From ke9xq at charter.net  Wed Feb  2 22:47:08 2011
From: ke9xq at charter.net (William Wood)
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:47:08 -0600
Subject: [HBR] new booklets coming up questions
Message-ID: <731049D6-760B-4E9E-97A2-0C72291DB83E@charter.net>

Hey guys
    If any of you send off for this new W6HHT goodies,
will you report back to the rest of us if you thought it
is worth our time and money???
    I think the CD was worth it, but I did not see too
much in these updates that seemed worth it, and
a, wondering about the motive behind piecemeal
work like this.  After this many years, there should
not be many more articles coming out of the wood
work.
    Also the way this has been advertised, while I think
I understand it, seems to be a little cryptic if you ask me...
Bottom line, if you check it out, would you let the rest of
us know if it's worth our nickels and dimes???
Thanks in advance
73
Bill




If the grass is greener on the
other side of the fence, then
maybe you ain't watering
your own lawn...

Favorite Yahoo Groups...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OTR_and_Music/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radio_Library/

And check out Tennessee Bill's site at:

http://otrshareandtrade.com/in.php?ID=12
and his personal site at:

http://TennesseeBillsOTR.com

Don't forget

http://www.archive.org/index.php

and one or two that maybe don't
want to be listed : )
And two dozen or more others
I won't tell you about unless you ask.


From ke9xq at charter.net  Thu Feb  3 18:43:25 2011
From: ke9xq at charter.net (William Wood)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:43:25 -0600
Subject: [HBR] Sloooww  But  Suurre   : )
Message-ID: <0CCE9DE8-1288-490D-A665-E539BE1B0E5F@charter.net>

Just got my Chassis bent today,
Got the faceplate cut out
and 'think' I found 3 or 4 100 Khz IFs

Have some cleanup and such for
the chassis and face plate ahead
of me now...

Looonnggg way to go tho : )
Happy Camper time
73
Bill



If the grass is greener on the
other side of the fence, then
maybe you ain't watering
your own lawn...

Favorite Yahoo Groups...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OTR_and_Music/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radio_Library/

And check out Tennessee Bill's site at:

http://otrshareandtrade.com/in.php?ID=12
and his personal site at:

http://TennesseeBillsOTR.com

Don't forget

http://www.archive.org/index.php

and one or two that maybe don't
want to be listed : )
And two dozen or more others
I won't tell you about unless you ask.


From waltah at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  5 22:09:08 2011
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walt Hutchens)
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 22:09:08 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <938479379.20110108202300@earthlink.net>
References: <1292682456.8368.26.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
	<4D0D2798.1030809@aafradio.org>
	<1643111577.20101226122510@earthlink.net>
	<938479379.20110108202300@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <1305077507.20110205220908@earthlink.net>

About a month ago, I posted:
> The question comes from thinking about some of the questions and ideas
> posted here in the last few months. Specifically, what would Ted Cosby
> do differently if he were designing an HBR today?
> 
> In order to keep the question 'pure,' I rule out whatever thoughts he
> might have on integrated circuits, software defined receivers, and the
> like: Perhaps like me he got frozen on vacuum tubes a few decades back
> and wanted today to do a tube receiver along the old lines but using
> the parts available for vacuum tube construction today.
> 
> I'm assuming the goals of 'you can build it' and 'it will outperform
> most commercial sets of equivalent technology' would stay the same. I
> think that would mean keeping the plug in coils.

Naturally I had a couple of ideas about the answer and I have stolen
some more from the suggestions of others.

1. I think the first conversion to an IF in the 2 Mcs range and use of
plug-in coils in the front end would continue. Too much of the 'you
can build it' and 'it will be a top performer' lies in these
fundamental choices.

Solenoid wound coils with heavy wire and decent quality forms give
about the same Q as a toroid -- something like 200 -- and they're
easier to wind and adjust. They are not self-shielding as toroids are,
but that's a space/layout issue. PVC pipe forms -- 1" schedule 20
epoxy mounted on the bakelite bases from metal octal tubes -- work
fine and look like a commercial product. I think the solenoids would
remain.

The plug in coil design not only gives excellent front end selectivity
thus helping crossmodulation performance but allows taking one of the
most difficult parts of construction (front end coil winding) in
bite-size pieces. And with a first conversion to around 2 Mcs you get
a good combination of image rejection and local oscillator ease of
construction.

The alternative of using a fix-tuned 1st oscillator with a tunable 1st
IF (or equivalently a tunable single band receiver with converters)
sacrifices both low cost and ease of getting parts due to the need for
a set of 1st osc. crystals. Crossmod performance will be degraded if a
broadband RF stage is used.

2. WARC and SWL band coils would be part of the plan for those that
want them. The use of an AM-FM three gang capacitor with jumpers in
the coils to connect the larger sections would be an option for those
wanting general coverage -- say 2-6-18-30 Mcs.

3. The second conversion to a low fixed IF (100 kcs or 85 kcs
according to the variant) would be eliminated. In the 1960 time frame
this was an easy and relatively inexpensive way to obtain a 3 kcs (or
so) bandwidth as the necessary IF transformers were open stock or
available from junk 'command' receivers, but not anymore.

There are two easier ways to go now: A half lattice filter in this
frequency range, or use of a filter salvaged from one of the less
expensive ham sets of the 1960-70 time frame.  I suspect that a
popular salvage item might set the frequency with the option of a
half lattice design using a pair of custom crystals.  HOWEVER junk
vacuum tube ham sets are often cheaper than a pair of made-to-order
crystals and almost any ham set filter will have better skirt
performance than a half lattice filter.

Bonus: The second oscillator and conversion are eliminated giving
additional simplification AND reducing image and crossmodulation
issues. I suspect that these issues are the main reason for all those
stage gain controls.

The HBR 2010 design would have a single IF somewhere between 1.6-2.4
Mcs. IF transformers would be single tuned using home made slug-tuned
coils OR salvaged from the junk set that donated the filter.

