From hbrnut at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  1 19:07:42 2006
From: hbrnut at earthlink.net (Darrell, WA5VGO)
Date: Sat Apr  1 19:13:18 2006
Subject: [HBR] Receiver build
In-Reply-To: <009201c65104$069ded10$6501a8c0@bobrydst7dztpm>
References: <4426DB74.30609@ptd.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20060401175003.00baa658@mail.earthlink.net>

Bob Miller wrote:

>Of the HBR's that have been built over the years, which one would be a 
>good first receiver project. Because buying new parts isn't really 
>practical any longer, part available should be high on the list of your 
>recommendation of a receiver design.





As I have said many times on this list, I firmly believe that the HBR-11 is 
the best first time project. It is built in two steps which makes it easier 
for a first time builder to get it going. It is not a compromise. Properly 
constructed it works as well as the HBR-16. I would suggest a slightly 
larger chassis. The size Ted used gets pretty cramped. It also makes 
modifications and additions difficult.

As far as parts are concerned, I find that they are still available. 
Although you may not be able to always get the exact part used in the 
original article, a suitable substitute shouldn't be all that difficult to 
procure. It sounds like you are an experienced builder, so I doubt that a 
little improvising would be a problem for you.

On a personal note,I can't state emphatically enough how rewarding receiver 
projects are for me. I've built plenty of transmitters, linear amplifiers 
etc.; but since I got the receiver bug, I don't even think about those 
projects anymore. There is nothing more exciting than tuning in the world 
on something you constructed yourself. If you have the itch, I urge you to 
scratch it. You won't regret it.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO







From w1eof at hamnutz.com  Sun Apr  2 13:36:43 2006
From: w1eof at hamnutz.com (W1EOF)
Date: Sun Apr  2 13:43:26 2006
Subject: [HBR] Back to rcvr building
In-Reply-To: <20060402080102.738F6859D70@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <NCBBJCLPMKDDBBMEAPOHGEFDKOAC.w1eof@hamnutz.com>

> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:07:42 -0600
> From: "Darrell, WA5VGO" <hbrnut@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [HBR] Receiver build
<SNIP>
> On a personal note,I can't state emphatically enough how
> rewarding receiver
> projects are for me. I've built plenty of transmitters, linear amplifiers
> etc.; but since I got the receiver bug, I don't even think about those
> projects anymore. There is nothing more exciting than tuning in the world
> on something you constructed yourself. If you have the itch, I
> urge you to
> scratch it. You won't regret it.
>
> 73,
> Darrell, WA5VGO

Hi Darrell and all,

I have been a ham for 35+ years. Built lots of antennas, keyers,
transmitters, small & medium sized amps, etc. I'm just recently getting into
building receivers and I totally "get" what you mean. While a homebuilt
transmitter is a joy to use, in a very real way the guy on the other end
gets more out of it than you do. With a receiver YOU get to hear what you
have built. YOU get to hear the modifications you make. I built my first ham
receiver, a Heath HR-10B. Went on to modify/improve it. Then there was a
long drought. Now I'm back at it!
I've got three regens in the works rights now. That's quite a bit when you
add that on to my restoration list. I hope to eventually build and HBR-xx
receiver, that's why I am a member of this list. Heat up that iron and snort
some rosin!

73,

Mark W1EOF
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 3/31/06

From roomberg at ptd.net  Sat Apr  1 23:00:20 2006
From: roomberg at ptd.net (rob)
Date: Tue Apr  4 13:31:38 2006
Subject: [HBR] which receiver is THE BEST receiver 
In-Reply-To: <000001c655e6$282ffb30$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
References: <000001c655e6$282ffb30$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
Message-ID: <442F4C54.6090408@ptd.net>

Which receiver is THE BEST receiver.
Is one type best for CW and another type better for SSB?
I have done many home brew projects...not just radio stuff...
and the recent visit to the tube regen project was more of a return to 
roots type of project.
I always wondered why receivers commanded high price tags.
If you want to buy a short wave receiver ..a good one...I mean the best 
you can get....
the price tag was in the $500 range.
SO what I wanted to figure out was if a new $500 receiver pulls weak 
signals out of the noise any better or worse than a home brewed 
receiver....and then the game starts there.
What is best to buy or build from scratch?
Regen, superhet, direct conversion, TUBES? , transisters, crystal radio?



From waltah at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  5 00:40:17 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Wed Apr  5 00:39:17 2006
Subject: [HBR] which receiver is THE BEST receiver 
In-Reply-To: <442F4C54.6090408@ptd.net>
References: <000001c655e6$282ffb30$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
Message-ID: <443311F1.29805.2CED25F@localhost>

Rob wondered:
> Which receiver is THE BEST receiver.

Now you could start a fight in most any homebrew radio bar with that.   The 
answer is "it depends."

Going camping?  Portability will be important.   Working long hours in a 
contest?   Human factors including a well-laid out panel will be on your list.

Listen a lot under crowded conditions?   Selectivity, ultimate rejection, and 
intermod will be your issues.    Given to popping into the shack for a short 
QSO or two at odd times?   You'll want low drift during warm-up -- and so 
on.   

How's your pocketbook?   Commercial or home made, the more you can pay, 
the better all-round receiver you're likely to get.   

> Is one type best for CW and another type better for SSB?

If CW is your main mode you'll want maximum selectivity and just good 
enough stability that you don't have to retune during a QSO.   For SSB you 
don't want such good selectivity and qualities that mean good inteligibility -- 
low intermod, good audio, and drift in the 10 CPS/hour range are helpful.  

> I always wondered why receivers commanded high price tags. 

Crappy receivers don't -- they are cheap.   But the more strong points you 
want a receiver to have, the more you're going to pay.   A very sharp 
designer can turn out a good compromise at a good price, but that just 
means you know up front what you're not going to like.   If you want 'no 
compromise' then you're looking at an R-390A -- no compromise for the 
1950's though it cost a couple of year's salary at the time and weighs what -
- 80 pounds.   Today, maybe something from AOR?   

The Ted Crosby HBR series are an example of a sharp designer doing a 
home brew design for ham construction.   Ease of construction -- YES; 
flexible performance -- YES, adequate sensitivity; freedom from serious 
intermod, enough selectivity, all YES.   Low drift -- NO on low bands; HELL 
NO on 20 and 10.   Ease of use -- FAIR to NO -- many controls, most were 
built with 'economy' dials.  

But it remains a truly great design because that combination of choices 
worked well for U.S. ham skill levels and pocketbooks.   

The G2DAF designs were technically superior -- far better than the W6TC 
sets.   But fewer were built, especially in the U.S., because they were more 
demanding construction projects.  Another sharp set of design choices but 
for a different (smaller) group of constructors.

I agree that U.S. commercial receivers of the 1950s-60s were overpriced 
for their performance but that was because they underperformed their 
parts and manufacturing costs.   Just as is true in many areas today 
(computer software!!!) designers were trapped in a spiral of adding features 
for marketing reasons rather than building to a performance spec.

Study the NCX-5 (National's attempt to compete with the top Collins sets) 
and weep.   For that matter, study Collins ham sets -- good performers, but 
at GREAT cost.   Military receivers -- there were some good ones, a lot of 
warmed-over commercial designs, and some very expensive bottom of the 
barrel -- I nominate the SRR-11, 12, 13 series for the 'least bang for the 
taxpayer buck' award.   A superb job of building a 1940 receiver in 1950, 
with subminiature tubes.   You ever wonder why RCA is no longer an 
independent company?   Study one of these sets for a while.   Try to listen 
to a signal.   

Someday I'm going to meet someone who worked at RCA and knows how that 
sad story happened.

> What is best to buy or build from scratch? Regen, superhet, direct 
> conversion, TUBES? , transisters, crystal radio?

As above, "it depends" -- on what you want and what you are able to pay or 
build.   If building you pretty much have to start with simple designs 
because there's too much that can't be put in the diagram and construction 
notes and must be learned as you go.   Tubes give more performance for a 
given level of complexity and fairly simple sets -- six or seven tubes can do 
a really excellent job on a couple of bands.   

Build the HBR-8 then extend it to the HBR-11.   Good performer, and has all 
the parts of a 'real' receiver.   Then you're ready to tackle anything you 
want.

Walt 
KJ4KV
From amargosaent at iscweb.com  Thu Apr  6 04:03:55 2006
From: amargosaent at iscweb.com (Amargosa Enterprises)
Date: Thu Apr  6 15:06:11 2006
Subject: [HBR] which receiver is THE BEST receiver 
References: <000001c655e6$282ffb30$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
	<443311F1.29805.2CED25F@localhost>
Message-ID: <USER_ANONYMOUS$69.19.229.107$.000701c65950$a89f3660$6be51345@vucppqlj>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter A. Hutchens" <waltah@earthlink.net>

> In replying to Rob you indicated a "no" answer on low drift as follows -
>
>" The Ted Crosby HBR series are an example of a sharp designer doing a
> home brew design for ham construction.   Ease of construction -- YES;
> flexible performance -- YES, adequate sensitivity; freedom from serious
> intermod, enough selectivity, all YES.   Low drift -- NO on low bands;
HELL
> NO on 20 and 10.   Ease of use -- FAIR to NO -- many controls, most were
> built with 'economy' dials.
>
> But it remains a truly great design because that combination of choices
> worked well for U.S. ham skill levels and pocketbooks."

Depending on your personal drift requirement, my experience with
a 20-tube W6TC design differs from your statement as follows -

80 meters, ambient 65 deg F;  temp comp 7.2 pfd N750
cold receiver/cold coil +2.02 kHz drift for 42 minutes to zero beat lock
warm receiver/cold coil +1.07 kHz drift for 20 minutes to zero beat lock
after initial zero beat lock 65 minutes zero drift to receiver shut-down

40 meters, ambient 65 deg F; temp comp 10 pfd N750
cold receiver/cold coil +1.68kHz drift for 44 minutes to zero beat lock
warm receiver/cold coil +0.42 kHz drift for 10 minutes to zero beat lock
after initial zero beat lock 247 minutes zero drift to receiver shut down

20 meters, ambient 64 deg F; temp comp 20 pfd N750
cold receiver/cold coil +1.43 kHz drift for 24 min to zero beat lock
warm receiver/cold coil +0.67 kHz drift for 9 minutes to zero beat lock
after iniitial zero beat lock 187 minutes zero drift to receiver shut down

10 meters, ambient 66 deg F; 17.5 pfd N750
cold receiver/cold coil +4.62 KhZ drift for23 min, -1.22 kHz for 6 min
to zero beat lock]
warm receiver/cold coil +2.5 kHz drift for 14 min, -0.6 kHz for 6 min
to zero beat lock
after initial zero beat lock 125 minutes with 50 Hz wander-and-return to
zero beat to receiver shut down

All test data taken in 1968.  Coils had been extensively tested and
temperature compensated with N750 capacitors; each coil set had
at least a dozen test runs before the final N750 cap size was identified.
The receiver uses the W6TC Hartley oscillator design, is built on a steel
chassis with a 19-in rack mount front panel, cabinet with a fuly
ventilated hinged top, zero backlash in the Eddystone 898 dial and
variable tuning capacitor.

50 Hz wander in 10 meter coil set is symptomatic of air movement (other
than thermal) over the L3 oscillator coil.  My 40-year old notes do not
address whether that condition existed during the test period.

In all cases, test runs ended when I got bored and/or sleepy and shut
things off. No test was run (other than 10 meters) to a point where
zero beat began to drift  beyond initial lock-in.

 From my perspective, as a CW-only operator with little interest in 10
meters, this was acceptable performance.  It is certainly better than my
old Hammarlund Super-pro and certainly falls in the range I remember
for other commercial hot-cathode technology designs.

If cold-start drift is still a problem beyond the limits shown , drift
times can be lessened by storing coils in a warming box kept at
about 80 deg F.  Interior temps in my HBR when fully warmed
up are around 90 deg F, somewhat higher on warm days.  I
suppose the ultimate answer is to leave the HBR tube filaments
turned on continuously; that, unfortunately given difficulty and
cost of replacement tubes, can be an expensive solution.  In
the end, hot-cathode technology is just as stated - hot!

Other than these facts, your advice to Rob was excellent.

73 W6HHT

From N2EY at aol.com  Thu Apr  6 21:57:47 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Thu Apr  6 21:58:33 2006
Subject: [HBR] which receiver is THE BEST receiver 
Message-ID: <2fe.27ab1cd.3167211b@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/6/06 3:06:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
amargosaent@iscweb.com writes:


> Depending on your personal drift requirement, my experience with
> a 20-tube W6TC design differs from your statement as follows -
> 
> 80 meters, ambient 65 deg F;  temp comp 7.2 pfd N750
> cold receiver/cold coil +2.02 kHz drift for 42 minutes to zero beat lock
> warm receiver/cold coil +1.07 kHz drift for 20 minutes to zero beat lock
> after initial zero beat lock 65 minutes zero drift to receiver shut-down

Meaning no disrespect, but....

2 kHz drift on 80 meters is, to me, a bit too much drift. It's very good for 
the W6TC-type design, but other GB designs can do a lot better.

> 
> All test data taken in 1968.  Coils had been extensively tested and
> temperature compensated with N750 capacitors; each coil set had
> at least a dozen test runs before the final N750 cap size was identified.
> The receiver uses the W6TC Hartley oscillator design, is built on a steel
> chassis with a 19-in rack mount front panel, cabinet with a fuly
> ventilated hinged top, zero backlash in the Eddystone 898 dial and
> variable tuning capacitor.
> 

What was used as the frequency standard?

73 de Jim, N2EY
From bjtatum at ev1.net  Fri Apr  7 00:34:18 2006
From: bjtatum at ev1.net (Byron Tatum)
Date: Fri Apr  7 00:34:24 2006
Subject: [HBR] Miller Coils
References: <000001c655e6$282ffb30$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
	<443311F1.29805.2CED25F@localhost>
Message-ID: <04cb01c659fc$88ec5c60$efcddacf@your6jnhhu0520>

Hello-
    Anyone have any of these Miller #'s : 73 OSC, 44 ANT or A-320-RF ?
    I have 242-RF and EL-56 Coupler for trade.
            Thanks, Byron.

From amargosaent at iscweb.com  Fri Apr  7 05:53:26 2006
From: amargosaent at iscweb.com (Amargosa Enterprises)
Date: Fri Apr  7 16:55:26 2006
Subject: [HBR] which receiver is THE BEST receiver 
References: <2fe.27ab1cd.3167211b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <USER_ANONYMOUS$69.85.136.89$.000901c65a29$207c16c0$59885545@vucppqlj>


Jim N2EY wrote

> In a message dated 4/6/06 3:06:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> amargosaent@iscweb.com writes:
>
>
> > Depending on your personal drift requirement, my experience with
> > a 20-tube W6TC design differs from your statement as follows -
> >
> > 80 meters, ambient 65 deg F;  temp comp 7.2 pfd N750
> > cold receiver/cold coil +2.02 kHz drift for 42 minutes to zero beat lock
> > warm receiver/cold coil +1.07 kHz drift for 20 minutes to zero beat lock
> > after initial zero beat lock 65 minutes zero drift to receiver shut-down
>
> Meaning no disrespect, but....
>
> 2 kHz drift on 80 meters is, to me, a bit too much drift. It's very good
for
> the W6TC-type design, but other GB designs can do a lot better.
>
> >
> > All test data taken in 1968.  Coils had been extensively tested and
> > temperature compensated with N750 capacitors; each coil set had
> > at least a dozen test runs before the final N750 cap size was
identified.
> > The receiver uses the W6TC Hartley oscillator design, is built on a
steel
> > chassis with a 19-in rack mount front panel, cabinet with a fuly
> > ventilated hinged top, zero backlash in the Eddystone 898 dial and
> > variable tuning capacitor.
> >
>
> What was used as the frequency standard?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
> ************************************
>
3.5kHz HBR internal crystal marker oscillator was used.  Obiously, the
marker also shifted some unknown amoun since it heated up right along with
the rest of the receiver.    A more accurate source would have been my
BC221/LM frequency meter after it had a 24-hour warmup.  As I ran the test
40 years ago the goal was to create drift data for use by W6TC (with whom I
was working at the time) for his comparison with other drift results.  Ted
insisted on using the crystal marker, so I took an identical approach in the
interest of having my data use the same base as his.  I have neither
knowledge or experience with the GB designs so cannot comment.  Hope this
clarifies my original message for you.

Vy 73 W6HHT

From N2EY at aol.com  Fri Apr  7 21:30:19 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Fri Apr  7 21:30:41 2006
Subject: [HBR] which receiver is THE BEST receiver 
Message-ID: <20e.1519d150.31686c2b@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/7/06 4:55:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
amargosaent@iscweb.com writes:


> > What was used as the frequency standard?
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> > ************************************
> >
> 3.5kHz HBR internal crystal marker oscillator was used.  Obiously, the
> marker also shifted some unknown amoun since it heated up right along with
> the rest of the receiver.    

Still, the 3500 kc. marker would be an order of magnitude more stable than 
the receiver. Biggest problem I can see is that you can't calibrate the marker.

A 100 kc standard can be calibrated against WWV before each drift run, and 
again thereafter.

A more accurate source would have been my
> 
> BC221/LM frequency meter after it had a 24-hour warmup.  As I ran the test
> 40 years ago the goal was to create drift data for use by W6TC (with whom I
> was working at the time) for his comparison with other drift results.  Ted
> insisted on using the crystal marker, so I took an identical approach in the
> interest of having my data use the same base as his.  I have neither
> knowledge or experience with the GB designs so cannot comment.  Hope this
> clarifies my original message for you.


Sure does! Thanks!

Which brings up a good point: what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' performance in 
many areas is a matter of personal preference and the application.

For example, a drift of 500 Hz would hardly be noticed on AM. On many data 
modes it would be intolerable. 

The operator who is working a hunt-and-peck contest might not mind drift that 
would drive a net operator bonkers. The contester doesn't stay on one QRG 
long enough to notice the drift, while the net operator is constantly struggling 
to stay on frequency.

I think one of the big reasons SSB was resisted by many was the drift issue. 
Rigs that were fine for AM were all over the place on SSB. In fact, I think 
many classic GB rigs - receivers and transmitters - were primarily designed for 
AM, with CW tacked on as an afterthought. (why else would so many of them have 
AVC and big S meters, yet lack a decent filter and resonable stability?)

---

One of the tricks I have used in drift testing is to zero beat the VFO or a 
harmonic with WWV. Fortunately, many of my designs have VFOs where this can be 
done directly. 

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY
From windy10605 at juno.com  Sat Apr  8 20:51:09 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Sat Apr  8 20:52:08 2006
Subject: [HBR] HBR 2006
Message-ID: <20060408.195110.3928.3.windy10605@juno.com>

This may elicit some response for which I have my flame proof suit ready
and may have to wash my mind with soap .....but being one who builds
StreetRods as well as Antique Restorations .......and HBRs ......how
about a --real-- state of the art "HBR" using the existing appearance,
frontend, and tuning but stop at the 1st IF and install one of Tony
Parks' Softrock 160m boards (kit available for only $14) .......interface
that to your computer sound card and have one of the best Software
Defined Radios with roofing filters, variable BPFs, DSP, panoramic
display, etc that's available today ?? This can also be done with any
other radio (I think). Hey, an SDR ARC-5 or BC-348 ?? ....just take over
at the first IF.

73 Kees K5BCQ  
From w1eof at hamnutz.com  Sun Apr  9 10:28:51 2006
From: w1eof at hamnutz.com (W1EOF)
Date: Sun Apr  9 10:30:35 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006
In-Reply-To: <20060409080108.12798859DB5@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <NCBBJCLPMKDDBBMEAPOHIEEEKPAC.w1eof@hamnutz.com>

Sounds very interesting to me Kees. I don't consider it an challenge,
competition, or afront to the orig HBR. I've been very curious about SDR,
and in particular thr SoftRock. Frankly I don't know if I'd haveto time to
really build one, but I sure would like to follow along if someone else did!

