[HBR] RE: HBR 2006 and a question

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/13/06 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
waltah at 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