Slightly better performance would result from using toroidal IF coils
(with the bonus of eliminating the need for shielding) but I can't
come up with a compact, stable, and readily available trimmer
capacitor for tuning. (The itty-bitty rotary ceramic trimmers like
those in the FT-101 series are too delicate.) There probably IS an
answer; I just haven't found it.

4. The mixer might be changed to a dual triode.

Pentode mixers generally are the worst performers in a strong signal
environment but injecting the signal and the oscillator voltage on the
same grid allows running the oscillator on on half the required
frequency with the mixer grid tuned circuit selecting the harmonic. A
dual triode mixer would be a better performer but separating signal
and LO injection would require operating the oscillator at the
injection frequency.

The only way to make this decision is to build the receiver both ways.
It could be that with better layout, reduced power dissipation and
some simple trickery, warm-up drift can be sufficiently reduced that
the higher oscillator frequencies are okay.

5. The RF and IF stages would use 6EH7's. These tubes are capable of
gain that is enough higher than those in the original designs as to
cause stability problems for the novice constructor but you don't have
to use all the possible gain. With cathode resistors of 220 ohms or so
and 100 ohm resistors at the grid connection (to suppress VHF
parasitics) they're as tame as 6SK7s and you still have the
spectacular crossmodulation performance.

6. The audio stages would be a 'high fi' design using feedback from the
output transformer secondary to the cathode of the 1st audio to
achieve excellent linearity. Until you've listened to a receiver built
this way you've no idea of the resulting improvement in
intelligibility.

7. A simple fixed-frequency audio tuned circuit at the 1st audio input
would give selectivity in the 100 cps range for CW.

8. I think the physical layout could be improved and the elimination
of home-made shielding metalwork is both possible and a design plus.
The National 5:1 dials are no longer useful (even if you can find one)
but the JB 36/6:1 drive with a home made or National escutcheon would
work for those who can't find an Eddystone dial. It seems to me those
two would be the standard approaches.

The two-section tubes of the later W6TC sets would remain.
Compactrons and such offer no real advantages in this design and
increase the congestion around each socket.

9. Instead of the conventional multi-winding power transformer, a 15
or so watt isolation transformer would be used with a solid state full
wave bridge rectifier to deliver 130 volts for plate service and a 25
watt 12.6 VAC transformer would power the filaments. Almost nobody
makes multi-winding transformers for vacuum tube equipment anymore,
the usually-available plate voltages are much higher than desirable
(higher voltage means more heat and thus more thermal drift), and what
you can buy is almighty expensive. Two small competitive items are
cheaper than one that's nearly custom made.

The small Radio Shark 12.6 volt transformers are bobbin-wound with the
windings side-by side. A couple of times I've taken two of these
transformers apart, cut off the secondary bobbins, and reassembled the
two primaries on the same core for a plate transformer. But buying the
proper units is cheaper and less work.

In concept at least there is another way to go for power: Series
filaments and 'transformerless' high voltage. This further reduces the
total dissipation (small transformers aren't very efficient), expense,
and weight at the cost of some additional design and construction
wrinkles. If all the circuits in a large color TV can be made to work
without a power transformer, certainly a short wave receiver can.

Design changes are required: 18 watts of filament power is plenty for
a short wave receiver of the HBR genre but not all tube types have 150
mA versions. (For example as far as I can tell there is no 14EH7 or
12GM6.) The more difficult questions come from heater-to-cathode
leakage when a high impedance cathode circuit is necessary as in an
infinite impedance, plate, or diode detector, or Hartley oscillator.

Every technique or design error appears as either instability or hum
modulation of strong carriers. Hum isn't directly an issue -- you can
eliminate it in the audio section -- but it means that 60 cps is being
modulated onto the signal and the same will occur with voice signals,
appearing as distortion and loss of intelligibility. It has to be
eliminated at the source. The bag of tricks includes eliminating where
possible circuits in which the cathode isn't at signal ground, placing
the problem stage(s) near the neutral end of the filament string, and
(sometimes) biasing the cathode more negative than the negative peak
filament voltage on that stage.

In addition, wiring technique has to change to deal with the fact that
the chassis can't be used for the common negative. It's best to wire
all stages in star fashion from a central common negative AND
positive. Antenna, audio, and perhaps standby connections aren't
isolated from the power line by a power transformer so that has to be
done in other ways.  The use of a filtered IERC connector to bring in
the power line is helpful in reducing RF trash between the neutral and
ground wires.

All the issues can be resolved and the techniques can be learned but
this happens one circuit at a time and I'm still working on it. You
don't build a ship in a bottle because you want a model ship and I
wouldn't recommend a transformerless HBR as the way to go because you
want a receiver.

Walt
KJ4KV


From tshoppa at wmata.com  Sun Feb  6 08:40:53 2011
From: tshoppa at wmata.com (Shoppa, Tim)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:40:53 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <1305077507.20110205220908@earthlink.net>
References: <1292682456.8368.26.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
	<4D0D2798.1030809@aafradio.org>	<1643111577.20101226122510@earthlink.net>
	<938479379.20110108202300@earthlink.net>,
	<1305077507.20110205220908@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CEC@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>

> 1. I think the first conversion to an IF in the 2 Mcs range and use of
> plug-in coils in the front end would continue. Too much of the 'you
> can build it' and 'it will be a top performer' lies in these
> fundamental choices.

I disagree about keeping the IF at 2 MHz... move it to circa 9 MHz.

But yes, plug-in coils would continue.

> 2. WARC and SWL band coils would be part of the plan for those that
> want them. The use of an AM-FM three gang capacitor with jumpers in
> the coils to connect the larger sections would be an option for those
> wanting general coverage -- say 2-6-18-30 Mcs.

I disagree here. I would make the radio would even more ham band centric.
Eliminate AM detector and make it be strictly SSB and CW. If anything
the tuning ranges would be narrowed, not broadened. And yes, additional
coil sets for anyone who wants WARC or SWL bands, but they would all
be specific to each band and not general coverage.

