From windy10605 at juno.com  Thu Mar 17 18:22:29 2016
From: windy10605 at juno.com (Kees & Sandy)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:22:29 GMT
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Message-ID: <20160317.172229.5281.4@webmail13.dca.untd.com>

I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73 Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the 1966 and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an
opinion. As a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to
use this is good; otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage
found in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of
this problem -- near channel interference -- but unless used with a
great deal of selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the
problem of images -- signals coming in on the other side of the LO
frequency. That's because the frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF,
following a 1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the
mechanical filter would have to keep signals small because these
filters don't handle large signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs
mechanical filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high
Q front end coils lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll
be most troublesome.  

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of
very high Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching
and predates the common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain
in order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC
ahead of the filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that
does complicate the design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher
frequencies are an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two
1680kcs crystals in a half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works
well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals
can fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due
to the owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the
receiver. But as far as normal signals are concerned they're good and
being located at the 1st mixer makes it easier to keep signal
amplitudes down. Up to the point of fracture I don't think non-linear
effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do
it via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using
mechanical vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a
beam deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get
the advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is
canceled at the output) it would need a balanced output circuit,
meaning some sort of coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical
filter -- or a filter specifically designed for balanced input.

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 n7gtb at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 17 19:05:10 2016
From: n7gtb at yahoo.com (Vern)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:05:10 -0700
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Message-ID: <qf0fynofjlupkugurggcc0sd.1458255910272@email.android.com>

Kees,
Are you saying you are placing the HBR-16 up for sale? If so, what would be your asking price? ? If I'm miss reading your note please forgive this reply. ..
73,-Vern?N7GTB?Kennewick, WA?


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S?6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605 at juno.com> Date: 3/17/2016  3:22 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: hbr at mailman.qth.net Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3 
I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73 Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the 1966 and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an
opinion. As a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to
use this is good; otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage
found in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of
this problem -- near channel interference -- but unless used with a
great deal of selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the
problem of images -- signals coming in on the other side of the LO
frequency. That's because the frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF,
following a 1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the
mechanical filter would have to keep signals small because these
filters don't handle large signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs
mechanical filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high
Q front end coils lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll
be most troublesome.? 

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of
very high Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching
and predates the common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain
in order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC
ahead of the filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that
does complicate the design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher
frequencies are an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two
1680kcs crystals in a half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works
well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals
can fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due
to the owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the
receiver. But as far as normal signals are concerned they're good and
being located at the 1st mixer makes it easier to keep signal
amplitudes down. Up to the point of fracture I don't think non-linear
effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do
it via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using
mechanical vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a
beam deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get
the advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is
canceled at the output) it would need a balanced output circuit,
meaning some sort of coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical
filter -- or a filter specifically designed for balanced input.

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
______________________________________________________________
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  Thu Mar 17 19:34:10 2016
From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:34:10 -0400
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
In-Reply-To: <qf0fynofjlupkugurggcc0sd.1458255910272@email.android.com>
References: <qf0fynofjlupkugurggcc0sd.1458255910272@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <56EB3EF2.7060101@gmail.com>

Hi,

That was my interpretation, too.

73,

Bill  KU8H


On 03/17/2016 07:05 PM, Vern via HBR wrote:
> Kees,
> Are you saying you are placing the HBR-16 up for sale? If so, what would be your asking price?   If I'm miss reading your note please forgive this reply. ..
> 73,-Vern N7GTB Kennewick, WA
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S?6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605 at juno.com> Date: 3/17/2016  3:22 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: hbr at mailman.qth.net Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
> I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73 Kees K5BCQ
>
>


From windy10605 at juno.com  Thu Mar 17 20:26:51 2016
From: windy10605 at juno.com (Kees & Sandy)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:26:51 GMT
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Message-ID: <20160317.192651.11129.0@webmail12.dca.untd.com>

Vern, Yes, I am putting both HBR-16 units and the LWM-3 up for sale and want to give the HBR guys the first shot. I need to look around a little to see what today's fair price would be. They have plenty of coils which go with the units. You can see pictures on the HBR website and I can send additional pictures. 73 Kees K5BCQ 

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Vern via HBR <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: Vern <n7gtb at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:05:10 -0700

Kees,
Are you saying you are placing the HBR-16 up for sale? If so, what would be your asking price?   If I'm miss reading your note please forgive this reply. ..
73,-Vern N7GTB Kennewick, WA 


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S?6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605 at juno.com> Date: 3/17/2016  3:22 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: hbr at mailman.qth.net Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3 
I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73 Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the 1966 and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an
opinion. As a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to
use this is good; otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage
found in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of
this problem -- near channel interference -- but unless used with a
great deal of selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the
problem of images -- signals coming in on the other side of the LO
frequency. That's because the frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF,
following a 1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the
mechanical filter would have to keep signals small because these
filters don't handle large signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs
mechanical filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high
Q front end coils lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll
be most troublesome.  

