[HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question

[john]

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 at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/9/06 2:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>windy10605 at 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