It's even likely that instead of trying to get tracking in the front
end, we would just have pluggable bandpass filters. Many (most?) ham band
receivers by the 1960's had abandoned tracking front ends.

Tracking front ends and single-knob tuning were a bit of a
holy grail in the ham homebrew community
for those who wore their "my homebrew receiver is as good as or better
than the commercial receivers" chip but this led to creeping featurititis. The
best homebrew ham receivers should be ham receivers... not copies of every undesirable
or unneeded feature in commercial receivers.

> 3. The second conversion to a low fixed IF (100 kcs or 85 kcs
> according to the variant) would be eliminated. In the 1960 time frame
> this was an easy and relatively inexpensive way to obtain a 3 kcs (or
> so) bandwidth as the necessary IF transformers were open stock or
> available from junk 'command' receivers, but not anymore.
> There are two easier ways to go now: A half lattice filter in this
> frequency range, or use of a filter salvaged from one of the less
> expensive ham sets of the 1960-70 time frame.  I suspect that a
> popular salvage item might set the frequency with the option of a
> half lattice design using a pair of custom crystals.  HOWEVER junk
> vacuum tube ham sets are often cheaper than a pair of made-to-order
> crystals and almost any ham set filter will have better skirt
> performance than a half lattice filter.

I agree that getting rid of the second IF and having all selectivity in
the crystal filter would be key points. BUT... I suspect the filter would
be based around cheap readily available microprocessor crystals. Remember
W6TC's ubiquitous goal of using commonly available parts.

> 4. The mixer might be changed to a dual triode.
> Pentode mixers generally are the worst performers in a strong signal
> environment

Seems likely. Would we use a broadband centertapped coil for mixer
balance or make that plug-in? Either way could work but both have some
complications. The move to a balanced mixer would have huge advantages
that far outweigh the small effort required.

> 9. Instead of the conventional multi-winding power transformer, a 15
> or so watt isolation transformer would be used with a solid state full
> wave bridge rectifier to deliver 130 volts for plate service and a 25
> watt 12.6 VAC transformer would power the filaments. Almost nobody
> makes multi-winding transformers for vacuum tube equipment anymore,
> the usually-available plate voltages are much higher than desirable
> (higher voltage means more heat and thus more thermal drift), and what
> you can buy is almighty expensive. Two small competitive items are
> cheaper than one that's nearly custom made.

I disagree with the unavailability of transformers. Right off the top of
my head, Hammond 263, 269 series transformers fit the bill and are
readily available. If you think the plate voltage is too high, that's because
you're using a bridge rectifier instead of noticing that the center tap
is still there :-).

> In concept at least there is another way to go for power: Series
> filaments and 'transformerless' high voltage. This further reduces the
> total dissipation (small transformers aren't very efficient), expense,
> and weight at the cost of some additional design and construction
> wrinkles. If all the circuits in a large color TV can be made to work
> without a power transformer, certainly a short wave receiver can.

Cheap commercial SW receivers did use series filament strings and hot or
isolated chassis... and I think at least a couple Knight-kit radios did too...

but correct me if I'm wrong, the ARRL/QST never
published designs for radios that didn't have a filament transformer or
that ran the plate without a transformer. (I know of a few non-radio
accessories, like CPO's, that they showed without transformers.)

> this happens one circuit at a time and I'm still working on it. You
> don't build a ship in a bottle because you want a model ship and I
> wouldn't recommend a transformerless HBR as the way to go because you
> want a receiver.

It's just anecdotal but my feeling is that ARRL/QST would never
publish a transformerless radio design.

It is a win, to decouple the power supply from the radio. At some point
we get bored with building more power supplies and just plug into the
ubiquitous HP-23A, and put our effort into making a radio :-).

Tim N3QE

From Hopperdhh at aol.com  Sun Feb  6 09:17:19 2011
From: Hopperdhh at aol.com (Hopperdhh at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:17:19 EST
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
Message-ID: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>


I think you guys are stuck in the mid 1900's.  Today TC would probably  be 
using something like a Software Defined Radio or possibly a even a more  
modern design such as the Silicon Labs Si4734.
 
Flame away.
 
Dan K9WEK
 

From tshoppa at wmata.com  Sun Feb  6 09:32:16 2011
From: tshoppa at wmata.com (Shoppa, Tim)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:32:16 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the uber-receiver built using nothing other than a LM3820 chip too :-).

Don't get me wrong, the LM3820 and Si4734 and SDR are interesting but they do not define high-performance even by the 1950's standards.

Speaking of actually *using* SDR... a Softrock SDR plus CW Skimmer in a contest is very very impressive tool.

  e.g. http://www.reversebeacon.net/genn.php?a=skimmer

Tim N3QE
________________________________________
From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Hopperdhh at aol.com [Hopperdhh at aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 9:17 AM
To: hbr at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [HBR] What would W6TC do?

I think you guys are stuck in the mid 1900's.  Today TC would probably  be
using something like a Software Defined Radio or possibly a even a more
modern design such as the Silicon Labs Si4734.

Flame away.

Dan K9WEK

______________________________________________________________
HBR mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

From wrcromwell at gmail.com  Sun Feb  6 12:23:37 2011
From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:23:37 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
Message-ID: <1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>

On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 09:32 -0500, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
> Yeah, I'm still waiting for the uber-receiver built using nothing other than a LM3820 chip too :-).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the LM3820 and Si4734 and SDR are interesting but they do not define high-performance even by the 1950's standards.
> 
> Speaking of actually *using* SDR... a Softrock SDR plus CW Skimmer in a contest is very very impressive tool.
> 
>   e.g. http://www.reversebeacon.net/genn.php?a=skimmer
> 
> Tim N3QE

Hi Tim...
...and Everybody,

That CW skimmer is at least interesting. Two things jumped right out of
that article and bit me on the *ss. 1 - The CW skimmer is really still
under development (maybe like MS Windows <g>). 2 - It's not as good at
digging CW out of the noise as a "good" CW op (whatever a good CW op
might be). Maybe it's not as good at decoding fists with accents, too.
For point two refer back to point one. Hopefully the skimmer will
improve. For that matter I think the software defined radios are still
in development but maybe further developed than the skimmer.