73,

Mark W1EOF

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:51:09 -0500
> From: windy10605@juno.com
> Subject: [HBR] HBR 2006
> To: hbr@mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <20060408.195110.3928.3.windy10605@juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> This may elicit some response for which I have my flame proof suit ready
> and may have to wash my mind with soap .....but being one who builds
> StreetRods as well as Antique Restorations .......and HBRs ......how
> about a --real-- state of the art "HBR" using the existing appearance,
> frontend, and tuning but stop at the 1st IF and install one of Tony
> Parks' Softrock 160m boards (kit available for only $14) .......interface
> that to your computer sound card and have one of the best Software
> Defined Radios with roofing filters, variable BPFs, DSP, panoramic
> display, etc that's available today ?? This can also be done with any
> other radio (I think). Hey, an SDR ARC-5 or BC-348 ?? ....just take over
> at the first IF.
>
> 73 Kees K5BCQ

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/06

From dkelly42 at cox.net  Sun Apr  9 13:45:43 2006
From: dkelly42 at cox.net (Don)
Date: Sun Apr  9 11:41:15 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <000001c65bfd$6d41f350$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>

I believe the idea is completely within the concept of the "Old Timers"
who built the HBR receivers. What always interested me was how they used
the technology at hand to build their receivers. I don't think they were
just purists building tube receivers. They were merely trying to build
good receivers.. period. Who knows what designs these fellas would have
developed if some of the current components and designs had been
available to them back then.

There is a picture of a fella who used a rotating bowl for a dial
mechanism for his receiver. That is one of the most interesting designs
in your archives. Shows how clever those guys were mechanically as well
as electrically.

I have a question. Most of the HBR designs show a capacitor across the
primary of the audio output transformer. Would someone explain the
concept and use of this capacitor? I assume it is to either flatten the
response of the audio output or peak it. 

Thanks in advance.

Don K5UOS


From bjtatum at ev1.net  Sun Apr  9 12:05:36 2006
From: bjtatum at ev1.net (Byron Tatum)
Date: Sun Apr  9 12:06:05 2006
Subject: [HBR] Coil, IF Transformer Exchange Bank
Message-ID: <035301c65bef$70f23270$0ed9dacf@your6jnhhu0520>

Hello-
    I was wondering if this would be a good idea relating to indiduals possessing RF coils, IF transformers, coil forms, RF chokes { such as JW Miller, Meissner, Millen, etc.} , then thought it might be good to expand it on out to include all HBR components :
    Establish an "exchange bank" on the website whereby people could list the parts that they have an excess of, what they are looking for, etc.
    Anyway, would this help all of us to obtain some of the harder to find parts?
        Thanks, Byron.
        
From waltah at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  9 12:47:39 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Sun Apr  9 12:46:50 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <000001c65bfd$6d41f350$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
Message-ID: <4439026B.8494.1351A20@localhost>

Don wonders:
> I have a question. Most of the HBR designs show a capacitor across the
> primary of the audio output transformer. Would someone explain the concept
> and use of this capacitor? I assume it is to either flatten the response
> of the audio output or peak it.

Bingo!

In an HF communications receiver you don't want the high frequency audio 
response to go too far.   Above 2500 or 3000 cps the amount of intelligence 
conveyed by a voice signal in proportion to atmospheric noise falls rapidly.   
One easy way to limit the highs is a capacitor across the primary of the 
output transformer.  

If the transformer were completely unloaded (no speaker or tube) then 
you'd get a pretty sharp peak at the resonant frequency of the 
transformer's inductance and the capacitor.   However with the tube and 
speaker hooked up you get little or no peak -- the Q of the tuned circuit is 
too low.   Below the resonant frequency you have the tube plate resistance 
in series with the inductance of the transformer (high inductance) which is 
shunted by the load resistance reflected back to the primary.   More or less 
flat, once you get above the frequency at which the inductance of the 
transformer has such a low reactance that it shorts out the load.   Above the 
resonant frequency the load is shunted by a capacitive reactance and 
shorted out -- the power is dissipated in the tube plate resistance.  

The main reason to get rid of those highs is to improve the signal to noise 
ratio.   You can start with a .001 or .002 mf capacitor (or if copying an 
existing design, use the specified value).   Then once you have the receiver 
working, try other values from maybe 500 mmf (which will be too low) up to 
.004 mf or so.   Pick the value that sounds right to you when listening to the 
kinds of signals you will be copying.     

A second reason for this capacitor is that while the very high audio 
frequencies contain little voice power, noise spikes can develop high enough 
voltages to break down the insulation of a transformer leading to a carbon 
track and eventually a short.    Killing the unneeded highs with a shunting 
capacitor can prevent this from happening.    Usual voltage ratings for this 
cap are 500-up, often 1000 volts.   

Older military communications receivers often added a neon bulb across the 
transformer and cap pair.  That not only completely swallows high voltage 
spikes but provides some amount of noise limiting when listening under 
thunderstorm conditions, as for example a comm watch or aircrew are 
required to do.  

Walt 
KJ4KV
From N2EY at aol.com  Sun Apr  9 13:30:25 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Sun Apr  9 13:31:08 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <31f.210659d.316a9eb1@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/9/06 11:41:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dkelly42@cox.net 
writes:


> I believe the idea is completely within the concept of the "Old Timers"
> who built the HBR receivers. What always interested me was how they used
> the technology at hand to build their receivers. I don't think they were
> just purists building tube receivers. They were merely trying to build
> good receivers.. period. Who knows what designs these fellas would have
> developed if some of the current components and designs had been
> available to them back then.

Well, yes and no.

Even in their time, the HBRs were a bit of a technological anomaly. They used 
plug in coils long after bandswitching was pretty much standard. They used 
LC-derived selectivity far from the antenna, even after HF crystal filters were 
available. They didn't have narrow selectivity for CW either. They didn't use 
the newest or hottest tubes, nor the latest circuits and techniques. 

The point of the HBR designs wasn't to build the best possible rx, but rather 
to build a good solid home-brew amateur rx using all-new parts available from 
the common ham manufacturers of the time. A decent performing receiver that a 
reasonably knowledgeable ham could build, align, and maintain without a shack 
full of tools and test equipment. No surplus or hard-to-get parts (hard to 
get back then, anyway). And the total cost was competitive. 

That said, there's no reason not to use an HBR front end and SDR tail end. 
But such a receiver would hardly be "home brew" in the classic sense of the 
HBRs. 

__

If one is going to go the hybrid analog front end/SDR tail end, though, some 
interesting possibilities arise.

For example, how high can the SDR function? Let's say for argument's sake 
that it can do up to 10 MHz. With a 5 MHz VFO and the SDR set for 9 MHz, we can 
cover 80 and 20. If the SDR IF is reset to 2 MHz, the same VFO range will tune 
40 meters. SDR IF at 7 MHz will get you 160. 

You get the idea. Multiple IFs wouldn't be that practical in an all-analog 
RX, so we usually change the VFO range or do some other heterodyne tricks. But 
if the SDR IF setting is a matter of software.....

> 
> There is a picture of a fella who used a rotating bowl for a dial
> mechanism for his receiver. That is one of the most interesting designs
> in your archives. Shows how clever those guys were mechanically as well
> as electrically.

Thanks! 

I built that receiver back about 1974. Only the xtals and the 88 mh toroids 
were bought -  all the rest was scavenged from various sources, mostly TV sets 
and AM BC receivers. (Note the chassis isn't a commercial one). 


> 
> I have a question. Most of the HBR designs show a capacitor across the
> primary of the audio output transformer. Would someone explain the
> concept and use of this capacitor? I assume it is to either flatten the
> response of the audio output or peak it. 
> 

It's to roll off the high audio frequencies. No point in having a ham rx with 
audio response above a few kHz.

73 de Jim, N2EY
From windy10605 at juno.com  Sun Apr  9 14:35:13 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Sun Apr  9 14:37:55 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <20060409.133514.3532.0.windy10605@juno.com>

Apparently the HBR was the right receiver at the right time judging from
all the people who built them and the interest which remains today. It
allowed home builders to try a "more complex" design and come up with
something which was really useful for day to day operation vs being put
on the shelf. Jim is correct that it was not the state of the art at the
time and I still wonder why HFO heterodyning was not selected vs fighting
HF Oscillator stability. Maybe Ted addressed this in one of his letters ?
Maybe he was just an L/C man ? Maybe he had some bad design experiences
with crystals ? I know he had strong opinions (and expressed them) about
using a 3500Khz calibration crystal vs the "standard" 100Khz. Plug in
coils are an excellent idea vs bandswitching because of the reduced
complexity, shorter wiring in the critical frontend, less space required,
the possibility for larger coils which improves "Q", etc ....lots of
advantages and only one convenience disadvantage.

73 Kees K5BCQ
From N2EY at aol.com  Sun Apr  9 16:59:17 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Sun Apr  9 16:59:53 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/9/06 2:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
windy10605@juno.com writes:


> Apparently the HBR was the right receiver at the right time judging from
> all the people who built them and the interest which remains today. 

I wonder how many were actually built?

In the early 1960s there were about 250,000 US hams, mostly (at least 75%) 
Generals, Conditionals and Advanceds.

It
> 
> allowed home builders to try a "more complex" design and come up with
> something which was really useful for day to day operation vs being put
> on the shelf. 

I think the big attraction was that they were general-purpose all-band HF ham 
receivers that were extensively documented and 'buildable'. HBRs were more 
complex than regens or simple supers (and outperformed them) but not so complex 
as to require extreme skill/experience in construction. Nor did they use 
unusual parts. And they were easy to modify - note that W6TC didn't originally use 
the 898 dial - that was an adaptation by another.

Most of all they practically screamed "BUILD THIS RADIO" and "YOU CAN DO IT" 
at you from the magazine pages. 

>  I still wonder why HFO heterodyning was not selected vs fighting
> HF Oscillator stability. Maybe Ted addressed this in one of his letters ?
> Maybe he was just an L/C man ? Maybe he had some bad design experiences
> with crystals ? 

The problems with premixer LO:

1) Spurs. You have to worry about any unwanted outputs from the premixer. 
Even products that are many dB down can still wreak havoc. Coming up with such a 
design for 5 bands isn't easy.

2) Complexity. You need another oscillator, another mixer, and a bunch of 
filters - all of which change on each band.

3) Cost. Non-ham-band xtals were expensive back then, and a bunch of them and 
the added stages would add a lot to the receiver price. $6 each may not seem 
like much now but 40+ years ago it was a fortune. This may be why the HBR 
avoided the 'hottest' new tubes and circuits of the time. For example, the 7360 as 
a product detector was all the rage in some circles, but it cost $3.95 for 
the tube, compared to half that or less for a 6BY6. Was the improvement worth 
doubling the price of the stage? 

A lot of expense could have been spared by using surplus and non-current 
parts, like IFTs and the three-gang cap/dial from ARC-5s, older tube types that 
were inexpensive, etc. Surplus xtals could have been used in filters and 
heterodyne schemes. But doing so would have violated the 'no surplus, no old parts' 
concept that was a feature of all W6TC designs. 

Yet all of the HBR designs use very conventional circuits and parts. They're 
wide open for modifications and substitutions. No trick circuits or fancy 
gadgets, just straightforward classic design. 

4) Alignment Fuss. Self explanatory


I know he had strong opinions (and expressed them) about
> 
> using a 3500Khz calibration crystal vs the "standard" 100Khz. 

With a 100 kHz IF, he couldn't use a 100 kHz calibrator - you'd hear it 
through the IF unless the shielding and isolation were very very good.

Problem with the 3500 cal xtal is that it only gives you one marker per band, 
and it's at the low end. Fine for CW DX types but the 'phone folks better 
have another standard.

Plug in
> 
> coils are an excellent idea vs bandswitching because of the reduced
> complexity, shorter wiring in the critical frontend, less space required,
> the possibility for larger coils which improves "Q", etc ....lots of
> advantages and only one convenience disadvantage.
> 

They also avoid the trouble and cost of finding exactly the right bandswitch 
assembly. the mechanical work of installing and shielding it, and the 
inflexibility of layout it forces on you.

Plug in coils also permit a lot of experimentation. Some HBR folks built 
coils for SWBC, coils for use with VHF converters, coils for WWV, etc. If an HBR 
owner could get the forms, coils for the WARC bands could be wound. What other 
rx design would allow the addition of new ham bands decades after the original 
design?

I think the real glory of the HBR design, and the true legacy of W6TC, is 
that he really upset the apple cart of homebrew at the time. Even before WW2, 
receiver building by hams was in decline as more and more hams bought their 
inhalers. Note how many more models of receivers there were than transmitters in 
those days, even though the postwar receiver market had to compete with surplus. 
By the mid 1950s, the Conventional Wisdom of many hams (in the USA, anyway) 
had become something like 'modern receivers are too complex/expensive to be 
homebrewed anymore'. 

Look at how many 'beginner' receiver designs there are in the ham mags and 
handbooks - and how few 'serious' designs, until TC showed the way.
 
Yes, there were other receiver builders, like my own homebrew Elmer, W2LYH. 
But most of those designs were specialized or relied heavily on surplus parts 
and builder know-how.

Also, the HBRs were what TC wanted them to be. They included things he valued 
and left out things he didn't. That's a lesson for all of us! For example, a 
much more stable design could have been obtained several ways, but TC didn't 
think it was worth the tradeoffs.
 
73 de Jim, N2EY
From johnmb at nc.rr.com  Sun Apr  9 17:29:48 2006
From: johnmb at nc.rr.com (john)
Date: Sun Apr  9 17:25:27 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>
References: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060409172831.02193cc0@pop-server.nc.rr.com>

At 04:59 PM 4/9/2006, N2EY@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/9/06 2:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>windy10605@juno.com writes:
>
>
> > Apparently the HBR was the right receiver at the right time judging from
> > all the people who built them and the interest which remains today.
>
>I wonder how many were actually built?


There's been a remarkably high number on Ebay since I've been watching. I'm 
sure I've seen over a dozen pass through there in the last couple years. 
That seems to me a lot, given the relative obscurity of HB gear!

John K5MO



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/2006

From johnmb at nc.rr.com  Sun Apr  9 17:32:59 2006
From: johnmb at nc.rr.com (john)
Date: Sun Apr  9 17:28:20 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>
References: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060409173107.02446678@pop-server.nc.rr.com>

Excellent points, Jim.  I think the amount of support that Ted gave is also 
remarkable. There's a wealth of documentation that Kees has gathered. One 
of the rigs I got was accompanied by some original correspondence with Ted. 
Those notes weren't just "yes/no" answers either, but long throught out 
exchanges.

Would have been a fascinating guy to meet. Anyone ever see any pictures of 
the man?

John K5MO



At 04:59 PM 4/9/2006, N2EY@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/9/06 2:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>windy10605@juno.com writes:
>
>
> > Apparently the HBR was the right receiver at the right time judging from
> > all the people who built them and the interest which remains today.
>
>I wonder how many were actually built?
>
>In the early 1960s there were about 250,000 US hams, mostly (at least 75%)
>Generals, Conditionals and Advanceds.
>
>It
> >
> > allowed home builders to try a "more complex" design and come up with
> > something which was really useful for day to day operation vs being put
> > on the shelf.
>
>I think the big attraction was that they were general-purpose all-band HF ham
>receivers that were extensively documented and 'buildable'. HBRs were more
>complex than regens or simple supers (and outperformed them) but not so 
>complex
>as to require extreme skill/experience in construction. Nor did they use
>unusual parts. And they were easy to modify - note that W6TC didn't 
>originally use
>the 898 dial - that was an adaptation by another.
>
>Most of all they practically screamed "BUILD THIS RADIO" and "YOU CAN DO IT"
>at you from the magazine pages.
>
> >  I still wonder why HFO heterodyning was not selected vs fighting
> > HF Oscillator stability. Maybe Ted addressed this in one of his letters ?
> > Maybe he was just an L/C man ? Maybe he had some bad design experiences
> > with crystals ?
>
>The problems with premixer LO:
>
>1) Spurs. You have to worry about any unwanted outputs from the premixer.
>Even products that are many dB down can still wreak havoc. Coming up with 
>such a
>design for 5 bands isn't easy.
>
>2) Complexity. You need another oscillator, another mixer, and a bunch of
>filters - all of which change on each band.
>
>3) Cost. Non-ham-band xtals were expensive back then, and a bunch of them and
>the added stages would add a lot to the receiver price. $6 each may not seem
>like much now but 40+ years ago it was a fortune. This may be why the HBR
>avoided the 'hottest' new tubes and circuits of the time. For example, the 
>7360 as
>a product detector was all the rage in some circles, but it cost $3.95 for
>the tube, compared to half that or less for a 6BY6. Was the improvement worth
>doubling the price of the stage?
>
>A lot of expense could have been spared by using surplus and non-current
>parts, like IFTs and the three-gang cap/dial from ARC-5s, older tube types 
>that
>were inexpensive, etc. Surplus xtals could have been used in filters and
>heterodyne schemes. But doing so would have violated the 'no surplus, no 
>old parts'
>concept that was a feature of all W6TC designs.
>
>Yet all of the HBR designs use very conventional circuits and parts. They're
>wide open for modifications and substitutions. No trick circuits or fancy
>gadgets, just straightforward classic design.
>
>4) Alignment Fuss. Self explanatory
>
>
>I know he had strong opinions (and expressed them) about
> >
> > using a 3500Khz calibration crystal vs the "standard" 100Khz.
>
>With a 100 kHz IF, he couldn't use a 100 kHz calibrator - you'd hear it
>through the IF unless the shielding and isolation were very very good.
>
>Problem with the 3500 cal xtal is that it only gives you one marker per band,
>and it's at the low end. Fine for CW DX types but the 'phone folks better
>have another standard.
>
>Plug in
> >
> > coils are an excellent idea vs bandswitching because of the reduced
> > complexity, shorter wiring in the critical frontend, less space required,
> > the possibility for larger coils which improves "Q", etc ....lots of
> > advantages and only one convenience disadvantage.
> >
>
>They also avoid the trouble and cost of finding exactly the right bandswitch
>assembly. the mechanical work of installing and shielding it, and the
>inflexibility of layout it forces on you.
>
>Plug in coils also permit a lot of experimentation. Some HBR folks built
>coils for SWBC, coils for use with VHF converters, coils for WWV, etc. If 
>an HBR
>owner could get the forms, coils for the WARC bands could be wound. What 
>other
>rx design would allow the addition of new ham bands decades after the 
>original
>design?
>
>I think the real glory of the HBR design, and the true legacy of W6TC, is
>that he really upset the apple cart of homebrew at the time. Even before WW2,
>receiver building by hams was in decline as more and more hams bought their
>inhalers. Note how many more models of receivers there were than 
>transmitters in
>those days, even though the postwar receiver market had to compete with 
>surplus.
>By the mid 1950s, the Conventional Wisdom of many hams (in the USA, anyway)
>had become something like 'modern receivers are too complex/expensive to be
>homebrewed anymore'.
>
>Look at how many 'beginner' receiver designs there are in the ham mags and
>handbooks - and how few 'serious' designs, until TC showed the way.
>
>Yes, there were other receiver builders, like my own homebrew Elmer, W2LYH.
>But most of those designs were specialized or relied heavily on surplus parts
>and builder know-how.
>
>Also, the HBRs were what TC wanted them to be. They included things he valued
>and left out things he didn't. That's a lesson for all of us! For example, a
>much more stable design could have been obtained several ways, but TC didn't
>think it was worth the tradeoffs.
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
>************************************
>Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and
>construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/
>there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>
>
>Retrieve reflector archived data via 
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/2006



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/2006

From windy10605 at juno.com  Sun Apr  9 19:14:10 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Sun Apr  9 19:16:00 2006
Subject: Fw: Re: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <20060409.181411.3532.3.windy10605@juno.com>


...........- note that W6TC didn't originally use the 898 dial - that was
an adaptation by another.

-----------------------------

Speaking of that, someone in Port Angeles, WA just put an Eddystone 898
on Ebay. Good luck, guys.