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of
very high Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching
and predates the common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain
in order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC
ahead of the filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that
does complicate the design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher
frequencies are an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two
1680kcs crystals in a half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works
well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals
can fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due
to the owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the
receiver. But as far as normal signals are concerned they're good and
being located at the 1st mixer makes it easier to keep signal
amplitudes down. Up to the point of fracture I don't think non-linear
effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do
it via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using
mechanical vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a
beam deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get
the advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is
canceled at the output) it would need a balanced output circuit,
meaning some sort of coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical
filter -- or a filter specifically designed for balanced input.

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
______________________________________________________________
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 Gcromer at usit.net  Thu Mar 17 21:30:15 2016
From: Gcromer at usit.net (Gerald Cromer)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:30:15 -0400
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
In-Reply-To: <20160317.192651.11129.0@webmail12.dca.untd.com>
References: <20160317.192651.11129.0@webmail12.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID: <17D13F5FEDAB4C92BC0A8ECB1C7DC5AE@gerald2369b375>

Sure, let us know what the asking prices are. And then we can go up or down.
73's
Gerald K4NHN

-----Original Message-----
From: HBR [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kees & Sandy
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:27 PM
To: hbr at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3

Vern, Yes, I am putting both HBR-16 units and the LWM-3 up for sale and want
to give the HBR guys the first shot. I need to look around a little to see
what today's fair price would be. They have plenty of coils which go with
the units. You can see pictures on the HBR website and I can send additional
pictures. 73 Kees K5BCQ 

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Vern via HBR <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: Vern <n7gtb at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:05:10 -0700

Kees,
Are you saying you are placing the HBR-16 up for sale? If so, what would be
your asking price?   If I'm miss reading your note please forgive this
reply. ..
73,-Vern N7GTB Kennewick, WA 


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SR6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone--------
Original message --------From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605 at juno.com> Date:
3/17/2016  3:22 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: hbr at mailman.qth.net Subject: [HBR]
HBR-16 and LWM-3 
I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new
homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the
HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73
Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the 1966
and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an
opinion. As a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to
use this is good; otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage
found in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of
this problem -- near channel interference -- but unless used with a
great deal of selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the
problem of images -- signals coming in on the other side of the LO
frequency. That's because the frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF,
following a 1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the
mechanical filter would have to keep signals small because these
filters don't handle large signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs
mechanical filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high
Q front end coils lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll
be most troublesome.  

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of
very high Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching
and predates the common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain
in order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC
ahead of the filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that
does complicate the design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher
frequencies are an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two
1680kcs crystals in a half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works
well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals
can fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due
to the owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the
receiver. But as far as normal signals are concerned they're good and
being located at the 1st mixer makes it easier to keep signal
amplitudes down. Up to the point of fracture I don't think non-linear
effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do
it via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using
mechanical vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a
beam deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get
the advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is
canceled at the output) it would need a balanced output circuit,
meaning some sort of coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical
filter -- or a filter specifically designed for balanced input.

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
______________________________________________________________
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


From bear57 at telus.net  Thu Mar 17 22:49:00 2016
From: bear57 at telus.net (Lorne Barber)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:49:00 -0700
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
In-Reply-To: <20160317.172229.5281.4@webmail13.dca.untd.com>
References: <20160317.172229.5281.4@webmail13.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID: <01fd01d180c0$ba2aac50$2e8004f0$@net>

Hi Kees, I am interested in the LWM 3. Always regret letting mine go.
Not sure I can afford the shipping these days.
I still have the (2)X 6146 homebrew amp that I built for it.
Tnx es 73
Lorne
VE7BOX

-----Original Message-----
From: HBR [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kees & Sandy
Sent: March-17-16 3:22 PM
To: hbr at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3

I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new
homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the
HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73
Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the 
> 1966 and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an opinion. As
a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to use this is good;
otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage found
in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of this problem
-- near channel interference -- but unless used with a great deal of
selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the problem of images --
signals coming in on the other side of the LO frequency. That's because the
frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF, following a
1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the mechanical filter
would have to keep signals small because these filters don't handle large
signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs mechanical
filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high Q front end coils
lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll be most troublesome.  