It's not reasonable to compare high performance machines with other high
performance machines without stating the features and goals
desired/judged. Software defined radios and skimmers are no doubt high
performance radios but *NOT* by the standard I use. I'm sometimes after
that weak signal way down there in the noise at least part of the time.
It doesn't take very much additional noise from digital sources to move
those into oblivion. The digital hash doesn't have to come close to
registering on your S meter.

I am not really a strict 'minimalist' but I do want gear that makes
lower demands on resources more than I want gear that uses more
resources. Resources include electricity for operation, parts count,
complexity, and even the amount of desktop real estate it occupies.
There are tradeoffs among all those things of course. Solid state wins
the argument every time if we only consider the watt hours or ampere
hours needed to run the equipment. But tubes still have a few advantages
over solid state in that elusive 'performance' arena - just as an
illustration. That's aside from tubes just being fun. Tube radios,
including the HBR, are still in development, too <g>. That's how we got
this thread started. I'm looking to build something based on the HBR and
I'm interested in how it can be bent and twisted to fit my own needs
without making it so radically different that it looks more like a
Kenwood or a Ten Tec or an HR10.

Over the years I have poked some fun at hams who favor all the latest,
bleeding edge toys. One of my favorite jabs regards the automated radio
that gets on the air and works stations from all over the world on
various modes and then emails us a weekly or daily report about all the
fun we're having on the air. Maybe now it would just use twitter or
facebook <eg>. Obviously none of us would really want to go quite that
far. I use some of the digital stuff too. I use computer based rtty,
amtor, packet, etc. I'm also looking into the software defined radio but
it looks like just too much cr*p and too fragile to drag out to an ice
fishing shanty for the annual "freeze your butt off" contest - etc. I
noticed a screen shot in the link to the skimmer. It displayed numerous
station IDs it had decoded more or less simultaneously. Is that a
precursor to the automated station that operates for us and then we look
at it's blog to see how much fun we're having? I can only QSO one
station at a time. Maybe a list like that would be useful for county
hunting or chasing DXCC. I can't do that with a garage full of tubes.
These last ramblings are just to highlight what 'performance' might mean
in different situations. It's fine with me if somebody mentions off
topic items sometimes. I wanna know more about that skimmer thing and
probably other items I still haven't heard of. No flames form my part of
Michigan.

But I'll always have some gear around that I can turn on when the power
utility goes offline for a while. When all the digital consumer crap for
miles around is suddenly gone it's amazing what we can hear! Thanks for
the bandwidth.

73,

Bill  KU8H




From waltah at earthlink.net  Sun Feb  6 12:11:45 2011
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walt Hutchens)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:11:45 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1347842845.20110206121145@earthlink.net>

> I think you guys are stuck in the mid 1900's.

No, really?

Funny you came up with that. One of the few dozen other people who
would agree (regarding me) is my wife. ;-)

> Today TC would probably be using something like a Software Defined
> Radio or possibly a even a more modern design such as the Silicon
> Labs Si4734.

You might very well be right; I didn't know the man and don't know any
factual reason to disagree. But since this list is centered on his
1960+/- designs and at least some of us are interested in vacuum tube
construction and design I purposely limited my original question to
vacuum tube answers.

Walt
KJ4KV





From waltah at earthlink.net  Sun Feb  6 12:34:23 2011
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walt Hutchens)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:34:23 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
	<1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
Message-ID: <98196153.20110206123423@earthlink.net>

Bill said:
> Over the years I have poked some fun at hams who favor all the latest,
> bleeding edge toys. One of my favorite jabs regards the automated radio
> that gets on the air and works stations from all over the world on
> various modes and then emails us a weekly or daily report about all the
> fun we're having on the air. Maybe now it would just use twitter or
> facebook

And MY automated radio wouldn't even need to copy me on the fun I've
been having, since I don't use twitter or any of that.  So there's a
further improvement in efficiency.

That would leave me more time for vacuum tube work.

Maybe it should have an LED that flashes when I'm having fun working
the world automatically, in case I go into the room where it is
located.

Walt
KJ4KV


From wrcromwell at gmail.com  Sun Feb  6 12:52:34 2011
From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:52:34 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <1347842845.20110206121145@earthlink.net>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<1347842845.20110206121145@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <1297014754.13584.51.camel@lancelot.workgroup>

What's wrong with the mid 1900s?





From tshoppa at wmata.com  Sun Feb  6 14:23:23 2011
From: tshoppa at wmata.com (Shoppa, Tim)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:23:23 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>,
	<1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
Message-ID: <B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CEE@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>


>>   e.g. http://www.reversebeacon.net/genn.php?a=skimmer
> That CW skimmer is at least interesting. Two things jumped right out of
> that article and bit me on the *ss. 1 - The CW skimmer is really still
> under development (maybe like MS Windows <g>). 2 - It's not as good at
> digging CW out of the noise as a "good" CW op (whatever a good CW op
> might be).

What's interesting about the Skimmer hooked to a Softrock SDR, is that
the Softrock is not the best radio ever, and the Skimmer is not the best
CW decoder ever (in fact both are primitive compared to an old but good radio
and an old but good op), but the combination of the two is spectacular and does
something that was not really imagined before. I mean on a good day I can listen
with a wide filter and sort of understand there's a couple QSO's going on above
me and a couple below, and that's a wonderful broad awareness that I like, but
the Skimmer takes that to the 12th power and decodes and shows activity all
up and down the band.

It doesn't replace any op, but it augments an op in a marvelous way.

Maybe the point is, to not try to make "the best" or "the ultimate" of anything,
but to do something new and neat and interesting and new using off-the-shelf parts.

Tim.