73 Kees K5BCQ
From waltah at earthlink.net  Mon Apr 10 13:29:10 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Mon Apr 10 13:28:23 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060409173107.02446678@pop-server.nc.rr.com>
References: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <443A5DA6.8483.63DB59@localhost>

Jim said:
>I think the big attraction was that they were general-purpose all-band HF
>ham receivers that were extensively documented and 'buildable'. HBRs were
>more complex than regens or simple supers (and outperformed them) but not
>so complex as to require extreme skill/experience in construction. Nor
>did they use unusual parts. And they were easy to modify - note that W6TC
>didn't originally use the 898 dial - that was an adaptation by another.
>
>Most of all they practically screamed "BUILD THIS RADIO" and "YOU CAN DO
>IT" at you from the magazine pages.

It's just about impossible to fault this design for the 'market' that Ted 
Crosby was trying to reach.   Others have listed the main points: parts off 
the shelf from standard sources, performance comparable to the upper-
middle price range receivers of the time except for the lack of 
bandswitching, lack of any critical circuits or difficult adjustments, ease 
of extending by winding other coils, using a better dial, substituting used 
parts if desired (85 kcs 'command set' transformers vs. 100 kcs Millers, 
command set tuning cap ...), and more.

EVERY design incorporates some compromises.   The W6TC receivers accept 
the inconvenience of plug in coils and higher warm-up drift than can be 
achieved with a fixed-coil or partly-crystal controlled front end but they 
deliver a BUILDABLE receiver that would make QSO's as well as what most 
hams could have bought at the time and better than most of them.    The 
things have a potfull of front panel controls but nearly any tube that would 
light up will work fine (where most ham designs assume new tubes) and you 
could optimize the gain distribution for either weak signals or crowded 
band/many strong signals.

The 3500 kcs crystal band edge marker was perfectly adequate for the 
operational calibration of these receivers; you couldn't read the dials 
closely enough to require any more than a band edge check when changing 
coils, anyway.   And there were the advantages of no problem getting a 
strong calibration signal nor of identifying what signal you had, since only 
one would be heard per set of coils.   

Look at the 'simple receiver' designs of the 60's Handbooks:   All of them 
with more than three tubes will outperform the HBR-series on one or more 
points, most often selectivity.   But they're nearly all so limited in some 
other area that they're closer to "an experimenter's receiver with which you 
could make some QSOs" than "a station receiver with plug-in coils."    Take 
the 'Advanced 6-Tube Receiver' of the 1969 handbook as the best of 
breed: Single conversion on 80 with a crystal controlled converter for other 
bands -- not too bad so far.   The mixer is a 7360.   But audio AGC and no 
way to switch off the BFO make it useful only for SSB/CW.   Sorry, that's 
not a station receiver.   With a Collins mechanical filter for selectivity, it's 
not inexpensive, either -- or even 'moderately priced.'

The only real station receiver is the DCS-500 of 1960 +/-.   That's a decent 
design (also using plug in coils) but  requires four crystals ('surplus') for 
selectivity plus one more in a transistorized 100 kcs calibrator and has 
modified IFTs and some relatively complex/critical circuitry.   The main 
thing you get in exchange for much less 'buildability' is several steps of 
variable selectivity -- a poor trade-off, in my opinion.   There's no product 
detector, so receiving SSB would require you to use the old technique of 
backing down the RF/IF gain and in this design that requires switching off 
the AGC.   

Yes, the design glitches could be fixed.   But if you're qualified to do that, 
you don't really need a Handbook design, do you?   The DCS-500 is 
basically a fine 1950 station receiver design realized with 1960 parts.

All those handbook receivers uses unbuffered triodes as local oscillators.   
It's not easy to do that without getting enough oscillator pulling to reduce 
intelligibility of a sideband signal, and they don't; the 'Advanced 6-Tube 
Receiver' (7360 mixer with the LO driving the deflection plates) might be 
satisfactory.   The W6TC ECO LO does not have the problem.   All except 
the DCS-500 are single conversion designs but you have to build a crystal 
controlled converter if you want more than one or two bands.   

Look beyond the handbooks and there are exactly two serious candidates 
for a home built station receiver:   the G2DAF sets which are close to the 
complexity of the Collins S-Line receivers (but EXCELLENT), and the 
premixed design of W5OMX, Col. Dave Curtis.   There's NO chance that you 
could build a two tube project and then tackle either of these with a good 
chance of success -- and the price would have been in the ballpark of a 
used Collins A-line or Drake receiver.   

W6TC was a gifted radio designer.   Does anyone know what he did in 'real 
life'?

Walt 
KJ4KV



From daileyservices at qwest.net  Mon Apr 10 17:29:57 2006
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Mon Apr 10 17:30:39 2006
Subject: [HBR] Who & What was Ted Crosby
References: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com> <443A5DA6.8483.63DB59@localhost>
Message-ID: <002c01c65ce5$ea7f1120$6402a8c0@dailey>

For the life of me, I can't recall where I read this, but I'm pretty sure
that Ted was a long-time Radio Engineer for CBS, in and around the Los
Angeles area.

Tom - W?EAJ

(HBR-11)

From amargosaent at iscweb.com  Mon Apr 10 07:51:58 2006
From: amargosaent at iscweb.com (Amargosa Enterprises)
Date: Mon Apr 10 18:54:04 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
References: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com> <443A5DA6.8483.63DB59@localhost>
Message-ID: <USER_ANONYMOUS$69.19.167.236$.002701c65c95$2dac8000$eca71345@vucppqlj>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter A. Hutchens" <waltah@earthlink.net>


> Walt said -
> W6TC was a gifted radio designer.   Does anyone know what he did in 'real
> life'?
>
Ted Crosby was a broadcast engineer employed by the American Broadcast
Company, working at their main transmitter site atop Mt. Wilson (on the
northern rim of the Los Angeles basin).  At that time all the major TV
broadcasters (plus a couple of locals) used the Mt Wilson location because
of its coverage throughout the basin.  The ABC chief engineer assigned Ted
the responsibility of monitoring new vacuum tube deign specs for
applicability to custom design/built equipment used in broadcast service.
At that time, the TV broadcast people modified much of their equipment and
built some of it from the ground up.  This work assignment gave Ted a
state-of-the-art insight into what tubes would do - he was very selective in
his choice of tubes for his HBR projects.

I then lived in La Canada (just west of Pasadena and immediately below Mt
Wilson ) and worked as a development engineer at Cal Tech's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, and later as a transmissition engineer for Pacific Telephone,
both in Pasadena.

I am providing to K5BCQ about mid-year a compendium of 72 letters written to
me by Ted and Alex Stewart (another HBR original) between 1967 and 1971
relative to my HBR XX (to avoid confusing it with Ted's un-published HBR20).
The letters provide a lot of background (answers to the "why" questions),
plus specific advice on clearing problems in HBRs under construction by
myself and others.  Ted became a silent key (lung cancer) about 1971 and
Alex passed ib a few years later.  Both men had been first licensed in the
1920/1922 time frame.

I communicated with Ted by letter and telephone, including several visits to
his Sun Valley home.  He was an incredibly talented intuitive designer, the
best I have ever met - somehow he seemed to just sense (without making
calculations or creating mathematical models) what combinations of design
elements would work.  All of his published designs were preceded by hundreds
of hours of experimentation and design modifications - it was extremely
important to him that the average ham be able to build a product which
represented the design Ted had developed.

Ted was one of the 10 most unforgettable men I have ever met.

73 Jay W6HHT Redding CA

From hbrnut at earthlink.net  Mon Apr 10 19:21:28 2006
From: hbrnut at earthlink.net (Darrell, WA5VGO)
Date: Mon Apr 10 19:22:03 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <443A5DA6.8483.63DB59@localhost>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060409173107.02446678@pop-server.nc.rr.com>
	<2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20060410181715.00bb6628@mail.earthlink.net>

Before we get too carried away with Ted's genius, I would suggest taking a 
look at page 39 of the March 1956 QST. Bob Cole, W4RLC pointed this article 
out to me several years ago. Although Ted may have inspired many to build 
the receiver, it certainly wasn't an original design.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO


From windy10605 at juno.com  Mon Apr 10 19:49:19 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Mon Apr 10 19:51:08 2006
Subject: Fw: Re: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <20060410.184919.2096.31.windy10605@juno.com>

Good point, Darrell.

I was introduced to ham radio in Oct 1959 with my first issue of QST and
never really had access to (or, at the time, interest in) previous issues
since I wanted to build "the latest stuff". A few years ago I came across
issues for all of the 50s in poor shape but very readable and once
"debugged" were actually brought into the house. Those issues are a
wealth of information, circuits, and designs I feel very comfortable with
and illustrate the high level of excellent homebrewing being done at the
time. Before that I thought the peak in tube HF receiver/transmitter
homebrewing using miniatures (and a few octals) was in the early 60s and
started tapering off by the 70s. 

73 Kees K5BCQ



--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Darrell, WA5VGO" <hbrnut@earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr@mailman.qth.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:21:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20060410181715.00bb6628@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060409173107.02446678@pop-server.nc.rr.com> 
        <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com>

Before we get too carried away with Ted's genius, I would suggest taking
a 
look at page 39 of the March 1956 QST. Bob Cole, W4RLC pointed this
article 
out to me several years ago. Although Ted may have inspired many to build

the receiver, it certainly wasn't an original design.

73,
Darrell, WA5VGO


************************************
Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and 
construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/


Retrieve reflector archived data via
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
From N2EY at aol.com  Mon Apr 10 20:12:48 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Mon Apr 10 20:13:32 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <38d.6b899.316c4e80@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/10/06 1:28:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
waltah@earthlink.net writes:


> It's just about impossible to fault this design for the 'market' that Ted 
> Crosby was trying to reach.   

Well, I'll agree on some points and disagree on others.

Others have listed the main points: parts off 
> 
> the shelf from standard sources, performance comparable to the upper-
> middle price range receivers of the time except for the lack of 
> bandswitching, lack of any critical circuits or difficult adjustments, ease 
> of extending by winding other coils, using a better dial, substituting used 
> parts if desired (85 kcs 'command set' transformers vs. 100 kcs Millers, 
> command set tuning cap ...), and more.
> 

Yup. 


> EVERY design incorporates some compromises.   The W6TC receivers accept 
> the inconvenience of plug in coils and higher warm-up drift than can be 
> achieved with a fixed-coil or partly-crystal controlled front end but they 
> deliver a BUILDABLE receiver that would make QSO's as well as what most 
> hams could have bought at the time and better than most of them.   

A lot depends on which tradeoffs you prefer.

It would be interesting to know how much the various HBRs cost to build from 
new parts back when they appeared. The 898 dial, for example, cost about $21 
new, which works out to maybe $100 in today's money? 

A total-cost estimate would be needed before you could make an honest 
comparison.

The $269 Drake 2-B appeared about 1963 IIRC. Perhaps it should be the 
standard of comparison?

 The 
> 
> things have a potfull of front panel controls but nearly any tube that would 
> 
> light up will work fine (where most ham designs assume new tubes) and you 
> could optimize the gain distribution for either weak signals or crowded 
> band/many strong signals.
> 

Agreed.

> The 3500 kcs crystal band edge marker was perfectly adequate for the 
> operational calibration of these receivers; you couldn't read the dials 
> closely enough to require any more than a band edge check when changing 
> coils, anyway.   And there were the advantages of no problem getting a 
> strong calibration signal nor of identifying what signal you had, since only 
> 
> one would be heard per set of coils.   
> 

It seems a lot of work for one cal point per band. 100 kc wouldn't work 
because of the IF. But 250 kc would work, and would give at least two cal points 
per band.


> Look at the 'simple receiver' designs of the 60's Handbooks:   All of them 
> with more than three tubes will outperform the HBR-series on one or more 
> points, most often selectivity.   But they're nearly all so limited in some 
> other area that they're closer to "an experimenter's receiver with which you 
> 
> could make some QSOs" than "a station receiver with plug-in coils."   

I disagree!

They're simply aimed at a different set of compromises. 

 Take 
> 
> the 'Advanced 6-Tube Receiver' of the 1969 handbook as the best of 
> breed: Single conversion on 80 with a crystal controlled converter for other 
> 
> bands -- not too bad so far.   The mixer is a 7360.   But audio AGC and no 
> way to switch off the BFO make it useful only for SSB/CW.   Sorry, that's 
> not a station receiver.  

Why not?

By 1969, AM had become a specialty mode on the HF ham bands. The HBR-8 
doesn't have AGC or a diode detector, either! 

The reason for so many audio AGC designs in those '60s receivers is simple: 
the audio hang AGC circuit worked well enough for the designers, and it was a 
bit of a job to keep the BFO signal out of the AGC chain if you did IF-derived 
AGC.


 With a Collins mechanical filter for selectivity, it's 
> 
> not inexpensive, either -- or even 'moderately priced.'
> 

How much did the specified filter cost in those days? IIRC, later models used 
a Lafayette mechanical filter that wasn't very expensive. \

The proper Miller 100 kc IFTs and BFO weren't inexpensive, either.

> The only real station receiver is the DCS-500 of 1960 +/-.  

What about W2LYH's "Sectionalized Communications Receiver"?

I think it all depends on how you define "station receiver", though.


 That's a decent 
> 
> design (also using plug in coils) but  requires four crystals ('surplus') 
> for 
> selectivity plus one more in a transistorized 100 kcs calibrator and has 
> modified IFTs and some relatively complex/critical circuitry. 

Those IFTs are inexpensive TV width coils. The 4495 xtals are obviously 
surplus (thereby violating that rule!) and are a probably the first example of a 
"roofing filter" in a ham receiver!

The DCS-500 was obviously inspired by the HBR series. The only really big 
difference is the IF methods. Even the layout is similar. 

  The main 
> 
> thing you get in exchange for much less 'buildability' is several steps of 
> variable selectivity -- a poor trade-off, in my opinion. 

Is the DCS-500 that much harder to build than an HBR? Sure, there's the 
bandwidth switch, and the modified width coils, but the rest is all the same. 

The HBR tradeoff was to settle for one IF selectivity setting for all modes. 
That's quite a tradeoff, unless you only use modes that match the bandwidth 
chosen. Audio selectivity just doesn't cut it unless it's a backup to good IF 
selectivity. IMHO, the lack of attention to mode-appropriate selectivity was a 
major tradeoff in the HBR designs.

  There's no product 
> 
> detector, so receiving SSB would require you to use the old technique of 
> backing down the RF/IF gain and in this design that requires switching off 
> the AGC.   
> 

Ture, but that's easily fixed. Many of the HBR designs (HBR-14, HBR-8) are 
the same way.


> Yes, the design glitches could be fixed.  

They weren't glitches - just different tradeoffs. 


 But if you're qualified to do that, 
> 
> you don't really need a Handbook design, do you?  

The DCS-500 wasn't a Handbook design - it originally appeared in QST.

I have often thought that Handbook projects had two distinct purposes:

1) They were buildable projects at various levels of complexity, from raw 
beginner to quite advanced. They weren't state-of-the-art as much as 
tried-and-true.

2) They demonstrated concepts and practices. Complete systems, not just 
partial circuits. 

Improving the AGC of the DCS-500, and adding a product detector, would be 
simple changes that could be done after the receiver was complete. Adding 
variable IF selectivity, or even decent CW selectivity, to the HBRs would not be!

 The DCS-500 is 
> 
> basically a fine 1950 station receiver design realized with 1960 parts.
> 

How is that any different from the HBR series? There's nothing in the HBR 
designs that wasn't available in 1950. 

If there's anything wrong with all those Handbook receivers, and the HBR 
series too, it's that they seem to have all forgotten about CW operation. Almost 
all of them assume that SSB selectivity is fine for CW. Except for the DCS-500, 
none of them have good-enough CW selectivity. Many don't have AGC or an S 
meter that will work with the BFO on, and those that do, usually depend on audio 
AGC. 

I think one of the main reasons some hams have/had difficulty with CW is the 
lack of decent inexpensive receivers for the mode. To give just one example, 
look at the popular Heath HR-10. Then look at the receiver section of the 
HW-16. 


> All those handbook receivers uses unbuffered triodes as local oscillators.  
>  
> It's not easy to do that without getting enough oscillator pulling to reduce 
> 
> intelligibility of a sideband signal, and they don't; the 'Advanced 6-Tube 
> Receiver' (7360 mixer with the LO driving the deflection plates) might be 
> satisfactory.   The W6TC ECO LO does not have the problem.

I've always wondered why so many otherwise-good receiver and converter 
designs used the same old triode-tickler oscillator circuit, without even a cathode 
follower buffer. It seems like much of what was learned about transmitter VFO 
design was forgotten when receivers were designed.

The W2YM VFO makes a dandy receiver oscillator.

   All except 
> 
> the DCS-500 are single conversion designs but you have to build a crystal 
> controlled converter if you want more than one or two bands.   
> 

The crystal-converter front end idea is a very good one - the Drake 2 series 
all use it. Besides its obvious electrical advantages, it simplifies the 
construction by breaking it down into parts. Get the 80 meter section working, then 
go for the converter. 

The HBR series required winding and adjusting a set of coils for each band, 
and calibrating the dial for each of them. A lot of work and expense! With a 
crystal controlled converter, you do the job once for 80 meters, and done.


> Look beyond the handbooks and there are exactly two serious candidates 
> for a home built station receiver:   the G2DAF sets which are close to the 
> complexity of the Collins S-Line receivers (but EXCELLENT), and the 

> premixed design of W5OMX, Col. Dave Curtis.   

What about W2LYH's receiver that I mentioned above?

Or the "Miser's Dream" of 1965? 

--

I think we would have seen a lot more G2DAF receivers on this side of the 
pond except for two factors:

1) they didn't get a lot of publicity compared to other designs

2) they used a good number of parts and tubes not familiar to US hams

There's NO chance that you 
> 
> could build a two tube project and then tackle either of these with a good 
> chance of success -- and the price would have been in the ballpark of a 
> used Collins A-line or Drake receiver.   
> 

How about a receiver like this:

http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg

I think cost is one big factor what really killed off a lot of homebrewing. 
How much *did* the HBRs cost to build from new parts, compared to, say, a 2-B 
or an SB-300? And what would the resale value be?

The other factor was the move to transceivers, which also helped put SSB over 
AM in a big way. A transceiver like the SB-100 cost about 150% of the price 
of a similar receiver - but it transmitted too! 

> W6TC was a gifted radio designer.  

No argument there! But his designs involve *his* choice of tradeoffs.

---

Now for something slightly different:

What constitutes a "station receiver"?  

73 de Jim, N2EY
From dkelly42 at cox.net  Tue Apr 11 00:02:31 2006
From: dkelly42 at cox.net (Don)
Date: Mon Apr 10 21:58:11 2006
Subject: [HBR] HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <000001c65d1c$c33f4990$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>

Jim, Walt,

Thanks for the answer to my question. I guess I knew the answer but
figured I'd get a more technical answer. Never could find anything in my
literature addressing the use of the capacitor. Some other time I'll
explain why I asked. It involves a tuned speaker cabinet among other
things. I used a capacitor but across the secondary. 

Jim, I thought I recognized your call from the Glowbugs website. I
looked at your website and your station a long while back. I always
wanted a good detailed explanation of your station. You mentioned on the
glowbugs about Southgate receivers? That is new to me. Your station
reminds me of the station K0IYE has on QRZ. Modular and very homebrew
looking.

I can't add to anything anyone has said about the "Oldtimers". I still
think they were very clever. I see it somewhat different. Overall, there
were perhaps many better commercial receivers and transmitters during
the 50 and 60's than the ones presented in the Handbooks and QST.
However, consider the resources the major vendors had at their disposal.
They could design and manufacture custom parts and purchase at large
volume prices. You fellas can relate. The work (fun) involved in
designing and building even a modest receiver can be quite extensive if
you do it right. The major vendors had design teams. In addition, they
were often in more than one business with amateur radio supplementing
military and other commercial production.

Some of my favorite books are the SSB for the Radio Amateur series. When
I read them I get all these irreverant ideas on how to do it better with
some more modern parts. I actually used the book Experimental Methods in
RF Design, a solid state book, for a lot of my last tube receiver
design. The crystal filters, band pass filters, interstage matching and
low pass audio filter ideas came from there. Goes to show RF is RF no
matter what the active device is. 