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of very high
Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching and predates the
common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain in
order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC ahead of the
filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that does complicate the
design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher frequencies are
an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two 1680kcs crystals in a
half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals can
fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due to the
owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the receiver. But as far
as normal signals are concerned they're good and being located at the 1st
mixer makes it easier to keep signal amplitudes down. Up to the point of
fracture I don't think non-linear effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do it
via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using mechanical
vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a beam
deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get the
advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is canceled at the
output) it would need a balanced output circuit, meaning some sort of
coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical filter -- or a filter
specifically designed for balanced input.

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
______________________________________________________________
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 windy10605 at juno.com  Thu Mar 17 22:56:24 2016
From: windy10605 at juno.com (Kees & Sandy)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:56:24 GMT
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Message-ID: <20160317.215624.3195.3@webmail07.dca.untd.com>

Hi Lorne,  Good to hear from you. Right now I have to get a bunch of kits mailed out of here and get some Do Rags lined up with logos for the car group whose leader is undergoing Chemo....so it will be a few days. 73 Kees K5BCQ 

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Lorne Barber" <bear57 at telus.net>
To: "'HBR Receiver List'" <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:49:00 -0700

Hi Kees, I am interested in the LWM 3. Always regret letting mine go.
Not sure I can afford the shipping these days.
I still have the (2)X 6146 homebrew amp that I built for it.
Tnx es 73
Lorne
VE7BOX

-----Original Message-----
From: HBR [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kees & Sandy
Sent: March-17-16 3:22 PM
To: hbr at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3

I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new
homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the
HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73
Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the 
> 1966 and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an opinion. As
a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to use this is good;
otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage found
in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of this problem
-- near channel interference -- but unless used with a great deal of
selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the problem of images --
signals coming in on the other side of the LO frequency. That's because the
frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF, following a
1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the mechanical filter
would have to keep signals small because these filters don't handle large
signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs mechanical
filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high Q front end coils
lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll be most troublesome.  

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of very high
Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching and predates the
common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain in
order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC ahead of the
filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that does complicate the
design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher frequencies are
an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two 1680kcs crystals in a
half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals can
fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due to the
owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the receiver. But as far
as normal signals are concerned they're good and being located at the 1st
mixer makes it easier to keep signal amplitudes down. Up to the point of
fracture I don't think non-linear effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do it
via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using mechanical
vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a beam
deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get the
advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is canceled at the
output) it would need a balanced output circuit, meaning some sort of
coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical filter -- or a filter
specifically designed for balanced input.

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
______________________________________________________________
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 bear57 at telus.net  Thu Mar 17 23:03:55 2016
From: bear57 at telus.net (Lorne Barber)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:03:55 -0700
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
In-Reply-To: <20160317.215624.3195.3@webmail07.dca.untd.com>
References: <20160317.215624.3195.3@webmail07.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID: <020301d180c2$cfa4f480$6eeedd80$@net>

Thanks Kees, I will watch for it.
My email is bear57attelusdotnet.
All lower case.
Lorne

-----Original Message-----
From: HBR [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kees & Sandy
Sent: March-17-16 7:56 PM
To: hbr at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3

Hi Lorne,  Good to hear from you. Right now I have to get a bunch of kits
mailed out of here and get some Do Rags lined up with logos for the car
group whose leader is undergoing Chemo....so it will be a few days. 73 Kees
K5BCQ 

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Lorne Barber" <bear57 at telus.net>
To: "'HBR Receiver List'" <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:49:00 -0700

Hi Kees, I am interested in the LWM 3. Always regret letting mine go.
Not sure I can afford the shipping these days.
I still have the (2)X 6146 homebrew amp that I built for it.
Tnx es 73
Lorne
VE7BOX

