From windy10605 at juno.com  Tue Feb  8 09:54:56 2005
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Tue Feb  8 10:06:12 2005
Subject: [HBR] another HBR
Message-ID: <20050208.085456.2304.5.windy10605@juno.com>

Hi Kees,

My HBR-11 came to me via an ordinary flea market in Denver.  It was
bought, along with several other pieces of "junque" from a seller, by
KG?HS (Carl) out here.  After a few weeks, Carl asked me to look at "this
thing", as it was missing a tube, and had no markings as to what it was. 
Finally, he just gave it to me, as he felt he'd never get around to
messing with it.

I kept it under the bench for about 6 months, until one day I noticed the
slipped Dymo label, under the lip of the cabinet, saying "HBR-11".  I had
figured out by this time, that HBR meant "Home Brew Receiver", but still
didn't know much about it.  

About that time, I received yet another complimentary copy of Ham Radio
Trader, which was still being printed back then.  In it, I found an ad by
Charlie Brenner (WB9GJW) for an "HBR-16".  Figuring it had to be a cousin
of the "11", I emailed him.  Charlie was WONDERFUL enough to send me: 
the ORIGINAL QST articles, a copy of "HBR Notes" (original version), A
Full schematic, and copies of the ORIGINAL cut-sheets of the tuning
capacitor, & the J.W. Miller I-F cans.  Armed with this info, I
determined the missing tube, and brought it up s-l-o-w-l-y with my
variac... Joila'... NOISE!  After repairing about 14 different problems,
mostly solder joints, 2 tubes, and loose hardware, I aligned it with an
HP-606 (one of the few that will do a 100 kc signal), and it was
terrific.  I should mention, that all I had was the 40m coil-set.

About a month later, I found another piece of Dymo tape under the wiring,
and it read "WA?LJO".  I looked the call up in an old callbook, and found
that it belonged to Everett Huizinga - listed in Denver, CO.  (HEY! 
That's where I LIVE!) I looked up the name in a Denver phone directory,
and sure enough, there was still a Huizinga at the old address.  After
attempting to explain why a total stranger was calling her about an old
radio, the lady ultimately informed me "Oh my, that's my son... I think
he was a teenager when he built that old radio!".  She gave my number to
Everett (who now lived in Golden, CO - about 10 miles from me), and we
spoke on the phone, finally promising to try to run into each other at
the next hamfest.

It gets better...

At the Jefferson County hamfest, I was walking up to the front door, and
I saw my friend Carl, with another guy.  Carl says "Hey, you wanna' meet
the guy who built that receiver?"... I said "Sure!".  We spoke, and it
came to light that Carl actually WORKED WITH EVERETT!  Imagine that...
you buy an old radio at a "civilian" flea market, and it turns out that a
guy you work with, is the guy who built it, back in 1965!.  Everett and I
spoke, and he said to come over to his house later... I did.

Arriving at the house, Everett came out of his old garage bearing a small
cardboard box... it still had the "ALLIED RADIO" label on it, postmarked
1965.  Inside was the treasure... the coil set for 20m, and 2 of the 3
coils for 80m, along with several BRAND NEW National 5-pin coil forms. 
I've just found some No. 26 wire, and cut down an old 100 mmfd APC
variable to 55 mmfd, so will be winding the last coil this weekend.

So, how's that for a story.  The amazing circular world of Ham Radio, and
how Ted Crosby lives on.

Tom Dailey
WA?EAJ
From wnichelson at snip.net  Tue Feb  8 19:32:46 2005
From: wnichelson at snip.net (William N)
Date: Tue Feb  8 19:41:51 2005
Subject: [HBR] another HBR
References: <20050208.085456.2304.5.windy10605@juno.com>
Message-ID: <000701c50e3e$e1639c10$d179ccd1@Bill>

Tom,
Many thanks for the wonderful story.  They are just great to read and bring
back so many memories.  The appliance operators of today are missing so
much.

73
Bill W3KOC



From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Tue Feb  8 19:56:56 2005
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Tue Feb  8 20:05:56 2005
Subject: [HBR] another HBR
Message-ID: <81.20ee6786.2f3ab9d8@aol.com>

Tom,
 
Thanks for relating your HBR experience.  It was a joy to read.
 