I gotta say "ouch" to Walt though. All my tube stations are made for CW.
I can't find any reason for including AM and little for SSB. I know that
makes my tube receivers much easier to build. Working CW on a HB station
is so much fun for me. I love cold winter nights with a heater on in the
shack. The lights are down low and I'm working CW on my tube station. I
used to fall asleep in my dads shack some nights while he would be
enjoying the same experience. I guess it is hereditary.

It is funny to see how homebrew designs have evolved from the tube era
into the solid state era. Most of the SS homebrew and kit designs are
now single band as opposed to the old handbook designs which were
usually two or more bands and often included AM. The fact that there are
more designs for complete single band transceivers might be a factor. 

Well I am rambling and I like the discussion on the good, better and
best of the old tube receivers. Wish I had more of the 1950's QST's. I
don't like CD versions. Just not the same as reading those yellowing,
musty old pages. Sometimes one 1950's QST had more interesting stuff
than a year of the current QST's. Even the component ads were
informative. Not bashing, its just that special interest sites like the
AmQRP and Norcal have drawn some of the homebrew away from ther ARRL.
Rambling again.

K5UOS


From daileyservices at qwest.net  Mon Apr 10 23:48:51 2006
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Mon Apr 10 23:49:35 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
References: <20060410.184919.2096.31.windy10605@juno.com>
Message-ID: <002701c65d1a$d925bde0$6402a8c0@dailey>

Good observations, Kees.  I too, recall the early days of QST... it seemed
that you did NOT want to put the magazine down, as each additional page held
some additional project, or simple circuit for improving one's "art".  I
re-read the '60's issues, as I got my Novice in August of '62, thus these
are the influential ones in my journey through ham radio.  Funny, in that
I'm STILL finding new stuff in those pages, that I never noticed.

Just this weekend, I repaired and realigned a friend's NC-183D National.
Having to use "Loop Adjustment" for the lower-end adjustment of each
band-coil was a pain, but it gave me appreciation for slug-tuning, and the
state of the art.  still... those movable links NEVER MOVED in 51 years (the
inside of the bottom panel had grease-pencil showing 10/18/55), so how crude
was it?  A minor tweak for age, and it was better than new.

I guess I'm a dated old beggar who STILL loves "Hints n' Kinks" best of
anything in the magazine... and always has.

Tom - W?EAJ

From daileyservices at qwest.net  Tue Apr 11 00:05:03 2006
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Tue Apr 11 00:05:44 2006
Subject: [HBR] Jay's Story
References: <2aa.1c1f2b1.316acfa5@aol.com> <443A5DA6.8483.63DB59@localhost>
	<USER_ANONYMOUS$69.19.167.236$.002701c65c95$2dac8000$eca71345@vucppqlj>
Message-ID: <004901c65d1d$1ccefdc0$6402a8c0@dailey>

Jay,

Thank you so much for telling us the 'straight skinny" on Ted.  I'd heard
part of it, but never to the level that you described.  Yes, those older
guys could make magic alright.  In 1963-66, I was a US Navy Radioman,
stationed in San Diego.  I used to listen to KMPC (710 am) up in L.A., on
those long Sunday mid-watches, as it was the ONLY station that played
contemporary jazz and the "new" bossa nova.  Later I found out that some of
the engineers there, INVENTED the so called "SigAlert", which in basic form,
is still used today in Los Angeles.  Old Gene Autry knew how to find 'em.

Tom - W?EAJ

From shortwaves at msn.com  Tue Apr 11 11:06:35 2006
From: shortwaves at msn.com (Bruce Wright)
Date: Tue Apr 11 11:07:33 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: Jay's Story
In-Reply-To: <20060411080053.2C328859D93@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F40DA885770E09FD315DE8AC1CD0@phx.gbl>

Dear Fellow List Members...

This is great...Seeing this list come to life after what has appeared to be, 
to me at least, a long doldrum of activity.

The recent postings on Ted and his biographical information is interesting 
and also enriching of the
of the HBR experience whether conceptual (as in my case, so far) or actual, 
first-hand...Good stuff!

Among the recent postings here, someone wrote (and to paraphrase) that there 
were more interesting articles in one issue of QST from the 1950's than a 
whole year of the current version...That is a statement I find not only true 
  but also a telling clue as to where, perhaps, the collective mind-set has 
drifted or moved on to with regard to the "nuts and bolts" of our hobby.

When I was but twelve years old, in 1957, those first HBR articles appeared 
and I was at that point not anywhere near to understanding them but they 
captured my imagination...Having not yet tested for my Novice license (that 
would come in 1958) and listening to W1AW code practice sessions on 80 and 
40 with my freshly built Knight Space Spanner (which, by the way was my 
first "communications" receiver!), I remember those first HBR articles and 
especially those articles featuring the -8 and -11 that appeared a few years 
later...They really got my attention and I kept all the QST's from those 
early years with the Crosby articles bookmarked, "for that day" when I could 
manage the understanding, the construction and the "tweaking" to have 
proudly built and operate my own station receiver.

Well, the bad news is its nearly 50 years later and I have not yet built 
that HBR station receiver...The good news is I am slowly acquiring parts for 
the -13C and with "retirement" ahead, now may be the opportunity to finally 
realize my dream.

IMHO, Ted Crosby is shoulder-to-shoulder among the other well-known 
designers/constructors/authors who populated the pages of QST: Goodman, 
Grammar, DeMaw and McCoy, etc.

Looking forward to more info on Ted, on HBR history and the "details" 
related to HBR projects, past, present and future.

Tnx es 73,

Bruce
WC5CW


From daileyservices at qwest.net  Tue Apr 11 15:05:59 2006
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Tue Apr 11 15:06:42 2006
Subject: [HBR] Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa
References: <BAY104-F40DA885770E09FD315DE8AC1CD0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <008801c65d9a$f86122a0$6402a8c0@dailey>

Some time ago, I mentioned that I had quite a few 455 kc IF cans.  Several
of you expressed a desire for them, but family circumstances ate up my time
and I failed to respond to your requests.  I apologize... These were part of
an electronics training course; are 2 to a chassis (small - 4 1/2" x 3" x 1
1/4" "U" shaped aluminum), with one marked INPUT and the other marked
OUTPUT.  They have the "right color" wires for standard coding, and a 7-pin
tube socket in the middle (tube type unknown).  For those of you who'd like
one or more - I'm asking 10 bux per chassis... sorry, forgot to count how
many I have, but I WILL do that.

Tom Dailey
W?EAJ
Denver

From waltah at earthlink.net  Thu Apr 13 06:49:02 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Thu Apr 13 06:48:35 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <38d.6b899.316c4e80@aol.com>
Message-ID: <443DF45E.32565.52CE9B7@localhost>

Jim said:
> It would be interesting to know how much the various HBRs cost to build
> from new parts back when they appeared. The 898 dial, for example, cost
> about $21 new, which works out to maybe $100 in today's money? 
> 
> A total-cost estimate would be needed before you could make an honest
> comparison.

I don't think I have the catalogs anymore so someone else would have to do 
the comparaison.  However the 898 dial wasn't in the original design -- it 
used an ACN or something like that, which is much cheaper.   

I believe the Collins ham-grade filters used in the 'advanced receiver' of 
the 1969 handbook were around $75 when they were in new production; I 
do remember that they were horribly expensive.   

>> The only real station receiver is the DCS-500 of 1960 +/-.  

> What about W2LYH's "Sectionalized Communications Receiver"?

I don't remember hearing of the W2LYH design -- reference please?   

> Is the DCS-500 that much harder to build than an HBR? Sure,
> there's the bandwidth switch, and the modified width coils, but the
> rest is all the same. 

I'd say that it was considerably harder to build because of those features. 
Switches in the IFs are not like the power ON-OFF switch and you can't 
exactly tell a new builder how to do it -- "keep your switch close to the 
points switched, keep leads short, watch out for signals propagating along 
the switch shaft."   You would know what all that means in terms of what 
you do, but most second-set (after a two-tube regen) builders wouldn't.

> The HBR tradeoff was to settle for one IF selectivity setting for
> all modes. That's quite a tradeoff, unless you only use modes that
> match the bandwidth chosen. Audio selectivity just doesn't cut it
> unless it's a backup to good IF selectivity. IMHO, the lack of
> attention to mode-appropriate selectivity was a major tradeoff in
> the HBR designs. 

However, it was a familar trade-off to hams of the day.   A 3 kcs-wide IF, 
with reasonably good shape factor (as the HBRs had) was a lot better for 
CW than what many of us used in those days and any of the usual audio 
selectivity circuits (the FL-8 'range filter,' Select-o-ject etc.) would have 
made it a MAJOR step up.   

The goal wasn't to outdo or even equal an S-line or Drake set, it was to 
design a receiver that could serve as a general purpose station receiver for 
the majority of ham uses AND COULD BE BUILT BY ALMOST ANYONE 
WITH THE INTEREST.

Don said:
> I gotta say "ouch" to Walt though. All my tube stations are made
> for CW. I can't find any reason for including AM and little for
> SSB. I know that makes my tube receivers much easier to build.
> Working CW on a HB station is so much fun for me. I love cold
> winter nights with a heater on in the shack. The lights are down
> low and I'm working CW on my tube station. I used to fall asleep in
> my dads shack some nights while he would be enjoying the same
> experience. I guess it is hereditary. 

I am sorry, I didn't mean to put down any sort of specialized station -- we 
all have areas of more interest and others that are less so.   What I was 
trying to get at was that the HBR series was intended to be a reasonable 
'jack of all trades' while remaining buildable.   Certainly specialized 
interests justify specialized equipment -- or much more expensive general 
purpose sets, able to do several things very well.  

Except that I prefer SSB or AM, I share your love of late night, lights down 
operation.   It's mostly listening these days -- I can never find the time to 
keep a transmiting station operational -- but maybe in another year or so.  

> Some of my favorite books are the SSB for the Radio Amateur series.

Those are great; I've spent hours on the W5OMX and W9BIY/W9IHT 
receivers and more time reading the theory and other articles.   I also like 
the RSGB Radio Communications Handbooks, 4th and 5th editions.   And the 
3rd edition too -- the title is different and I can't recall it at the moment.   
Unfortunately the dog shared my taste on that one, so my wonderful wife is 
looking for a replacement for one of my favorite birthday gifts of all time.

Darell said:
> Before we get too carried away with Ted's genius, I would suggest
> taking a look at page 39 of the March 1956 QST. Bob Cole, W4RLC
> pointed this article out to me several years ago. Although Ted may
> have inspired many to build the receiver, it certainly wasn't an
> original design. 

That's pretty much the same receiver.   So why don't we use 'W9HLH' when 
talking about the design?   Why isn't W6TC a footnote to THAT story, 
rather than the other way 'round?   

History is full of these cases:   "A" invents it but his name is unknown 
because "B" made it popular.   Sometimes the reason for the seeming oddity 
is just luck -- the market wasn't ready.   In this case, however, I think that 
the reason is the more common one:  Ted Crosby was a better salesman and 
communicator for the design.   The first builder pitched his article to the 
usual builder of receivers -- the ham who didn't need the details of how you 
wind plug in coils or anything more than a general description and photos of 
the parts layout.   W6TC PROVIDED those details, thus making the design 
accessible to a much larger group.  

You can also give him credit for picking that design as the starting point for 
his own:  It wasn't his idea, but he knew a good idea when he saw it. 

On the other hand, I'd say the W9HLH design is a bit 'slicker' than the 
early HBR-series.   All miniature tubes, a more 'basic' design.   The 9-tube 
count doesn't include a rectifier or VR tube; they're in the HBR-series 
numbers.   

As an aside, I've never understood the VR-tube thing in ham HF gear.   You 
can almost always build an oscillator that hardly moves at all with modest 
excursions of line voltage.   Power quality wasn't so good in 1960 as now, so 
perhaps some builders were dealing with 10% excursions.   

Military gear's a whole 'nuther story:  the power may be worse to start with 
and operation is desired under the widest possible range of conditions.   In 
addition, many circuits were highly sensitive to power fluctuations -- the 
electronic VR circuits were popularized by the need to keep radar CRT 
displays calibrated despite line voltage flutuations and aircraft gun laying 
radar depended on vaccum tube analog computers.   But a high-C VFO will 
stay within a few parts in a million despite considerable plate voltage 
changes and if you want to work at it, you can get a considerable amount of 
self-stabilization from some circuits.

>> W6TC was a gifted radio designer.  

> No argument there! But his designs involve *his* choice of tradeoffs.

There's probably some element of 'agree to disagree' here.   I find his 
trade-offs admirable in themselves because they led to a receiver that was 
both useful to many hams and could be built by many, rather than being 
specific to his own mode of operation.   His goal, in other words, was a 
public rather than a personal one.   Then and now, that was uncommon.

Walt
KJ4KV
From N2EY at aol.com  Thu Apr 13 07:31:02 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Thu Apr 13 07:31:59 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <2e4.5da1efd.316f9076@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/13/06 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
waltah@earthlink.net writes:


> > What about W2LYH's "Sectionalized Communications Receiver"?
> 
> I don't remember hearing of the W2LYH design -- reference please?   
> 
> 

QST for October 1961 - Sectionalized Communications Receiver

W2LYH was a master homebrewer. Also a top drawer operator. One of my Elmers 
even though I never met him, and only worked him a few times.

His other construction articles are worth a look, too (all from QST):

August 1947 H&K - Grid Dip Oscillator 

Oct 1949 H&K - Source for Low Drift Capacitors

June 1959 - Crystal Controlled Converters (20/15/10)

Jan 1960 - Complete Break-In Unit for CW

Aug 1971 - 3 to 4 Mc Franklin VFO

He made the cover of Electric Radio and may have had an article or two in 
that mag. My article in Electric Radio (July 1995) tells how I got to meet him on 
the air after 30+ years of reading his articles.

More to come but I'm outa time.

73 de Jim, N2EY
From daileyservices at qwest.net  Thu Apr 13 09:56:01 2006
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Thu Apr 13 09:57:08 2006
Subject: [HBR] National Dials
References: <443DF45E.32565.52CE9B7@localhost>
Message-ID: <001501c65f01$fff09240$6402a8c0@dailey>

I forgot to look at the name, but there's a place in the back of QST that
advertises dials that very closely resemble the ACN National... matter of
fact, their logo looks very much like the original National "diamond".
typically, it's a very small ad' near the bottom of the page.

Just resurrected a National NCX-3... very well built, and a pretty darned
good receiver in it - realignment to follow.

Tom - W?EAJ

From waltah at earthlink.net  Thu Apr 13 13:19:00 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Thu Apr 13 14:42:45 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
In-Reply-To: <3b6.1b1738.316fd896@aol.com>
Message-ID: <443E4FC4.2208.691FC2E@localhost>

Dan said:
> I remember buying a Collins mechanical filter from the Collins
> tech-rep when I was stationed at McDill AFB in Tampa Florida in
> 1963.  It cost me $35 (his cost) when that would buy a week's
> worth of groceries for the whole  family.  That was a LOT of money
> -- call it $200 today. 

That sounds right to me.   'Amateur net' would have been higher, I believe. 

Now I'm gonna take a break from email to go work on a home brew receiver! 
Or rather, two of them -- still tidying up and drawing the diagram for the 
band imaging receiver as I start the layout for the general coverage version. 

Walt 
KJ4KV
From N2EY at aol.com  Thu Apr 13 23:03:14 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Thu Apr 13 23:04:14 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question
Message-ID: <30d.2d982fa.31706af2@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/13/06 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
waltah@earthlink.net writes:


> Jim said:
> > It would be interesting to know how much the various HBRs cost to build
> > from new parts back when they appeared. The 898 dial, for example, cost
> > about $21 new, which works out to maybe $100 in today's money? 
> > 
> > A total-cost estimate would be needed before you could make an honest
> > comparison.
> 
> I don't think I have the catalogs anymore so someone else would have to do 
> the comparaison.  However the 898 dial wasn't in the original design -- it 
> used an ACN or something like that, which is much cheaper.   

I have the 1959 Newark catalog. Some quick figuring comes up with about $150 
for the HBR-16, less coils. At $6 per band for the coils, you're up to $180. 
Those figures are probably low because of incidentals I missed. 

$180 was a lot of 1959 dollars. 

The SCN dial was $7 and the 898 $21. 

Of course a ham with any sort of junkbox or access to surplus could make big 
dents in those price totals. But one of the qualities of the HBRs was the "all 
new parts" concept.

> 
> I believe the Collins ham-grade filters used in the 'advanced receiver' of 
> the 1969 handbook were around $75 when they were in new production; I 
> do remember that they were horribly expensive.   
> 

Lafayette sold a Japanese mechanical filter for a lot less. Not as good, of 
course, but still usable. The later HB receivers used it, as did some 
transmitters.

FT-241 xtals were three for $2 back then. 


> >> The only real station receiver is the DCS-500 of 1960 +/-.  
> 
> > What about W2LYH's "Sectionalized Communications Receiver"?
> 
> I don't remember hearing of the W2LYH design -- reference please?   
> 

QST October 1961 IIRC



> > Is the DCS-500 that much harder to build than an HBR? Sure,
> > there's the bandwidth switch, and the modified width coils, but the
> > rest is all the same. 
> 
> I'd say that it was considerably harder to build because of those features. 
> Switches in the IFs are not like the power ON-OFF switch and you can't 
> exactly tell a new builder how to do it -- "keep your switch close to the 
> points switched, keep leads short, watch out for signals propagating along 
> the switch shaft." 

Pictures! The DCS-500 article shows how to do it in the pictures! And at 50 
kc, it's not as critical as on higher frequencies.

Look at the bottom view of the HBR-16....

There's also the cost factor. Those width coils cost less than the special 
Miller 100 kc IF units.



>  You would know what all that means in terms of what 
> you do, but most second-set (after a two-tube regen) builders wouldn't.
> 

The DCS-500 article clearly shows the layout. 



> > The HBR tradeoff was to settle for one IF selectivity setting for
> > all modes. That's quite a tradeoff, unless you only use modes that
> > match the bandwidth chosen. Audio selectivity just doesn't cut it
> > unless it's a backup to good IF selectivity. IMHO, the lack of
> > attention to mode-appropriate selectivity was a major tradeoff in
> > the HBR designs. 
> 
> However, it was a familar trade-off to hams of the day.   A 3 kcs-wide IF, 
> with reasonably good shape factor (as the HBRs had) was a lot better for 
> CW than what many of us used in those days and any of the usual audio 
> selectivity circuits (the FL-8 'range filter,' Select-o-ject etc.) would 
> have 
> made it a MAJOR step up.   
> 

Perhaps, but not the point. A 1959 ham could do a lot better if s/he knew 
what to do. 


> The goal wasn't to outdo or even equal an S-line or Drake set, it was to 
> design a receiver that could serve as a general purpose station receiver for 
> 
> the majority of ham uses AND COULD BE BUILT BY ALMOST ANYONE 
> WITH THE INTEREST.
> 

There's that term again - station receiver.  For $150+ in 1959, it should 
have real CW selectivity, not just 'phone selectivity. 

I don't see the big difference in 'buildabilty" between the HBRs and, say, 
the DCS-500 or the later HB receivers. 

> Don said:
> > I gotta say "ouch" to Walt though. All my tube stations are made
> > for CW. I can't find any reason for including AM and little for
> > SSB. I know that makes my tube receivers much easier to build.
> > Working CW on a HB station is so much fun for me. I love cold
> > winter nights with a heater on in the shack. The lights are down
> > low and I'm working CW on my tube station. I used to fall asleep in
> > my dads shack some nights while he would be enjoying the same
> > experience. I guess it is hereditary. 
> 
> I am sorry, I didn't mean to put down any sort of specialized station -- we 
> all have areas of more interest and others that are less so. 

Agreed. 

But in the HBR and most of the Handbook receivers, the assumption seems to be 
that CW selectivity isn't important enough to include in the design. But AGC 
and S-meters are!

  What I was 
> 
> trying to get at was that the HBR series was intended to be a reasonable 
> 'jack of all trades' while remaining buildable.   Certainly specialized 
> interests justify specialized equipment -- or much more expensive general 
> purpose sets, able to do several things very well.  
> 

But is/was CW really a specialized interest? I don't think so! 