From wrcromwell at gmail.com  Sun Feb  6 15:06:05 2011
From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:06:05 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CEE@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
	,<1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CEE@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
Message-ID: <1297022765.7188.4.camel@lancelot.workgroup>

On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 14:23 -0500, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
> >>   e.g. http://www.reversebeacon.net/genn.php?a=skimmer
> > That CW skimmer is at least interesting. Two things jumped right out of
> > that article and bit me on the *ss. 1 - The CW skimmer is really still
> > under development (maybe like MS Windows <g>). 2 - It's not as good at
> > digging CW out of the noise as a "good" CW op (whatever a good CW op
> > might be).
> 
> What's interesting about the Skimmer hooked to a Softrock SDR, is that
> the Softrock is not the best radio ever, and the Skimmer is not the best
> CW decoder ever (in fact both are primitive compared to an old but good radio
> and an old but good op), but the combination of the two is spectacular and does
> something that was not really imagined before. I mean on a good day I can listen
> with a wide filter and sort of understand there's a couple QSO's going on above
> me and a couple below, and that's a wonderful broad awareness that I like, but
> the Skimmer takes that to the 12th power and decodes and shows activity all
> up and down the band.
> 
> It doesn't replace any op, but it augments an op in a marvelous way.
> 
> Maybe the point is, to not try to make "the best" or "the ultimate" of anything,
> but to do something new and neat and interesting and new using off-the-shelf parts.
> 
> Tim.
> 
> 

Hi Tim,

It occurred to me while I was typing in my previous post that skimmer is
a newfangled type of panadapter. The old tube based panadapters showed
the presence of other signals (or noise spikes) but aside from relative
amplitude, no other intelligence. Skimmer shows us what it reads as
decoded morse. Maybe it could also show us other digital information
like rtty.

73,

Bill  KU8H


From tshoppa at wmata.com  Sun Feb  6 16:23:30 2011
From: tshoppa at wmata.com (Shoppa, Tim)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:23:30 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <1297022765.7188.4.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CED@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>
	,<1297013017.13584.43.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
	<B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CEE@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>,
	<1297022765.7188.4.camel@lancelot.workgroup>
Message-ID: <B136EDE3DF5EC441B6F08E0A7AB872450BAF1D5CF0@EX2K7-CMS-1.wmata.local>

In the eyes of an experience panadaptor user there was a lot that could be gleaned
from the spectrum. Mode, bandwidth, operating pattern, width of the pileup, where
the DX was listening, etc.

The Skimmer does more in that it also decodes - a huge advantage for finding unworked
stations in a contest - but the broad band awareness it gives is, you're correct, very
similar to a panadaptor.

Tim.
________________________________________
From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bill Cromwell [wrcromwell at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:06 PM
To: HBR Receiver List
Subject: Re: [HBR] What would W6TC do?

On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 14:23 -0500, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
> >>   e.g. http://www.reversebeacon.net/genn.php?a=skimmer
> > That CW skimmer is at least interesting. Two things jumped right out of
> > that article and bit me on the *ss. 1 - The CW skimmer is really still
> > under development (maybe like MS Windows <g>). 2 - It's not as good at
> > digging CW out of the noise as a "good" CW op (whatever a good CW op
> > might be).
>
> What's interesting about the Skimmer hooked to a Softrock SDR, is that
> the Softrock is not the best radio ever, and the Skimmer is not the best
> CW decoder ever (in fact both are primitive compared to an old but good radio
> and an old but good op), but the combination of the two is spectacular and does
> something that was not really imagined before. I mean on a good day I can listen
> with a wide filter and sort of understand there's a couple QSO's going on above
> me and a couple below, and that's a wonderful broad awareness that I like, but
> the Skimmer takes that to the 12th power and decodes and shows activity all
> up and down the band.
>
> It doesn't replace any op, but it augments an op in a marvelous way.
>
> Maybe the point is, to not try to make "the best" or "the ultimate" of anything,
> but to do something new and neat and interesting and new using off-the-shelf parts.
>
> Tim.
>
>

Hi Tim,

It occurred to me while I was typing in my previous post that skimmer is
a newfangled type of panadapter. The old tube based panadapters showed
the presence of other signals (or noise spikes) but aside from relative
amplitude, no other intelligence. Skimmer shows us what it reads as
decoded morse. Maybe it could also show us other digital information
like rtty.

73,

Bill  KU8H

______________________________________________________________
HBR mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

From radioconnection at gmail.com  Sun Feb  6 17:10:50 2011
From: radioconnection at gmail.com (Peter Bertini)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:10:50 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <1347842845.20110206121145@earthlink.net>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<1347842845.20110206121145@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=HF--8_zSXfBZmFubzFEMQd_9c=_m_Zu_Kdow+@mail.gmail.com>

Here's my take. TC would probably abandon the dual conversion
design and either go to a color burst, or uP crystal ladder filters
in the 3.5 to 10 MHz range. This could yield good selectivity,
and open up the possibility of multiple filters for both SSB and CW.
Ladder filters are pretty easy to make.  That would eliminate the
second IF, the conversion oscillator, and a mixer stage. Right of
the bat: less spurs, no BCB blowby, and better dynamic range.

I suspect Ted might look at toroids for the coils, if felt it was practical.

Pete


On 2/6/11, Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I think you guys are stuck in the mid 1900's.
>
> No, really?
>
> Funny you came up with that. One of the few dozen other people who
> would agree (regarding me) is my wife. ;-)
>
>> Today TC would probably be using something like a Software Defined
>> Radio or possibly a even a more modern design such as the Silicon
>> Labs Si4734.
>
> You might very well be right; I didn't know the man and don't know any
> factual reason to disagree. But since this list is centered on his
> 1960+/- designs and at least some of us are interested in vacuum tube
> construction and design I purposely limited my original question to
> vacuum tube answers.
>
> Walt
> KJ4KV
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

From bjstanna at ralcorp.com  Mon Feb  7 10:08:51 2011
From: bjstanna at ralcorp.com (Stannard, Brian J.)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:08:51 -0600
Subject: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
In-Reply-To: <2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD958E0@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>
References: <AANLkTi=KJ=xuA0MxXB6=AikxZ6AZ=RhgEaeoAtoeb+Zj@mail.gmail.com>
	<77837C463ACD4A509BA9FE900E693D09@Staples0258PC>
	<2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD958E0@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>
Message-ID: <2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD95CBB@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>

I was curious as to the status of this.