I have had my eye out for just such a deal for several years now.   There is 
an HBR-13 on eBay right now.  It's interesting to see how much  they are 
worth.  I wish I had bought the 100 Kc IF cans when they were  available.  I think 
I have everything else but them.  Looks like I may  have to use 85 Kcs. But 
that wouldn't result in a genuine HBR, as Ted designed  it.  Anyone have any 
extra of the 100 Kc transformers?  An  unfinished receiver project would be 
welcomed too, but this is probably the  wrong place to look!
 
Thanks again for posting the story.
 
Dan K9WEK
 
From daileyservices at qwest.net  Wed Feb  9 15:26:14 2005
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Wed Feb  9 15:38:04 2005
Subject: [HBR] IF cans
References: <81.20ee6786.2f3ab9d8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c50ee6$48b4c2c0$6702a8c0@dailey>

I have some 1710kc (TV audio) IF cans out in the garage (I think)... would
they do you any good?... should.  I'll go verify I'm not talking through my
hat, here.

Tom
WA?EAJ
Denver

From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Wed Feb  9 15:35:12 2005
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Wed Feb  9 15:44:33 2005
Subject: [HBR] IF cans
Message-ID: <76.4c85d5a1.2f3bce00@aol.com>

 
Tom,
 
If they are the small (3/4 inch) style I could use 2 of them, and maybe a  
couple of spares, depending on what and how many you have.  TV audio IF is  4.5 
MHz, so I am a little confused about that.  Check and see what you  have.  I 
have a J. W. Miller catalog here if they are that brand.
 
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
Walton, IN
 
 
In a message dated 2/9/05 3:29:52 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,  
daileyservices@qwest.net writes:

I have  some 1710kc (TV audio) IF cans out in the garage (I think)... would
they do  you any good?... should.  I'll go verify I'm not talking through  my
hat, here.

Tom
WA?EAJ
Denver


 
From daileyservices at qwest.net  Wed Feb  9 15:46:37 2005
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Wed Feb  9 15:53:38 2005
Subject: [HBR] IF cans
References: <76.4c85d5a1.2f3bce00@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c50ee8$730f20e0$6702a8c0@dailey>

Dan Hopper - W9WEK

Dan, 

I appear to have suffered a severe "senior moment"... these are J.W. Miller (small size) type:

6191-TV  2nd. Sound IF
6190-TV  1st Sound IF

I also have a bunch of 455kc cans from an electronics school, and a few 10.7 cans, but they're the bigger ones, and definately not the 1710kc that I first said... sorry.

For what it's worth, I do have the ORIGINAL spec sheet on the HBR cans... if you think it'd do you any good at all, I could send a copy to you.

Tom
From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Wed Feb  9 15:50:58 2005
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Wed Feb  9 16:00:13 2005
Subject: [HBR] IF cans
Message-ID: <129.5649b032.2f3bd1b2@aol.com>

 
Tom,
 
Ignore my previous email.  Can you scan it?  Or, is it easy to  copy and send?
 
Dan K9WEK
 
 
In a message dated 2/9/05 3:46:24 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,  
daileyservices@qwest.net writes:

Dan  Hopper - W9WEK

Dan, 

I appear to have suffered a severe "senior  moment"... these are J.W. Miller 
(small size) type:

6191-TV  2nd.  Sound IF
6190-TV  1st Sound IF

I also have a bunch of 455kc  cans from an electronics school, and a few 10.7 
cans, but they're the bigger  ones, and definately not the 1710kc that I 
first said... sorry.

For  what it's worth, I do have the ORIGINAL spec sheet on the HBR cans... if 
you  think it'd do you any good at all, I could send a copy to  you.