> Except that I prefer SSB or AM, I share your love of late night, lights 
> down 
> operation.   It's mostly listening these days -- I can never find the time 
> to 
> keep a transmiting station operational -- but maybe in another year or so.  
> 
> > Some of my favorite books are the SSB for the Radio Amateur series.
> 
> Those are great; I've spent hours on the W5OMX and W9BIY/W9IHT 
> receivers and more time reading the theory and other articles. 

The W5OMX design is pretty good, but note that it suffers from significant 
numbers of spurs.


  I also like 
> 
> the RSGB Radio Communications Handbooks, 4th and 5th editions.   And the 
> 3rd edition too -- the title is different and I can't recall it at the 
> moment.   
> Unfortunately the dog shared my taste on that one, so my wonderful wife is 
> looking for a replacement for one of my favorite birthday gifts of all time.
> 
> Darell said:
> > Before we get too carried away with Ted's genius, I would suggest
> > taking a look at page 39 of the March 1956 QST. Bob Cole, W4RLC
> > pointed this article out to me several years ago. Although Ted may
> > have inspired many to build the receiver, it certainly wasn't an
> > original design. 
> 
> That's pretty much the same receiver.   So why don't we use 'W9HLH' when 
> talking about the design?   Why isn't W6TC a footnote to THAT story, 
> rather than the other way 'round?   
> 

Because W6TC gave more details. And he did a series of articles, not just 
one. Had the HBR-14 been a one-off, history might be different.

> History is full of these cases:   "A" invents it but his name is unknown 
> because "B" made it popular.   Sometimes the reason for the seeming oddity 
> is just luck -- the market wasn't ready.   In this case, however, I think 
> that 
> the reason is the more common one:  Ted Crosby was a better salesman and 
> communicator for the design.   The first builder pitched his article to the 
> usual builder of receivers -- the ham who didn't need the details of how you 
> 
> wind plug in coils or anything more than a general description and photos of 
> 
> the parts layout.   W6TC PROVIDED those details, thus making the design 
> accessible to a much larger group.  
> 

Not just W6TC, though. QST gave his articles enough room in the mag so that 
those details could be included. There were followups and more articles over 
the years. 

> You can also give him credit for picking that design as the starting point 
> for 
> his own:  It wasn't his idea, but he knew a good idea when he saw it. 
> 

The basic concept really started much earlier - 1950 or so - with the 
Hallicrafters S-76 and similar receivers. Only major differences were the use of plug 
in coils and the lack of adjustable selectivity.


> On the other hand, I'd say the W9HLH design is a bit 'slicker' than the 
> early HBR-series.   All miniature tubes, a more 'basic' design.   The 9-tube 
> 
> count doesn't include a rectifier or VR tube; they're in the HBR-series 
> numbers.   
> 
> 
> >> W6TC was a gifted radio designer.  
> 
> > No argument there! But his designs involve *his* choice of tradeoffs.
> 
> There's probably some element of 'agree to disagree' here.   I find his 
> trade-offs admirable in themselves because they led to a receiver that was 
> both useful to many hams and could be built by many, rather than being 
> specific to his own mode of operation.   

But it *was* specific to 'phone operation! The DCS-500 and a few other 
receivers showed that 500 cycle IF selectivity wasn't hard to do. 


His goal, in other words, was a 
> 
> public rather than a personal one.   Then and now, that was uncommon.


I think the goal developed over time.

The HBR-14 has some 'junkbox roots'. It uses some tubes and parts that 
weren't current in their time - metals and such. The reaction caused him to come up 
with the HBR-16 and HBR-8/11, and to support them with more info. 

73 de Jim, N2EY

From Bill at LizCurtisHiggs.com  Sat Apr 15 09:57:08 2006
From: Bill at LizCurtisHiggs.com (Bill Higgs)
Date: Sat Apr 15 09:58:14 2006
Subject: [HBR] Source for older radio books
Message-ID: <0df401c66094$7cb06880$6600a8c0@BILLDESKTOP>


For Walt and the others looking for the older titles; RSGB handbooks, Orr's 
Radio Handbook, etc.

Try www.alibris.com. This is a consortium of used booksellers, with a good 
search facility. A search on the topic "amateur radio" turned up well over 
100 titles, several with multiple copies available. My 1971 copy of the RSBG 
handbook was obtained through this source for about $20 a couple of years 
back, as was my 1950 and 1963 ARRL Handbooks (under $10 each!).

By the way, work on the HBR-?? is continuing, but slowly, due to work 
responsibilities. The RF stage, local oscillator, and first mixer are 
working nicely, the second mixer and oscillator (6U8) is complete but 
untested, and the BFO (using the old BC-453 BFO coil with half of a 12AU7) 
is BFOing just where it should be, variable +/- about 3kc either side of 
85kc. (I'm using the other half of the 12AU7 as a phase splitter, hoping to 
drive the deflection plates of a 6JH8 as a product detector in push-pull. 
Anybody tried this?) Next step is to finish the 85kc IFs, and get them 
working. Maybe this weekend. Or next...

I've tried the front end output at 1600kc as a converter to feed my ICOM 
718; stable as a rock on both 80 and 40.

By the way, I did the BFO first for use as a signal generator to test and 
align the IFs. My regular signal generator only goes down to 100kc, and my 
audio generator only goes up to 60kc. Murphy's law...

As soon as I get a bit further along, I'll put some images on the web.

Good to see all the activity on the forum!


Bill, NT4C 


From richard.arland at verizon.net  Sun Apr 16 08:17:09 2006
From: richard.arland at verizon.net (Rich Arland)
Date: Sun Apr 16 08:18:46 2006
Subject: [HBR] Re: HBR Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13
References: <20060416080101.477D0859DC1@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <008401c6614f$af7922a0$6501a8c0@i0a8r4>

Hi Bill:

Happy Holiday!

It is postings like this that keep me fired up. I need all the inspiriation
I can get to get working on my HBR-8.

Keep up the postings!

73 Rich K7SZ

PS: Thanks for the heads up on the book outlet. I am ALWAYS on the look out
for older books on radio. As a matter of fact, I am in need of several
titles by Howard S. Pyle, W7OE from the late 50s into the mid 60s. I will
try your source for these.



> By the way, work on the HBR-?? is continuing, but slowly, due to work
> responsibilities. The RF stage, local oscillator, and first mixer are
> working nicely, the second mixer and oscillator (6U8) is complete but
> untested, and the BFO (using the old BC-453 BFO coil with half of a 12AU7)
> is BFOing just where it should be, variable +/- about 3kc either side of
> 85kc. (I'm using the other half of the 12AU7 as a phase splitter, hoping
to
> drive the deflection plates of a 6JH8 as a product detector in push-pull.
> Anybody tried this?) Next step is to finish the 85kc IFs, and get them
> working. Maybe this weekend. Or next...

From waltah at earthlink.net  Sun Apr 16 10:29:57 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Sun Apr 16 10:29:59 2006
Subject: [HBR] Source for older radio books
In-Reply-To: <0df401c66094$7cb06880$6600a8c0@BILLDESKTOP>
Message-ID: <44421CA5.7970.CBDDAEB@localhost>

Bill said:
> Try www.alibris.com. This is a consortium of used booksellers, with a good
> search facility.

I have bought from them in the past; thanks for the reminder.

> I'm using the other half of the 12AU7 as a phase splitter, hoping
> to drive the deflection plates of a 6JH8 as a product detector in
> push-pull. Anybody tried this?  

I haven't tried it but I think the phase inverter approach will work okay.  
It's only the difference that matters to the deflection plates, so if the two 
signals aren't quite equal or exactly 180 degrees out of phase, it'll still 
work fine.  

Hummm ... which signal are you applying at which input?   In a beam tube 
product detector I'd think it was natural to put the IF signal on the 
deflection plates, in which case balance is pretty easily achieved without a 
phase inverter by replacing the single cap tuning the final IFT with a pair 
of equal caps of double the size in series to creat an RF center tap.    Then 
you put the VFO signal on the control grid of the 6JH8.   

In fact you can use the 6JH8 control and screen grids as a triode to do the 
BFO job, thus saving a whole tube socket.   I think this circuit is in many of 
the usual references.

Rich said:
> It is postings like this that keep me fired up. I need all the
> inspiriation I can get to get working on my HBR-8. 

Me too!   Still diagramming and checking out mistakes in the 7-tube band 
imaging project: it never ceases to amaze me how often a radio works better 
when wired as you intended than when hooked up as connected.   

I average one wiring error per socket.   Well ... not counting routinely using 
pins 3-4 of a 9 pin socket for the filaments.    Since I always fix that 
before the filaments light up, I don't think it counts, do you?

Then there's the general coverage project.    That one's still in the thrashing 
about stage as I try to be sure I've got the best conversion scheme.   

> Keep up the postings!

Yes, definitely -- KEEP UP THE POSTINGS.

Walt
KJ4KV
From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 16 21:37:35 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (Danae Ford)
Date: Sun Apr 16 22:22:26 2006
Subject: [HBR] HB rcvr
Message-ID: <000a01c661bf$826765e0$de9ca8d1@oemcomputer>

I would like a monoband cw rcvr for 80 meters.  It was suggested that I post here, for comments, etc.  I want to use all metal tubes, mainly because thats what i have the most of along with octal sockets.   Heres my line up,

1) 6SH7 RF amp   2) 6K8 or 6SA7/6C5 mixer, 3) 6SK7 IF amp.  4) 6AC7 detector

5) 6J5 bfo  6)  6SC7 Audio amp.

I'm open to comments,  Keith.
From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 16 22:29:56 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (keith ford)
Date: Sun Apr 16 22:31:15 2006
Subject: [HBR] test message
Message-ID: <20060417022956.85521.qmail@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


  testing,   Keith.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
From Bill at LizCurtisHiggs.com  Sun Apr 16 22:52:37 2006
From: Bill at LizCurtisHiggs.com (Bill Higgs)
Date: Sun Apr 16 22:53:56 2006
Subject: [HBR] HBR Under Construction - info and pix
Message-ID: <00ff01c661c9$fc9d5d10$6600a8c0@BILLDESKTOP>

    Kurt, W6PH, asked for some pix of the HBR under construction at NT4C. I 
have
    posted a page of pix here:

    http://www.lizcurtishiggs.com/special/HBR/index.htm

    I would also be happy to have these downloaded and added to the 
collection,
    if interested.

    73,
    Bill, NT4C 


From dkelly42 at cox.net  Mon Apr 17 22:13:48 2006
From: dkelly42 at cox.net (Don)
Date: Mon Apr 17 20:10:00 2006
Subject: [HBR] HBR Under Construction - info and pix
Message-ID: <000001c6628d$bbe2c6b0$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>

Bill,

Very nice. You must be very pleased. What a wonderful job you have done
so far. The metal work is great and certainly has met your design goal
for a classic BA appearance. Thank you for the preview. And since I am
mechanically inept, thank you for some good ideas for future projects.
Metal work in not one of my best skills. Thank goodness for greenlee
punches, Online Metals and Bud chassis. I would be interested in knowing
how well the toroids work for the input and how well the IF homebrew IF
transformer functions.

This weekend I worked on a tube transmitter recently built. I rebuilt
the power supply and mounted certain circuits and HV lines in a safer
manner. I raised the plate voltage on the 6146 from 560 to 750VDC. I was
using the 400ct from an 800VCT transformer with a capacitive input
filter. Voltage regulation was ok but the whole supply was not very
safely built. Also, I was using dropping resistors to reduce the voltage
from 560vdc to 300vdc for the plates of the 5763 buffer and 5763 driver.
Again, not very good technique. Certainly not efficient with lots of
waste in the form of heat. 

I replaced the former setup with a 550VCT transfomer and a bridge
rectifier for 750vdc and used the center tap for 300vdc. I also
connected two as yet unused regulator tubes for 180vdc for the 6146
screen. All this meant replacing the filter capacitors and re-routing
some HV lines. Even though I raised the power out from 45W to 65W the
rig runs cooler.


I have been reading about all the new and underconstruction tube
projects here on this site while working on a solid state SSB
transceiver. It was fun to do some tube homebrew. 

What's in your workshop?


Don K5UOS






From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Tue Apr 18 22:54:14 2006
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 18 22:55:46 2006
Subject: [HBR] HBR Under Construction - info and pix
Message-ID: <343.2ff59ea.31770056@aol.com>

 

I enjoyed looking at those pictures, too.  Great job.  I too  wondered about 
the connection of the beam deflection tube.  The one I put  in the BC-348 
years ago (I still have it) is connected as Walt described, and  has the self 
oscillating BFO.
 
You caused me to laugh at memories of  a power supply I used with my  first 
6146 rig.  I was about 19 years old then and in the Air  Force.  Talk about 
unsafe!  The power supply was built in a  wooden orange crate box and had old 
wall switches for the power and  stand-by switch functions.  Actually they were 
ceramic switches --  probably the safest part of the station.  It sat under the 
operating  table.  I had a 100 ohm resistor haywired in line to discharge the 
filter  caps to help keep from blasting the speaker when switching back to  
receive.  One time the resistor blew up and the 600  volt wire went flying 
loose back under there  somewhere!  At first I didn't know what happened, of 
course.  That was  a great rig.  I needed money, so I ran an ad in the Tampa 
Tribune  and a young novice came to look at it with his mother.  I don't remember if 
 I had improved the power supply by then or not.  I remember that the rig  
was only VFO.  So to sell it I asked for a couple of days to build a  crystal 
oscillator circuit into it.  (Novices had to use crystal control  back then.)  
They came back in a few days and bought it for, I think,  $30.  I felt a little 
guilty for asking so much for it.  This was in  1963.  Sure wish I still had 
it.  It had a built in modulator using a  pair of 6L6s, and an ARC-5 VFO that 
was so stable that when I broke in to a  local SSB QSO, one of them came back 
and asked where I got the new SSB  rig.  They didn't realize that I was on AM 
until one of them  tuned off frequency and heard the carrier.
 
I was receiving on a BC-453 with a crystal convertor as in Jan. 1960  CQ.  
That thing was so stable that you could literally slam it up and  down on the 
table without the note changing but a fraction of a cycle.  (We  had cycles back 
then.)  Every novice should have had that kind of stability  in a CW 
receiver.  Ah, but that's another story.... 
 
Sorry for the off topic reply.  Do not archive, etc., etc.
 
Dan K9WEK
 
 
In a message dated 4/17/2006 8:09:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
dkelly42@cox.net writes:


This  weekend I worked on a tube transmitter recently built. I rebuilt
the power  supply and mounted certain circuits and HV lines in a safer
manner. I  raised the plate voltage on the 6146 from 560 to 750VDC. I was
using the  400ct from an 800VCT transformer with a capacitive input
filter. Voltage  regulation was ok but the whole supply was not very
safely built. Also, I  was using dropping resistors to reduce the voltage
from 560vdc to 300vdc  for the plates of the 5763 buffer and 5763 driver.
Again, not very good  technique. Certainly not efficient with lots of
waste in the form of heat.  





From waltah at earthlink.net  Wed Apr 19 23:06:10 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Wed Apr 19 23:06:24 2006
Subject: [HBR] HB rcvr
In-Reply-To: <000a01c661bf$826765e0$de9ca8d1@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <4446C262.15496.2D4F736@localhost>

Keith asks:
> I would like a monoband cw rcvr for 80 meters.  It was suggested that I
> post here, for comments, etc.  I want to use all metal tubes, mainly
> because thats what i have the most of along with octal sockets.   Heres my
> line up,
> 
> 1) 6SH7 RF amp   2) 6K8 or 6SA7/6C5 mixer, 3) 6SK7 IF amp.  4) 6AC7
> detector 5) 6J5 bfo  6)  6SC7 Audio amp.

Just a few comments:

1.  I'd be inclined to use a 6SG7 rather than a 6SH7 for the RF stage.   
Semi-remote cutoff instead of sharp cutoff, with similar gain.  

You'll probably provide RF and/or IF gain controls.   If you use the same 
type tube in both places (two 6SK7's or two 6SG7's) you have the option of 
putting a single pot in the common cathode return line while if the tubes 
have different cutoff voltages (those three tubes do) you shouldn't do that 
as one will cut off ahead of the other, possibly causing you a distortion 
problem.   

Frankly, I think I'd try a 6SK7s in both sockets as they will handle larger 
signals.   If you really need more gain, 6SG7s are a direct substitution.

2.  HI Q ANTENNA AND RF COILS!   Don't skimp here -- unless you're 
going to cheat and go with toroids, use the biggest forms and the heaviest 
wire you can.   That will give you higher gain, so you can loosen the coupling 
to the antenna meaning better RF selectivity and less trouble with mixer 
overloading.   You have to be careful about coupling between the two coils 
causing instability of the RF amp.

3.  As I remember, the 6K8 is a memorably noisy mixer.   (Mid 1930's tube, I 
think ...)   I'd go with a 6SA7/6C5 or even a 6SB7 -- about twice the 
conversion transconductance as I recall, and even better compared to the 
6K8.

Mixer noise isn't generally an issue on 80 meters, but low gain can be -- at 
the least, by forcing you to use a better antenna or tighter coupling.    With 
just one IF stage I don't think you have enough gain for AGC -- but that's 
probably the way you planned things. 

What kind of detector circuit are you using?  Will you be providing 
selectivity beyond the 12 kcs BW one would expect with a couple of 455 
kcs IFTs?   This would be an ideal design to use some audio selectivity.

Definitely a classic 1946 design!   

Walt Hutchens
KJ4KV


From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 20 12:48:25 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (keith ford)
Date: Thu Apr 20 12:50:04 2006
Subject: [HBR] HB rcvr
In-Reply-To: <4446C262.15496.2D4F736@localhost>
Message-ID: <20060420164825.69476.qmail@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

All these tubes are metal and came from old trashed
out BCB rcvrs.  I do have some glass equivalents/
versions.  I have the IFT's from all the rcvrs.  

I've decided to build in modules to ease in changing
circuits and trying different circuits.  At least that
way i can check each module as i complete it ( I hope
). 

I have not decided on which detector to use, the HB's
show at least 4 different ones.  With the modular
build i can try each one and decide which i like best.
 

I'm trying to locate some old QST articles on crystal
filters.  I've a large lot of 241's that seem as
though they would make a good filter.

I'll look for the 6SG&7's and in the meanwhile i'll
use the 6SK7's.

Thanks keith.

--- "Walter A. Hutchens" <waltah@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Keith asks:
> > I would like a monoband cw rcvr for 80 meters.  It
> was suggested that I
> > post here, for comments, etc.  I want to use all
> metal tubes, mainly
> > because thats what i have the most of along with
> octal sockets.   Heres my
> > line up,
> > 
> > 1) 6SH7 RF amp   2) 6K8 or 6SA7/6C5 mixer, 3) 6SK7
> IF amp.  4) 6AC7
> > detector 5) 6J5 bfo  6)  6SC7 Audio amp.
> 
> Just a few comments:
> 
> 1.  I'd be inclined to use a 6SG7 rather than a 6SH7
> for the RF stage.   
> Semi-remote cutoff instead of sharp cutoff, with
> similar gain.  
> 
> You'll probably provide RF and/or IF gain controls. 
>  If you use the same 
> type tube in both places (two 6SK7's or two 6SG7's)
> you have the option of 
> putting a single pot in the common cathode return
> line while if the tubes 
> have different cutoff voltages (those three tubes
> do) you shouldn't do that 
> as one will cut off ahead of the other, possibly
> causing you a distortion 
> problem.   
> 
> Frankly, I think I'd try a 6SK7s in both sockets as
> they will handle larger 
> signals.   If you really need more gain, 6SG7s are a
> direct substitution.
> 
> 2.  HI Q ANTENNA AND RF COILS!   Don't skimp here --
> unless you're 
> going to cheat and go with toroids, use the biggest
> forms and the heaviest 
> wire you can.   That will give you higher gain, so
> you can loosen the coupling 
> to the antenna meaning better RF selectivity and
> less trouble with mixer 
> overloading.   You have to be careful about coupling
> between the two coils 
> causing instability of the RF amp.
> 
> 3.  As I remember, the 6K8 is a memorably noisy
> mixer.   (Mid 1930's tube, I 
> think ...)   I'd go with a 6SA7/6C5 or even a 6SB7
> -- about twice the 
> conversion transconductance as I recall, and even
> better compared to the 
> 6K8.
> 
> Mixer noise isn't generally an issue on 80 meters,
> but low gain can be -- at 
> the least, by forcing you to use a better antenna or
> tighter coupling.    With 
> just one IF stage I don't think you have enough gain
> for AGC -- but that's 
> probably the way you planned things. 
> 
> What kind of detector circuit are you using?  Will
> you be providing 
> selectivity beyond the 12 kcs BW one would expect
> with a couple of 455 
> kcs IFTs?   This would be an ideal design to use
> some audio selectivity.
> 
> Definitely a classic 1946 design!   
> 
> Walt Hutchens
> KJ4KV
> 
> 
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100
> pictures of receivers and 
> construction notes...... via
> http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at
> http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>  
> 
> Retrieve reflector archived data via
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
From shoppa_hbr at trailing-edge.com  Thu Apr 20 20:30:42 2006
From: shoppa_hbr at trailing-edge.com (shoppa_hbr@trailing-edge.com)
Date: Thu Apr 20 20:32:22 2006
Subject: [HBR] RE: Jay's Story
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F40DA885770E09FD315DE8AC1CD0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY104-F40DA885770E09FD315DE8AC1CD0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20060421003042.3B2DA104000A@mini-me.trailing-edge.com>

"Bruce Wright" <shortwaves@msn.com> wrote:
> Among the recent postings here, someone wrote (and to paraphrase) that there 
> were more interesting articles in one issue of QST from the 1950's than a 
> whole year of the current version...That is a statement I find not only true 
>   but also a telling clue as to where, perhaps, the collective mind-set has 
> drifted or moved on to with regard to the "nuts and bolts" of our hobby.
>
> When I was but twelve years old, in 1957, those first HBR articles appeared 
> and I was at that point not anywhere near to understanding them but they 
> captured my imagination.