-----Original Message-----
From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Stannard, Brian J.
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:30 PM
To: HBR Receiver List
Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial

I will give this a shot $100.00?

-----Original Message-----
From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kris Merschrod
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:20 PM
To: HBR Receiver List
Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial

Yes,  Brian, please make an offer,

Kris KM2KM
Merschrod
123 Warren Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
www.merschrod.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Stannard" <bjstannard at gmail.com>
To: <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:36 PM
Subject: [HBR] Cabinet and dial


> Still for sale?
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
______________________________________________________________
HBR mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

If you are not the intended addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone.  In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to internet email for messages of this kind.
______________________________________________________________
HBR mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

From kris at merschrod.net  Mon Feb  7 10:43:18 2011
From: kris at merschrod.net (Kris Merschrod)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 21:43:18 +0600 (BDT)
Subject: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
In-Reply-To: <2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD95CBB@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp
	.int>
References: <AANLkTi=KJ=xuA0MxXB6=AikxZ6AZ=RhgEaeoAtoeb+Zj@mail.gmail.com>
	<77837C463ACD4A509BA9FE900E693D09@Staples0258PC>
	<2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD958E0@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>
	<2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD95CBB@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>
Message-ID: <8260.182.160.99.106.1297093398.squirrel@vm0.lightlink.com>

Good morning Brian,

You must have strong mental telepathy - I just sent an email to the fellow
who offered the most to verify his address and so forth. I expect that he
will confirm in a few hours.

Your offer was better than some but not as good as others, but if they
fall through I will work my way down the list - not like ebay, but much
more less stressful.


Thank you,

Kris KM2KM



> I was curious as to the status of this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Stannard, Brian J.
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:30 PM
> To: HBR Receiver List
> Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
>
> I will give this a shot $100.00?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Kris Merschrod
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: HBR Receiver List
> Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
>
> Yes,  Brian, please make an offer,
>
> Kris KM2KM
> Merschrod
> 123 Warren Road
> Ithaca, NY 14850
> www.merschrod.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Stannard" <bjstannard at gmail.com>
> To: <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:36 PM
> Subject: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
>
>
>> Still for sale?
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> HBR mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> If you are not the intended addressee indicated in this message (or
> responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
> or deliver this message to anyone.  In such case, you should destroy this
> message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
> immediately if you or your employer do not consent to internet email for
> messages of this kind.
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>


From bjstanna at ralcorp.com  Mon Feb  7 10:47:59 2011
From: bjstanna at ralcorp.com (Stannard, Brian J.)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:47:59 -0600
Subject: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
In-Reply-To: <8260.182.160.99.106.1297093398.squirrel@vm0.lightlink.com>
References: <AANLkTi=KJ=xuA0MxXB6=AikxZ6AZ=RhgEaeoAtoeb+Zj@mail.gmail.com>
	<77837C463ACD4A509BA9FE900E693D09@Staples0258PC>
	<2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD958E0@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>
	<2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD95CBB@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>
	<8260.182.160.99.106.1297093398.squirrel@vm0.lightlink.com>
Message-ID: <2F4CEDDA9054C14DA9EC3F597F2570570A7DD95CD4@PGHEXC03.RALCOEXCH.ralcorp.int>

Thanks for the update If anything falls through let me know.

-----Original Message-----
From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kris Merschrod
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:43 AM
To: HBR Receiver List
Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial

Good morning Brian,

You must have strong mental telepathy - I just sent an email to the fellow
who offered the most to verify his address and so forth. I expect that he
will confirm in a few hours.

Your offer was better than some but not as good as others, but if they
fall through I will work my way down the list - not like ebay, but much
more less stressful.


Thank you,

Kris KM2KM



> I was curious as to the status of this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Stannard, Brian J.
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:30 PM
> To: HBR Receiver List
> Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
>
> I will give this a shot $100.00?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Kris Merschrod
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: HBR Receiver List
> Subject: Re: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
>
> Yes,  Brian, please make an offer,
>
> Kris KM2KM
> Merschrod
> 123 Warren Road
> Ithaca, NY 14850
> www.merschrod.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Stannard" <bjstannard at gmail.com>
> To: <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:36 PM
> Subject: [HBR] Cabinet and dial
>
>
>> Still for sale?
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> HBR mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> If you are not the intended addressee indicated in this message (or
> responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
> or deliver this message to anyone.  In such case, you should destroy this
> message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
> immediately if you or your employer do not consent to internet email for
> messages of this kind.
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
HBR mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

If you are not the intended addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone.  In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to internet email for messages of this kind.

From W6ph at aol.com  Mon Feb  7 11:30:52 2011
From: W6ph at aol.com (W6ph at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:30:52 EST
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
Message-ID: <d04d8.35f6b36.3a81783c@aol.com>

Although not related to design change, one of the reasons that I like tube 
stuff is the ability to solder to terminals and lugs that I can actually see 
with these 69 year old eyes.  The components are discrete items and allows 
us to change components as we want.  No concern for static discharges or 
overheating a tiny solid state device.  And tubes keep us warm in the winter.  
:-)
 
I really like Walt's perspective which is the most realistic of the 
possibilities.  The top of the list of changes that Ted would have made is the idea 
of a single conversion using a crystal filter if they had been available at 
a reasonable price.
                                          Kurt, W6PH

From waltah at earthlink.net  Mon Feb  7 13:34:16 2011
From: waltah at earthlink.net (Walt Hutchens)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:34:16 -0500
Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=HF--8_zSXfBZmFubzFEMQd_9c=_m_Zu_Kdow+@mail.gmail.com>
References: <22f84.717d106e.3a80076f@aol.com>
	<1347842845.20110206121145@earthlink.net>
	<AANLkTi=HF--8_zSXfBZmFubzFEMQd_9c=_m_Zu_Kdow+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1717156235.20110207133416@earthlink.net>

Peter said:
> TC would probably abandon the dual conversion design and either go
> to a color burst, or uP crystal ladder filters in the 3.5 to 10 MHz
> range. This could yield good selectivity, and open up the
> possibility of multiple filters for both SSB and CW. Ladder filters
> are pretty easy to make.

