[HBR] What would W6TC do?

[Peter Bertini]

Ted efforts resulted in receivers that could be duplicated by the average
builder who was willing to follow his plans, while providing high
performance. I'd imagine the plug in coils added a lot to the performance,
especially on the higher bands.

I wonder if he would have adapted to using toroids to improve the circuit Q,
while minimizing the overall footprint of the receiver?

I'd expect Ted would have eventually incorporated simple homemade crystal
filters, if the design could be kept simple and the parts readily
obtainable. Better tubes came along afterwards, like the 6EH7 and 6GM6, but
they introduce their own set of problems in keeping the stages stable.

Going to a multiple conversion design might be an improvement, but the
complexity would scare off novice builders.
One problem Ted would have eventually faced would be the dwindling
availability of special purpose IF transformers and plug in forms--something
that plaques builders to this day.

Something I don't see is Ted using CA3028s, MC1439s or Dual Gate FETs which
predominated the homebrew scene in the 70s.

Pete
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM, <leecraner at aol.com> wrote:

> Walt:
> ?
> I actually think he did it.? From the publication of his first receiver in
> 1957 until his passing (1969 I believe) he continually worked on the HBR
> design.? He went to all miniature tubes, then went to multisection tubes to
> reduce the tube count.? He improved the 1st osc to a more stable Hartley
> oscillator and switched to solid state diodes.
> ?
> Today, I'm sure he would provided coil winding for the WARC bands.? He'd
> probably provided for selectable sideband and perhaps a narrower bandwidth
> using audio filtering or a Q multiplier.
> ?
> 73
> Lee WB6SSW
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walt Hutchens &lt;waltah at earthlink.net <lt%3Bwaltah at earthlink.net>
> &gt;
> To: HBR Receiver List &lt;hbr at mailman.qth.net <lt%3Bhbr at mailman.qth.net>
> &gt;
> Sent: Sat, Jan 8, 2011 5:29 pm
> Subject: [HBR] What would W6TC do?
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Beyond that, however, things are less certain.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> Walt Hutchens
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>