In a different context, someone once defined the "Golden Era" of anything
as being what was done when you were reading when you were 12 years old.

> would come in 1958) and listening to W1AW code practice sessions on 80 and 
> 40 with my freshly built Knight Space Spanner (which, by the way was my 
> first "communications" receiver!)

I came along a number of years later but the Space Spanner was my first
too :-).

Tim.
From windy10605 at juno.com  Sat Apr 22 15:28:15 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Sat Apr 22 15:33:57 2006
Subject: [HBR] Belton Swapfest
Message-ID: <20060422.142947.208.1.windy10605@juno.com>

Just got back from the Belton, Tx swapfest. The outside parking lot was
pretty full this morning, inside was never fully filled, looked like
attendance was down some (what's new) but there was still plenty of
buying and selling to keep everyone happy and also meeting lots of
acquaintances. I handed out Austin Summerfest flyers (1st weekend August)
and had a table in a "cool area" inside. Great weather, good food
afterwards. Tables/spaces indoors were $15 and $5 outside, general
admission was $2. I had lots of "FREE" boxes under the table. Still
selling lots of stuff before the seller gets to his table.

Seen (some bought):
---------------------
Heathkit Maurauder in good condition $25...sold
Heathkit Apache in great condition $100....sold
Heathkit HW-101 with PS and man in good condition $125, $150,
$175....none sold ?
Heathkit HW-5400 in ? condition $50....sold
BC-348 rackmount $25....sold
Drake 2C in really excellent condition $125....sold
Butternut verticle $10....sold
S40A working $70....not sold 
Homebrew dual 813 Linear $?.....sold
Rack cabinet (short) $20....sold
Antenna Tuners $10-$150....~50% sold
JR computer R/C radio with receiver on 6m $50....sold
Tubes for $1 each or whole box for $20 (~100 tubes)....many sold
Johnson Viking II in "restorable" condition $75....sold
Johnson Viking I in so-so condition $125....not sold
Collins 180S tuner nice conditon with manual $150....not sold ?
Hallicrafters HT-33 restored ~$550....sold twice
Heathkit 6m transceiver $30....sold
**TWO** of the "KWM-2 clone" transceivers from GE Ham News 
     also found the builder of one of them.....sold
 
Looks like the "Item-of-today's-fest" was the Heathkit Linear, must have
seen ~10 of those green suckers for sale 

One guy commented that a few weeks ago at a local church rummage sale
they auctioned off --4-- Viking IIs, and they went for VERY little.
You never know.

73 Kees K5BCQ
   
From waltah at earthlink.net  Sun Apr 23 23:30:18 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Sun Apr 23 23:30:55 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report
Message-ID: <444C0E0A.2506.4148A32@localhost>

The little 7-tube (6 + rectifier) receiver which I am calling the R8040A 
since it is basically a major makeover of one I build in 1993 is pretty much 
done; the diagram needs only the BFO and how hard can that be?

I do need to study the software around here to see what I've got to do a 
computer drawn diagram.   If anyone has a cheap or free suggestion, I'd be 
glad to hear it.

I measured drift: starting a minute after turn-on it went down about 100 
cps then back up about 70 at about half an hour, then very slow wandering.  
This is excellent for such a casually laid out oscillator.   But it's very high-C 
and tunes 1350-1950 kcs so the tube is all but out of the circuit.   A bit 
more tinkering to get the heat to the compensating capacitor just a bit more 
quickly will finish that up.   

Intermodulation distortion measurements are in order and I should check 
the sensitivity.   The latter is good enough though -- you can copy stronger 
signals with no antenna at all in the evening.   The S-meter doesn't move and 
you have to turn the audio way up, but the 4" or so of wiring to the front 
panel terminal for a short antenna is enough.  

The basic plan for a general coverage receiver using the R8040A design as 
an IF seems to be complete.   The plan is to cover 1.75-31.75 Mcs in 250kcs 
bands.  250 kcs wide bands (rather than 500 kcs or 1 Mcs) make 
management of spurs easier as well as allowing a lower tuning rate without 
using the most expensive gearing.  

They key ideas of the G2DAF Mk 2 design are (1) use of push-pull front end 
to minimize intermodulation distortion, and (2) a below-unity gain RF stage, 
included only to allow AGC ahead of the first mixer.   The push-pull front 
end is incorporated in the GC-HBR; with AGC on the mixer stages (it worked 
fine in the R8040A) an RF stage isn't essential.

The fixed (2nd) IF will be 4.096 Mcs (instead of 5.4, I have some surplus 
4.3 Mcs IFTs that will work), the LO will tune about 1.454-1.704 mcs, 
making the variable (1st) IF 5.550-5.800 Mcs.   I have a four section AM-
FM BC tuning cap; two sections are 32-370 mmf which will be used to tune 
the push-pull oscillator; the other two sections are ~30-50 mmf and I'll use 
them to tune the variable IF.   A big toroid will have a Q of > 200, meaning 
quite a bit of rejection of unwanted signals into the 2nd mixer.   

Up to that point the circuits are identical to the R8040A.

The first mixer will be a 6922 -- a dual triode very similar to the 12AT7 but 
with a Gm of 12,500 which is about 3x higher.   Like the R8040A the grid 
circuit will have a single tuned circuit feeding the grids in push-pull.   A 
double section BC cap will cover the range ~1.75 Mcs - 31.75 Mcs in three 
ranges, something like 1.75-6-18-32.

With only one tuned circuit ahead of the first mixer, there will be some 
break through at the first IF but this is entirely tolerable in the R8040A -- 
one can either use an antenna that doesn't have high gain on the unwanted 
frequency or use a trap in the antenna lead.   

The first conversion (to the 5.550-5.800 Mcs IF) will be crystal controlled.  
For a ham band only receiver you'd switch in a different crystal for each 
ham band.   What I plan is to synthesize a crystal controlled frequency from 
7.550 to 37.300 in 250 kcs steps by multiplying a selected crystal from the 
120 crystal set for the BC-1335 (5.675-8.650 Mcs in 25 kcs steps) by 10 
and subtracting a fixed frequency of 49.2 Mcs.   Overtone crystal for that 
one -- no need for a whole 'nuther chain of harmonics.

Compared to the usual overtone oscillator circuit this very simpleminded 
synthesizer adds considerably to the complexity (two more tubes) but it's 
worth it to be able to get continuous coverage with crystals that are on 
hand.   It's impossible to calculate all the spurious signals in a set of this 
kind but there aren't a heck of a lot and none of the obvious ones 
(harmonics of LO passing through an IF, fundamental crystal frequencies) 
are in a ham band.

The plan is to provide internal sockets for six crystals covering the five real 
ham bands 160-10 with two on 10.  That will be two ham bands per front end 
range, plus a socket on the panel for any desired other crystal.  

It will be necessary to gang tune three circuits in the synthesizer according 
to the selected crystal.   These will also have to be bandswitched.   

The layout is something of a mess because of shielding and connection 
requirements but I think the issues are manageable; the toughest looks like 
finding room for all the stuff that has to be hooked to the bandswitch.   A 
fallback position is to just provide the one crystal socket on the panel as 
that would eliminate the switching of crystals, mounting of the sockets in 
the scarcest part of the chassis real estate, and the need for an 
INTERNAL/EXTERNAL switch.   

I think there'll be room for the internal sockets.   That's a more polished 
scheme.

I have a Miller MD-7 dial which would work (and takes very little space), 
but the two-speed tuning is annoying and I'd rather have a more positive 
drive for this.   I also have an Eddystone 898 but 100:1 (=5 kcs/revolution) 
is a rather slow rate.  I want easy tuning of SSB signals, no backlash, etc.   
I've looked at assorted military junk, thought about string drives -- 50:1 
doesn't  seem wise with a string and the 1-1/2" drum I have on hand.    Still 
thinking about the dial -- probably the MD-7 will get the nod.

Does anyone have experience with string drives at ~50:1?   What about a 5:1 
ball drive and a 10:1 string drive?   Not too complicated and with a 1-1/2" 
drum the string drive shaft would be a bit over 1/8" -- not unreasonably 
small.

(I did consider 500 kcs bands but ruled them out because I wasn't able to 
get rid of the spurs without using a higher LO frequency.   You just can't 
get the stability at 8 or 9 Mcs that you can at 1.5 Mcs.)
 
There are always complications.   We'll see how it goes.

Walt 
KJ4KV
From richard.arland at verizon.net  Mon Apr 24 07:57:45 2006
From: richard.arland at verizon.net (Rich Arland)
Date: Mon Apr 24 07:59:53 2006
Subject: [HBR] Re: HBR Digest, Vol 26, Issue 20
References: <20060424080120.91C3185A30B@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <001c01c66796$4d596f60$6501a8c0@i0a8r4>

Walt:

Congrats on the progress with your "new" receiver.

As for software, try a Google on "tube cad". I remember seeing and hearing
about it, I think on the Glowbugs reflector, but not sure. This stuff is
freeware and some of the things I have seen using it are pretty nice
looking.

GL es 73

Rich K7SZ

From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 24 15:22:57 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (keith ford)
Date: Mon Apr 24 15:25:01 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report
In-Reply-To: <444C0E0A.2506.4148A32@localhost>
Message-ID: <20060424192257.29628.qmail@web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

 There is a freeaware called tubepad.  i'll have to
look up garys site for the link. ifyour interested.
 
 keith.

--- "Walter A. Hutchens" <waltah@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The little 7-tube (6 + rectifier) receiver which I
> am calling the R8040A 
> since it is basically a major makeover of one I
> build in 1993 is pretty much 
> done; the diagram needs only the BFO and how hard
> can that be?
> 
> I do need to study the software around here to see
> what I've got to do a 
> computer drawn diagram.   If anyone has a cheap or
> free suggestion, I'd be 
> glad to hear it.
> 
> I measured drift: starting a minute after turn-on it
> went down about 100 
> cps then back up about 70 at about half an hour,
> then very slow wandering.  
> This is excellent for such a casually laid out
> oscillator.   But it's very high-C 
> and tunes 1350-1950 kcs so the tube is all but out
> of the circuit.   A bit 
> more tinkering to get the heat to the compensating
> capacitor just a bit more 
> quickly will finish that up.   
> 
> Intermodulation distortion measurements are in order
> and I should check 
> the sensitivity.   The latter is good enough though
> -- you can copy stronger 
> signals with no antenna at all in the evening.   The
> S-meter doesn't move and 
> you have to turn the audio way up, but the 4" or so
> of wiring to the front 
> panel terminal for a short antenna is enough.  
> 
> The basic plan for a general coverage receiver using
> the R8040A design as 
> an IF seems to be complete.   The plan is to cover
> 1.75-31.75 Mcs in 250kcs 
> bands.  250 kcs wide bands (rather than 500 kcs or 1
> Mcs) make 
> management of spurs easier as well as allowing a
> lower tuning rate without 
> using the most expensive gearing.  
> 
> They key ideas of the G2DAF Mk 2 design are (1) use
> of push-pull front end 
> to minimize intermodulation distortion, and (2) a
> below-unity gain RF stage, 
> included only to allow AGC ahead of the first mixer.
>   The push-pull front 
> end is incorporated in the GC-HBR; with AGC on the
> mixer stages (it worked 
> fine in the R8040A) an RF stage isn't essential.
> 
> The fixed (2nd) IF will be 4.096 Mcs (instead of
> 5.4, I have some surplus 
> 4.3 Mcs IFTs that will work), the LO will tune about
> 1.454-1.704 mcs, 
> making the variable (1st) IF 5.550-5.800 Mcs.   I
> have a four section AM-
> FM BC tuning cap; two sections are 32-370 mmf which
> will be used to tune 
> the push-pull oscillator; the other two sections are
> ~30-50 mmf and I'll use 
> them to tune the variable IF.   A big toroid will
> have a Q of > 200, meaning 
> quite a bit of rejection of unwanted signals into
> the 2nd mixer.   
> 
> Up to that point the circuits are identical to the
> R8040A.
> 
> The first mixer will be a 6922 -- a dual triode very
> similar to the 12AT7 but 
> with a Gm of 12,500 which is about 3x higher.   Like
> the R8040A the grid 
> circuit will have a single tuned circuit feeding the
> grids in push-pull.   A 
> double section BC cap will cover the range ~1.75 Mcs
> - 31.75 Mcs in three 
> ranges, something like 1.75-6-18-32.
> 
> With only one tuned circuit ahead of the first
> mixer, there will be some 
> break through at the first IF but this is entirely
> tolerable in the R8040A -- 
> one can either use an antenna that doesn't have high
> gain on the unwanted 
> frequency or use a trap in the antenna lead.   
> 
> The first conversion (to the 5.550-5.800 Mcs IF)
> will be crystal controlled.  
> For a ham band only receiver you'd switch in a
> different crystal for each 
> ham band.   What I plan is to synthesize a crystal
> controlled frequency from 
> 7.550 to 37.300 in 250 kcs steps by multiplying a
> selected crystal from the 
> 120 crystal set for the BC-1335 (5.675-8.650 Mcs in
> 25 kcs steps) by 10 
> and subtracting a fixed frequency of 49.2 Mcs.  
> Overtone crystal for that 
> one -- no need for a whole 'nuther chain of
> harmonics.
> 
> Compared to the usual overtone oscillator circuit
> this very simpleminded 
> synthesizer adds considerably to the complexity (two
> more tubes) but it's 
> worth it to be able to get continuous coverage with
> crystals that are on 
> hand.   It's impossible to calculate all the
> spurious signals in a set of this 
> kind but there aren't a heck of a lot and none of
> the obvious ones 
> (harmonics of LO passing through an IF, fundamental
> crystal frequencies) 
> are in a ham band.
> 
> The plan is to provide internal sockets for six
> crystals covering the five real 
> ham bands 160-10 with two on 10.  That will be two
> ham bands per front end 
> range, plus a socket on the panel for any desired
> other crystal.  
> 
> It will be necessary to gang tune three circuits in
> the synthesizer according 
> to the selected crystal.   These will also have to
> be bandswitched.   
> 
> The layout is something of a mess because of
> shielding and connection 
> requirements but I think the issues are manageable;
> the toughest looks like 
> finding room for all the stuff that has to be hooked
> to the bandswitch.   A 
> fallback position is to just provide the one crystal
> socket on the panel as 
> that would eliminate the switching of crystals,
> mounting of the sockets in 
> the scarcest part of the chassis real estate, and
> the need for an 
> INTERNAL/EXTERNAL switch.   
> 
> I think there'll be room for the internal sockets.  
> That's a more polished 
> scheme.
> 
> I have a Miller MD-7 dial which would work (and
> takes very little space), 
> but the two-speed tuning is annoying and I'd rather
> have a more positive 
> drive for this.   I also have an Eddystone 898 but
> 100:1 (=5 kcs/revolution) 
> is a rather slow rate.  I want easy tuning of SSB
> signals, no backlash, etc.   
> I've looked at assorted military junk, thought about
> string drives -- 50:1 
> doesn't  seem wise with a string and the 1-1/2" drum
> I have on hand.    Still 
> thinking about the dial -- probably the MD-7 will
> get the nod.
> 
> Does anyone have experience with string drives at
> ~50:1?   What about a 5:1 
> ball drive and a 10:1 string drive?   Not too
> complicated and with a 1-1/2" 
> drum the string drive shaft would be a bit over 1/8"
> -- not unreasonably 
> small.
> 
> (I did consider 500 kcs bands but ruled them out
> because I wasn't able to 
> get rid of the spurs without using a higher LO
> frequency.   You just can't 
> get the stability at 8 or 9 Mcs that you can at 1.5
> Mcs.)
>  
> There are always complications.   We'll see how it
> goes.
> 
> Walt 
> KJ4KV
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100
> pictures of receivers and 
> construction notes...... via
> http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at
> http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>  
> 
> Retrieve reflector archived data via
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Mon Apr 24 21:48:04 2006
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Mon Apr 24 21:50:11 2006
Subject: [HBR] Schematic Drawing Program -- MaxCAD
Message-ID: <2bd.8a13673.317ed9d4@aol.com>

 

Walt and all,
 
You can find a nice schematic drawing program called  MaxCAD at:
 
http://www.funwithtubes.net/
 
Go to the bottom of the "box of selections" and find "Programs to download"  
or something like that.  Max's whole web site is loaded with neat  stuff.
 
Dan K9WEK
 
 
In a message dated 4/23/2006 11:29:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
waltah@earthlink.net writes:

The  little 7-tube (6 + rectifier) receiver which I am calling the R8040A 
since  it is basically a major makeover of one I build in 1993 is pretty much 
 
done; the diagram needs only the BFO and how hard can that be?

I do  need to study the software around here to see what I've got to do a  
computer drawn diagram.   If anyone has a cheap or free  suggestion, I'd be 
glad to hear it.





From waltah at earthlink.net  Mon Apr 24 22:31:29 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Mon Apr 24 22:32:12 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report
In-Reply-To: <2a3.8f6194e.317ed680@aol.com>
Message-ID: <444D51C1.22670.59E62A@localhost>

Dan posted:
> Try Max's MaxCAD for a nice drawing program with tube symbols already in 
> the library. 
> 
> http://www.maxsmusicplace.com

I'm not able to find any reference to MaxCAD there.

I did download and install DesignWorks Lite.  It looks comprehensive 
enough but it draws lines in red when everything else is black.  I'm sure I'm 
doing something stupid.   Any clues?

Walt 
KJ4KV



From windy10605 at juno.com  Mon Apr 24 22:55:29 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Mon Apr 24 22:59:51 2006
Subject: [HBR] membership ...HBR
Message-ID: <20060424.215540.2148.1.windy10605@juno.com>

The membership count is now up to 157 HBR members. Who would have
thought, 47 years after the HBR-14 article in 1959, there would still be
so much interest in building good tube receivers. Even if tube receiver
building articles basically faded away 35+ years ago.

Looking through the design and building (not by me) of these two "LWM-3"
SSB Transceivers built from the GE Ham News articles in 1961/1962 sure
tells me that these must have really pushed the envelope of what a Ham
radio builder could do back then. Twenty-two tubes, double conversion,
all band, 200Khz segments, car radio permeability slug tuning mechanism
(not the VFO), 2.5Mhz-2.7Mhz Command Set VFO, 6AR8 sheet beam 1st Mixer,
Collins mechanical or Crystal Lattice filter, a 12BY7 output tube
designed for an external amp, all aluminum, and slip in/out mount for
easy mobile use. Hats off to the guys who tried this one.