And Tim said privately (but gave permission for me to answer on the
list):

> I disagree about keeping the IF at 2 MHz... move it to circa 9 MHz.

My first thought was that 9 Mcs is an obvious winner: You get 80 and
20 with a single oscillator coil ... right? (5-5.5 Mcs LO frequency.)
But no ... that only works if you uncouple the tuning of the RF stage
from the LO, because if you do band imaging this way the bands tune in
opposite directions. Single knob tuning is an important feature of the
HBR series.

To get them to tune in the same direction, the oscillator has to be on
the same side of the IF for both bands which is only possible for
ABOVE: Say 12.5-13 Mcs and 23-23.5 Mcs for a 9 Mcs IF.

If you use an IF of 5.25 Mcs, however, an oscillator tuning 8.75-9.25
Mcs will work for both bands with the added advantage that the normal
SSB transmission modes on these two bands will both appear as USB in
the IF. One set of dial markings will work on both bands, although it
will still be necessary to re-trim the calibration when switching.

The 40 meter oscillator will tune 12.25-12.55 Mcs and 10 will be
covered with 22.75-24.75 Mcs. The 80M oscillator frequency is higher
than for a lower IF, but the others are lower -- probably a good
trade-off.

Doing it that way there's a savings of one coil -- the same oscillator
coil covers 80 and 20 -- and using single crystal (which would have to
be a custom item) for the BFO gets the normal SSB transmission mode on
all the common bands.

Or you could build a tunable BFO. Might possibly do it with a tunable
crystal oscillator.

A more important advantage (compared to an IF around 2 Mcs as I
originally suggested) is that I believe a ladder crystal filter of SSB
bandwidth can be built with 5.25 Mcs crystals.  And the crystals seem
to exist: They aren't common but this company claims to have them:

http://www.opamp-electronics.com/catalog/525-mhz-at49-thruhole-crystal-pack-p-729.html

> I suspect the filter would be based around cheap readily available
> microprocessor crystals. Remember W6TC's ubiquitous goal of using
> commonly available parts.

Agreed. These crystals are $0.15/each. And pretty nearly any ham who
can build a receiver could follow the directions to build a tolerable
ladder filter.

I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the ham sets used an IF in
the 5.25 Mcs range; if so, salvage would also be an option.

There is still one serious issue: Any superhetrodyne receiver has to
deal with images. And some of those from the 41 M (nominally 7200-7450
Mcs) shortwave BC band are monsters on the east coast. When conditions
are right you can hear World Christian Radio (WWCR and three
affiliates, all with 100 kW, Nashville TN, 7465 and 7490) on a rusty
frying pan here in Virginia; I doubt that an RF section with two tuned
circuits is going to stop such signals. I think that in this part of
the country one would be better off to choose a frequency that puts
the 80M image band somewhere else. WIND separate coils for every band.

If you use separate antennas for each band this may not be such a
problem but I use loops.

6.144 Mcs with an LO tuning 9.644-10.144 for 80M, 13.144-13.644 for
40, and 7.856-8.356 for 20 might be a possibility.  The IF is in the
upper end of the 49M SW band but I've never heard anything close to
that frequency and images from the 19M band appearing on 80M shouldn't
be very strong.

I think this is an area where the best design compromise is unclear.
Using an IF around 2 Mcs with a single half-lattice filter will almost
certainly lead to problems with 41 M stations via filter blow-by
unless excellent IFTs (better than what I'm using now!) are used for
back up.

> It's even likely that instead of trying to get tracking in the front
> end, we would just have pluggable bandpass filters.

I don't think this really works for an HBR. Bandpass filters are
tougher than tracking for a beginner when they actually have to be
'bandpass' rather than just a single tuned circuit of low Q. AND a
tunable front end will definitely help crossmodulation and strong
interfering signal performance on 80 and 40.

> Many (most?) ham band receivers by the 1960's had abandoned tracking
> front ends.

That's true -- they went to a tunable IF with a separate tuning knob
for the RF stage. This preserved performance, allowed conversion
schemes in which the bands didn't all tune the same direction, and
saved money. But in a simple tunable 1st oscillator-fixed 1st IF set,
tracking the front end isn't difficult when you have parts values and
coil winding instructions.

> Tracking front ends and single-knob tuning were a bit of a holy
> grail in the ham homebrew community for those who wore their "my
> homebrew receiver is as good as or better than the commercial
> receivers" chip but this led to creeping featurititis. The best
> homebrew ham receivers should be ham receivers... not copies of
> every undesirable or unneeded feature in commercial receivers.

I agree with the philosophical point that simpler is better as long as
everything YOU need is there, but that doesn't yield a tight
specification. Consider:

>> 2. WARC and SWL band coils would be part of the plan for those that
>> want them. The use of an AM-FM three gang capacitor with jumpers in
>> the coils to connect the larger sections would be an option for those
>> wanting general coverage -- say 2-6-18-30 Mcs.
> 
> I disagree here. I would make the radio would even more ham band centric.
> Eliminate AM detector and make it be strictly SSB and CW. If anything
> the tuning ranges would be narrowed, not broadened. And yes, additional
> coil sets for anyone who wants WARC or SWL bands, but they would all
> be specific to each band and not general coverage.

More ham band centric makes sense, although general coverage by the
route described costs only time for coil winding and perhaps some
additional dial scales. And some hams do find other coverage very
useful; in particular, it's almost essential to have some form of
general coverage receiver around for testing other gear, digital
tuning isn't always best for that, and a receiver that is vacuum-tube
robust is a useful addition to one's emergency preparedness.