-----Original Message-----
From: HBR [mailto:hbr-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Kees & Sandy
Sent: March-17-16 3:22 PM
To: hbr at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3

I think I'll move my HBR-16 receivers and my LWM-3 Transceiver on to new
homes ......other things are taking up my time and money. I'll keep the
HBR-12 and the HBR-13C. Pictures of the units are on the HBR website. 73
Kees K5BCQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah at earthlink.net>
To: HBR Receiver List <hbr at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [HBR] HB-65 or HB-67 experience?
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:57:11 -0500

Brian said:

> Anybody have any experience with either the HB-65 or HB-67 from the
> 1966 and
> 1967 ARRL handbooks? Inquiring minds, and all that (;->).

No experience, but -- this isn't going to surprise anyone -- an opinion. As
a way to use a mechanical filter that you have and want to use this is good;
otherwise it's a mixed bag.

The problem in HF receivers is NOT low noise or hearing weak signals.
At least up to 20M the problem is rejecting the vast amount of garbage found
in and near the ham bands. The mechanical filter solves part of this problem
-- near channel interference -- but unless used with a great deal of
selectivity ahead of the filter, it does not solve the problem of images --
signals coming in on the other side of the LO frequency. That's because the
frequency is too low for a 1st IF.

A mechanical filter could work well at the start of a second IF, following a
1st IF of 1.6 Mcs or more. However the design up to the mechanical filter
would have to keep signals small because these filters don't handle large
signals well.

One could adapt the W6TC designs to use a 455kcs 2nd IF instead of the
85 or 100 kcs frequencies that are standard. Then use a 455kcs mechanical
filter after the 2nd mixer. That way you've got those high Q front end coils
lopping off the image on the lower bands where it'll be most troublesome.  

The HB-67 design (and relatives -- this design appeared at least
1965-69 in various flavors) could have been improved by the use of very high
Q front end coils a la W6TC, but since it's bandswitching and predates the
common use of toroids, not so.

I would probably also go with an RF stage run at close to unity gain in
order to simplify the coupling between the coils and allow AGC ahead of the
filter. The 6EH7 would be ideal for this. Of course that does complicate the
design.

For use right behind the 1st mixer CRYSTAL filters at higher frequencies are
an ideal choice. The Heath HR-10B filter -- two 1680kcs crystals in a
half-lattice arrangement -- is simple and works well.

These filters don't handle super-large signals either -- the crystals can
fracture, as found in some of the HR-10s out there, probably due to the
owner transmitting with the antenna still hooked to the receiver. But as far
as normal signals are concerned they're good and being located at the 1st
mixer makes it easier to keep signal amplitudes down. Up to the point of
fracture I don't think non-linear effects are a problem.

In fact, crystal filters and 'mechanical' filters are both mechanical
filters. The ones called 'mechanical' couple electrical signals to
mechanical resonators by magnetostriction while the crystal filters do it
via the piezoelectric effect, but in both cases you're using mechanical
vibration of a solid as a tuned circuit analog.

An additional minor issue with the HB-67 design is that it 'uses' a beam
deflection mixer basically as a high gain pentode mixer. To get the
advantage of balanced mixing (so that the input signal is canceled at the
output) it would need a balanced output circuit, meaning some sort of
coupling transformer ahead of the mechanical filter -- or a filter
specifically designed for balanced input.

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
______________________________________________________________
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


From windy10605 at juno.com  Mon Mar 21 12:53:47 2016
From: windy10605 at juno.com (Kees & Sandy)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:53:47 GMT
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
Message-ID: <20160321.115347.6357.4@webmail10.dca.untd.com>

I have taken some pictures if anyone wants me to send them, just ask. HBR-16

The HBR-16 comes with wound coils for 80m/40m/20m and 2 sets of unwound coils. It will be a labor of love to bring it to life, but what a great piece of homebrewing history. Based on what I have seen them sell for recently, I'm pricing this one at $225 plus FedEx shipping which will probably be around $25-$30 in the USA.  LWM-3 The LWM-3 was built by a Dallas ham who had access to a large USAF electronics dump while in the service and those PTO's are out of some period bomber which he found. He was going to use one in the Transceiver and the other two are spares. They are all Collins, of course. What parts are missing I don't know. It will be a labor of love to bring it to life, but what a rare piece of homebrewing history. I picked it up several years ago at the Belton Swapfest for $150.00 because of the rarity and uniqueness. I was actually contacted by the ham from Dallas who originally built it and happened to be at that Belton swapmeet. I tried to find his call again but can't. I'm open to offers and will pick one, not necessarily the first , nor the highest. All offers plus postage and it will be packed well.   73 Kees K5BCQ