Tom
************************************
Visit the HBR  Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and 
construction  notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 

Retrieve reflector archived  data via  
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr





From hbrnut at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  9 18:55:34 2005
From: hbrnut at earthlink.net (Darrell, WA5VGO)
Date: Wed Feb  9 19:04:43 2005
Subject: [HBR] another HBR
In-Reply-To: <81.20ee6786.2f3ab9d8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20050209175034.00bb68b0@mail.earthlink.net>

Don't be discouraged at the thought of using the BC-453 IF transformers. 
Retune them to 100 KC and  follow Ted's plans. I've built them with the 
Miller transformers and the BC-453 transformers and there is no discernable 
difference. The receiver will work VERY well with them.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO


At 07:56 PM 2/8/2005 -0500, Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:
>Tom,

>Looks like I may  have to use 85 Kcs. But
>that wouldn't result in a genuine HBR, as Ted designed  it.



From waltah at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  9 20:36:07 2005
From: waltah at earthlink.net (waltah@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Feb  9 20:46:19 2005
Subject: [HBR] another HBR
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20050209175034.00bb68b0@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <81.20ee6786.2f3ab9d8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <420A7437.4781.19121AF@localhost>

Darrell, WA5VGO wrote:
> I've built them with the Miller transformers and the BC-453
> transformers and there is no discernable difference. The receiver
> will work VERY well with them. 

I agree -- my 'HBR-style' HBR (plug in coils, 12 tubes, dual 
conversion) works fine with BC 453 transformers.  One question for 
you Darrell; did you have the impression that I had that perhaps the 
skirt selectivity wasn't quite as good with the BC-453 transformers? 

When you look inside the cans, the 'hot' leads for both primary and 
secondary pass *very* close to the windings and the outer layer of 
the windings is hot, so there's a tiny bit of capacitive coupling 
between primary and secondary.   I don't know how much it 
matters, but you'd never let the primary and secondary hot leads 
get near each other under the chassis, so it doesn't seem like a 
good thing.  It wouldn't have mattered in the military application, but 
for top rejection of out-of passband signals this seems 'impure.'   

However, I say again that I didn't really notice any problem.

Also, the 1415 kcs 'command' transformers can be retuned to the 
standard 1st IF.   Or, you can jigger the conversion scheme slightly 
to use the 85 kcs transformers unchanged.   I set my receiver up to 
use a 1665 kcs 1st IF, 1750 kcs 1st conversion osc. (crystal), 
giving an 85 kcs 2nd IF.   There's no real disadvantage; the original 
front end coil winding instructions can be used without change as 
the range of adjustment provided by the trimmers will easily handle 
the small difference in the 1st IF.  

Ted Crosby's designs are not terribly sensitive to details and they 
remain as sound and buildable today as they were when new.   If 
carefully built, these receivers will outperform almost all of the 
contemporary designs.   The Collins sets might do better at 
measuring the frequency, but ...

And my thanks too, to Tom Dailey, WAĜEAJ, for the great HBR 
story!

Walt Hutchens
KJ4KV


From hbrnut at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  9 20:58:51 2005
From: hbrnut at earthlink.net (Darrell, WA5VGO)
Date: Wed Feb  9 21:08:03 2005
Subject: [HBR] another HBR
In-Reply-To: <420A7437.4781.19121AF@localhost>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20050209175034.00bb68b0@mail.earthlink.net>
	<81.20ee6786.2f3ab9d8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20050209195008.00bb3b10@mail.earthlink.net>

Walt,

I fully understand your point, and it is a good one. I have never made any 
actual measurements, but tuning the receivers side by side, I really can't 
tell any difference. However, based on Kees' transformer measurements, I 
know they don't have the skirts of the Miller transformers. There are, of 
course possible explanations for this. Maybe the layout and lead dress I 
used in the one with the Miller transformers wasn't quite as good as the 
layout in the one using the military units?

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO



>One question for you Darrell; did you have the impression that I had that 
>perhaps the
>skirt selectivity wasn't quite as good with the BC-453 transformers?
>
>When you look inside the cans, the 'hot' leads for both primary and
>secondary pass *very* close to the windings and the outer layer of
>the windings is hot, so there's a tiny bit of capacitive coupling
>between primary and secondary.   I don't know how much it
>matters, but you'd never let the primary and secondary hot leads
>get near each other under the chassis, so it doesn't seem like a
>good thing.  It wouldn't have mattered in the military application, but
>for top rejection of out-of passband signals this seems 'impure.'
>
>However, I say again that I didn't really notice any problem.



