[Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 72, Issue 53

Sat May 1 00:23:20 EDT 2010

Perry-

How does the (TCS?) receiver suffer ? - overload - what do you mean ?

73 Henry, OZ1UF Cph.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 3:30 AM
Subject: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 72, Issue 53

> Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. TBX frequency extension (Rob Flory)
>   2. Re: Military and Commercial tune-Up. (WA5CAB at cs.com)
>   3. Re: TBX frequency extension (Ian Wilson)
>   4. TCS UHF Coax RF Connectors - Official Mod Described (Mike Morrow)
>   5. Re: Military and Commercial tune-Up. (mac)
>   6. Official Mod Described (Ray Fantini)
>   7. Re: Official Mod Described (WA5CAB at cs.com)
>   8. Military SX-28 (RBY-1 panoramic version) for sale (HL)
>   9. bc-348 power supply chassis blank - interested? (John Hutchins)
>  10. BC-639 Reciever..History? (Tom Cook)
>  11. Re: TCS loading coils (w8au at sssnet.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Rob Flory <robandpj at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] TBX frequency extension
> To: milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <9609154.1272644212363.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but if I recall correctly the official 
> modification for frequency extension was only to the receiver.
>
> I think as hard as it is to net the thing and hear anything through strong 
> interference, that performance on 40m could be expected to be dismal.  On 
> 40m the "kilocycles per turn" of the frequency controls is going to be way 
> faster.  Strong broadcast QRM on 40 can be expected as well, with 
> resulting blocking.
>
> I'd be looking to improve the 80m antenna if it were me.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:23:14 EDT
> From: WA5CAB at cs.com
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Military and Commercial tune-Up.
> To: brunneraa1p at comcast.net, milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <37bbd.7af5d2fd.390c7a12 at cs.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Many although not all of the WW-II sets had phantom antennas for that
> purpose.  When the older open wire equipped medium power sets were 
> replaced by
> newer ones with more or less fixed impedance outputs and using coaxial 
> cable,
> the newer sets often included dummy loads.
>
> In a message dated 4/30/2010 9:42:03 AM Central Daylight Time,
> brunneraa1p at comcast.net writes:
>> Maybe you guys know...  I've often wondered how commercial and military
>> transmitters were initially tuned up without causing unacceptable
>> interference. (500 kc. anyone?) Maybe they used a dummy load with the
>> same R and X as the actual antenna, which would have been pretty
>> sophisticated for the era.
>>
>> Richard, AA1P
>>
>
> Robert Downs - Houston
> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> MVPA 9480
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:57:41 -0700
> From: Ian Wilson <ianmwilson73 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] TBX frequency extension
> To: milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <x2m7de2d65c1004301157p78fa7be4n44f383a755199827 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The PDF that Nick posted covers a change to the transmit side.
>
> There is nothing I can do to improve my antenna situation on the lower
> bands. I hear very
> little traffic on 80m here at normal times of day, and would like to try 
> the
> TBX on the air
> sometime - most likely CW.
>
> 73, ian K3IMW
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:59:33 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] TCS UHF Coax RF Connectors - Official Mod
> Described
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <18011175.1272653974027.JavaMail.root at mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Nick wrote:
>
>>NAVSHIPS 900,200 CEMB has info on TBX freq range extension...
>>http://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/cemb09-t.pdf
>
> What I found interesting was the description of modifications that
> installed -49194 (SO-239) sockets, and utilized -49195 (PL-259) and
> -49192 (right angle) plugs (coax UHF, not N) on TCS sets.
>
> There are two articles.  One is found on pages TCS: 8 and TCS: 9,
> dated 07/01/1951.  The other is found on page TCS: 9, dated
> 10/01/1951.
>
> So, there are in fact apparently a few TCS sets that were modified
> by the military for these common ham-type RF connectors.  But unless
> the set in question actually has "-49194" on the connector, I'd still
> bet that the mod was mad by a ham.
>
> Mike / KK5F
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:44:47 -0700
> From: mac <w7qho at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Military and Commercial tune-Up.
> To: Richard Brunner <brunneraa1p at comcast.net>