I guess the LWM-3 came from KWM-2 ....this being the "next version" and
the author's name is W.C Louden, W8WFH. At the end of the article he says
"....delivers performance comparable to fine commercial equipment costing
several times the $100 to $250 in parts required.
Moreover, the LWM-3 is a literal gold mine of design, circuit,
mechanical, and construction ideas. (he's got that right) Nearly every
amateur will find some feature that he can apply to his own equipment." 

73 Kees K5BCQ  
From future212 at comcast.net  Mon Apr 24 23:18:07 2006
From: future212 at comcast.net (DW Holtman)
Date: Mon Apr 24 23:20:23 2006
Subject: [HBR] Schematic Drawing Program -- MaxCAD
In-Reply-To: <2bd.8a13673.317ed9d4@aol.com>
References: <2bd.8a13673.317ed9d4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <444D94EF.3050701@comcast.net>

Hello to the group,

Great web site! It will take me the next week to really go through all 
of the great information.

Thank you,
DW Holtman
WB7SSN



Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:

> 
>
>Walt and all,
> 
>You can find a nice schematic drawing program called  MaxCAD at:
> 
>http://www.funwithtubes.net/
> 
>Go to the bottom of the "box of selections" and find "Programs to download"  
>or something like that.  Max's whole web site is loaded with neat  stuff.
> 
>Dan K9WEK
> 
> 
>In a message dated 4/23/2006 11:29:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
>waltah@earthlink.net writes:
>
>The  little 7-tube (6 + rectifier) receiver which I am calling the R8040A 
>since  it is basically a major makeover of one I build in 1993 is pretty much 
> 
>done; the diagram needs only the BFO and how hard can that be?
>
>I do  need to study the software around here to see what I've got to do a  
>computer drawn diagram.   If anyone has a cheap or free  suggestion, I'd be 
>glad to hear it.
>
>
>
>
>
>************************************
>Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and 
>construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
>there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
> 
>
>Retrieve reflector archived data via http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>
>
>
>  
>


From AAF-Radio-1 at cox.net  Tue Apr 25 06:11:05 2006
From: AAF-Radio-1 at cox.net (Mike Hanz)
Date: Tue Apr 25 06:13:30 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report
Message-ID: <444DF5B9.8000006@cox.net>

I think the intent there is to contrast signal lines (red) with bus 
lines (blue), Walt.  They all print black if that's what you wish.  You 
can globally change them for all drawings (not individual drawings, 
unfortunately) using the .ini file.  See 
http://www.dwpro.com/FAQ/Schematic+Editing/286.aspx for the easy 
procedure.  You can also change the colors of most of the objects, like 
tube symbols, etc.  Makes it easier to read the schematics on a monitor, 
basically.

73
Mike de KC4TOS

Walter A. Hutchens wrote:

>I did download and install DesignWorks Lite.  It looks comprehensive 
>enough but it draws lines in red when everything else is black.  I'm sure I'm 
>doing something stupid.   Any clues?
>

From bjtatum at ev1.net  Tue Apr 25 07:03:10 2006
From: bjtatum at ev1.net (Byron Tatum)
Date: Tue Apr 25 07:05:13 2006
Subject: [HBR] membership ...HBR
References: <20060424.215540.2148.1.windy10605@juno.com>
Message-ID: <008601c66857$d7b25570$9fe9dacf@your6jnhhu0520>

Can a copy of this article be had? Thanks, Byron.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <windy10605@juno.com>
To: <hbr@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 9:55 PM
Subject: [HBR] membership ...HBR


> The membership count is now up to 157 HBR members. Who would have
> thought, 47 years after the HBR-14 article in 1959, there would still be
> so much interest in building good tube receivers. Even if tube receiver
> building articles basically faded away 35+ years ago.
>
> Looking through the design and building (not by me) of these two "LWM-3"
> SSB Transceivers built from the GE Ham News articles in 1961/1962 sure
> tells me that these must have really pushed the envelope of what a Ham
> radio builder could do back then. Twenty-two tubes, double conversion,
> all band, 200Khz segments, car radio permeability slug tuning mechanism
> (not the VFO), 2.5Mhz-2.7Mhz Command Set VFO, 6AR8 sheet beam 1st Mixer,
> Collins mechanical or Crystal Lattice filter, a 12BY7 output tube
> designed for an external amp, all aluminum, and slip in/out mount for
> easy mobile use. Hats off to the guys who tried this one.
>
> I guess the LWM-3 came from KWM-2 ....this being the "next version" and
> the author's name is W.C Louden, W8WFH. At the end of the article he says
> "....delivers performance comparable to fine commercial equipment costing
> several times the $100 to $250 in parts required.
> Moreover, the LWM-3 is a literal gold mine of design, circuit,
> mechanical, and construction ideas. (he's got that right) Nearly every
> amateur will find some feature that he can apply to his own equipment."
>
> 73 Kees K5BCQ
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and
> construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>
>
> Retrieve reflector archived data via 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>
>
> 


From dkelly42 at cox.net  Tue Apr 25 10:07:09 2006
From: dkelly42 at cox.net (Don)
Date: Tue Apr 25 08:03:52 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <000a01c66871$8b5e8b20$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>

Walt,

"Does anyone have experience with string drives at ~50:1?   What about a
5:1 
ball drive and a 10:1 string drive?"

Walt I tried what you mentioned above not long ago. Good idea.

I used a 2" drum and 1/4" shaft. This gave me 8:1. I also mounted a
drive from Dan's Small Parts. See EPICYCLIC CORD DRIVE NO. 4413. It
inclused a 5:1 panel mount drive. I panel mounted the drive shaft
coupled to the tuning shaft. That gave me 40:1. My tuning range was 400
Khz and the tuning was pretty nice but had to be aligned perfect.

http://www.danssmallpartsandkits.net/


I rebuilt the VFO and reduced the tuning range to 70 Khz for CW and did
not need or use the drive again. This particular drive has only 8oz
torque. I don't think it is 1st class quality and would not have trusted
using it long term unless I did some better mechanical construction. The
small drum is not made well as the coupling is not dead center. 

However, Jackson Brothers has a similar 5870 drive with a similar output
torque but I expect much better construction. The trick is in the
alignment. 

http://www.mainlinegroup.co.uk/jacksonbrothers/index.htm


Maybe a source of ideas or parts for future projects. I want to try the
5670 drive sometime.

I like the homemade string drives. They don't wear out and you can
always find a replacement. But can be a difficult mechanical problem to
install.

BTW, I wrote an article 20 years ago about a string mechanisms using a
jar lid for the drum if anyone would be interested.

K5UOS



From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Tue Apr 25 08:20:12 2006
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 08:22:22 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <39c.1af1916.317f6dfc@aol.com>

 
In a message dated 4/25/2006 8:02:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
dkelly42@cox.net writes:


"Does anyone have experience with string drives at  ~50:1?   What about a
5:1 
ball drive and a 10:1 string  drive?"





The Drake 2-B uses a 4.5 inch drum driven by a (stainless?) steel shaft  that 
is necked down to about 0.1 inches.  There are a little over 1.5  turns of 
string around the small shaft.  It also drives a conventional 7  inch slide rule 
dial with a separate dial string off the top of the drum  through 2 pulleys 
at each end of the dial.  This drive works very smooth  (very little friction) 
and is cheap and simple.
 
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 25 09:09:46 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (keith ford)
Date: Tue Apr 25 09:11:55 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
In-Reply-To: <000a01c66871$8b5e8b20$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>
Message-ID: <20060425130946.1837.qmail@web36613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

So Don,  do you have that article online?  Or better
yet your T.J. Lindsey incognito?

Seriously that would be interesting to read.

 Keith.

--- Don <dkelly42@cox.net> wrote:

> Walt,
> 
> "Does anyone have experience with string drives at
> ~50:1?   What about a
> 5:1 
> ball drive and a 10:1 string drive?"
> 
> Walt I tried what you mentioned above not long ago.
> Good idea.
> 
> I used a 2" drum and 1/4" shaft. This gave me 8:1. I
> also mounted a
> drive from Dan's Small Parts. See EPICYCLIC CORD
> DRIVE NO. 4413. It
> inclused a 5:1 panel mount drive. I panel mounted
> the drive shaft
> coupled to the tuning shaft. That gave me 40:1. My
> tuning range was 400
> Khz and the tuning was pretty nice but had to be
> aligned perfect.
> 
> http://www.danssmallpartsandkits.net/
> 
> 
> I rebuilt the VFO and reduced the tuning range to 70
> Khz for CW and did
> not need or use the drive again. This particular
> drive has only 8oz
> torque. I don't think it is 1st class quality and
> would not have trusted
> using it long term unless I did some better
> mechanical construction. The
> small drum is not made well as the coupling is not
> dead center. 
> 
> However, Jackson Brothers has a similar 5870 drive
> with a similar output
> torque but I expect much better construction. The
> trick is in the
> alignment. 
> 
>
http://www.mainlinegroup.co.uk/jacksonbrothers/index.htm
> 
> 
> Maybe a source of ideas or parts for future
> projects. I want to try the
> 5670 drive sometime.
> 
> I like the homemade string drives. They don't wear
> out and you can
> always find a replacement. But can be a difficult
> mechanical problem to
> install.
> 
> BTW, I wrote an article 20 years ago about a string
> mechanisms using a
> jar lid for the drum if anyone would be interested.
> 
> K5UOS
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100
> pictures of receivers and 
> construction notes...... via
> http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at
> http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>  
> 
> Retrieve reflector archived data via
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
From windy10605 at juno.com  Tue Apr 25 09:42:15 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 09:47:52 2006
Subject: Fw: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <20060425.084415.2752.1.windy10605@juno.com>

One of the best no backlash high ratio drives is still the tuning
mechanism out of a BC221 Frequency Meter which always show up at
swapmeets.
The Command Set anti-backlash gear sets are also great but the gear ratio
is higher and you have to get mechanically creative to use it.

73 Kees K5BCQ

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Don" <dkelly42@cox.net>
To: <hbr@mailman.qth.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:07:09 -0700
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <000a01c66871$8b5e8b20$a84d6144@lindseyk1p8m17>

Walt,

"Does anyone have experience with string drives at ~50:1?   What about a
5:1 
ball drive and a 10:1 string drive?"

Walt I tried what you mentioned above not long ago. Good idea.

I used a 2" drum and 1/4" shaft. This gave me 8:1. I also mounted a
drive from Dan's Small Parts. See EPICYCLIC CORD DRIVE NO. 4413. It
inclused a 5:1 panel mount drive. I panel mounted the drive shaft
coupled to the tuning shaft. That gave me 40:1. My tuning range was 400
Khz and the tuning was pretty nice but had to be aligned perfect.

http://www.danssmallpartsandkits.net/


I rebuilt the VFO and reduced the tuning range to 70 Khz for CW and did
not need or use the drive again. This particular drive has only 8oz
torque. I don't think it is 1st class quality and would not have trusted
using it long term unless I did some better mechanical construction. The
small drum is not made well as the coupling is not dead center. 

However, Jackson Brothers has a similar 5870 drive with a similar output
torque but I expect much better construction. The trick is in the
alignment. 

http://www.mainlinegroup.co.uk/jacksonbrothers/index.htm


Maybe a source of ideas or parts for future projects. I want to try the
5670 drive sometime.

I like the homemade string drives. They don't wear out and you can
always find a replacement. But can be a difficult mechanical problem to
install.

BTW, I wrote an article 20 years ago about a string mechanisms using a
jar lid for the drum if anyone would be interested.

K5UOS



************************************
Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and 
construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/


Retrieve reflector archived data via
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
From n2ey at aol.com  Tue Apr 25 10:19:41 2006
From: n2ey at aol.com (n2ey@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 10:22:00 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
In-Reply-To: <20060425.084415.2752.1.windy10605@juno.com>
References: <20060425.084415.2752.1.windy10605@juno.com>
Message-ID: <8C8368A6D2E176C-304-C64@mblk-r43.sysops.aol.com>

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: windy10605@juno.com
To: hbr@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:42:15 -0500
Subject: Fw: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea


>One of the best no backlash high ratio drives is still the tuning
>mechanism out of a BC221 Frequency Meter which always show up at
>swapmeets.
 
For my money, they are *the* best. There are at least two different styles, one used in the LM series and
one used in the BC-221 series. Slight differences but the same quality. I've built receivers, VFOs and
transceivers with them.

>The Command Set anti-backlash gear sets are also great but the gear ratio
>is higher and you have to get mechanically creative to use it.

The ARC-5 transmitter caps have the same ratio as the BC-221 - 100 to 1. Fifty turns to make the 
capacitor turn a half revolution. They are second only to the BC-221/LM caps. The ARC-5 receiver
caps are good too but not the same.
Still another option is the tuning gang from the TCS series. But they're "only" 50:1.
The trick to using any of these is to use the whole unit - capacitor, drive, and dial/drum. Simplifies
things greatly. ARC-5s and BC-221/LMs with usable caps but that are beyond restoration are neither rare
nor expensive. 
73 de Jim, N2EY
 
From richard.arland at verizon.net  Tue Apr 25 10:39:31 2006
From: richard.arland at verizon.net (Rich Arland)
Date: Tue Apr 25 10:41:48 2006
Subject: [HBR] Max-Cad
References: <20060425080121.B179F859E46@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <007d01c66876$13e5e160$6501a8c0@i0a8r4>


GREAT SITE!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting it. More info the better!

vy 73

Rich K7SZ

> Message: 3
> From: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> Subject: [HBR] Schematic Drawing Program -- MaxCAD
> 
> Walt and all,
>  
> You can find a nice schematic drawing program called  MaxCAD at:
>  
> http://www.funwithtubes.net/
 
From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Tue Apr 25 11:17:35 2006
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 11:19:54 2006
Subject: [HBR] Max-Cad
Message-ID: <3db.84f068.317f978f@aol.com>

 
 

If you have had trouble finding MaxCAD here is a more direct path:
 
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/funwithtubes/Programs-98.html
 
Its a little hard to install, but worth the trouble.
 
Dan K9WEK
 
In a message dated 4/25/2006 10:40:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight  Time, 
richard.arland@verizon.net writes:

GREAT  SITE!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting it. More info the better!

vy  73

Rich K7SZ

> Message: 3
> From:  Hopperdhh@aol.com
> Subject: [HBR] Schematic Drawing Program --  MaxCAD
> 
> Walt and all,
>  
> You can find a  nice schematic drawing program called  MaxCAD at:
>  
>  http://www.funwithtubes.net/





From waltah at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 25 12:01:45 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Tue Apr 25 12:02:30 2006
Subject: [HBR] Max-Cad
In-Reply-To: <3db.84f068.317f978f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <444E0FA9.16842.F31873@localhost>

Dan said:
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/funwithtubes/Programs-98.html
> 
> Its a little hard to install, but worth the trouble.

Okay, it seems to be installed.   I can draw lines and there are no error 
messages when it starts up.   The library of parts seems to be there too but 
I haven't a clue how you get them into the drawing.   Can anyone point me in 
the right direction?   Usually there's some sort of on-screen catalog from 
which you can click or drag what you want.

For comparison I also have designworks lite installed and as long as it prints 
in black on white, I can deal with it drawing the screen in other colors.   
Everything there seems to work.   However the library uses modern symbols, 
invented, I suspect, because modern engineers never learned to draw the 
older ones.   So getting going with that means at least doing the resistor 
over correctly.    Does anyone know how to delete unwanted parts of the 
library?   There are hundreds of ICs and such that you have to scroll 
through.
 
If I wanted 'modern' I'd buy it at Wal-Mart, $39.98 (Price Rollback!) from 
Bangladesh.

Thanks for all the help so far, guys!  Looks like I will get a working tube 
schematic drawing program out of this!

Walt
KJ4KV

From k4oah at mindspring.com  Tue Apr 25 12:23:13 2006
From: k4oah at mindspring.com (Garey Barrell)
Date: Tue Apr 25 12:25:20 2006
Subject: [HBR] Max-Cad
In-Reply-To: <444E0FA9.16842.F31873@localhost>
References: <444E0FA9.16842.F31873@localhost>
Message-ID: <444E4CF1.5020502@mindspring.com>

Walt -

Have you looked at TubePad?  It is specifically for Ham use, has   
"normal" :-)   symbols, and even includes symbols the 30's style symbols 
too.  Common tubes are included complete with data, instead of ICs!  
Very simple to use with Paint or other drawing program.   Free!

http://www.qsl.net/wd4nka/form.html

Left side, seventh item.

73, Garey - K4OAH
Atlanta

Drake B & C-Line Service CDs
<http://www.k4oah.com>



Walter A. Hutchens wrote:
> Dan said:
>   
>> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/funwithtubes/Programs-98.html
>>
>> Its a little hard to install, but worth the trouble.
>>     
>
> Okay, it seems to be installed.   I can draw lines and there are no error 
> messages when it starts up.   The library of parts seems to be there too but 
> I haven't a clue how you get them into the drawing.   Can anyone point me in 
> the right direction?   Usually there's some sort of on-screen catalog from 
> which you can click or drag what you want.
>
> For comparison I also have designworks lite installed and as long as it prints 
> in black on white, I can deal with it drawing the screen in other colors.   
> Everything there seems to work.   However the library uses modern symbols, 
> invented, I suspect, because modern engineers never learned to draw the 
> older ones.   So getting going with that means at least doing the resistor 
> over correctly.    Does anyone know how to delete unwanted parts of the 
> library?   There are hundreds of ICs and such that you have to scroll 
> through.
>  
> If I wanted 'modern' I'd buy it at Wal-Mart, $39.98 (Price Rollback!) from 
> Bangladesh.
>
> Thanks for all the help so far, guys!  Looks like I will get a working tube 
> schematic drawing program out of this!
>
> Walt
> KJ4KV
>
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and 
> construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>  
>
> Retrieve reflector archived data via http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>
>
>   
From w2dgb at ptd.net  Tue Apr 25 16:08:14 2006
From: w2dgb at ptd.net (w2dgb)
Date: Tue Apr 25 16:05:17 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
References: <20060425.084415.2752.1.windy10605@juno.com>
	<8C8368A6D2E176C-304-C64@mblk-r43.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <000701c668a3$fccba400$6401a8c0@cmts.sth.ptd.net>

Not mentioned as yet is the possible use of the early National PW dial
drive/gear box, as used on the original HRO and the NC100/101 series
receivers. These give an effective dial that is 12 feet long, and once
cleaned up and functioning properly can be smooth as silk. Until a couple of
years ago they were readily available at FMs, and while more scarce now can
still be found. The ones from the NC100 receivers may come with the original
National 3-gang capacitor still attached. The micrometer dial reads direct
to one part in 500, and the worm gear gives a 20:1 ratio. If caps are
attached, they can be either 160 or 225 mmf per section.

At an estate sale last year I picked up two HBR receivers, one of which uses
the PW dial. Preliminary tests indicate that the dial works well with the
HBR.  (I need to spend more time with these sets and intend to post them on
the site.)  While 20:1 is not the 50:1 which is the subject here, it still
takes 12 feet to cover the 180 degrees...does that still make it 20:1?

73 de Bill  w2dgb

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <n2ey@aol.com>
To: <hbr@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea


>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: windy10605@juno.com
> To: hbr@mailman.qth.net
> Sent: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:42:15 -0500
> Subject: Fw: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
>
>
> >One of the best no backlash high ratio drives is still the tuning
> >mechanism out of a BC221 Frequency Meter which always show up at
> >swapmeets.
>
> For my money, they are *the* best. There are at least two different
styles, one used in the LM series and
> one used in the BC-221 series. Slight differences but the same quality.
I've built receivers, VFOs and
> transceivers with them.
>
> >The Command Set anti-backlash gear sets are also great but the gear ratio
> >is higher and you have to get mechanically creative to use it.
>
> The ARC-5 transmitter caps have the same ratio as the BC-221 - 100 to 1.
Fifty turns to make the
> capacitor turn a half revolution. They are second only to the BC-221/LM
caps. The ARC-5 receiver
> caps are good too but not the same.
> Still another option is the tuning gang from the TCS series. But they're
"only" 50:1.
> The trick to using any of these is to use the whole unit - capacitor,
drive, and dial/drum. Simplifies
> things greatly. ARC-5s and BC-221/LMs with usable caps but that are beyond
restoration are neither rare
> nor expensive.
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and
> construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>
>
> Retrieve reflector archived data via
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/323 - Release Date: 4/24/06
>
>

From waltah at earthlink.net  Tue Apr 25 17:07:29 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:08:15 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
In-Reply-To: <000701c668a3$fccba400$6401a8c0@cmts.sth.ptd.net>
Message-ID: <444E5751.1845.3A9A8C@localhost>

Bill said:
> While 20:1 is not the 50:1 which is the subject here, it still
> takes 12 feet to cover the 180 degrees...does that still make it
> 20:1? 