From mcinsand at gmail.com  Mon Mar 21 13:56:47 2016
From: mcinsand at gmail.com (Stan McIntosh)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:56:47 -0400
Subject: [HBR] HBR-16 and LWM-3
In-Reply-To: <20160321.115347.6357.4@webmail10.dca.untd.com>
References: <20160321.115347.6357.4@webmail10.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID: <CAKVLtWMZ1eiNcN+5HSwkEv05Rtb3mFueC5sstp00_5z10qK_yA@mail.gmail.com>

Kees,

Thank you for posting items like this.  It's all I can do to not snag the
HBR-16, but I have some medical bills for my daughter coming up.  Please
keep posting as things like this come up, and thanks!  I can't tell you how
many times I've thought about bothering you with questions as to whether
you knew of an HBR for sale, so it's nice to know that, if you found one,
it'll pop up.

73
Stan
KD4BTH

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Kees & Sandy <windy10605 at juno.com> wrote:

> I have taken some pictures if anyone wants me to send them, just ask.
> HBR-16
>
> The HBR-16 comes with wound coils for 80m/40m/20m and 2 sets of unwound
> coils. It will be a labor of love to bring it to life, but what a great
> piece of homebrewing history. Based on what I have seen them sell for
> recently, I'm pricing this one at $225 plus FedEx shipping which will
> probably be around $25-$30 in the USA.  LWM-3 The LWM-3 was built by a
> Dallas ham who had access to a large USAF electronics dump while in the
> service and those PTO's are out of some period bomber which he found. He
> was going to use one in the Transceiver and the other two are spares. They
> are all Collins, of course. What parts are missing I don't know. It will be
> a labor of love to bring it to life, but what a rare piece of homebrewing
> history. I picked it up several years ago at the Belton Swapfest for
> $150.00 because of the rarity and uniqueness. I was actually contacted by
> the ham from Dallas who originally built it and happened to be at that
> Belton swapmeet. I tried to find his call again but
>   can't. I'm open to offers and will pick one, not necessarily the first ,
> nor the highest. All offers plus postage and it will be packed well.   73
> Kees K5BCQ
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 ke9xq at charter.net  Mon Mar 21 14:09:49 2016
From: ke9xq at charter.net (William Wood)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:09:49 -0500
Subject: [HBR] HBR 16
Message-ID: <834B538C-608E-4666-91D7-814C3E4F0089@charter.net>

Kees
   I sent a private message, but
sent this as a note to make sure
you got it and not the spam bucket
: )
73 fer now
Bill  KE9XQ

From n5lip at bellsouth.net  Tue Mar 22 12:11:48 2016
From: n5lip at bellsouth.net (Doug Walker)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:11:48 -0500
Subject: [HBR] hbr 16
Message-ID: <7wf7lxdfjihx68hov8rv78gu.1458663108429@email.android.com>


kees...i will take the 16 if no one else has spoken for her. wud like a couple pix too.
tnx
...doug
n5lip

Sent from my personalized C Spire Galaxy S 4

From windy10605 at juno.com  Tue Mar 22 13:46:56 2016
From: windy10605 at juno.com (Kees & Sandy)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:46:56 GMT
Subject: [HBR] LWM-3
Message-ID: <20160322.124656.22504.4@webmail01.dca.untd.com>

 The HBR-16 radios are sold but I still have the LWM-3 and feel free to make --any-- offers.I'm keeping my HBR-11 and HBR-13C for the time being. The unit was built by a Dallas ham who had access to a large USAF electronics dump while in the service and those PTO's are out of some period bomber which he found. He was going to use one in the Transceiver and the other two are spares. They are all Collins, of course. What parts are missing I don't know. It will be a labor of love to bring it to life, but what a rare piece of homebrewing history. I know HBR units pretty well but don't know what this is worth and I picked it up several years ago at the Belton Swapfest for $150.00 because of the rarity and uniqueness. I was actually contacted by the ham from Dallas who originally built it and happened to be at that Belton swapmeet. I tried to find his call again but can't. 73 Kees K5BCQ