> Cc: milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <EBC622B4-B612-4398-A8A4-AC771D64AA14 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> The ME-165 box serves just such a purpose.  used with the GRC-19, T368
> and others.
>
> Dennis D. W7QHO
> Glendale, CA
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Richard Brunner wrote:
>
>> Maybe you guys know...  I've often wondered how commercial and
>> military
>> transmitters were initially tuned up without causing unacceptable
>> interference. (500 kc. anyone?) Maybe they used a dummy load with the
>> same R and X as the actual antenna, which would have been pretty
>> sophisticated for the era.
>>
>> Richard, AA1P
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Milsurplus mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:31:33 -0400
> From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] Official Mod Described
> To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <2DE6F17E951D824AAE8B8D0BF7579D810D84CD3DA3 at MBX.salisbury.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
>>Nick wrote:
>>NAVSHIPS 900,200 CEMB has info on TBX freq range extension...
>>http://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/cemb09-t.pdf
>
> Wow, who would have thought! Recall seeing something about the military 
> designs were perfect and modifications and changes were all hack jobs- 
> especially those done by Hams.
> Liked the section on the TCS, especially the part about high rate of 
> failure due to operators turning the AF and RF gain beyond their limits 
> and the paragraph about how the antenna loading coil is useless. I have 
> used TCS sets on 40 and 80 and always wondered what's the point of the 
> external coil. The radio always loaded up and every time I would use the 
> external coil the receiver suffered, now I know it's just not my own 
> stupidity.
> Thanks for the link,
> Ray Fantini KA3EKH
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:39:55 EDT
> From: WA5CAB at cs.com
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Official Mod Described
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <43b11.745396f4.390ca82b at cs.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Well as I said earlier this week, one common ID for ham hacks is four 
> holes
> drilled for mounting the SO-239 but only two line up with the holes in the
> connector.  And as I mentioned  earlier, neither article says anything 
> about
> replacing the Antenna post.  I might also suspect that the UHF connectors
> were used because they're a lot easier to work with than N.  Or maybe the
> Tender just happened to have some.  Or...  Of course the problem could 
> also
> have been solved by the RMC telling the RM's that the next one who got 
> tangled
> up in the !@#$% receiver lead would be restricted to the ship at the next
> port.  :-)
>
> The TCS tuned down to 1.5 MC, not just to 3.5.  From the boxes of TCS
> crystals I have I know there must have been a fair amount of usage of the 
> 1.5-3.0
> MC band.  Harbor Common in Long Beach, Pearl and Subic Bay in the late 
> 60's
> were all what the RM's called "2-meggers".  And the antennas were usually
> short, from a 20' whip up to maybe a 35' end fed wire.  Plus I suspect a 
> lot o
> f RM's when tuning the transmitter, instead of turning the external 
> loading
> coil to 0 (minimum inductance) and running the internal loading coil to
> max, then click the external to coil and go back to min on the internal, 
> and so
> forth, which is the proper way to do it if you haven't a clue where the 
> two
> controls need to be, would first turn the external coil up until an 
> ammeter
> reading showed up and then fine tune it with the variable.  The 
> transmitter
> really doesn't care.  And it's quicker.  But the receiver suffers.
>
> My TCS-14 is on a 45' end-fed almost horizontal wire.  The only time that
> the 47205 gets off of zero is for 160.
>
> In a message dated 4/30/2010 3:31:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu writes:
>> >Nick wrote:
>> >NAVSHIPS 900,200 CEMB has info on TBX freq range extension...
>> >http://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/cemb09-t.pdf
>>
>> Wow, who would have thought! Recall seeing something about the military
>> designs were perfect and modifications and changes were all hack jobs-
>> especially those done by Hams.
>> Liked the section on the TCS, especially the part about high rate of
>> failure due to operators turning the AF and RF gain beyond their limits 
>> and the
>> paragraph about how the antenna loading coil is useless. I have used TCS
>> sets on 40 and 80 and always wondered what's the point of the external 
>> coil.
>> The radio always loaded up and every time I would use the external coil 
>> the
>> receiver suffered, now I know it's just not my own stupidity.
>> Thanks for the link,
>
> Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> MVPA 9480
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:15:02 -0700
> From: HL <zbyte at comcast.net>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] Military SX-28 (RBY-1 panoramic version) for
> sale
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <0F3E9984-CE93-4F14-BCA8-1DA0EE2AE96E at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
>
>
> I have decided--reluctantly--to sell my RBY-1/BC-1061-B panoramic
> receiver system.  Other than cleaning the RBY-1 front panel, I have
> not touched them, and my age and diminished dexterity preclude
> restoring properly such historic items. This is best done by someone
> younger and with more workshop space. They need a good home. The RBY-1
> was the military version of the SX-28 (or SX-28A?). Because of its
> extreme rarity (I can?t find any owners on the Internet and no photos-- 
> just drawings!), I am asking $450 for both units: the RBY-1 receiver
> with SX-28 and SX-28A original manuals and the matching BC-1031-B 455
> kHz panoramic adapter. Local pickup in the San Francisco Bay Area
> (Redwood City) is preferred. I cannot pack and ship these two items
> without using UPS Store packing and mailing service which is very
> expensive:( $200+)
>
> Several large photos and a more complete description are at website:
> http://home.comcast.net/~zbyte/RBY.html
>
> 73 Hal KK6HY
> email: kk6hy at arrl.net or zbyte at comcast.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:47:54 -0500
> From: John Hutchins <olegerityincj at austin.rr.com>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] bc-348 power supply chassis blank - interested?
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <4BDB5E1A.2050101 at austin.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Group -
>
> Went to a local metal smith since I need at least 3 BC-348 power supply
> chassis bent up for me.
>
> The metal shop gave me a estimate for 10 chassis blanks, no holes, with
> the 1" under shield box.
> If I order less than 10, its $120 each.  I need 3 blank chassis.  I can
> order more than 10.
>
> Again there are no holes, just bent metal chassis and the 1" open end
> shield box for the bottom.
>
> To any one interested the estimated cost could be $35.00  +estimate
> $0.50 for packing peanuts? +$postage to your location?
> USA only.  Plan to use USPS priority shipping if it fits it ships.
>
> --> I have not had quoted the terminal strip mount.  If you have
> interest with a blank terminal strip mount please express so in the reply.
>
> Please reply sender not all  - if interested out of respect to members
> who may not be interested.
>
> Later -
> Hutch
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:15:16 -0700
> From: "Tom Cook" <morningstar7 at worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-639 Reciever..History?
> To: <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <C015E4FAF0EF4AB48051EAB3CA2714D8 at YOUR7AC5F92A75>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi,
> Anyone know much about the BC-639?
>
> Would like comments about it as i now have one and
> have it apart on the bench for cleanup.
>
> I hear the matching TX was the BC-640, no confirmation.
>
> Also, who used it and what time frame...?
>
> Thanks folks,
>
> Tom -.- -.-. --... .-. -... -
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:29:57 -0400
> From: w8au at sssnet.com
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] TCS loading coils
> To: WA5CAB at cs.com,milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <20100501013006.F0B38373815E at mailman.qth.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 05:39 PM 4/30/2010, WA5CAB at cs.com wrote:
>>I suspect a lot of RM's when tuning the transmitter, instead of
>>turning the external loading
>>coil to 0 (minimum inductance) and running the internal loading coil to
>>max, then click the external to coil and go back to min on the
>>internal, and so
>>forth, which is the proper way to do it if you haven't a clue where the 
>>two
>>controls need to be, would first turn the external coil up until an 
>>ammeter
>>reading showed up and then fine tune it with the variable.  The 
>>transmitter
>>really doesn't care.  And it's quicker.  But the receiver suffers.
>
> Interesting.... all of the TCS sets I've used, including my own have the
> minimum inductance at the high number end, not zero.  Also the external
> loading coil is minimum L or bypass at position 6, not 0.
>
> Always thought that was odd, but I adapted to it.:-)
>
> (no I wasn't standing on my head when tuning them)
>
> Perry w8au
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
>
> End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 72, Issue 53
> ******************************************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2845 - Release Date: 04/30/10 
13:34:00