AM capability is only 'featuritis' if you don't regularly work AM. I'm
betting that most people building a vacuum tube receiver today will
want to use it at least some of the time to work AM stations.

But this kind of tweaking of the design -- adding or removing features
that alter nothing basic, according to the needs of the builder -- is
not much of a compromise. I usually put a lighted dial on my receivers
because I like to operate in a dimly lit room but that hardly requires
giving up anything else. Some people paint their gear, some use
natural aluminum, some label the controls ...

> I disagree with the unavailability of [power] transformers. Right
> off the top of my head, Hammond 263, 269 series transformers fit the
> bill and are readily available. If you think the plate voltage is
> too high, that's because you're using a bridge rectifier instead of
> noticing that the center tap is still there :-).

I hadn't noticed these transformers although I knew about the Hammond
line. Neither one is perfect but the 269, rated 125-0-125 @ 100mA and
6.3 @ 2A would be usable, maybe with a separate 6.3 @ 2A filament
transformer for help. An 8-tube receiver (with mostly dual section
tubes) using solid state rectifiers and low-power audio stage will
draw closer to 60 mA plate current than 100 but might go high enough
on filament current to push the 25 watt rating of this unit.

> Cheap commercial SW receivers did use series filament strings and
> hot or isolated chassis... and I think at least a couple Knight-kit
> radios did too...

The S-38, right? And others based on the 'all-American 5' design, plus
a tube or two. These were certainly minimal performers ... but the
same number of stages with a transformer would have performed no
better and cost half again as much.

I don't see a logical reason that much more complex sets would not
have worked every bit as well with series filaments and
transformerless HV.
> 
> ... correct me if I'm wrong, the ARRL/QST never published designs
> for radios that didn't have a filament transformer or that ran the
> plate without a transformer. (I know of a few non-radio accessories,
> like CPO's, that they showed without transformers.)

If they did, I don't remember seeing it.

But the times were different. Few houses had a ground wire electric
system (maybe they just had a few three-wire plugs with the ground pin
not connected?) and who knew if the neutral and hot wires were correct
in every outlet? In fact, they WERE NOT always right. There were far
too many ways for a two wire radio with no transformer to put 110 VAC
on the chassis or anything coming out of the set that might be
connected to the chassis or have leakage to the same. It was possible
to do anything you wanted in perfect safety with transformerless
construction but it involved getting a number of details right and I
wouldn't bet that every ham constructor would have done so. I can't
say that I blame the ARRL.

OR (for that matter) the commercial ham gear builders of the day. By
the time TV sets were all series string, NOBODY was designing ham sets
with vacuum tubes.

Today you use a three wire cord with the green wire to the chassis,
you follow the proper neutral/hot convention in wiring and check with
a voltmeter to see that you did it right, and just to be sure, you use
an outlet checker. Everything that comes out of the chassis is at
chassis potential. What's the problem?

(One wrinkle: If your antenna is grounded when in use then it needs to
enter the receiver via a floating link to avoid a ground loop that
will introduce much trash.)

I'd far rather work on a transformerless set than a linear.

But I still wouldn't recommend a transformerless RX design unless you
want to do it for the challenge. I have one that works well (the band
imaging set) and I'm working on an HBR; once that works perfectly
perhaps I'll feel differently but it's still a learning process.

Walt
KJ4KV













From k2glo at jkasystems.com  Fri Feb 25 18:15:20 2011
From: k2glo at jkasystems.com (Bob Deuel)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:15:20 -0800
Subject: [HBR] Eddystone Dial Radio
Message-ID: <98A35981F0EF49AE8FCB93AA97BEEA0E@bdeuel64>

There is an unfinished shortwave radio on eBay with an unmarked Eddystone dial. Ebay 110651022377 only a couple hours left. 
Not my auction, etc
Bob, K2GLO

From windy10605 at juno.com  Fri Feb 25 19:01:52 2011
From: windy10605 at juno.com (Kees & Sandy)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:01:52 GMT
Subject: [HBR] Eddystone Dial Radio
Message-ID: <20110225.180152.10410.1@webmail09.dca.untd.com>

It may not be an HBR but you can definitely see some "HBR influence" and that is some nice bandswitching capability he added. But that is definitely one of the prized Eddystone 898 dials.
73 Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Bob Deuel" <k2glo at jkasystems.com>
To: "HBR Receiver List" <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [HBR] Eddystone Dial Radio
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:15:20 -0800

There is an unfinished shortwave radio on eBay with an unmarked Eddystone dial. Ebay 110651022377 only a couple hours left. 
Not my auction, etc
Bob, K2GLO
______________________________________________________________
HBR mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


From hbrnut at suddenlink.net  Fri Feb 25 19:32:43 2011
From: hbrnut at suddenlink.net (WA5VGO)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:32:43 -0600
Subject: [HBR] Eddystone Dial Radio
In-Reply-To: <20110225.180152.10410.1@webmail09.dca.untd.com>
References: <20110225.180152.10410.1@webmail09.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID: <4D684A2B.1030509@suddenlink.net>

Looks like a nice design. Appears to have a 50KC (or there a bouts) 
second IF with variable selectivity. It looks like the builder had 
trouble with coupling through the band switch shaft (boy, I've been there).

Darrell, WA5VGO


On 2/25/2011 6:01 PM, Kees & Sandy wrote:
> It may not be an HBR but you can definitely see some "HBR influence" and that is some nice bandswitching capability he added. But that is definitely one of the prized Eddystone 898 dials.
> 73 Kees K5BCQ
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Bob Deuel"<k2glo at jkasystems.com>
> To: "HBR Receiver List"<hbr at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [HBR] Eddystone Dial Radio
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:15:20 -0800
>
> There is an unfinished shortwave radio on eBay with an unmarked Eddystone dial. Ebay 110651022377 only a couple hours left.
> Not my auction, etc
> Bob, K2GLO