I THINK so.   A sideband signal has to be tuned in within about 10-20 cps 
to sound right, doesn't it?   Neglecting the allowance for end effects, 250 
kcs spread over 25 revolutions to rotate a cap 180 degrees is 10 
kcs/revolution or a bit less than 30 cps/degree.   It does depend somewhat 
on the quality of your dial mechanism -- I can set the dial on an LM or BC-
221 much more precisely than a 6:1 planetary ball drive.   

Using a PW dial (12' scale length) gives you great ease of reading the dial 
and correspondingly good resetability, to the limit of your ability to 
accurately position it.  

20:1 would be ideal for an AM/CW receiver or for an SSB set with 100 kcs 
bands.   For 250 kcs, I think 50:1 is better.

One check point:  I have a two-speed Jackson Bros. drive on the R8040A.   
The 'fine' ratio is about 36:1 and those are 500 kcs bands -- 3500-4000 
and 6800-7300, with very little extra.   The calibration isn't too close to 
linear, so the ratio at the high C end (75 meters) could be around 20 or 
25:1.   That's too quick for me, even with a fairly large knob.

This list is a great resource.   157 members!  Who knew?   Thanks to all for 
the consultations and thanks to Kees for the list and the wonderful site!

Of course we're a rather tame lot.   No flame wars or even insults.   

That's to conjure with ... an HBR-list flame war.   What would the topic be?

Walt 
KJ4KV


From windy10605 at juno.com  Tue Apr 25 17:16:45 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:20:44 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <20060425.161645.2984.11.windy10605@juno.com>

"best receiver"

Kees
From N2EY at aol.com  Tue Apr 25 19:11:54 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 19:14:09 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <3f6.523cc5.318006ba@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/25/06 5:06:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
waltah@earthlink.net writes:


> Bill said:
> > While 20:1 is not the 50:1 which is the subject here, it still
> > takes 12 feet to cover the 180 degrees...does that still make it
> > 20:1? 
> 
> I THINK so.   A sideband signal has to be tuned in within about 10-20 cps 
> to sound right, doesn't it?   Neglecting the allowance for end effects, 250 
> kcs spread over 25 revolutions to rotate a cap 180 degrees is 10 
> kcs/revolution or a bit less than 30 cps/degree.   It does depend somewhat 
> on the quality of your dial mechanism -- I can set the dial on an LM or BC-
> 221 much more precisely than a 6:1 planetary ball drive.   

The PW and NPW drives are ten turns to cover 500 divisions. 20:1 ratio, but 
only half a revolution is used. The divisions are spread out but they go by 
fast. 

The LM/BC-221 caps and the ARC-5 tx caps require fifty turns to go from end 
to end. 100:1, but only half used. Five times slower than a PW or NPW. 

> 
> Using a PW dial (12' scale length) gives you great ease of reading the dial 
> and correspondingly good resetability, to the limit of your ability to 
> accurately position it.  
> 

Yep. But when you are tuning, the kHz go by pretty fast.


> 20:1 would be ideal for an AM/CW receiver or for an SSB set with 100 kcs 
> bands.   For 250 kcs, I think 50:1 is better.
> 

For CW use I find 5 kc/turn to be the maximum I will put up with. Maybe 10 
kc/turn on a good day. But there's no reason to put up with fast rates when such 
good mechanisms are available and inexpensive. 

The first receiver I built with an ARC-5 dial was in 1972 or so. 6 kc/turn, 
sharp CW filter. Predecessor to the 'silver receiver' on the HBR site. Spoiled 
me rotten. 


> One check point:  I have a two-speed Jackson Bros. drive on the R8040A.   
> The 'fine' ratio is about 36:1 and those are 500 kcs bands -- 3500-4000 
> and 6800-7300, with very little extra.   The calibration isn't too close to 
> linear, so the ratio at the high C end (75 meters) could be around 20 or 
> 25:1.   That's too quick for me, even with a fairly large knob.
> 

Yup. 

There's a reason older receivers have such fast tuning rates: Hams back then 
operated differently. In the old days. it was common for hams to have only a 
few crystals, and to answer calls many kc. away. Even before crystal control, 
most self-controlled rigs weren't easy to QSY. 

Most QSOs then were "split" - the stations on two different frequencies. 
(This is where the traditions of long calls came from, too). To cover the band 
quickly, fast tuning rates and wide receivers were the norm.

This kind of operating developed around the available equipment. It was 
wasteful of spectrum because each QSO used twice as much of the band as would be 
needed if both stations used the same frequency.

The widespread use of VFOs and transceivers has changed things. No reason to 
operate like they did back when.

73 de Jim, N2EY
From N2EY at aol.com  Tue Apr 25 19:39:04 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 19:41:21 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <3df.95733d.31800d18@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/25/06 5:18:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
windy10605@juno.com writes:


> "best receiver"
> 
Doesn't exist. Or at least, hasn't been built yet.

73 de Jim, N2EY
From N2EY at aol.com  Tue Apr 25 21:02:46 2006
From: N2EY at aol.com (N2EY@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 21:05:04 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <393.1e0e8eb.318020b6@aol.com>

Just a few words on PW and NPW dials:

There are two styles: 

- PW, used in the HROs. They have the capacitor shaft parallel to the front 
panel. Up to four capacitor sections.

- NPW, used in the NC-100 and -101 and some others. Shaft is perpendicular to 
the front panel (Not Parallel) Up to three capacitor sections.

I have read that some of the parts are made of an alloy that "grows" with 
time. The growth is only thousandths of an inch per year, but some of these are 
60+ years old. They can be fixed - I saw the procedure in ER or on the web 
someplace (dang CRS...)

If it weren't for the fast tuning rate, the PW/NPW would be ideal.

73 de Jim, N2EY
From windy10605 at juno.com  Tue Apr 25 21:31:26 2006
From: windy10605 at juno.com (windy10605@juno.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 21:34:46 2006
Subject: Fw: Re: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
Message-ID: <20060425.203126.2668.5.windy10605@juno.com>

Another interesting swapmeet story.
 
There is an old ham (don't have his name or call) who shows up at Belton
and other swapfests every year with several boxes in his pickup of brand
new Command Set capacitors and drives, both Receiver and Transmitter. All
are carefully wrapped in old newspapers and he charges around $10 or $15
for each one which is why he keeps bringing them back year after year. 

And then there is Richard Cobb from New Caney, Tx who shows up at every
swapmeeet with his old pickup and aluminum hand dolly and buys all the
decently priced boatanchor gear and boatanchor parts .....from before the
swapmeet opens to when it closes, negotiates some, loads up his pickup,
and heads back to New Caney. Never sells a thing. Nice guy, I spoke to
him last weekend and asked about a restored HT-33 he had looked at in a
car trunk but it was already sold. There it was in his pickup. He had
found the new owner and bought it from him for $200 more. I asked about
"rare" radios like the SX-115 (one that came to mind), he said yep, nice
set, he had 6 of them. 

Is that what it's like in Dayton ? I've never been.

73 Kees K5BCQ
From tom at n4zpt.org  Tue Apr 25 22:17:31 2006
From: tom at n4zpt.org (Tom Azlin, N4ZPT)
Date: Tue Apr 25 22:19:53 2006
Subject: [HBR] membership ...HBR
In-Reply-To: <20060424.215540.2148.1.windy10605@juno.com>
References: <20060424.215540.2148.1.windy10605@juno.com>
Message-ID: <444ED83B.70706@n4zpt.org>

Hi Kees,

Yes, the idea has seemed to catch on again.

While I have not gotten enough parts together to build an HBR from 
scratch, I picked up a all but coils finished HBR-15C (aka HBR-13C with 
two extra tubes) that was built by Bob Moul, W4DE, starting back in 
1968.  He gave it to Mike Steussy, AE4R, in 2002 who traded it to me in 
2005 for a couple other partially build receivers by another local ham.

I think that Bob did build the coils, got the receiver working and set 
it aside.  The coils were not to be found in 2002.  This is going to be 
my 2007 project, i.e. after I retire!  My next goal is a matching 
transmitter.

Anyway, I now have that receiver along with all the building notes.  And 
a box of coil forms and trimmer capacitors.  I will have to take some 
photos and provide them to you for the HBR web site.

73, Tom Azlin n4zpt

windy10605@juno.com wrote:
> The membership count is now up to 157 HBR members. Who would have
> thought, 47 years after the HBR-14 article in 1959, there would still be
> so much interest in building good tube receivers. Even if tube receiver
> building articles basically faded away 35+ years ago.
> 
> Looking through the design and building (not by me) of these two "LWM-3"
> SSB Transceivers built from the GE Ham News articles in 1961/1962 sure
> tells me that these must have really pushed the envelope of what a Ham
> radio builder could do back then. Twenty-two tubes, double conversion,
> all band, 200Khz segments, car radio permeability slug tuning mechanism
> (not the VFO), 2.5Mhz-2.7Mhz Command Set VFO, 6AR8 sheet beam 1st Mixer,
> Collins mechanical or Crystal Lattice filter, a 12BY7 output tube
> designed for an external amp, all aluminum, and slip in/out mount for
> easy mobile use. Hats off to the guys who tried this one.
> 
> I guess the LWM-3 came from KWM-2 ....this being the "next version" and
> the author's name is W.C Louden, W8WFH. At the end of the article he says
> "....delivers performance comparable to fine commercial equipment costing
> several times the $100 to $250 in parts required.
> Moreover, the LWM-3 is a literal gold mine of design, circuit,
> mechanical, and construction ideas. (he's got that right) Nearly every
> amateur will find some feature that he can apply to his own equipment." 
> 
> 73 Kees K5BCQ  
> ************************************
> 
From daileyservices at qwest.net  Wed Apr 26 00:31:13 2006
From: daileyservices at qwest.net (TC Dailey)
Date: Wed Apr 26 00:33:55 2006
Subject: [HBR] The coils for the '15
References: <20060424.215540.2148.1.windy10605@juno.com>
	<444ED83B.70706@n4zpt.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c668ea$407e68e0$6402a8c0@dailey>

Tom,

The tried n' true method for those coils is the old "tie the #26 to the
doorknob, step off, and wind toward the door".  I've also found that once
you get 'em tuned right (by moving turns up and down), finish off by
spraying them with CLEAR LACQUER.  Yeah, yeah... I know... there are purists
among us, but this keeps the turns STILL, and where they belong.  Check the
HBR website for the original and "official" coil winding instructions.  You
wouldn't think that such a simple procedure could be so confusing, but
well... it can be.

Also... coil diameter x 3.1416 x number of turns + 10 percent... always
works.

Tom - HBR-11
Denver, CO

From AAF-Radio-1 at cox.net  Wed Apr 26 08:46:21 2006
From: AAF-Radio-1 at cox.net (Mike Hanz)
Date: Wed Apr 26 08:48:56 2006
Subject: [HBR] Progess report and 50:1 drive idea
In-Reply-To: <444E5751.1845.3A9A8C@localhost>
References: <444E5751.1845.3A9A8C@localhost>
Message-ID: <444F6B9D.90202@cox.net>

Walt said:
>  For comparison I also have designworks lite installed and as long as
>  it prints in black on white, I can deal with it drawing the screen in
>  other colors. Everything there seems to work. However the library
>  uses modern symbols, invented, I suspect, because modern engineers
>  never learned to draw the older ones. So getting going with that
>  means at least doing the resistor over correctly. Does anyone know
>  how to delete unwanted parts of the library? There are hundreds of
>  ICs and such that you have to scroll through. If I wanted 'modern'
>  I'd buy it at Wal-Mart, $39.98 (Price Rollback!) from Bangladesh.


It's easy to delete the unwanted items, Walt.  Not sure what you mean by 
modern, as the set in my software has normal resistor zigzags and the 
like.  Perhaps yours is a later version.  Anyway, the libraries are all 
separate - toobs, resistors, etc.  Right click on the particular library 
in the selection window on the right side of the screen and then click 
on "lib maintenance".  You can delete unwanted symbols or batches of 
symbols at will (or transfer them to another library if desired.)

I really like the ability to easily edit the symbols to match the "old" 
1950's way of showing them, and the drag & drop makes schematic drawing 
pretty quick once you get the hang of it.  It just takes a little 
practice.  The individual tubes like 6V6 and 12AX7 have file areas that 
you can populate with tube characteristics and the like.  The different 
colors available (you can change them all to black if desired) helps 
subsequent circuit tracing if you do that sort of thing on the monitor.

Not sure it comes from Walmart or Bangladesh (the full version costs 
$395 instead of $39.95) but it certainly has a lot more power than the 
other programs I've tried.  To each his own....

73,

 - Mike

From tom at n4zpt.org  Wed Apr 26 21:41:28 2006
From: tom at n4zpt.org (Tom Azlin, N4ZPT)
Date: Wed Apr 26 21:43:43 2006
Subject: [HBR] The coils for the '15
In-Reply-To: <000b01c668ea$407e68e0$6402a8c0@dailey>
References: <20060424.215540.2148.1.windy10605@juno.com>	<444ED83B.70706@n4zpt.org>
	<000b01c668ea$407e68e0$6402a8c0@dailey>
Message-ID: <44502148.40400@n4zpt.org>

Thanks Tom.  I will save your note.  73, Tom n4zpt

TC Dailey wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> The tried n' true method for those coils is the old "tie the #26 to the
> doorknob, step off, and wind toward the door".  I've also found that once
> you get 'em tuned right (by moving turns up and down), finish off by
> spraying them with CLEAR LACQUER.  Yeah, yeah... I know... there are purists
> among us, but this keeps the turns STILL, and where they belong.  Check the
> HBR website for the original and "official" coil winding instructions.  You
> wouldn't think that such a simple procedure could be so confusing, but
> well... it can be.
> 
> Also... coil diameter x 3.1416 x number of turns + 10 percent... always
> works.
> 
> Tom - HBR-11
> Denver, CO
> 
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100 pictures of receivers and 
> construction notes...... via http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>  
> 
> Retrieve reflector archived data via http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> 
> 
From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 26 22:23:27 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (keith ford)
Date: Wed Apr 26 22:25:46 2006
Subject: [HBR] Ft-241's
Message-ID: <20060427022327.64728.qmail@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

  In an attemp to recreate a crystal filter,  i
checked my stash of 142's for channels46, 327, 328,
329.  I don't have these.  But i do have them over and
under like ch. 340,341 etc.  Those are about 15-16 kcs
higher than the 455 IFT.  So di try to "pull the
crystals or retune the IFT?

 Thanks  Keith.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Wed Apr 26 22:53:53 2006
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
Date: Wed Apr 26 22:56:15 2006
Subject: [HBR] Ft-241's
Message-ID: <38f.20e7c6f.31818c41@aol.com>

 
Keith,
 
Short answer, retune the IF.
 
First, I would build an oscillator and see if the crystals are still  good.  
Time has a way of deteriorating these crystals.  The silver  plating tarnishes 
(corrodes?) badly if they have been exposed to much  humidity.  I have quite 
a few of these crystals that have gone inactive for  this reason.  Its 
probably better to build a high frequency ladder filter  with more modern crystals.  
If you are from a dry climate or the crystals  have been preserved well, maybe 
you can pull it off.  Let us know.
 
I went through that exercise back in the 60's when my crystals were in good  
shape -- grinding, etc.  I needed a carrier crystal to match that Collins  
filter.  You know, 20 db down on the filter skirt.  Talk about  frustrating!  You 
have to unsolder the little wires, edge grind the  crystals, solder them 
back, try them out.  After about 10 passes like this  -- Oops, went too far.  Or, 
uh-oh the thing lost all activity, won't  oscillate anymore.  Spent days just 
ruining crystals.  Finally ordered  one from JAN!
 
Dan K9WEK
 
In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:23:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
kf4tap@yahoo.com writes:

In an  attemp to recreate a crystal filter,  i
checked my stash of 142's for  channels46, 327, 328,
329.  I don't have these.  But i do have  them over and
under like ch. 340,341 etc.  Those are about 15-16  kcs
higher than the 455 IFT.  So di try to "pull the
crystals or  retune the IFT?

Thanks  Keith.





From kf4tap at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 26 22:58:36 2006
From: kf4tap at yahoo.com (keith ford)
Date: Wed Apr 26 23:00:54 2006
Subject: [HBR] Ft-241's
In-Reply-To: <38f.20e7c6f.31818c41@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060427025836.82679.qmail@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This large lot i have came through Kees in the big
crystal buy a year or so back.  About half or a little
better are good.  I've a crystal tester that came from
an estate sale.  I plan on testing them this weekend.

  I know i'll have more questions sunday evening.  

 Thanks keith.

--- Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:

>  
> Keith,
>  
> Short answer, retune the IF.
>  
> First, I would build an oscillator and see if the
> crystals are still  good.  
> Time has a way of deteriorating these crystals.  The
> silver  plating tarnishes 
> (corrodes?) badly if they have been exposed to much 
> humidity.  I have quite 
> a few of these crystals that have gone inactive for 
> this reason.  Its 
> probably better to build a high frequency ladder
> filter  with more modern crystals.  
> If you are from a dry climate or the crystals  have
> been preserved well, maybe 
> you can pull it off.  Let us know.
>  
> I went through that exercise back in the 60's when
> my crystals were in good  
> shape -- grinding, etc.  I needed a carrier crystal
> to match that Collins  
> filter.  You know, 20 db down on the filter skirt. 
> Talk about  frustrating!  You 
> have to unsolder the little wires, edge grind the 
> crystals, solder them 
> back, try them out.  After about 10 passes like this
>  -- Oops, went too far.  Or, 
> uh-oh the thing lost all activity, won't  oscillate
> anymore.  Spent days just 
> ruining crystals.  Finally ordered  one from JAN!
>  
> Dan K9WEK
>  
> In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:23:55 P.M. Eastern
> Daylight Time,  
> kf4tap@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> In an  attemp to recreate a crystal filter,  i
> checked my stash of 142's for  channels46, 327, 328,
> 329.  I don't have these.  But i do have  them over
> and
> under like ch. 340,341 etc.  Those are about 15-16 
> kcs
> higher than the 455 IFT.  So di try to "pull the
> crystals or  retune the IFT?
> 
> Thanks  Keith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************
> Visit the HBR Receiver Web Site with over 100
> pictures of receivers and 
> construction notes...... via
> http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/ 
> there is also a mirror (faster response)at
> http://k5bcq.edebris.com/
>  
> 
> Retrieve reflector archived data via
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
From waltah at earthlink.net  Wed Apr 26 23:29:26 2006
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walter A. Hutchens)
Date: Wed Apr 26 23:35:35 2006
Subject: [HBR] Ft-241's
In-Reply-To: <20060427022327.64728.qmail@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <44500256.28264.3445EF6@localhost>

Keith said:
> i checked my stash of 142's for channels46, 327, 328, 329.  I don't
> have these.  But i do have them over and under like ch. 340,341
> etc.  Those are about 15-16 kcs higher than the 455 IFT.  So di try
> to "pull the crystals or retune the IFT? 

Don't mess with those crystals.   They're the first major-production plated 
crystals ever (right folks?) and they're not easy to move without destroying 
them.   

Instead add or subtract the same amount from all crystal frequencies until 
you reach a set you can fill.   Then retune the IFTs -- they'll probably go 25 
kcs at least, quite likely more than that.

I'd suggest testing your crystals in some sort of oscillator before trying to 
make up a filter.   Quite a few FT-241's are dead now.

I have bunch of those things so if you need some, let me know.  

Walt
KJ4KV


