[HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question

[Walter A. Hutchens]

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