze.org
> 
> 